RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular (CV) risk scores identify individuals at higher long-term risk of CV events that may benefit from more aggressive preventive interventions. OBJECTIVE: To assess the association of CV-risk categories and criteria with long-term CV events. METHODS: Observational cohort study between 2000-2019 on patients aged 40-80 years, followed by 14 primary care centers assisted by 1 hospital in Portugal. Follow-up began when electronic health records data allowed for CV-risk classification and dynamic reassessment per 2019 ESC/EAS Guidelines. Inclusion criteria required at least one appointment with a primary care physician within three years before follow-up initiation. We assessed the 10-year adjusted hazard-ratio of combined CV death and non-fatal Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease (ASCVD) hospitalization, across SCORE risk categories and criteria, using Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for sex, age, competing comorbidities, and medication. RESULTS: The study included 161 681 observations from 87 035 unique patients. During the observation period, 71 787 patients were classified as low/moderate, 51 476 as high and 38 418 as very-high CV-risk categories. In the very-high group, prevalent comorbidities were hypertension (69%), hypercholesterolemia (69%) and type 2 diabetes (61%), and 13% were hospitalized for ASCVD. The adjusted 10-year hazard ratio of the composite of CV death or ASCVD hospitalization was 2.10 (95% CI: 1.91-2.32) for high-risk and 3.56 (95% CI: 3.21-3.96) for very-high-risk patients (low-risk as reference). CONCLUSION: Our study reinforces the prognostic relevance of CV-risk stratification for long-term prediction of CV death and ASCVD hospitalization in an unselected cohort, independently of sex, age, competing comorbidities and medication.
RESUMO
AIM: This study aims to characterize sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, use of lipid-lowering therapies (LLTs), and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) control in a population with increased cardiovascular (CV) risk. METHODS: A cross-sectional observational study that uses electronic health records of patients from one hospital and across 14 primary care health centers in the North of Portugal, spanning from 2000 to 2020 (index date). Patients presented at least (i) 1 year of clinical data before inclusion, (ii) one primary care appointment 3 years before the index date, and (iii) sufficient data for CV risk classification. Patients were divided into three cohorts: high CV risk; atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk equivalents without established ASCVD; evidence of ASCVD. CV risk and LDL-C control were defined by the 2019 and 2016 European Society of Cardiology (ESC)/European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) dyslipidemia guidelines. RESULTS: A total of 51 609 patients were included, with 23 457 patients classified as high CV risk, 19 864 with ASCVD equivalents, and 8288 with evidence of ASCVD. LDL-C control with 2016 ESC/EAS guidelines was 32%, 10%, and 18% for each group, respectively. Considering the ESC/EAS 2019 guidelines control level was even lower: 7%, 3%, and 7% for the same cohorts, respectively. Patients without any LLT prescribed ranged from 37% in the high CV risk group to 15% in patients with evidence of ASCVD. CONCLUSION: We found that LDL-C control was very low in patients at higher risk of CV events. An alarming gap between guidelines on dyslipidemia management and clinical implementation persists, even in those at very high risk or with established ASCVD.