Barriers to improved dyslipidemia control: Delphi survey of a multidisciplinary panel.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the barriers that make it difficult for the health care professionals (physicians, nurses and health care managers) to achieve a better control for dyslipidemia in Spain. METHODS: The study has an observational design and was performed using the modified Delphi technique. One hundred and forty-nine panel members from medicine, nursing and health care management fields and from different Spanish regions were selected randomly and were invited to participate. Individual and anonymous opinions were asked by answering a 42-items questionnaire via e-mail (two rounds were done). Level of agreement was assessed using measures of central tendency and dispersion. We analysed commonalities/differences between the three groups (Kappa index and McNemar chi-square). RESULTS: Response rate: 81%. The agreement index was 33.3 (95% CI: 18.9-47.7). Regarding the non-compliance with therapy, it improves with patient education degree in dyslipidemia, patient motivation, the agreement on decisions with the patient and with the use of cardiovascular risk measure and it gets worse with lack of information on the objectives to achieve. Clinical inertia improves with professional's motivation, cardiovascular risk calculation, training on objectives and the use of indicators and it gets worse with lack of treatment goals. CONCLUSION: Different perceptions and attitudes between medicine, nursing and health care management were found. An agreement in interventions in non-compliance and clinical inertia to improve dyslipidemia control was reached.

[Spanish Interdisciplinary Committee for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention and the Spanish Society of Cardiology position statement on dyslipidemia management. Differences between the European and American guidelines]. / Posicionamiento del comité español interdisciplinario de prevención cardiovascular y la sociedad española de cardiología en el tratamiento de las dislipemias. divergencia entre las guías europea y estadounidense.

The publication of the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines on the treatment of high blood cholesterol has had a strong impact due to the paradigm shift in its recommendations. The Spanish Interdisciplinary Committee for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention and the Spanish Society of Cardiology reviewed this guideline and compared it with current European guidelines on cardiovascular prevention and dyslipidemia management. The most striking aspect of the American guideline is the elimination of the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol treat-to-target strategy and the adoption of a risk reduction strategy in 4 major statin benefit groups. In patients with established cardiovascular disease, both guidelines recommend a similar therapeutic strategy (high-dose potent statins). However, in primary prevention, the application of the American guidelines would substantially increase the number of persons, particularly older people, receiving statin therapy. The elimination of the cholesterol treat-to-target strategy, so strongly rooted in the scientific community, could have a negative impact on clinical practice, create a certain amount of confusion and uncertainty among professionals, and decrease follow-up and patient adherence. Thus, this article reaffirms the recommendations of the European guidelines. Although both guidelines have positive aspects, doubt remains regarding the concerns outlined above. In addition to using risk charts based on the native population, the messages of the European guideline are more appropriate to the Spanish setting and avoid the possible risk of overtreatment with statins in primary prevention. Full English text available from:www.revespcardiol.org/en.

[Spanish interdisciplinary committee for cardiovascular disease prevention and the spanish society of cardiology position statement on dyslipidemia management. Differences between the European and american guidelines]. / Posicionamiento del Comité Español Interdisciplinario de Prevención Cardiovascular y la Sociedad Española de Cardiología en el tratamiento de las dislipemias. Divergencia entre las guías europea y estadounidense.

The publication of the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines on the treatment of high blood cholesterol has had a strong impact due to the paradigm shift in its recommendations. The Spanish Interdisciplinary Committee for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention and the Spanish Society of Cardiology reviewed this guideline and compared it with current European guidelines on cardiovascular prevention and dyslipidemia management. The most striking aspect of the American guideline is the elimination of the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol treat-to-target strategy and the adoption of a risk reduction strategy in 4 major statin benefit groups. In patients with established cardiovascular disease, both guidelines recommend a similar therapeutic strategy (high-dose potent statins). However, in primary prevention, the application of the American guidelines would substantially increase the number of persons, particularly older people, receiving statin therapy. The elimination of the cholesterol treat-to-target strategy, so strongly rooted in the scientific community, could have a negative impact on clinical practice, create a certain amount of confusion and uncertainty among professionals, and decrease follow-up and patient adherence. Thus, this article reaffirms the recommendations of the European guidelines. Although both guidelines have positive aspects, doubt remains regarding the concerns outlined above. In addition to using risk charts based on the native population, the messages of the European guideline are more appropriate to the Spanish setting and avoid the possible risk of overtreatment with statins in primary prevention.

[Spanish Interdisciplinary Committee for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention and the Spanish Society of Cardiology Position Statement on Dyslipidemia Management. Differences Between the European and American Guidelines]. / Posicionamiento del Comité Español Interdisciplinario de Prevención Cardiovascular y la Sociedad Española de Cardiología en el tratamiento de las dislipemias. Divergencia entre las guías europea y estadounidense.

The publication of the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines on the treatment of high blood cholesterol has had a strong impact due to the paradigm shift in its recommendations. The Spanish Interdisciplinary Committee for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention and the Spanish Society of Cardiology reviewed this guideline and compared it with current European guidelines on cardiovascular prevention and dyslipidemia management. The most striking aspect of the American guideline is the elimination of the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol treat-to-target strategy and the adoption of a risk reduction strategy in 4 major statin benefit groups. In patients with established cardiovascular disease, both guidelines recommend a similar therapeutic strategy (high-dose potent statins). However, in primary prevention, the application of the American guidelines would substantially increase the number of persons, particularly older people, receiving statin therapy. The elimination of the cholesterol treat-to-target strategy, so strongly rooted in the scientific community, could have a negative impact on clinical practice, create a certain amount of confusion and uncertainty among professionals, and decrease follow-up and patient adherence. Thus, this article reaffirms the recommendations of the European guidelines. Although both guidelines have positive aspects, doubt remains regarding the concerns outlined above. In addition to using risk charts based on the native population, the messages of the European guideline are more appropriate to the Spanish setting and avoid the possible risk of overtreatment with statins in primary prevention.

Spanish Interdisciplinary Committee for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention and the Spanish Society of Cardiology Position Statement on Dyslipidemia Management: differences between the European and American Guidelines.

The publication of the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines on the treatment of high blood cholesterol has had a strong impact due to the paradigm shift in its recommendations. The Spanish Interdisciplinary Committee for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention and the Spanish Society of Cardiology reviewed this guideline and compared it with current European guidelines on cardiovascular prevention and dyslipidemia management. The most striking aspect of the American guideline is the elimination of the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol treat-to-target strategy and the adoption of a risk reduction strategy in 4 major statin benefit groups. In patients with established cardiovascular disease, both guidelines recommend a similar therapeutic strategy (high-dose potent statins). However, in primary prevention, the application of the American guidelines would substantially increase the number of persons, particularly older people, receiving statin therapy. The elimination of the cholesterol treat-to-target strategy, so strongly rooted in the scientific community, could have a negative impact on clinical practice, create a certain amount of confusion and uncertainty among professionals, and decrease follow-up and patient adherence. Thus, this article reaffirms the recommendations of the European guidelines. Although both guidelines have positive aspects, doubt remains regarding the concerns outlined above. In addition to using risk charts based on the native population, the messages of the European guideline are more appropriate to the Spanish setting and avoid the possible risk of overtreatment with statins in primary prevention.

[Cardiovascular risk of SCORE compared to Framingham. Consequences of the change proposed by the European Societies]. / Riesgo cardiovascular del SCORE comparado con el de Framingham. Consecuencias del cambio propuesto por las Sociedades Europeas.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The European Societies in their last update introduce substantial changes to calculate the cardiovascular risk without thinking about the practical consequences. The objective was to evaluate the agreement between the charts of cardiovascular risk of second and the third recommendations of the European Societies to classify the patients of high risk and to analyze its differences. PATIENTS AND METHOD: Patients (1,227) belonging to 3 primary care centres. Risk calculated to the 10 years by means of the equation of Framingham and SCORE for countries lowers risk. A risk of Framingham > or = 20% or SCORE > or = 5% defined the high risk. RESULTS: The patients of high risk were 8.4% according to Framingham and 5.5% according to SCORE and the coefficient Kappa 0.718. 41.7% of the patients of high risk disagreed: high risk Framingham and SCORE not (40 patients, 88.9%) and high SCORE and Framingham not (5 patients, 11.1%). The group high risk Framingham and SCORE not 1 is constituted by 95% of males, age 60 years, cholesterol 246.2 mg/dl and 37.5% smokers. CONCLUSIONS: The chart SCORE and Framingham have an acceptable agreement, but classify from high risk different percentage of population and with different characteristics. The use of the chart of the SCORE would exclude an important group of patients with Framingham high risk.

Spanish Interdisciplinary Committee for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention and the Spanish Society of Cardiology position statement on dyslipidemia management. Differences between the European and American guidelines.

The publication of the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines on the treatment of high blood cholesterol has had a strong impact due to the paradigm shift in its recommendations. The Spanish Interdisciplinary Committee for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention and the Spanish Society of Cardiology reviewed this guideline and compared it with current European guidelines on cardiovascular prevention and dyslipidemia management. The most striking aspect of the American guideline is the elimination of the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol treat-to-target strategy and the adoption of a risk reduction strategy in 4 major statin benefit groups. In patients with established cardiovascular disease, both guidelines recommend a similar therapeutic strategy (high-dose potent statins). However, in primary prevention, the application of the American guidelines would substantially increase the number of persons, particularly older people, receiving statin therapy. The elimination of the cholesterol treat-to-target strategy, so strongly rooted in the scientific community, could have a negative impact on clinical practice, create a certain amount of confusion and uncertainty among professionals, and decrease follow-up and patient adherence. Thus, this article reaffirms the recommendations of the European guidelines. Although both guidelines have positive aspects, doubt remains regarding the concerns outlined above. In addition to using risk charts based on the native population, the messages of the European guideline are more appropriate to the Spanish setting and avoid the possible risk of overtreatment with statins in primary prevention.

[Agreement between REGICOR and SCORE scales in identifying high cardiovascular risk in the Spanish population]. / Concordancia de las escalas REGICOR y SCORE para la identificación del riesgo cardiovascular alto en la población española.

INTRODUCTION: The aims of this study were to evaluate the consistency between the SCORE (Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation) and REGICOR (Registre Gironí del cor) scales in identifying high cardiovascular risk and to describe the characteristics of those individuals for whom scale results were discrepant. METHODS: This cross-sectional study involved 8942 subjects aged 40-65 years who had an indication for a complete lipid profile. The agreement between SCORE (for low-risk countries) and Framingham-REGICOR (with a high risk threshold of 10%) scales in classifying patients as high risk was evaluated using the kappa statistic. Subjects for whom there was a discrepancy between classifications were identified and variables associated with this discrepancy were determined by multivariate analysis involving binary logistic regression. RESULTS: The REGICOR scale classified 6.7% of subjects (95% confidence interval [CI], 6.2%-7.3%) as high-risk, while SCORE classified 12.5% (95% CI 11.8%-13.2%) as high-risk. Discrepant findings were observed in 10.2% of the total population (8% had a high risk on SCORE but not REGICOR, and 2.2% had a high risk on REGICOR but not SCORE; kappa=0.420; P< .001). The best agreement was observed between SCORE and REGICOR with a high-risk threshold of 8% (kappa=0.463). Multivariate analysis showed that a high risk on SCORE but not REGICOR was associated with lower age, female sex, a high fasting glucose level, and raised diastolic blood pressure, and a high risk on REGICOR but not SCORE, with male sex, smoking, and a low high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol level. These variables accounted for the extent of the discrepancy in 93.2% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: The SCORE and REGICOR (threshold 10%) scales identified different populations as being at a high risk, though the agreement between them was reasonably good. The concurrence of a number of factors (e.g., male sex, low HDL-cholesterol, and smoking) in a subject with a low risk on the SCORE scale should be regarded as increasing the cardiovascular risk.