An evaluation of the performance of SCORE Sweden 2015 in estimating cardiovascular risk: The Northern Sweden MONICA Study 1999-2014.

BACKGROUND: Risk prediction models for cardiovascular death are important for providing advice on lifestyle and in decision-making regarding primary preventive drug treatment. The latest Swedish version of the Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE 2015) has yet not been tested in the population. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to estimate the prevalence of high and very high risk of fatal cardiovascular disease (CVD) of the current population according to 2015 SCORE Sweden and to evaluate the predictive accuracy of the 2003 Swedish version of SCORE (2003 SCORE Sweden) and 2015 SCORE Sweden in a population with declining CVD mortality. METHODS: We estimated the high and very high risk group for cardiovascular death for individuals 40-65 years of age in the 2014 Northern Sweden MONICA population survey excluding subjects with known diabetes or previous CVD (n = 813). Using the 1999 MONICA survey (n = 3347) followed up for 10 years for CVD mortality, we assessed the calibration of both 2003 and 2015 SCORE Sweden. RESULTS: In 2014 2.6% of the population was considered at high or very high risk for fatal CVD, 95% were men and 76% were in the age group 60-65 years. Including subjects with a single markedly elevated risk factor, known diabetes or CVD, 12% of the population was at high or very high risk. During 10 years of follow-up of the 1999 cohort, 34 CVD deaths (24 men and 10 women) occurred. The 2003 SCORE overestimated the risk of death from CVD (ratio predicted/observed 2.3, P < 0.001) whereas the 2015 SCORE slightly overestimated the number of deaths (predicted/observed 1.3, P = 0.12). The 2015 SCORE predicted more accurately than the 2003 SCORE the number of deaths in the different risk and age categories. CONCLUSION: The 2015 SCORE Sweden more adequately than 2003 SCORE Sweden predicts the number of deaths. In 2014, the proportion of high-risk individuals is small in northern Sweden. The main use of 2015 SCORE Sweden would therefore be as an educational tool between the physician and people without diabetes or CVD in a consultation regarding cardiovascular risk.

Assessment of adverse events in medical care: lack of consistency between experienced teams using the global trigger tool.

BACKGROUND: Many patients are harmed as the result of healthcare. A retrospective structured record review is one way to identify adverse events (AEs). One such review approach is the global trigger tool (GTT), a consistent and well-developed method used to detect AEs. The GTT was originally intended to be used for measuring data over time within a single organisation. However, as the method spreads, it is likely that comparisons of GTT safety outcomes between hospitals will occur. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate agreement in judgement of AEs between well-trained GTT teams from different hospitals. METHODS: Five teams from five hospitals of different sizes in the southeast of Sweden conducted a retrospective review of patient records from a random sample of 50 admissions between October 2009 and May 2010. Inter-rater reliability between teams was assessed using descriptive and κ statistics. RESULTS: The five teams identified 42 different AEs altogether. The number of identified AEs differed between the teams, corresponding to a level of AEs ranging from 27.2 to 99.7 per 1000 hospital days. Pair-wise agreement for detection of AEs ranged from 88% to 96%, with weighted κ values between 0.26 and 0.77. Of the AEs, 29 (69%) were identified by only one team and not by the other four groups. Most AEs resulted in minor and transient harm, the most common being healthcare-associated infections. The level of agreement regarding the potential for prevention showed a large variation between the teams. CONCLUSIONS: The results do not encourage the use of the GTT for making comparisons between hospitals. The use of the GTT to this end would require substantial training to achieve better agreement across reviewer teams.

Rationale and methods of the European Study on Cardiovascular Risk Prevention and Management in Daily Practice (EURIKA).

BACKGROUND: The EURIKA study aims to assess the status of primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) across Europe. Specifically, it will determine the degree of control of cardiovascular risk factors in current clinical practice in relation to the European guidelines on cardiovascular prevention. It will also assess physicians' knowledge and attitudes about CVD prevention as well as the barriers impeding effective risk factor management in clinical practice. METHODS/DESIGN: Cross-sectional study conducted simultaneously in 12 countries across Europe. The study has two components: firstly at the physician level, assessing eight hundred and nine primary care and specialist physicians with a daily practice in CVD prevention. A physician specific questionnaire captures information regarding physician demographics, practice settings, cardiovascular prevention beliefs and management. Secondly at the patient level, including 7641 patients aged 50 years or older, free of clinical CVD and with at least one classical risk factor, enrolled by the participating physicians. A patient-specific questionnaire captures information from clinical records and patient interview regarding sociodemographic data, CVD risk factors, and current medications. Finally, each patient provides a fasting blood sample, which is sent to a central laboratory for measuring serum lipids, apolipoproteins, hemoglobin-A1c, and inflammatory biomarkers. DISCUSSION: Primary prevention of CVD is an extremely important clinical issue, with preventable circulatory diseases remaining the leading cause of major disease burden. The EURIKA study will provide key information to assess effectiveness of and attitudes toward primary prevention of CVD in Europe. A transnational study creates opportunities for benchmarking good clinical practice across countries and improving outcomes. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00882336).

Swedish Council on Technology Assessment in Health Care (SBU). Chapter 8. Sick leave due to coronary artery disease or stroke.

The assessment of the literature on sick-leave with cardiovascular diseases include only studies with sufficient scientific quality. These studies describe sick leave following stroke, myocardial infarction, coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We found limited scientific evidence for the following results: After stroke, more than half of the patients of working age returned to work (RTW) during the first year following onset (higher rate for the younger patients). The consequences of brain damage, e.g. impaired ADL ability or cognitive capacity, play an important role in this respect. Also after myocardial infarction most patients RTW. PCI is a milder coronary artery intervention than CABG and RTW is more rapid. However, in the long run there are no differences in sick leave. People at higher ages or with physically demanding jobs return to work to a lesser degree. An international comparison shows that the duration of sick leave due to these conditions in Sweden is longer than in other countries although there is no scientific evidence to support this practice. It appears that the interest in research on sick leave in patients with cardiovascular diseases has waned in recent years. Developments in acute cardiological care should inspire renewed scientific involvement in this area of research.