Cardiovascular Risk Assessment: A Systematic Review of Guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Many guidelines exist for screening and risk assessment for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in apparently healthy persons. PURPOSE: To systematically review current primary prevention guidelines on adult cardiovascular risk assessment and highlight the similarities and differences to aid clinician decision making. DATA SOURCES: Publications in MEDLINE and CINAHL between 3 May 2009 and 30 June 2016 were identified. On 30 June 2016, the Guidelines International Network International Guideline Library, National Guideline Clearinghouse, National Library for Health Guidelines Finder, Canadian Medical Association Clinical Practice Guidelines Infobase, and Web sites of organizations responsible for guideline development were searched. STUDY SELECTION: 2 reviewers screened titles and abstracts to identify guidelines from Western countries containing recommendations for cardiovascular risk assessment for healthy adults. DATA EXTRACTION: 2 reviewers independently assessed rigor of guideline development using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II instrument, and 1 extracted the recommendations. DATA SYNTHESIS: Of the 21 guidelines, 17 showed considerable rigor of development. These recommendations address assessment of total cardiovascular risk (5 guidelines), dysglycemia (7 guidelines), dyslipidemia (2 guidelines), and hypertension (3 guidelines). All but 1 recommendation advocates for screening, and most include prediction models integrating several relatively simple risk factors for either deciding on further screening or guiding subsequent management. No consensus on the strategy for screening, recommended target population, screening tests, or treatment thresholds exists. LIMITATION: Only guidelines developed by Western national or international medical organizations were included. CONCLUSION: Considerable discrepancies in cardiovascular screening guidelines still exist, with no consensus on optimum screening strategies or treatment threshold. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Barts Charity.

Comparative cost-effectiveness of non-invasive imaging tests in patients presenting with chronic stable chest pain with suspected coronary artery disease: a systematic review.

Coronary artery disease (CAD) remains one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality globally. The most cost-effective imaging strategy to diagnose CAD in patients with stable chest pain is however uncertain. To review the evidence on comparative cost-effectiveness of different imaging strategies for patients presenting with stable chest pain symptoms suggestive for CAD. Systematic review. Studies performing a formal economic evaluation or decision analysis in the English language published between January 1995 and December 2015 were identified using PubMed, Medline (OvidSP), Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane economic evaluations library, and EconLit. Reviews and meta-analyses were excluded. Two independent reviewers assessed titles and abstracts. Of the 4498 titles identified, 70 met our selection criteria. One reviewer used a modified version of the CHEERS checklist to assess study quality. One reviewer extracted data on study details, which were checked by a second reviewer. There is a major heterogeneity between the available cost-effectiveness studies included in this study. The included studies compared very different testing strategies in very different ways and provided mostly short-term results. Strategies of no-testing and xECG were underrepresented. Nonetheless, the findings from this systematic review suggest that for patients with a low to intermediate prior probability of having obstructive CAD, computed tomography coronary angiography (CTCA) may be cost-effective as an initial diagnostic imaging test in comparison with CAG or other non-invasive diagnostic tests. If functional testing is required, stress echocardiography (SE) or single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) are suggested to be cost-effective initial strategies in patients with intermediate prior probability of CAD. Yet, other functional testing strategies such as xECG and positron-emission tomography (PET) scanning have not been studied as intensely. Immediate CAG is suggested to be a cost-effective strategy for patients at a high prior probability of having obstructive CAD whom may benefit from revascularization. The study emphasizes the inextricable link between clinical effectiveness and economic efficiency. Evidence suggests that the optimal diagnostic imaging strategy for individuals suspected of having CAD is CTCA for low and intermediate disease probability, followed by SE or SPECT as necessary, and invasive CAG for high disease probability. Further studies are needed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of alternative non-invasive tests, including a no-testing strategy.

Diagnostic performance and comparative cost-effectiveness of non-invasive imaging tests in patients presenting with chronic stable chest pain with suspected coronary artery disease: a systematic overview.

Several non-invasive imaging techniques are currently in use for the diagnostic workup of adult patients with stable chest pain suspected of having coronary artery disease (CAD). In this paper, we present a systematic overview of the evidence on diagnostic performance and comparative cost-effectiveness of new modalities in comparison to established technologies. A literature search for English language studies from 2009 to 2013 was performed, and two investigators independently extracted data on patient and study characteristics. The reviewed published evidence on diagnostic performance and cost-effectiveness support a strategy of CTCA as a rule out (gatekeeper) test of CAD in low- to intermediate-risk patients since it has excellent diagnostic performance and as initial imaging test is cost-effective under different willingness-to-pay thresholds. More cost-effectiveness research is needed in order to define the role and choice of cardiac stress imaging tests.