[Management of outpatients with cardiac disease: follow-up timing and modalities]. / Gestione ambulatoriale del paziente di interesse cardiologico: ruolo del medico di medicina generale e del cardiologo, tra sostenibilità ed appropriatezza.

The increasing rate of cardiovascular diseases, the improved survival after the acute phase, the aging of the population and the implementation of primary prevention caused an exponential increase in outpatient cardiac performance, thereby making it difficult to maintain a balance between the citizen-patient request and the economic sustainability of the healthcare system. On the other side, the prescription of many diagnostic tests with a view to defensive medicine and the related growth of patients' expectations, has led several scientific societies to educational campaigns highlighting the concept that "less is more".The present document is aimed at providing the general practitioner with practical information about a prompt diagnosis of signs/symptoms (angina, dyspnea, palpitations, syncope) of the major cardiovascular diseases. It will also provide an overview about appropriate use of diagnostic exams (echocardiogram, stress test), about the appropriate timing of their execution, in order to ensure effectiveness, efficiency, and equity of the health system.

Is global cardiovascular risk considered in current practice? Treatment and control of hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes according to patients' risk level.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the pharmacological treatment and the control of major modifiable cardiovascular risk factors in everyday practice according to the patients' cardiovascular risk level. METHODS: In a cross-sectional study general practitioners (GPs) had to identify a random sample of their patients with cardiovascular risk factors or diseases and collect essential data on the pharmacological treatment and control of hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes according to the patients' cardiovascular risk level and history of cardiovascular disease. Participants were subjects of both sexes, aged 40-80 years, with at least one known cardiovascular risk factor or a history of cardiovascular diseases. RESULTS: From June to December 2000, 162 Italian GPs enrolled 3120 of their patients (2470 hypertensives, 1373 hyperlipidemics, and 604 diabetics). Despite the positive association between the perceived level of global cardiovascular risk and lipid-lowering drug prescriptions in hyperlipidemic subjects (from 26% for lowest risk to 56% for highest risk p < 0.0001) or the prescription of combination therapy in hypertensives (from 41% to 70%, p < 0.0001) and diabetics (from 24% to 43%, p = 0.057), control was still inadequate in 48% of diabetics, 77% of hypertensives, and 85% of hyperlipidemics, with no increase in patients at highest risk. Trends for treatment and control were similar in patients with cardiovascular diseases. CONCLUSIONS: Even in high-risk patients, despite a tendency towards more intensive treatment, pharmacological therapy is still under used and the degree of control of blood pressure, cholesterol level and diabetes is largely unsatisfactory.

Appropriate use of antiplatelets: is prescription in daily practice influenced by the global cardiovascular risk?

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the appropriate prescription of antiplatelets according to patients' global cardiovascular risk level in everyday practice. METHODS: In a cross-sectional study, general practitioners (GPs) identified a random sample of 10% of patients at cardiovascular risk among all subjects coming to the surgery and collected data on cardiovascular risk factors and history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases (CVD). GPs were asked to do a physical examination and record the results of laboratory tests to define the global cardiovascular risk. The use of antiplatelet drugs in patients with established CVD and in healthy subjects at high risk of developing symptomatic atherosclerotic disease was evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 162 GPs from all over Italy recruited 3,120 subjects (51% female, mean age 64 years). Of the 949 with an indication for antiplatelet treatment for secondary prevention of CVD, 442 (47%) were receiving it. Among the 2,071 without CVD, 11% were taking an antiplatelet drug. In this group, antiplatelets were prescribed in 6, 10, 16 and 23%, respectively, of patients perceived by GPs to be at mild, moderate, high and very high cardiovascular risk. CONCLUSIONS: Prescription of antiplatelets still seems to be far from what is recommended in virtually all patients with a history of CVD. In subjects with cardiovascular risk factors but without CVD antiplatelet prescription increases in relation to global cardiovascular risk but is still low in patients at high or very high risk of cardiovascular events.

How general practitioners perceive and grade the cardiovascular risk of their patients.

BACKGROUND: Although risk assessment charts have been proposed to identify patients at high cardiovascular risk, in everyday practice general practitioners (GPs) often use their knowledge of the patients to estimate the risk subjectively. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study aimed to describe how GPs perceive, qualify and grade cardiovascular risk in everyday practice. METHODS: General practitioners had to identify in a random sample of 10% of their contacts the first 20 consecutive patients perceived as being at cardiovascular risk. For each patient essential data were collected on clinical history, physical examination and laboratory tests, for the qualification of risk. At the end of the process GPs subjectively estimated the overall patient's level of risk. General practitioners grading was compared with the risk estimate from a reference chart. RESULTS: Over a mean time of 25 days 3120 patients perceived as being at cardiovascular risk were enrolled. According to the inclusion scheme each GP had contact with more than 200 patients at cardiovascular risk every month. Thirty percent of these patients had atherosclerotic diseases. Up to 72% of patients without any history of atherosclerotic diseases but perceived to be at risk could be classified according to a reference chart as being at moderate to very high risk. Comparing GPs' grading of risk with a chart estimate there was agreement in 42% of the cases. Major determinants of GPs' underestimation of risk were age, sex and smoking habits, while obesity and family history were independently associated with overestimation. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of their perception GPs properly identify patients at cardiovascular risk in the majority of cases. General practitioners subjective grading of risk level only partially agreed with that given by a chart.