Functional versus morphological assessment of vascular age in patients with coronary heart disease.

Communicating cardiovascular risk based on individual vascular age (VA) is a well acknowledged concept in patient education and disease prevention. VA may be derived functionally, e.g. by measurement of pulse wave velocity (PWV), or morphologically, e.g. by assessment of carotid intima-media thickness (cIMT). The purpose of this study was to investigate whether both approaches produce similar results. Within the context of the German subset of the EUROASPIRE IV survey, 501 patients with coronary heart disease underwent (a) oscillometric PWV measurement at the aortic, carotid-femoral and brachial-ankle site (PWVao, PWVcf, PWVba) and derivation of the aortic augmentation index (AIao); (b) bilateral cIMT assessment by high-resolution ultrasound at three sites (common, bulb, internal). Respective VA was calculated using published equations. According to VA derived from PWV, most patients exhibited values below chronological age indicating a counterintuitive healthier-than-anticipated vascular status: for VAPWVao in 68% of patients; for VAAIao in 52% of patients. By contrast, VA derived from cIMT delivered opposite results: e.g. according to VAtotal-cIMT accelerated vascular aging in 75% of patients. To strengthen the concept of VA, further efforts are needed to better standardise the current approaches to estimate VA and, thereby, to improve comparability and clinical utility.

Physicians' lifestyle advice on primary and secondary cardiovascular disease prevention in Germany: A comparison between the STAAB cohort study and the German subset of EUROASPIRE IV.

BACKGROUND: We assessed prevalence and determinants in appropriate physician-led lifestyle advice (PLA) in a population-based sample of individuals without cardiovascular disease (CVD) compared with a sample of CVD patients. METHODS: PLA was assessed via questionnaire in a subsample of the population-based Characteristics and Course of Heart Failure Stages A-B and Determinants of Progression (STAAB) cohort free of CVD (primary prevention sample) and the German subset of the fourth EUROASPIRE survey (EUROASPIRE-IV) comprising CVD patients (secondary prevention sample). PLA was fulfilled if the participant reported having ever been told by a physician to: stop smoking (current/former smokers), reduce weight (overweight/obese participants), increase physical activity (physically inactive participants) or keep to a healthy diet (all participants). Factors associated with receiving at least 50% of the PLA were identified using logistic regression. RESULTS: Information on PLA was available in 665 STAAB participants (55 ± 11; 55% females) and in 536 EUROASPIRE-IV patients (67 ± 9; 18% females). Except for smoking, appropriate PLA was more frequently given in the secondary compared with the primary prevention sample. Determinants associated with appropriate PLA in primary prevention were: diabetes mellitus (odds ratio (OR) 4.54; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.88-10.95), hyperlipidaemia (OR 3.12; 95% CI 2.06-4.73) and hypertension (OR 1.74; 95% CI 1.15-2.62); in secondary prevention: age (OR per year 0.96; 95% CI 0.93-0.98) and diabetes mellitus (OR 2.33; 95% CI 1.20-4.54). CONCLUSIONS: In primary prevention, PLA was mainly determined by the presence of vascular risk factors, whereas in secondary prevention the level of PLA was higher in general, but the association between CVD risk factors and PLA was less pronounced.

Secondary Prevention in Younger vs. Older Coronary Heart Disease Patients-Insights from the German Subset of the EUROASPIRE IV Survey.

PURPOSE: Evidence is limited on implementation of secondary prevention guidelines for coronary heart disease (CHD) in clinical practice and variations between younger and elder patients. We investigated the control of cardiovascular risk factors in German patients with CHD enrolled in the European-wide EUROASPIRE IV survey, stratified by younger (18-69 years) and older (70-79 years) age groups. METHOD: Eligible subjects were identified via the hospitals' patient information system and invited to attend a study visit 6 months to 3 years after hospitalization for CHD (myocardial infarction, ischemia, angioplasty/stent, coronary bypass grafting). Information on lifestyle and medication was collected by interview. RESULTS: Five hundred thirty-six patients were recruited in 2012-2013 (median age 69 years [IQR 62-74 years], 18% female, 44% ≥ 70 years of age, median time between index hospitalization and study visit 1.8 [1.1-2.5] years). Proportion of CHD patients receiving recommended drug therapy was 89% for platelet inhibitors (younger vs. older patients 93 vs. 84%, p < 0.01), 83% for statins (83 vs. 85%, p = 0.9), and 83% for beta-blockers (87 vs. 79%, p = 0.02). Uncontrolled blood pressure was observed in 45% (40 vs. 50%, p = 0.02), LDL cholesterol levels > 2.5 mmol/l in 53% (56 vs. 49%, p = 0.1), and HbA1c levels > 7% in diabetic patients in 39% (45 vs. 32%, p = 0.1). Eighty-five percent were overweight (86 vs. 85%, p = 0.8), 37% were obese (41 vs. 31%, p = 0.01), and 10% reported currently smoking (17 vs. 3%, p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Although most CHD patients received the drug classes recommended by guidelines, treatment goals were frequently not achieved. Elderly subjects had a less favorable pattern, which may reflect multi-morbidity and weaker identification with treatment targets. National CHD prevention strategies should focus not only on enhancing lifestyle modifications and reaching treatment targets, but also on highlighting the different needs in older individuals.

Heart failure in patients with coronary heart disease: Prevalence, characteristics and guideline implementation - Results from the German EuroAspire IV cohort.

BACKGROUND: Adherence to pharmacotherapeutic treatment guidelines in patients with heart failure (HF) is of major prognostic importance, but thorough implementation of guidelines in routine care remains insufficient. Our aim was to investigate prevalence and characteristics of HF in patients with coronary heart disease (CHD), and to assess the adherence to current HF guidelines in patients with HF stage C, thus identifying potential targets for the optimization of guideline implementation. METHODS: Patients from the German sample of the European Action on Secondary and Primary Prevention by Intervention to Reduce Events (EuroAspire) IV survey with a hospitalization for CHD within the previous six to 36 months providing valid data on echocardiography as well as on signs and symptoms of HF were categorized into stages of HF: A, prevalence of risk factors for developing HF; B, asymptomatic but with structural heart disease; C, symptomatic HF. A Guideline Adherence Indicator (GAI-3) was calculated for patients with reduced (≤40%) left ventricular ejection fraction (HFrEF) as number of drugs taken per number of drugs indicated; beta-blockers, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA) were considered. RESULTS: 509/536 patients entered analysis. HF stage A was prevalent in n = 20 (3.9%), stage B in n = 264 (51.9%), and stage C in n = 225 (44.2%) patients; 94/225 patients were diagnosed with HFrEF (42%). Stage C patients were older, had a longer duration of CHD, and a higher prevalence of arterial hypertension. Awareness of pre-diagnosed HF was low (19%). Overall GAI-3 of HFrEF patients was 96.4% with a trend towards lower GAI-3 in patients with lower LVEF due to less thorough MRA prescription. CONCLUSIONS: In our sample of CHD patients, prevalence of HF stage C was high and a sizable subgroup suffered from HFrEF. Overall, pharmacotherapy was fairly well implemented in HFrEF patients, although somewhat worse in patients with more reduced ejection fraction. Two major targets were identified possibly suited to further improve the implementation of HF guidelines: 1) increase patients´ awareness of diagnosis and importance of HF; and 2) disseminate knowledge about the importance of appropriately implementing the use of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This is a cross-sectional analysis of a non-interventional study. Therefore, it was not registered as an interventional trial.