Angiotensin Receptor Blockers Evaluated by Office and Home Blood Pressure Measurements. TeleHBPM Study. / Bloqueadores do Receptor de Angiotensina Avaliados por Medida de Consultório e Residencial da Pressão Arterial. Estudo TeleMRPA.

BACKGROUND: Adequate treatment of arterial hypertension and achieving arterial hypertension goals in are important in reducing cardiovascular outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To describe angiotensin receptor blockers in monotherapy or double combination therapy and the rate of arterial hypertension control. METHODS: This cross-sectional study evaluated patients who were using angiotensin receptor blockers between 2017 and 2020. Those using three or more antihypertensive drugs were excluded. The analyzed variables included sex, age, body mass index, valid home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) measurements, casual and HBPM systolic and diastolic blood pressure measurements, blood pressure variability, and antihypertensive and angiotensin receptor blocker class. Paired t, chi-square, and Fisher's exact tests were used, as well as overlapping 95% confidence intervals and a significance level of 5% (p < 0.05). RESULTS: Of 17,013 patients, 12,813 met the inclusion criteria, 62.1% of whom were female. The mean number of valid measurements was 23.3 (SD, 2.0). The mean HBPM and casual measurements for systolic blood pressure were 126.8 (SD, 15.8) mmHg and 133.5 (SD, 20.1) mmHg (p <0.001), respectively, while those for diastolic blood pressure were 79.1 (SD, 9.7 mmHg) and 83.6 (SD, 11.9) mmHg (p <0.001), respectively. Losartan was the most common angiotensin receptor blocker and resulted in the highest blood pressure values. Combinations of angiotensin receptor blockers with diuretics or calcium channel antagonists resulted in lower blood pressure values. CONCLUSIONS: More than half of the patients used losartan, although it was the least efficient drug for reducing and controlling blood pressure.

FUNDAMENTO: O tratamento adequado e a obtenção das metas na hipertensão arterial são importantes na redução dos desfechos cardiovasculares. OBJETIVOS: Descrever os bloqueadores do receptor de angiotensina (BRA) em monoterapia ou combinação dupla e a taxa de controle da hipertensão arterial. MÉTODOS: Estudo transversal que avaliou pacientes em uso de BRA entre 2017 e 2020. Foram excluídos aqueles em uso de três ou mais anti-hipertensivos. As variáveis analisadas foram: sexo, idade, índice de massa corporal, medidas válidas da medida residencial da pressão arterial (MRPA); pressão arterial sistólica (PAS) e diastólica (PAD) obtidas pela MRPA e de forma casual; variabilidade pressórica; classe dos anti-hipertensivos e dos BRAs. Foram utilizados testes de t pareado, qui-quadrado e Fisher, além de sobreposição dos intervalos de confiança de 95% com nível de significância de 5% (p < 0,05). RESULTADOS: Foram selecionados 17.013 pacientes; destes, 12.813 preencheram os critérios, dos quais 62,1% eram do sexo feminino. O número médio de medidas válidas foi de 23,3 (±2,0), com médias para a PAS de 126,8±15,8 mmHg e 133,5±20,1 mmHg (p < 0,001) e para a PAD de 79,1±9,7 mmHg e 83,6±11,9 mmHg (p < 0,001) pela MRPA e medida casual, respectivamente. Losartana foi o BRA mais utilizado e o que apresentou comportamentos mais elevados da pressão arterial. As combinações de BRA com diuréticos ou com antagonistas de canal de cálcio tiveram menores valores de pressão arterial. CONCLUSÕES: Losartana foi utilizada em mais da metade dos pacientes, apesar de ser a menos eficiente na redução e no controle da pressão arterial.

Bloqueadores do Receptor de Angiotensina Avaliados por Medida de Consultório e Residencial da Pressão Arterial. Estudo TeleMRPA / Angiotensin Receptor Blockers Evaluated by Office and Home Blood Pressure Measurements. TeleHBPM Study

Resumo Fundamento O tratamento adequado e a obtenção das metas na hipertensão arterial são importantes na redução dos desfechos cardiovasculares. Objetivos Descrever os bloqueadores do receptor de angiotensina (BRA) em monoterapia ou combinação dupla e a taxa de controle da hipertensão arterial. Métodos Estudo transversal que avaliou pacientes em uso de BRA entre 2017 e 2020. Foram excluídos aqueles em uso de três ou mais anti-hipertensivos. As variáveis analisadas foram: sexo, idade, índice de massa corporal, medidas válidas da medida residencial da pressão arterial (MRPA); pressão arterial sistólica (PAS) e diastólica (PAD) obtidas pela MRPA e de forma casual; variabilidade pressórica; classe dos anti-hipertensivos e dos BRAs. Foram utilizados testes de t pareado, qui-quadrado e Fisher, além de sobreposição dos intervalos de confiança de 95% com nível de significância de 5% (p < 0,05). Resultados Foram selecionados 17.013 pacientes; destes, 12.813 preencheram os critérios, dos quais 62,1% eram do sexo feminino. O número médio de medidas válidas foi de 23,3 (±2,0), com médias para a PAS de 126,8±15,8 mmHg e 133,5±20,1 mmHg (p < 0,001) e para a PAD de 79,1±9,7 mmHg e 83,6±11,9 mmHg (p < 0,001) pela MRPA e medida casual, respectivamente. Losartana foi o BRA mais utilizado e o que apresentou comportamentos mais elevados da pressão arterial. As combinações de BRA com diuréticos ou com antagonistas de canal de cálcio tiveram menores valores de pressão arterial. Conclusões Losartana foi utilizada em mais da metade dos pacientes, apesar de ser a menos eficiente na redução e no controle da pressão arterial.

Abstract Background Adequate treatment of arterial hypertension and achieving arterial hypertension goals in are important in reducing cardiovascular outcomes. Objectives To describe angiotensin receptor blockers in monotherapy or double combination therapy and the rate of arterial hypertension control. Methods This cross-sectional study evaluated patients who were using angiotensin receptor blockers between 2017 and 2020. Those using three or more antihypertensive drugs were excluded. The analyzed variables included sex, age, body mass index, valid home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM) measurements, casual and HBPM systolic and diastolic blood pressure measurements, blood pressure variability, and antihypertensive and angiotensin receptor blocker class. Paired t, chi-square, and Fisher's exact tests were used, as well as overlapping 95% confidence intervals and a significance level of 5% (p < 0.05). Results Of 17,013 patients, 12,813 met the inclusion criteria, 62.1% of whom were female. The mean number of valid measurements was 23.3 (SD, 2.0). The mean HBPM and casual measurements for systolic blood pressure were 126.8 (SD, 15.8) mmHg and 133.5 (SD, 20.1) mmHg (p <0.001), respectively, while those for diastolic blood pressure were 79.1 (SD, 9.7 mmHg) and 83.6 (SD, 11.9) mmHg (p <0.001), respectively. Losartan was the most common angiotensin receptor blocker and resulted in the highest blood pressure values. Combinations of angiotensin receptor blockers with diuretics or calcium channel antagonists resulted in lower blood pressure values. Conclusions More than half of the patients used losartan, although it was the least efficient drug for reducing and controlling blood pressure.

Specific test panels for patients with heart failure: implementation and use in the Spanish National Health System.

Objectives: The use of specific test panels (STP) for heart failure (HF) could help improve the management of this condition. The purpose of this study is to gain an insight into the level of implementation of STPs in the management of HF in Spain and gather the opinions of experts, with a special focus on parameters related to iron metabolism. Methods: The opinions of experts in HF were gathered in three stages STAGE 1 as follows: level of implementation of STPs (n=40). STAGE 2: advantages and disadvantages of STPs (n=12). STAGE 3: level of agreement with the composition of three specific STPs for HF: initial evaluation panel, monitoring panel, and de novo panel (n=16). Results: In total, 62.5% of hospitals used STPs for the clinical management of HF, with no association found between the use of STPs and the level of health care (p=0.132) and location of the center (p=0.486) or the availability of a Heart Failure Unit in the center (p=0.737). According to experts, the use of STPs in clinical practice has more advantages than disadvantages (8 vs. 3), with a notable positive impact on diagnostics. Experts gave three motivations and found three limitations to the implementation of STPs. The composition of the three specific STPs for HF was viewed positively by experts. Conclusions: Although the experts interviewed advocate the use of diagnostic and monitoring STPs for HF, efforts are still necessary to achieve the standardization and homogenization of test panels for HF in Spanish hospitals.

The Global Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring (ABPM) in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction (HFpEF) Registry. Rationale, design and objectives.

Hypertension is a major risk factor for the development of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFPEF) and blood pressure (BP) in itself is an important marker of prognosis. The association of BP levels, and hemodynamic parameters, measured by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM), with outcomes, in patients with HFPEF is largely unknown. Patients with HFPEF have a substantial burden of co-morbidities and frailty. In addition there are marked geographic differences in HFPEF around the world. How these difference influence the association between BP and outcomes in HFPEF are unknown. The Global Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring (ABPM) in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction (HFpEF) Registry aims to assess the relevance of BP parameters, measured by ABPM, on the outcome of HFPEF patients worldwide. Additionally, the influence of other relevant factors such as frailty and co-morbidities will be assessed. Stable HFPEF patients with a previous hospitalization, will be included. Patients should be clinically and hemodynamically stable for at least 4 weeks before study inclusion. Specific data related to HF, biochemical markers, ECG and echocardiography will be collected. An ABPM and geriatric and frailty evaluation will be performed and the association with morbidity and mortality assessed. Follow up will be at least one year.

Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in heart failure and serum sodium levels.

AIMS: To determine whether there are differences in blood pressure profile on dynamic assessment by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) according to serum sodium levels in stable heart failure patients. METHODS: Data were collected from the Spanish National Registry on Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring in Heart Failure (DICUMAP). Patients underwent ABPM by the oscillometric principle using a Spacelabs 90121 monitor. The sample was divided into three groups according to sodium levels and their clinical and laboratory data and echocardiographic findings were analyzed. Robust statistical methods were used to compare the groups in univariate and multivariate models. RESULTS: A total of 175 patients (44.57% male) were analyzed. We found a predominance of anomalous circadian blood pressure profiles in all three groups, with a significantly higher percentage of risers in the lowest serum sodium group (p=0.05). In addition, in this group there were significant differences in mean 24-hour systolic blood pressure (SBP) (24-h SBP, p=0.05) and in mean daytime SBP (dSBP, p=0.008), with significant differences in nocturnal fall in SBP (p=0.05) and in diastolic blood pressure (p=0.005). In multivariate analysis a significant relationship was found between sodium levels and 24-h SBP (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.95-0.99, p=0.01) and dSBP (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.94-0.99, p=0.004). CONCLUSION: A relationship was found between lower sodium levels and lower systolic blood pressure, especially during waking hours, with a lower decline between daytime and night-time blood pressure.

Adaptación española de las guías europeas de 2016 sobre prevención de la enfermedad cardiovascular en la práctica clínica / Spanish adaptation of the 2016 European Guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice

Las VI Guías Europeas de Prevención Cardiovascular recomiendan combinar las estrategias poblacional y de alto riesgo, con los cambios de estilo de vida como piedra angular de la prevención, y proponen la función SCORE para cuantificar el riesgo cardiovascular. Esta guía hace más hincapié en las intervenciones específicas de las enfermedades y las condiciones propias de las mujeres, las personas jóvenes y las minorías étnicas. No se recomienda el cribado de aterosclerosis subclínica con técnicas de imagen no invasivas. La guía establece cuatro niveles de riesgo (muy alto, alto, moderado y bajo), con objetivos terapéuticos de control lipídico según el riesgo. La diabetes mellitus confiere un riesgo alto, excepto en sujetos con diabetes tipo 2 con menos de 10 años de evolución, sin otros factores de riesgo ni complicaciones, o con diabetes tipo 1 de corta evolución sin complicaciones. La decisión de iniciar el tratamiento farmacológico de la hipertensión arterial dependerá del nivel de presión arterial y del riesgo cardiovascular, teniendo en cuenta la lesión de órganos diana. Siguen sin recomendarse los fármacos antiplaquetarios en prevención primaria por el riesgo de sangrado. La baja adherencia al tratamiento exige simplificar el régimen terapéutico e identificar y combatir sus causas. La guía destaca que los profesionales de la salud pueden ejercer un papel importante en la promoción de intervenciones poblacionales y propone medidas eficaces, tanto a nivel individual como poblacional, para promover una dieta saludable, la práctica de actividad física, el abandono del tabaquismo y la protección contra el abuso de alcohol (AU)

The VI European Guidelines for Cardiovascular Prevention recommend combining population and high-risk strategies with lifestyle changes as a cornerstone of prevention, and propose the SCORE function to quantify cardiovascular risk. The guidelines highlight disease specific interventions, and conditions as women, young people and ethnic minorities. Screening for subclinical atherosclerosis with noninvasive imaging techniques is not recommended. The guidelines distinguish four risk levels (very high, high, moderate and low) with therapeutic objectives for lipid control according to risk. Diabetes mellitus confers a high risk, except for subjects with type 2 diabetes with less than <10 years of evolution, without other risk factors or complications, or type 1 diabetes of short evolution without complications. The decision to start pharmacological treatment of arterial hypertension will depend on the blood pressure level and the cardiovascular risk, taking into account the lesion of target organs. The guidelines don’t recommend antiplatelet drugs in primary prevention because of the increased bleeding risk. The low adherence to the medication requires simplified therapeutic regimes and to identify and combat its causes. The guidelines highlight the responsibility of health professionals to take an active role in advocating evidence-based interventions at the population level, and propose effective interventions, at individual and population level, to promote a healthy diet, the practice of physical activity, the cessation of smoking and the protection against alcohol abuse (AU)

Adaptación española de las guías europeas de 2016 sobre prevención de la enfermedad cardiovascular en la práctica clínica / Spanish adaptation of the 2016 European Guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice

Las VI Guías Europeas de Prevención Cardiovascular recomiendan combinar las estrategias poblacional y de alto riesgo, con los cambios de estilo de vida como piedra angular de la prevención, y proponen la función SCORE para cuantificar el riesgo cardiovascular. Esta guía hace más hincapié en las intervenciones específicas de las enfermedades y las condiciones propias de las mujeres, las personas jóvenes y las minorías étnicas. No se recomienda el cribado de aterosclerosis subclínica con técnicas de imagen no invasivas. La guía establece cuatro niveles de riesgo (muy alto, alto, moderado y bajo), con objetivos terapéuticos de control lipídico según el riesgo. La diabetes mellitus confiere un riesgo alto, excepto en sujetos con diabetes tipo 2 con menos de 10 años de evolución, sin otros factores de riesgo ni complicaciones, o con diabetes tipo 1 de corta evolución sin complicaciones. La decisión de iniciar el tratamiento farmacológico de la hipertensión arterial dependerá del nivel de presión arterial y del riesgo cardiovascular, teniendo en cuenta la lesión de órganos diana. Siguen sin recomendarse los fármacos antiplaquetarios en prevención primaria por el riesgo de sangrado. La baja adherencia al tratamiento exige simplificar el régimen terapéutico e identificar y combatir sus causas. La guía destaca que los profesionales de la salud pueden ejercer un papel importante en la promoción de intervenciones poblacionales y propone medidas eficaces, tanto a nivel individual como poblacional, para promover una dieta saludable, la práctica de actividad física, el abandono del tabaquismo y la protección contra el abuso de alcohol (AU)

The VI European Guidelines for Cardiovascular Prevention recommend combining population and high-risk strategies with lifestyle changes as a cornerstone of prevention, and propose the SCORE function to quantify cardiovascular risk. The guidelines highlight disease specific interventions, and conditions as women, young people and ethnic minorities. Screening for subclinical atherosclerosis with noninvasive imaging techniques is not recommended. The guidelines distinguish four risk levels (very high, high, moderate and low) with therapeutic objectives for lipid control according to risk. Diabetes mellitus confers a high risk, except for subjects with type 2 diabetes with less than <10 years of evolution, without other risk factors or complications, or type 1 diabetes of short evolution without complications. The decision to start pharmacological treatment of arterial hypertension will depend on the blood pressure level and the cardiovascular risk, taking into account the lesion of target organs. The guidelines don’t recommend antiplatelet drugs in primary prevention because of the increased bleeding risk. The low adherence to the medication requires simplified therapeutic regimes and to identify and combat its causes. The guidelines highlight the responsibility of health professionals to take an active role in advocating evidence-based interventions at the population level, and propose effective interventions, at individual and population level, to promote a healthy diet, the practice of physical activity, the cessation of smoking and the protection against alcohol abuse (AU)

[Spanish adaptation of the 2016 European Guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice]. / Adaptación española de las guías europeas de 2016 sobre prevención de la enfermedad cardiovascular en la práctica clínica.

The VI European Guidelines for Cardiovascular Prevention recommend combining population and high-risk strategies with lifestyle changes as a cornerstone of prevention, and propose the SCORE function to quantify cardiovascular risk. The guidelines highlight disease specific interventions, and conditions as women, young people and ethnic minorities. Screening for subclinical atherosclerosis with noninvasive imaging techniques is not recommended. The guidelines distinguish four risk levels (very high, high, moderate and low) with therapeutic objectives for lipid control according to risk. Diabetes mellitus confers a high risk, except for subjects with type 2 diabetes with less than <10 years of evolution, without other risk factors or complications, or type 1 diabetes of short evolution without complications. The decision to start pharmacological treatment of arterial hypertension will depend on the blood pressure level and the cardiovascular risk, taking into account the lesion of target organs. The guidelines don't recommend antiplatelet drugs in primary prevention because of the increased bleeding risk. The low adherence to the medication requires simplified therapeutic regimes and to identify and combat its causes. The guidelines highlight the responsibility of health professionals to take an active role in advocating evidence-based interventions at the population level, and propose effective interventions, at individual and population level, to promote a healthy diet, the practice of physical activity, the cessation of smoking and the protection against alcohol abuse.

[Spanish adaptation of the 2016 European Guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice]. / Adaptación española de las guías europeas de 2016 sobre prevención de la enfermedad cardiovascular en la práctica clínica.

The VI European Guidelines for Cardiovascular Prevention recommend combining population and high-risk strategies with lifestyle changes as a cornerstone of prevention, and propose the SCORE function to quantify cardiovascular risk. The guidelines highlight disease specific interventions, and conditions as women, young people and ethnic minorities. Screening for subclinical atherosclerosis with noninvasive imaging techniques is not recommended. The guidelines distinguish four risk levels (very high, high, moderate and low) with therapeutic objectives for lipid control according to risk. Diabetes mellitus confers a high risk, except for subjects with type 2 diabetes with less than <10 years of evolution, without other risk factors or complications, or type 1 diabetes of short evolution without complications. The decision to start pharmacological treatment of arterial hypertension will depend on the blood pressure level and the cardiovascular risk, taking into account the lesion of target organs. The guidelines don't recommend antiplatelet drugs in primary prevention because of the increased bleeding risk. The low adherence to the medication requires simplified therapeutic regimes and to identify and combat its causes. The guidelines highlight the responsibility of health professionals to take an active role in advocating evidence-based interventions at the population level, and propose effective interventions, at individual and population level, to promote a healthy diet, the practice of physical activity, the cessation of smoking and the protection against alcohol abuse.

[Spanish Adaptation of the 2016 European Guidelines on Cardiovascular Disease Prevention in Clinical Practice]. / Adaptación española de las guías europeas de 2016 sobre prevención de la enfermedad cardiovascular en la práctica clínica.

The VI European Guidelines for Cardiovascular Prevention recommend combining population and high-risk strategies with lifestyle changes as a cornerstone of prevention, and propose the SCORE function to quantify cardiovascular risk. The guidelines highlight disease specific interventions, and conditions as women, young people and ethnic minorities. Screening for subclinical atherosclerosis with noninvasive imaging techniques is not recommended. The guidelines distinguish four risk levels (very high, high, moderate and low) with therapeutic objectives for lipid control according to risk. Diabetes mellitus confers a high risk, except for subjects with type 2 diabetes with less than 10 years of evolution, without other risk factors or complications, or type 1 diabetes of short evolution without complications. The decision to start pharmacological treatment of arterial hypertension will depend on the blood pressure level and the cardiovascular risk, taking into account the lesion of target organs. The guidelines don't recommend antiplatelet drugs in primary prevention because of the increased bleeding risk. The low adherence to the medication requires simplified therapeutic regimes and to identify and combat its causes. The guidelines highlight the responsibility of health professionals to take an active role in advocating evidence-based interventions at the population level, and propose effective interventions, at individual and population level, to promote a healthy diet, the practice of physical activity, the cessation of smoking and the protection against alcohol abuse.

Adaptación española de las Guías Europeas de 2016 sobre prevención de la enfermedad cardiovascular en la práctica clínica / Spanish adaptation of the 2016 European Guidelines on cardiovascular disease revention in clinical practice

Las VI Guías Europeas de Prevención Cardiovascular recomiendan combinar las estrategias poblacionales y de alto riesgo, con los cambios de estilo de vida como piedra angular de la prevención, y proponen la función SCORE para cuantificar el riesgo cardiovascular. Esta guía hace más hincapié en las intervenciones específicas de las enfermedades y las condiciones propias de las mujeres, las personas jóvenes y las minorías étnicas. No se recomienda el cribado de aterosclerosis subclínica con técnicas de imagen no invasivas. La guía establece cuatro niveles de riesgo (muy alto, alto, moderado y bajo), con objetivos terapéuticos de control lipídico según el riesgo. La diabetes mellitus confiere un riesgo alto, excepto en sujetos con diabetes tipo 2 con menos de 10 años de evolución, sin otros factores de riesgo ni complicaciones, o con diabetes tipo 1 de corta evolución sin complicaciones. La decisión de iniciar el tratamiento farmacológico de la hipertensión arterial dependerá del nivel de presión arterial y del riesgo cardiovascular, teniendo en cuenta la lesión de órganos diana. Siguen sin recomendarse los fármacos antiplaquetarios en prevención primaria por el riesgo de sangrado. La baja adherencia al tratamiento exige simplificar el régimen terapéutico e identificar y combatir sus causas. La guía destaca que los profesionales de la salud pueden ejercer un papel importante en la promoción de intervenciones poblacionales y propone medidas eficaces, tanto a nivel individual como poblacional, para promover una dieta saludable, la práctica de actividad física, el abandono del tabaquismo y la protección contra el abuso de alcohol (AU)

The VI European Guidelines for Cardiovascular Prevention recommend combining population and high-risk strategies with lifestyle changes as a cornerstone of prevention, and propose the SCORE function to quantify cardiovascular risk. The guidelines highlight disease specific interventions, and conditions as women, young people and ethnic minorities. Screening for subclinical atherosclerosis with noninvasive imaging techniques is not recommended. The guidelines distinguish four risk levels (very high, high, moderate and low) with therapeutic objectives for lipid control according to risk. Diabetes mellitus confers a high risk, except for subjects with type 2 diabetes with less than 10 years of evolution, without other risk factors or complications, or type 1 diabetes of short evolution without complications. The decision to start pharmacological treatment of arterial hypertension will depend on the blood pressure level and the cardiovascular risk, taking into account the lesion of target organs. The guidelines don’t recommend antiplatelet drugs in primary prevention because of the increased bleeding risk. The low adherence to the medication requires simplified therapeutic regimes and to identify and combat its causes. The guidelines highlight the responsibility of health professionals to take an active role in advocating evidence-based interventions at the population level, and propose effective interventions, at individual and population level, to promote a healthy diet, the practice of physical activity, the cessation of smoking and the protection against alcohol abuse (AU)

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 / 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

La publicación en Estados Unidos de la guía de 2013 de American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association para el tratamiento del colesterol elevado ha tenido gran impacto por el cambio de paradigma que supone. El Comité Español Interdisciplinario de Prevención Cardiovascular y la Sociedad Española de Cardiología han revisado esa guía, en comparación con la vigente guía europea de prevención cardiovascular y de dislipemias. El aspecto más destacable de la guía estadounidense es el abandono de los objetivos de colesterol unido a lipoproteínas de baja densidad, de modo que proponen el tratamiento con estatinas en cuatro grupos de riesgo aumentado. En pacientes con enfermedad cardiovascular establecida, ambas guías conducen a una estrategia terapéutica similar (estatinas potentes, dosis altas). Sin embargo, en prevención primaria, la aplicación de la guía estadounidense supondría tratar con estatinas a un número de personas excesivo, particularmente de edades avanzadas. Abandonar la estrategia según objetivos de colesterol, fuertemente arraigada en la comunidad científica, podría tener un impacto negativo en la práctica clínica y crear cierta confusión e inseguridad entre los profesionales y quizá menos seguimiento y adherencia de los pacientes. Por todo ello, el presente documento reafirma las recomendaciones de la guía europea. Ambas guías tienen aspectos positivos pero, en general y mientras no se resuelvan las dudas planteadas, la guía europea, además de utilizar tablas basadas en la población autóctona, ofrece mensajes más apropiados para el entorno español y previene del posible riesgo de sobretratamiento con estatinas en prevención primaria

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

Denervación renal como tratamiento de la hipertensión arterial resistente / Renal denervation as treatment of resistant hypertension

No disponible

[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.

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 / 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

La publicación en Estados Unidos de la guía de 2013 de American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association para el tratamiento del colesterol elevado ha tenido gran impacto por el cambio de paradigma que supone. El Comité Español Interdisciplinario de Prevención Cardiovascular y la Sociedad Española de Cardiología han revisado esa guía, en comparación con la vigente guía europea de prevención cardiovascular y de dislipemias. El aspecto más destacable de la guía estadounidense es el abandono de los objetivos de colesterol unido a lipoproteínas de baja densidad, de modo que proponen el tratamiento con estatinas en cuatro grupos de riesgo aumentado. En pacientes con enfermedad cardiovascular establecida, ambas guías conducen a una estrategia terapéutica similar (estatinas potentes, dosis altas). Sin embargo, en prevención primaria, la aplicación de la guía estadounidense supondría tratar con estatinas a un número de personas excesivo, particularmente de edades avanzadas. Abandonar la estrategia según objetivos de colesterol, fuertemente arraigada en la comunidad científica, podría tener un impacto negativo en la práctica clínica y crear cierta confusión e inseguridad entre los profesionales y quizá menos seguimiento y adherencia de los pacientes. Por todo ello, el presente documento reafirma las recomendaciones de la guía europea. Ambas guías tienen aspectos positivos pero, en general y mientras no se resuelvan las dudas planteadas, la guía europea, además de utilizar tablas basadas en la población autóctona, ofrece mensajes más apropiados para el entorno español y previene del posible riesgo de sobretratamiento con estatinas en prevención primaria (AU)

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 (AU)

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 / 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

La publicación en Estados Unidos de la guía de 2013 de American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association para el tratamiento del colesterol elevado ha tenido gran impacto por el cambio de paradigma que supone. El Comité Español Interdisciplinario de Prevención Cardiovascular y la Sociedad Española de Cardiología han revisado esa guía, en comparación con la vigente guía europea de prevención cardiovascular y de dislipemias. El aspecto más destacable de la guía estadounidense es el abandono de los objetivos de colesterol unido a lipoproteínas de baja densidad, de modo que proponen el tratamiento con estatinas en cuatro grupos de riesgo aumentado. En pacientes con enfermedad cardiovascular establecida, ambas guías conducen a una estrategia terapéutica similar (estatinas potentes, dosis altas). Sin embargo, en prevención primaria, la aplicación de la guía estadounidense supondría tratar con estatinas a un número de personas excesivo, particularmente de edades avanzadas. Abandonar la estrategia según objetivos de colesterol, fuertemente arraigada en la comunidad científica, podría tener un impacto negativo en la práctica clínica y crear cierta confusión e inseguridad entre los profesionales y quizá menos seguimiento y adherencia de los pacientes. Por todo ello, el presente documento reafirma las recomendaciones de la guía europea. Ambas guías tienen aspectos positivos pero, en general y mientras no se resuelvan las dudas planteadas, la guía europea, además de utilizar tablas basadas en la población autóctona, ofrece mensajes más apropiados para el entorno español y previene del posible riesgo de sobretratamiento con estatinas en prevención primaria (AU)

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 (AU)

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 / 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

La publicación en Estados Unidos de la guía de 2013 de American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association para el tratamiento del colesterol elevado ha tenido gran impacto por el cambio de paradigma que supone. El Comité Español Interdisciplinario de Prevención Cardiovascular y la Sociedad Española de Cardiología han revisado esa guía, en comparación con la vigente guía europea de prevención cardiovascular y de dislipemias. El aspecto más destacable de la guía estadounidense es el abandono de los objetivos de colesterol unido a lipoproteínas de baja densidad, de modo que proponen el tratamiento con estatinas en cuatro grupos de riesgo aumentado. En pacientes con enfermedad cardiovascular establecida, ambas guías conducen a una estrategia terapéutica similar (estatinas potentes, dosis altas). Sin embargo, en prevención primaria, la aplicación de la guía estadounidense supondría tratar con estatinas a un número de personas excesivo, particularmente de edades avanzadas. Abandonar la estrategia según objetivos de colesterol, fuertemente arraigada en la comunidad científica, podría tener un impacto negativo en la práctica clínica y crear cierta confusión e inseguridad entre los profesionales y quizá menos seguimiento y adherencia de los pacientes. Por todo ello, el presente documento reafirma las recomendaciones de la guía europea. Ambas guías tienen aspectos positivos pero, en general y mientras no se resuelvan las dudas planteadas, la guía europea, además de utilizar tablas basadas en la población autóctona, ofrece mensajes más apropiados para el entorno español y previene del posible riesgo de sobretratamiento con estatinas en prevención primaria

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.