Real-life appraisal on blood pressure targets achievement in adult outpatients at high cardiovascular risk.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Although hypertension guidelines highlight the benefits of achieving the recommended blood pressure (BP) targets, hypertension control rate is still insufficient, mostly in high or very high cardiovascular (CV) risk patients. Thus, we aimed to estimate BP control in a cohort of patients at high CV risk in both primary and secondary prevention. METHODS AND RESULTS: A single-center, cross-sectional study was conducted by extracting data from a medical database of adult outpatients aged 40-75 years, who were referred to our Hypertension Unit, Rome (IT), for hypertension assessment. Office BP treatment targets were defined according to 2018 ESC/ESH guidelines as: a)<130/80 mmHg in individuals aged 40-65 years; b)<140/80 mmHg in subjects aged >65 years. Primary prevention patients with SCORE <5% were considered to be at low-intermediate risk, whilst individuals with SCORE ≥5% or patients with comorbidities were defined to be at very high risk. Among 6354 patients (47.2% female, age 58.4 ± 9.6 years), 4164 (65.5%) were in primary prevention with low-intermediate CV risk, 1831 (28.8%) in primary prevention with high-very high CV risk and 359 (5.6%) in secondary prevention. In treated hypertensive outpatients, uncontrolled hypertension rate was significantly higher in high risk primary prevention than in low risk primary prevention and secondary prevention patients (18.4% vs 24.4% vs. 12.5%, respectively; P < 0.001). In high risk primary prevention diabetic patients only 10% achieved the recommended BP targets. CONCLUSIONS: Our data confirmed unsatisfactory BP control among high-risk patients, both in primary and secondary prevention, and suggest the need for a more stringent BP control policies in these patients.

Comparison of different algorithms for the assessment of cardiovascular risk after kidney transplantation by the time of entering waiting list.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of cardiovascular disease is high among patients with chronic kidney disease and cardiovascular events (CVE) remain the leading cause of death after kidney transplantation (KT). We performed a retrospective analysis of 389 KT recipients to assess if the European Society of Cardiology Score (ESC-Score), Framingham Heart Study Score (FRAMINGHAM), Prospective Cardiovascular Munster Study Score (PROCAM-Score) or Assessing cardiovascular risk using Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network Score (ASSIGN-Score) algorithms can predict cardiovascular risk after KT at the time of entering the waiting list. METHODS: 389 KT candidates were scored by the time of entering the waiting list. Pearsons chi-square test, cox regression analysis and survival estimates were performed to evaluate the reliability of the cardiovascular scoring models after successful KT. RESULTS: During a follow-up of 8 ± 5.8 years, 96 patients (30%) died due to cardiovascular problems, whereas 13.9% suffered non-fatal CVE. Graft loss occurred in 84 patients (21.6%). Predictors of CVE, survival and graft loss were age and the length of end-stage kidney disease. All scores performed well in assessing the risk for CVE (P < 0.01). Receiver-operating characteristic analysis using the ESC-SCORE, as an example, suggested a cut-off for risk stratification and clinical decisions. CONCLUSIONS: We found all tested scores were reliable for cardiovascular assessment. We suggest using cardiac scores for risk assessment before KT and then taking further steps according to current guidelines.

Substantial improvement of primary cardiovascular prevention by a systematic score-based multimodal approach: A randomized trial: The PreFord-Study.

Trial design Prospective randomized multicentre interventional study. Methods Individual cardiovascular risk assessment in Ford Company, Germany employees ( n = 4.196), using the European Society of Cardiology-Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation (ESC-SCORE) for classification into three risk groups. Subjects assigned to ESC high-risk group (ESC-SCORE ≥ 5%), without a history of cardiovascular disease were eligible for randomization to a multimodal 15-week intervention programme (INT) or to usual care and followed up for 36 months. Objectives Evaluation of the long-term effects of a risk-adjusted multimodal intervention in high-risk subjects. Primary endpoint: reduction of ESC-SCORE in INT versus usual care. Secondary endpoints: composite of fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular events and time to first cardiovascular event. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: intention-to-treat and per-protocol analysis. Results Four hundred and forty-seven subjects were randomized to INT ( n = 224) or to usual care ( n = 223). After 36 months ESC-SCORE development favouring INT was observed (INT: 8.70% to 10.03% vs. usual care: 8.49% to 12.09%; p = 0.005; net difference: 18.50%). Moreover, a significant reduction in the composite cardiovascular events was observed: (INT: n = 11 vs. usual care: n = 27). Hazard ratio of intervention versus control was 0.51 (95% confidence interval 0.25-1.03; p = 0.062) in the intention-to-treat analysis and 0.41 (95% confidence interval 0.18-0.90; p = 0.026) in the per-protocol analysis, respectively. No intervention-related adverse events or side-effects were observed. Conclusions Our results demonstrate the efficiency of identifying cardiovascular high-risk subjects by the ESC-SCORE in order to enrol them to a risk adjusted primary prevention programme. This strategy resulted in a significant improvement of ESC-SCORE, as well as a reduction in predefined cardiovascular endpoints in the INT within 36 months. (ISRCTN 23536103.).

Adding markers of organ damage to risk score models improves cardiovascular risk assessment: Prospective analysis of a large cohort of adult outpatients.

INTRODUCTION: Global cardiovascular (CV) risk stratification is recommended in all outpatients. Risk score charts, however, do not include markers of organ damage (OD). AIM: To evaluate the potential added value of including different markers of subclinical OD to US Framingham, European SCORE and Italian Cuore risk score calculators. METHODS: We prospectively evaluated adult outpatients, who underwent blood pressure (BP) assessment and global CV risk stratification. The following OD markers were considered: 1) cardiac OD: electrocardiographic) or echocardiographic left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy; 2) vascular OD: carotid atherosclerotic plaque; 3) renal OD: reduced estimated glomerular filtration rate or creatinine clearance. Different risk score calculators were applied for comparisons. RESULTS: We included an overall population sample of 1979 outpatients (44.0% female, age 57.2±13.0years, BMI 26,6±4,4kg/m2, clinic systolic/diastolic BP 145.4±18.3/85.8±10.7mmHg), among whom 117 (5.9%) presented cardiac, 161 (8.1%) vascular, and 117 (5.9%) renal OD. US Framingham, European SCORE and Italian Cuore risk scores were all significantly raised in patients with than in those without OD. A trend toward increase for US Framingham CVD death, European ESC and Italian Cuore scores was observed according to degree of all markers of OD. Among these, reduced ClCr and eGFR showed high sensitivity and specificity to identify high risk individuals. CONCLUSIONS: Presence of cardiac, vascular or renal OD is associated with higher risk scores, independently by the types of calculators, age and gender classes. OD detection should be included in CV risk stratification in order to improve diagnostic, prognostic and therapeutic processes.