[Risk factor prevalence and drug treatment in coronary patients at hospital discharge. Results of a national multicenter registry (3C Program)]

[Evolution of cardiovascular risk factors in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention]

AIM

Controlling cardiovascular risk factors (CVRF) is important for the outcome of interventional practices (percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI]) in ischemic heart disease. The aim is to determine the evolution of the CVRF 6 months after the intervention and their relationship with new events.

METHOD

A descriptive study was conducted on a case series. The variables recorded were: age, sex and chronic kidney disease (CKD), as well as total (TC) and HDL cholesterol, systolic (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP), smoking habit, and body mass index (BMI), before PCI and after 6 months. The occurrence of death or new PCI during the follow-up was considered an independent variable in a logistic regression analysis. A P<.05 was assumed significant.

RESULTS

A total of 222 cases (75.2% males) were included, with a mean age of 70.2 (SD 11.9) years, of whom 57.7% were hypertensive patients, 55.9% had hyperlipidemia, 50.4% were smokers or ex-smokers, and 28.2% were diabetics. After 6 months, 5% died, and 15.3% needed a new PCI, while 33% of the sample had all the CVRF considered. Decreases were observed in SBP (-3.3 mmHg), DBP (-2.6 mmHg), and TC (-35.2mg/dl). The emergence of new event was associated with age (OR: 1.06; P=.003) and CKD (OR: 3.7; P=.04).

CONCLUSIONS

There is a high prevalence of CVRF. After 6 months, there was a decrease in blood pressure and TC, although incomplete control of CVRF was found. One fifth of the patients had an event in that period, showing association with age and CKD.

Stable angina in Spain and its impact on quality of life. The AVANCE registry

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Mortality from acute coronary syndrome has fallen but a substantial number of chronic patients remain symptomatic. The present study was designed to determine the clinical characteristics and therapeutic treatment of patients with stable angina and its impact on their quality of life.

METHODS

A cross-sectional, multicenter, observational study of 2039 patients with stable angina attended in outpatient clinics was performed. Data were collected on clinical variables and on the subjective perception of the severity of angina and the resulting limitations. Patients completed questionnaires on their perception of severity and quality of life.

RESULTS

We analyzed data on 2024 patients; 73% were men (mean age 68[10] years). Some 50.3% were asymptomatic (<1 angina attack per week in the previous 4 weeks), 39.2% reported 1-3 attacks per week and 10.5% reported >3 attacks per week; 66% had previously undergone revascularization, and 59% of these developed recurrent angina. Patients rated the severity of their condition higher than did their physicians (4.5 [2.5] vs 4.3 [2.3]; P=.002). Physicians' and patients' perceptions of the repercussions of angina showed little concordance (kappa<0.3). The patients believed their condition was much more severe, more debilitating, and had a greater negative impact on their quality of life.

CONCLUSIONS

A high proportion of patients with stable angina remains symptomatic and their quality of life is impaired. Their perception of the condition is worse than that of their physicians.

[How beta-blockers are used in Spain? Analysis of limitations in their use in internal medicine and cardiology: CARACTER-BETA study]

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Beta-blocker treatment has a class I indication, level of evidence A, in guidelines for the treatment of heart failure, ischemic heart disease, and atrial fibrillation. However, beta-blocker use continues to be less than optimal. In this study, beta blocker use in Spain is analyzed in patients with heart failure, ischemic heart disease, and atrial fibrillation.

METHODS

Observational, epidemiologic, cross-sectional, multicenter study including 1608 patients with heart failure, ischemic heart disease, and/or atrial fibrillation, recruited in 150 healthcare centers by cardiologists and internal medicine specialists.

RESULTS

Cardiologists enrolled 78.6% patients and internal medicine specialists 21.4%; 25.8% were recruited at hospital discharge and 74.2% at outpatient centers. Men accounted for 77% of the sample, and age was 68 (12) years. Of the total, 73% had ischemic heart disease, 42% heart failure, and 36% atrial fibrillation (multiresponse variable). Beta blockers were given to 82.8% of those consulting in cardiology compared to 71.6% of those treated in internal medicine (P<.0001). By pathology, the prescription rate was 85.1% of patients with ischemic heart disease, 77.0% of those with heart failure, and 72.4% of those with atrial fibrillation. Cardiology prescribed significantly more beta blockers for ischemic heart disease and heart failure than did internal medicine. Multivariate analysis showed that beta blocker use increased when the patient had ischemic heart disease, was treated by a cardiologist, and had dyslipidemia, stroke, and/or left ventricular hypertrophy. beta blocker use decreased with age and with a history of bronchospasm, asthma, bradycardia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and/or intermittent claudication.

CONCLUSIONS

There is still room for improvement in beta blocker prescription in Spain for patients with ischemic heart disease, heart failure, and/or atrial fibrillation.

[Profile of the patient with inadequate follow-up and control of cardiovascular risk factors after suffering an acute myocardial infarction]

OBJECTIVE

To draw up a profile of patients with inadequate follow-up and control of cardiovascular risk factors (CVRF) after acute myocardial infarction (AMI).

DESIGN

Cohort study.

SETTING

Primary care in Albacete, province of Castilla-La Mancha, Spain.

PARTICIPANTS

AMI cases who survived at 28 days and recorded in the IBERICAAlbacete register.

MAIN MEASUREMENTS

A structured survey of patients, families or family doctors to find out about the follow-up and control of CVRFs (arterial hypertension [AHT], hypercholesterolaemia, diabetes, smoking habits, and obesity), as well as education level, work situation and return to work. Inadequate follow-up is defined as when the recommended visits are not made, and inadequate control, when adequate levels are no obtained or they smoked. A descriptive, bivariate, and multivariate comparative analysis was performed. The association was measured using relative risk (RR), and the population estimation with the 95% confidence intervals (95% CI).

RESULTS

The sample included 21% females, 46% hypertensives, 35% with hypercholesterolaemia, 32% diabetics, 36% obeses, and 39% active smokers, with a mean age of 61 years. There was a 9% loss in follow-up, and 576 patients had a CVRF: 31% with inadequate follow-up (95% CI, 28-36) and 46% with inadequate control (95% CI, 41-51). The profile of a patient with inadequate follow-up was young, unemployed, with university education, smoker, obese and without AHT; that of an inadequately controlled patient was, a smoker, diabetic and unemployed.

CONCLUSIONS

There was inadequate follow-up of long term CVRFs in 31% of AMI patients, and 46% with inadequate control, there being characteristics in AMI that identify them.

[Diabetes mellitus in hypertensive population attended in Primary Care in Spain. Blood pressure and lipid control rates]

OBJECTIVES AND METHODS

The aim of this study was to determine the blood pressure and LDL-cholesterol (LDL-c) control rates of hypertensive patients with diabetes mellitus attended in primary care setting in Spain, and to compare the data with those of the hypertensive population without diabetes. For this purpose, we analyzed the subset of diabetic patients of those included in the PRESCOT study (a cross-sectional survey of hypertensive subjects > 18 years attended in primary care). 12,954 patients (49.9% females; 62.1 +/- 10.7 years) were included in the PRESCOT study. Good controls were considered blood pressure < 130/80 mmHg (according to European Society of Hypertension-European Society of Cardiology [ESH-ESC] guidelines) and LDL-c < 100 mg/dl (National Cholesterol Education Program-Adult Treatment Panel III [NCEP-ATP III]).

RESULTS

Overall, 3868 (29.9%) of PRESCOT patients were diabetics (mean age 64.2 +/- 9.8 years; 47.5% males). Almost all the diabetic patients (98.5%) were taking some drug besides the antidiabetic treatment and 84.9% were taking at least 2 drugs. Although diabetic patients were treated with more antihypertensive medication than those without diabetes (48.75% vs 40.85% were on > 2 drugs, p < 0.001), blood pressure control was much lower in diabetics (6.3% vs 32.7%, p < 0.0001). In the same way, LDL-c control was also lower in these patients (12.0% vs 31.9%, p < 0.0001). Only 1.0% of diabetic hypertensives were well controlled for both risk factors (vs 11.9% of non-diabetics, p < 0.0001). Predictors of bad blood pressure control were sedentarism and presence of associated clinical conditions, and for lipid control the younger age, female gender, overweight, alcoholism and non-use of lipid-lowering agents.

CONCLUSIONS

The presence of diabetes in hypertensive population attended in Spanish primary health care is frequent. One out of every three hypertensives who attend the outpatient clinic daily is diabetic. Even though more drugs are prescribed in these patients, blood pressure and LDL-c control rates are significantly lower than in patients without diabetes. In the daily practice of primary care setting, almost no diabetic hypertensive subject is well controlled for blood pressure and LDL-c.

Blood pressure and lipid goal attainment in the hypertensive population in the primary care setting in Spain

Although blood pressure (BP) control is crucial in hypertensive patients, clinical practice guidelines agree that the goal of treatment should be aimed at not only decreasing BP but reducing global cardiovascular risk. The aim of this cross-sectional study was to evaluate BP, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), and composite control rates in a hypertensive population in a primary care setting in Spain. Good BP control was defined as <140/90 mm Hg (<130/80 mm Hg for diabetics).LDL-C control rate was established according to the third report of the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel criteria. A total of 12,954 patients (49.9% women, aged 62.1+/-10.7 years) were included. BP was controlled in 24.8% of patients, LDL-C in 26% of patients and, when combined, in only 8.6%. The rates of control were significantly worse in high-risk subgroups, such as high-coronary-risk, diabetic, or metabolic syndrome patients. The BP and LDL-C control rates in the hypertensive population attended to daily in primary care settings in Spain are low.

[Blood pressure and lipid control and coronary risk in the hypertensive population attended in Primary Care setting in Spain. The PRESCOT study]

OBJECTIVES AND METHODS

The aim of this cross-sectional and multicenter study was to determine the coronary risk of hypertensive patients attended in Spanish Primary Care and to evaluate whether blood pressure and LDL-cholesterol (LDL-c) control rates could change according to the ATP-III risk groups. Good blood pressure control was considered <140/90 mmHg (<130/80 mmHg for diabetics) and LDL-c according to the established by ATP-III for every risk group.

RESULTS

A total of 12,954 patients were included in the study (49.9 % women, mean age 62.1+/-10.7 years). Of these, 12.6% belonged to the group of low risk, 45% to the medium risk group and 42.4% to the high risk group. The control rates were different according to the risk group (p <0.0001). Blood pressure control: 37.5 % in low risk, 30.2 % in medium and 15.4 % in high risk group. LDL-c control: 65.6 % in low risk group, 28 % in medium risk group and 12.3 % in high risk group. Only 25.8 % of the patients of low risk were controlled for both blood pressure and LDL-c, 9.6 % of medium risk group and 2.7 % of high risk group.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of hypertensive patients daily attended in Primary Care setting in Spain belongs to the medium or high coronary risk groups. Blood pressure and LDL-c controls rates in hypertensive population are low, and very few patients have both risk factors controlled. The control rates decline when the risk increases. In fact, less than 3% of high-risk patients have both parameters well controlled, what may result in significant clinical implications.

[The secondary prevention of ischaemic heart disease in Spain. A systematic review of observational studies]

OBJECTIVE

To describe the use of ischaemic heart disease (IHD) secondary prevention measures in the Spanish National Health System.

DESIGN

Systematic review of observational studies with information on the use of preventive treatment and measures in the prevention of secondary IHD.

SETTING

Primary care and specialised out-patient clinics.

DATA SOURCES

Medline search and complementary searches of studies published between 1995 and 2004 with a description of the use secondary prevention measures on hospital discharge or in the follow up after discharge.

SELECTION OF STUDIES

A total of 125 references were found after the MEDLINE search, 13 of which were selected after an independent review by 2 researchers. The complementary sources provided 9 more studies giving a total of 22.

DATA EXTRACTION

One researcher extracted information on the characteristics of the study and the results variables, which were independently verified by a second evaluator. RESULTS. In the 22 studies found, a high level of variation was shown in the different treatment rates: anti-aggregants (at discharge, 72%-97.1%; follow-up, 46.4%-93.8%); beta-blockers (at discharge, 29%-68.3%; follow-up, 22.4%-59.0%); drugs with action on the renin-angiotensin system (at discharge, 16.2%-52.2%; follow-up, 6.1%-53.1%); lipid lowering drugs (at discharge, 6.7%-88.7%; follow-up, 24.5%-89.5%). The treatment rates showed a progressive improvement over time during the period studied.

CONCLUSIONS

In the period 1994-2003 treatment rates in the secondary prevention of IHD have increased, although there is still much room for improvement.

[Study of unmatched cases and controls: hyperhomocysteinaemia and chronic ischaemic cardiopathy]

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the extent of the association between hyperhomocysteinaemia and chronic ischaemic heart disease.

DESIGN

Unmatched, case-control (1:3) study.

SETTING

Pintores Health Centre, Area 10, Primary Care, Madrid, Spain.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients of the health centre over 35 with chronic ischaemic heart disease or without it.

METHOD

Consecutive, non-randomized sample. Analysis of cases and controls with chi2 test and odds ratio (OR). The quantitative variables were analysed with the Student's t test.

RESULTS

The 76.32% (87/114) of cases had 2 or more cardiovascular risk factors versus 33.56% (99/265) in the control group (P<.0001). Average homocysteinaemia was 10.07 micromol/L (SD, 3.64) in the control group; and 12.74 (SD, 4.59) in the cases group. The difference between the averages (2.67 micromol/L; 95% CI, 1.82-3.52) was significant (P<.001). The difference (16.07%; 95% CI, 6.91-25.23) in hyperhomocysteinaemia (> or =15 micromol/L) between cases (28.95%, 33/114) and controls (12.88%, 38/295) was significant (P=.0001), with an association between hyperhomocysteinaemia and chronic ischaemic heart disease (OR=2.76; 95% CI, 1.62-4.68). This association increased (OR=3.26; 95% CI, 2.07-5.13) when hyperhomocysteinaemia was taken as > or =12 micromol/L, with a significant difference of 27% (95% CI, 16.59-37.41) (P<.0001) between cases (51.75%, 59/114) and controls (24.75%, 73/295).

CONCLUSIONS

The risk factor of hyperhomocysteinaemia > or =15 micromol/L was significantly associated (OR=2.76) with chronic ischaemic heart disease. This association was greater (OR=3.26) when hyperhomocysteinaemia was taken as > or =12 micromol/L.

Current lipid management and low cholesterol goal attainment in common daily practice in Spain. The REALITY Study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate prescribing patterns of lipid-lowering drugs used in management of patients at risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) in usual clinical practice in Spain and to assess low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goal attainment among CHD and CHD equivalent patients (< 100 mg/dL) and non-CHD patients with two or more risk factors (< 130 mg/dL) who were prescribed lipid-lowering drugs.

METHODS

Cohort study with retrospective chart review at 23 primary care centres and 16 lipid treatment centres across Spain (59% primary care; 41% outpatient lipid centres). Physicians consecutively identified eligible patients. Adults (aged > or = 18 years) with CHD/CHD equivalent or two or more major risk factors prior to first prescription of lipid-lowering drugs were eligible. Medical records were reviewed by physicians to collect patient characteristics, baseline and follow-up laboratory values and lipid-lowering drug treatment data.

RESULTS

619 patients (45.5% CHD and CHD equivalent patients and 54.5% non-CHD with two or more major risk factors) were included in the study with an average study follow-up of 3.6 years. Mean age was 60.1 years (SD 10.2), and 47.8% were female. Mean baseline LDL-C was 178 mg/dL (SD 45.0) for the CHD/CHD equivalent patients and 191 mg/dL (SD 56.95) for patients with two or more risk factors. Statins were the initial lipid-lowering drugs in 90.2% of patients; 52.5% of patients were initiated on low-dose (simvastatin 10mg or lower potency) statins. Overall 20.2% of CHD/CHD equivalent and 31.4% of patients with two or more risk factors attained LDL-C goal during the study period; of patients not attaining goal, 28.7% required an additional LDL-C reduction of > 30% to attain goal. In a logistic regression model for goal attainment, CHD/CHD equivalent patients (odds ratio [OR] 0.47; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.31, 0.72) and patients with baseline LDL-C > 190 mg/dL (OR 0.53; 95% CI 0.35, 0.80) were least likely to reach cholesterol goal when compared with patients having baseline LDL-C > 100 mg/dL and < 130 mg/dL.

CONCLUSION

Only 12.9% of patients attained LDL-C goal on their initial lipid-lowering drugs, and an additional 13.4% achieved goal after a change in their lipid-lowering therapy, resulting in 73.7% of patients not attaining goal after at least 3 years of follow-up, after initiation of lipid-lowering therapy. Patients who would gain the most from aggressive lipid lowering (CHD patients and patients with high baseline LDL-C) were least likely to achieve goal. More effective lipid management is needed to help these patients lower their cholesterol to goal levels or even lower.

[Clinical characteristics, prognosis, and variability in the management of non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes. Data from the PEPA registry]

OBJECTIVES

To assess the clinical characteristics and inter-hospital variability in the treatment and prognosis of patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes.

PATIENTS AND METHOD

Data from the PEPA study, a prospective registry that enrolled 4,115 patients in 18 Spanish hospitals, were analyzed.

RESULTS

The mean age of the patients enrolled was 65 years, 33% were women, and 26% had diabetes. Large differences were observed in the clinical profile of patients admitted to different centers, especially relative the history of previous disease, prior coronary revascularization, and co-morbidity. Antiplatelet treatment was used in 93% of patients, heparin in 45%, beta-blockers in 42%, nitrates in 67%, and calcium antagonists in 46%. During hospitalization, exercise stress testing was performed in 37% of patients, coronary angiography in 32%, coronary angioplasty in 9%, and coronary surgery in 4%. Inter-hospital variability was minimal for the use of antiplatelet agents, wide for the use of heparin and beta-blockers, and huge for the use of revascularization procedures. Mortality and the incidence of death or myocardial infarction were 2.6% and 4.4% during hospitalization, and 4.6% and 8% at 3 months, with wide inter-hospital variability. These differences were not significant once adjusted for clinical characteristics and the treatment received at admission.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes represent an heterogeneous group with a high incidence of complications. Pharmacologic and, especially, invasive treatment varies widely in different hospitals. These results underline the importance of correct initial risk stratification and uniform treatment following the recommendations of clinical guidelines.

Uso clínico de las estatinas y objetivos terapéuticos en relación con el riesgo cardiovascular

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Our goal was to determine the number of patients who achieve low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-c) targets according to new guidelines.

PATIENTS AND METHOD

Descriptive and transversal study of patients from a cardiovascular clinic. LDL-c was calculated and targets were established according the NCEP-ATP III.

RESULTS

1,811 patients (46% males, 54% females) were studied. 35% of these were high-risk patients (group 1: coronary risk > 20% at 10 years), 19% were intermediate-risk patients (group 2: coronary risk 10-20% at 10 years) and 46% were low-risk patients (group 3: coronary risk < 10% at 10 years). Overall, 58% of patients achieved target LDL-c levels, yet success rates were 26% among group 1 patients, 51% among group 2 patients, and 86% among group 3 patients (p = 0.001, for differences between groups). Statin treatment was significantly related to achieving target LDL-c levels in group 1 patients (OR = 1.7; 95% CI, 1.2-2.4; p = 0.007). In group 1.41% of patients had LDL-c levels > 130 mg/dl without receiving lipid-lowering drugs.

CONCLUSIONS

Although an overall 58% patients achieve target LDL-C levels, only one of four high-risk patients have LDL-c levels < 100 mg/dl, and statin treatment is a determining factor to achieve this goal. These findings indicate that a more aggressive treatment with statins is needed in secondary prevention.

[Long-term prognosis of women with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes. a case-control study]

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Women with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction have a worse prognosis than men. However, information about the prognosis of women with non-ST-segment-elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTEACS) is scarce. The aim of this study was to determine if the long-term prognosis of men and women with NSTEACS differs.

PATIENTS AND METHOD

Case-control study. In a consecutive series of 300 patients admitted for a NSTEACS and ischemic ECG changes, we compared the clinical characteristics, in-hospital and long-term follow-up of 95 women and 95 men matched for age, presence of diabetes, and past history of hypertension.

RESULTS

The median age of patients was 69 years, 36% had diabetes, and 65% had a history of hypertension. There were no gender differences in the history of angina or hypercholesterolemia, clinical presentation, number of patients with ST-segment depression, and CK-MB elevation. However, smoking, coronary artery disease, and peripheral vascular disease were less frequent in women. Treatment at admission and at discharge was similar in men and women, as was the use of in-hospital diagnostic and therapeutic procedures (echocardiography: 80 vs 88%; coronary angiography: 57 vs 59%; percutaneous coronary intervention: 17 vs 14%; coronary surgery 13 vs. 11%). Women had a better mean ejection fraction (55 13 vs 49 14%; p < 0.01) and fewer stenosed coronary vessels (1.4 1.1 vs 2.2 0.9; p < 0.01). There were no differences in the frequency of recurrent angina (28 vs 25%), death, or infarction (both 3.2%) during hospitalization. However, during a 30-month follow-up the incidence of death, myocardial infarction, or a new episode of NSTEACS was significantly lower in women with a relative risk (RR) of 0.53 (95% CI: 0.33-0.86; p < 0.01). This apparently better prognosis persisted after adjusting for clinical data and ejection fraction (RR: 0.57 (0.33-0.98); p < 0.05), but disappeared after adjusting for the number of diseased coronary vessels (RR: 0.71 (0.35-1.47); p = 0.36).

CONCLUSIONS

Women with NSTEACS had a better long-term prognosis than men. This better prognosis was independent of the patients' clinical characteristics and treatment, and could be explained by a less severe and less extensive coronary artery disease.

[New data on secondary prevention of myocardial infarction in Spain. Results of the PREVESE II study]

Introduction and objectives. The PREVESE Study reported the situation of secondary prevention after myocardial infarction in Spain. Similar surveys conducted in Europe have also shown that the implementation of secondary prevention is not adequate. The aim of this second PREVESE study was to compare the situation in Spain four years after the first study.Patients and method. We included retrospectively 2,054 patients discharged after myocardial infarction from 74 Spanish hospitals. We studied the available information recorded in medical records after discharge, the prevalence of risk factors, procedures performed, and medical treatment before admission and at discharge. We compared the data collected with those from the first PREVESE study because the data collection methodology was similar.Results. The information recorded in the hospital medical records was satisfactory in relation to the most important risk factors (hypertension 94.8%; dyslipidemia and diabetes 97.9%; and smoking 89.2%). Compared with the previous study, there was a significant decrease in the percentage of smokers (46.1 vs. 35.4%). The echocardiogram was performed more frequently (60.1 vs. 85.6%) and there were also significant differences related to drug treatment at discharge, with an important increase in the prescription of beta-blockers (33.5 vs. 45.1%), ACE inhibitors (32.5 vs. 46.4%), and lipid-lowering drugs (6.7 vs 30.5%).Conclusions. This study shows some improvement in the management of myocardial infarction patients after a four-year period, mainly due to more prescription of cardioprotective drugs at hospital discharge.

[Prognosis of diabetic patients with ischemic cardiopathy]

The prevalence of diabetes in Spain is about 6% and increases with age and obesity. Diabetes is present in approximately 25% of patients with coronary heart disease (CHD). Pre-diabetic and diabetic patients have a higher incidence of CHD and poorer prognosis, with high short- and long-term mortality. The protective effect of pre-menopause status is suppressed by diabetes. Diabetes has a synergic effect with other cardiovascular risk factors. Primary prevention in diabetic patients should be approached as in non-diabetic post-infarction patients. In diabetes, a healthy life-style and strict control of blood sugar and the other cardiovascular risk factors, particularly hypertension, is mandatory.