ArticleBMJ open2014
Real-life evaluation of European and American high-risk strategies for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in patients with first myocardial infarction.
Article in BMJ open, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cardiovascular prevention: Frontiers in lipid guidelines.Clinical medicine (London, England) · 2020Article
- Limitations of the SCORE-guided European guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention.European heart journal · 2017Article
- Extensive carotid atherosclerosis and the diagnostic accuracy of coronary risk calculators.Preventive medicine reports · 2017Article
- Comparing Strategies for Lipid Lowering in Argentina: An Analysis from the CVD Policy Model-Argentina.Journal of general internal medicine · 2017Article
- Estimating Longitudinal Risks and Benefits From Cardiovascular Preventive Therapies Among Medicare Patients: The Million Hearts Longitudinal ASCVD Risk Assessment Tool: A Special Report From the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology.Journal of the American College of Cardiology · 2017Article
- Review
- Statin use and cardiovascular risk factors in diabetic patients developing a first myocardial infarction.Cardiovascular diabetology · 2016Article
- Article
- Comparison of different cardiovascular risk score calculators for cardiovascular risk prediction and guideline recommended statin uses.Indian heart journalArticle
- Consensus statement on the management of dyslipidemia in Indian subjects: A different perspective.Indian heart journalReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine the detection rate (sensitivity) of the high-risk strategy recommended in the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE/UK) and American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guidelines on cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention. In particular, to evaluate the ability to ensure statin therapy to contemporary Europeans destined for a first myocardial infarction (MI).
design393 consecutive statin-naïve, CVD-free patients without diabetes hospitalised for a first MI, 247 of whom were 40-75 years of age. We assumed they had undergone a health check the day before their MI and estimated the predicted risk. PRIMARY OUTCOME: Sensitivity of the risk-based eligibility for primary prevention with statins recommended by the guidelines.
resultsAll recommended risk scores rank-ordered patients similarly, but the sensitivity of the cut point above which statin therapy should be considered differed substantially. In younger patients (age 40-60), 62% of men and 13% of women qualified for statin therapy by ACC/AHA criteria, compared with only 2% of men and no women using the ESC criteria recommended for most non-Eastern European countries. In those 60-75 years of age, the ACC/AHA guidelines captured all men and 85% of women, compared with 12% and 2%, respectively, using the new ESC guideline. This guideline restricted the eligibility for primary prevention with statins substantially by reclassifying many European countries from 'high-risk' to 'low-risk', whereas the eligibility was expanded in the ACC/AHA and the new NICE/UK guidelines by lowering the decision threshold.
conclusionsThe 2012 ESC guidelines differ substantially from the 2013 ACC/AHA and 2014 NICE/UK guidelines in ability to secure statin therapy to those destined for a first MI. A great opportunity for primary prevention with statins remains unexploited in Europe.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.