4.7 Article

Comparison of American and European Guidelines for Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease JACC Guideline Comparison

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY
Volume 79, Issue 13, Pages 1304-1313

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2022.02.001

Keywords

guidelines; primary prevention; recommendations; secondary prevention

Funding

  1. Amgen
  2. AstraZeneca

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This review compares the primary prevention recommendations of the recent 2021 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and 2019 American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines on cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention. Both guidelines emphasize a holistic approach to prevention and agree on the importance of lifestyle optimization and intensified risk factor management. They differ in their cardiovascular risk assessment tools and acknowledge the role of risk modifiers in refining risk calculation. The ESC guideline recognizes the importance of nonclassical risk factors and calls for legislative action.
This review compares the primary prevention recommendations of the recent 2021 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and 2019 American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines on cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention. Although the 2019 ACC/AHA guideline represents its inaugural version, the ESC guideline is an update to its 2016 statement. Both guidelines address prevention using a holistic approach and agree on the importance of lifestyle optimization and intensified risk factor management. Cardiovascular (CV) risk assessment tools differ, reflecting the unique populations being screened as well as philosophical differences to their approach. Conventional risk factors are used to estimate CV risk, but each guideline acknowledges the role of risk modifiers to refine risk calculation. The ESC guideline recognizes the importance of nonclassical risk factors, including environmental issues, that impact CV health at the population level and calls for legislative action at the local, regional, and national levels. (C) 2022 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available