4.7 Article

Evaluating the impact of population and high-risk strategies for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease

期刊

EUROPEAN HEART JOURNAL
卷 25, 期 6, 页码 484-491

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.ehj.2003.11.012

关键词

cardiovascular disease; primary prevention; regression dilution bias; logistic regression

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims To estimate the potential effectiveness of different high-risk and populaulation approaches to the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in middle-aged British men, after correction for regression dilution bias. Methods and results We used a combination of cohort and randomised controlled trial evidence to estimate the effectiveness of high-risk strategies, based on the identification of high-risk factors or high absolute risk, and strategies based on population-wide reductions in cholesterol and blood pressure. High-risk strategies were potentially effective but would need to be used widely to have a substantial effect on CVD in the population. Aggressive pharmacological treatment (using statins, beta-blockers, ACE-inhibitors and aspirin) in individuals with a 10-year Framingham event risk of greater than or equal to30% (6% of population) would have reduced major CVD by at most 11%. This figure increased to 34% at a greater than or equal to20% treatment threshold (26% of population). In contrast, modest downwards shifts in the population distributions of serum total cholesterol and systolic blood pressure led to marked expected reductions in major CVD. Taking regression dilution bias into account, 10% reductions in long-term mean blood cholesterol and blood pressure could have reduced major CVD by 45%. Conclusions If high-risk strategies are to have a major impact on CVD in the population, they need to be more widely used than previously envisaged. Population-wide reduction of major risk factors is needed if CVD is to be substantially reduced. (C) 2003 The European Society of Cardiology. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据