Purpose: Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) recommendations differ between the 2018 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) and 2019 European Society of... Show morePurpose: Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) recommendations differ between the 2018 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) and 2019 European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society (ESC/EAS) guidelines for patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) (<70 vs. < 55 mg/dl, respectively). In the DA VINCI study, residual cardiovascular risk was predicted in ASCVD patients. The extent to which relative and absolute risk might be lowered by achieving ACC/AHA versus ESC/EAS LDL-C recommended approaches was simulated. Methods: DA VINCI was a cross-sectional observational study of patients prescribed lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) across 18 European countries. Ten-year cardiovascular risk (CVR) was predicted among ASCVD patients receiving stabilized LLT. For patients with LDL-C >= 70 mg/dl, the absolute LDL-C reduction required to achieve an LDL-C of < 70 or <55 mg/dl (LDL-C of 69 or 54 mg/dl, respectively) was calculated. Relative and absolute risk reductions (RRRs and ARRs) were simulated. Results: Of the 2039 patients, 61% did not achieve LDL-C <70 mg/dl. For patients with LDL-C >= 70 mg/dl, median (interquartile range) baseline LDL-C and 10-year CVR were 93 (81-115) mg/dl and 32% (25-43%), respectively. Median LDL-C reductions of 24 (12-46) and 39 (27-91) mg/dl were needed to achieve an LDL-C of 69 and 54 mg/dl, respectively. Attaining ACC/AHA or ESC/EAS goals resulted in simulated RRRs of 14% (7-25%) and 22% (15-32%), respectively, and ARRs of 4% (2-7%) and 6% (4-9%), respectively. Conclusion: In ASCVD patients, achieving ESC/EAS LDL-C goals could result in a 2% additional ARR over 10 years versus the ACC/AHA approach. Show less
Ray, K.K.; Molemans, B.; Schoonen, W.M.; Giovas, P.; Bray, S.; Kiru, G.; ... ; VINCI study da 2021
Aims To provide contemporary data on the implementation of European guideline recommendations for lipid-lowering therapies (LLTs) across different settings and populations and how this impacts low... Show moreAims To provide contemporary data on the implementation of European guideline recommendations for lipid-lowering therapies (LLTs) across different settings and populations and how this impacts low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goal achievement.Methods and results An 18 country, cross-sectional, observational study of patients prescribed LLT for primary or secondary prevention in primary or secondary care across Europe. Between June 2017 and November 2018, data were collected at a single visit, including LLT in the preceding 12 months and most recent LDL-C. Primary outcome was the achievement of risk-based 2016 European Society of Cardiology (ESC)/European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) LDL-C goal while receiving stabilized LLT; 2019 goal achievement was also assessed. Overall, 5888 patients (3000 primary and 2888 secondary prevention patients) were enrolled; 54% [95% confidence interval (CI) 52-56] achieved their risk-based 2016 goal and 33% (95% CI 32-35) achieved their risk-based 2019 goal. High-intensity statin monotherapy was used in 20% and 38% of very high-risk primary and secondary prevention patients, respectively. Corresponding 2016 goal attainment was 22% and 45% (17% and 22% for 2019 goals) for very high-risk primary and secondary prevention patients, respectively. Use of moderate-high-intensity statins in combination with ezetimibe (9%), or any LLT with PCSK9 inhibitors (1%), was low; corresponding 2016 and 2019 goal attainment was 53% and 20% (ezetimibe combination), and 67% and 58% (PCSK9i combination).Conclusion Gaps between clinical guidelines and clinical practice for lipid management across Europe persist, which will be exacerbated by the 2019 guidelines. Even with optimized statins, greater utilization of non-statin LLT is likely needed to reduce these gaps for patients at highest risk. Show less
Ikonomidis, I.; Aboyans, V.; Blacher, J.; Brodmann, M.; Brutsaert, D.L.; Chirinos, J.A.; ... ; Metra, M. 2019
Ventricular-arterial coupling (VAC) plays a major role in the physiology of cardiac and aortic mechanics, as well as in the pathophysiology of cardiac disease. VAC assessment possesses independent... Show moreVentricular-arterial coupling (VAC) plays a major role in the physiology of cardiac and aortic mechanics, as well as in the pathophysiology of cardiac disease. VAC assessment possesses independent diagnostic and prognostic value and may be used to refine riskstratification and monitor therapeutic interventions. Traditionally, VAC is assessed by the non-invasive measurement of the ratio of arterial (Ea) to ventricular end-systolic elastance (Ees). With disease progression, both Ea and Ees may become abnormal and the Ea/Ees ratio may approximate its normal values. Therefore, the measurement of each component of this ratio or of novel more sensitive markers of myocardial (e.g. global longitudinal strain) and arterial function (e.g. pulse wave velocity) may better characterize VAC. In valvular heart disease, systemic arterial compliance and valvulo-arterial impedance have an established diagnostic and prognostic value and may monitor the effects of valve replacement on vascular and cardiac function. Treatment guided to improve VAC through improvement of both or each one of its components may delay incidence of heart failure and possibly improve prognosis in heart failure. In this consensus document, we describe the pathophysiology, the methods of assessment as well as the clinical implications of VAC in cardiac diseases and heart failure. Finally, we focus on interventions that may improve VAC and thus modify prognosis. Show less
