Pasarela sobre el río Besaya

Este trabajo tiene por objeto principal la definición del proyecto de construcción de la pasarela sobre el rio Besaya, en el término municipal de Cartes. La función principal de la estructura será la de resolver el paso peatonal que comunique el municipio de Cartes con el Parque de la Viesca. El acceso a la pasarela de nueva construcción consistirá en una rampa situada en cada margen del río, siendo una una solución comunicativa en todos los niveles, dado que entra a formar parte del mismo entorno en el que se localiza. Se desea que no suponga una ruptura, sino que refleje el anhelo de integración que se persiguió durante su concepción. La solución adoptada conjuga los componentes estéticos y técnicos necesarios para lograr el cumplimiento de los objetivos marcados

Suministro de agua potable y saneamiento

Peer Reviewe

Suministro de agua potable y saneamiento

Peer Reviewe

Interaction between cardiovascular risk factors and body mass index and 10-year incidence of cardiovascular disease, cancer death, and overall mortality.

The effect of above-normal body mass index (BMI) on health outcomes is controversial because it is difficult to distinguish from the effect due to BMI-associated cardiovascular risk factors. The objective was to analyze the impact on 10-year incidence of cardiovascular disease, cancer deaths and overall mortality of the interaction between cardiovascular risk factors and BMI. We conducted a pooled analysis of individual data from 12 Spanish population cohorts with 10-year follow-up. Participants had no previous history of cardiovascular diseases and were 35-79years old at basal examination. Body mass index was measured at baseline being the outcome measures ten-year cardiovascular disease, cancer and overall mortality. Multivariable analyses were adjusted for potential confounders, considering the significant interactions with cardiovascular risk factors. We included 54,446 individuals (46.5% with overweight and 27.8% with obesity). After considering the significant interactions, the 10-year risk of cardiovascular disease was significantly increased in women with overweight and obesity [Hazard Ratio=2.34 (95% confidence interval: 1.19-4.61) and 5.65 (1.54-20.73), respectively]. Overweight and obesity significantly increased the risk of cancer death in women [3.98 (1.53-10.37) and 11.61 (1.93-69.72)]. Finally, obese men had an increased risk of cancer death and overall mortality [1.62 (1.03-2.54) and 1.34 (1.01-1.76), respectively]. In conclusion, overweight and obesity significantly increased the risk of cancer death and of fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular disease in women; whereas obese men had a significantly higher risk of death for all causes and for cancer. Cardiovascular risk factors may act as effect modifiers in these associations

Risk of Cause-Specific Death in Individuals With Diabetes: A Competing Risks Analysis.

Diabetes is a common cause of shortened life expectancy. We aimed to assess the association between diabetes and cause-specific death. We used the pooled analysis of individual data from 12 Spanish population cohorts with 10-year follow-up. Participants had no previous history of cardiovascular diseases and were 35-79 years old. Diabetes status was self-reported or defined as glycemia >125 mg/dL at baseline. Vital status and causes of death were ascertained by medical records review and linkage with the official death registry. The hazard ratios and cumulative mortality function were assessed with two approaches, with and without competing risks: proportional subdistribution hazard (PSH) and cause-specific hazard (CSH), respectively. Multivariate analyses were fitted for cardiovascular, cancer, and noncardiovascular noncancer deaths. We included 55,292 individuals (15.6% with diabetes and overall mortality of 9.1%). The adjusted hazard ratios showed that diabetes increased mortality risk: 1) cardiovascular death, CSH = 2.03 (95% CI 1.63-2.52) and PSH = 1.99 (1.60-2.49) in men; and CSH = 2.28 (1.75-2.97) and PSH = 2.23 (1.70-2.91) in women; 2) cancer death, CSH = 1.37 (1.13-1.67) and PSH = 1.35 (1.10-1.65) in men; and CSH = 1.68 (1.29-2.20) and PSH = 1.66 (1.25-2.19) in women; and 3) noncardiovascular noncancer death, CSH = 1.53 (1.23-1.91) and PSH = 1.50 (1.20-1.89) in men; and CSH = 1.89 (1.43-2.48) and PSH = 1.84 (1.39-2.45) in women. In all instances, the cumulative mortality function was significantly higher in individuals with diabetes. Diabetes is associated with premature death from cardiovascular disease, cancer, and noncardiovascular noncancer causes. The use of CSH and PSH provides a comprehensive view of mortality dynamics in a population with diabetes

Equalization of four cardiovascular risk algorithms after systematic recalibration: Individual-participant meta-analysis of 86 prospective studies

Aims There is debate about the optimum algorithm for cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk estimation. We conducted head-to-head comparisons of four algorithms recommended by primary prevention guidelines, before and after \u27recalibration\u27, a method that adapts risk algorithms to take account of differences in the risk characteristics of the populations being studied. Methods and results Using individual-participant data on 360 737 participants without CVD at baseline in 86 prospective studies from 22 countries, we compared the Framingham risk score (FRS), Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE), pooled cohort equations (PCE), and Reynolds risk score (RRS). We calculated measures of risk discrimination and calibration, and modelled clinical implications of initiating statin therapy in people judged to be at \u27high\u27 10 year CVD risk. Original risk algorithms were recalibrated using the risk factor profile and CVD incidence of target populations. The four algorithms had similar risk discrimination. Before recalibration, FRS, SCORE, and PCE over-predicted CVD risk on average by 10%, 52%, and 41%, respectively, whereas RRS under-predicted by 10%. Original versions of algorithms classified 29-39% of individuals aged ≥40 years as high risk. By contrast, recalibration reduced this proportion to 22-24% for every algorithm. We estimated that to prevent one CVD event, it would be necessary to initiate statin therapy in 44-51 such individuals using original algorithms, in contrast to 37-39 individuals with recalibrated algorithms. Conclusion Before recalibration, the clinical performance of four widely used CVD risk algorithms varied substantially. By contrast, simple recalibration nearly equalized their performance and improved modelled targeting of preventive action to clinical need

Equalization of four cardiovascular risk algorithms after systematic recalibration: individual-participant meta-analysis of 86 prospective studies

AIMS: There is debate about the optimum algorithm for cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk estimation. We conducted head-to-head comparisons of four algorithms recommended by primary prevention guidelines, before and after 'recalibration', a method that adapts risk algorithms to take account of differences in the risk characteristics of the populations being studied. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using individual-participant data on 360 737 participants without CVD at baseline in 86 prospective studies from 22 countries, we compared the Framingham risk score (FRS), Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE), pooled cohort equations (PCE), and Reynolds risk score (RRS). We calculated measures of risk discrimination and calibration, and modelled clinical implications of initiating statin therapy in people judged to be at 'high' 10 year CVD risk. Original risk algorithms were recalibrated using the risk factor profile and CVD incidence of target populations. The four algorithms had similar risk discrimination. Before recalibration, FRS, SCORE, and PCE over-predicted CVD risk on average by 10%, 52%, and 41%, respectively, whereas RRS under-predicted by 10%. Original versions of algorithms classified 29-39% of individuals aged ≥40 years as high risk. By contrast, recalibration reduced this proportion to 22-24% for every algorithm. We estimated that to prevent one CVD event, it would be necessary to initiate statin therapy in 44-51 such individuals using original algorithms, in contrast to 37-39 individuals with recalibrated algorithms. CONCLUSION: Before recalibration, the clinical performance of four widely used CVD risk algorithms varied substantially. By contrast, simple recalibration nearly equalized their performance and improved modelled targeting of preventive action to clinical need

Equalization of four cardiovascular risk algorithms after systematic recalibration: individual-participant meta-analysis of 86 prospective studies.

AIMS: There is debate about the optimum algorithm for cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk estimation. We conducted head-to-head comparisons of four algorithms recommended by primary prevention guidelines, before and after 'recalibration', a method that adapts risk algorithms to take account of differences in the risk characteristics of the populations being studied. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using individual-participant data on 360 737 participants without CVD at baseline in 86 prospective studies from 22 countries, we compared the Framingham risk score (FRS), Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE), pooled cohort equations (PCE), and Reynolds risk score (RRS). We calculated measures of risk discrimination and calibration, and modelled clinical implications of initiating statin therapy in people judged to be at 'high' 10 year CVD risk. Original risk algorithms were recalibrated using the risk factor profile and CVD incidence of target populations. The four algorithms had similar risk discrimination. Before recalibration, FRS, SCORE, and PCE over-predicted CVD risk on average by 10%, 52%, and 41%, respectively, whereas RRS under-predicted by 10%. Original versions of algorithms classified 29-39% of individuals aged ≥40 years as high risk. By contrast, recalibration reduced this proportion to 22-24% for every algorithm. We estimated that to prevent one CVD event, it would be necessary to initiate statin therapy in 44-51 such individuals using original algorithms, in contrast to 37-39 individuals with recalibrated algorithms. CONCLUSION: Before recalibration, the clinical performance of four widely used CVD risk algorithms varied substantially. By contrast, simple recalibration nearly equalized their performance and improved modelled targeting of preventive action to clinical need