Dislipidemia y riesgo vascular. Una revisión basada en nuevas evidencias

La dislipidemia es uno de los principales factores de riesgo de cardiopatía isquémica, primera causa de mortalidad en el mundo. Realizar una detección temprana y una intervención terapéutica precoz son elementos clave a la hora de establecer una adecuada prevención de una enfermedad cardiovascular. Debemos conocer el arsenal terapéutico de que disponemos para su adecuada utilización en cada una de las situaciones clínicas que puedan presentar nuestros pacientes. En los últimos 3 años, la proliferación de múltiples guías para el manejo clínico del paciente dislipidémico con aparentes mensajes contradictorios en relación con la consecución de los objetivos de control llegan a confundir a los médicos. En esta revisión se pretende ofrecer una visión actualizada de la situación de la dislipidemia, partiendo del posicionamiento de las guías tanto europeas como americanas, pasando por diferentes situaciones de riesgo y finalizando con el concepto de dislipidemia aterogénica, reconocido factor de riesgo cardiovascular.Dyslipidaemia is one of the major risk factors for ischaemic heart disease, the leading cause of death worldwide. Early detection and therapeutic intervention are key elements in the adequate prevention of cardiovascular disease. It is essential to have knowledge of the therapeutic arsenal available for their appropriate use in each of the clinical situations that might be presented in our patients. In the past 3 years, there has been a proliferation of multiple guidelines for the clinical management of patients with dyslipidaemia, with apparent contradictory messages regarding the achievement of the control objectives, which are confusing clinicians. This review aims to provide an updated overview of the situation as regards dyslipidaemia, based on the positioning of both European and American guidelines, through different risk situations and ending with the concept of atherogenic dyslipidaemia as a recognized cardiovascular risk factor

Los desafíos del profesorado clínico en la educación médica

Background: There is a unique particularity of clinical teaching in medical education that isbeyond knowledge, skills or teaching methods of each clinician: this is clinical teaching context.This study aimed to analyze the main barriers in clinical teaching in a single medical school in Spain. Methods: This was a descriptive study in which all the clinical teachers (all of them associateprofessors) of a single and novel faculty of medicine were asked to answer an online, anonymousand voluntary questionnaire about aspects of support to clinical work, promotion of clinicalresearch and recognition of their professional careers. The questionnaires were organized andanalyzed into these three main issues.Results: 61 clinical teachers (42%) answered the questionnaire. The main findings that emergedwere: (i) lack of protected time for practical teaching at hospital; (ii) lack of support for clinicalresearch from hospital or faculty; and (iii) lack of recognition of their professional careers.Conclusions: The clinical teaching in medical education is a continuing challenge for busyclinicians. Further studies on this topic are needed.Antecedentes: La enseñanza clínica en la educación médica tiene una particularidad única:el contexto clínico. Este estudio tiene como objetivo analizar las principales barreras de laense˜nanza clínica en una facultad joven de Medicina de Espa˜na.Métodos: Se trata de un estudio transversal descriptivo en el que se solicitó a todos losprofesores clínicos (todos ellos profesores asociados) de una facultad joven de Medicina que res-pondieran a un cuestionario en línea, anónimo y voluntario sobre aspectos de carga asistencial,promoción de la investigación clínica y reconocimiento de sus carreras profesionales.Resultados: Sesenta y un profesores (42%) respondieron al cuestionario. Los principales hallaz-gos que se obtuvieron fueron: 1) la falta de tiempo protegido para la ense˜nanza práctica en lainstitución sanitaria; 2) el escaso apoyo para la investigación clínica por parte de la instituciónsanitaria o de la facultad; y 3) el escaso de reconocimiento de la carrera profesional.Conclusiones: La ense˜nanza clínica en la educación médica es un desafío continuo para elclínico. Son necesarios futuros estudios que analicen estos aspectos de forma más exhaustiva

Prevalence of Hyperuricemia and Its Association with Cardiovascular Risk Factors and Subclinical Target Organ Damage

The role of uric acid levels in the cardiovascular continuum is not clear. Our objective is to analyze the prevalence of hyperuricemia (HU) and its association with cardiovascular risk factors (CVRF), subclinical target organ damage (sTOD), and cardiovascular diseases (CVD). We evaluated the prevalence of HU in 6.927 patients included in the baseline visit of the IBERICAN study. HU was defined as uric acid levels above 6 mg/dL in women, and 7 mg/dL in men. Using adjusted logistic regression models, the odds ratios were estimated according to CVRF, sTOD, and CVD. The prevalence of HU was 16.3%. The risk of HU was higher in patients with pathological glomerular filtration rate (aOR: 2.92), heart failure (HF) (aOR: 1.91), abdominal obesity (aOR: 1.80), hypertension (HTN) (aOR: 1.65), use of thiazides (aOR: 1.54), left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) (aOR: 1.36), atrial fibrillation (AFIB) (aOR: 1.29), and albuminuria (aOR: 1.27). On the other hand, being female (aOR: 0.82) showed a reduced risk. The prevalence of HU was higher in men, in patients presenting CVRF such as HTN and abdominal obesity, and with co-existence of LVH, atrial fibrillation (AFIB), HF, and any form of kidney injury. These associations raise the possibility that HU forms part of the early stages of the cardiovascular continuum. This may influence its management in Primary Healthcare because the presence of HU could mean an increased CV risk in the patients

Clinical inertia in poorly controlled elderly hypertensive patients: a cross-sectional study in Spanish physicians to ascertain reasons for not intensifying treatment

Background Clinical inertia, the failure of physicians to initiate or intensify therapy when indicated, is a major problem in the management of hypertension and may be more prevalent in elderly patients. Overcoming clinical inertia requires understanding its causes and evaluating certain factors, particularly those related to physicians. Objective The objective of our study was to determine the rate of clinical inertia and the physician-reported rea- sons for it. Conclusion Physicians provided reasons for not intensi- fying treatment in poorly controlled patients in only 30 % of instances. Main reasons for not intensifying treatment were borderline BP values, co-morbidity, suspected white coat effect, or perceived difficulty achieving target. nJCI was associated with high borderline BP values and car- diovascular diseas

Overview of guidelines for the management of dyslipidemia: EU perspectives

Vicente Giner-Galvañ,1 María José Esteban-Giner,1 Vicente Pallarés-Carratalá2,3 1Department of General Internal Medicine, Unit of Hypertension and Cardiometabolic Risk, Hospital Mare de Déu dels Lliris, Alcoy, Alicante, 2Department of Health Surveillance, Unión de Mutuas, Castellón de la Plana, 3Department of Medicine, Universitat Jaume I, Castellón, Spain Abstract: Modern medicine is characterized by a continuous genesis of evidence making it very difficult to translate the latest findings into a better clinical practice. Clinical practice guidelines (CPG) emerge to provide clinicians evidence-based recommendations for their daily clinical practice. However, the high number of existing CPG as well as the usual differences in the given recommendations usually increases the clinician’s confusion and doubts. It has apparently been the case for the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) Guideline on the Treatment of Blood Cholesterol. These CPG proposed new and controversial concepts that have usually been considered an antagonist shift respective to European CPG. The most controversial published proposals are: 1) to consider evidence just from randomized clinical trials, 2) creation of a new cardiovascular (CV) risk calculator, 3) to consider reducing CV risk instead of reducing low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDLc) as the target of the treatment, and 4) consideration of statins as the only drugs for treatment. A deep analysis of the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association CPG and comparison with the European ones show that from a practical and clinical point of view, there are more similarities than differences. To further help clinicians in their daily work, in the present globalized world, it is time to discuss and adopt a mutually agreed upon document created by both sides of the Atlantic. Probably it is not a short-term solution. Meanwhile, taking advantage of the similarities, the recommended practical attitude for the daily clinical practice should be based on 1) early detection of people with increased CV risk promoting the use of validated local scales, 2) reinforce the mainstream importance of nonpharmacological treatment, and 3) need for periodically monitoring response with analytical parameters (LDL or non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol) and global CV risk estimation. Technological solutions such as the big data technology could help to obtain high-quality evidence in an intermediate term. Keywords: dyslipidemia, statins, cardiovascular risk, clinical practice guideline

SEMERGEN positioning on approaching chronic heart failure in primary care

La insuficiencia cardíaca (IC) es un problema de salud pública que genera una gran carga asistencial tanto hospitalaria como en atención primaria (AP). La publicación de numerosos estudios sobre IC durante los últimos años ha supuesto un cambio de paradigma en el abordaje de este síndrome, en el que la labor de los equipos de AP va adquiriendo un protagonismo mayor. Las recientes guías publicadas por la Sociedad Europea de Cardiología han introducido cambios fundamentalmente en el manejo del paciente con IC. La nueva estrategia propuesta, con fármacos que reducen las hospitalizaciones y frenen la progresión de la enfermedad, debe ser ya una prioridad para todos los profesionales implicados. En este documento de posicionamiento se analiza una propuesta de abordaje basada en equipos multidisciplinares con el liderazgo de los médicos de familia, clave para proporcionar una atención de calidad a lo largo de todo el proceso de la enfermedad, desde su prevención hasta el final de la vida.Heart failure (HF) is a public health problem that generates a large healthcare burden both in hospitals and in Primary Care (PC). The publication of numerous studies about HF in recent years has led to a paradigm shift in the approach to this syndrome, in which the work of PC teams is gaining greater prominence. The recent guidelines published by the European Society of Cardiology have fundamentally introduced changes in the management of patients with HF. The new proposed strategy, with drugs that reduce hospitalizations and slow the progression of the disease, should now be a priority for all professionals involved. This position document analyzes a proposal for an approach based on multidisciplinary teams with the leadership of family doctors, key to providing quality care throughout the entire process of the disease, from its prevention to the end of the life

Statement of the Spanish interdisciplinary vascular prevention committee on the updated European guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention 2021 Comentario del CEIPV a las nuevas guías europeas de prevención cardiovascular 2021

We present the Spanish adaptation of the 2021 European Guidelines on Cardiovascular Disease (CVD) prevention in clinical practice. The current guidelines besides the individual approach greatly emphasize on the importance of population level approaches to the prevention of cardiovascular diseases. Systematic global CVD risk assessment is recommended in individuals with any major vascular risk factor. Regarding LDL-Cholesterol, blood pressure, and glycemic control in patients with diabetes mellitus, goals and targets remain as recommended in previous guidelines. However, it is proposed a new, stepwise approach (Step 1 and 2) to treatment intensification as a tool to help physicians and patients pursue these targets in a way that fits patient profile. After Step 1, considering proceeding to the intensified goals of Step 2 is mandatory, and this intensification will be based on 10-year CVD risk, lifetime CVD risk and treatment benefit, comorbidities and patient preferences. The updated SCORE algorithm (SCORE2 and SCORE-OP) is recommended in these guidelines, which estimates an individual's 10-year risk of fatal and non-fatal CVD events (myocardial infarction, stroke) in healthy men and women aged 40-89 years. Another new and important recommendation is the use of different categories of risk according different age groups (< 50, 50-69, ≥ 70 years). Different flow charts of CVD risk and risk factor treatment in apparently healthy persons, in patients with established atherosclerotic CVD, and in diabetic patients are recommended. Patients with chronic kidney disease are considered high risk or very high-risk patients according to the levels of glomerular filtration rate and albumin-to-creatinine ratio. New lifestyle recommendations adapted to the ones published by the Spanish Ministry of Health as well as recommendations focused on the management of lipids, blood pressure, diabetes and chronic renal failure are included