Prevalence of peripheral arterial disease in patients at non-high cardiovascular risk. Rationale and design of the PANDORA study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Lower extremity peripheral arterial disease (PAD) is a marker of widespread atherosclerosis. Individuals with PAD, most of whom do not show typical PAD symptoms ('asymptomatic' patients), are at increased risk of cardiovascular ischaemic events. American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines recommend that individuals with asymptomatic lower extremity PAD should be identified by measurement of ankle-brachial index (ABI). However, despite its associated risk, PAD remains under-recognised by clinicians and the general population and office-based ABI detection is still poorly-known and under-used in clinical practice. The Prevalence of peripheral Arterial disease in patients with a non-high cardiovascular disease risk, with No overt vascular Diseases nOR diAbetes mellitus (PANDORA) study has a primary aim of assessing the prevalence of lower extremity PAD through ABI measurement, in patients at non-high cardiovascular risk, with no overt cardiovascular diseases (including symptomatic PAD), or diabetes mellitus. Secondary objectives include documenting the prevalence and treatment of cardiovascular risk factors and the characteristics of both patients and physicians as possible determinants for PAD under-diagnosis.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>PANDORA is a non-interventional, cross-sectional, pan-European study. It includes approximately 1,000 primary care participating sites, across six European countries (Belgium, France, Greece, Italy, The Netherlands, Switzerland). Investigator and patient questionnaires will be used to collect both right and left ABI values at rest, presence of cardiovascular disease risk factors, current pharmacological treatment, and determinants for PAD under-diagnosis.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>The PANDORA study will provide important data to estimate the prevalence of asymptomatic PAD in a population otherwise classified at low or intermediate risk on the basis of current risk scores in a primary care setting.</p> <p>Trial registration number</p> <p>Clinical Trials.gov Identifier: NCT00689377.</p

EU-wide cross-sectional observational study of lipid-modifying therapy use in secondary and primary care: the DA VINCI study

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-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.Cardiolog

Implications of ACC/AHA Versus ESC/EAS LDL-C recommendations for residual risk reduction in ASCVD: a simulation study from DA VINCI

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 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

Editor's Choice – Follow-up of Patients After Revascularisation for Peripheral Arterial Diseases: A Consensus Document From the European Society of Cardiology Working Group on Aorta and Peripheral Vascular Diseases and the European Society for Vascular Surgery

Peripheral arterial diseases comprise different clinical presentations, from cerebrovascular disease down to lower extremity artery disease, from subclinical to disabling symptoms and events. According to clinical presentation, the patient's general condition, anatomical location and extension of lesions, revascularisation may be needed in addition to best medical treatment. The 2017 European Society of Cardiology guidelines in collaboration with the European Society for Vascular Surgery have addressed the indications for revascularisation. While most cases are amenable to either endovascular or surgical revascularisation, maintaining long-term patency is often challenging. Early and late procedural complications, but also local and remote recurrences frequently lead to revascularisation failure. The rationale for surveillance is to propose the accurate implementation of preventive strategies to avoid other cardiovascular events and disease progression and avoid recurrence of symptoms and the need for redo revascularisation. Combined with vascular history and physical examination, duplex ultrasound scanning is the pivotal imaging technique for identifying revascularisation failures. Other non-invasive examinations (ankle and toe brachial index, computed tomography scan, magnetic resonance imaging) at regular intervals can optimise surveillance in specific settings. Currently, optimal revascularisation surveillance programmes are not well defined and systematic reviews addressing long-term results after revascularisation are lacking. We have systematically reviewed the literature addressing follow-up after revascularisation and we propose this consensus document as a complement to the recent guidelines for optimal surveillance of revascularised patients beyond the perioperative period