Literature DB >> 23553971

When to remeasure cardiovascular risk in untreated people at low and intermediate risk: observational study.

Katy J L Bell1, Andrew Hayen, Les Irwig, Osamu Takahashi, Sachiko Ohde, Paul Glasziou.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the probability of becoming high risk for cardiovascular disease among people at low and intermediate risk and not being treated for high blood pressure or lipid levels.
DESIGN: Observational study.
SETTING: General communities in Japan and the United States. PARTICIPANTS: 13,757 participants of the Tokyo health check-up study and 3855 of the Framingham studies aged 30-74 years with complete data on risk equation covariates, not receiving blood pressure or cholesterol lowering treatment, and with an estimated risk of cardiovascular disease <20% within 10 years. We stratified participants on the basis of baseline risk: <5%, 5-<10%, 10-<15%, and 15-<20%.We used follow-up measurements from the Tokyo study done annually over three years (2006-10) and follow-up visits in the Framingham study done between eight (1968-75) and 19 years (1990-1995) after baseline. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Estimated 10 year risk of a cardiovascular event >20% using the Framingham equation.
RESULTS: At baseline most participants had <5% risk (60.6% of Tokyo cohort and 45.7% of Framingham cohort) or 5-<10% risk (24.0% and 28.0%, respectively) of a cardiovascular event within 10 years. There was <10% probability of crossing the treatment threshold at 19, 8, and 3 years for baseline risk groups <5%, 5-<10%, and 10-<15%, respectively, and >10% probability of crossing the treatment threshold at one year for the 15-<20% baseline risk group.
CONCLUSIONS: Decisions on the frequency of remeasuring for cardiovascular risk should be made on the basis of baseline risk. Repeat risk estimation before 8-10 years is not warranted for most people initially not requiring treatment. However, remeasurement within a year seems warranted in those with an initial 15-<20% risk.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23553971     DOI: 10.1136/bmj.f1895

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMJ        ISSN: 0959-8138


  8 in total

1.  Quality of the screening process: An overlooked critical factor and an essential component of shared decision making about screening.

Authors:  James A Dickinson; Roland Grad; Brenda J Wilson; Neil R Bell; Harminder Singh; Olga Szafran; Guylène Thériault
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2019-05       Impact factor: 3.275

2. 

Authors:  James A Dickinson; Roland Grad; Brenda J Wilson; Neil R Bell; Harminder Singh; Olga Szafran; Guylène Thériault
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2019-05       Impact factor: 3.275

3.  Factors influencing general practitioners' decisions about cardiovascular disease risk reassessment: findings from experimental and interview studies.

Authors:  Shannon McKinn; Carissa Bonner; Jesse Jansen; Armando Teixeira-Pinto; Matthew So; Les Irwig; Jenny Doust; Paul Glasziou; Kirsten McCaffery
Journal:  BMC Fam Pract       Date:  2016-08-05       Impact factor: 2.497

4.  Diabetes screening intervals based on risk stratification.

Authors:  Sachiko Ohde; Emily McFadden; Gautam A Deshpande; Hiroshi Yokomichi; Osamu Takahashi; Tsuguya Fukui; Rafael Perera; Zentaro Yamagata
Journal:  BMC Endocr Disord       Date:  2016-11-22       Impact factor: 2.763

5.  Patterns and trends of potentially inappropriate high-density lipoprotein cholesterol testing in Australian adults at high risk of cardiovascular disease from 2008 to 2014: analysis of linked individual patient data from the Australian Medicare Benefits Schedule and Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.

Authors:  Farshid Hajati; Evan Atlantis; Katy J L Bell; Federico Girosi
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2018-03-08       Impact factor: 2.692

6.  5-year versus risk-category-specific screening intervals for cardiovascular disease prevention: a cohort study.

Authors:  Joni V Lindbohm; Pyry N Sipilä; Nina J Mars; Jaana Pentti; Sara Ahmadi-Abhari; Eric J Brunner; Martin J Shipley; Archana Singh-Manoux; Adam G Tabak; Mika Kivimäki
Journal:  Lancet Public Health       Date:  2019-04

7.  NAFLD and cardiovascular disease.

Authors:  Elisabete Martins; Ana Oliveira
Journal:  Porto Biomed J       Date:  2018-07-18

8.  The potential for overdiagnosis and underdiagnosis because of blood pressure variability: a comparison of the 2017 ACC/AHA, 2018 ESC/ESH and 2019 NICE hypertension guidelines.

Authors:  Katy Bell; Jenny Doust; Kevin McGeechan; Andrea Rita Horvath; Alexandra Barratt; Andrew Hayen; Christopher Semsarian; Les Irwig
Journal:  J Hypertens       Date:  2021-02-01       Impact factor: 4.776

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.