Prasad Gunasekaran1, Vinodh Jeevanantham1, Suresh Sharma1, Rashmi Thapa1, Kamal Gupta2. 1. Division of Cardiovascular Diseases, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, United States. 2. Division of Cardiovascular Diseases, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, United States. Electronic address: kgupta@kumc.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cholesterol management guidelines from the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA-2013) recommend fixed statin dosing (dose depends on age ≤ or >75years) compared to the earlier adult treatment panel III (ATPIII) guidelines which recommended specific low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) targets. Clinical implications of this recommendation are not known. METHODS: We retrospectively compared cholesterol levels and statin utilization across cohorts with coronary artery disease (CAD) (n=9563), peripheral arterial disease (PAD) (n=596) and CAD+PAD (n=975) by applying both guidelines. The percentage of patients who achieved guideline-specific targets using 2013 ACC/AHA (use of moderate/high intensity statins) or ATPIII guidelines (LDL-C<100mg/dl) was compared between all groups. RESULTS: Using both guidelines, the PAD only group demonstrated lower utilization and lower statin doses than the CAD or CAD+PAD groups. When applying the ACC/AHA guidelines, more patients in the CAD only group (age ≤75 years) were considered at goal as compared to the ATPIII guidelines (92.2% vs. 75%), primarily driven by the group placed on moderate/high intensity statins but had an LDL-C level >100mg/dl. CONCLUSIONS: Application of the ACC/AHA guidelines results in a higher percentage of patients considered to be 'at goal' when compared to the ATP III guidelines without changes in clinical practice. This is due to patients ≤75 years old on adequate statin doses but still have LDL-C levels >100mg/dl, thereby raising concerns that physicians may not pursue alternate LDL reduction strategies since they are now considered at goal despite LDL-C >100mg/dl. Lipid management of PAD patients remains sub-optimal as compared to CAD and CAD+PAD.
BACKGROUND:Cholesterol management guidelines from the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA-2013) recommend fixed statin dosing (dose depends on age ≤ or >75years) compared to the earlier adult treatment panel III (ATPIII) guidelines which recommended specific low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) targets. Clinical implications of this recommendation are not known. METHODS: We retrospectively compared cholesterol levels and statin utilization across cohorts with coronary artery disease (CAD) (n=9563), peripheral arterial disease (PAD) (n=596) and CAD+PAD (n=975) by applying both guidelines. The percentage of patients who achieved guideline-specific targets using 2013 ACC/AHA (use of moderate/high intensity statins) or ATPIII guidelines (LDL-C<100mg/dl) was compared between all groups. RESULTS: Using both guidelines, the PAD only group demonstrated lower utilization and lower statin doses than the CAD or CAD+PAD groups. When applying the ACC/AHA guidelines, more patients in the CAD only group (age ≤75 years) were considered at goal as compared to the ATPIII guidelines (92.2% vs. 75%), primarily driven by the group placed on moderate/high intensity statins but had an LDL-C level >100mg/dl. CONCLUSIONS: Application of the ACC/AHA guidelines results in a higher percentage of patients considered to be 'at goal' when compared to the ATP III guidelines without changes in clinical practice. This is due to patients ≤75 years old on adequate statin doses but still have LDL-C levels >100mg/dl, thereby raising concerns that physicians may not pursue alternate LDL reduction strategies since they are now considered at goal despite LDL-C >100mg/dl. Lipid management of PAD patients remains sub-optimal as compared to CAD and CAD+PAD.
Authors: Neil J Stone; Jennifer G Robinson; Alice H Lichtenstein; C Noel Bairey Merz; Conrad B Blum; Robert H Eckel; Anne C Goldberg; David Gordon; Daniel Levy; Donald M Lloyd-Jones; Patrick McBride; J Sanford Schwartz; Susan T Shero; Sidney C Smith; Karol Watson; Peter W F Wilson Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2013-11-12 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Salim S Virani; LeChauncy D Woodard; David J Ramsey; Tracy H Urech; Julia M Akeroyd; Tina Shah; Anita Deswal; Biykem Bozkurt; Christie M Ballantyne; Laura A Petersen Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2014-10-12 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: A T Hirsch; M H Criqui; D Treat-Jacobson; J G Regensteiner; M A Creager; J W Olin; S H Krook; D B Hunninghake; A J Comerota; M E Walsh; M M McDermott; W R Hiatt Journal: JAMA Date: 2001-09-19 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Thomas M Maddox; William B Borden; Fengming Tang; Salim S Virani; William J Oetgen; J Brendan Mullen; Paul S Chan; Paul N Casale; Pamela S Douglas; Fredrick A Masoudi; Steven A Farmer; John S Rumsfeld Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2014-11-19 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: F Gerald R Fowkes; Diana Rudan; Igor Rudan; Victor Aboyans; Julie O Denenberg; Mary M McDermott; Paul E Norman; Uchechukwe K A Sampson; Linda J Williams; George A Mensah; Michael H Criqui Journal: Lancet Date: 2013-08-01 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Adrianne Feldstein; Patricia J Elmer; David H Smith; Michael Herson; Eric Orwoll; Chuhe Chen; Mikel Aickin; Martha C Swain Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Michael J Pencina; Ann Marie Navar-Boggan; Ralph B D'Agostino; Ken Williams; Benjamin Neely; Allan D Sniderman; Eric D Peterson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2014-03-19 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jin Fan; Adelaide M Arruda-Olson; Cynthia L Leibson; Carin Smith; Guanghui Liu; Kent R Bailey; Iftikhar J Kullo Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2013-10-28 Impact factor: 4.497