Prevalência de Fatores de risco cardiovascular em adultos de Luzerna, Santa Catarina, 2006 / Prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors in adults living in Luzerna, Santa Catarina, in 2006

OBJETIVO: Estimar a prevalência de fatores de risco cardiovasculares na população adulta do município de Luzerna, Santa Catarina. MÉTODOS: Estudo transversal com adultos de 20 a 59 anos (n = 411), de ambos os sexos. Foi estimada a prevalência de hipertensão arterial sistêmica, diabetes, dislipidemia, obesidade, circunferência abdominal alterada e tabagismo. Realizou-se a distribuição de freqüência simples das variáveis de interesse e teste de associação do Qui-quadrado. RESULTADOS: A taxa de resposta foi igual a 85,9 por cento. As seguintes prevalências foram encontradas: hipertensão arterial sistêmica: 14,7 por cento; diabetes: 2,3 por cento; dislipidemia: 18,7 por cento; obesidade: 15,6 por cento; circunferência abdominal alterada: 24,1 por cento; e tabagismo: 15,6 por cento. Verificamos que 52,4 por cento dos indivíduos não possuíam nenhum dos fatores de risco; 22,4 por cento apresentavam um fator e 13,6 por cento, 6,8 por cento, e 4,9 por cento apresentavam dois, três e quatro ou mais fatores associados, respectivamente. CONCLUSÃO: A população analisada apresentou prevalências baixas de hipertensão, diabetes e menor agrupamento de fatores de risco em um mesmo indivíduo, quando comparada a outros dados relatados na literatura.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors in the adult population of Luzerna, in the state of Santa Catarina. METHODS: A cross-sectional study with adults of both genders aged 20 to 59 years (n = 411). The prevalence of hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemia, obesity, increased waist circumference, and smoking was estimated. Study variables were checked for frequency distribution, and a chi-square test for association was performed. RESULTS: The response rate was 85.9 percent. The following prevalences were found: hypertension: 14.7 percent; diabetes: 2.3 percent; dyslipidemia: 18.7 percent; obesity: 15.6 percent; increased waist circumference: 24.1 percent; and smoking: 15.6 percent. A total of 52.4 percent of the subjects had none of the risk factors; 22.4 percent had one risk factor, and 13.6 percent, 6.8 percent, and 4.9 percent had two, three, and four or more associated risk factors, respectively. CONCLUSION: The study sample showed low prevalence of hypertension and diabetes and less clustering of risk factors in the same individual, as compared with other data reported in the literature.

Avaliaçäo prosprectiva de diferentes índices de risco cardíaco para pacientes submetidos a cirurgias näo-cardíacas / Prospective assessment of different indices of cardiac risk for patients undergoing noncardiac surgeries

OBJECTIVE: To compare the accuracy of 4 different indices of cardiac risk currently used for predicting perioperative cardiac complications. METHODS: We studied 119 patients at a university-affiliated hospital whose cardiac assessment had been required for noncardiac surgery. Predictive factors of high risk for perioperative cardiac complications were assessed through clinical history and physical examination, and the patients were followed up after surgery until the 4th postoperative day to assess the occurrence of cardiac events. All patients were classified according to 4 indices of cardiac risk: the Goldman risk-factor index, Detsky modified risk index, Larsen index, and the American Society of Anesthesiologists' physical status classification and their compared accuracies, examining the areas under their respective receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. RESULTS: Cardiac complications occurred in 16 percent of the patients. The areas under the ROC curves were equal for the Goldman risk-factor index, the Larsen index, and the American Society of Anesthesiologists' physical status classification: 0.48 (SEM ± 0.03). For the Detsky index, the value found was 0.38 (SEM ± 0.03). This difference in the values was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: The cardiac risk indices currently used did not show a better accuracy than that obtained randomly. None of the indices proved to be significantly better than the others. Studies to improve our ability to predict such complications are still required