ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the percentage of patients with high and very high cardiovascular risk, with their risk factors globally well controlled (hypertension, dyslipemia, diabetes mellitus, tobacco and obesity). PATIENTS AND METHOD: Transversal study of ambulatory patients of internal medicine with an estimated cardiovascular risk high or very high (Framingham stratification scale over 20% in ten years). We evaluated the degree of control of their cardiovascular risk factors attending to the recommendations provided by recent international guidelines (WHO/ISH, JNC-VI, NCEP-ATP-III, ADA). RESULTS: We studied 2,264 patients (53.7% males; mean age: 66.1 +/- 11.5 years; 74.6% hypertensive, 61.1% dyslipidemic, 59.8% type 2 diabetes, 31.1% smokers, 38.0% obese and 36.7% in secondary prevention). Control of hypertension was achieved in 34.5%, dyslipidemia in 50.3% and diabetes in 35.5%. Global control of every risk factor was achieved in 6.9% (in 10.2% if we exclude obesity since it is not a risk factor used for cardiovascular stratification). Factors independently associated with a bad integral control were: diabetes (OR = 0.33; 95%CI: 0.23-0.47), dyslipidemia (OR = 0.34; 95%CI: 0.24-0.48), proteinuria (OR = 0.36; 95%CI: 0.18-0.71). Factors independently associated with a better cardiovascular control were: male sex (OR = 1.67; 95%CI: 1.18-2.38), ventricular hypertrophy (OR = 1.62; 95%CI: 1.15-2.30) and the number of exploratory tests (OR = 1.01; 95%CI: 1.01-1.08). CONCLUSIONS: Only 6.9% of patients with a high or very high cardiovascular risk have all their principal risk factors under control. The presence of diabetes, dyslipidemia or proteinuria predisposed to a worse control and the number of complementary tests performed to the patients was related to a better control.
Subject(s)
Cardiovascular Diseases/epidemiology , Aged , Cardiovascular Diseases/prevention & control , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Male , Risk Factors , SpainABSTRACT
FUNDAMENTO Y OBJETIVO: El objetivo del presente estudio es determinar el porcentaje de pacientes con alto riesgo cardiovascular que tienen controlados de forma global todos sus factores de riesgo mayores (hipertensión arterial, hipercolesterolemia, diabetes mellitus, tabaco y obesidad). PACIENTES Y MÉTODO: Estudio transversal sobre pacientes ambulatorios de medicina interna, mayores de 18 años y con riesgo cardiovascular alto o muy alto (según la escala de Framingham, superior al 20% a los 10 años). Se evaluó el grado de control de los factores de riesgo cardiovascular (hipertensión arterial, diabetes mellitus, colesterol unido a lipoproteínas de baja densidad, tabaquismo y obesidad) según las definiciones de control de la Organización Mundial de la Salud/Sociedad Internacional de Hipertensión, Joint National Committee VI, National Cholesterol Education Program-Adult Treatment Panel III y American Diabetes Association. RESULTADOS: Se estudió a 2.264 pacientes (el 53,7% eran varones), con una edad media (desviación estándar) de 66,1 (11,5) años. El 74,6% eran hipertensos; el 61,1%, dislipémicos; el 59,8%, diabéticostipo 2; el 31,1%, fumadores; el 38%, obesos, y el 36,7% se hallaba en prevención secundaria. El control de la hipertensión arterial fue del 34,5%; el de la dislipemia, del 50,3%; y el de la diabetes mellitus, del 35,5%. El control de todos los factores de riesgo de forma global fue del 6,9% (y del 10,2% si se excluye la obesidad). Los factores relacionados de forma independiente con un mal control integral fueron la diabetes mellitus (odds ratio [OR] = 0,33; intervalo de confianza [IC] del 95%,0,23-0,47), la dislipemia (OR = 0,34; IC del 95%, 0,24-0,48) y la existencia de proteinuria (OR =0,36; IC del 95%, 0,18-0,71); se relacionaron con un mejor control integral el sexo varón (OR =1,67; IC del 95%, 1,18-2,38), la hipertrofia ventricular izquierda (OR = 1,62; IC del 95%, 1,15-2,30) y la realización de pruebas complementarias (OR = 1,01; IC del 95%, 1,01-1,08). CONCLUSIONES: Solamente el 6,9% de los pacientes de alto o muy alto riesgo cardiovascular tienen controladoslos 5 principales factores de riesgo mayores. La existencia de diabetes mellitus, dislipemia o proteinuria predisponen a un mal control integral de dichos factores, mientras que el número de exploraciones complementarias realizadas se asocia con un mejor control
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the percentage of patients with high and very high cardiovascular risk, with their risk factors globally well controlled (hypertension,dyslipemia, diabetes mellitus, tobacco and obesity). PATIENTS AND METHOD: Transversal study of ambulatory patients of internal medicine with an estimated cardiovascular risk high or very high (Framingham stratification scale over 20% in ten years). We evaluated the degree of control of their cardiovascular risk factors attending to the recommendations provided by recent international guidelines (WHO/ISH, JNC-VI, NCEP-ATP-III, ADA). RESULTS: We studied 2,264 patients (53.7% males; mean age: 66.1 ± 11.5 years; 74.6% hypertensive, 61.1% dyslipidemic, 59.8% type 2 diabetes, 31.1% smokers, 38.0% obese and 36.7%in secondary prevention). Control of hypertension was achieved in 34.5%, dyslipidemia in 50.3% and diabetes in 35.5%. Global control of every risk factor was achieved in 6.9% (in 10.2% if we exclude obesity since it is not a risk factor used for cardiovascular stratification). Factors independently associated with a bad integral control were: diabetes (OR = 0.33; 95%CI: 0.23-0.47), dyslipidemia(OR = 0.34; 95%CI: 0.24-0.48), proteinuria (OR = 0.36; 95%CI: 0.18-0.71). Factors independently associated with a better cardiovascular control were: male sex (OR = 1.67; 95%CI: 1.18-2.38),ventricular hypertrophy (OR = 1.62; 95%CI: 1.15-2.30) and the number of exploratory tests (OR =1.01; 95%CI: 1.01-1.08).CONCLUSIONS: Only 6.9% of patients with a high or very high cardiovascular risk have all their principal risk factors under control. The presence of diabetes, dyslipidemia or proteinuria predisposed to a worse control and the number of complementary tests performed to the patients was related to a better control
