ABSTRACT
Cardiovascular diseases remain the first cause of mortality in our country. They are associated with well known risk factors such as diabetes and dyslipidemia. Herein we summarize main results of the CoLaus study regarding, first the prevalence and characteristics of the treatment of these risk factors. Then we present recent discoveries of new genetic determinants associated with these risk factors. Finally, we discuss whether this knowledge changes our current clinical management of our patients.
Subject(s)
Cardiovascular Diseases/etiology , Cardiovascular Diseases/prevention & control , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/complications , Dyslipidemias/complications , Adult , Aged , Cardiovascular Diseases/epidemiology , Cardiovascular Diseases/genetics , Cohort Studies , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/drug therapy , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/epidemiology , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/genetics , Dyslipidemias/drug therapy , Dyslipidemias/epidemiology , Dyslipidemias/genetics , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Prevalence , Risk Factors , Switzerland/epidemiologyABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: No gold standard exists for nutritional screening/assessment. This cross-sectional study aimed to collect/use a comprehensive set of clinical, anthropometric, functional data, explore interrelations, and derive a feasible/sensitive/specific method to assess nutritional risk and status in hospital practice. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 100 surgical patients were evaluated, 49M:51F, 55 +/- 18.9 (18-88) years. Nutritional risk assessment: Kondrup's Nutritional Risk Assessment, BAPEN's Malnutrition Screening Tool, Nutrition Screening Initiative, Admission Nutritional Screening Tool. Nutritional status: anthropometry categorised by Body Mass Index and McWhirter & Pennington criteria, recent weight loss > 10%, dynamometry, Subjective Global Assessment. RESULTS: There was a strong agreement between all nutritional risk (k = 0.69-0.89, p < 0.05) and between all nutritional assessment methods (k = 0.51-0.88, p < or = 0.05) except for dynamometry. Weight loss > 10% was the only method that agreed with all tools (k = 0.86-0.94, p < or = 0.05), and was thereafter used as the standard. Kondrup's Nutritional Risk Assessment and Admission Nutritional Screening Tool were unspecific but highly sensitive (> or = 95%). Subjective Global Assessment was highly sensitive (100%) and specific (69%), and was the only method with a significant Youden value (0.7). CONCLUSIONS: Kondrup's Nutritional Risk Assessment and Admission Nutritional Screening Tool emerged as sensitive screening methods; the former is simpler to use, Kondrup's Nutritional Risk Assessment has been devised to direct nutritional intervention. Recent unintentional weight loss > 10% is a simple method whereas Subjective Global Assessment identified high-risk/undernourished patients.
