High-intensity exercise to improve cardiorespiratory fitness in cancer patients and survivors: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Improving cardiorespiratory fitness (CRFit) in cancer patients is crucial to increase survivorship, promote health, and improve quality of life. High-intensity training (HIT) has the potential to increase CRFit, perhaps better than other exercise modalities, but the extant evidence has yet to be fully explored. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effects of HIT on CRFit in cancer patients and survivors and to identify the optimal characteristics of the interventions (eg, cancer type, intervention timing, exercise modality, intervention's duration, and the number of minutes of high-intensity exercise in each session). The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. A total of 31 articles (2515 participants) were included in the systematic review and 25 in the meta-analyses. CRFit significantly improved with HIT in comparison with a control group (P < .00001, SMD = 0.44 and a 95% confidence interval from 0.25 to 0.64). The results obtained in the sub-analysis were statistically significant except the comparison with the active group CRFit (P = .13). The results showed that higher effects could be achieved in: patients starting to exercise before treatment, interventions longer than eight weeks, programs including exclusively cardiovascular training and with a high-intensity part of session duration of at least 20 minutes.

El cuestionamiento como herramienta fundamental para el desarrolo de la toma de decisiones de los alumnos en educación física / Questioning as a fundamental tool for physical education students to develop decision-making skills / O questionamento como ferramenta fundamental para o desenvolvimento da tomada de decisão de estudantes em educação física

El objetivo del presente estudio fue analizar el efecto de un programa de enseñanza comprensiva, basado en el cuestionamiento, sobre la toma de decisiones en las habilidades del pase y del lanzamiento, en una unidad didáctica de baloncesto en Educación Primaria. Participaron 37 alumnos de 6º de Primaria con edades comprendidas entre los 11 y 12 años. La variable independiente fue el programa de intervención, basado en el modelo Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU). La variable de toma de decisiones fue evaluada a través de la observación sistemática. Los resultados obtenidos mostraron que, tras la intervención, los alumnos que recibieron el cuestionamiento durante el desarrollo de las actividades formativas mejoraron su toma de decisiones en comparación con los alumnos que no lo recibieron. Estos resultados manifiestan la necesidad de incluir este modelo pedagógico en las programaciones docentes en los niveles superiores de la etapa de Primaria

O principal objetivo do estudo foi analisar o efeito de um programa de ensino centrado na compreensão, baseado no questionamento, na tomada de decisões nas ações de passe e do lançamento, numa unidade didática de basquetebol no ensino fundamental. Participaram 37 alunos com idades compreendidas entre 11 e 12 anos. A variável independente foi o programa de intervenção baseado no modelo Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU). A variável dependente de tomada de decisão foi avaliada através da observação sistemática. Os resultados mostraram que, após a intervenção, os alunos que receberam o questionamento durante o desenvolvimento das atividades de treino melhoraram sua tomada de decisão em relação aos alunos que não o receberam. Esses resultados mostram a necessidade de incluir esse modelo pedagógico nos programas de ensino nos níveis superiores do ensino fundamental

The main purpose of this study was to analyze the effect of a comprehensive questioning-based teaching program about decision-making on passing and throwing abilities in a Primary Education teaching unit focused on basketball. Thirty-seven students aged 11-12 participated in the study. The independent variable was the intervention program based on the Teaching Games for Understanding (TGfU). The decision-making variable was assessed by systematic observation. The results obtained showed that, after the intervention, the students who received the questioning when developing training activities improved their decision-making compared to those who did not. These results show the need to include this pedagogical model in teaching programs at the higher levels of Primary Education

Developing sport expertise in youth sport: a decision training program in basketball.

BACKGROUND: This study has analyzed the impact of applying a decision training program, in which video-feedback and questioning were used, on the development of decision-making, skill execution and procedural knowledge in basketball players. METHODS: Participants were eleven male players aged between 12 and 13 years old (M age = 12.75, SD age = .65), who were assigned to an experimental or control group within a pre-test/intervention test/retention test quasi-experimental design. The decision training program was applied over 11 weeks. Throughout this intervention, players had to analyze the causes and reasons for the decision made, using video feedback and questioning to this end. Decision-making and skill execution variables were analyzed using the French & Thomas (1987) observation instrument, while a validated questionnaire was used to assess procedural knowledge in basketball. RESULTS: The results reported that sport expertise improved in players from the experimental group, who had significantly higher intervention test scores for successful decisions and skill executions when compared to players in the control group. In the intra-group analysis, the experimental group significantly improved in the intervention test compared to the pre-test, in terms of some of the variables of decision-making, skill execution and procedural knowledge. DISCUSSION: These results reinforce the idea of including cognitive tools in training, such as video-feedback and questioning, to improve sport expertise in players' formative stages, and presumably to improve their performance whilst maintaining decision training throughout time.

Recomendaciones preventivas cardiovasculares. Actualización PAPPS 2018 / No disponible

No disponible

Barreras percibidas para la práctica de actividad física en estudiantes universitarios. Diferencias por género y niveles de actividad física / Perceived barriers to Physical Activity in University Students. Differences in Gender and Physical Activity Levels

Resumen La etapa universitaria supone un momento sensible respecto a la realización de práctica de actividad física (AF), especialmente en las mujeres. El objetivo principal de este estudio fue identificar la prevalencia de barreras de práctica de AF, y analizar las posibles diferencias en función del género y el cumplimiento de las recomendaciones de práctica de AF para adultos, establecidas por la Organización Mundial de la Salud (2010). Participaron 901 estudiantes universitarios (M = 22.59; DT = 3.59) que cumplimentaron el IPAQ-SF y la Escala de Percepción de Barreras. Entre los resultados destaca que las barreras relativas a la falta de tiempo obtuvieron los valores más altos entre la población universitaria. El MANOVA realizado mostró que los estudiantes que no cumplían las recomendaciones de práctica de AF percibían valores superiores en la mayoría de barreras de práctica de AF que aquellos estudiantes que sí cumplían las recomendaciones. De igual modo, las mujeres que cumplían las recomendaciones de AF presentaron valores superiores en todas las barreras analizadas, que los hombres que cumplían dichas recomendaciones. En esta misma línea, las mujeres que no cumplían las recomendaciones de AF presentaron valores superiores en las barreras referentes al tiempo y a la capacidad de disfrute que los hombres que no cumplían dichas recomendaciones. A raíz de la alta prevalencia de percepción de barreras, especialmente en las mujeres, se destaca la importancia de desarrollar programas de intervención y políticas que puedan suponer una mayor adherencia a la práctica de AF, asentando unos hábitos más activos en la población universitaria.

Abstract University stage is a sensitive moment about doing physical activity (PA), especially in women. The main objective of this study was to identify the barriers to PA in university students and analyze possible differences in gender and compliance with PA guidelines established in adults by World Health Organization (2010). 901 students (M = 22.59; SD = 3.59) completed the IPAQ-SF and the Scale of Perceived Barriers. Among the results, the barriers related to lack of time obtained the highest values among the university population. The MANOVA showed that students who failing to meet PA guidelines perceived higher values ​​in most analyzed barriers than the students who meet PA guidelines. Likewise, women who met the PA guidelines presented higher values in all the barriers analyzed than the men who met the PA guidelines. In addition, women who failing to meet PA guidelines presented higher values in the barriers related to time and disliking of PA than the men who failing to meet PA guidelines. In summary, this study showed a high prevalencia of barriers in university students, especially in women. The results highlight the importance of developing health policies and PA interventions targeting university students.

Adaptación española de las guías europeas de 2016 sobre prevención de la enfermedad cardiovascular en la práctica clínica / Spanish adaptation of the 2016 European Guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice

Las VI Guías Europeas de Prevención Cardiovascular recomiendan combinar las estrategias poblacional y de alto riesgo, con los cambios de estilo de vida como piedra angular de la prevención, y proponen la función SCORE para cuantificar el riesgo cardiovascular. Esta guía hace más hincapié en las intervenciones específicas de las enfermedades y las condiciones propias de las mujeres, las personas jóvenes y las minorías étnicas. No se recomienda el cribado de aterosclerosis subclínica con técnicas de imagen no invasivas. La guía establece cuatro niveles de riesgo (muy alto, alto, moderado y bajo), con objetivos terapéuticos de control lipídico según el riesgo. La diabetes mellitus confiere un riesgo alto, excepto en sujetos con diabetes tipo 2 con menos de 10 años de evolución, sin otros factores de riesgo ni complicaciones, o con diabetes tipo 1 de corta evolución sin complicaciones. La decisión de iniciar el tratamiento farmacológico de la hipertensión arterial dependerá del nivel de presión arterial y del riesgo cardiovascular, teniendo en cuenta la lesión de órganos diana. Siguen sin recomendarse los fármacos antiplaquetarios en prevención primaria por el riesgo de sangrado. La baja adherencia al tratamiento exige simplificar el régimen terapéutico e identificar y combatir sus causas. La guía destaca que los profesionales de la salud pueden ejercer un papel importante en la promoción de intervenciones poblacionales y propone medidas eficaces, tanto a nivel individual como poblacional, para promover una dieta saludable, la práctica de actividad física, el abandono del tabaquismo y la protección contra el abuso de alcohol (AU)

The VI European Guidelines for Cardiovascular Prevention recommend combining population and high-risk strategies with lifestyle changes as a cornerstone of prevention, and propose the SCORE function to quantify cardiovascular risk. The guidelines highlight disease specific interventions, and conditions as women, young people and ethnic minorities. Screening for subclinical atherosclerosis with noninvasive imaging techniques is not recommended. The guidelines distinguish four risk levels (very high, high, moderate and low) with therapeutic objectives for lipid control according to risk. Diabetes mellitus confers a high risk, except for subjects with type 2 diabetes with less than <10 years of evolution, without other risk factors or complications, or type 1 diabetes of short evolution without complications. The decision to start pharmacological treatment of arterial hypertension will depend on the blood pressure level and the cardiovascular risk, taking into account the lesion of target organs. The guidelines don’t recommend antiplatelet drugs in primary prevention because of the increased bleeding risk. The low adherence to the medication requires simplified therapeutic regimes and to identify and combat its causes. The guidelines highlight the responsibility of health professionals to take an active role in advocating evidence-based interventions at the population level, and propose effective interventions, at individual and population level, to promote a healthy diet, the practice of physical activity, the cessation of smoking and the protection against alcohol abuse (AU)

Adaptación española de las guías europeas de 2016 sobre prevención de la enfermedad cardiovascular en la práctica clínica / Spanish adaptation of the 2016 European Guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice

Las VI Guías Europeas de Prevención Cardiovascular recomiendan combinar las estrategias poblacional y de alto riesgo, con los cambios de estilo de vida como piedra angular de la prevención, y proponen la función SCORE para cuantificar el riesgo cardiovascular. Esta guía hace más hincapié en las intervenciones específicas de las enfermedades y las condiciones propias de las mujeres, las personas jóvenes y las minorías étnicas. No se recomienda el cribado de aterosclerosis subclínica con técnicas de imagen no invasivas. La guía establece cuatro niveles de riesgo (muy alto, alto, moderado y bajo), con objetivos terapéuticos de control lipídico según el riesgo. La diabetes mellitus confiere un riesgo alto, excepto en sujetos con diabetes tipo 2 con menos de 10 años de evolución, sin otros factores de riesgo ni complicaciones, o con diabetes tipo 1 de corta evolución sin complicaciones. La decisión de iniciar el tratamiento farmacológico de la hipertensión arterial dependerá del nivel de presión arterial y del riesgo cardiovascular, teniendo en cuenta la lesión de órganos diana. Siguen sin recomendarse los fármacos antiplaquetarios en prevención primaria por el riesgo de sangrado. La baja adherencia al tratamiento exige simplificar el régimen terapéutico e identificar y combatir sus causas. La guía destaca que los profesionales de la salud pueden ejercer un papel importante en la promoción de intervenciones poblacionales y propone medidas eficaces, tanto a nivel individual como poblacional, para promover una dieta saludable, la práctica de actividad física, el abandono del tabaquismo y la protección contra el abuso de alcohol (AU)

The VI European Guidelines for Cardiovascular Prevention recommend combining population and high-risk strategies with lifestyle changes as a cornerstone of prevention, and propose the SCORE function to quantify cardiovascular risk. The guidelines highlight disease specific interventions, and conditions as women, young people and ethnic minorities. Screening for subclinical atherosclerosis with noninvasive imaging techniques is not recommended. The guidelines distinguish four risk levels (very high, high, moderate and low) with therapeutic objectives for lipid control according to risk. Diabetes mellitus confers a high risk, except for subjects with type 2 diabetes with less than <10 years of evolution, without other risk factors or complications, or type 1 diabetes of short evolution without complications. The decision to start pharmacological treatment of arterial hypertension will depend on the blood pressure level and the cardiovascular risk, taking into account the lesion of target organs. The guidelines don’t recommend antiplatelet drugs in primary prevention because of the increased bleeding risk. The low adherence to the medication requires simplified therapeutic regimes and to identify and combat its causes. The guidelines highlight the responsibility of health professionals to take an active role in advocating evidence-based interventions at the population level, and propose effective interventions, at individual and population level, to promote a healthy diet, the practice of physical activity, the cessation of smoking and the protection against alcohol abuse (AU)

[Spanish adaptation of the 2016 European Guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice]. / Adaptación española de las guías europeas de 2016 sobre prevención de la enfermedad cardiovascular en la práctica clínica.

The VI European Guidelines for Cardiovascular Prevention recommend combining population and high-risk strategies with lifestyle changes as a cornerstone of prevention, and propose the SCORE function to quantify cardiovascular risk. The guidelines highlight disease specific interventions, and conditions as women, young people and ethnic minorities. Screening for subclinical atherosclerosis with noninvasive imaging techniques is not recommended. The guidelines distinguish four risk levels (very high, high, moderate and low) with therapeutic objectives for lipid control according to risk. Diabetes mellitus confers a high risk, except for subjects with type 2 diabetes with less than <10 years of evolution, without other risk factors or complications, or type 1 diabetes of short evolution without complications. The decision to start pharmacological treatment of arterial hypertension will depend on the blood pressure level and the cardiovascular risk, taking into account the lesion of target organs. The guidelines don't recommend antiplatelet drugs in primary prevention because of the increased bleeding risk. The low adherence to the medication requires simplified therapeutic regimes and to identify and combat its causes. The guidelines highlight the responsibility of health professionals to take an active role in advocating evidence-based interventions at the population level, and propose effective interventions, at individual and population level, to promote a healthy diet, the practice of physical activity, the cessation of smoking and the protection against alcohol abuse.

[Spanish adaptation of the 2016 European Guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice]. / Adaptación española de las guías europeas de 2016 sobre prevención de la enfermedad cardiovascular en la práctica clínica.

The VI European Guidelines for Cardiovascular Prevention recommend combining population and high-risk strategies with lifestyle changes as a cornerstone of prevention, and propose the SCORE function to quantify cardiovascular risk. The guidelines highlight disease specific interventions, and conditions as women, young people and ethnic minorities. Screening for subclinical atherosclerosis with noninvasive imaging techniques is not recommended. The guidelines distinguish four risk levels (very high, high, moderate and low) with therapeutic objectives for lipid control according to risk. Diabetes mellitus confers a high risk, except for subjects with type 2 diabetes with less than <10 years of evolution, without other risk factors or complications, or type 1 diabetes of short evolution without complications. The decision to start pharmacological treatment of arterial hypertension will depend on the blood pressure level and the cardiovascular risk, taking into account the lesion of target organs. The guidelines don't recommend antiplatelet drugs in primary prevention because of the increased bleeding risk. The low adherence to the medication requires simplified therapeutic regimes and to identify and combat its causes. The guidelines highlight the responsibility of health professionals to take an active role in advocating evidence-based interventions at the population level, and propose effective interventions, at individual and population level, to promote a healthy diet, the practice of physical activity, the cessation of smoking and the protection against alcohol abuse.

[Spanish Adaptation of the 2016 European Guidelines on Cardiovascular Disease Prevention in Clinical Practice]. / Adaptación española de las guías europeas de 2016 sobre prevención de la enfermedad cardiovascular en la práctica clínica.

The VI European Guidelines for Cardiovascular Prevention recommend combining population and high-risk strategies with lifestyle changes as a cornerstone of prevention, and propose the SCORE function to quantify cardiovascular risk. The guidelines highlight disease specific interventions, and conditions as women, young people and ethnic minorities. Screening for subclinical atherosclerosis with noninvasive imaging techniques is not recommended. The guidelines distinguish four risk levels (very high, high, moderate and low) with therapeutic objectives for lipid control according to risk. Diabetes mellitus confers a high risk, except for subjects with type 2 diabetes with less than 10 years of evolution, without other risk factors or complications, or type 1 diabetes of short evolution without complications. The decision to start pharmacological treatment of arterial hypertension will depend on the blood pressure level and the cardiovascular risk, taking into account the lesion of target organs. The guidelines don't recommend antiplatelet drugs in primary prevention because of the increased bleeding risk. The low adherence to the medication requires simplified therapeutic regimes and to identify and combat its causes. The guidelines highlight the responsibility of health professionals to take an active role in advocating evidence-based interventions at the population level, and propose effective interventions, at individual and population level, to promote a healthy diet, the practice of physical activity, the cessation of smoking and the protection against alcohol abuse.

Recomendaciones preventivas cardiovasculares. PAPPS 2016 / No disponible

No disponible

Adaptación española de las Guías Europeas de 2016 sobre prevención de la enfermedad cardiovascular en la práctica clínica / Spanish adaptation of the 2016 European Guidelines on cardiovascular disease revention in clinical practice

Las VI Guías Europeas de Prevención Cardiovascular recomiendan combinar las estrategias poblacionales y de alto riesgo, con los cambios de estilo de vida como piedra angular de la prevención, y proponen la función SCORE para cuantificar el riesgo cardiovascular. Esta guía hace más hincapié en las intervenciones específicas de las enfermedades y las condiciones propias de las mujeres, las personas jóvenes y las minorías étnicas. No se recomienda el cribado de aterosclerosis subclínica con técnicas de imagen no invasivas. La guía establece cuatro niveles de riesgo (muy alto, alto, moderado y bajo), con objetivos terapéuticos de control lipídico según el riesgo. La diabetes mellitus confiere un riesgo alto, excepto en sujetos con diabetes tipo 2 con menos de 10 años de evolución, sin otros factores de riesgo ni complicaciones, o con diabetes tipo 1 de corta evolución sin complicaciones. La decisión de iniciar el tratamiento farmacológico de la hipertensión arterial dependerá del nivel de presión arterial y del riesgo cardiovascular, teniendo en cuenta la lesión de órganos diana. Siguen sin recomendarse los fármacos antiplaquetarios en prevención primaria por el riesgo de sangrado. La baja adherencia al tratamiento exige simplificar el régimen terapéutico e identificar y combatir sus causas. La guía destaca que los profesionales de la salud pueden ejercer un papel importante en la promoción de intervenciones poblacionales y propone medidas eficaces, tanto a nivel individual como poblacional, para promover una dieta saludable, la práctica de actividad física, el abandono del tabaquismo y la protección contra el abuso de alcohol (AU)

The VI European Guidelines for Cardiovascular Prevention recommend combining population and high-risk strategies with lifestyle changes as a cornerstone of prevention, and propose the SCORE function to quantify cardiovascular risk. The guidelines highlight disease specific interventions, and conditions as women, young people and ethnic minorities. Screening for subclinical atherosclerosis with noninvasive imaging techniques is not recommended. The guidelines distinguish four risk levels (very high, high, moderate and low) with therapeutic objectives for lipid control according to risk. Diabetes mellitus confers a high risk, except for subjects with type 2 diabetes with less than 10 years of evolution, without other risk factors or complications, or type 1 diabetes of short evolution without complications. The decision to start pharmacological treatment of arterial hypertension will depend on the blood pressure level and the cardiovascular risk, taking into account the lesion of target organs. The guidelines don’t recommend antiplatelet drugs in primary prevention because of the increased bleeding risk. The low adherence to the medication requires simplified therapeutic regimes and to identify and combat its causes. The guidelines highlight the responsibility of health professionals to take an active role in advocating evidence-based interventions at the population level, and propose effective interventions, at individual and population level, to promote a healthy diet, the practice of physical activity, the cessation of smoking and the protection against alcohol abuse (AU)

Posicionamiento del Comité Español Interdisciplinario de Prevención Cardiovascular y la Sociedad Española de Cardiología en el tratamiento de las dislipemias. Divergencia entre las guías europea y estadounidense / Spanish Interdisciplinary Committee for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention and the Spanish Society of Cardiology Position Statement on Dyslipidemia Management. Differences Between the European and American Guidelines

La publicación en Estados Unidos de la guía de 2013 de American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association para el tratamiento del colesterol elevado ha tenido gran impacto por el cambio de paradigma que supone. El Comité Español Interdisciplinario de Prevención Cardiovascular y la Sociedad Española de Cardiología han revisado esa guía, en comparación con la vigente guía europea de prevención cardiovascular y de dislipemias. El aspecto más destacable de la guía estadounidense es el abandono de los objetivos de colesterol unido a lipoproteínas de baja densidad, de modo que proponen el tratamiento con estatinas en cuatro grupos de riesgo aumentado. En pacientes con enfermedad cardiovascular establecida, ambas guías conducen a una estrategia terapéutica similar (estatinas potentes, dosis altas). Sin embargo, en prevención primaria, la aplicación de la guía estadounidense supondría tratar con estatinas a un número de personas excesivo, particularmente de edades avanzadas. Abandonar la estrategia según objetivos de colesterol, fuertemente arraigada en la comunidad científica, podría tener un impacto negativo en la práctica clínica y crear cierta confusión e inseguridad entre los profesionales y quizá menos seguimiento y adherencia de los pacientes. Por todo ello, el presente documento reafirma las recomendaciones de la guía europea. Ambas guías tienen aspectos positivos pero, en general y mientras no se resuelvan las dudas planteadas, la guía europea, además de utilizar tablas basadas en la población autóctona, ofrece mensajes más apropiados para el entorno español y previene del posible riesgo de sobretratamiento con estatinas en prevención primaria

The publication of the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines on the treatment of high blood cholesterol has had a strong impact due to the paradigm shift in its recommendations. The Spanish Interdisciplinary Committee for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention and the Spanish Society of Cardiology reviewed this guideline and compared it with current European guidelines on cardiovascular prevention and dyslipidemia management. The most striking aspect of the American guideline is the elimination of the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol treat-to-target strategy and the adoption of a risk reduction strategy in 4 major statin benefit groups. In patients with established cardiovascular disease, both guidelines recommend a similar therapeutic strategy (high-dose potent statins). However, in primary prevention, the application of the American guidelines would substantially increase the number of persons, particularly older people, receiving statin therapy. The elimination of the cholesterol treat-to-target strategy, so strongly rooted in the scientific community, could have a negative impact on clinical practice, create a certain amount of confusion and uncertainty among professionals, and decrease follow-up and patient adherence. Thus, this article reaffirms the recommendations of the European guidelines. Although both guidelines have positive aspects, doubt remains regarding the concerns outlined above. In addition to using risk charts based on the native population, the messages of the European guideline are more appropriate to the Spanish setting and avoid the possible risk of overtreatment with statins in primary prevention

[Spanish Interdisciplinary Committee for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention and the Spanish Society of Cardiology Position Statement on Dyslipidemia Management. Differences Between the European and American Guidelines]. / Posicionamiento del Comité Español Interdisciplinario de Prevención Cardiovascular y la Sociedad Española de Cardiología en el tratamiento de las dislipemias. Divergencia entre las guías europea y estadounidense.

The publication of the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines on the treatment of high blood cholesterol has had a strong impact due to the paradigm shift in its recommendations. The Spanish Interdisciplinary Committee for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention and the Spanish Society of Cardiology reviewed this guideline and compared it with current European guidelines on cardiovascular prevention and dyslipidemia management. The most striking aspect of the American guideline is the elimination of the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol treat-to-target strategy and the adoption of a risk reduction strategy in 4 major statin benefit groups. In patients with established cardiovascular disease, both guidelines recommend a similar therapeutic strategy (high-dose potent statins). However, in primary prevention, the application of the American guidelines would substantially increase the number of persons, particularly older people, receiving statin therapy. The elimination of the cholesterol treat-to-target strategy, so strongly rooted in the scientific community, could have a negative impact on clinical practice, create a certain amount of confusion and uncertainty among professionals, and decrease follow-up and patient adherence. Thus, this article reaffirms the recommendations of the European guidelines. Although both guidelines have positive aspects, doubt remains regarding the concerns outlined above. In addition to using risk charts based on the native population, the messages of the European guideline are more appropriate to the Spanish setting and avoid the possible risk of overtreatment with statins in primary prevention.

Posicionamiento del Comité Español Interdisciplinario de Prevención Cardiovascular y la Sociedad Española de Cardiología en el tratamiento de las dislipemias. Divergencia entre las guías europea y estadounidense / Spanish Interdisciplinary Committee for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention and the Spanish Society of Cardiology Position Statement on Dyslipidemia Management. Differences Between the European and American Guidelines

La publicación en Estados Unidos de la guía de 2013 de American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association para el tratamiento del colesterol elevado ha tenido gran impacto por el cambio de paradigma que supone. El Comité Español Interdisciplinario de Prevención Cardiovascular y la Sociedad Española de Cardiología han revisado esa guía, en comparación con la vigente guía europea de prevención cardiovascular y de dislipemias.El aspecto más destacable de la guía estadounidense es el abandono de los objetivos de colesterol unido a lipoproteínas de baja densidad, de modo que proponen el tratamiento con estatinas en cuatro grupos de riesgo aumentado. En pacientes con enfermedad cardiovascular establecida, ambas guías conducen a una estrategia terapéutica similar (estatinas potentes, dosis altas). Sin embargo, en prevención primaria, la aplicación de la guía estadounidense supondría tratar con estatinas a un número de personas excesivo, particularmente de edades avanzadas. Abandonar la estrategia según objetivos de colesterol, fuertemente arraigada en la comunidad científica, podría tener un impacto negativo en la práctica clínica y crear cierta confusión e inseguridad entre los profesionales y quizá menos seguimiento y adherencia de los pacientes. Por todo ello, el presente documento reafirma las recomendaciones de la guía europea. Ambas guías tienen aspectos positivos pero, en general y mientras no se resuelvan las dudas planteadas, la guía europea, además de utilizar tablas basadas en la población autóctona, ofrece mensajes más apropiados para el entorno español y previene del posible riesgo de sobretratamiento con estatinas en prevención primaria

The publication of the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines on the treatment of high blood cholesterol has had a strong impact due to the paradigm shift in its recommendations. The Spanish Interdisciplinary Committee for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention and the Spanish Society of Cardiology reviewed this guideline and compared it with current European guidelines on cardiovascular prevention and dyslipidemia management. The most striking aspect of the American guideline is the elimination of the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol treat-to-target strategy and the adoption of a risk reduction strategy in 4 major statin benefit groups. In patients with established cardiovascular disease, both guidelines recommend a similar therapeutic strategy (high-dose potent statins). However, in primary prevention, the application of the American guidelines would substantially increase the number of persons, particularly older people, receiving statin therapy. The elimination of the cholesterol treat-to-target strategy, so strongly rooted in the scientific community, could have a negative impact on clinical practice, create a certain amount of confusion and uncertainty among professionals, and decrease follow-up and patient adherence. Thus, this article reaffirms the recommendations of the European guidelines. Although both guidelines have positive aspects, doubt remains regarding the concerns outlined above. In addition to using risk charts based on the native population, the messages of the European guideline are more appropriate to the Spanish setting and avoid the possible risk of overtreatment with statins in primary prevention

Spanish Interdisciplinary Committee for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention and the Spanish Society of Cardiology Position Statement on Dyslipidemia Management: differences between the European and American Guidelines.

The publication of the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines on the treatment of high blood cholesterol has had a strong impact due to the paradigm shift in its recommendations. The Spanish Interdisciplinary Committee for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention and the Spanish Society of Cardiology reviewed this guideline and compared it with current European guidelines on cardiovascular prevention and dyslipidemia management. The most striking aspect of the American guideline is the elimination of the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol treat-to-target strategy and the adoption of a risk reduction strategy in 4 major statin benefit groups. In patients with established cardiovascular disease, both guidelines recommend a similar therapeutic strategy (high-dose potent statins). However, in primary prevention, the application of the American guidelines would substantially increase the number of persons, particularly older people, receiving statin therapy. The elimination of the cholesterol treat-to-target strategy, so strongly rooted in the scientific community, could have a negative impact on clinical practice, create a certain amount of confusion and uncertainty among professionals, and decrease follow-up and patient adherence. Thus, this article reaffirms the recommendations of the European guidelines. Although both guidelines have positive aspects, doubt remains regarding the concerns outlined above. In addition to using risk charts based on the native population, the messages of the European guideline are more appropriate to the Spanish setting and avoid the possible risk of overtreatment with statins in primary prevention.

Posicionamiento del Comité Español Interdisciplinario de Prevención Cardiovascular y la Sociedad Española de Cardiología en el tratamiento de las dislipemias. Divergencia entre las guías europea y estadounidense / Spanish Interdisciplinary Committee for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention and the Spanish Society of Cardiology Position Statement on Dyslipidemia Management. Differences Between the European and American Guidelines

La publicación en Estados Unidos de la guía de 2013 de American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association para el tratamiento del colesterol elevado ha tenido gran impacto por el cambio de paradigma que supone. El Comité Español Interdisciplinario de Prevención Cardiovascular y la Sociedad Española de Cardiología han revisado esa guía, en comparación con la vigente guía europea de prevención cardiovascular y de dislipemias. El aspecto más destacable de la guía estadounidense es el abandono de los objetivos de colesterol unido a lipoproteínas de baja densidad, de modo que proponen el tratamiento con estatinas en cuatro grupos de riesgo aumentado. En pacientes con enfermedad cardiovascular establecida, ambas guías conducen a una estrategia terapéutica similar (estatinas potentes, dosis altas). Sin embargo, en prevención primaria, la aplicación de la guía estadounidense supondría tratar con estatinas a un número de personas excesivo, particularmente de edades avanzadas. Abandonar la estrategia según objetivos de colesterol, fuertemente arraigada en la comunidad científica, podría tener un impacto negativo en la práctica clínica y crear cierta confusión e inseguridad entre los profesionales y quizá menos seguimiento y adherencia de los pacientes. Por todo ello, el presente documento reafirma las recomendaciones de la guía europea. Ambas guías tienen aspectos positivos pero, en general y mientras no se resuelvan las dudas planteadas, la guía europea, además de utilizar tablas basadas en la población autóctona, ofrece mensajes más apropiados para el entorno español y previene del posible riesgo de sobretratamiento con estatinas en prevención primaria (AU)

The publication of the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines on the treatment of high blood cholesterol has had a strong impact due to the paradigm shift in its recommendations. The Spanish Interdisciplinary Committee for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention and the Spanish Society of Cardiology reviewed this guideline and compared it with current European guidelines on cardiovascular prevention and dyslipidemia management. The most striking aspect of the American guideline is the elimination of the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol treat-to-target strategy and the adoption of a risk reduction strategy in 4 major statin benefit groups. In patients with established cardiovascular disease, both guidelines recommend a similar therapeutic strategy (high-dose potent statins). However, in primary prevention, the application of the American guidelines would substantially increase the number of persons, particularly older people, receiving statin therapy. The elimination of the cholesterol treat-to-target strategy, so strongly rooted in the scientific community, could have a negative impact on clinical practice, create a certain amount of confusion and uncertainty among professionals, and decrease follow-up and patient adherence. Thus, this article reaffirms the recommendations of the European guidelines. Although both guidelines have positive aspects, doubt remains regarding the concerns outlined above. In addition to using risk charts based on the native population, the messages of the European guideline are more appropriate to the Spanish setting and avoid the possible risk of overtreatment with statins in primary prevention (AU)

Posicionamiento del Comité Español Interdisciplinario de Prevención Cardiovascular y la Sociedad Española de Cardiología en el tratamiento de las dislipemias. Divergencia entre las guías europea y estadounidense / Spanish Interdisciplinary Committee for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention and the Spanish Society of Cardiology Position Statement on Dyslipidemia Management. Differences between the European and American Guidelines

La publicación en Estados Unidos de la guía de 2013 de American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association para el tratamiento del colesterol elevado ha tenido gran impacto por el cambio de paradigma que supone. El Comité Español Interdisciplinario de Prevención Cardiovascular y la Sociedad Española de Cardiología han revisado esa guía, en comparación con la vigente guía europea de prevención cardiovascular y de dislipemias. El aspecto más destacable de la guía estadounidense es el abandono de los objetivos de colesterol unido a lipoproteínas de baja densidad, de modo que proponen el tratamiento con estatinas en cuatro grupos de riesgo aumentado. En pacientes con enfermedad cardiovascular establecida, ambas guías conducen a una estrategia terapéutica similar (estatinas potentes, dosis altas). Sin embargo, en prevención primaria, la aplicación de la guía estadounidense supondría tratar con estatinas a un número de personas excesivo, particularmente de edades avanzadas. Abandonar la estrategia según objetivos de colesterol, fuertemente arraigada en la comunidad científica, podría tener un impacto negativo en la práctica clínica y crear cierta confusión e inseguridad entre los profesionales y quizá menos seguimiento y adherencia de los pacientes. Por todo ello, el presente documento reafirma las recomendaciones de la guía europea. Ambas guías tienen aspectos positivos pero, en general y mientras no se resuelvan las dudas planteadas, la guía europea, además de utilizar tablas basadas en la población autóctona, ofrece mensajes más apropiados para el entorno español y previene del posible riesgo de sobretratamiento con estatinas en prevención primaria (AU)

The publication of the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines on the treatment of high blood cholesterol has had a strong impact due to the paradigm shift in its recommendations. The Spanish Interdisciplinary Committee for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention and the Spanish Society of Cardiology reviewed this guideline and compared it with current European guidelines on cardiovascular prevention and dyslipidemia management. The most striking aspect of the American guideline is the elimination of the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol treat-to-target strategy and the adoption of a risk reduction strategy in 4 major statin benefit groups. In patients with established cardiovascular disease, both guidelines recommend a similar therapeutic strategy (high-dose potent statins). However, in primary prevention, the application of the American guidelines would substantially increase the number of persons, particularly older people, receiving statin therapy. The elimination of the cholesterol treat-to-target strategy, so strongly rooted in the scientific community, could have a negative impact on clinical practice, create a certain amount of confusion and uncertainty among professionals, and decrease follow-up and patient adherence. Thus, this article reaffirms the recommendations of the European guidelines. Although both guidelines have positive aspects, doubt remains regarding the concerns outlined above. In addition to using risk charts based on the native population, the messages of the European guideline are more appropriate to the Spanish setting and avoid the possible risk of overtreatment with statins in primary prevention (AU)