Análisis de la calidad de vida y su relacióncon el riesgo cardiovascular en una poblaciónmediterránea con bajo riesgo / Quality of life and its relationship with cardiovascular risk in a Mediterranean population of low risk

Introducción. Analizar si hay relación entre la calidad de vida y el riesgo cardiovascular (RCV). Material y métodos. Estudio observacional, descriptivo y transversal de prevalencia. Se incluyó a 336 individuos de 40 a 65 años. Se aplicó el test SF-36 para medir la calidad de vida. El RCV se calculó mediante las tablas SCORE y de la European Society of Hypertension (ESH). Resultados. Según las tablas ESH, al analizar cada subescala del SF36, solamente se evidencia relación estadística en la subescala SF1 (función física), con una puntuación media de 71,97 ± 28,20 en los sujetos con riesgo elevado, inferior que la puntuación obtenida por el grupo de bajo riesgo (80,55 ± 23,70; p = 0,020). Según las tablas SCORE, en la subescala SF1, presentan unos valores mayores los sujetos con riesgo bajo (79,22 ± 24,18 puntos), frente a los del grupo con riesgo alto (67,97 ± 28,12; p = 0,009). La subescala SF9, “evolución de la salud”, muestra unos valores menores en los sujetos con riesgo bajo (3,18 ± 0,72 frente a 3,43 ± 0,64 puntos) que en los del grupo con riesgo alto (p = 0,032). Discusión. Hay evidencias a favor del deterioro de la calidad de vida que supone tener un mayor riesgo cardiovascular (AU)

Introduction. To analyse the relationship between the quality of life and cardiovascular risk (CVR). Material and methods. An observational, descriptive and cross-sectional prevalence study. A total of 336 subjects from 40 to 65 years were include. The SF-36 questionnaire was used to measure the quality of life. The CVR was calculated using SCORE and of European Society of Hypertension (ESH) tables. Results. Using the ESH tables to analyze each SF36 subscale, there was only evidence of a statistical association in the SF1 subscale (physical function), with an average score of 71.97 ± 28.20 in subjects with high risk, which was lower than the score for the low risk group, 80.55 ± 23.70 (p = 0.020). According tables SCORE in the subscale SF1, show values greater subjects with low risk (79.22 ± 24.18 points), compared with 67.97 ± 28.12 with high risk group (p = 0.009). The SF9 subscale, “evolution of health” shows lower values in subjects with low risk 3.18 ± 0.72 points, compared with 3.43 ± 0.64 points in the high risk group (p = 0.032). Discussion. There is evidence that a deteriorating quality of life leads to having a greater cardiovascular risk (AU)

Control del riesgo cardiovascular en pacientes con HTA y diabetes en atención primaria / Assessment of the degree of control of cardiovascular risk in patients with hypertension and diabetes in primary care

No disponible

No disponible

[Level of knowledge and action on lipaemia among Spanish primary and specialist care doctors. Press cholesterol study]. / Nivel de conocimiento y actuación sobre dislipidemias de los médicos de atención primaria y especializada españoles. Estudio Colesterol Press.

OBJECTIVES: To find the level of knowledge, the guidelines for action and the monitoring of lipaemia by Spanish primary care and specialist doctors. DESIGN AND INTERVENTION: A self-defined questionnaire of 12 items was designed. Data on the population treated and the subjective evaluation of objectives, and on the management and monitoring of lipid parameters were filled in. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1998 doctors from the whole of Spain took part; 68.8% of the doctors interviewed worked in primary health care and 30.2% in specialist centres or hospitals. RESULTS: A 91% of the doctors said they followed international consensus on monitoring lipaemia. The most commonly used objective therapeutic parameter for treating lipaemia was LDL-cholesterol (83%), followed by total cholesterol (62%), HDL-cholesterol (56%) and triglycerides (51%). If the patient's lipaemia was well controlled, then 21.8% of doctors reduced the doses of lipid-lowerers. In general terms, no great differences were appreciated between the criteria followed by PC and by specialist doctors. CONCLUSIONS: The criteria for action on lipaemia could be improved. There are no important differences of view or action in clinical and therapeutic criteria for Lipaemia cases between PC and specialist doctors.

Nivel de conocimiento y actuación sobre dislipidemias de los médicos de atención primaria y especializada españoles. Estudio Colesterol Press / Level of knowledge and action on lipaemia among spanish primary and specialist care doctors. Press Cholesterol Study

Objetivos. Determinar el nivel de conocimiento, las pautas de actuación y el control sobre las dislipidemias de los médicos de atención primaria y especializada españoles. Diseño e intervención. Se ha diseñado un cuestionario autodefinido formado por 12 ítems donde se completan datos acerca de la población tratada y la valoración subjetiva sobre los objetivos, el tratamiento y el control de los parámetros lipídicos. Emplazamiento y participantes. Ha participado un total de 1.998 médicos de todo el territorio nacional. El 68,8% de los médicos entrevistados trabaja en atención primaria de salud y el 30,2%, en centros de especialidades o en hospitales. Resultados. Globalmente, el 91% de los médicos declara seguir los consensos internacionales sobre el control de las dislipidemias. El parámetro objetivo terapéutico para tratar las dislipidemias más utilizado es el colesterol unido a lipoproteínas de baja densidad (cLDL) (83%), seguido del colesterol total (62%), el colesterol unido a lipoproteínas de alta densidad (cHDL) (56%) y los triglicéridos (51%). Ante un paciente bien controlado, el 21,8% de los facultativos reduce la dosis del hipolipidemiante. En líneas generales, no se aprecian grandes diferencias entre los criterios que siguen los médicos de atención primaria y los de atención especializada. Conclusiones. Los criterios de actuación ante las dislipidemias son mejorables. No hay diferencias importantes en las opiniones y actuación entre médicos de atención primaria y especialistas en los criterios clínicos y terapéuticos ante las dislipidemias

Objectives. To find the level of knowledge, the guidelines for action and the monitoring of lipaemia by Spanish primary care and specialist doctors. Design and intervention. A self-defined questionnaire of 12 items was designed. Data on the population treated and the subjective evaluation of objectives, and on the management and monitoring of lipid parameters were filled in. Setting and participants. A total of 1998 doctors from the whole of Spain took part; 68.8% of the doctors interviewed worked in primary health care and 30.2% in specialist centres or hospitals. Results. A 91% of the doctors said they followed international consensus on monitoring lipaemia. The most commonly used objective therapeutic parameter for treating lipaemia was LDL-cholesterol (83%), followed by total cholesterol (62%), HDL-cholesterol (56%) and triglycerides (51%). If the patient's lipaemia was well controlled, then 21.8% of doctors reduced the doses of lipid-lowerers. In general terms, no great differences were appreciated between the criteria followed by PC and by specialist doctors. Conclusions. The criteria for action on lipaemia could be improved. There are no important differences of view or action in clinical and therapeutic criteria for Lipaemia cases between PC and specialist doctors