Julian Halcox

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) due to atherosclerosis of the arterial vessel wall and to thrombosis is the foremost cause of premature mortality and of disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) in Europe, and is also increasingly common in developing countries.1 In the European Union, the economic cost of CVD represents annually E192 billion1 in direct and indirect healthcare costs. The main clinical entities are coronary artery disease (CAD), ischaemic stroke, and peripheral arterial disease (PAD). The causes of these CVDs are multifactorial. Some of these factors relate to lifestyles, such as tobacco smoking, lack of physical activity, and dietary habits, and are thus modifiable. Other risk factors are also modifiable, such as elevated blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, and dyslipidaemias, or non-modifiable, such as age and male gender. These guidelines deal with the management of dyslipidaemias as an essential and integral part of CVD prevention. Prevention and treatment of dyslipidaemias should always be considered within the broader framework of CVD prevention, which is addressed in guidelines of the Joint European Societies’ Task forces on CVD prevention in clinical practice.2 – 5 The latest version of these guidelines was published in 20075; an update will become available in 2012. These Joint ESC/European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) guidelines on the management of dyslipidaemias are complementary to the guidelines on CVD prevention in clinical practice and address not only physicians [e.g. general practitioners (GPs) and cardiologists] interested in CVD prevention, but also specialists from lipid clinics or metabolic units who are dealing with dyslipidaemias that are more difficult to classify and treat.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular risk factors contribute to atherogenesis by inducing endothelial-cell injury and dysfunction. We hypothesized that endothelial progenitor cells derived from bone marrow have a role in ongoing endothelial repair and that impaired mobilization or depletion of these cells contributes to endothelial dysfunction and cardiovascular disease progression. METHODS: We measured the number of colony-forming units of endothelial progenitor cells in peripheral-blood samples from 45 men (mean [+/-SE] age, 50+/-2 years). The subjects had various degrees of cardiovascular risk but no history of cardiovascular disease. Endothelium-dependent and endothelium-independent function was assessed by high-resolution ultrasonography of the brachial artery. RESULTS: We observed a strong correlation between the number of circulating endothelial progenitor cells and the subjects' combined Framingham risk factor score (r=-0.47, P=0.001). Measurement of flow-mediated brachial-artery reactivity also revealed a significant relation between endothelial function and the number of progenitor cells (r=0.59, P<0.001). Indeed, the levels of circulating endothelial progenitor cells were a better predictor of vascular reactivity than was the presence or absence of conventional risk factors. In addition, endothelial progenitor cells from subjects at high risk for cardiovascular events had higher rates of in vitro senescence than cells from subjects at low risk. CONCLUSIONS: In healthy men, levels of endothelial progenitor cells may be a surrogate biologic marker for vascular function and cumulative cardiovascular risk. These findings suggest that endothelial injury in the absence of sufficient circulating progenitor cells may affect the progression of cardiovascular disease.

peer reviewed

BACKGROUND: Whether patients at increased risk can be identified from a relatively low-risk population by coronary vascular function testing remains unknown. We investigated the relationship between coronary endothelial function and the occurrence of acute unpredictable cardiovascular events (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and unstable angina) in patients with and without coronary atherosclerosis (CAD). METHODS AND RESULTS: We measured the change in coronary vascular resistance (DeltaCVR) and epicardial diameter with intracoronary acetylcholine (ACh, 15 micro g/min) to test endothelium-dependent function and sodium nitroprusside (20 micro g/min) and adenosine (2.2 mg/min) to test endothelium-independent vascular function in 308 patients undergoing cardiac catheterization (132 with and 176 without CAD). Patients underwent clinical follow-up for a mean of 46+/-3 months. Acute vascular events occurred in 35 patients. After multivariate analysis that included CAD and conventional risk factors for atherosclerosis, DeltaCVR with ACh (P=0.02) and epicardial constriction with ACh (P=0.003), together with increasing age, CAD, and body mass index, were independent predictors of adverse events. Thus, patients in the tertile with the best microvascular responses with ACh and those with epicardial dilation with ACh had improved survival by Kaplan-Meier analyses in the total population, as did those in the subset without CAD. Similar improvement in survival was also observed when all adverse events, including revascularization, were considered. Endothelium-independent responses were not predictive of outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Epicardial and microvascular coronary endothelial dysfunction independently predict acute cardiovascular events in patients with and without CAD, providing both functional and prognostic information that complements angiographic and risk factor assessment.