Dirk De Bacquer

The ESC Guidelines represent the views of the ESC and were produced after careful consideration of the scientific and medical knowledge and the evidence available at the time of their publication. The ESC is not responsible in the event of any contradiction, discrepancy and/or ambiguity between the ESC Guidelines and any other official recommendations or guidelines issued by the relevant public health authorities, in particular in relation to good use of healthcare or therapeutic strategies. Health professionals are encouraged to take the ESC Guidelines fully into account when exercising their clinical judgment, as well as in the determination and the implementation of preventive, diagnostic or therapeutic medical strategies; however, the ESC Guidelines do not override, in any way whatsoever, the individual responsibility of health professionals to make appropriate and accurate decisions in consideration of each patient's health condition and in consultation with that patient and, where appropriate and/or necessary, the patient's caregiver. Nor do the ESC Guidelines exempt health professionals from taking into full and careful consideration the relevant official updated recommendations or guidelines issued by the competent public health authorities, in order to manage each patient's case in light of the scientifically accepted data pursuant to their respective ethical and professional obligations. It is also the health professional's responsibility to verify the applicable rules and regulations relating to drugs and medical devices at the time of prescription.

INTRODUCTION: The lack of a standard definition for acute kidney injury has resulted in a large variation in the reported incidence and associated mortality. RIFLE, a newly developed international consensus classification for acute kidney injury, defines three grades of severity--risk (class R), injury (class I) and failure (class F)--but has not yet been evaluated in a clinical series. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study, in seven intensive care units in a single tertiary care academic center, on 5,383 patients admitted during a one year period (1 July 2000-30 June 2001). RESULTS: Acute kidney injury occurred in 67% of intensive care unit admissions, with maximum RIFLE class R, class I and class F in 12%, 27% and 28%, respectively. Of the 1,510 patients (28%) that reached a level of risk, 840 (56%) progressed. Patients with maximum RIFLE class R, class I and class F had hospital mortality rates of 8.8%, 11.4% and 26.3%, respectively, compared with 5.5% for patients without acute kidney injury. Additionally, acute kidney injury (hazard ratio, 1.7; 95% confidence interval, 1.28-2.13; P < 0.001) and maximum RIFLE class I (hazard ratio, 1.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.88; P = 0.037) and class F (hazard ratio, 2.7; 95% confidence interval, 2.03-3.55; P < 0.001) were associated with hospital mortality after adjusting for multiple covariates. CONCLUSION: In this general intensive care unit population, acute kidney 'risk, injury, failure', as defined by the newly developed RIFLE classification, is associated with increased hospital mortality and resource use. Patients with RIFLE class R are indeed at high risk of progression to class I or class F. Patients with RIFLE class I or class F incur a significantly increased length of stay and an increased risk of inhospital mortality compared with those who do not progress past class R or those who never develop acute kidney injury, even after adjusting for baseline severity of illness, case mix, race, gender and age.

BACKGROUND: To help adapt cardiovascular disease risk prediction approaches to low-income and middle-income countries, WHO has convened an effort to develop, evaluate, and illustrate revised risk models. Here, we report the derivation, validation, and illustration of the revised WHO cardiovascular disease risk prediction charts that have been adapted to the circumstances of 21 global regions. METHODS: In this model revision initiative, we derived 10-year risk prediction models for fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular disease (ie, myocardial infarction and stroke) using individual participant data from the Emerging Risk Factors Collaboration. Models included information on age, smoking status, systolic blood pressure, history of diabetes, and total cholesterol. For derivation, we included participants aged 40-80 years without a known baseline history of cardiovascular disease, who were followed up until the first myocardial infarction, fatal coronary heart disease, or stroke event. We recalibrated models using age-specific and sex-specific incidences and risk factor values available from 21 global regions. For external validation, we analysed individual participant data from studies distinct from those used in model derivation. We illustrated models by analysing data on a further 123 743 individuals from surveys in 79 countries collected with the WHO STEPwise Approach to Surveillance. FINDINGS: Our risk model derivation involved 376 177 individuals from 85 cohorts, and 19 333 incident cardiovascular events recorded during 10 years of follow-up. The derived risk prediction models discriminated well in external validation cohorts (19 cohorts, 1 096 061 individuals, 25 950 cardiovascular disease events), with Harrell's C indices ranging from 0·685 (95% CI 0·629-0·741) to 0·833 (0·783-0·882). For a given risk factor profile, we found substantial variation across global regions in the estimated 10-year predicted risk. For example, estimated cardiovascular disease risk for a 60-year-old male smoker without diabetes and with systolic blood pressure of 140 mm Hg and total cholesterol of 5 mmol/L ranged from 11% in Andean Latin America to 30% in central Asia. When applied to data from 79 countries (mostly low-income and middle-income countries), the proportion of individuals aged 40-64 years estimated to be at greater than 20% risk ranged from less than 1% in Uganda to more than 16% in Egypt. INTERPRETATION: We have derived, calibrated, and validated new WHO risk prediction models to estimate cardiovascular disease risk in 21 Global Burden of Disease regions. The widespread use of these models could enhance the accuracy, practicability, and sustainability of efforts to reduce the burden of cardiovascular disease worldwide. FUNDING: World Health Organization, British Heart Foundation (BHF), BHF Cambridge Centre for Research Excellence, UK Medical Research Council, and National Institute for Health Research.

AIMS: To determine whether the Joint European Societies guidelines on cardiovascular prevention are being followed in everyday clinical practice of secondary prevention and to describe the lifestyle, risk factor and therapeutic management of coronary patients across Europe. METHODS AND RESULTS: EUROASPIRE IV was a cross-sectional study undertaken at 78 centres from 24 European countries. Patients <80 years with coronary disease who had coronary artery bypass graft, percutaneous coronary intervention or an acute coronary syndrome were identified from hospital records and interviewed and examined ≥ 6 months later. A total of 16,426 medical records were reviewed and 7998 patients (24.4% females) interviewed. At interview, 16.0% of patients smoked cigarettes, and 48.6% of those smoking at the time of the event were persistent smokers. Little or no physical activity was reported by 59.9%; 37.6% were obese (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m(2)) and 58.2% centrally obese (waist circumference ≥ 102 cm in men or ≥88 cm in women); 42.7% had blood pressure ≥ 140/90 mmHg (≥140/80 in people with diabetes); 80.5% had low-density lipoprotein cholesterol ≥ 1.8 mmol/l and 26.8% reported having diabetes. Cardioprotective medication was: anti-platelets 93.8%; beta-blockers 82.6%; angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers 75.1%; and statins 85.7%. Of the patients 50.7% were advised to participate in a cardiac rehabilitation programme and 81.3% of those advised attended at least one-half of the sessions. CONCLUSION: A large majority of coronary patients do not achieve the guideline standards for secondary prevention with high prevalences of persistent smoking, unhealthy diets, physical inactivity and consequently most patients are overweight or obese with a high prevalence of diabetes. Risk factor control is inadequate despite high reported use of medications and there are large variations in secondary prevention practice between centres. Less than one-half of the coronary patients access cardiac prevention and rehabilitation programmes. All coronary and vascular patients require a modern preventive cardiology programme, appropriately adapted to medical and cultural settings in each country, to achieve healthier lifestyles, better risk factor control and adherence with cardioprotective medications.