Ibadete Bytyçi

Guidelines evaluate and summarize available evidence, with the aim of assisting health professionals in proposing the best diagnostic or therapeutic approach for an individual patient with a given condition. Guidelines are intended for use by health professionals and the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) makes its Guidelines freely available. ESC Guidelines do not override 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 or the patient’s caregiver where appropriate and/or necessary. It is also the health professional’s responsibility to verify the rules and regulations applicable in each country to drugs and devices at the time of prescription, and, where appropriate, to respect the ethical rules of their profession. ESC Guidelines represent the official position of the ESC on a given topic and are regularly updated. ESC Policies and Procedures for formulating and issuing ESC Guidelines can be found on the ESC website (https://www.escardio.org/Guidelines). The Members of this Task Force were selected by the ESC to represent professionals involved with the medical care of patients with this pathology. The selection procedure aimed to include members from across the whole of the ESC region and from relevant ESC Subspecialty Communities. Consideration was given to diversity and inclusion, notably with respect to gender and country of origin. The Task Force performed a critical evaluation of diagnostic and therapeutic approaches, including assessment of the risk-benefit ratio. The strength of every recommendation and the level of evidence supporting them were weighed and scored according to pre-defined scales as outlined below. The Task Force followed ESC voting procedures, and all approved recommendations were subject to a vote and achieved at least 75% agreement among voting members. The experts of the writing and reviewing panels provided declaration of interest forms for all relationships that might be perceived as real or potential sources of conflicts of interest. Their declarations of interest were reviewed according to the ESC declaration of interest rules and can be found on the ESC website (http://www.escardio.org/Guidelines), and have been compiled in a report published in a supplementary document with the guidelines. The Task Force received its entire financial support from the ESC without any involvement from the healthcare industry. The ESC Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG) Committee supervises and co-ordinates the preparation of new guidelines and is responsible for the approval process. ESC Guidelines undergo extensive review by the CPG Committee and external experts, including members from across the whole of the ESC region and from relevant ESC Subspecialty Communities and National Cardiac Societies. After appropriate revisions, the guidelines are signed off by all the experts involved in the Task Force. The finalized document is signed off by the CPG Committee for publication in the European Heart Journal. The guidelines were developed after careful consideration of the scientific and medical knowledge and the evidence available at the time of their writing. Tables of evidence summarizing the findings of studies informing development of the guidelines are included. The ESC warns readers that the technical language may be misinterpreted and declines any responsibility in this respect. Off-label use of medication may be presented in the current Guidelines if a sufficient level of evidence shows that it can be considered medically appropriate for a given condition. However, the final decisions concerning an individual patient must be made by the responsible health professional giving special consideration to: The specific situation of the patient. Unless otherwise provided for by national regulations, off-label use of medication should be limited to situations where it is in the patient’s interest with regard to the quality, safety, and efficacy of care, and only after the patient has been informed and has provided consent. Country-specific health regulations, indications by governmental drug regulatory agencies, and the ethical rules to which health professionals are subject, where applicable.

AIMS: Statin intolerance (SI) represents a significant public health problem for which precise estimates of prevalence are needed. Statin intolerance remains an important clinical challenge, and it is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events. This meta-analysis estimates the overall prevalence of SI, the prevalence according to different diagnostic criteria and in different disease settings, and identifies possible risk factors/conditions that might increase the risk of SI. METHODS AND RESULTS: We searched several databases up to 31 May 2021, for studies that reported the prevalence of SI. The primary endpoint was overall prevalence and prevalence according to a range of diagnostic criteria [National Lipid Association (NLA), International Lipid Expert Panel (ILEP), and European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS)] and in different disease settings. The secondary endpoint was to identify possible risk factors for SI. A random-effects model was applied to estimate the overall pooled prevalence. A total of 176 studies [112 randomized controlled trials (RCTs); 64 cohort studies] with 4 143 517 patients were ultimately included in the analysis. The overall prevalence of SI was 9.1% (95% confidence interval 8.0-10%). The prevalence was similar when defined using NLA, ILEP, and EAS criteria [7.0% (6.0-8.0%), 6.7% (5.0-8.0%), 5.9% (4.0-7.0%), respectively]. The prevalence of SI in RCTs was significantly lower compared with cohort studies [4.9% (4.0-6.0%) vs. 17% (14-19%)]. The prevalence of SI in studies including both primary and secondary prevention patients was much higher than when primary or secondary prevention patients were analysed separately [18% (14-21%), 8.2% (6.0-10%), 9.1% (6.0-11%), respectively]. Statin lipid solubility did not affect the prevalence of SI [4.0% (2.0-5.0%) vs. 5.0% (4.0-6.0%)]. Age [odds ratio (OR) 1.33, P = 0.04], female gender (OR 1.47, P = 0.007), Asian and Black race (P < 0.05 for both), obesity (OR 1.30, P = 0.02), diabetes mellitus (OR 1.26, P = 0.02), hypothyroidism (OR 1.37, P = 0.01), chronic liver, and renal failure (P < 0.05 for both) were significantly associated with SI in the meta-regression model. Antiarrhythmic agents, calcium channel blockers, alcohol use, and increased statin dose were also associated with a higher risk of SI. CONCLUSION: Based on the present analysis of >4 million patients, the prevalence of SI is low when diagnosed according to international definitions. These results support the concept that the prevalence of complete SI might often be overestimated and highlight the need for the careful assessment of patients with potential symptoms related to SI.

This report from the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Atlas Project updates and expands upon the 2021 report in presenting cardiovascular disease (CVD) statistics for the ESC member countries. This paper examines inequalities in cardiovascular healthcare and outcomes in ESC member countries utilizing mortality and risk factor data from the World Health Organization and the Global Burden of Disease study with additional economic data from the World Bank. Cardiovascular healthcare data were collected by questionnaire circulated to the national cardiac societies of ESC member countries. Statistics pertaining to 2022, or latest available year, are presented. New material in this report includes contemporary estimates of the economic burden of CVD and mortality statistics for a range of CVD phenotypes. CVD accounts for 11% of the EU's total healthcare expenditure. It remains the most common cause of death in ESC member countries with over 3 million deaths per year. Proportionately more deaths from CVD occur in middle-income compared with high-income countries in both females (53% vs. 34%) and males (46% vs. 30%). Between 1990 and 2021, median age-standardized mortality rates (ASMRs) for CVD decreased by median >50% in high-income ESC member countries but in middle-income countries the median decrease was <12%. These inequalities between middle- and high-income ESC member countries likely reflect heterogeneous exposures to a range of environmental, socioeconomic, and clinical risk factors. The 2023 survey suggests that treatment factors may also contribute with middle-income countries reporting lower rates per million of percutaneous coronary intervention (1355 vs. 2330), transcatheter aortic valve implantation (4.0 vs. 153.4) and pacemaker implantation (147.0 vs. 831.9) compared with high-income countries. The ESC Atlas 2023 report shows continuing inequalities in the epidemiology and management of CVD between middle-income and high-income ESC member countries. These inequalities are exemplified by the changes in CVD ASMRs during the last 30 years. In the high-income ESC member countries, ASMRs have been in steep decline during this period but in the middle-income countries declines have been very small. There is now an important need for targeted action to reduce the burden of CVD, particularly in those countries where the burden is greatest.

AIMS: There is good evidence showing that inactivity and walking minimal steps/day increase the risk of cardiovascular (CV) disease and general ill-health. The optimal number of steps and their role in health is, however, still unclear. Therefore, in this meta-analysis, we aimed to evaluate the relationship between step count and all-cause mortality and CV mortality. METHODS AND RESULTS: We systematically searched relevant electronic databases from inception until 12 June 2022. The main endpoints were all-cause mortality and CV mortality. An inverse-variance weighted random-effects model was used to calculate the number of steps/day and mortality. Seventeen cohort studies with a total of 226 889 participants (generally healthy or patients at CV risk) with a median follow-up 7.1 years were included in the meta-analysis. A 1000-step increment was associated with a 15% decreased risk of all-cause mortality [hazard ratio (HR) 0.85; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81-0.91; P < 0.001], while a 500-step increment was associated with a 7% decrease in CV mortality (HR 0.93; 95% CI 0.91-0.95; P < 0.001). Compared with the reference quartile with median steps/day 3867 (2500-6675), the Quartile 1 (Q1, median steps: 5537), Quartile 2 (Q2, median steps 7370), and Quartile 3 (Q3, median steps 11 529) were associated with lower risk for all-cause mortality (48, 55, and 67%, respectively; P < 0.05, for all). Similarly, compared with the lowest quartile of steps/day used as reference [median steps 2337, interquartile range 1596-4000), higher quartiles of steps/day (Q1 = 3982, Q2 = 6661, and Q3 = 10 413) were linearly associated with a reduced risk of CV mortality (16, 49, and 77%; P < 0.05, for all). Using a restricted cubic splines model, we observed a nonlinear dose-response association between step count and all-cause and CV mortality (Pnonlineraly < 0.001, for both) with a progressively lower risk of mortality with an increased step count. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis demonstrates a significant inverse association between daily step count and all-cause mortality and CV mortality with more the better over the cut-off point of 3867 steps/day for all-cause mortality and only 2337 steps for CV mortality.