Imperial College London
Alternate

Professor Neil Poulter

Faculty of Medicine, School of Public Health

Professor of Preventive Cardiovascular Medicine.
 
 
 
//

Contact

 

+44 (0)20 7594 3446n.poulter

 
 
//

Assistant

 

Mrs Ranjit Rayat +44 (0)20 7594 3445

 
//

Location

 

55Stadium HouseWhite City Campus

//

Summary

 

Publications

Citation

BibTex format

@inproceedings{Ray:2021,
author = {Ray, KR and Bray, S and Catapano, AL and Poulter, N and Vallejo-Vaz, AJ and Brandts, J and Villa, G},
pages = {1579--1579},
publisher = {Elsevier},
title = {Comparison of achieving 2019 ESC/EAS versus 2018 ACC/AHA IDL-C goals for patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease: a cardiovascular risk simulation from the da Vinci study},
url = {http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000647487501586&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=1ba7043ffcc86c417c072aa74d649202},
year = {2021}
}
Download

RIS format (EndNote, RefMan)

TY  - CPAPER
AB  - BackgroundEuropean and American guidelines recommend different LDL-C goals for ASCVD patients. We simulated the residual CV risk for 2019 ESC/EAS versus 2018 ACC/AHA LDL-C goals (<55 versus <70 mg/dL).MethodsFrom the Da Vinci study (Ray et al., 2020), we predicted 10-year CV risk using REACH equation among ASCVD patients receiving stabilized lipid-lowering therapy (no change in dose or frequency for ≥28 days). For patients with LDL-C ≥70 mg/dL, we: 1) calculated the absolute LDL-C reduction required to achieve LDL-C levels of 69 and 54 mg/dL; 2) simulated the relative risk reduction by randomly sampling from the inverse distribution of the rate ratio per 39 mg/dL in the CTTC meta-analysis; 3) calculated the absolute risk reduction and residual CV risk for LDL-C levels of 69 and 54 mg/dL.ResultsOf 2039 patients, 1238 (61%) did not achieve LDL-C <70 mg/dL. Median (interquartile range) baseline LDL-C and 10-year CV risk in these patients were 93 (81-115) mg/dL and 32% (25%-43%), respectively. LDL-C reductions of 24 (12-46) and 39 (27-61) mg/dL were needed to achieve LDL-C levels of 69 and 54 mg/dL, respectively. Attaining ACC/AHA and ESC/EAS LDL-C goals resulted in lower 10-year CV risks of 28% (20%-37%) and 25% (18%-34%), and in absolute risk reductions of 4% (2%-7%) and 6% (4%-9%), respectively (Figure).ConclusionIn ASCVD patients, achieving ESC/EAS LDL-C goals results in a further 50% relative (2% absolute) reduction in residual CV risk compared with achieving ACC/AHA goals.
AU  - Ray,KR
AU  - Bray,S
AU  - Catapano,AL
AU  - Poulter,N
AU  - Vallejo-Vaz,AJ
AU  - Brandts,J
AU  - Villa,G
EP  - 1579
PB  - Elsevier
PY  - 2021///
SN  - 0735-1097
SP  - 1579
TI  - Comparison of achieving 2019 ESC/EAS versus 2018 ACC/AHA IDL-C goals for patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease: a cardiovascular risk simulation from the da Vinci study
UR  - http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=WOS:000647487501586&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=1ba7043ffcc86c417c072aa74d649202
UR  - https://www.jacc.org/doi/full/10.1016/S0735-1097%2821%2902936-3
UR  - http://hdl.handle.net/10044/1/90518
ER  -
Download