Original ResearchA comparison of secondary prevention practice in poststroke and coronary heart disease patients
Introduction
The ultimate goal of treatment of patients with atherosclerotic vascular disease (AVD) is to reduce the case fatality, to reduce risk of recurrent cardiovascular event, to extend life-time, and to improve life quality. Management of patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) was defined extensively by the series of Joint European Societies' Guidelines since 1994.1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Since the third revision of these Guidelines,3 also patients with AVD in non-coronary localisations (including those after ischemic stroke) have been included in the group with highest priority for prevention. To implement secondary prevention measures in poststroke patients in clinical practice, we should adopt similar principles as those applicable to CHD patients, i.e. strictly defined treatment targets for major cardiovascular risk factors, several ‘mandatory’ pharmacotherapies, and necessary lifestyle changes.
To describe clinical reality in secondary prevention of CHD with respect to adherence to these guidelines, the EUROASPIRE (European Action on Secondary Prevention by Intervention to Reduce Events) survey was conducted in 1995/96 (EUROASPIRE I),6 to be subsequently repeated in 1999/2000, 2006/7 and in 2012/13 (i.e. EUROASPIRE II-IV, respectively).7, 8, 9 Data from these surveys demonstrated a high prevalence of inadequately controlled modifiable risk factors and insufficient prescription of basic pharmacotherapies in the secondary prevention of CHD across all European countries included.
Comparable data regarding patients with cerebrovascular disease were virtually non-existent until the stroke-specific module was developed as a voluntary add-on to the EUROASPIRE III survey. The objective of this module was to identify the prevalence of CVD risk factors, lifestyle habits, and medication use among patients after their first ischemic stroke in order to describe the current status of clinical practice against the Third European Guidelines principles. This survey was performed in four European countries (five EUROASPIRE project centres) in 2007,10 including the Czech Republic.11 The Stroke Specific Module of the EUROASPIRE III study highlighted the need for structured disease management and targeted secondary prevention strategies. A second survey in patients with cerebrovascular disease (ESH Stroke Survey) was started in 2012 (and currently analyzed) under the nearly similar protocol12 and in the same Czech centres as the EUROASPIRE III survey in 2007.
The aim of the present analysis is to demonstrate the differences in clinical practice in secondary prevention between poststroke and CHD patients and the corresponding mortality outcomes using data from EUROASPIRE III, IV and ESH stroke survey from 2006/07 and 2012–14.
Section snippets
Study population
The study population consists of Czech patients examined in the framework of well-defined surveys in patients with CHD or in patients after their first ischemic stroke. Patients with CHD represent pooled Czech samples of the EUROASPIRE III (2006/07) and IV (2013/14) surveys, while poststroke patients represent pooled Czech samples of the EUROASPIRE III-stroke survey (2006/07) and ESH stroke survey (2012/13); the selection and standard protocol of examination (nearly similar for all four
Characteristics of participants
A total of 1729 patients, 765 patients after their first verified ischemic stroke and 964 with manifest CHD, with a mean age of 67.8 (±SD 9.9) and 64.3 (±SD 9.0) years, respectively, were compared in the present analysis. After exclusion patients who deceased between the index event and the survey, the overall response rates to interviews by inclusion diagnosis were 76.2% and 86.3%, respectively (for details see flow chart on Fig. 1). The baseline characteristics of interviewed subjects are
Discussion
To our best knowledge, this study is the first to compare directly the adherence to treatment targets between poststroke and CHD patients in secondary prevention. The key finding of our study is that the practical implementation of secondary prevention principles, in terms of appropriate control of conventional cardiovascular risk factor, is markedly poorer in poststroke patients than in CHD patients (despite that these principles are almost the same). Poststroke patients are also at
Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge the dedication of all co-investigators, study nurses and laboratory technicians who participated in the EUROASPIRE III, IV, and ESH stroke survey in the Czech Republic.
Ethical statement
The study was carried out according to the guidelines for Good Clinical Practice. The study protocols were approved by the central Ethical Committee of Institute for Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Prague and local Ethical Committee of University Hospital Pilsen. All of the participants gave
References (24)
- et al.
Meta-analysis of cardiovascular outcomes trials comparing intensive versus moderate statin therapy
J Am Coll Cardiol
(2006) - et al.
Effect of intensive control of glucose on cardiovascular outcomes and death in patients with diabetes mellitus: a metaanalysis of randomised controlled trials
Lancet
(2009) - et al.
Prevention of coronary heart disease in clinical practice. Recommendation of the task force of the European society of cardiology, European atherosclerosis society and European society of hypertension
Eur Heart J
(1994) - et al.
Prevention of coronary heart disease in clinical practice. Recommendations of the second joint task force of European and other societies on coronary prevention
Eur Heart J
(1998) - et al.
European guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention on clinical practice. Third joint task force of European and other societies on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice
Eur Heart J
(2003) - et al.
European guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice: executive summary. Fourth joint task force of the European society of cardiology and other societies on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice (constituted by representatives of nine societies and by invited experts)
Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil
(2007) - et al.
ESC committee for practice guidelines. European guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice (version 2012). The fifth joint task force of the European society of cardiology and other societies on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice (constituted by representatives of nine societies and by invited experts)
Eur Heart J
(2012) EUROASPIRE. A European society of cardiology survey of secondary prevention of coronary heart disease: principal results
Eur Heart J
(1997)Lifestyle and risk factor management and use of drug therapies in coronary patients from 15 countries. Principal results from EUROASPIRE II
Eur Heart J
(2001)- et al.
EUROASPIRE study group. EUROASPIRE III: a survey on the lifestyle, risk factors and use of cardioprotective drug therapies in coronary patients from 22 European countries
Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil
(2009)
The changes in cardiovascular prevention practice between 1995 and 2012 in the Czech Republic
A Comp EUROASPIRE I, II, III IV Study Cor Vasa
Control of main risk factors after ischaemic stroke across Europe: data from the stroke-specific module of the EUROASPIRE III survey
Eur J Prev Cardiol
Cited by (0)
- 1
These authors are joint first authors.