The 2016 European Guidelines on CVD Prevention provide updated recommendations on risk assessment and introduce population-level public health advice.
Recently the 2016 version of the European Guidelines on Cardiovascular Disease Prevention has been published by 10 major organizations within the framework of the ‘Sixth Joint Task Force of the European Society of Cardiology and Other Societies on Cardiovascular Disease Prevention in Clinical Practice’.1 The document is an update of the 2012 publication2 and it follows the same structure: what is cardiovascular prevention, who needs it, and how and where should it be offered? The reader will observe that there are only few and minor changes regarding pharmacotherapy for the prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD). A major novelty is that the guidelines include a public health chapter with recommendations on prevention at the population level. For the first time the prevention guidelines provide advice to politicians and healthcare providers based upon updated scientific evidence. Assessment of risk should be offered to all who may have an elevated risk of CVD, such as those who smoke, patients with high blood pressure or with diabetes mellitus (DM), and persons with known elevated lipid values or with a history of familial hypercholesterolaemia. CV risk assessment is even indicated if there are diseases that increase risk such as rheumatoid arthritis, sleep apnoea disorder, or erectile dysfunction. The 2016 version of the guidelines recommend that risk assessment for this cohort of persons should be repeated every 5 years. General screening for women >50 years old and men >40 may be considered if resources are available, but there is no scientific support for screening in the younger age groups. The 2012 ranking of … [↵][1]*Corresponding author. Linnaeus University, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Stagneliusgatan, Kalmar 391 82, Sweden. Tel: +46 491 180 06, Fax: +46 491 782 643, Email: Joep{at}ltkalmar.se [1]: #xref-corresp-1-1
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Joep Perk (2017) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: