Why the study?
Does universal screening for cardiovascular disease risk factors in children and adolescents improve cardiovascular health outcomes?
Does universal screening for cardiovascular disease risk factors in children and adolescents improve cardiovascular health outcomes?
Universal screening for CVD risk factors in children lacks compelling evidence, suggesting efforts should instead focus on primordial prevention and targeted screening.
Lacks support for universal pediatric CVD risk screening; leaves open targeted approaches and primordial prevention.
Cardiovascular diseases (CVD) are the leading cause of death worldwide. Individual detection and intervention on CVD risk factors and behaviors throughout childhood and adolescence has been advocated as a strategy to reduce CVD risk in adulthood. The U.S. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) has recently recommended universal screening of several risk factors in children and adolescents, at odds with several recommendations of the U.S. Services Task Force and of the U.K. National Screening committee. In the current review, we discuss the goals of screening for CVD risk factors (elevated blood pressure, abnormal blood lipids, diabetes) and behaviors (smoking) in children and appraise critically various screening recommendations. Our review suggests that there is no compelling evidence to recommend universal screening for elevated blood pressure, abnormal blood lipids, abnormal blood glucose, or smoking in children and adolescents. Targeted screening of these risk factors could be useful but specific screening strategies have to be evaluated. Research is needed to identify target populations, screening frequency, intervention, and follow-up. Meanwhile, efforts should rather focus on the primordial prevention of CVD risk factors and at maintaining a lifelong ideal cardiovascular health through environmental, policy, and educational approaches.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bloetzer et al. (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: