Aims
The 2019 report from the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Atlas provides a contemporary analysis of cardiovascular disease (CVD) statistics across 56 member countries, with particular emphasis on international inequalities in disease burden and healthcare delivery together with estimates of progress towards meeting 2025 World Health Organization (WHO) non-communicable disease targets.
Methods and results
In this report, contemporary CVD statistics are presented for member countries of the ESC. The statistics are drawn from the ESC Atlas which is a repository of CVD data from a variety of sources including the WHO, the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, and the World Bank. The Atlas also includes novel ESC sponsored data on human and capital infrastructure and cardiovascular healthcare delivery obtained by annual survey of the national societies of ESC member countries. Across ESC member countries, the prevalence of obesity (body mass index ≥30 kg/m2) and diabetes has increased two- to three-fold during the last 30 years making the WHO 2025 target to halt rises in these risk factors unlikely to be achieved. More encouraging have been variable declines in hypertension, smoking, and alcohol consumption but on current trends only the reduction in smoking from 28% to 21% during the last 20 years appears sufficient for the WHO target to be achieved. The median age-standardized prevalence of major risk factors was higher in middle-income compared with high-income ESC member countries for hypertension {23.8% [interquartile range (IQR) 22.5–23.1%] vs. 15.7% (IQR 14.5–21.1%)}, diabetes [7.7% (IQR 7.1–10.1%) vs. 5.6% (IQR 4.8–7.0%)], and among males smoking [43.8% (IQR 37.4–48.0%) vs. 26.0% (IQR 20.9–31.7%)] although among females smoking was less common in middle-income countries [8.7% (IQR 3.0–10.8) vs. 16.7% (IQR 13.9–19.7%)]. There were associated inequalities in disease burden with disability-adjusted life years per 100 000 people due to CVD over three times as high in middle-income [7160 (IQR 5655–8115)] compared with high-income [2235 (IQR 1896–3602)] countries. Cardiovascular disease mortality was also higher in middle-income countries where it accounted for a greater proportion of potential years of life lost compared with high-income countries in both females (43% vs. 28%) and males (39% vs. 28%). Despite the inequalities in disease burden across ESC member countries, survey data from the National Cardiac Societies of the ESC showed that middle-income member countries remain severely under-resourced compared with high-income countries in terms of cardiological person-power and technological infrastructure. Under-resourcing in middle-income countries is associated with a severe procedural deficit compared with high-income countries in terms of coronary intervention, device implantation and cardiac surgical procedures.
Conclusion
A seemingly inexorable rise in the prevalence of obesity and diabetes currently provides the greatest challenge to achieving further reductions in CVD burden across ESC member countries. Additional challenges are provided by inequalities in disease burden that now require intensification of policy initiatives in order to reduce population risk and prioritize cardiovascular healthcare delivery, particularly in the middle-income countries of the ESC where need is greatest.
Noninvasive FFR derived from CCTA is a novel method with high diagnostic performance for the detection and exclusion of coronary lesions that cause ischemia.
MD; for the Nordic-Baltic PCI Study GroupBackground-It is unknown whether the preferred 1-stent bifurcation stenting approach with stenting of the main vessel (MV) and optional side branch stenting using drug-eluting stents should be finalized by a kissing balloon dilatation (FKBD). Therefore, we compared strategies of MV stenting with and without FKBD. Methods and Results-We randomized 477 patients with a bifurcation lesion to FKBD (nϭ238) or no FKBD (nϭ239) after MV stenting. The primary end point was major adverse cardiac events: cardiac death, non-procedure-related index lesion myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization, or stent thrombosis within 6 months. The 6-month major adverse cardiac event rates were 2.1% and 2.5% (Pϭ1.00) in the FKBD and no-FKBD groups, respectively. Procedure and fluoroscopy times were longer and more contrast media was needed in the FKBD group than in the no-FKBD group. Three hundred twenty-six patients had a quantitative coronary assessment. At 8 months, the rate of binary (re)stenosis in the entire bifurcation lesion (MV and side branch) was 11.0% versus 17.3% (Pϭ0.11), in the MV was 3.1% versus 2.5% (Pϭ0.68), and in the side branch was 7.9% versus 15.4% (Pϭ0.039) in the FKBD versus no-FKBD groups, respectively. In patients with true bifurcation lesions, the side branch restenosis rate was 7.6% versus 20.0% (Pϭ0.024) in the FKBD and no-FKBD groups, respectively.
Conclusions-MV
I nvasive coronary angiography remains the clinical reference standard for diagnosing coronary artery disease; however, stenosis severity alone is a poor predictor of functional significance (1). Treatment strategies guided by invasive fractional flow reserve (FFR) have demonstrated superior outcomes compared with an anatomic strategy alone (2,3). Although FFR is often interpreted in a dichotomous manner ( 0.80), recent studies have demonstrated a risk continuum where lower FFR values are associated with a higher rate of clinical events and greater benefit from revascularization (4,5). Coronary CT angiography is a well-established diagnostic modality that provides anatomic assessment of stenosis severity with an excellent negative predictive value but is limited by poor specificity for
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.