2. Circulation. VP Consensus Document. 2003 Oct 7;108:1664-72Circulation. VP Consensus Document. 2003 Oct 7;108:1664-72
3. Circulation. VP Consensus Document. 2003 Oct 7;108:1664-72Circulation. VP Consensus Document. 2003 Oct 7;108:1664-72
Available screening and diagnostic methods areAvailable screening and diagnostic methods are
insufficient to identify the victims before the eventinsufficient to identify the victims before the event
occurs.occurs.
4. Heart attack caused by atherosclerosis
Eradication: dream or reality?Eradication: dream or reality?
5. Heart attack caused by atherosclerosis
Eradication: dream or reality?Eradication: dream or reality?
l risk factors are known
heart attacks are preventable
ins killer #1, + severe disability
onal approach has failed!
6. Heart attack caused by atherosclerosis
Eradication: dream or reality?Eradication: dream or reality?
l risk factors are known
heart attacks are preventable
ins killer #1, + severe disability
onal approach has failed!
7. Heart attack caused by atherosclerosis
Eradication: dream or reality?Eradication: dream or reality?
l risk factors are known
heart attacks are preventable
ins killer #1, + severe disability
onal approach has failed!
8. Heart attack caused by atherosclerosis
Eradication: dream or reality?Eradication: dream or reality?
l risk factors are known
heart attacks are preventable
ins killer #1, + severe disability
onal approach has failed!
9. Heart attack caused by atherosclerosis
Eradication: dream or reality?Eradication: dream or reality?
l risk factors are knownl risk factors are known
heart attacks are preventable
ins killer #1, + severe disability
onal approach has failed!
20. Heart attack caused by atherosclerosis
Eradication: dream or reality?Eradication: dream or reality?
l risk factors are knownl risk factors are known
heart attacks are preventable
ins killer #1, + severe disability
onal approach has failed!
21. Heart attack caused by atherosclerosis
Eradication: dream or reality?Eradication: dream or reality?
l risk factors are knownl risk factors are known
heart attacks are preventableheart attacks are preventable
ins killer #1, + severe disability
onal approach has failed!
22.
23. Heart attack caused by atherosclerosis
Eradication: dream or reality?Eradication: dream or reality?
l risk factors are knownl risk factors are known
heart attacks are preventableheart attacks are preventable
ins killer #1, + severe disability
onal approach has failed!
24. Heart attack caused by atherosclerosis
Eradication: dream or reality?Eradication: dream or reality?
l risk factors are knownl risk factors are known
heart attacks are preventableheart attacks are preventable
ins killer #1,ins killer #1, + severe disability+ severe disability
onal approach has failed!
28. AHA Statistics – 2005 Update. http://www.americanheart.org/downloadable/heart/1105390918119HDSStats2005Update.pdf
38% of all deaths in the US caused by CVD
29. Heart attack caused by atherosclerosis
Eradication: dream or reality?Eradication: dream or reality?
l risk factors are knownl risk factors are known
heart attacks are preventableheart attacks are preventable
ins killer #1,ins killer #1, + severe disability+ severe disability
onal approach has failed!
Why?
30. Circulation. VP Consensus Document. 2003 Oct 7;108:1664-72Circulation. VP Consensus Document. 2003 Oct 7;108:1664-72
Available screening and diagnostic methods areAvailable screening and diagnostic methods are
insufficient to identify the victims before the eventinsufficient to identify the victims before the event
occurs.occurs.
36. Relative odds
individual at the 90individual at the 90thth
centilecentile
vsvs
individual at the 10individual at the 10thth
(RO(RO10-9010-90))
High
risk
Low
risk
~80%
overlap
Wald et al. Lancet 1994;343:75-9
37. Relative odds
individual at the 90individual at the 90thth
centilecentile
vsvs
individual at the 10individual at the 10thth
(RO(RO10-9010-90))
RO10-90 = 13
poor screening testpoor screening test
High
risk
Low
risk
~80%
overlap
Wald et al. Lancet 1994;343:75-9
38.
39.
40. Relative distributions
of risk factors
in men who subsequently died
of IHD and in men who did not.
Gaussian distribution fitted to
data from a cohort of
22 000 men22 000 men followedfollowed
prospectively for 10 yearsprospectively for 10 years
(the BUPA study) Wald, Law. BMJ 2003;326:1419-23
52. Hard to improve the predictive accuracy
by adding novel factors
Atherosclerosis 2005;181:93-100
53. Risk prediction by risk factor scoring
considerable overlap, not useful for screeningconsiderable overlap, not useful for screening
Atherosclerosis 2005;181:93-100
55. Framingham Risk Factor Scoring
hard endpoints: predicted vs observedhard endpoints: predicted vs observed
Liu et al. JAMA 2004;291:2591-9
Hard endpoints/10-yHard endpoints/10-y 20%
3%
China
56. China
Liu et al. JAMA 2004;291:2591-9
Framingham Risk Factor Scoring
hard endpoints: predicted vs observedhard endpoints: predicted vs observed
57. Risk in Europe based on European populations
susceptibility to causal risk factors: north vs southsusceptibility to causal risk factors: north vs south
58. Susceptibility to disease
similar risk factor exposuresimilar risk factor exposure →→ different risk of IHDdifferent risk of IHD
NY < MA
South < North
China <<< Framingham
59. Circulation. VP Consensus Document. 2003 Oct 7;108:1664-72Circulation. VP Consensus Document. 2003 Oct 7;108:1664-72
Available screening and diagnostic methods areAvailable screening and diagnostic methods are
insufficient to identify the victims before the eventinsufficient to identify the victims before the event
occurs.occurs.
60. Best Marker of Susceptibility to CHD
prevalent arterial diseaseprevalent arterial disease
CHD risk equivalentsCHD risk equivalents
NCEP ATP III
2002
62. Atherosclerosis Test
Negative Positive
No Risk Factors + Risk Factors
Step 1
Test for
Presence of the
Disease
Step 2
Stratify based on the
Severity of the Disease and
Presence of Risk Factors
Step 3
Treat based on
the Level of
Risk
Lower
Risk
Moderate
Risk
Moderately
High Risk
High
Risk
Very
High Risk
Apparently Healthy At-Risk Population
The 1st S.H.A.P.E. Guideline
Towards the National Screening for Heart Attack Prevention and Education (SHAPE) Program
Conceptual Flow Chart
<75th
Percentile
75th-90th
Percentile
≥90th
Percentile
+ ++ +++
64. The St. Francis Heart Study
fewer hard endpoints than predictedfewer hard endpoints than predicted (Framingham)(Framingham)
Grundy SM. JACC 2005;46:173-5
65. Grundy SM. JACC 2005;46:173-5
The St. Francis Heart Study
more soft than hard endpointsmore soft than hard endpoints
66. Grundy SM. JACC 2005;46:173-5
Risk prediction in clinical practice
? current risk categories retained, all events included ?? current risk categories retained, all events included ?
67. Grundy SM. JACC 2005;46:173-5
Risk prediction in clinical practice
? current risk categories retained, all events included ?? current risk categories retained, all events included ?
68. Grundy SM. JACC 2005;46:173-5
Risk prediction in clinical practice
? current risk categories retained, all events included ?? current risk categories retained, all events included ?
69. Atherosclerosis Test
Negative Positive
No Risk Factors + Risk Factors
Step 1
Test for
Presence of the
Disease
Step 2
Stratify based on the
Severity of the Disease and
Presence of Risk Factors
Step 3
Treat based on
the Level of
Risk
Lower
Risk
Moderate
Risk
Moderately
High Risk
High
Risk
Very
High Risk
Apparently Healthy At-Risk Population
The 1st S.H.A.P.E. Guideline
Towards the National Screening for Heart Attack Prevention and Education (SHAPE) Program
Conceptual Flow Chart
<75th
Percentile
75th-90th
Percentile
≥90th
Percentile
+ ++ +++