Search

Background: In Canada, 2 guidelines provide guidance for the management of dyslipidemia. The Patients, Experience, Evidence, Research simplified lipid guidelines, intended for primary care practitioners, and the Canadian Cardiovascular Society guidelines, intended for all practitioners, are based on differing methodologies with distinct priorities and preferences. The disparate approaches may contribute to confusion among family practitioners and their co-managed patients, with the potential for compromised care, differing standards for training in the fundamentals of lipidology, and differing criteria that might be used in practice audits to evaluate quality of care., Methods: The Patients, Experience, Evidence, Research (PEER) recommendations were considered by primary authors of the Canadian Cardiovascular Society guideline to identify areas of concordance, discordance, or agreement with qualifications., Results: Discordance between the guidelines is greatest with respect to interpretation of the cholesterol profile, the implications of elevated triglyceride, the utility of apolipoprotein B and non-high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol measurements, the role of nonstatin medications, and the importance of assuring adherence and avoiding undertreatment through follow-up measurement of lipid profiles. The disparate importance attached to identification of patients with enhanced risk due to an elevated lipoprotein (a) level is also apparent., Conclusions: This comparison attempts to reconcile key principles of practice, to foster both high quality of care and fully informed patient-centred decision-making., (© 2024 The Authors.)

Background: Heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) carries high morbidity and mortality. Compared with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), HFpEF is difficult to diagnose, and lacks evidence-based treatments. In this survey we assessed perceptions of cardiologists, internists, and primary care physicians (PCPs) regarding HFpEF diagnosis and management., Methods: In total, 159 cardiologists, 89 internists, and 200 PCPs from across Canada completed an online survey, with response rates of 14%-17%., Results: The perceived prevalence of HFpEF vs HFrEF was similar across physician types (58% HFrEF, 42% HFpEF). Thirty-seven percent of PCPs did not differentiate HF on the basis of ejection fraction. All physician types ranked symptom and mortality reduction as treatment priorities. Ninety-two percent of specialists believed that HFpEF is best comanaged by PCPs and specialists, whereas one-fifth of PCPs suggested PCP management alone. Compared with specialists, PCPs were more likely to underestimate HFpEF mortality and less aware of sex differences in the prevalence of HFpEF vs HFrEF (all P < 0.001). Fewer PCPs use natriuretic peptides for diagnosis ( P < 0.001). All physician types listed cost and availability as barriers to natriuretic peptide use. Ninety-one percent of PCPs incorrectly identified various therapies as effective for improving HFpEF outcomes. Most of all physicians expressed a strong desire to increase knowledge of diagnostic and treatment algorithms for HFpEF., Conclusions: There are substantial knowledge gaps in the diagnosis and management of HFpEF, particularly among PCPs. Because of the prevalence of HFpEF in primary care, strategies are required to reduce these gaps., (© 2020 Canadian Cardiovascular Society. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: The prevalence of heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) is 1 of 250 in the general population and approximately 1 of 125 in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), yet only a minority are diagnosed. The diagnostic criteria for FH rely on a point system using low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), family history, cutaneous manifestations, and molecular diagnosis. The aim of the present study was to determine the prevalence of FH in the R elating E vidence to A chieve C holesterol T argets (REACT) registry., Methods: Patients were enrolled as ASCVD (n = 86) or FH (n = 109) and with an LDL-C level > 3.0 mmol/L despite maximally tolerated statin therapy. FH was diagnosed clinically using a validated clinical application integrating an imputation for baseline (untreated) LDL-C levels., Results: There were 109 men and 86 women with a mean age of 63 ± 12 years. Diabetes (29.7%), hypertension (62.1%), smoking (37.9%), and family history of premature ASCVD (59.5%) were common. On-treatment LDL-C was 4.26 ± 0.94 mmol/L. On the basis of the dose and type of statin ± ezetimibe, imputed baseline LDL-C was 7.04 ± 2.90 mmol/L. A diagnosis of probable/definite FH was found in 54.7%, 49.5%, and 61.5% of patients according to the Simon Broome, Dutch Lipid Clinic Network criteria, and the new Canadian FH definition, respectively. Of note, 40% of patients in the ASCVD inclusion subgroup had probable or definite FH., Conclusions: Our study reveals that a substantial proportion of patients with ASCVD whose LDL-C levels are > 3.0 mmol/L despite maximally tolerated statins have heterozygous FH. Clinicians should consider using the recently described algorithm to assess the possibility of FH in this high-risk population., (© 2019 Canadian Cardiovascular Society. Published by Elsevier Inc.)