Differences in goal attainment in clinical management of dyslipidemia in China evaluated by different guidelines
10.3760/cma.j.issn.0253-3758.2009.04.017
- VernacularTitle:不同指南评价我国临床血脂异常达标率差别的研究
- Author:
Li-Rong LIANG
1
;
Yang-Feng WU
;
Lian-Cheng ZHAO
;
Zuo CHEN
;
Jun-Ren ZHU
Author Information
1. 中国医学科学院北京协和医学院阜外心血管病医院
- Keywords:
Dyslipidemia;
Lipid lowering drugs;
Guidelines;
Cardiovascular risk assessment
- From:
Chinese Journal of Cardiology
2009;37(4):363-368
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective To better understand the similarities and disparifies between the newly issued Chinese Guidelines on Prevention and Treatment of Oyslipidemia in Adults(CG)and exist relevant guidelines by comparing the actual effect on assessment of current clinical management of dyslipidemia in China,in order to promote the use of CG in clinical practice.Methotis Study participants included 2094 patients from the Second Multi-center Survey of Dyslipidemia Management in China.The goal attainment rate was defined as the proportion of participants who achieved their target low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C)levels specified by CG,the Chinese Expert Recommendations on Prevention and Treatment of Dyslipidemia(CR),the upsated Adult Treatment Panel Ⅲ of the National Cholesterol Education Program (ATP Ⅲ),respectively.Results (1)The overall goal attainment rates were 62%,34%and 50% according to CR,ATPⅢand CG,respectively.(2)With reference to the CG risk stratifications,the risk of nearly 40%of high risk patients and all very high risk patients were underestimated by CR,whereas the risk of more than 40%of patients in any risk groups were overestimated by ATP Ⅲ.(3)The disparities in risk stratifications accounted for 90%of the difference in overall goal attainment rate(12%)between CR and CG,while the disparities in the risk stratifications and that in LDL-C target levels were responsible for 29% and 71%of the difference(16%),respectively,between ATP Ⅲ and CG.Conclusions There were significant differences in goal attainment rates assessed by different clinical practice guidelines.CG is more aggressive in risk stratification than CR but simpler and easier to use than ATP Ⅲ,and hence more appropriate to Chinese patients and should be widely promoted in China.
