Comparison of Primary Prevention Strategies for Coronary Heart Disease in Asymptomatic Individuals: The National Cholesterol Education Program-Adult Treatment Panel III Guideline Versus the Screening for Heart Attack Prevention and Education Guideline.
10.4070/kcj.2008.38.9.483
- Author:
Youngjin CHO
1
;
Yeonyee E YOON
;
Ji Hyun KIM
;
Jun Bean PARK
;
Hyo Eun PARK
;
Wonjae LEE
;
Eue Keun CHOI
;
Eun Ju CHUN
;
Sang Il CHOI
;
Dong Ju CHOI
;
Hyuk Jae CHANG
Author Information
1. Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University, College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea. hjchang@snu.ac.kr
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Coronary artery disease;
Primary prevention;
Guideline
- MeSH:
Angiography;
Calcium;
Cholesterol;
Constriction, Pathologic;
Coronary Artery Disease;
Coronary Disease;
Coronary Vessels;
Health Services Needs and Demand;
Heart;
Mass Screening;
Primary Prevention
- From:Korean Circulation Journal
2008;38(9):483-490
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The National Cholesterol Education Program-Adult Treatment Panel (NCEP-ATP) III guideline has been widely accepted for the primary prevention of coronary heart disease (CHD). The coronary artery calcium score (CACS) has recently been recognized as an excellent predictor of CHD events, and a primary prevention strategy based on the CACS [the Screening for Heart Attack Prevention and Education (SHAPE) guideline] has been proposed. The purpose of this study was to explore how the guidelines function for asymptomatic South Korean individuals. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: We consecutively enrolled 2,079 asymptomatic subjects (age range for men: 45-75 years, age range for women: 55-75 years) who underwent CACS and coronary CT angiography (CCTA) as a part of a health check-up. We analyzed the differences of the target population for CHD prevention according to the 2 guidelines and we compared them in terms of the presence of occult CHD. RESULTS: Four-hundred eighteen (20%) individuals were recommended for pharmacotherapy according to the NCEP-ATP III and 371 (18%) were recommended for pharmacotherapy according to the SHAPE guideline (Cohen's kappa=0.36). According to the SHAPE guideline, more individuals with significant stenosis noted on the CCTA were categorized into the high or very high risk group (50% vs. 24%, respectively, p<0.001) and recommended for pharmacotherapy (53% vs. 28%%, respectively, p<0.001). However, 57 (43%) individuals with significant stenosis on the CCTA were not suitable for pharmacotherapy according to either the NCEP-ATP III or the SHAPE guideline. CONCLUSION: Comparing the NCEP-ATP III and the SHAPE guidelines, there were considerable differences for primary prevention in the target population. Although SHAPE might provide more accurate stratification in terms of the presence of occult CHD, a more precise risk stratification algorithm needs to be implemented for this population.
