Discrepancies Between Physician-Perceived and Calculated Cardiovascular Risk in Primary Prevention: Implications for LDL-C Target Achievement and Appropriate Lipid-Lowering Therapy.

IF 3.1 Q2 PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE High Blood Pressure & Cardiovascular Prevention Pub Date : 2025-02-19 DOI:10.1007/s40292-025-00705-0
Arturo Cesaro, Vincenzo Acerbo, Francesco Scialla, Enrica Golia, Claudia Concilio, Gianmaria Scherillo, Gianantonio De Michele, Vincenzo de Sio, Antonio Capolongo, Luisa Di Donato, Maria Grazia Monaco, Simona Sperlongano, Alberto Ruggiero, Felice Gragnano, Elisabetta Moscarella, Carmine Riccio, Paolo Calabrò
{"title":"Discrepancies Between Physician-Perceived and Calculated Cardiovascular Risk in Primary Prevention: Implications for LDL-C Target Achievement and Appropriate Lipid-Lowering Therapy.","authors":"Arturo Cesaro, Vincenzo Acerbo, Francesco Scialla, Enrica Golia, Claudia Concilio, Gianmaria Scherillo, Gianantonio De Michele, Vincenzo de Sio, Antonio Capolongo, Luisa Di Donato, Maria Grazia Monaco, Simona Sperlongano, Alberto Ruggiero, Felice Gragnano, Elisabetta Moscarella, Carmine Riccio, Paolo Calabrò","doi":"10.1007/s40292-025-00705-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Accurate risk assessment is critical in cardiovascular (CV) prevention, yet physicians often underestimate CV risk, leading to inadequate preventive measures.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>This study evaluates the concordance between physician-perceived CV risk and calculated CV risk in a primary prevention setting.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This cross-sectional study included primary prevention patients from the Cardiology Outpatient Clinic of Caserta Hospital, Italy. Two independent cardiologists evaluated the physician-perceived risk, and a third resolved discrepancies. CV risk was calculated using SCORE2 for patients with 70 years or less and SCORE2-OP for those with more than 70 years. The concordance between perceived and calculated risks was assessed using Cohen's kappa coefficient. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to examine the influence of risk estimation on achieving low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) targets recommended by the ESC.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>389 patients had complete data for CV risk calculation. Physician-perceived risk categorized 8.7% of patients as low/moderate, 37.8% as high, and 53.5% as very-high risk. In contrast, calculated CV risk according to the SCORE2/SCORE2-OP classified 8% as low/moderate, 5.7% as high, and 86.4% as very-high risk. The concordance between perceived and calculated CV risk was poor (Cohen's kappa 0.208, p < 0.001). Underestimated patients reached LDL-C targets in 16% of cases, well-estimated in 34.5%, and overestimated in 76.9%. Statin use was significantly lower in patients with underestimated CV risk (29.2%) compared to well-estimated (50%) and overestimated (76.9%) groups (p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed that patients with overestimated risk were more likely to achieve LDL-C targets (OR 5.33, CI 1.33-21.42, p = 0.018), whereas underestimated patients were 47% less likely (OR 0.53, CI 0.3-0.93, p = 0.027).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>A significant discrepancy exists between physician-perceived and calculated CV risk, leading to risk underestimation in over one-third of patients. This underestimation is associated with lower LDL-C target achievement and reduced statin use.</p>","PeriodicalId":12890,"journal":{"name":"High Blood Pressure & Cardiovascular Prevention","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"High Blood Pressure & Cardiovascular Prevention","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40292-025-00705-0","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Accurate risk assessment is critical in cardiovascular (CV) prevention, yet physicians often underestimate CV risk, leading to inadequate preventive measures.

Aim: This study evaluates the concordance between physician-perceived CV risk and calculated CV risk in a primary prevention setting.

Methods: This cross-sectional study included primary prevention patients from the Cardiology Outpatient Clinic of Caserta Hospital, Italy. Two independent cardiologists evaluated the physician-perceived risk, and a third resolved discrepancies. CV risk was calculated using SCORE2 for patients with 70 years or less and SCORE2-OP for those with more than 70 years. The concordance between perceived and calculated risks was assessed using Cohen's kappa coefficient. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to examine the influence of risk estimation on achieving low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) targets recommended by the ESC.

Results: 389 patients had complete data for CV risk calculation. Physician-perceived risk categorized 8.7% of patients as low/moderate, 37.8% as high, and 53.5% as very-high risk. In contrast, calculated CV risk according to the SCORE2/SCORE2-OP classified 8% as low/moderate, 5.7% as high, and 86.4% as very-high risk. The concordance between perceived and calculated CV risk was poor (Cohen's kappa 0.208, p < 0.001). Underestimated patients reached LDL-C targets in 16% of cases, well-estimated in 34.5%, and overestimated in 76.9%. Statin use was significantly lower in patients with underestimated CV risk (29.2%) compared to well-estimated (50%) and overestimated (76.9%) groups (p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed that patients with overestimated risk were more likely to achieve LDL-C targets (OR 5.33, CI 1.33-21.42, p = 0.018), whereas underestimated patients were 47% less likely (OR 0.53, CI 0.3-0.93, p = 0.027).

Conclusions: A significant discrepancy exists between physician-perceived and calculated CV risk, leading to risk underestimation in over one-third of patients. This underestimation is associated with lower LDL-C target achievement and reduced statin use.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
3.30%
发文量
57
期刊介绍: High Blood Pressure & Cardiovascular Prevention promotes knowledge, update and discussion in the field of hypertension and cardiovascular disease prevention, by providing a regular programme of independent review articles covering key aspects of the management of hypertension and cardiovascular diseases. The journal includes:   Invited ''State of the Art'' reviews.  Expert commentaries on guidelines, major trials, technical advances.Presentation of new intervention trials design.''Pros and Cons'' or round tables on controversial issues.Statements on guidelines from hypertension and cardiovascular scientific societies.Socio-economic issues.Cost/benefit in prevention of cardiovascular diseases.Monitoring of healthcare systems.News and views from the Italian Society of Hypertension (including abstracts).All manuscripts are subject to peer review by international experts. Letters to the editor are welcomed and will be considered for publication.
期刊最新文献
Discrepancies Between Physician-Perceived and Calculated Cardiovascular Risk in Primary Prevention: Implications for LDL-C Target Achievement and Appropriate Lipid-Lowering Therapy. Cardiovascular Risk Factors and Diseases and Awareness of Related Burden in Women: Results of a Survey in Italian Pharmacies. "Minimal-Advice" on Salt Intake: Results of a Multicentre Pilot Randomised Controlled Trial on Hypertensive Patients. Posterior Reversible Leukoencephalopathy Syndrome During Hypertensive Crisis in Obstructive Sleep Apnea Syndrome: Searching for a Link. Influence of Persistently Elevated LDL Values on Carotid Intima Media Thickness in Elite Athletes.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1