Title : Comparative policies in preventative cardiology across the world
Abstract:
Recommendations for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) vary by global region. This variability occurs by nature of different practice guidelines being put forth by separate regional cardiology societies, such as The American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA), the 2022 United States Preventative Services Task Force (USPTF), and European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Approaches to risk evaluation and management differ in many ways, including types of risk factors to consider, tools used to assess risk, populations to screen, and recommended interventions. This presentation will examine the differing healthcare system contexts of various regions that may way on primary prevention approaches, requisite stated goals for primary prevention regionally, and ways in which the differing primary prevention guidelines may track those factors. This will include an overview of the 2019 ACC/AHA Guidelines on CVD prevention, the 2021 ESC Guidelines on CVD prevention, and the 2022 USPTF guidelines on CVD prevention, and their major differences. It will also include a brief overview of which clinicians in other global regions tend to reference either guideline in practice. Attention will be paid to what major trials are cited by each, stated rationales for differing guidelines, major healthcare system differences, and perceived regional values such as population health or global and climate health. Finally, it will consider for discussion ways in which each system may holistically impact the other looking forward to future guidelines.
Audience Take Away
- Learn major regional differences in guidelines for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease across the world
- Compare the major CVD primary prevention guidelines—ACC/AHA, ESC, USPTF—to identify important similarities and differences.
- Consider myriad reasons contributing to regional differences, including population health, health systems, and scientific evidence.
- The audience will be able to gain a better understanding of the differences in these guidelines and what drives them and, as a result, think critically about what risk modifiers, screening, and interventions to consider for various patients.