Reassessing cardiovascular risk stratification in men with erectile dysfunction.

IF 1.4 Q3 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
João Lorigo, Daniela Gomes, Ana Rita Ramalho, Edgar Silva, Patrícia Mendes, Arnaldo Figueiredo
{"title":"Reassessing cardiovascular risk stratification in men with erectile dysfunction.","authors":"João Lorigo, Daniela Gomes, Ana Rita Ramalho, Edgar Silva, Patrícia Mendes, Arnaldo Figueiredo","doi":"10.4081/aiua.2024.12427","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>Erectile dysfunction (ED) is an independent and strong marker of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. The Princeton Consensus aimed to evaluate and manage cardiovascular risk in men with ED and no known cardiovascular disease, focusing on identifying those requiring additional cardiologic work-up. It has recently been updated to the American population demographics, but European recommendations are needed.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>It was developed a cross-sectional investigation including erectile dysfunction patients. Data were collected from hospital registries. Two risk stratification models were employed and compared: Princeton Consensus Criteria (PC) and European Society of Cardiology (ESC) CVD Risk Criteria. The objective was to stress the importance of the changes in IV Princeton Consensus recommendations in stratifying CVD risk in men with erectile dysfunction using a model validated in European men.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 137 patients with ED, with a mean age of 57.1 years old, were included. According to the PC criteria, 39.7% of the patients were \"Low Risk\". When using ESC criteria, the proportion of \"Low Risk\" patients were significantly lower (12%, p < 0.05). Among \"Low Risk\" patients according to the PC, 52.5% and 20% were classified as High and Very high risk according to ESC criteria, respectively. One myocardial infarction was reported. The patient was classified as \"Low Risk\" according to the PC, but the ESC criteria categorized him as \"high risk\".</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>PC is less sensitive than ESC recommendations detecting CVD. It raises concerns that Urologists could be overlooking patients with undiagnosed CVD, consequently missing out on opportunities for prevention of major cardiovascular events (MACEs) and premature deaths.</p>","PeriodicalId":46900,"journal":{"name":"Archivio Italiano di Urologia e Andrologia","volume":"96 4","pages":"12427"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archivio Italiano di Urologia e Andrologia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2024.12427","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and objectives: Erectile dysfunction (ED) is an independent and strong marker of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. The Princeton Consensus aimed to evaluate and manage cardiovascular risk in men with ED and no known cardiovascular disease, focusing on identifying those requiring additional cardiologic work-up. It has recently been updated to the American population demographics, but European recommendations are needed.

Methods: It was developed a cross-sectional investigation including erectile dysfunction patients. Data were collected from hospital registries. Two risk stratification models were employed and compared: Princeton Consensus Criteria (PC) and European Society of Cardiology (ESC) CVD Risk Criteria. The objective was to stress the importance of the changes in IV Princeton Consensus recommendations in stratifying CVD risk in men with erectile dysfunction using a model validated in European men.

Results: A total of 137 patients with ED, with a mean age of 57.1 years old, were included. According to the PC criteria, 39.7% of the patients were "Low Risk". When using ESC criteria, the proportion of "Low Risk" patients were significantly lower (12%, p < 0.05). Among "Low Risk" patients according to the PC, 52.5% and 20% were classified as High and Very high risk according to ESC criteria, respectively. One myocardial infarction was reported. The patient was classified as "Low Risk" according to the PC, but the ESC criteria categorized him as "high risk".

Conclusions: PC is less sensitive than ESC recommendations detecting CVD. It raises concerns that Urologists could be overlooking patients with undiagnosed CVD, consequently missing out on opportunities for prevention of major cardiovascular events (MACEs) and premature deaths.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
35.70%
发文量
72
审稿时长
10 weeks
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信