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.

重新评估男性勃起功能障碍的心血管风险分层。
背景和目的:勃起功能障碍(ED)是心血管疾病(CVD)风险的一个独立且强有力的标志。普林斯顿共识旨在评估和管理没有已知心血管疾病的ED男性的心血管风险,重点是识别那些需要额外心血管检查的人。它最近更新了美国人口统计数据,但欧洲的建议是必要的。方法:对勃起功能障碍患者进行横断面调查。数据是从医院登记处收集的。采用两种风险分层模型进行比较:普林斯顿共识标准(PC)和欧洲心脏病学会(ESC)心血管疾病风险标准。目的是通过在欧洲男性中验证的模型,强调IV普林斯顿共识建议对勃起功能障碍男性心血管疾病风险分层的重要性。结果:共纳入137例ED患者,平均年龄57.1岁。根据PC标准,39.7%的患者为“低危”。采用ESC标准时,“低危”患者比例显著降低(12%,p < 0.05)。在PC为“低风险”的患者中,52.5%和20%的患者根据ESC标准被划分为高风险和极高风险。报告1例心肌梗死。根据PC,该患者被归类为“低风险”,但ESC标准将其归类为“高风险”。结论:PC检测CVD的灵敏度低于ESC推荐值。这引起了人们的关注,泌尿科医生可能会忽视未确诊的CVD患者,从而错过预防主要心血管事件(mace)和过早死亡的机会。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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