Nota: Estas diretrizes se prestam a informar e não a substituir o julgamento clínico do médico que, em última análise, deve determinar o tratamento apropriado para seus pacientes.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

BackgroundPortuguese-speaking countries (PSC) share the influence of the Portuguese culture but have socioeconomic development patterns that differ from that of Portugal.ObjectiveTo describe trends in cardiovascular disease (CVD) morbidity and mortality in the PSC between 1990 and 2016, stratified by sex, and their association with the respective sociodemographic indexes (SDI).MethodsThis study used the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2016 data and methodology. Data collection followed international standards for death certification, through information systems on vital statistics and mortality surveillance, surveys, and hospital registries. Techniques were used to standardize causes of death by the direct method, as were corrections for underreporting of deaths and garbage codes. To determine the number of deaths due to each cause, the CODEm (Cause of Death Ensemble Model) algorithm was applied. Disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) and SDI (income per capita, educational attainment and total fertility rate) were estimated for each country. A p-value <0.05 was considered significant.ResultsThere are large differences, mainly related to socioeconomic conditions, in the relative impact of CVD burden in PSC. Among CVD, ischemic heart disease was the leading cause of death in all PSC in 2016, except for Mozambique and Sao Tome and Principe, where cerebrovascular diseases have supplanted it. The most relevant attributable risk factors for CVD among all PSC are hypertension and dietary factors.ConclusionCollaboration among PSC may allow successful experiences in combating CVD to be shared between those countries.

No abstract

BackgroundSince the first position statement on diabetes and cardiovascular prevention published in 2014 by the Brazilian Diabetes Society, the current view on primary and secondary prevention in diabetes has evolved as a result of new approaches on cardiovascular risk stratification, new cholesterol lowering drugs, and new anti-hyperglycemic drugs. Importantly, a pattern of risk heterogeneity has emerged, showing that not all diabetic patients are at high or very high risk. In fact, most younger patients who have no overt cardiovascular risk factors may be more adequately classified as being at intermediate or even low cardiovascular risk. Thus, there is a need for cardiovascular risk stratification in patients with diabetes. The present panel reviews the best current evidence and proposes a practical risk-based approach on treatment for patients with diabetes.Main bodyThe Brazilian Diabetes Society, the Brazilian Society of Cardiology, and the Brazilian Endocrinology and Metabolism Society gathered to form an expert panel including 28 cardiologists and endocrinologists to review the best available evidence and to draft up-to-date an evidence-based guideline with practical recommendations for risk stratification and prevention of cardiovascular disease in diabetes. The guideline includes 59 recommendations covering: (1) the impact of new anti-hyperglycemic drugs and new lipid lowering drugs on cardiovascular risk; (2) a guide to statin use, including new definitions of LDL-cholesterol and in non-HDL-cholesterol targets; (3) evaluation of silent myocardial ischemia and subclinical atherosclerosis in patients with diabetes; (4) hypertension treatment; and (5) the use of antiplatelet therapy.ConclusionsDiabetes is a heterogeneous disease. Although cardiovascular risk is increased in most patients, those without risk factors or evidence of sub-clinical atherosclerosis are at a lower risk. Optimal management must rely on an approach that will cover both cardiovascular disease prevention in individuals in the highest risk as well as protection from overtreatment in those at lower risk. Thus, cardiovascular prevention strategies should be individualized according to cardiovascular risk while intensification of treatment should focus on those at higher risk.

Background NT‐proBNP (N‐terminal pro‐B‐type natriuretic peptide) improves the discriminatory ability of risk‐prediction models in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) but is not yet used in clinical practice. We assessed the discriminatory strength of NT‐proBNP by itself for death and cardiovascular events in high‐risk patients with T2DM. Methods and Results Cox proportional hazards were used to create a base model formed by 20 variables. The discriminatory ability of the base model was compared with that of NT‐proBNP alone and with NT‐proBNP added, using C‐statistics. We studied 5509 patients (with complete data) of 8561 patients with T2DM and cardiovascular and/or chronic kidney disease who were enrolled in the ALTITUDE (Aliskiren in Type 2 Diabetes Using Cardiorenal Endpoints) trial. During a median 2.6‐year follow‐up period, 469 patients died and 768 had a cardiovascular composite outcome (cardiovascular death, resuscitated cardiac arrest, nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, or heart failure hospitalization). NT‐proBNP alone was as discriminatory as the base model for predicting death (C‐statistic, 0.745 versus 0.744, P =0.95) and the cardiovascular composite outcome (C‐statistic, 0.723 versus 0.731, P =0.37). When NT‐proBNP was added, it increased the predictive ability of the base model for death (C‐statistic, 0.779 versus 0.744, P <0.001) and for cardiovascular composite outcome (C‐statistic, 0.763 versus 0.731, P <0.001). Conclusions In high‐risk patients with T2DM, NT‐proBNP by itself demonstrated discriminatory ability similar to a multivariable model in predicting both death and cardiovascular events and should be considered for risk stratification. Registration URL: https://www.clini​caltr​ials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT00549757.