Limited data suggest that systematic risk assessment for CVD has no statistically significant effects on clinical endpoints .
There is limited evidence to suggest that CVD systematic risk assessment may have some favourable effects on cardiovascular risk factors .
BACKGROUND Screening programmes can potentially identify people at high cardiovascular risk and reduce cardiovascular disease ( CVD ) morbidity and mortality .
However , there is currently not enough evidence showing clear clinical or economic benefits of systematic screening-like programmes over the widely practised opportunistic risk assessment of CVD in primary care setting s. OBJECTIVES The primary objective of this review was to assess the effectiveness , costs and adverse effects of systematic risk assessment compared to opportunistic risk assessment for the primary prevention of CVD .
General health screenings to improve cardiovascular risk profiles: a randomized controlled trial in general practice with 5-year follow-up.
OBJECTIVES To investigate the impact of general health screenings and discussion s with general practitioners on the cardiovascular risk profile of a r and om population of patients . STUDY DESIGN A population -based , r and omized , controlled , 5-year follow-up trial conducted in a primary care setting . POPULATION The study group consisted of 2000 patients , r and omly selected middle-aged men and women aged 30 to 50 years from family practice s in the district of Ebeltoft , Denmark . Of these patients , 1507 ( 75.4 % ) agreed to participate . Patients were r and omized into ( 1 ) a control group who did not receive health screenings , ( 2 ) an intervention group that received 2 health screenings , ( 3 ) an intervention group that received both the 2 screenings and a 45-minute follow-up consultation annually with their general practitioner . OUTCOMES MEASURED Cardiovascular risk score ( CRS ) , body mass index ( BMI ) , blood pressure , serum cholesterol , carbon monoxide in expiratory air , and tobacco use . RESULTS After 5 years , the CRS , BMI , and serum cholesterol levels were lower in the intervention groups compared with the control group . The improved outcome was greater in the baseline risk groups . The number of patients with elevated CRS in the intervention groups was approximately half the number of patients with elevated CRS in the control group . The difference was not a result of medication use . There was no difference between the group that received consultations after the screenings and the group that had health screenings alone . CONCLUSIONS Health screenings reduced the CRS in the intervention groups . After 5 years of follow-up , the number of persons at elevated cardiovascular risk was about half that expected , based on the prevalence/proportion in a population not receiving the health checks ( the control group ) . The impact of intervention was higher among at-risk individuals . Consultations about health did not appear to improve the cardiovascular profile of the study population
Limited data suggest that systematic risk assessment for CVD has no statistically significant effects on clinical endpoints .
There is limited evidence to suggest that CVD systematic risk assessment may have some favourable effects on cardiovascular risk factors .
BACKGROUND Screening programmes can potentially identify people at high cardiovascular risk and reduce cardiovascular disease ( CVD ) morbidity and mortality .
However , there is currently not enough evidence showing clear clinical or economic benefits of systematic screening-like programmes over the widely practised opportunistic risk assessment of CVD in primary care setting s. OBJECTIVES The primary objective of this review was to assess the effectiveness , costs and adverse effects of systematic risk assessment compared to opportunistic risk assessment for the primary prevention of CVD .