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 .
Effectiveness of nurse-delivered cardiovascular risk management in primary care: a randomised trial.
BACKGROUND A substantial part of cardiovascular disease prevention is delivered in primary care . Special attention should be paid to the assessment of cardiovascular risk factors . According to the Dutch guideline for cardiovascular risk management , the heavy workload of cardiovascular risk management for GPs could be shared with advanced practice nurses . AIM To investigate the clinical effectiveness of practice nurses acting as substitutes for GPs in cardiovascular risk management after 1 year of follow-up . DESIGN OF STUDY Prospect i ve pragmatic r and omised trial . SETTING Primary care in the south of the Netherl and s. Six centres ( 25 GPs , six nurses ) participated . METHOD A total of 1626 potentially eligible patients at high risk for cardiovascular disease were r and omised to a practice nurse group ( n = 808 ) or a GP group ( n = 818 ) in 2006 . In total , 701 patients were included in the trial . The Dutch guideline for cardiovascular risk management was used as the protocol , with st and ardised techniques for risk assessment . Changes in the following risk factors after 1 year were measured : lipids , systolic blood pressure , and body mass index . In addition , patients in the GP group received a brief question naire . RESULTS A larger decrease in the mean level of risk factors was observed in the practice nurse group compared with the GP group . After controlling for confounders , only the larger decrease in total cholesterol in the practice nurse group was statistically significant ( P = 0.01 , two-sided ) . CONCLUSION Advanced practice nurses are achieving results , equal to or better than GPs for the management of risk factors . The findings of this study support the involvement of practice nurses in cardiovascular risk management in Dutch primary care
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 .