Effects of an Office-Based Carotid Ultrasound Screening Intervention

University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, 600 Highland Avenue, Madison, WI 53792, USA..
Journal of the American Society of Echocardiography: official publication of the American Society of Echocardiography (Impact Factor: 4.06). 07/2011; 24(7):738-47. DOI: 10.1016/j.echo.2011.02.013
Source: PubMed


Carotid ultrasound screening (CUS) has been recommended for cardiovascular disease risk prediction, but its effectiveness in clinical practice is unknown. The purpose of this study was to prospectively determine the effects of office-based CUS on physician decision making and patient health-related behaviors.
Physicians from five nonacademic, community practices recruited patients aged ≥40 years with ≥1 cardiovascular disease risk factor. Abnormal results on CUS (AbnlCUS) were defined as carotid intima-media thickness >75th percentile or carotid plaque presence. Subjects completed questionnaires before and immediately after CUS and then 30 days later to determine self-reported behavioral changes. Odds ratios (ORs) for changes in physician management and patient health-related behaviors were determined from multivariate hierarchical logistic regression models.
There were 355 subjects (mean age, 53.6 ± 7.9 years; mean number of risk factors, 2.3 ± 0.9; 58% women); 266 (74.9%) had AbnlCUS. The presence of AbnlCUS altered physicians' prescription of aspirin (P < .001) and cholesterol medications (P < .001). Immediately after CUS, subjects reported increased ability to change health-related behaviors (P = .002), regardless of their test results. Subjects with AbnlCUS reported increased cardiovascular disease risk perception (OR, 4.14; P < .001) and intentions to exercise (OR, 2.28; P = .008), make dietary changes (OR, 2.95; P < .001), and quit smoking (OR, 4.98; P = .022). After 30 days, 34% increased exercise frequency and 37% reported weight loss, but these changes were not predicted by the CUS results. AbnlCUS modestly predicted reduced dietary sodium (OR, 1.45; P = .002) and increased fiber (OR, 1.55; P = .022) intake.
Finding abnormal results on CUS had major effects on physician but not patient behaviors.

Download full-text


Available from: Claudia E Korcarz, Jul 28, 2014
  • Source
    • "Another key question that needs to be resolved is how the presence of high risk cIMT findings in a patient affects management decisions. When abnormal results are found on carotid ultrasound screening, physicians are more likely to prescribe aspirin and lipid-lowering medication.36 However, recent meta-analyses suggested that aspirin may not offer benefits for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease when considering the increase in bleeding risk.37,38 "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Primary prevention and early detection of cardiovascular disease is important, as it is the leading cause of death throughout world. Risk stratification algorithms, such as Framingham Risk Score and European Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation, that utilize a combination of various traditional risk factors have been developed to improve primary prevention. However, the accuracy of these algorithms for screening high risk patients is moderate at best. Accordingly, the use of biomarkers or imaging studies may improve risk stratification. Carotid ultrasound, which measures both carotid intima-media thichkness (cIMT) and carotid plaque, is useful in detecting the degree of subclinical carotid atherosclerosis, and has the advantage of being noninvasive and safe. Several large epidemiologic studies have indicated that cIMT and carotid plaque are closely related with other cardiovascular risk factors and may be useful for risk reclassification in subjects deemed to be at intermediate risk by traditional risk scores. Moreover, recent clinical guidelines for management of hypertension or dyslipidemia highlight the usefulness of cIMT in high risk patients. In this article, we review evidence for the usefulness of measurement of cIMT and carotid plaque for cardiovascular risk stratification.
    Yonsei medical journal 05/2014; 55(3):551-7. DOI:10.3349/ymj.2014.55.3.551 · 1.29 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Each year, the American Heart Association (AHA), in conjunction with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and other government agencies, brings together the most up-to-date statistics on heart disease, stroke, other vascular diseases, and their risk factors and presents them in its Heart Disease and Stroke Statistical Update. The Statistical Update is a critical resource for researchers, clinicians, healthcare policy makers, media professionals, the lay public, and many others who seek the best available national data on heart disease, stroke, and other cardiovascular disease-related morbidity and mortality and the risks, quality of care, use of medical procedures and operations, and costs associated with the management of these diseases in a single document. Indeed, since 1999, the Statistical Update has been cited >10 500 times in the literature, based on citations of all annual versions. In 2012 alone, the various Statistical Updates were cited ≈3500 times (data from Google Scholar). In recent years, the Statistical Update has undergone some major changes with the addition of new chapters and major updates across multiple areas, as well as increasing the number of ways to access and use the information assembled. For this year's edition, the Statistics Committee, which produces the document for the AHA, updated all of the current chapters with the most recent nationally representative data and inclusion of relevant articles from the literature over the past year. This year's edition includes a new chapter on peripheral artery disease, as well as new data on the monitoring and benefits of cardiovascular health in the population, with additional new focus on evidence-based approaches to changing behaviors, implementation strategies, and implications of the AHA's 2020 Impact Goals. Below are a few highlights from this year's Update.
    Circulation 12/2012; 127(1). DOI:10.1161/CIR.0b013e31828124ad · 14.43 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death and disability in the United States. Although current therapies can reduce the risk for CVD, they are only given to patients who are considered to be at risk, and are therefore only beneficial if a patient's risk is accurately predicted before he or she sustains a cardiovascular (CV) event. Unfortunately, even relatively accurate risk factor analyses, such as the Reynolds Risk Score algorithm, fail to identify some patients who will sustain a CV event within 10 years. In contrast, the presence of an atheroma is an absolute predictor for the potential of an atherothrombotic event to occur, and it is therefore reasonable to anchor clinical decisions based on this knowledge. Carotid intima-media thickness (CIMT) testing via B-mode ultrasound is a safe, simple, and inexpensive method for evaluating CV risk by measuring the combined thickness of the intimal and medial layers of the arterial wall. Use of CIMT testing can also detect marked thickening of the arterial wall, possibly indicating plaques or atheromas that are associated with accelerated atherosclerotic disease and increased risk for coronary artery disease, myocardial infarction, and stroke. These characteristics make CIMT a practical supplemental method that physicians can use when making decisions. Moreover, the ability of CIMT testing to identify and quantify atherosclerotic disease has led to the adoption of CIMT as a surrogate endpoint in clinical trials, allowing the efficacy of new drugs to be assessed much more rapidly than would be possible by focusing solely on CV event or mortality rates. To date, several trials have provided evidence to indicate that some CVD therapies slow, stop, or reverse the progression of CIMT. Although many of these studies show that changes in CIMT predict future CV events, the value of CIMT testing in CVD risk assessment is still vigorously debated. In this article, we clarify the utility of CIMT testing for risk classification and reexamine its usefulness as a method for assessing therapeutic efficacy.
    Postgraduate Medicine 03/2013; 125(2):108-23. DOI:10.3810/pgm.2013.03.2645 · 1.70 Impact Factor
Show more