ReviewCurrent hypertension reviews2019
Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Risk in Octogenarians by Risk Factors Control.
Review in Current hypertension reviews, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Look at Primary and Secondary Prevention in the Elderly: The Two Sides of the Same Coin.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Achieving Cardiovascular Risk Management Goals and Patient Quality of Life.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2024Article
- The Impact of Anxiety and Depression Symptoms on Cardiovascular Risk Factor Control in Patients Without a History of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease.Vascular health and risk management · 2024Article
- Cardiovascular Risk Factor Control in 70- to 95-Year-Old Individuals: Cross-Sectional Results from the Population-Based AugUR Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Primary percutaneous coronary intervention in nonagenarians: is it worthwhile?BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Primary prevention of cardiovascular events in older adults is a relevant problem, due to lack of evidence for safe and efficacious therapy, its costs and elderly quality of life, Italy's aging population is constantly increasing, so cardiovascular disease (CVD) primary prevention in the elderly is a prime objective. Life expectancy has dramatically increased over the last 2 decades, the proportion of individuals aged 80 years and older has grown rapidly in Europe and the United States, but cost / effective ratio of CVD prevention through risk factors control is debated. It is therefore important to implement cardiovascular risk factors estimation in the elderly to maximize the quality of life of patients and to lengthen their healthy life expectancy, choosing the better treatment for each patient sharing the choice with himself when it is possible, always remembering that elderly patients often have multiple co-morbidities that require a high number of concurrent medications; this may increase the risk for drug-drug interactions, thereby reducing the potential benefits of CVD prevention therapy. Nevertheless, CVD is not an inevitable concomitant of aging. Sometimes, autopsy in the elderly reveals atheroma-free coronary arteries, a normal-sized heart and unscarred valves. All primary prevention strategy decisions should consider estimated life expectancy and overall function and not just the cardiovascular event risks, magnitude and time to benefit or harm, potentially altered adverse effect profiles, and informed patient preferences. CVD primary prevention needs to be more implemented in the elderly, this might contribute to improve health status and quality of life in this growing population if correctly performed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.