Latest news with #PREVENT
Mint
13 hours ago
- Health
- Mint
Heart age calculator: Check your ‘heart age' — it can even predict disease risk and more
A recent study has suggested that the heart's age for several Americans could be a decade older than their actual age. In the United States, heart disease serves as the leading cause of death, and the research highlights that the heart might be aging faster compared to the rest of the body, Today reported. Dr Sadiya Khan, the Magerstadt professor of cardiovascular epidemiology at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, told the news outlet that doctors usually give a percentage to talk about the patient's risk for a heart-related disease. Khan, along with her team, conducted a study to get a less abstract and more relatable way through which the risk of heart disease can be conveyed. For this, they worked around the idea of 'heart age,' since she said it is "a lot easier to understand". As part of their study, the researchers designed a heart age calculator that was based on the criteria set by the American Heart Association. Their work was published in the JAMA Cardiology earlier this week. The Predicting Risk of Cardiovascular Disease Events (PREVENT) tool of the American Heart Association tells people about their estimated risk for cardiovascular disease by taking into consideration various information, such as blood pressure, BMI, cholesterol levels, medications, and others. Taking a step forward, the new study has translated the risk percentages it provides into heart risk "ages," Today reported. Further, they tested this tool by utilizing data from a nationally representative sample of over 14,000 people, who were in the 30 to 79 age group. Notably, none of them had any history of cardiovascular disease. Sadiya Khan and her team used this data to calculate the heart age of these people and then compared it to their actual chronological ages. They found out that for many samples, the heart's risk age stood greater than the chronological age. The study mentions that men's heart risk age was found to be seven years older than their chronological age on average. On the other hand, the age gap for women was four years. Khan said it was "not that meaningful" if the age gap is off by one or two years, but she recommends people stay concerned if this gap is five years or more. Also, the study highlights that the heart age of Black men in the US was 8.5 years older than their chronological age, while it was found to be 6.2 years for white men. Meanwhile, Black women's hearts were 6.2 years older compared to their actual age, and the gap for white women was found to be 3.7 years. Usually, this is when the heart age remains equal to the person's chronological age. There are specific tools available online to calculate your heart age. Yes, it is possible. Experts suggest that people bring in healthy lifestyle changes to improve heart age.
Time of India
a day ago
- Health
- Time of India
Is your heart aging faster than you? US cardiologists develop tool to calculate the actual 'heart age'
'Child at heart' has never been more relevant! Or is it 'old at heart'? Do you think your heart's the same age as your calendar age? Think again. A team of US cardiologists has launched a free online tool that calculates your cardiovascular 'heart age' using familiar health metrics, like blood pressure, cholesterol, diabetes status, kidney function, and smoking history. The system translates complex cardiovascular risk into a simple age, making it easier to understand and take action. Launched alongside a large nationwide study of over 14,000 adults (aged 30-79), the tool reveals many Americans have hearts aging faster than expected. Here's how it works, who's most affected, and what you can do to turn back the clock. What the study revealed Researchers at Northwestern University published their findings on July 30 in JAMA Cardiology , using the PREVENT risk equations developed by the American Heart Association . These modern equations incorporate routine health data and reflect diverse populations more accurately than older models like Framingham. When applied to participants from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2011–2020), the tool revealed that over 50% of adults have 'heart ages' that exceed their actual age. What exactly is 'heart age'? Heart age refers to the estimated age of a person's cardiovascular system based on their risk factors for heart disease, such as high blood pressure, high cholesterol, smoking, and physical inactivity. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Hiranandani Fortune City: At Panvel, Mumbai: 2BHK: 1.05 Cr* Hiranandani Fortune City Enquire Now Undo It's a way to understand how lifestyle and health choices affect the health of your heart, potentially making it older or younger than your actual age. The 'heart age' calculator The study led by Dr. Sadiya Khan of Northwestern University introduced the tool in JAMA Cardiology, basing it on the PREVENT risk model, an updated alternative to older frameworks like the Framingham Risk Score. The online calculator translates users' routine health data into a 'heart age' score that aims to make cardiovascular risk more relatable and actionable, especially in busy primary care settings. The shocking truth about most Americans' 'heart age' Using data from over 14,000 adults in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), the study found: Women averaged a heart age of 55.4, while their actual age averaged 51.3 Men averaged a heart age of 56.7, compared to an actual age of 49.7 That means many Americans could have hearts that are 4-7 years older than their birth certificate suggests. Sociodemographic factors sharpened the disparity. On average, Black men had a heart age that was 8.5 years older than their chronological age while Black women's hearts were 6.2 years older than their actual age. Hispanic men had a gap of 7.9 years between their heart age and actual age, compared to a gap of 4.8 years for Hispanic women. Lower education levels (especially high school or less) were associated with wider heart-age gaps, often exceeding a decade. Meanwhile, white men had an average heart age that was 6.4 years higher than their actual age. And white women had a gap of 3.7 years between their heart age and chronological age. Why 'heart age' resonates (better than percentages) Traditional risk models offer a percentage chance of a cardiovascular event, something like an '8% risk in 10 years.' But those numbers can feel abstract and fail to motivate many patients. On the other hand, describing cardiovascular risk in terms of 'heart age' helps people understand how their habits and health metrics stack up. Preventive cardiologist Dr. Sadiya Khan explains that this age-based framing motivates actionable conversations and encourages preventive steps earlier, especially in younger adults who may overlook long-term risk. Experts' take As reported by Today, while "it's probably not that meaningful if your age is off by one or two years," says Dr. Sadiya Khan. The authors of the research recommend getting concerned if the gap is five years or more. As per Dr. Khan, "Heart disease is the leading cause of death. So the gaps that we're seeing are similar to gaps in life expectancy and may be contributing to it." "Because the (heart ages) are based on 10-year risks, this is a little bit of a forecast," Khan explains. And the data is "likely pointing to worsening cardiovascular disease risk if we're seeing gaps in even young people," she says. On the flip side, some people had heart ages that were actually lower than their chronological age, which Khan describes as "the Holy Grail." That's likely thanks, at least in part, to genetics, which means it's not totally within our control, she says. Aiming for a heart age that's younger than your chronological age is probably overly optimistic, Khan says, but knowing that it's possible makes it a worthy goal. How does the calculator work (and what are the limitations) The tool requires a few metrics to calculate your heart age, such as: Age, sex Blood pressure (systolic) Cholesterol levels Diabetes and smoking status Kidney health (eGFR) Use of blood pressure medications It is tailored for adults 30-79 years old with no existing cardiovascular disease, and is designed for educational use, not to replace physician evaluation. Experts caution that the tool does not account for physical fitness, exercise habits, or women-specific cardiovascular risk factors such as pregnancy-related complications or menopause How to slow down the heart's aging To slow down the heart's aging process and reduce the risk of heart disease, focus on adopting a healthy lifestyle that includes regular exercise, a heart-healthy diet, maintaining a healthy weight, managing stress, getting enough sleep, and avoiding smoking and excessive alcohol consumption. Regular health checkups are also crucial for early detection and management of any potential heart issues. Research suggests, even modest changes, such as walking regularly or improving diet, can bring your heart age closer to or even below your actual age over time. Faster pace of walking lowers risk of heart failure in postmenopausal women: Research Study
Medscape
27-06-2025
- Health
- Medscape
New Heart Risk Tool Reveals Hidden Ethnic Patterns
TOPLINE: The American Heart Association's Predicting Risk of Cardiovascular Disease Events (PREVENT) equations successfully identified the risk for heart problems in a group of 361,778 ethnically diverse patients. Over a mean follow-up of 8.1 years, researchers observed 22,648 cardiovascular events, with the equations showing modest variation in performance across disaggregated ethnic subgroups. METHODOLOGY: The retrospective cohort study analyzed 361,778 primary care patients aged 30-79 years across the Sutter Health system in Northern California from January 2010 to September 2023, with participants requiring at least two primary care visits during the study period. Participants were required to have several baseline data points for the PREVENT equations to evaluate, including non-high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, systolic blood pressure, BMI, estimated glomerular filtration rate, diabetes status, and smoking status, all while being free of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Primary outcomes included identifying CVD events, defined as total CVD, atherosclerotic CVD, and heart failure, using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth and Tenth Revision codes, with a mean follow-up duration of 8.1 years. TAKEAWAY: Among Asian populations, C statistics for total CVD ranged from a C statistic of 0.79 (95% CI, 0.77-0.81) in Filipino patients to a C statistic of 0.85 (95% CI, 0.83-0.87) in Asian Indian patients, with calibration slopes generally under 1.0, except for Asian Indian participants. Hispanic subgroups showed consistent C statistics — a measure of how well a model distinguishes between two groups — between 0.80 and 0.82 for total CVD and good predictive performance. The PREVENT equations outperformed the pooled cohort equations for predicting atherosclerotic CVD across all racial and ethnic groups and subgroups. The researchers observed small differences in the performance of PREVENT equations for atherosclerotic CVD and heart failure among racial and ethnic groups and subgroups. IN PRACTICE: 'Our results show that PREVENT equations performed well in this study cohort and similarly to the original equation development and validation cohort on the discrimination measure,' the researchers reported. 'In particular, the performance was slightly better in discriminating CVD events for Asian and Hispanic participants compared to Black or White participants in the study population. The equations slightly overestimated CVD risk for all three CVD event types in Asian and most Asian subgroups and accurately predicted CVD events among Hispanic and disaggregated Hispanic subgroups.' 'As the burden of CVD and its risk factors is forecasted to increase in the coming decades alongside rapid growth of the Asian and Hispanic populations in the US, the imperative for equitable clinical CVD prevention is more urgent than ever,' wrote Nilay S. Shah, MD, MPH, of Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, in Chicago, in an editorial accompanying the journal article. 'Although best practices for clinical implementation of the PREVENT cardiovascular disease risk prediction models should be further investigated, [the new study shows] that the PREVENT equations are an important step forward for Asian and Hispanic communities that until now were unseen in CVD prevention recommendations.' SOURCE: The study was led by Xiaowei Yan, PhD, MS, MPH, of the Center for Health Systems Research at Sutter Health in Walnut Creek, California. It was published online on June 25 in JAMA Cardiology. LIMITATIONS: Despite disaggregation of Asian and Hispanic subgroups, the researchers were unable to fully examine other disaggregated groups due to small sample sizes. As a study based on data from a healthcare system, the population may be biased toward less healthy individuals compared to the general population. Almost half of eligible patients had incomplete data and were excluded from the analysis, potentially introducing selection bias. DISCLOSURES: The study received funding from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; the American Heart Association/Harold Amos Medical Faculty Development program; and the Doris Duke Foundation, as well as consulting fees from multiple organizations including Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Esperion Therapeutics, and others. This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
Medscape
05-06-2025
- Health
- Medscape
Diabetes Status May Not Affect Outcomes of Preventive PCI
The PREVENT trial found preventive percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) combined with optimal medical therapy was more effective than medical therapy alone in reducing major adverse cardiac events in patients with non–flow-limiting vulnerable plaques. The new analysis found patients with non–flow-limiting vulnerable plaques had similar 2-year cardiac outcomes regardless of diabetes status, but those who received preventive PCI combined with optimal medical therapy had lower rates of cardiac events than those who received medical therapy alone. METHODOLOGY: The post hoc analysis of the PREVENT data compared the clinical outcomes of preventive PCI plus optimal medical therapy and medical therapy alone in patients with (n = 490) or without (n = 1116) diabetes. Plaques were defined as non–flow-limiting when the fractional flow reserve was > 0.80; vulnerable plaques were identified using intracoronary imaging. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization, or hospitalization for unstable or progressive angina at 2 years after randomization; the median follow-up duration was 4.3 years. TAKEAWAY: At 2 years, the incidence of the composite primary endpoint was not significantly different between patients with diabetes and those without the condition (1.8% and 1.9%, respectively; P = .956). = .956). The composite primary endpoint occurred less frequently with preventive PCI than with optimal medical therapy alone for both patients with diabetes (0% vs 3.7%; log-rank P = .003) and those without diabetes (0.5% vs 3.2%; log-rank P < .001). = .003) and those without diabetes (0.5% vs 3.2%; log-rank < .001). The reduced incidence of the primary endpoint with preventive PCI was mainly driven by reduced rates of ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization and hospitalizations for unstable or progressive angina in both patients with diabetes and those without the disorder. IN PRACTICE: 'These findings support that preventive PCI…irrespective of diabetes status, in patients with non–flow-limiting vulnerable coronary plaques,' the researchers wrote. Vulnerable plaques 'may be guilty by association but may not be the sole culprit behind residual cardiovascular risk,' wrote Diana A. Gorog, MD, PhD, of Imperial College London, London, England, in an editorial accompanying the journal article. Such plaques 'may be just one marker of a vulnerable patient, but not the only determinant of risk. Perhaps we need to find better ways of identifying the vulnerable patient, rather than focusing solely on vulnerable plaques,' Gorog added. SOURCE: This study was led by Min Chul Kim of Chonnam National University Hospital in Gwangju, South Korea. It was originally presented at American College of Cardiology (ACC) Scientific Session 2024 and was published online on May 29, 2025, in European Heart Journal . LIMITATIONS: The clinical outcomes were exploratory as the study was powered only for the composite primary endpoint, with event rates lower than anticipated. The researchers did not differentiate between type 1 and type 2 diabetes, which might have limited the generalizability of the findings. Intravascular imaging at follow-up was not performed routinely. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by the CardioVascular Research Foundation, Abbott, Yuhan Corp, CAH-Cordis, Philips, and Infraredx. Several authors reported receiving research grants, consulting fees, and honoraria from various pharmaceutical and healthcare companies, including the funding agencies.
Medscape
22-05-2025
- Health
- Medscape
Managing Crohn's After Surgery: Expert Insights
This transcript has been edited for clarity. Hello. My name is Robert Battat. I am an associate professor of medicine at the University of Montreal and a gastroenterologist. I'm also the director of the Center for Clinical Excellence and Translational Research in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases at the University of Montreal Hospital Center. Today, we're going to be talking about postoperative care in Crohn's disease. The most common surgery that is performed is an ileocolonic resection or an ileocecal resection with primary ileocolic anastomosis. The first question that we want to ask is, who needs an operation? As effective therapies have entered into the market, there has been less need for surgery overall, but there's a greater need for surgery, particularly, in patients with Crohn's disease who have strictures. The two typical profiles of patients who are going to undergo surgery are patients who have severe stricturing disease at the onset, or selected patients who have nonstricturing Crohn's disease, but either because of patient preference or for other reasons that you may not want to try to treat the condition medically, surgery is attempted as a first option, which is reasonable in selected cases. Once a patient undergoes surgery, this is a critical period because patients have lost bowel, and according to clinical trials where they've tested drugs — particularly in the PREVENT trial, which tested the efficacy of infliximab vs placebo for prevention of recurrence — we saw that 60% of patients who received placebo had recurrence 6 months after the operation, as was indicated on a colonoscopy. We're seeing similar data in the recent REPREVIO trial, which tested the efficacy of vedolizumab vs placebo. If you give nothing overall, in the general postoperative Crohn's population, approximately 60%-65% of patients will have lesions, which can be seen on a colonoscopy. It doesn't mean that you're going to have symptoms. That's an important point — that patients, often, after surgery will not feel the recurrence, but definitely the recurrence will have happened. Being vigilant is very important for that reason. We have data that show that one of the most important things that you can do for a patient after surgery, even before thinking about another treatment, is planning to do a colonoscopy 6 months postoperatively. There was a randomized clinical trial called the POCER trial, which compared two treatment approaches. One treatment arm was based on doing a colonoscopy postoperatively and another treatment arm was based on standard of care. The treatment arm that used colonoscopy postoperatively had lower recurrence rates and better long-term outcomes just by the act of 'looking' early [with colonoscopy] and acting early if there was a recurrence than when a colonoscopy was done further out. We saw that just doing a colonoscopy early on was associated with lower rates of recurrence in the long run. When I have a patient who has a surgery, the first thing I'm thinking is, well, I have to look or [do a colonoscopy] 6-8 months after the surgery is done. That's nonnegotiable for all patients, unless there's some reason that I should not do the procedure for safety reasons. The other question that comes up is, 'Do I give the patient a postoperative prophylactic medication?' In my practice, because I tend to see higher-risk patients, I tend to give most patients prophylaxis against recurrence. However, there are ways that you can manage the use of prophylaxis because there are some patients who may not end up needing a medicine after surgery. The most recent data come from a large, multicenter international Inflammatory Bowel Disease Genetics Consortium cohort based out of Toronto showing that the highest risk factors for recurrence are being male, smoking, and having had previous surgeries. Those are three factors that are highly associated with recurrence. Interestingly, having fistulae in multiple cohorts was not [a risk factor]. For people who have those previously noted risk factors, those are patients for whom you definitely would want to try to give prophylaxis. A protective factor against recurrence is obviously treatment. What are the treatments that we give? There are older data on immunomodulators, such as azathioprine or 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) molecules, and although there is some mixed evidence for prevention of recurrence with these drugs, the main agents that are used in 2025 are biologic agents. The two biologic agents with the most robust data are infliximab, from the PREVENT trial that we previously described, and vedolizumab. Both agents were effective in preventing postoperative endoscopic recurrence. Both agents work, and I think the proof of concept really is that most biologic agents are likely to work. If you want to rely on only the highest level of evidence, those two agents are the most well studied. In terms of other considerations for postoperative Crohn's disease patients, there are some data for antibiotics. However, particularly for metronidazole, the issue is that giving it long term is not only not associated with long-term prevention with recurrence but also is associated with side effects such as neuropathy. You also want to start to think about non–IBD-related issues, such as vaccinations and absorption. If you have ileal resection, which is the most common site of resection, you do want to be ensuring that B12 levels in the blood are adequate, particularly if you've had more than 20 cm of ileum removed. Often, patients will get diarrhea and knowing that there are other causes of diarrhea is important. It can be the Crohn's disease; however, it could also be bile salt diarrhea or bile acid diarrhea, and so that should be on the differential diagnosis. The last thing I'd like to point out is that a useful tool to differentiate symptoms of Crohn's from other entities is the fecal calprotectin level. Fecal calprotectin indicates whether there is intestinal inflammation. Typically, I use it at 3 months postoperatively to risk-stratify patients. I use a value of 150 µg/g; if it's less than 150 µg/g, I assume it not to be postoperative recurrence causing the symptoms, but more likely bile salt diarrhea. If it is elevated, it may prompt an ileal colonoscopy to try to optimize therapy. Thank you.
