Using Big Data for Cardiovascular Health Surveillance: Insights From 10.3 Million Individuals in the CANHEART Cohort

BackgroundThe increasing availability of large electronic population-based databases offers unique opportunities to conduct cardiovascular health surveillance traditionally done using surveys. We aimed to examine cardiovascular risk-factor burden, preventive care, and disease incidence among adults in Ontario, Canada—using routinely collected data—and compare estimates with health survey data.MethodsIn the Cardiovascular Health in Ambulatory Care Research Team (CANHEART) initiative, multiple health administrative databases were linked to create a population-based cohort of 10.3 million adults without histories of cardiovascular disease. We examined cardiovascular risk-factor burden and screening and outcomes between 2016 and 2020. Risk- factor burden was also compared with cycles 3 to 5 (2012 to 2017) of the Canadian Health Measures Survey (CMHS), which included 9473 participants across Canada.ResultsMean age of our study cohort was 47.9 ± 17.0 years, and 52.0% were women. Lipid and diabetes assessment rates among individuals 40 to 79 years were 76.6% and 78.2%, respectively, and lowest among men 40 to 49 years of age. Total cholesterol levels and diabetes and hypertension rates among men and women 20 to 79 years were similar to Canadian Health Measures Survey (CHMS) findings (total cholesterol: 4.80/4.98 vs 4.94/5.25 mmol/L; diabetes: 8.2%/7.1% vs 8.1%/6.0%; hypertension: 21.4%/21.6% vs 23.9%/23.1%, respectively); however, patients in the CANHEART study had slightly higher mean glucose (men: 5.79 vs 5.44; women: 5.39 vs 5.09 mmol/L) and systolic blood pressures (men: 126.2 vs 118.3; women: 120.6 vs 115.7 mm Hg).ConclusionsCardiovascular health surveillance is possible through linkage of routinely collected electronic population-based datasets. However, further investigation is needed to understand differences between health administrative and survey measures cross-sectionally and over time.     

Role of Hypothermia in Adult Cardiac Surgery Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

1. Download : Download high-res image (125KB)
2. Download : Download full-size image

     

Women-Focused Cardiovascular Rehabilitation: An International Council of Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation Clinical Practice Guideline

Women-focused cardiovascular rehabilitation (CR; phase II) aims to better engage women, and might result in better quality of life than traditional programs. This first clinical practice guideline by the International Council of Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation (ICCPR) provides guidance on how to deliver women-focused programming. The writing panel comprised experts with diverse geographic representation, including multidisciplinary health care providers, a policy-maker, and patient partners. The guideline was developed in accordance with Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II and the Reporting Items for practice Guidelines in HealTh care (RIGHT). Initial recommendations were on the basis of a meta-analysis. These were circulated to a Delphi panel (comprised of corresponding authors from review articles and of programs delivering women-focused CR identified through ICCPR’s audit; N = 76), who were asked to rate each on a 7-point Likert scale in terms of impact and implementability (higher scores positive). A Web call was convened to achieve consensus; 15 panelists confirmed strength of revised recommendations (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation [GRADE]). The draft underwent external review from CR societies internationally and was posted for public comment. The 14 drafted recommendations related to referral (systematic, encouragement), setting (model choice, privacy, staffing), and delivery (exercise mode, psychosocial, education, self-management empowerment). Nineteen (25.0%) survey responses were received. For all but 1 recommendation, ≥ 75% voted to include; implementability ratings were < 5/7 for 4 recommendations, but only 1 for effect. Ultimately 1 recommendation was excluded, 1 separated into 2 and all revised (2 substantively); 1 recommendation was added. Overall, certainty of evidence for the final recommendations was low to moderate, and strength mostly strong. These recommendations and associated tools can support all programs to feasibly offer some women-focused programming.