Abstract P003: Distribution of Ideal Cardiovascular Health Metrics in US and Non-US populations: A Meta-Analysis of Proportions

Abstract

Introduction: With the development of new health metrics to define ideal cardiovascular health (CVH), several studies have examined the distribution of the American Heart Association (AHA) 2020 ideal CVH metrics both within and outside the United States (US). In this meta-analysis of proportions, we synthesized available data on ideal CVH metrics distribution in US cohorts and compared them with non-US populations. Methods: A MEDLINE database search was conducted using relevant free text terms such as “life’s simple 7”, “AHA 2020”, “American Heart Association 2020” and “ideal cardiovascular health” between January 2000 and October 2014. Studies were included in the meta-analysis if the proportions achieving ideal for 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or ≥6 ideal CVH metrics were known or could be estimated. A meta-analysis of proportions was conducted for US and non-US studies using a random effect model (REM). REM models were chosen because of the significant heterogeneity among studies. Results: Overall the pooled data consisted of 10 US cohorts with a total population of 94,761 participants and 6 non-US cohorts with a total of 130,242 participants. The table shows the pooled prevalence of ideal CVH factors in this population. Overall the pooled estimates of US cohorts showed 15% had 0-1 ideal CVH metrics (inter-study range: 7-22%), while 3% (inter-study range: 1-10%) had 6-7 ideal CVH metrics. This is comparable to 12% (inter-study range 1-17%) and 2% (inter-study range: 1-12%) for 0-1 and 6-7 ideal CVH metrics in the non-US studies. Conclusion: The proportion of persons achieving 6 or more ideal CVH metrics in both US and non-US cohorts is very low and the distribution of CVH metrics is similar in both US and non-US populations. Considering the strong association with worse outcomes, a coordinated global effort at improving CVH should be considered a priority.