Discrepantie in richtlijnen over laagwaardige zorg bij hart- en vaatziekten — narratieve review
Deze narratieve review analyseert de verschillen tussen internationale richtlijnen voor cardiovasculaire preventie op het gebied van laagwaardige zorg. De auteurs tonen aan dat er grote onduidelijkheid bestaat over aanbevelingen rondom coronair calciumscans, lipoproteïne(a)-bepaling, buikaorta-aneurysmascreening en lipidendaling bij ouderen. Omdat veel aanbevelingen gebaseerd zijn op niet-randomisatie data of expertconsensus, pleiten ze voor voorzichtigheid bij deze screeningen en interventies in de dagelijkse praktijk.
Abstract (original)
BACKGROUND: Low-value practices are interventions that do not provide health benefits due to lack of effectiveness or associated risks that outweigh the potential benefits. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study is to demonstrate discrepancies across various cardiovascular prevention guidelines published by numerous institutions and organisations, and establish an objective overview of the current state of the art and formulate recommendations for general practitioners. METHODS: A narrative review of clinical practice guidelines for CVD prevention published in English between January 2017 and December 2025 was conducted. Searches focused on major European, British, North American, and Australian scientific societies; only guidelines containing explicit recommendations on low-value or unnecessary practices were included. We identified the scientific evidence supporting these recommendations and searched for ongoing clinical trials - specifically in cases where recommendations were based on a single randomised trial, large non-randomised studies, retrospective data, or expert opinion. RESULTS: Guidelines show significant discrepancies regarding recommendations for low-value practices. These primarily relate to the evaluation of the coronary artery calcium (CAC) score, determination of lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)), screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), and the initiation of lipid-lowering treatment in older adults. Controversy and uncertainty were most evident when recommendations were based on non-randomised clinical trials or expert opinion. CONCLUSIONS: While some guidelines align, others exhibit clear discrepancies, illustrating the uncertainty of the scientific evidence and differing interpretations. Until robust evidence from high-quality clinical trials becomes available, clinicians should exercise caution regarding certain screening procedures and therapeutic interventions in CVD prevention within general practice.
Dit artikel is een samenvatting van een publicatie in The European journal of general practice. Voor het volledige artikel, alle details en referenties verwijzen wij u naar de oorspronkelijke bron.
Lees het volledige artikelDOI: 10.1080/13814788.2026.2729221
Wilt u op de hoogte blijven?
Gratis: de maandelijkse nieuwsbrief met het nieuwsoverzicht, en de site afgestemd op uw vakgebied.

