Optimal risk assessment for primary prevention remains highly challenging. Recent registries have highlighted major discrepancies between guidelines and daily practice. Although guidelines have improved over time and provide updated risk scores, they still fail to identify a significant proportion of at-risk individuals, who then miss out on effective prevention measures until their initial ischemic events. Cardiovascular imaging is progressively assuming an increasingly pivotal role, playing a crucial part in enhancing the meticulous categorization of individuals according to their risk profiles, thus enabling the customization of precise therapeutic strategies for patients with increased cardiovascular risks. For the most part, the current approach to patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) is homogeneous. However, data from registries (e.g., REACH, CORONOR) and randomized clinical trials (e.g., COMPASS, FOURIER, and ODYSSEY outcomes) highlight heterogeneity in the risks of recurrent ischemic events, which are especially higher in patients with poly-vascular disease and/or multivessel coronary disease. This indicates the need for a more individualized strategy and further research to improve definitions of individual residual risk, with a view of intensifying treatments in the subgroups with very high residual risk. In this narrative review, we discuss advances in cardiovascular imaging, its current place in the guidelines, the gaps in evidence, and perspectives for primary and secondary prevention to improve risk assessment and therapeutic strategies using cardiovascular imaging.
Optimal risk assessment for primary prevention remains highly challenging. Recent registries have highlighted major discrepancies between guidelines and daily practice. Although guidelines have improved over time and provide updated risk scores, they still fail to identify a significant proportion of at-risk individuals, who then miss out on effective prevention measures until their initial ischemic events. Cardiovascular imaging is progressively assuming an increasingly pivotal role, playing a crucial part in enhancing the meticulous categorization of individuals according to their risk profiles, thus enabling the customization of precise therapeutic strategies for patients with increased cardiovascular risks. For the most part, the current approach to patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) is homogeneous. However, data from registries (e.g., REACH, CORONOR) and randomized clinical trials (e.g., COMPASS, FOURIER, and ODYSSEY outcomes) highlight heterogeneity in the risks of recurrent ischemic events, which are especially higher in patients with poly-vascular disease and/or multivessel coronary disease. This indicates the need for a more individualized strategy and further research to improve definitions of individual residual risk, with a view of intensifying treatments in the subgroups with very high residual risk. In this narrative review, we discuss advances in cardiovascular imaging, its current place in the guidelines, the gaps in evidence, and perspectives for primary and secondary prevention to improve risk assessment and therapeutic strategies using cardiovascular imaging.
Coronary artery disease (CAD) is highly prevalent in older adults, yet its management remains challenging. Treatment choices are made complex by the frailty burden of older patients, a high prevalence of comorbidities and body composition abnormalities (e.g., sarcopenia), the complexity of coronary anatomy, and the frequent presence of multivessel disease, as well as the coexistence of major ischemic and bleeding risk factors. Recent randomized clinical trials and epidemiological studies have provided new data on optimal management of complex patients with CAD. However, frail older adults are still underrepresented in the literature. This narrative review aims to highlight the importance of assessing frailty as an aid to guide therapeutic decision-making and tailor CAD management to the specific needs of older adults, taking into account age-related pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic changes, polypharmacy, and potential drug interactions. We also discuss gaps in the evidence and offer perspectives on how best in the future to optimize the global strategy of CAD management in older adults.
