Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
JBI Evid Synth. 2024 Jan 1;22(1):4-65. doi: 10.11124/JBIES-22-00356.
The objective of the review was to synthesize the evidence of the effectiveness of lifestyle-based interventions for mitigating absolute cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk.
Evidence-based guidelines recommend employing an absolute CVD risk score to inform the selection and intensity of preventive interventions. However, studies employing this strategy have reported mixed results, hence the need for a systematic review of the current evidence.
Studies published in English that included a lifestyle-based intervention to mitigate CVD risk were considered. Studies were eligible if they enrolled individuals aged ≥18 years, with no history of CVD at baseline. The primary outcome was change in absolute CVD risk score post-intervention.
PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL searches were conducted from database inception to February 2022. The trial registers searched included Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and ClinicalTrials.gov. Searches for unpublished studies/gray literature were conducted in ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global, GreyLit Report, and OCLC First Search Proceedings. Two independent reviewers selected the studies and critically appraised them for methodological quality using JBI tools. Data extraction was performed for main outcome variables. Data were presented using separate pooled statistical meta-analysis for quasi-experimental and randomized clinical trials. Random effects models were employed in the analyses. Effect sizes (Cohen's d) were expressed as standardized mean difference at 95% CI. Heterogeneity was assessed via Cochran's Q statistic, and the inconsistency index ( I2 ) was used to describe variability in effect estimates due to heterogeneity rather than sampling error.
Twenty-nine studies with a total sample of 5490 adults with no CVD at baseline were included. Fifteen were randomized controlled trials (RCTs; n=3605) and 14 were quasi-experimental studies (n=1885). The studies were conducted in Europe (n=18), the United States (n = 5), Asia (n=3), Mexico (n=1), Canada (n = 1), and Australia (n=1) and included the following lifestyle interventions: diet, physical activity, motivational interviewing, problem-solving, psychological counseling, cardiovascular risk assessment and feedback, health self-management education, and peer support. Six validated absolute CVD risk assessment tools were used to measure the study outcomes, including Framingham, SCORE, Heart Health Risk Assessment Score, Dundee, ASSIGN, and The UK Prospective Diabetes Study risk score. Overall, the methodological rigor of the RCTs and quasi-experimental studies was high. Of the 15 RCTs included in the meta-analysis, lifestyle intervention was favored over control in reducing absolute CVD risk score (Cohen's d = -0.39; P =0.032; Z= -2.14; I2 = 96). Similarly, in the 14 quasi-experimental studies, the absolute CVD risk score after lifestyle intervention was significantly lower compared to baseline (Cohen's d = -0.39; P <0.001; Z= -3.54; I2= 88). RCTs that combined diet and physical activity reported no significant impact on absolute CVD risk score, but those that used either intervention independently reported significant improvement in the absolute CVD risk score.
There is evidence supporting the positive impact of lifestyle modification on absolute CVD risk score in adult populations without CVD. Our analysis further suggests that diet and physical activity had significant impact on absolute CVD risk, and a variety of validated screening tools can be used to monitor, evaluate, and communicate changes in absolute risk score after lifestyle modification.
A Spanish-language version of the abstract of this review is available [ http://links.lww.com/SRX/A29 ].
本次综述的目的是综合评估生活方式干预在降低绝对心血管疾病(CVD)风险方面的有效性证据。
循证指南建议采用绝对 CVD 风险评分来指导预防干预措施的选择和强度。然而,采用这种策略的研究报告结果不一,因此需要对现有证据进行系统评价。
纳入了旨在降低 CVD 风险的生活方式干预的英文研究。如果研究纳入了年龄≥18 岁且基线时无 CVD 病史的个体,则研究合格。主要结局是干预后绝对 CVD 风险评分的变化。
从数据库成立到 2022 年 2 月,对 PubMed、Embase 和 CINAHL 进行了检索。检索的试验登记处包括 Cochrane 对照试验中央注册库(CENTRAL)和 ClinicalTrials.gov。还在 ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global、GreyLit Report 和 OCLC First Search Proceedings 中对未发表的研究/灰色文献进行了检索。两名独立的审查员选择了研究,并使用 JBI 工具对其进行了方法学质量的批判性评价。对主要结局变量进行了数据提取。对于准实验研究和随机临床试验,使用单独的汇总统计荟萃分析呈现数据。在分析中使用了随机效应模型。效应大小(Cohen's d)表示为 95%CI 下的标准化均数差。通过 Cochran's Q 统计量评估异质性,并用不一致指数(I2)描述由于异质性而不是抽样误差导致的效应估计值的变异性。
共纳入了 29 项研究,总样本量为 5490 名基线时无 CVD 的成年人。其中 15 项为随机对照试验(RCT;n=3605),14 项为准实验研究(n=1885)。这些研究在欧洲(n=18)、美国(n=5)、亚洲(n=3)、墨西哥(n=1)、加拿大(n=1)和澳大利亚(n=1)进行,包括以下生活方式干预:饮食、身体活动、动机访谈、解决问题、心理咨询、心血管风险评估和反馈、健康自我管理教育以及同伴支持。使用了六种经过验证的绝对 CVD 风险评估工具来衡量研究结局,包括 Framingham、SCORE、心脏健康风险评估评分、邓迪、ASSIGN 和英国前瞻性糖尿病研究风险评分。总体而言,RCT 和准实验研究的方法学严谨性较高。纳入荟萃分析的 15 项 RCT 中,生活方式干预在降低绝对 CVD 风险评分方面优于对照组(Cohen's d = -0.39;P =0.032;Z = -2.14;I2 = 96)。同样,在 14 项准实验研究中,生活方式干预后绝对 CVD 风险评分显著低于基线(Cohen's d = -0.39;P <0.001;Z = -3.54;I2= 88)。同时结合饮食和身体活动的 RCT 报告对绝对 CVD 风险评分没有显著影响,但单独使用任何一种干预措施的 RCT 报告对绝对 CVD 风险评分有显著改善。
有证据支持生活方式改变对无 CVD 成年人群体绝对 CVD 风险评分的积极影响。我们的分析进一步表明,饮食和身体活动对绝对 CVD 风险有显著影响,并且可以使用各种经过验证的筛查工具来监测、评估和交流生活方式改变后绝对风险评分的变化。
本综述的西班牙语摘要版本可在 [http://links.lww.com/SRX/A29] 上获取。