Abstract:Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: Public grant(s) – National budget only. Main funding source(s): West Midlands Academic Health Science Network. Background After an acute coronary syndrome (ACS), there is a persistent ~10% risk of recurrent ACS or death in the following year and a further ~10% risk between years 1-4. Several more recent guideline-recommended treatments that could reduce this risk (Knuuti et al 2019) and may be under-utilised. Some of these, such as long-term dual antithrombotic therapy, are recommended for patients with high cardiovascular risk. Others benefit patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP1 agonists), hypercholesterolaemia (ezetimibe and PCSK9 inhibitors) or heart failure (mineralocorticoid antagonists and sacubitril/valsartan in addition to ACE inhibitors and beta blockers). Methods We were recently awarded funding from the West Midlands Academic Health Science Network (UK) to introduce a new advanced secondary prevention clinic that focusses on more recent medications with recommendations from National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE NG185 and relevant technology appraisals) and the ESC. In an audit we compared use of medications in the prevention clinic (n=57) with similar patients with prior ACS seen in standard cardiology clinics (n=109) between 2020-21 in our National Health Service (NHS) Trust (Fig 1.). Results Assessment of eligibility for medications was complex, but showed similar eligibility in prevention clinics and standard clinics. Patients were uniformly eligible for statins and ACE inhibitors, whereas NICE and ESC guidelines in some cases disagreed on eligibility of individual patients for dual antithrombotic therapy, beta blockers and ezetimibe. Use of treatments with definitive guideline recommendations from both NICE and ESC was determined for each patient (Fig 1). There was significantly higher adherence to these definitive recommendations in prevention vs. standard clinics (Fig 1), including SGLT2 inhibitors/GLP1 agonists (17/18 [94%] vs. 5/29 [17%]; P<0.001), PCSK9 inhibitors (3/3 [100%] vs. 0/6 [0%]; P=0.01), ezetimibe (23/25 [92%] vs. 11/48 [23%]; P<0.001], long-term dual antithrombotic therapy (22/23 [96%] vs. 3/31 [10%]; P<0.001]) and statins at a recommended dose (52/53 [98%] vs. 82/101 [81%]; P<0.001. Peer consultation identified several barriers to use of medications: complexity of treatment algorithms (which often differ between guidelines); need for personalisation (the audit identified >50 unique combinations of recommended treatments for individual patients); complex risk assessments; and time constraints in gathering data to assess eligibility the medications (often takes >5 min), exacerbated by high patient volume. Conclusions Several guideline-recommended medications with established cardiovascular benefit were under-utilised in standard clinics after ACS. Specialist preventative cardiology clinics can optimise utilisation of these medications, which has the potential to reduce the risk of further major adverse cardiovascular events. Innovative solutions are needed to scale this further.

[Quaternary prevention in the Cardiovascular Health Program Rational use of complementary exams: A narrative review]

Evaluation of a systematic cardiovascular disease risk reduction strategy in primary healthcare: an exploratory study from Zhejiang, China.

[Spanish Adaptation of the 2016 European Guidelines on Cardiovascular Disease Prevention in Clinical Practice].

[Characteristics of Depressed Individuals with Hypertension and/ or Diabetes Mellitus in Primary Health Care in Santiago de Chile]

Practical dietary interventions to prevent cardiovascular disease suitable for implementation in primary care: an ADAPTE-guided systematic review of international clinical guidelines

Improving cardiovascular prevention in general practice: Results of a comprehensive personalized strategy in subjects at high risk

Multiple health behaviour change interventions for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in primary care: systematic review and meta-analysis

A New Alternative in the Prevention and Treatment of Cardiovascular Disease

Barriers and facilitators of cardiovascular disease prevention services for women with prior gestational diabetes or hypertensive disorders of pregnancy in low-income, middle-income and high-income settings: a scoping review protocol

Improved adherence to guideline-recommended treatments in a specialist preventative pharmacology clinic compared to standard cardiology clinics after an acute coronary syndrome

Prevalence, Concordance, and Related Factors of Four Cardiovascular Risk Calculators in the Peruvian Population: Analysis of a National Survey.

Implementation of cancer prevention practices in primary care: results of a cohort study in Chile 2018–2022

Understanding factors affecting implementation success and sustainability of a comprehensive prevention program for cardiovascular disease in primary health care: a qualitative process evaluation study combining RE-AIM and CFIR

Evaluation of an enhanced service for medication review with follow up in Swiss community pharmacies: Pre-post study protocol

Primary and secondary prevention interventions for cardiovascular disease in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review of economic evaluations

Impact of Patients' Communication with the Medical Practitioners, on Their Adherence Declared to Preventive Behaviours, Five Years after a Coronary Angiography, in Luxembourg

Including patient perspectives in secondary prevention: one step closer to patients needs

Global cardiovascular risk assessment in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in adults: systematic review of systematic reviews

Impact of a patient-centered care model implemented in public health facilities in Chile: A real world evidence evaluation

Prescription drug coverage and effective coverage of three chronic conditions of high prevalence in Chile: Hypertension, diabetes and dyslipidemia

Systematic Review: The Value of the Periodic Health Evaluation