2011 Guidelines For CVD Prevention In Women

2011 Effectiveness-Based Guidelines for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease (CVD) in Women


  • This update to the 2007 guidelines now focuses on recommendations that are effective in clinical practice.
  • Risk assessment now includes pregnancy history, autoimmune diseases, and AHA’s ideal cardiovascular health goals.
  • Diversity, disparities, international applicability, barriers to adherence and cost-effectiveness analyses are discussed.

Read the full article in Circulation

Comments?  Leave them below.

Supporting Materials


For Your Patients


AHA News Release

American Heart Association Rapid Access Journal Report

Statement Highlights:

  • Updated cardiovascular prevention guidelines for women focus on what works best in the “real world” vs. clinical research settings and consider personal and socioeconomic factors that can keep women from following medical advice and treatment.
  • The guidelines also incorporate illnesses that increase heart disease risk in women, such as lupus, rheumatoid arthritis and pregnancy complications
  • Helping women – and their doctors – understand risks and take practical steps can be most effective in preventing heart disease and stroke.

DALLAS, Feb. 15, 2011 – Practical medical advice that works in the “real world” may more effectively prevent cardiovascular disease in women than recommendations based only on findings in clinical research settings, according to the 2011 update to the American Heart Association’s cardiovascular disease prevention guidelines for women.

First published in 1999, the guidelines until now have been primarily based on findings observed in clinical research. That alone often doesn’t consider the personal and socioeconomic factors that can keep women from following medical advice and treatment.

“These recommendations underscore the fact that benefits of preventive measures seen day-to-day in doctors’ offices often fall short of those reported for patients in research settings,” said Lori Mosca, M.D., M.P.H., Ph.D., chair of the guidelines writing committee and a medical advisor for the American Heart Association’s Go Red For Women movement. “Many women seen in provider practices are older, sicker, and experience more side effects than patients in research studies. Factors such as poverty, low literacy level, psychiatric illness, poor English skills, and vision and hearing problems can also challenge clinicians trying to improve their patients’ cardiovascular health.”

Other authors include Emelia J. Benjamin, M.D., Sc.M.; Kathy Berra, M.S.N., N.P.; Judy L. Bezanson, D.S.N., C.N.S.-M.S.; Rowena J. Dolor, M.D., M.H.S.; Donald M. Lloyd-Jones, M.D., Sc.M.; L. Kristin Newby, M.D., M.H.S.; Ileana L. Piña, M.D., M.P.H.; Véronique L. Roger, M.D., M.P.H.; Leslee J. Shaw, Ph.D.; and Dong Zhao, M.D., Ph.D. Author disclosures are on the manuscript.


Read the full News Release and related material.

Comments?  Leave them below.

Posted by Melissa CONRAD on Feb 16, 2011 4:25 PM America/Chicago