Mazza, Lenti, D’Avino, Pinna, Antonucci, Ciarla, Colombo, Costa, Cozzio, Palma, Signore, Errico, Fiammengo, Iosa, Loreno, Lorenzi, Paternò, Pengo, Politi, Rattazzi, Renis, Tangianu, Tarquinio, Trottini, Scannapieco, Vescovo, Gussoni, Campanini, Manfellotto, and Fontanella: Self-reported hypertension, dyslipidemia and hyperuricemia management by Italian Internal Medicine Units: a national survey of the FADOI Study Group in Cardiovascular Medicine

Self-reported hypertension, dyslipidemia and hyperuricemia management by Italian Internal Medicine Units: a national survey of the FADOI Study Group in Cardiovascular Medicine


The aim of this study was to evaluate the management practices of internal medicine clinicians for patients with cardiovascular risk factors, with particular respect to treatment thresholds, medication choices and target goals. A sample of internists - representatives of Internal Medicine Units (IMUs) from all the regions in Italy - were identified by the cardiovascular medicine study group of the Italian Internal Medicine FADOI (Federazione delle Associazioni dei Dirigenti Ospedalieri Internisti) Society and invited to fill out a questionnaire about hypertension, dyslipidemia and hyperuricemia. From the 101 questionnaires collected, it was found that despite large heterogeneity between IMUs in terms of patient management and adherence to guidelines, internists were experts in the management of patients with multiple cardiovascular risk factors and associated comorbidities. We hope that these data prompt the internal medicine community to consider the value of producing shared, real-world guidelines on the management of cardiovascular disease.


A modern approach to arterial hypertension management does not merely aim to lower blood pressure (BP) values. European hypertension guidelines recommend assessing overall cardiovascular (CV) risk, as multiple CV risk factors frequently coexist in the same hypertensive subject.1 In particular, both dyslipidemia and hyperuricemia are often additional CV risk factors in the hypertensive (HT) subject and, in addition to lowering BP values, specific treatment of these conditions is required to reduce the overall CV risk.2,3

Patients admitted to Internal Medicine Units (IMUs) are elderly with multiple co-morbidities3 and consequently internists have to manage patients with complex pathological profiles. In order to obtain the right diagnosis and prescribe proper treatment, a multidisciplinary approach is mandatory.4

Current hypertension guidelines aim to improve the quality of patient care by providing specific recommendations for daily medical practice,1 but despite considerable efforts in developing and implementing these evidence-based guidelines, adherence to recommendations is often suboptimal.5

In clinical practice, many factors may influence the implementation of guidelines, and barriers to the adherence of recommendations can be related to the patient, who may have clinical features different to those of patients in randomized controlled trials, as well as to the physician and health-care system.6 Gaining knowledge about these barriers, which prevent healthcare providers from using guidelines, is an important initial step towards the improvement of quality of care in clinical practice.7,8

The aim of this study was to investigate the management practices of Italian internal medicine clinicians of patients with arterial hypertension, dyslipidemia and hyperuricemia, with a particular focus on treatment thresholds, medication choices and target goals.

Materials and Methods

The questionnaire was filled in between March and May 2016 by 101 IMUs. Participation in the survey was voluntary and completely anonymous. Italy was divided into three main areas: namely the northern, central and southern regions (the latter including the two main islands). As shown in Figure 1, the northern area included the Friuli-Venezia Giulia, Liguria, Lombardy, Piedmont, Trentino-Alto Adige, Veneto and Aosta Valley regions; the central area included the Abruzzo, Emilia-Romagna, Lazio, Marche, Molise, Tuscany and Umbria regions; the southern area included the Basilicata, Calabria, Campania, Apulia, Sardinia and Sicily regions. In each of the three main regions, a coordinator identified by the national executive board of the Italian Internal Medicine FADOI (Federazione delle Associazioni dei Dirigenti Ospedalieri Internisti) Society was responsible for data collection together with regional coordinators, appointed by regional councils.

General protocol

The study group in cardiovascular medicine of FADOI first identified all IMUs where there was a hypertension center or a clinic dealing with cardiovascular medicine and then asked the physicians working in these IMUs to fill out a questionnaire concerning the management of hypertension, dyslipidemia and hyperuricemia with relation to the recommendations proposed in the main guidelines (Appendix).

Statistical analysis

Continuous variables were averaged, expressed as mean ± standard deviation, and compared using analysis of variance. Comparison between categorical variables was performed using the Chi Square test. Data were analyzed using the SPSS statistical package for Windows, version 19 (SPSS, Chicago, IL, USA). The chosen degree of significance was the conventional value of P<0.05.


The general characteristics of the services provided by Italian IMUs are shown in Table 1. Most of the IMUs had managed patients at high cardiovascular risk for at least 17 years and, on average, two doctors were involved in patient management. However, few of the IMUs (25%) were recognized by Italian scientific associations or boards, particularly in the central area. 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (24-h ABPM) was available in 75.2% of the centers, while echocardiogram and carotid artery ultrasound were available in less than 60% of the IMUs. Although the average length of consultation was 15-30 min, waiting lists were rather long (over one month in 34.9% of IMUs).

BP assessment was quite heterogeneous between IMUs, and BP measurement in an orthostatic position was performed in patients during the first consultation in 69.8% of cases. Interestingly, the diagnosis of HT was extremely variable among the different centers: most IMUs confirmed HT diagnosis by calculating the average of 3 BP measurements and only 19% of these followed the guidelines recommendations. The 2013 European hypertension guidelines suggest taking at least two BP measurements; additional measurements are recommended if the first two are quite different. The guidelines suggest considering BP average, if deemed appropriate. BP measurement was mostly performed using aneroid devices that were checked and calibrated yearly in 41.3% of centers (Table 2). Not all centers were able to diagnose secondary hypertension. Research activity was performed in few IMUs; only 23.8% of IMUs had collaborated with FADOI. On the other hand, two thirds of IMUs (68.3%) provided continuing medical education courses for general practitioners, particularly in the southern region.

Concerning dyslipidemia management, a lipidology center - defined as an outpatient clinic with internists dealing with dyslipidemia - was found in 46% of IMUs (Table 3), particularly in the northern area. In 41.3% of IMUs, between 300 and 1000 visits per year were performed, with an average time of consultation greater than 15 min in 75.1% of IMUs. Lipid profile was assessed in patients aged more than 40 years in 61.9% of centers, and only 36.5% of responders declared assessing lipid profiles in patients after a cardiovascular event. For the treatment of the mild hypercholesterolemia, most centers adopted diet modification as a first approach, whilst 22.2% considered statin use. In 15.9% of IMUs, nutraceutical compounds were considered effective for the treatment of hypercholesterolemia, particularly in the southern area. For the treatment of the hypertriglyceridemia, omega-3 was used by half of IMUs and fibrates by 31.7%, with a lower usage among IMUs of the central region. In contrast to the recommendations of the main guidelines, statin use for treatment of hypertriglyceridemia was observed in 22% of IMUs. The Dutch score, recommended by guidelines to diagnose familial hypercholesterolemia (FH), was used by a third (34.9%) of IMUs, and 36.5% of the latter were unaware of FH treatment with proprotein convertase subtilisin/ kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors.

In the management of hyperuricemia, different cutoff values for hyperuricemia diagnosis were found (Table 4). In approximately 10% of IMUs, the diagnosis of hyperuricemia was carried out using serum uric acid (SUA) levels greater than 8 mg/dL, particularly in IMUs from the northern region. Over two thirds (71.4%) of IMUs believed that treatment of asymptomatic hyperuricemia (AHU) was beneficial; with respect to this, allopurinol remained the most prescribed hypouricemic drug, followed by febuxostat, which was prescribed in 41.3% of IMUs. The SUA targets in patients treated for AHU varied among IMUs, with an SUA level <6 mg/dL the most preferred goal.


In this survey, IMUs were found to have almost twenty years’ experience in the field of cardiovascular medicine, involving both medical doctors and nurses in patient management about 3 days per week. Our data confirm the close cooperation that exists between the Italian Internal Medicine Nursing Society, ANIMO (Associazione Nazionale Infermieri di Medicina Interna Ospedaliera), and FADOI. It is well known that nurses9 play a crucial role in the counselling and management of inpatients. Not all IMUs were able to diagnose secondary forms of hypertension or carry out scientific research, which is in part explained by the fact that some IMUs were uncertified by national or regional scientific societies or boards.10 Communication with the center of cardiovascular medicine was generally direct, but in few cases it was done by contacting a single booking center. Medical consultations lasted on average from 15 to 30 min and were in part facilitated by data from electronic medical records. The waiting list for consultations was quite short, about 1 month. In almost 70% of IMUs, a yearly average of 500 hypertension consultations were carried out, and the patient was re-examined every 6 months approximately.

The main finding of our survey was the large heterogeneity in terms of patient management and adherence to guidelines.8 In particular, it was observed that BP measurement was performed using many different devices and in very different fashions. Although the mercury sphygmomanometer is widely known as the gold standard method for office BP measurement, a ban on the use of mercury devices has led to a diminishing of its role in office and hospital settings.11 Today, mercury devices have largely been phased out in Italian hospitals, which has resulted in a proliferation of non-mercury BP measurement devices. In accordance with previous studies,12,13 our survey showed that aneroid devices were the most used in IMUs; these devices are considered accurate and recommended for BP measurement in the main guidelines.14 However, these devices need frequent calibration and should be regularly checked to ensure that calibration remains within the European standard specification of +/–3 mmHg.15 Nevertheless, we found that most IMUs only checked these devices yearly; this frequency of calibration, which is fundamental for ensuring that BP is measured accurately, is unacceptable. Although BP cuffs are commonly shared in medical facilities, their routine disinfection was performed infrequently,16 facilitating bacterial infection.17 In 10% of IMUs, BP cuffs were cleaned once a month or less or even never. In addition, hospital staff reused BP cuffs without cleaning between patients; these data should be considered to evaluate preventive measures in reducing exogenous contamination of cuffs and skin infections. Fewer than 20% of centers confirmed the diagnosis of HT according to international guideline recommendations, and the assessment of global CV risk was carried out in different ways. IMUs in the southern region adhered to BP guidelines more than the other regions. One of the main issues seems to be the wrong perception of overall cardiovascular risk, which leads to inappropriate recommendations and treatment decisions.4 Our study was consistent with other findingswhere risk assessment was suboptimal:2,4 less than 35% of IMUs evaluated overall cardiovascular risk using scores recommended in the main guidelines.

Another aim of our survey was to evaluate the professional needs of internists in the management of patients with dyslipidemia. Hypertension and hypercholesterolemia are recognized as the main independent risk factors for CV diseases and they are often detected in the same subject.18 Their interaction causes a negative prognostic impact in terms of organ damage and clinical outcomes.19 Therefore, their management is mandatory for the reduction of global CV risk.20 Internists often treat patients with dyslipidemia, and a lipidology center was found in the 46% of IMUs. These centers were able to perform an average of 300 to 1000 visits per year, with an average time of consultation greater than 15 min. Both HT and hypercholesterolemia are the result of an interaction between genetic and environmental factors, but dietary and behavioral factors have a predominant role in BP control and lipid homeostasis. Most internists considered lifestyle and diet modifications as the first step for the treatment of mild hypercholesterolemia. This approach, however, has an elusive long-term endpoint and non-pharmacologic therapy is neither simple nor consistently effective.21 In the last few decades, nutraceutical compounds (NCs) have been used in addition to diet as an alternative to lipid-lowering agents in HT patients at low CV risk.22 NCs were widely used in our study for the treatment of the mild hypercholesterolemia, particularly in the southern region. In addition to hypercholesterolemia, hypertriglyceridemia is considered an independent CV risk factor, but this association is far weaker than that of hypercholesterolemia. 23 However, no randomized trials providing evidence to derive target levels for triglycerides are available. Until now, mild hypertriglyceridemia - defined as serum triglyceride levels greater than 150 mg/dL - continue to be considered a marker of CV disease, particularly in subjects with low levels of highdensity- lipoprotein cholesterol.24 Lifestyle changes form the central pillar of management of mild to moderate hypertriglyceridemia (i.e., 150 to 500 mg/dL). Although statins are not the most effective medication for reducing serum triglyceride levels, they are the most effective hypolipidemic agents for reducing CV risk and should thus probably be first-line agents for use in patients with mild to moderate hypertriglyceridemia. In contrast with the main guidelines, in our survey omega-3 fatty acid administration was considered first-line treatment of hypertriglyceridemia. Also, few IMUs used the Dutch score to diagnose FH and a third (36.5%) were unaware of FH treatment with PCSK9 inhibitors.

Screening for plasma SUA is widespread in many countries, including Italy.25 Alongside gout or nephrolithiasis, hyperuricemia may be associated with and contribute to several cardiovascular, renal, and metabolic disorders.26 Treatment of hyperuricemia may therefore - at least theoretically - be beneficial for global cardiovascular risk reduction, although there is still an open debate regarding a potential role for the treatment of AHU. The latter - a condition defined by SUA levels ≥6.8 mg/dL in which neither urate crystal deposition disease, such as gout, nor SUA renal disease occurs - is frequently underdiagnosed in clinical practice as different reference ranges of SUA are used.27 In keeping with these data, only 39.7% of IMUs correctly diagnosed AHU in this survey. We strongly believe in the importance of promoting continuing medical education courses with the aim of increasing knowledge about AHU in clinical practice. Most internists stated that AHU treatment is effective and confirmed the need to reach a goal treatment for SUA levels <6 mg/dL. Allopurinol remains the firstline approach to AHU treatment,28 although 50% of internists consider it useful treating AHU with febuxostat. Febuxostat can be used in patients with mild-tomoderate renal or hepatic involvement, which is frequently observed in internal medicine patients. In addition, febuxostat, is comparable to or, in certain subsets of patients with or without gout and with mildmoderate renal impairment, superior to allopurinol for its overall efficacy and safety profile.29

Study limitations

The main potential limitation of this study was non-response bias. Physicians who responded to our survey were more interested in cardiovascular disease management compared to those who did not respond. In the same way, the internist who was more passionate about primary prevention of cardiovascular diseases might be more likely to be aware of tools used to calculate global CV risk and more likely to answer questions in agreement with the usefulness of global CV risk assessment. Another potential limitation is the sampling bias. Internists who are members of FADOI might be different to others who choose not to be members and, in consequence, our sample may not be representative of all internists. The cross-sectional design of the study was insufficient to determine the cause of the low use of CV global risk assessment in our sample.


In conclusion, global clinical assessment is a matter for internists managing patients with multiple cardiovascular risk factors and associated comorbidities. However, there are few guideline recommendations for these complex patients suffering from other concomitant diseases, treated with more drugs, or at greater risk of drug interactions or adverse drug reactions (e.g., multiple antihypertensive therapies in patients with resistant hypertension). In other words, a more careful, multidimensional approach to cardiovascular risk is needed, based on the complexity of the profile of the individual patient rather than the current strategy of high CV risk alone. In consequence, internists should adopt a more proactive approach to becoming an expert on each complex patient, both in the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Finally, we would like to entrust the data of this survey to the scientific community of internal medicine to evaluate the possibility of producing shared guidelines on the management of cardiovascular disease in the real world.


The authors wish to thank the following clinical leads of IMUs that joined the survey: Ranucci R.A. (Pozzuoli, Napoli), Nassa F. (Piana di Gioia Tauro, Reggio Calabria), Costa R. (Catanzaro), Tramontano L. (Cosenza), Mauro G.F. (Crotone), Galasso D. (Catanzaro), Pintaudi C. (Catanzaro), Renis M. (Cava dei Tirreni), Pedrotti P. (Salerno), Rosiello G. (Napoli), Iaccarino G. (Salerno), Vinciguerra A. (Caserta), Ventrella F. (Cerignola), Sasso A. (Trani), Nardecchia A. (Bari), De Giorgi G.A. (Lecce), Dargenio V. (Barletta), Belfiore A. (Bari), Stornello M. (Siracusa), Alletto M. (Caltanissetta), Bandiera F. (Sassari), Peterlana D. (Trento), Biasion T. (Rovereto), Del Giudice A. (San Giovanni Rotondo, Foggia), Bovio S. and Terzolo M. (Orbassano, Torino), Genova L. (Chivasso, Torino), Dealessi M. (Casale Monferrato, Alessandria), Donvito V. (Torino), Dugnani M. (Galliate, Novara), Franza O. (Nizza Monferrato, Asti), Frediani R. (Chieri, Torino), Imperiale G. (Torino), La Grotta A. (Asti), Lanza G. (Biella), Modesti M.S. (Aosta), Musso R. and Marengo C. (Moncalieri, Torino), Muzzulini C. (Ceva, Cuneo), Nallino M.G. (Mondovì, Cuneo), Leone S. and Ardito F. (Torino), Pascale C. (Torino), Rossi A. (Novara), Santamaria G.M. (Tortona, Alessandra), Barbujani M, Piccolo D. (Conegliano, Treviso), Dilani L. (Jesolo, Treviso), Bonanni L. (Mestre, Venezia), Boni M. (Montebelluna, Treviso), Roman E. (Portogruaro, Venezia), Schiavon L. (Rovigo), Leprotti C. (Venezia), Capra C. (Fra Castoro, Verona), Baccheschi J. (Varzi, Pavia), Gavazza M.T. and Palombo G.A. (Legnano, Milano), Grechi P. and Berra S.A. (Garnagnate Milanese, Milano), Ferrari G. and D’Ospina A. (Pavia), Agrati A.M. (Milano), Novati P. (Saronno,Varese), Costantini C. and Maroni L. (Gallarate, Milano), Bonoldi G., Zanotta D., Castiglioni G., Provisione M. (Busto Arsizio, Varese), Milani L. (Jesolo, Venezia), Spagnoli W. (Trento), Tonizzo M. (Sacile, Pordenone), Gaspardo W. (Spillimbergo, Pordenone), Carretta R. (Trieste), Mosca M. (Agordo, Belluno), Uccelli M. (Pietra Ligure, Savona), Lavazza E. (Legnano, Milano), Fonda M. (Trieste), Bertoncelli M.C. (Vercelli), Sechi L. (Udine), De Menis E. (Montebelluna, Treviso), Rossini S. (Osimo, Ancona), Onesta M. (Fabriano, Ancona), Lamanna D. (Massa Marittima, Grosseto), Testa I. (Sant’Omero, Teramo), Gilioli F. (Mirandola, Modena), Giovannetti R. (Pescia, Pistoia), Civardi G. (Fiorenzuola, Piacenza), Zega G. (Amandola, Ascoli Piceno), Cartechini G. (Camerino, Macerata), Laureano R. (Firenze), Bonechi C. (Prato), De Sanctis D. (Teramo), Pompeo A.W. (Lanciano, Chieti), Traisci G. (Pescara), Parisi D. (Teramo), Campagna G. (Latina), Carmenini E. (Roma), Frigerio C. (Arezzo), Scarti L. (Firenze), Strafino C. (Termoli, Campobasso), Marzano F. (Roma), Di Simone S. (Colleferro, Roma), Ioli G. (Sant’Arcangelo di Romagna, Rimini), Pierandrei G. (San Severino Marche, Macerata), Fabiani P. (Viareggio, Lucca), De Berardis L. (Giulianova, Teramo), Pondrelli C.R. (Siena), Ciamei A. (Velletri, Roma), Meschi M. (Borgo Val di Taro, Parma), Capitelli M. (Pavullo, Modena), De Leo A. (Napoli), Cuccorese G. (Barletta, Bari), Silvestris F. (Bari), Vetrella F. (Cerignola, Foggia), Campagna G. (Latina), Calcinaro I. (Ascoli Piceno), Fortini A. (Firenze).



G Mancia, R Fagard, K Narkiewicz. 2013 ESH/ESC Guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension: the Task Force for the management of arterial hypertension of the European Society of Hypertension (ESH) and of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). J Hypertens 2013;31:1281-357.


B Ivanovic, M. Tadic Hypercholesterolemia and hypertension: two sides of the same coin. Am J Cardiovasc Drugs 2015;15:403-14.


R Nardi, T Fabbri, G Belmonte. Internal medicine, complexity, evidence based medicine, almost without evidences. Ital J Med 2009;3:191-200.


T Wilson, T Holt, T. Greenhalgh Complexity science: complexity and clinical care. BMJ 2001;323:685-8.


M Lugtenberg, JS Burgers, GP Westert. Effects of evidence- based clinical practice guidelines on quality of care: a systematic review. Qual Saf Health Care 2009; 18:385-92.


MD Cabana, CS Rand, NR Powe. Why don’t physicians follow clinical practice guidelines? A framework for improvement. JAMA 1999;282:1458-65.


R Grol, J. Grimshaw From best evidence to best practice: effective implementation of change in patients’ care. Lancet 2003;362:1225-30.


L Mosca, AH Linfante, EJ Benjamin. National study of physician awareness and adherence to cardiovascular disease prevention guidelines. Circulation 2005;111:499-510.


Maria J Rocco, A. Papetti Evaluation of the complexity of nursing care in Internal Medicine using two different methods. Ital J Med 2012;6:27-32.


A Mazza, S Zamboni, M Armigliato. Endocrine arterial hypertension: diagnostic approach in clinical practice. Minerva Endocrinol 2008;33:127-46.


G Ogedegbe, T. Pickering Principles and techniques of blood pressure measurement. Cardiol Clin 2010;28: 571-86.


Y Ma, M Temprosa, S Fowler. Evaluating the accuracy of an aneroid sphygmomanometer in a clinical trial setting. Am J Hypertens 2009;22:263.


SA Yarows, K. Qian Accuracy of aneroid sphygmomanometers in clinical usage: University of Michigan experience. Blood Press Monit 2001;6:101.


TG Pickering, JE Hall, LJ Appel. Recommendations for blood pressure measurement in humans and experimental animals: Part 1: blood pressure measurement in humans: a statement for professionals from the Subcommittee of Professional and Public Education of the American Heart Association Council on High Blood Pressure Research. Hypertension 2005;45:142.


A de Greeff, I Lorde, A Wilton. Calibration accuracy of hospital-based non-invasive blood pressure measuring devices. J Hum Hypertens 2010;24:58-63.


N Walker, R Gupta, J. Cheesbrough Blood pressure cuff: friend or foe? J Hosp Infect 2016;63:167-9.


C de Gialluly, V Morange, E de Gialluly. Blood pressure cuff as a potential vector of pathogenic microorganisms: a prospective study in a teaching hospital. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2006;27:940-3.


FT Filippidis, V Gerovasili, A. Majeed Association between cardiovascular risk factors and measurements of blood pressure and cholesterol in 27 European countries in 2009. Prev Med 2014;67:71-4.


MK Kim, CW Ahn, S Kang. Association between apolipoprotein B/apolipoprotein A-1 and arterial stiffness in metabolic syndrome. Clin Chim Acta 2014;437: 115-9.


S Bansilal, JM Castellano, V. Fuster Global burden of CVD: focus on secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Int J Cardiol 2015;201:S1-7.


AL Mark. Weight reduction for treatment of obesity-associated hypertension: nuances and challenges. Curr Hypertens Rep 2007;9:368-72.


A Mazza, S Lenti, L Schiavon. Nutraceuticals for serum lipid and blood pressure control in hypertensive and hypercholesterolemic subjects at low cardiovascular risk. Adv Ther 2015;32:680-90.


N Sarwar, J Danesh, G Eiriksdottir. Triglycerides and the risk of coronary heart disease: 10,158 incident cases among 262,525 participants in 29 Western prospective studies. Circulation 2007;115:450-8.


A Mazza, V Tikhonoff, L Schiavon, E. Casiglia Triglycerides + high-density-lipoprotein-cholesterol dyslipidaemia, a coronary risk factor in elderly women: the CArdiovascular STudy in the ELderly. Intern Med J 2005;35:604-10.


G Bellomo. Uric acid and chronic kidney disease: a time to act? World J Nephrol 2013;2:17-25.


C Carnovale, M Venegoni, E. Clementi Allopurinol overuse in asymptomatic hyperuricemia: a teachable moment. JAMA Int Med 2014;174:1031-2.


A Mazza, S. Lenti The asymptomatic hyperuricemia diagnosis in the real world: from theory to the practice. J Hypertens 2016;34:e155.


W Xin, S Mi, Z. Lin Allopurinol therapy improves vascular endothelial function in subjects at risk for cardiovascular diseases: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Cardiovasc Ther 2016;34:441-9.


S Tani, K Nagao, A. Hirayama Effect of febuxostat, a xanthine oxidase inhibitor, on cardiovascular risk in hyperuricemic patients with hypertension: a prospective, open-label, pilot study. Clin Drug Investig 2015; 35:823-31.

Figure 1.

The main areas of the study group in cardiovascular medicine of the Federation of Associations of Hospital Doctors in Internal Medicine (FADOI) are shown.

Table 1.

General characteristics of the main services provided by internal medicine units in Italy.

All (n=101) Northern area (n=48) Central area (n=33) Southern area (n=20) P value
Years of activity 17.1±12.3 17.8±11.0 18.6±13.3 13.6±9.0 NS
Medical doctors employed 2.0±1.3 1.8±1.0 2.4±1.4 1.9±1.4 NS
Other persons involved 1.7±1.1 1.5±0.9 2.4±1.3 1.6±1.3 NS
Opening days of service 3.2±2.0 2.9±1.9 3.4±2.2 3.2±2.0 NS
Secondary HT management (%) 64.4 60.1 63.6 75.0 NS
Accreditation (yes, %) 24.8 25.0 15.1 40.0 0.027
    Regional 4.0 - 3.0 15.0 0.027
    National 20.8 25.0 12.1 25.0 0.027
Services provided (yes, %)
    EKG 80.2 75.0 75.8 100.0 0.046
    Echocardiogram 52.5 43.8 48.5 80.0 0.021
    24-h ABPM 75.2 79.2 72.7 70.0 NS
    Carotid ultrasound 63.4 50.0 72.7 80.0 0.026
    Renal ultrasound 36.3 29.2 51.5 30.0 NS
    Ankle brachial index 42.6 35.4 42.4 60.0 NS
    Tonography 5.0 6.3 - 10.0 NS
Electronic medical records (yes, %) 75.2 79.2 72.7 70.0 NS
Ways of booking (%)
    Single booking center 25.7 25.0 18.0 40.0 NS
    Direct access 35.6 41.7 30.3 30.0 NS
    GPs 12.9 16.7 9.1 10.0 NS
    Specialist 21.8 14.6 42.4 5.6 NS
    Others 4.0 2.1 - 15.0 NS
Admission to IMUs (%)
    Urgent 65.1 64.2 61.3 72.1 NS
    Internal 34.9 57.1 25.9 33.3 NS
    Nurse booking 9.5 - 12.9 11.1 NS
    Others 17.5 7.1 25.8 11.1 NS
Research activity (yes, %) 29.7 29.2 30.3 30.0 NS
Research activity for FADOI (yes, %) 23.8 20.8 24.2 30.0 NS
Experimental studies (yes, %) 39.6 33.3 42.4 50.0 NS
CME for GPs (yes, %) 68.3 66.7 60.6 85.0 NS
Length of consultation at the 1st clinical visit
    15 min 9.5 - 16.1 5.6 NS
    15-30 min 74.6 57.1 77.4 83.3 NS
    >30 min 14.3 28.6 22.2 16.7 NS
Waiting time for visit
    1 week 25.4 14.3 22.6 38.9 NS
    15 days 33.3 35.7 35.5 27.8 NS
    ~1 month 34.9 35.7 35.5 33.3 NS
Interaction with GPs
    Yes 9.5 14.3 9.7 5.6 NS
    No 63.5 78.8 61.3 55.6 NS
    Sometimes 25.4 - 25.8 44.4 0.016
Visits per year
    <500 63.5 50.0 74.2 55.6 NS
    500-1000 25.4 28.6 19.8 33.2 NS
    >1000 4.8 7.1 3.2 5.6 NS
Control visits yearly (yes, %)
    1 20.6 35.7 22.6 5.6 NS
    2 55.6 50.0 48.4 72.2 NS
    3 12.7 7.1 9.7 22.2 NS
    >3 10.0 - 14.2 11.1 NS
Counseling to HTs (yes, %)
    Medical doctors 11.1 14.3 9.7 11.1 NS
    Nurse 60.3 57.1 64.5 55.6 NS
    Paper support 11.1 7.1 12.9 11.2 NS
    All above 30.2 14.3 29 44.4 NS
    Others 3.2 7.1 - 5.6 NS

[i] NS, not significant; HT, hypertension; EKG, electrocardiogram; ABPM, ambulatory blood pressure monitoring; GPs, general practitioners; IMUs, Internal Medicine Units; CME, continuing medical education; HTs, hypertensive subjects.

Table 2.

Blood pressure, albuminuria and glycated hemoglobin assessment by Italian Internal Medicine Units.

All (n=101) Northern area (n=48) Central area (n=33) Southern area (n=20) P value
BP assessment position
    Sitting 38.1 35.7 25.8 68.1 0.048
    Sitting an orthostatic 82.5 42.9 95.3 94.4 0.001
    >60 years old only 6.3 - 3.4 9.7 NS
    Diabetes and dysautonomia 17.5 7.1 25.8 11.1 NS
    All HTs at the 1th consultation 69.8 78.6 61.3 77.8 NS
BP assessment in both arms
    Always 22.9 42.9 12.9 22.2 NS
    Only the first time 61.9 35.7 74.2 61.1 0.047
    Only in some conditions 14.3 7.1 16.1 16.7 NS
HT diagnosis
    3 measurements average 60.3 57.1 71.0 44.4 NS
    2 measurements average 15.9 14.3 16.1 16.7 NS
    GL recommendations 19 28.6 3.2 38.9 NS
    BP values >140/90 mmHg 4.8 - 9.7 - NS
Criteria HT therapy starting
    GL recommendations 71.4 71.4 67.7 77.8 NS
    Case by case 28.6 21.4 32.3 27.7 NS
Specific work-up for HT
    Overall outpatient package 34.9 35.7 25.8 50.0 NS
    Day service 31.7 35.7 25.8 39.9 NS
    Day Hospital 30.2 26.6 25.8 38.9 NS
    Others 19.0 28.6 19.4 11.1 NS
Global risk assessment
    Cardiac risk of Progetto Cuore 9.5 14.3 9.7 5.6 NS
    Score risk 32.3 28.6 29.0 44.4 NS
    ESC GL 31.8 42.9 29.0 24.3 NS
    Others 8.4 9.5 12.6 7.6 NS
24 h-ABPM use
    Always 36.5 14.3 35.5 55.6 NS
    To assess BP treatment 54.0 64.3 41.9 66.7 NS
    With other CV risk factors 42.9 61.3 33.3 49.2 NS
    In addition to HBPM 46.0 42.9 41.9 55.6 NS
Fixed-combinations starting
    At the beginning 41.3 21.4 48.4 44.4 NS
    After monotherapy 55.6 71.4 51.6 50.0 NS
HT secondary screening
    10% 31.2 28.6 25.8 39.8 NS
    20% 23.2 14.9 16.1 38.9 NS
    30% 15.9 26.6 12.9 11.1 NS
    <40 years 11.4 7.1 19.4 - NS
    All 11.7 - 18.1 5.6 NS
BP measurement device
    Mercury 17.5 14.3 22.6 11.1 NS
    Semi-automatic 39.7 42.9 38.7 38.9 NS
    Aneroid 52.4 57.7 38.7 77.6 0.05
    Others 7.9 - 6.5 7.9 NS
Check/calibration BP devices
    6 months 20.6 7.1 22.6 27.8 NS
    Yearly 41.3 57.1 35.5 38.9 NS
    Never 11.1 - 9.7 22.2 NS
    None 18.5 14.3 29.0 5.6 NS
Brachial cuff BP cleaning
    Each day 4.8 7.1 6.5 - NS
    Each week 25.4 24.6 29.0 16.7 NS
    Each month 27.0 28.6 22.6 33.3 NS
    Never 9.8 7.0 6.5 16.7 NS
    Under-cuff use 2.4 1.1 2.3 3.6 NS
Microalbuminuria assessment
    Yes 88.9 78.6 87.1 100 NS
    No 11.1 21.4 12.3 - NS
Microalbuminuria re-assessment
    6 month 54.0 35.7 51.6 72.2 NS
    Yearly 33.3 50.0 32.3 22.2 NS
    Never 6.3 - 9.7 5.6 NS
HbA1c evaluation in obese HTs
    Yes 63.5 71.4 74.2 38.9 0.037
    No 36.5 28.6 25.8 47.8  
HbA1c evaluation in diabetic HTs
    Yes 93.7 71.4 100 100 0.001
    No 6.3 28.6 - -  

[i] BP, blood pressure; NS, not significant; HTs, hypertensive subjects; HT, hypertension; GL, guidelines; ESC; European Society of Cardiology; ABPM, ambulatory blood pressure monitoring; CV, cardiovascular; HbAlc, albuminuria and glycated hemoglobin; HBPM, home blood pressure monitoring.

Table 3.

General characteristics of dyslipidemia management in Internal Medicine Units in different regions of Italy.

All (n=101) Northern area (n=48) Central area (n=33) Southern area (n=20) P value
Dyslipidemia clinic (yes, %) 46.0 64.3 35.5 50.0 0.05
    Useful 61.9 64.3 51.6 77.8 NS
    Useless 19.0 7.1 29.0 11.1 NS
    Useful, but lack of staff 19.1 28.6 19.4 10.8 NS
Average time of consultation
    15 min (%) 25.4 35.7 25.8 27.8 NS
    15-30 min (%) 38.1 35.7 38.7 27.8 NS
    >30 min (%) 36.5 28.6 35.5 44.4 NS
    Yearly consultations (n.)
    0-300 (%) 23.8 21.4 29.0 16.7 NS
    300-1000 (%) 41.3 14.3 48.4 50 NS
    >1000 (%) 9.5 7.1 6.5 16.7 NS
Follow up visits per year (yes, n.)
    1 28.6 28.6 16.1 50 0.025
    2 6.3 2.8 9.7 5.6 NS
    3 1.2 - 1.4 0.9 NS
Lipid profile assessment (%)
    All patients aged >40 years old 61.9 71.4 58.1 61.1 NS
    FH only 33.0 50.0 19.4 44.0 NS
    After a CV event 36.5 50.0 29.0 38.9 NS
    History of CHD only 66.7 78.6 67.7 55.6 NS
Lipid control after therapy (days)
    30 11.1 - 12.9 16.7 NS
    60 22.2 21.4 22.6 22.2 NS
    90 54.0 50.0 54.8 55.6 NS
Mild hyper-TC therapy as 1st step (yes/no, %)
    Diet 90.5 85.7 93.5 88.9 NS
    Statins 22.2 14.3 22.6 27.8 NS
    Fibrates 1.6 - 3.2 - NS
    Ezetimibe 3.2 - - 11.1 NS
    Nutraceuticals 15.9 - 12.9 33.3 0.031
Mild hyper-TG therapy (yes, %)
    Omega-3 50.8 50.0 54.8 44.4 NS
    Fibrates 31.7 50.0 12.9 50.0 0.007
    Statins 6.3 14.3 3.2 5.6 NS
    Fibrates + Omega-3 30.2 21.4 32.3 33.3 NS
FH diagnosis (yes, no/%)
    Inside IMUs 61.4 52.2 66.7 75.0 NS
    Outside IMUs 38.6 47.8 33.3 25.0 NS
FH diagnosis (yes, no/%)
    Polygenic form exclusion 12.7 7.1 9.7 22.2 NS
    Cards risk 41.3 57.1 38.7 33.3 NS
    Calculator individual 11.1 7.1 12.9 11.2 NS
    Dutch lipid score 34.9 35.7 22.6 56.6 NS
FH treatment (yes/%)
    PCSK9 50.8 42.9 35.5 83.3 0.004
    Do not know 36.5 42.9 51.6 5.6 0.005

[i] NS, not significant; FH, familial hypercholesterolemia; CV, cardiovascular; CHD, coronary heart disease; TC, total cholesterol; TG, triglycerides; IMUs, Internal Medicine Units; PCSK9, proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9.

Table 4.

General characteristics of hyperuricemia management in internal medicine units based in different areas of Italy.

All (n=101) Northern area (n=48) Central area (n=33) Southern area (n=20) P value
Cut-off for hyperuricemia diagnosis (yes/no)
    >7 mg/dL in both gender 39.7 14.3 48.4 44.4 NS
    >8 mg/dL in both gender 9.5 37.5 9.2 10.0 0.001
    2.4-5.7 in W and 3.4-7 in M 41.3 35.7 38.7 50.0 NS
AHU treatment
    Effective 75.4 70.0 74.2 83.3 NS
    Not effective 13.3 15.7 16.1 11.1 NS
    Possible 11.3 14.3 9.7 5.6 NS
Hypouricemic drugs (yes, no)
    Allopurinol 82.5 64.3 90.3 83.3 NS
    Febuxostat 41.3 42.9 32.3 55.6 NS
    Others 1.6 7.8 1.0 1.0 NS
Hyperuricemia target
    <6 mg/dL 77.8 71.4 74.2 88.9 NS
    6.0-6.5 mg/dL 16.3 17.9 24,1 5.6 NS
    6.5-7.0 mg/dL 5.9 10.7 1.7 5.5 NS

[i] NS, not significant; W, women; M, men; AHU, asymptomatic hyperuricemia.

Abstract views:


Article Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Metrics powered by PLOS ALM

Copyright (c) 2017 Alberto Mazza, Salvatore Lenti, Maria D’Avino, Giuliano Pinna, Giancarlo Antonucci, Sara Ciarla, Fabrizio Colombo, Raffaele Costa, Susanna Cozzio, Alessandro De Palma, Erica Del Signore, Massimo Errico, Fabio Fiammengo, Giuseppe Iosa, Massimiliano Loreno, Federica Lorenzi, Rocco Paternò, Martino Pengo, Cecilia Politi, Marcello Rattazzi, Maurizio Renis, Flavio Tangianu, Nicola Tarquinio, Mario Trottini, Gianluigi Scannapieco, Giorgio Vescovo, Gualberto Gussoni, Mauro Campanini, Dario Manfellotto, Andrea Fontanella

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
© PAGEPress 2008-2018     -     PAGEPress is a registered trademark property of PAGEPress srl, Italy.     -     VAT: IT02125780185