|
Title: |
|
Authors:
|
|
Abstract: Background:
Cardiovascular risk in patients referred for coronary assessment is shaped by
the coexistence of cardiometabolic disease, behavioural exposures, medication
use, and the availability of documented follow-up information. Integrated
evidence from Libyan referral populations is limited.
Objective: To
describe lifestyle and dietary risk exposures, cardiometabolic comorbidity,
cardiovascular medication use, recorded cardiac interventions, and documented
follow-up indicators among Libyan adults undergoing clinically indicated
coronary assessment.
Methods: This
secondary descriptive analysis used records from a multicentre retrospective cohort
of 200 adults aged 26–85 years evaluated at Tripoli Medical Centre, Benghazi
Medical Centre, and Tajoura Heart Centre during 2024–2025. Variables were
abstracted using a structured instrument and summarised as means, frequencies,
percentages, and Wilson 95% confidence intervals.
Results:
Participants had a mean age of 56.4 ± 12.8 years; 84.5% were male and 89.0%
were overweight or obese. Low vegetable intake was recorded in 80.0%, high
red-meat intake in 86.0%, frequent trans-fat intake in 81.5%, low omega-3
intake in 84.0%, and sedentary behaviour in 78.5%. Current or former smoking
was reported by 55.5%. Hypertension, hyperlipidaemia, and diabetes mellitus
were present in 83.0%, 89.0%, and 43.0%, respectively. Statins were used by
90.5% and antiplatelet agents by 84.0%, whereas beta-blockers and other
cardiovascular medicines were recorded in 39.0% and 46.0%. Subsequent cardiac
interventions were recorded in 12.5%. ECG changes were present in 78.0%, while
ejection fraction and inflammatory markers were documented in 48.5% and 57.0%,
respectively.
Conclusion: This referral-based cohort showed marked clustering of documented modifiable lifestyle and cardiometabolic risks alongside frequent cardiovascular medication use. The findings support prospective evaluation of integrated lifestyle, medication, and follow-up pathways in Libyan cardiac referral settings. They should not be interpreted as population prevalence estimates, evidence of treatment appropriateness, or causal relationships. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.51505/ijmshr.2026.10412 |
|
PDF Download |