scholarly journals Aspirin for primary prevention of stroke in individuals without cardiovascular disease—A meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 9-17
Author(s):  
Conor Judge ◽  
Sarah Ruttledge ◽  
Robert Murphy ◽  
Elaine Loughlin ◽  
Sarah Gorey ◽  
...  

Background The benefits of aspirin for primary prevention of stroke are uncertain. Methods We performed a cumulative meta-analysis of trials investigating aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease with a focus on stroke. We assessed the effects of aspirin on non-fatal stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, non-fatal myocardial infarction, all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, major gastrointestinal bleeding, and an analysis of net clinical effect, in populations without a history of clinical or subclinical cardiovascular disease. Summary of review results Among 11 trials (157,054 participants), aspirin was not associated with a statistically significant reduction in non-fatal stroke (odds ratio, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.04) but was associated with an increased risk of hemorrhagic stroke (odds ratio, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.56). Aspirin was not associated with a statistically significant reduction in all-cause mortality (odds ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.03) or cardiovascular mortality (odds ratio, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.03). Aspirin was associated with a reduction in non-fatal myocardial infarction (odds ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.69 to 0.94) and an increased risk of major gastrointestinal bleeding (odds ratio, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.43 to 2.35). Using equal weighting for non-fatal events and major bleeding, we observed no net clinical benefit with aspirin use for primary prevention. Conclusion Our meta-analysis reports no benefit of aspirin for primary stroke prevention.

Blood ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 114 (22) ◽  
pp. 174-174
Author(s):  
Nina C Raju ◽  
Magda Sobieraj-Teague ◽  
John W Eikelboom

Abstract Abstract 174 Primary prevention with aspirin reduces the risk of non-fatal cardiovascular events but has not been demonstrated to reduce mortality. We performed an updated meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of aspirin in primary prevention to obtain best estimates of the benefits and harm of aspirin compared with no aspirin with a focus on mortality. Eligible articles were identified by computerized search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane library and CINAHL databases, review of bibliographies of relevant publications and a related article search using PubMed. The outcomes of interest included all cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, the composite of myocardial infarction, stroke or death, and bleeding. 2 reviewers independently extracted study information and data. Data were pooled from individual trials using the DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model and results are presented as relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). 8 studies comprising a total of 96,726 subjects were included. Aspirin reduced all-cause mortality (RR 0.94; 95%CI 0.88–1.00), the composite of myocardial infarction, stroke or cardiovascular death (RR 0.87; 95%CI 0.82–0.93), and myocardial infarction (RR 0.8; 95%CI 0.66–0.98) but did not significantly reduce cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.94; 95%CI 0.82–1.08) or stroke (RR 0.93; 95%CI 0.81–1.07). Aspirin increased the risk of major bleeding (RR; 1.69 95%CI 1.38–2.08), gastrointestinal bleeding (RR 1.38; 95%CI 1.16–1.65) and hemorrhagic stroke (RR 1.36; 95%CI 1.01–1.84). There was no interaction between subjects with or without diabetes for the outcomes of all cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, the composite of myocardial infarction, stroke or death. Aspirin therapy in subjects with no prior history of cardiovascular disease reduces the risk of cardiovascular events, myocardial infarction and overall mortality. These benefits are achieved at the expense of increased bleeding. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.


2020 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 1759720X2098121
Author(s):  
Gustavo Constantino de Campos ◽  
Raman Mundi ◽  
Craig Whittington ◽  
Marie-Josée Toutounji ◽  
Wilson Ngai ◽  
...  

Aims: The objective of this review was to examine the relationship between osteoarthritis (OA) and mobility-related comorbidities, specifically diabetes mellitus (DM) and cardiovascular disease (CVD). It also investigated the relationship between OA and mortality. Methods: An overview of meta-analyses was conducted by performing two targeted searches from inception to June 2020. The association between OA and (i) DM or CVD ( via PubMed and Embase); and (ii) mortality ( via PubMed) was investigated. Meta-analyses were selected if they included studies that examined adults with OA at any site and reported associations between OA and DM, CVD, or mortality. Evidence was synthesized qualitatively. Results: Six meta-analyses met inclusion criteria. One meta-analysis of 20 studies demonstrated a statistically significant association between OA and DM, with pooled odds ratio of 1.41 (95% confidence interval: 1.21, 1.65; n = 1,040,175 patients). One meta-analysis of 15 studies demonstrated significantly increased risk of CVD among OA patients, with a pooled risk ratio of 1.24 (1.12, 1.37, n = 358,944 patients). Stratified by type of CVD, OA was shown to be associated with increased heart failure (HF) and ischemic heart disease (IHD) and reduced transient ischemic attack (TIA). There was no association reported for stroke or myocardial infarction (MI). Three meta-analyses did not find a significant association between OA (any site) and all-cause mortality. However, OA was found to be significantly associated with cardiovascular-related death across two meta-analyses. Conclusion: The identified meta-analyses reported significantly increased risk of both DM and CVD (particularly, HF and IHD) among OA patients. It was not possible to confirm consistent directional or causal relationships. OA was found to be associated with increased mortality, but mostly in relation to CVD-related mortality, suggesting that further study is warranted in this area.


Author(s):  
Hua Ma ◽  
QIng Gu ◽  
Huining Niu ◽  
Xiaohua Li ◽  
Rong Wang

Background: The use of Aspirin in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) is still a topic of debate, especially in patients with diabetes. The present meta-analysis aims to rule out the efficacy of Aspirin in patients with diabetes and to compare the effectiveness of Aspirin with a placebo (or no treatment) for the primary prevention of CVD and all-cause mortality events in people with diabetes. Materials and Methods: An extensive and systematic search was conducted in Medline (via PubMed), Cinahl (via Ebsco), Scopus, and Web of Sciences from 1988 to December 2020. A detailed literature search was conducted using Aspirin, cardiovascular disease (CVD), diabetes, and efficacy to identify trials of patients with diabetes who received Aspirin for primary prevention of CVD. Demographic details with the primary outcome of events and bleeding outcomes were analyzed. The risk of bias (RoB) in included studies was evaluated using the QUADAS-2 tool. Results: A total of 5 studies out of 13 were included with 23,570 diabetic patients; 11,738 allocated to Aspirin and 11,832 allocated to the placebo group. In patients with diabetes, there was no difference between Aspirin and placebo with respect to the risk of all-cause death with a confidence interval (CI) varying 0.63 to 1.17. In addition, there were no differences in the bleeding outcomes with an odds ratio of 1.4411 (CI 0.47 to 4.34). Conclusion: Aspirin has no significant risk on primary endpoints of cardiovascular events and the bleeding outcomes in diabetic patients compared to placebo. More research on the use of Aspirin alone or in combination with other antiplatelet drugs is required in patients with diabetes to supplement currently available research.


2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
R Batchelor ◽  
D Liu ◽  
J Bloom ◽  
S Noaman ◽  
W Chan

Abstract Background Morphine analgesia may affect absorption of co-prescribed P2Y12 antagonists attenuating platelet inhibition. The impact of peri-procedural intravenous (IV) morphine administration on clinical outcomes in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is not well defined. Purpose To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis exploring clinical outcomes with peri-procedural IV morphine in patients undergoing PPCI for STEMI. Methods Analysis of the electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Scopus, Web of Science and ClinicalTrials.gov for association of peri-PCI IV morphine use with myocardial infarction (MI) and mortality. Primary and secondary outcomes were in-hospital or 30-day MI and all-cause mortality respectively. Results Eleven studies (1 randomised controlled trial; 10 cohort studies) were included for systematic review. Five studies, including 3,748 patients were included in meta-analysis of the primary outcome. Of 3,748 patients, 2,239 were treated concurrently with ticagrelor, 1,256 treated with clopidogrel and 253 with prasugrel. As shown in the Figure, there was a trend towards increased risk of myocardial infarction with IV morphine (odds ratio 1.88; 95% CI 0.87–4.09, I2 0%). Across seven studies and 6585 patients, no increased risk of mortality at the same composite time endpoint was evident (odds ratio 0.70, 95% CI 0.40–1.23, I2 19%). Figure 1. MI in hospital or at 30 days Conclusion Based on current literature, evidence of an association between IV morphine and myocardial infarction in patients undergoing PPCI for STEMI is limited by observational methodology and conflicting results. There is no evidence of an association between intravenous peri-procedural morphine and mortality. Clinical trial evidence with strong documentation of adverse events data is required to demonstrate association or causality. Acknowledgement/Funding None


2016 ◽  
Vol 2016 ◽  
pp. 1-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jie Wang ◽  
Yangjing Xue ◽  
Saroj Thapa ◽  
Luping Wang ◽  
Jifei Tang ◽  
...  

Data on the association between age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and cardiovascular disease and mortality are conflicting. The purpose of this report is to conduct a systematic review to better understand the role of AMD as a risk factor for CVD events and mortality. We searched Medline (Ovid) and Embase (Ovid) for trials published from 1980 to 2015. We included 20 cohort studies that reported relative risks with 95% confidence intervals for the association of AMD and cardiovascular events and mortality, involving 29,964,334 participants. In a random-effects model, the adjusted RR (95% confidence interval [CI]) associated with AMD was 1.08 (1.00–1.117) for all-cause mortality (8 studies) and 1.18 (0.98–1.43) for cardiovascular disease mortality (5 studies). The pooled RR (95% CI) was 1.17 (0.94–1.45) for coronary heart disease (CHD; 3 studies) and 1.13 (0.93–1.36) for stroke (8 studies). Findings from this systematic review support that AMD is associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality. The evidence that AMD predicts incident CVD events or CVD mortality remains inclusive and warrants further study in the future.


2016 ◽  
Vol 12 (02) ◽  
pp. 78
Author(s):  
Sanjay Kalra ◽  

Two major trials, LEADER and SUSTAIN 6, published in 2016, reported the cardiovascular and microvascular benefits of liraglutide and semaglutide respectively. This communication describes the results of these trials, and analyses the subtle differences in their outcomes. While semaglutide significantly reduces the risk of non-fatal myocardial infarction (primary prevention), liraglutide reduces the risk of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality (secondary prevention). Both drugs significantly improve renal outcomes, but semaglutide increased the risk of retinal events. The time taken to achieve benefit was much less (4-6 months) with semaglutide than with liraglutide (12–18 months). LEADER and SUSTAIN 6 have made 2016 a landmark year in the history of diabetes care. Their positive results will help promote better, comprehensive diabetes care, using minimal drugs (therapeutic parsimony), encourage use of rational combinations to improve outcomes, and stimulate exaptation of these drugs for non-glycemic purposes.


2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Åslaug O. Matre ◽  
Anthea Van Parys ◽  
Thomas Olsen ◽  
Teresa R. Haugsgjerd ◽  
Carl M. Baravelli ◽  
...  

Background: Red and processed meat intake have been associated with increased risk of morbidity and mortality, and a restricted intake is encouraged in patients with cardiovascular disease. However, evidence on the association between total meat intake and clinical outcomes in this patient group is lacking.Objectives: To investigate the association between total meat intake and risk of all-cause mortality, acute myocardial infarction, cancer, and gastrointestinal cancer in patients with stable angina pectoris. We also investigated whether age modified these associations.Materials and Methods: This prospective cohort study consisted of 1,929 patients (80% male, mean age 62 years) with stable angina pectoris from the Western Norway B-Vitamin Intervention Trial. Dietary assessment was performed by the administration of a semi-quantitative food frequency questionnaire. Cox proportional hazards models were used to investigate the association between a relative increase in total meat intake and the outcomes of interest.Results: The association per 50 g/1,000 kcal higher intake of total meat with morbidity and mortality were generally inconclusive but indicated an increased risk of acute myocardial infarction [HR: 1.26 (95% CI: 0.98, 1.61)] and gastrointestinal cancer [1.23 (0.70, 2.16)]. However, we observed a clear effect modification by age, where total meat intake was associated with an increased risk of mortality and acute myocardial infarction among younger individuals, but an attenuation, and even reversal of the risk association with increasing age.Conclusion: Our findings support the current dietary guidelines emphasizing a restricted meat intake in cardiovascular disease patients but highlights the need for further research on the association between meat intake and health outcomes in elderly populations. Future studies should investigate different types of meat separately in other CVD-cohorts, in different age-groups, as well as in the general population.


2008 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 133-135 ◽  
Author(s):  
Iasmina M Craici ◽  
Steven J Wagner ◽  
Suzanne R Hayman ◽  
Vesna D Garovic

Evaluation of: Bellamy L, Casas JP, Hingorani AD, Williams DJ: Pre-eclampsia and risk of cardiovascular disease and cancer in later life: systematic review and meta-analysis. Br. Med. J. 335(7627), 974 (2007). Evidence has emerged over the years suggesting that women who develop hypertensive pregnancy disorders, most notably pre-eclampsia, are at an increased risk for cardiovascular disease later in life. In this study, a systematic review and meta-analysis were performed, assessing the future risks of cardiovascular disease, cancer and all-cause mortality in women with a history of pre-eclampsia and eclampsia. Women with a history of pre-eclampsia or eclampsia, compared with women without such a history, had an increased risk for cardiovascular disease, including a fourfold increased risk for hypertension, a twofold increased risk for ischemic heart disease, stroke and deep venous thrombosis, and a 1.5-times higher all-cause mortality. The study suggests that affected women may be eligible for preventive therapies at an earlier age, especially if future studies establish the role of pre-eclampsia as an independent cardiovascular risk factor.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document