scholarly journals Update of Antiplatelet Therapy in Patients Without Known Cardiovascular Disease

2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 383-388
Author(s):  
Miloje Tomasevic ◽  
Srdjan Aleksandric ◽  
Sinisa Stojkovic
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Cardiovascular Disease ◽  
Primary Prevention ◽  
Antiplatelet Therapy ◽  
Dual Antiplatelet Therapy ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Artery Disease ◽  
Prevention Of Cardiovascular Disease

Abstract Platelet activation and aggregation play a critical role in thrombosis, a fundamental pathophysiologic event responsible for the acute clinical manifestations of atherothrombotic events such as acute coronary syndrome, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke/transient ischemic attack and peripheral artery disease. Dual antiplatelet therapy (low-dose aspirin plus ADP-P2Y12 receptor blockers) has become the cornerstone of therapy for the management of acute and chronic coronary artery disease and the prevention of ischemic complications associated with percutaneous coronary intervention. However, dual antiplatelet therapy in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in patients without known cardiovascular disease did not significantly reduce the risk of cardiovascular events, such as myocardial infarction, stroke or death, but significantly increased the rate of bleeding. Furthermore, despite multiple randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of aspirin use in patients without known cardiovascular disease, its role in primary prevention is still unclear, especially in patients with a higher risk of cardiovascular disease (non-diabetic individuals with >2 risk factors for coronary artery disease, elderly >60 years with additional risk factors, and patients with diabetes). Currently, there are four ongoing randomized controlled trials aiming to fill the missing gap in the efficacy and safety of aspirin therapy for primary prevention in these patients. The current European and United States Guidelines agree that primary prevention of cardiovascular disease is essential, but there are some substantial differences in risk estimation and treatment strategies among patients without known cardiovascular disease. This short review is focused on these differences and practical treatment approach to these patients based on present European and United States recommendations.

scholarly journals Effects of a Paleolithic Diet on Cardiovascular Disease Risk Factors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 634-646 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ehsan Ghaedi ◽  
Mohammad Mohammadi ◽  
Hamed Mohammadi ◽  
Nahid Ramezani-Jolfaie ◽  
Janmohamad Malekzadeh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Cardiovascular Disease ◽  
Lipid Profile ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cvd Risk Factors ◽  
Paleolithic Diet ◽  
Cvd Risk ◽  
Randomized Controlled

ABSTRACTThere is some evidence supporting the beneficial effects of a Paleolithic diet (PD) on cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors. This diet advises consuming lean meat, fish, vegetables, fruits, and nuts and avoiding intake of grains, dairy products, processed foods, and added sugar and salt. This study was performed to assess the effects of a PD on CVD risk factors including anthropometric indexes, lipid profile, blood pressure, and inflammatory markers using data from randomized controlled trials. A comprehensive search was performed in the PubMed, Scopus, ISI Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases up to August 2018. A meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model to estimate the pooled effect size. Meta-analysis of 8 eligible studies revealed that a PD significantly reduced body weight [weighted mean difference (WMD) = −1.68 kg; 95% CI: −2.86, −0.49 kg], waist circumference (WMD = −2.72 cm; 95% CI: −4.04, −1.40 cm), BMI (in kg/m2) (WMD = −1.54; 95% CI: −2.22, −0.87), body fat percentage (WMD = −1.31%; 95% CI: −2.06%, −0.57%), systolic (WMD = −4.75 mm Hg; 95% CI: −7.54, −1.96 mm Hg) and diastolic (WMD = −3.23 mm Hg; 95% CI: −4.77, −1.69 mm Hg) blood pressure, and circulating concentrations of total cholesterol (WMD = −0.23 mmol/L; 95% CI: −0.42, −0.04 mmol/L), triglycerides (WMD = −0.30 mmol/L; 95% CI: −0.55, −0.06 mmol/L), LDL cholesterol (WMD = −0.13 mmol/L; 95% CI: −0.26, −0.01 mmol/L), and C-reactive protein (CRP) (WMD = −0.48 mg/L; 95% CI: −0.79, −0.16 mg/L) and also significantly increased HDL cholesterol (WMD = 0.06 mmol/L; 95% CI: 0.01, 0.11 mmol/L). However, sensitivity analysis revealed that the overall effects of a PD on lipid profile, systolic blood pressure, and circulating CRP concentrations were sensitive to removing some studies and to the correlation coefficients, hence the results must be interpreted with caution. Although the present meta-analysis revealed that a PD has favorable effects on CVD risk factors, the evidence is not conclusive and more well-designed trials are still needed.

scholarly journals Efficacy and Safety of Oral Anticoagulants in Patients with Systolic Heart Failure in Sinus Rhythm: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials and Cohort Studies

TH Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 04 (04) ◽  
pp. e383-e392
Author(s):  
Marie H. Nygaard ◽  
Anne-Mette Hvas ◽  
Erik L. Grove
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Sinus Rhythm ◽  
Cohort Studies ◽  
Antiplatelet Therapy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
All Cause Mortality

Abstract Introduction There is conflicting evidence on the risk–benefit ratio of oral anticoagulants (OAC) in heart failure (HF) patients without atrial fibrillation. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of OAC in HF patients in sinus rhythm. Methods A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed and Embase. We included randomized controlled trials (RCT) and cohort studies, comparing OAC with antiplatelet or no treatment/placebo in patients with HF. Outcomes evaluated were stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), all-cause mortality, and major bleeding. Results Five RCTs and three cohort studies were included. OAC was associated with a reduced risk of ischemic stroke when compared with no treatment/placebo (odds ratio [OR] = 0.67, 95% confidence interval [CI]: [0.47, 0.94]) and antiplatelet therapy (OR = 0.55, 95% CI: [0.37, 0.81]). No significant reduction was found in MI, when OAC was compared with no treatment/placebo (OR = 0.82, 95% CI: [0.63, 1.07]) or antiplatelet therapy (OR = 1.04, 95% CI: [0.60, 1.81]). The all-cause mortality analysis showed no significant reduction when comparing OAC with no treatment/placebo (OR = 0.99, 95% CI: [0.87, 1.12]) or antiplatelet therapy (OR = 1.00, 95% CI: [0.86, 1.16]). The nonsignificant effect of OAC on all-cause mortality was supported by a meta-analysis of the three cohort studies (OR = 1.02, 95% CI: [0.75, 1.38]). Patients treated with OAC had a significantly higher risk of major bleeding than patients receiving antiplatelet therapy (OR = 2.16, 95% CI: [1.55, 3.00]) and a numerically higher risk when compared with no treatment/placebo (OR = 2.38, 95% CI: [0.87, 6.49]). Conclusion The present study does not support the routine use of OAC in patients with HF in sinus rhythm.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document