Faculty Opinions recommendation of Serum Cotinine and Silent Myocardial Infarction in Individuals Free from Cardiovascular Disease.

Author(s):  
Wilbert Aronow
2019 ◽  
Vol 124 (5) ◽  
pp. 666-670
Author(s):  
Ryan Brunetti ◽  
Harry Hicklin ◽  
Justin Rackley ◽  
Muhammad Imtiaz Ahmad ◽  
Yabing Li ◽  
...  

Circulation ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 142 (Suppl_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew J Singleton ◽  
Charles German ◽  
Elsayed Z Soliman ◽  
Gregory Burke ◽  
Joseph Yeboah

Introduction: The 2018 AHA/ACC cholesterol guidelines introduced a new list of markers called “risk enhancers” that, if present, confer an increased risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Notably absent is silent myocardial infarction (SMI) on electrocardiogram (ECG), even though SMI has been shown to be associated with future ASCVD. Hypothesis: Adding SMI to the pooled cohort equation (PCE) will improve risk discrimination and classification in those with intermediate ASCVD risk (5 - 20% 10-year risk). Methods: SMI was defined as a major Q-wave abnormality or minor Q/QS waves in the setting of major ST-T abnormalities in the absence of history of clinical cardiovascular disease. Incident ASCVD events included myocardial infarction, coronary heart disease death, and fatal and non-fatal stroke. Results: Among 2,278 intermediate-risk MESA participants, 48 (2.1%) had SMI at baseline. Over 32,150 person-years (median 15.8), incident ASCVD events occurred in 297/2,230 (13%) of those without SMI and 13/48 (27%) of those with SMI. In a Cox proportional hazards model that was adjusted for calculated 10-year ASCVD risk based on the PCE, SMI was associated with increased risk of ASCVD (HR 2.22, 95% CI 1.27 - 3.87, p = 0.005). Adding SMI to the PCE did not improve discrimination, with areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves for models without and with SMI of 0.5812 and 0.5874, respectively (p-value for difference 0.22; Figure 1a). The net reclassification improvement for adding SMI as a risk enhancer to reclassify participants from intermediate-risk to high-risk was 0.0242 (95% CI 0.0011 - 0.0472, p = 0.04; Figure 1b). Conclusions: Our findings suggest that the prevalence of SMI is 2.1% among those without known clinical cardiovascular disease considered intermediate-risk by the pooled cohort equation. In our analysis, SMI only modestly improved classification of risk, suggesting that it may not be very useful as an ASCVD risk enhancer.


2019 ◽  
Vol 72 (5) ◽  
pp. 779-783
Author(s):  
Victor A. Ognev ◽  
Anna A. Podpriadova ◽  
Anna V. Lisova

Introduction:The high level of morbidity and mortality from cardiovascular disease is largely due toinsufficient influence on the main risk factors that contribute to the development of myocardial infarction.Therefore, a detailed study and assessment of risk factors is among the most important problems of medical and social importance. The aim: To study and evaluate the impact of biological, social and hygienic, social and economic, psychological, natural and climatic risk factors on the development of myocardial infarction. Materials and methods: A sociological survey was conducted in 500 people aged 34 to 85. They were divided into two groups. The main group consisted of 310 patients with myocardial infarction. The control group consisted of 190 practically healthy people, identical by age, gender and other parameters, without diseases of the cardiovascular system. Results: It was defined that 30 factors have a significant impact on the development of myocardial infarction.Data analysis revealed that the leading risk factors for myocardial infarction were biological and socio-hygienic. The main biological factors were: hypertension and hypercholesterolemia. The man socio-hygienic factor was smoking. Conclusions: Identification of risk factors provides new opportunities for the development of more effective approaches for the prevention and treatment of myocardial infarction.


2018 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 414-426 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick Proctor ◽  
Massoud A. Leesar ◽  
Arka Chatterjee

Thrombolytic therapy kick-started the era of modern cardiology but in the last few decades it has been largely supplanted by primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) as the go-to treatment for acute myocardial infarction. However, these agents remain important for vast populations without access to primary PCI and acute ischemic stroke. More innovative uses have recently come up for the treatment of a variety of conditions. This article summarizes the history, evidence base and current use of thrombolytics in cardiovascular disease.


2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 144.1-144
Author(s):  
R. Mazzucchelli ◽  
S. Rodriguez-Martin ◽  
A. García-Vadillo ◽  
M. Gil ◽  
A. Rodríguez-Miguel ◽  
...  

Background:There is some evidence from epidemiological studies suggesting that CS and glucosamine could play a role in cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention (1-4).Studies to date have included prevalent users, therefore a bias that overestimates protection cannot be excluded.Objectives:To test the hypothesis that chondroitin sulphate (CS) or glucosamine reduce the risk of acute myocardial infarction (AMI).Methods:Case-control study nested in a primary cohort composed of patients aged 40 to 99 years, with at least one year of follow-up in the BIFAP database during the 2002-2015 study period. From this cohort of patients, we identified incident cases of AMI and randomly selected five controls per case, matched by exact age, gender, and index date. Adjusted odds ratios (AOR) and their corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI)) were calculated through a conditional logistic regression. Only new users of CS or glucosamine were considered.Results:A total of 23,585 incident cases of AMI and 117,405 controls were included. The mean age was 67.0 (SD 13.4) years and 71.75% were male, in both groups. 558 (2.37%) cases and 3,082 (2.62%) controls used or had used CS. The current use of CS was associated with a lower risk of AMI (AOR 0.57; 95%CI: 0.46–0.72) and disappeared after discontinuation (recent and past users). The reduced risk among current users was observed in both short-term (<365 days AOR 0.58; 95%CI: 0.45-0.75) and long-term users (>364 days AOR 0.56; 95%CI 0.36-0.87), in both sexes (men, AOR=0.52; 95%CI:0.38-0.70; women, AOR=0.65; 95%CI: 0.46-0.91), in individuals over or under 70 years of age (AOR=0.54; 95%CI:0.38-0.77, and AOR=0.61; 95%CI:0.45-0.82, respectively) and in individuals at intermediate (AOR=0.65; 95%CI:0.48-0.91) and high cardiovascular risk (AOR=0.48;95%CI:0.27-0.83), but not in those at low risk (AOR=1.11; 95%CI:0.48-2.56). In contrast, the current use of glucosamine was not associated with either increased or decreased risk of AMI (AOR= 0.86; CI95% 0.66-1.08)Conclusion:Our results support a cardioprotective effect of CS, while no effect was observed with glucosamine. The highest protection was found among subgroups at higher cardiovascular risk.References:[1]Ma H, Li X, Sun D, Zhou T, Ley SH, Gustat J, et al. Association of habitual glucosamine use with risk of cardiovascular disease: prospective study in UK Biobank. BMJ. 2019;365(Journal Article):l1628.[2]de Abajo FJ, Gil MJ, Garcia Poza P, Bryant V, Oliva B, Timoner J, et al. Risk of nonfatal acute myocardial infarction associated with non-steroidal antiinflammatory drugs, non-narcotic analgesics and other drugs used in osteoarthritis: a nested case-control study. PharmacoepidemiolDrug Saf. 2014;23(11):1128–38.[3]Li Z-H, Gao X, Chung VC, Zhong W-F, Fu Q, Lv Y-B, et al. Associations of regular glucosamine use with all-cause and cause-specific mortality: a large prospective cohort study. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Apr 6;annrheumdis-2020-217176.[4]King DE, Xiang J. Glucosamine/Chondroitin and Mortality in a US NHANES Cohort. J Am Board Fam Med. 2020 Dec;33(6):842–7.Disclosure of Interests:Ramón Mazzucchelli Speakers bureau: UCB, Lilly, Grant/research support from: Pfizer, Roche, Amgen, Sara Rodriguez-Martin: None declared, Alberto García-Vadillo: None declared, Miguel Gil: None declared, Antonio Rodríguez-Miguel: None declared, Diana Barreira-Hernández: None declared, Alberto García-Lledó: None declared, Francisco de Abajo: None declared


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document