scholarly journals Aspirin use for primary prevention in elderly patients

2016 ◽  
Vol 84 (1-2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Pierfranco Terrosu
Keyword(s):  
Primary Prevention ◽  
Older People ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Vascular Risk ◽  
Vascular Events ◽  
Rischio Cardiovascolare ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Coronary Events ◽  
Cardio Vascular ◽  
Net Clinical Benefit

<p>The net clinical benefit of aspirin in primary prevention is uncertain as the reduction in occlusive events needs to be balanced against the increase in gastro-intestinal and cerebral bleedings. The meta-analysis of ATT (Anti Thrombotic Trialists) Collaboration in 2009 showed that aspirin therapy in primary prevention was associated with 12% reduction in cardio-vascular events, due mainly to a reduction in non-fatal myocardial infarction (0.18% vs 0.23% per year, p&lt;0.0001). However, the benefit in term of coronary events was almost balanced by the increase in major bleedings. The balance between potential benefit and harm of aspirin differs in each person and appears to be favorable in subjects at higher cardio-vascular risk. Older people have increased risk of hemorrhage as well as increased risk of heart attack and stroke. As a consequence, it is important consider both likelihoods of benefits as well as harm within the lifespan and functioning of the person. The older people who most likely benefit from aspirin in primary prevention are those at higher cardio-vascular risk, with preserved functional abilities, low comorbidity, low risk of bleeding and a prolonged life expectancy.</p><p> </p><p><strong>Riassunto</strong></p><p>Il beneficio clinico netto dell’aspirina in prevenzione primaria è poco chiaro, a causa del bilancio critico tra riduzione delle occlusioni vascolari e aumento dei sanguinamenti gastro-intestinali e cerebrali. La metanalisi del 2009 del ATT (Anti Thrombotic Trialists) Collaboration mostra che l’aspirina in prevenzione primaria determina una riduzione del 12% degli eventi cardiovascolari, principalmente dovuta ad una riduzione dell’infarto miocardico non-fatale (0.18% vs 0.23% per anno, p&lt;0.0001). Tuttavia il beneficio in termini di eventi coronarici è controbilanciato dall’incremento dei sanguinamenti maggiori. Ne deriva che il bilancio tra vantaggi ed effetti avversi differisce nel singolo soggetto ed appare potenzialmente favorevole nei casi a più elevato rischio cardiovascolare. Nella popolazione anziana è aumentato sia il rischio trombotico che quello emorragico. Di conseguenza, è importante considerare il rapporto rischio/beneficio in relazione alla aspettativa di vita e alla capacità funzionale. In sostanza gli anziani che possono trarre vantaggio dall’aspirina in prevenzione primaria sono quelli a più alto rischio cardiovascolare, con mobilità conservata, scarsa comorbidità, basso rischio emorragico e lunga aspettativa di vita.</p>

THUR 116 Vascular prevention in patients with parkinson’s disease

2018 ◽  
Vol 89 (10) ◽  
pp. A12.3-A12
Author(s):  
Kempe Isla ◽  
Grosset Katherine A ◽  
Grosset Donald G
Keyword(s):  
Parkinson’S Disease ◽  
Parkinson's Disease ◽  
Primary Prevention ◽  
Statin Therapy ◽  
Statin Treatment ◽  
Vascular Risk ◽  
Vascular Events ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Cognitive Problems

BackgroundVascular prevention is appropriate for patients with a vascular history (secondary prevention) and increased risk (primary prevention). Cerebrovascular disease adds to gait and cognitive problems in patients with Parkinson’s disease (PD).MethodsA convenience cross-sectional sample of consecutive PD patients attending the Neurology Movement Disorder clinic was assessed, and QRISK3 scored when appropriate (cases without vascular events, age <85 years).ResultsOf 100 cases, mean age 66.5 (SD 9.0) years, 52.0% male, with PD duration 8.3 (SD 5.5) years, 15 had a vascular history meriting statin therapy, of whom 12 (80.0%) were prescribed statins. 22 had a high vascular risk (QRISK3 >20%), mean QRISK3 28.6 (SD 7.7) of whom 2 (9.1%) were prescribed statins. We are now actively assessing QRISK3 and recommending statin therapy where appropriate.ConclusionsSecondary vascular prevention with statins is more commonly implemented than primary prevention, in patients with PD. In patients without a vascular diagnosis, vascular risk should be assessed and statin therapy offered where appropriate, noting that around one-fifth of patients have a high vascular risk and are not on statin treatment.

scholarly journals Impact of acetylsalicylic acid on primary prevention of cardiovascular diseases: A meta-analysis of randomized trials

2018 ◽  
Vol 26 (7) ◽  
pp. 746-749 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sunil Upadhaya ◽  
Seetharamprasad Madala ◽  
Ramkaji Baniya ◽  
Kalyan Saginala ◽  
Jahangir Khan
Keyword(s):  
Primary Prevention ◽  
Acetylsalicylic Acid ◽  
Hemorrhagic Stroke ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Cardiovascular Death ◽  
Vascular Events ◽  
Individual Participant ◽  
The Cost ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Key Questions

Numerous studies have investigated use of acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) for prevention of cardiovascular deaths. The vast majority of the work in this area has focused on secondary prevention. However, underuse of ASA still remains a major issue. Fewer studies have investigated the impact of ASA on primary prevention of cardiovascular death. A meta-analysis of individual participant data from six randomized studies, published in 2009, showed decrease in serious vascular events but at the cost of causing increased bleeding and hemorrhagic stroke. Recent studies have raised a number of key questions regarding the benefits and risks of using ASA for primary prevention.

scholarly journals Modern statin therapy in clinical practice: The lower the better

2013 ◽  
Vol 141 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 104-106 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edita Stokic
Keyword(s):  
Heart Disease ◽  
Cardiovascular Risk ◽  
Ischemic Heart Disease ◽  
Statin Therapy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Ischemic Heart ◽  
Mortality And Morbidity ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Coronary Events ◽  
Risk Treatment

Lipid and lipoprotein disorders are well known risk factors for atherosclerosis and its complications. The level of atherogenic LDL-cholesterol (LDL-C) is directly related to an increased risk of occurrence and progression of ischemic heart disease. Epidemiological and clinical studies have shown that the use of statin therapy to decrease LDL-C can significantly reduce the incidence of mortality, major coronary events and the need for revascularization procedures in the different groups of patients. The findings of a large meta-analysis conducted by the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists? (CTT) collaborators showed that every 1.0 mmol/l reduction of atherogenic LDL-C is associated with a 22% reduction in cardiovascular diseases mortality and morbidity. However, despite the impressive results of the benefits of statin therapy, the EUROASPIRE study showed that about 50% of patients with ischemic heart disease did not achieve target LDL-C levels. According to the new ESC/EAS Guidelines for the Management of Dyslipidaemias in patients with a very high cardiovascular risk, treatment goal should be to decrease LDL-C below 1.8 mmol/l or ?50% of initial values. In the majority of patients that can be achieved by statin therapy. For this reason an adequate choice of statins is of crucial importance, whereby the needed reduction in atherogenic LDL-C, after the identification of its target level based on the assessment of total cardiovascular risk, can be achieved.

scholarly journals Meta-analysis of effect of renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system blockers on contrast-induced nephropathy

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 147032032091958
Author(s):  
Weidong Wang ◽  
Wei Qu ◽  
Dan Sun ◽  
Xiaodan Liu
Keyword(s):  
Older People ◽  
Sample Size ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Contrast Induced Nephropathy ◽  
Renin Angiotensin Aldosterone System ◽  
Renin Angiotensin ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Larger Sample

Background: The purpose of this study was to systematically evaluate the effect of renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system blockers on the incidence of contrast-induced nephropathy in patients undergoing coronary angiography or percutaneous coronary intervention. Methods: A systematic literature search of several databases was conducted to identify studies that met the inclusion criteria. A total of 12 studies with 14 trials that performed studies on a total of 4864 patients (2484 treated with renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system blockers and 2380 in the control group) were included. The primary endpoint was the overall incidence of contrast-induced nephropathy. Analyses were performed with STATA version 12.0. Results: The overall contrast-induced nephropathy incidence in renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system blocker and control groups was 10.43% and 6.81%, respectively. The pooled relative risk of contrast-induced nephropathy incidence was 1.22 (95% confidence interval: 0.81–1.84) in the renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system blocker group. An increased risk of developing contrast-induced nephropathy in the renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system blocker group was observed among older people, non-Asians, chronic users, and studies with larger sample size, and the pooled RRs and 95% confidence intervals were 2.02 (1.21–3.36), 2.30 (1.41–3.76), 1.69 (1.10–2.59) and 1.83 (1.28–2.63), respectively. Conclusions: Intervention with renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system blockers was associated with an increased risk of contrast-induced nephropathy among non-Asians, chronic users, older people, and studies with larger sample size. Large clinical trials with strict inclusion criteria are needed to confirm our results and to evaluate the effect further.

scholarly journals Vascular Events, Vascular Disease and Vascular Risk Factors—Strongly Intertwined with COVID-19

2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (11) ◽  
Author(s):  
Adrian Scutelnic ◽  
Mirjam R. Heldner
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Vascular Disease ◽  
Vascular Risk Factors ◽  
Vascular Risk ◽  
Vascular Events ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Clinical Benefits ◽  
Infection And Inflammation ◽  
Unhealthy Diet ◽  
New Perspective

Abstract Purpose of review To elucidate the intertwining of vascular events, vascular disease and vascular risk factors and COVID-19. Recent findings Strokes are a leading cause of disability and death worldwide. Vascular risk factors are important drivers of strokes. There are unmodifiable vascular risk factors such as age and ethnicity and modifiable vascular risk factors. According to the INTERSTROKE study, the 10 most frequent modifiable vascular risk factors are arterial hypertension, physical inactivity, overweight, dyslipidaemia, smoking, unhealthy diet, cardiac pathologies, diabetes mellitus, stress/depression and overconsumption of alcohol. Also, infection and inflammation have been shown to increase the risk of stroke. There is high-quality evidence for the clinical benefits of optimal primary and secondary stroke prevention. The COVID-19 pandemic brought a new perspective to this field. Vascular events, vascular disease and vascular risk factors—and COVID-19—are strongly intertwined. An increased risk of vascular events—by multifactorial mechanisms—has been observed in COVID-19 patients. Also, a higher rate of infection with COVID-19, severe COVID-19 and bad outcome has been demonstrated in patients with pre-existing vascular disease and vascular risk factors. Summary At present, we suggest that regular interactions between healthcare professionals and patients should include education on COVID-19 and on primary and secondary vascular prevention in order to reduce the burden of disease in our ageing populations.

scholarly journals Aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: a meta-analysis with a particular focus on subgroups

BMC Medicine ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Georg Gelbenegger ◽  
Marek Postula ◽  
Ladislav Pecen ◽  
Sigrun Halvorsen ◽  
Maciej Lesiak ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Prevention ◽  
Cardiovascular Mortality ◽  
Cardiovascular Events ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Statin Treatment ◽  
Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Net Clinical Benefit ◽  
Prevention Of Cardiovascular Disease

Abstract Background The role of aspirin in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains unclear. We aimed to investigate the benefit-risk ratio of aspirin for primary prevention of CVD with a particular focus on subgroups. Methods Randomized controlled trials comparing the effects of aspirin for primary prevention of CVD versus control and including at least 1000 patients were eligible for this meta-analysis. The primary efficacy outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included cardiovascular mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, and net clinical benefit. The primary safety outcome was major bleeding. Subgroup analyses involving sex, concomitant statin treatment, diabetes, and smoking were performed. Results Thirteen randomized controlled trials comprising 164,225 patients were included. The risk of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality was similar for aspirin and control groups (RR 0.98; 95% CI, 0.93–1.02; RR 0.99; 95% CI, 0.90–1.08; respectively). Aspirin reduced the relative risk (RRR) of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) by 9% (RR 0.91; 95% CI, 0.86–0.95), myocardial infarction by 14% (RR 0.86; 95% CI, 0.77–0.95), and ischemic stroke by 10% (RR 0.90; 95% CI, 0.82–0.99), but was associated with a 46% relative risk increase of major bleeding events (RR 1.46; 95% CI, 1.30–1.64) compared with controls. Aspirin use did not translate into a net clinical benefit adjusted for event-associated mortality risk (mean 0.034%; 95% CI, − 0.18 to 0.25%). There was an interaction for aspirin effect in three patient subgroups: (i) in patients under statin treatment, aspirin was associated with a 12% RRR of MACE (RR 0.88; 95% CI, 0.80–0.96), and this effect was lacking in the no-statin group; (ii) in non-smokers, aspirin was associated with a 10% RRR of MACE (RR 0.90; 95% CI, 0.82–0.99), and this effect was not present in smokers; and (iii) in males, aspirin use resulted in a 11% RRR of MACE (RR 0.89; 95% CI, 0.83–0.95), with a non-significant effect in females. Conclusions Aspirin use does not reduce all-cause or cardiovascular mortality and results in an insufficient benefit-risk ratio for CVD primary prevention. Non-smokers, patients treated with statins, and males had the greatest risk reduction of MACE across subgroups. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42019118474.

Aspirin for primary prevention in diabetes mellitus: from the calculation of cardiovascular risk and risk/benefit profile to personalised treatment

2015 ◽  
Vol 114 (11) ◽  
pp. 876-882 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francesca Santilli ◽  
Pasquale Pignatelli ◽  
Francesco Violi ◽  
Giovanni Davì
Keyword(s):  
Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Primary Prevention ◽  
Low Dose ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Individual Variability ◽  
Vascular Events ◽  
Dose Aspirin ◽  
Low Dose Aspirin ◽  
Personalised Treatment ◽  
Cox 1

SummaryType 2 diabetes mellitus is characterised by persistent thromboxane (TX)-dependent platelet activation, regardless of disease duration. Low-dose aspirin, that induces a permanent inactivation of platelet cyclooxygenase (COX)-1, thus inhibiting TXA2 biosynthesis, should be theoretically considered the drug of choice. The most up-to-date meta-analysis of aspirin prophylaxis in this setting, which includes three trials conducted in patients with diabetes and six other trials in which such patients represent a subgroup within a broader population, reported that aspirin is associated with a non-significant decrease in the risk of vascular events, although the limited amount of available data precludes a precise estimate of the effect size. An increasing body of evidence supports the concept that less-than-expected response to aspirin may underlie mechanisms related to residual platelet hyper-reactivity despite anti-platelet treatment, at least in a fraction of patients. Among the proposed mechanisms, the variable turnover rate of the drug target (platelet COX-1) appears to represent the most convincing determinant of the inter-individual variability in aspirin response. This review intends to develop the idea that the understanding of the determinants of less-than-adequate response to aspirin in certain individuals, although not changing the paradigm of the indication to low-dose aspirin prescription in primary prevention, may help identifying, in terms of easily detectable clinical or biochemical characteristics, individuals who would attain inadequate protection from aspirin, and for whom different strategies should be challenged.

scholarly journals Primary prevention with lipid lowering drugs and long term risk of vascular events in older people: population based cohort study

BMJ ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 350 (may19 2) ◽  
pp. h2335-h2335 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Alperovitch ◽  
T. Kurth ◽  
M. Bertrand ◽  
M.-L. Ancelin ◽  
C. Helmer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cohort Study ◽  
Primary Prevention ◽  
Older People ◽  
Population Based ◽  
Lipid Lowering ◽  
Vascular Events ◽  
Lipid Lowering Drugs

scholarly journals Statins and age: is there a limit beyond which primary prevention is futile?

2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (Supplement_E) ◽  
pp. E109-E111
Author(s):  
Gian Piero Perna
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Side Effects ◽  
Primary Prevention ◽  
Subclinical Atherosclerosis ◽  
Lipid Lowering ◽  
Clinical Markers ◽  
Vascular Events ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Glomerular Filtrate ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Hypercholesterolaemic patients at an advanced age (&gt;75 years) with and without known cardiovascular disease are at higher cardiovascular risk than younger subjects, and the frequency of vascular events in this group of the patient increases with increasing age. However, in clinical practice, these subjects are undertreated for various reasons: conservative cultural attitude, fear of side effects, doubts about efficacy, lack of specific trials. Two recent meta-analyses have shown that the use of lipid-lowering drugs is as safe and effective in this age group as in younger subjects. Subjects aged &gt;75 years in primary prevention are poorly represented in trials but should be considered for treatment in daily clinical practice, because, in the risk assessment (SCORE algorithm), they are very often classified as intermediate or high risk but can also be reclassified at increased risk if an additional assessment step with clinical markers (diabetes and reduced glomerular filtrate) or cardiovascular imaging is used for the detection of subclinical atherosclerosis. Greater attention to treatment methods and monitoring of possible side effects is recommended, but the only limit to the treatment is its ‘futility’ in the fragile patient.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document