The Six Pillars of Lifestyle Medicine in Managing Noncommunicable Diseases - The Gaps in Current Guidelines. / Os Seis Pilares da Medicina do Estilo de Vida no Manejo de Doenças Não Transmissíveis ­ As Lacunas nas Diretrizes Atuais.

BACKGROUND: Noncommunicable diseases (NCDs), also known as chronic diseases that are long-lasting, are considered the major cause of death and disability worldwide, and the six pillars of lifestyle medicine (nutrition, exercise, toxic control, stress management, restorative sleep, and social connection) play an important role in a holistic management of their prevention and treatment. In addition, medical guidelines are the most accepted documents with recommendations to manage NCDs. OBJECTIVE: The present study aims to analyze the lack of lifestyle pillars concerning the major Brazilian medical guidelines for NCDs and identify evidence in the literature that could justify their inclusion in the documents. METHOD: Brazilian guidelines were selected according to the most relevant causes of death in Brazil, given by the Mortality Information System, published by the Brazilian Ministry of Health in 2019. Journals were screened in the PUBMED library according to the disease and non-mentioned pillars of lifestyle. RESULTS: Relevant causes of deaths in Brazil are acute myocardial infarction (AMI), diabetes mellitus (DM), and chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases (COPD). Six guidelines related to these NCDs were identified, and all address aspects of lifestyle, but only one, regarding cardiovascular prevention, highlights all six pillars. Despite this, a literature search involving over 50 articles showed that there is evidence that all the pillars can help control each of these NCDs. CONCLUSION: Rarely are the six pillars of lifestyle contemplated in Brazilian guidelines for AMI, DM, and COPD. The literature review identified evidence of all lifestyle pillars to offer a holistic approach for the management and prevention of NCDs.

FUNDAMENTO: As doenças crônicas não transmissíveis (DCNT), também conhecidas como doenças crônicas de longa duração, são consideradas a principal causa de morte e incapacidade em todo o mundo, e os seis pilares da medicina do estilo de vida (nutrição, exercício, controle de tóxicos, manejo do estresse, saúde do sono e conexão social) desempenham um papel importante na gestão holística da sua prevenção e tratamento. Além disso, as diretrizes médicas são os documentos mais aceitos com recomendações para o manejo das DCNT. OBJETIVO: O presente estudo tem como objetivo analisar a ausência de pilares de estilo de vida nas principais diretrizes médicas brasileiras sobre as DCNT e identificar evidências na literatura que possam justificar sua inclusão nos documentos. MÉTODO: As diretrizes brasileiras foram selecionadas de acordo com as causas de morte mais relevantes no Brasil, informadas pelo Sistema de Informações sobre Mortalidade publicado pelo Ministério da Saúde em 2019. Os periódicos foram selecionados na biblioteca PUBMED de acordo com a doença e os pilares do estilo de vida não mencionados. RESULTADOS: Causas relevantes de mortes no Brasil são o infarto agudo do miocárdio (IAM), o diabetes mellitus (DM) e as doenças pulmonares obstrutivas crônicas (DPOC). Foram identificadas seis diretrizes relacionadas a essas DCNT e todas abordam aspectos do estilo de vida, mas apenas uma, referente à prevenção cardiovascular, destaca todos os seis pilares. Apesar disso, uma pesquisa bibliográfica envolvendo mais de 50 artigos mostrou que há evidências de que todos os pilares podem ajudar no controle de cada uma dessas DCNT. CONCLUSÃO: Raramente os seis pilares do estilo de vida são contemplados nas diretrizes brasileiras para IAM, DM e DPOC. A revisão da literatura identificou evidências de todos os pilares do estilo de vida para oferecer uma abordagem holística para a gestão e prevenção das DCNT.

Os Seis Pilares da Medicina do Estilo de Vida no Manejo de Doenças Não Transmissíveis - As Lacunas nas Diretrizes Atuais / The Six Pillars of Lifestyle Medicine in Managing Noncommunicable Diseases - The Gaps in Current Guidelines

Resumo Fundamento: As doenças crônicas não transmissíveis (DCNT), também conhecidas como doenças crônicas de longa duração, são consideradas a principal causa de morte e incapacidade em todo o mundo, e os seis pilares da medicina do estilo de vida (nutrição, exercício, controle de tóxicos, manejo do estresse, saúde do sono e conexão social) desempenham um papel importante na gestão holística da sua prevenção e tratamento. Além disso, as diretrizes médicas são os documentos mais aceitos com recomendações para o manejo das DCNT. Objetivo: O presente estudo tem como objetivo analisar a ausência de pilares de estilo de vida nas principais diretrizes médicas brasileiras sobre as DCNT e identificar evidências na literatura que possam justificar sua inclusão nos documentos. Método: As diretrizes brasileiras foram selecionadas de acordo com as causas de morte mais relevantes no Brasil, informadas pelo Sistema de Informações sobre Mortalidade publicado pelo Ministério da Saúde em 2019. Os periódicos foram selecionados na biblioteca PUBMED de acordo com a doença e os pilares do estilo de vida não mencionados. Resultados: Causas relevantes de mortes no Brasil são o infarto agudo do miocárdio (IAM), o diabetes mellitus (DM) e as doenças pulmonares obstrutivas crônicas (DPOC). Foram identificadas seis diretrizes relacionadas a essas DCNT e todas abordam aspectos do estilo de vida, mas apenas uma, referente à prevenção cardiovascular, destaca todos os seis pilares. Apesar disso, uma pesquisa bibliográfica envolvendo mais de 50 artigos mostrou que há evidências de que todos os pilares podem ajudar no controle de cada uma dessas DCNT. Conclusão: Raramente os seis pilares do estilo de vida são contemplados nas diretrizes brasileiras para IAM, DM e DPOC. A revisão da literatura identificou evidências de todos os pilares do estilo de vida para oferecer uma abordagem holística para a gestão e prevenção das DCNT.

Abstract Background: Noncommunicable diseases (NCDs), also known as chronic diseases that are long-lasting, are considered the major cause of death and disability worldwide, and the six pillars of lifestyle medicine (nutrition, exercise, toxic control, stress management, restorative sleep, and social connection) play an important role in a holistic management of their prevention and treatment. In addition, medical guidelines are the most accepted documents with recommendations to manage NCDs. Objective: The present study aims to analyze the lack of lifestyle pillars concerning the major Brazilian medical guidelines for NCDs and identify evidence in the literature that could justify their inclusion in the documents. Method: Brazilian guidelines were selected according to the most relevant causes of death in Brazil, given by the Mortality Information System, published by the Brazilian Ministry of Health in 2019. Journals were screened in the PUBMED library according to the disease and non-mentioned pillars of lifestyle. Results: Relevant causes of deaths in Brazil are acute myocardial infarction (AMI), diabetes mellitus (DM), and chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases (COPD). Six guidelines related to these NCDs were identified, and all address aspects of lifestyle, but only one, regarding cardiovascular prevention, highlights all six pillars. Despite this, a literature search involving over 50 articles showed that there is evidence that all the pillars can help control each of these NCDs. Conclusion: Rarely are the six pillars of lifestyle contemplated in Brazilian guidelines for AMI, DM, and COPD. The literature review identified evidence of all lifestyle pillars to offer a holistic approach for the management and prevention of NCDs.

A cohort study of cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with chronic Chagas cardiomyopathy.

Aims: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an established procedure for patients with heart failure. However, trials evaluating its efficacy did not include patients with chronic Chagas cardiomyopathy (CCC). We aimed to assess the role of CRT in a cohort of patients with CCC. Methods and results: This retrospective study compared the outcomes of CCC patients who underwent CRT with those of dilated (DCM) and ischaemic cardiomyopathies (ICM). The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality and the secondary endpoints were the rate of non-advanced New York Heart Association (NYHA) class 12 months after CRT and echocardiographic changes evaluated at least 6 months after CRT. There were 115 patients in the CCC group, 177 with DCM, and 134 with ICM. The annual mortality rates were 25.4%, 10.4%, and 11.3%, respectively (P < 0.001). Multivariate analysis adjusted for potential confounders showed that the CCC group had a two-fold [hazard ratio 2.34 (1.47-3.71), P < 0.001] higher risk of death compared to the DCM group. The rate of non-advanced NYHA class 12 months after CRT was significantly higher in non-CCC groups than in the CCC group (DCM 74.0% vs. ICM 73.9% vs. 56.5%, P < 0.001). Chronic Chagas cardiomyopathy and ICM patients had no improvement in the echocardiographic evaluation, but patients in the DCM group had an increase in left ventricular ejection fraction and a decrease in left ventricular end-diastolic diameter. Conclusion: This study showed that CCC patients submitted to CRT have worse prognosis compared to patients with DCM and ICM who undergo CRT. Studies comparing CCC patients with and without CRT are warranted.

CHronic use of Amiodarone aGAinSt Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy for primary prevention of death in patients with Chagas cardiomyopathy Study: rationale and design of a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) is better than antiarrhythmic drug therapy for the primary and secondary prevention of all-cause mortality and sudden cardiac death in patients with either coronary artery disease or idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy. This study aims to assess whether the ICD also has this effect for primary prevention in chronic Chagas cardiomyopathy (CCC). METHODS: In this randomized (concealed allocation) open-label trial, we aim to enroll up to 1,100 patients with CCC, a Rassi risk score for death prediction of ≥10 points, and at least 1 episode of nonsustained ventricular tachycardia on a 24-hour Holter monitoring. Patients from 28 centers in Brazil will be randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive an ICD or amiodarone (600 mg/d for 10 days, then 200-400 mg/d until the end of the study). The randomization sequence will be generated by computer, and the members of the committees responsible for end point validation and data analysis will be blinded to study assignment. The primary end point is all-cause death, and enrolment will continue until 256 patients have reached this end point. Key secondary end points include cardiovascular death, sudden cardiac death, hospitalization for heart failure, and quality of life. We expect follow-up to last 3 to 6 years, and data analysis will be done on an intention-to-treat basis. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT01722942. CONCLUSION: CHAGASICS is the first large-scale trial to assess the benefit of ICD therapy for the primary prevention of death in patients with CCC and nonsustained ventricular tachycardia, who have a moderate to high risk of death.

Long-term follow-up of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator for secondary prevention in chagas' heart disease.

Assessing the efficacy of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD) in patients with Chagas' heart disease (ChHD) and identifying the clinical predictors of mortality and ICD shock during long-term follow-up. ChHD is associated with ventricular tachyarrhythmias and an increased risk of sudden cardiac death. Although ChHD is a common form of cardiomyopathy in Latin American ICD users, little is known about its efficacy in the treatment of this population. The study cohort included 116 consecutive patients with ChHD and an ICD implanted for secondary prevention. Of the 116 patients, 83 (72%) were men; the mean age was 54 ± 10.7 years. Several clinical variables were tested in a multivariate Cox model for predicting long-term mortality. The average follow-up was 45 ± 32 months. New York Heart Association class I-II developed in 83% of patients. The mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 42 ± 16% at implantation. Of the 116 patients, 58 (50%) had appropriate shocks and 13 (11%) had inappropriate therapy. A total of 31 patients died (7.1% annual mortality rate). New York Heart Association class III (hazard ratio [HR] 3.09, 95% confidence interval 1.37 to 6.96, p = 0.0064) was a predictor of a worse prognosis. The left ventricular ejection fraction (HR 0.972, 95% confidence interval 0.94 to 0.99, p = 0.0442) and low cumulative right ventricular pacing (HR 0.23, 95% confidence interval 0.11 to 0.49, p = 0.0001) were predictors of better survival. The left ventricular diastolic diameter was an independent predictor of appropriate shock (HR 1.032, 95% confidence interval 1.004 to 1.060, p = 0.025). In conclusion, in a long-term follow-up, ICD efficacy for secondary sudden cardiac death prevention in patients with ChHD was marked by a favorable annual rate of all-cause mortality (7.1%); 50% of the cohort received appropriate shock therapy. New York Heart Association class III and left ventricular ejection fraction were independent predictors of worse prognosis, and low cumulative right ventricular pacing defined better survival.

Conventional versus biventricular pacing in heart failure and bradyarrhythmia: the COMBAT study.

BACKGROUND: Worsening in clinical and cardiac status has been noted after chronic right ventricular pacing, but it is uncertain whether atriobiventricular (BiVP) is preferable to atrio-right ventricular pacing (RVP). Conventional versus Multisite Pacing for BradyArrhythmia Therapy study (COMBAT) sought to compare BiVP versus RVP in patients with symptomatic heart failure (HF) and atrioventricular (AV) block. METHODS AND RESULTS: COMBAT is a prospective multicenter randomized double blind crossover study. Patients with New York Heart Association functional class (FC) II-IV, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <40%, and AV block as an indication for pacing were enrolled. All patients underwent biventricular system implantation and then were randomized to receive successively (group A) RVP-BiVP-RVP, or (group B) BiVP-RVP-BiVP. At the end of each 3-month crossover period, patients were evaluated according to Quality of Life (QoL), FC, echocardiographic parameters, 6-Minute Walk Test (6MWT), and peak oxygen consumption (VO(2 max)). Sixty patients were enrolled, and the mean follow-up period was 17.5 +/- 10.7 months. There were significant improvements in QoL, FC, LVEF, and left ventricular end-systolic volume with BiVP compared with RVP. The effects of pacing mode on 6MWT and VO(2 max) were not significantly different. Death occurred more frequently with RVP. CONCLUSION: In patients with systolic HF and AV block requiring permanent ventricular pacing, BiVP is superior to RVP and should be considered the preferred pacing mode.

COMBAT--conventional versus multisite pacing for bradyarrhythmia therapy: rationale of a prospective randomized multicenter study.

COMBAT is a prospective, multicenter, randomized, blinded clinical study, with crossover design. The main objective is the comparative evaluation of atrio-biventricular versus conventional atrioventricular stimulation (atrio and right ventricle) in patients with heart failure and bradycardia as the primary indication for pacemaker implantation. After successful atrio-biventricular system implantation, patients will be randomized into two groups: group A--atrioventricular conventional pacing and group B--atrio-biventricular pacing. Both groups will be programmed in DDD mode with AV delay optimized by echocardiogram. After 3 months, New York Heart Association functional class, ventricular arrhythmia density and complexity, echocardiography outcomes, 6-min hall walk distance, quality of life and peak oxygen consumption will be assessed in all patients. Then, all patients will crossover to the other pacing regimen, with an additional AV delay adjustment by echo. Patients will be followed up for another 3 months at the end of which all evaluations will be repeated. Patients will then crossover back to their original pacing regimen for a further 3 months. At the end of this 9-month period, patients will be reprogrammed according to their optimal pacing regime. In an extended follow-up, patient survival will be evaluated after 24 months of the optimal pacing therapy.