Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 873
Filtrar
1.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31774254

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to identify the association between the food environment and obesity. METHODS: BMI and waist circumference (WC) were measured in 8,076 participants from three cities. The number of fast-food restaurants, full-service restaurants, bars/pubs, markets, and liquor stores within 500 m of each participant was documented. The association between the food environment (ratio of fast-food to full-service restaurants, ratio of bars/pubs to liquor stores, and presence of markets) with obesity (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2 ) and abdominal obesity (WC ≥ 102 cm for males or WC ≥ 88 cm for females) was investigated, adjusted for age, sex, education level, neighborhood deprivation, neighborhood type, and total hours per week of walking and taking into account city-level clustering. RESULTS: The ratios of fast-food to full-service restaurants and of bars/pubs to liquor stores were positively associated with obesity (OR = 1.05 [CI: 1.02-1.09] and OR = 1.08 [CI: 1.04-1.13], respectively). The ratio of bars/pubs to liquor stores was positively associated with abdominal obesity (OR = 1.10 [CI: 1.05-1.14]). There was no association between markets and either obesity or abdominal obesity. CONCLUSIONS: Features of the food environment have varying associations with obesity. These features have an additive effect, and future studies should not focus on only one feature in isolation.

3.
BMC Med ; 17(1): 209, 2019 Nov 26.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31767015

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular diseases, principally ischemic heart disease (IHD), are the most important cause of death and disability in the majority of low- and lower-middle-income countries (LLMICs). In these countries, IHD mortality rates are significantly greater in individuals of a low socioeconomic status (SES). MAIN TEXT: Three important focus areas for decreasing IHD mortality among those of low SES in LLMICs are (1) acute coronary care; (2) cardiac rehabilitation and secondary prevention; and (3) primary prevention. Greater mortality in low SES patients with acute coronary syndrome is due to lack of awareness of symptoms in patients and primary care physicians, delay in reaching healthcare facilities, non-availability of thrombolysis and coronary revascularization, and the non-affordability of expensive medicines (statins, dual anti-platelets, renin-angiotensin system blockers). Facilities for rapid diagnosis and accessible and affordable long-term care at secondary and tertiary care hospitals for IHD care are needed. A strong focus on the social determinants of health (low education, poverty, working and living conditions), greater healthcare financing, and efficient primary care is required. The quality of primary prevention needs to be improved with initiatives to eliminate tobacco and trans-fats and to reduce the consumption of alcohol, refined carbohydrates, and salt along with the promotion of healthy foods and physical activity. Efficient primary care with a focus on management of blood pressure, lipids and diabetes is needed. Task sharing with community health workers, electronic decision support systems, and use of fixed-dose combinations of blood pressure-lowering drugs and statins can substantially reduce risk factors and potentially lead to large reductions in IHD. Finally, training of physicians, nurses, and health workers in IHD prevention should be strengthened. CONCLUSION: The management and prevention of IHD in individuals with a low SES in LLMICs are poor. Greater availability, access, and affordability for acute coronary syndrome management and secondary prevention are important. Primary prevention should focus on tackling the social determinants of health as well as policy and individual interventions for risk factor control, supported by task sharing and use of technology.

5.
Eur J Prev Cardiol ; : 2047487319882154, 2019 Oct 15.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31615291

RESUMO

AIMS: Secondary prevention in patients with coronary artery disease and peripheral artery disease involves antithrombotic therapy and optimal control of cardiovascular risk factors. In the Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) study, adding low-dose rivaroxaban on top of aspirin lowered cardiovascular events, but there is limited data about risk factor control in secondary prevention. We studied the association between risk factor status and outcomes, and the impact of risk factor status on the treatment effect of rivaroxaban, in a large contemporary population of patients with coronary artery disease or peripheral artery disease. METHODS AND RESULTS: We reported ischemic events (cardiovascular death, stroke, or myocardial infarction) in participants from the randomized, double-blind COMPASS study by individual risk factor (blood pressure, smoking status, cholesterol level, presence of diabetes, body mass index, and level of physical activity), and by number of risk factors. We compared rates and hazard ratios of patients treated with rivaroxaban plus aspirin vs aspirin alone within each risk factor category and tested for interaction between risk factor status and antithrombotic regimen. Complete baseline risk factor status was available in 27,117 (99%) patients. Status and number of risk factors were both associated with increased risk of ischemic events. Rates of ischemic events (hazard ratio 2.2; 95% confidence interval 1.8-2.6) and cardiovascular death (hazard ratio 2.0; 1.5-2.7) were more than twofold higher in patients with 4-6 compared with 0-1 risk factors (p < 0.0001 for both). Rivaroxaban reduced event rates independently of the number of risk factors (p interaction 0.93), with the largest absolute benefit in patients with the highest number of risk factors. CONCLUSION: More favorable risk factor status and low-dose rivaroxaban were independently associated with lower risk of cardiovascular events.

6.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31565735

RESUMO

AIMS: Cardiovascular risk factors are used for risk stratification in primary prevention. We sought to determine if simple cardiac risk scores are associated with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-detected subclinical cerebrovascular disease including carotid wall volume (CWV), carotid intraplaque haemorrhage (IPH), and silent brain infarction (SBI). METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 7594 adults with no history of cardiovascular disease (CVD) underwent risk factor assessment and a non-contrast enhanced MRI of the carotid arteries and brain using a standardized protocol in a population-based cohort recruited between 2014 and 2018. The non-lab-based INTERHEART risk score (IHRS) was calculated in all participants; the Framingham Risk Score was calculated in a subset who provided blood samples (n = 3889). The association between these risk scores and MRI measures of CWV, carotid IPH, and SBI was determined. The mean age of the cohort was 58 (8.9) years, 55% were women. Each 5-point increase (∼1 SD) in the IHRS was associated with a 9 mm3 increase in CWV, adjusted for sex (P < 0.0001), a 23% increase in IPH [95% confidence interval (CI) 9-38%], and a 32% (95% CI 20-45%) increase in SBI. These associations were consistent for lacunar and non-lacunar brain infarction. The Framingham Risk Score was also significantly associated with CWV, IPH, and SBI. CWV was additive and independent to the risk scores in its association with IPH and SBI. CONCLUSION: Simple cardiovascular risk scores are significantly associated with the presence of MRI-detected subclinical cerebrovascular disease, including CWV, IPH, and SBI in an adult population without known clinical CVD.

7.
Lancet ; 2019 Sep 03.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31492503

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Global estimates of the effect of common modifiable risk factors on cardiovascular disease and mortality are largely based on data from separate studies, using different methodologies. The Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study overcomes these limitations by using similar methods to prospectively measure the effect of modifiable risk factors on cardiovascular disease and mortality across 21 countries (spanning five continents) grouped by different economic levels. METHODS: In this multinational, prospective cohort study, we examined associations for 14 potentially modifiable risk factors with mortality and cardiovascular disease in 155 722 participants without a prior history of cardiovascular disease from 21 high-income, middle-income, or low-income countries (HICs, MICs, or LICs). The primary outcomes for this paper were composites of cardiovascular disease events (defined as cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and heart failure) and mortality. We describe the prevalence, hazard ratios (HRs), and population-attributable fractions (PAFs) for cardiovascular disease and mortality associated with a cluster of behavioural factors (ie, tobacco use, alcohol, diet, physical activity, and sodium intake), metabolic factors (ie, lipids, blood pressure, diabetes, obesity), socioeconomic and psychosocial factors (ie, education, symptoms of depression), grip strength, and household and ambient pollution. Associations between risk factors and the outcomes were established using multivariable Cox frailty models and using PAFs for the entire cohort, and also by countries grouped by income level. Associations are presented as HRs and PAFs with 95% CIs. FINDINGS: Between Jan 6, 2005, and Dec 4, 2016, 155 722 participants were enrolled and followed up for measurement of risk factors. 17 249 (11·1%) participants were from HICs, 102 680 (65·9%) were from MICs, and 35 793 (23·0%) from LICs. Approximately 70% of cardiovascular disease cases and deaths in the overall study population were attributed to modifiable risk factors. Metabolic factors were the predominant risk factors for cardiovascular disease (41·2% of the PAF), with hypertension being the largest (22·3% of the PAF). As a cluster, behavioural risk factors contributed most to deaths (26·3% of the PAF), although the single largest risk factor was a low education level (12·5% of the PAF). Ambient air pollution was associated with 13·9% of the PAF for cardiovascular disease, although different statistical methods were used for this analysis. In MICs and LICs, household air pollution, poor diet, low education, and low grip strength had stronger effects on cardiovascular disease or mortality than in HICs. INTERPRETATION: Most cardiovascular disease cases and deaths can be attributed to a small number of common, modifiable risk factors. While some factors have extensive global effects (eg, hypertension and education), others (eg, household air pollution and poor diet) vary by a country's economic level. Health policies should focus on risk factors that have the greatest effects on averting cardiovascular disease and death globally, with additional emphasis on risk factors of greatest importance in specific groups of countries. FUNDING: Full funding sources are listed at the end of the paper (see Acknowledgments).

8.
J Am Coll Cardiol ; 74(12): 1519-1528, 2019 Sep 24.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31537259

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: In patients with coronary or peripheral artery disease, the combination of rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily and aspirin 100 mg once daily compared with aspirin 100 mg once daily reduced major adverse cardiovascular events and mortality and increased bleeding. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to explore the effects of the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin compared with aspirin on sites, timing, severity, and management of bleeding in the COMPASS (Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies) study. METHODS: This study reports, by treatment group, the number and proportion of patients; hazard rate ratios for bleeding according to site and severity; the timing of bleeding using landmark analyses; and the number and proportion of patients who received blood products and other hemostatic treatments. RESULTS: Of 27,395 patients enrolled (mean age 68 years, 22% women), 18,278 were randomized to the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin or to aspirin alone and followed for a mean of 23 months. Compared with aspirin alone, the combination increased modified International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis major bleeding (288 of 9,152 [3.1%] vs. 170 of 9,126 [1.9%]), (HR: 1.70; 95% CI: 1.40 to 2.05; p < 0.001), International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis major bleeding (206 of 9,152 [2.3%] vs. 116 of 9,126 [1.3%]), (HR: 1.78; 95% CI: 1.41 to 2.23; p < 0.0001), and minor bleeding (838 of 9,152 [9.2%] vs. 503 of 9,126 [5.5%]), (HR: 1.70; 95% CI 1.52 to 1.90; p < 0.0001); the combination also increased the need for any red cell transfusion (87 of 9,152 [1.0%] vs. 44 of 9,126 [0.5%]), (HR: 1.97; 95% CI 1.37 to 2.83, p = 0.0002). The gastrointestinal (GI) tract was the most common site of increased major bleeding (140 of 9,152 [1.5%] vs. 65 of 9,126 [0.7%]), (HR: 2.15; 95% CI: 1.60 to 2.89; p < 0.001), and the increase in bleeding was predominantly in the first year after randomization. Approximately one-third of major GI bleeding was gastric or duodenal, one-third was colonic or rectal, and one-third was from an unknown GI site. The study investigators reported that approximately three-quarters of major bleeding episodes were of mild or moderate intensity. A similar proportion of patients in each treatment group who experienced major bleeding received platelets, clotting factors, or other hemostatic agents. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin compared with aspirin alone increased major bleeding, mainly from the GI tract. Most excess bleeding occurred during the first year after randomization, was of mild or moderate intensity, and was managed with conventional supportive therapy. (Rivaroxaban for the Prevention of Major Cardiovascular Events in Coronary or Peripheral Artery Disease [COMPASS]; NCT01776424).

9.
BMC Med Res Methodol ; 19(1): 186, 2019 Sep 11.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31506063

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Population attributable fractions (PAF) measure the proportion of disease prevalence that would be avoided in a hypothetical population, similar to the population of interest, but where a particular risk factor is eliminated. They are extensively used in epidemiology to quantify and compare disease burden due to various risk factors, and directly influence public policy regarding possible health interventions. In contrast to individual specific metrics such as relative risks and odds ratios, attributable fractions depend jointly on both risk factor prevalence and relative risk. The relative contributions of these two components is important, and usually needs to be presented in summary tables that are presented together with the attributable fraction calculation. However, representing PAF in an accessible graphical format, that captures both prevalence and relative risk, may assist interpretation. METHODS: Taylor-series approximations to PAF in terms of risk factor prevalence and log-odds ratio are derived that facilitate simultaneous representation of PAF, risk factor prevalence and risk-factor/disease log-odds ratios on a single co-ordinate axis. Methods are developed for binary, multi-category and continuous exposure variables. RESULTS: The methods are demonstrated using INTERSTROKE, a large international case control dataset focused on risk factors for stroke. CONCLUSIONS: The described methods could be used as a complement to tables summarizing prevalence, odds ratios and PAF, and may convey the same information in a more intuitive and visually appealing manner. The suggested nomogram can also be used to visually estimate the effects of health interventions which only partially reduce risk factor prevalence. Finally, in the binary risk factor case, the approximations can also be used to quickly convert logistic regression coefficients for a risk factor into approximate PAFs.

10.
Lancet ; 2019 Sep 03.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31492501

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: To our knowledge, no previous study has prospectively documented the incidence of common diseases and related mortality in high-income countries (HICs), middle-income countries (MICs), and low-income countries (LICs) with standardised approaches. Such information is key to developing global and context-specific health strategies. In our analysis of the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology (PURE) study, we aimed to evaluate differences in the incidence of common diseases, related hospital admissions, and related mortality in a large contemporary cohort of adults from 21 HICs, MICs, and LICs across five continents by use of standardised approaches. METHODS: The PURE study is a prospective, population-based cohort study of individuals aged 35-70 years who have been enrolled from 21 countries across five continents. The key outcomes were the incidence of fatal and non-fatal cardiovascular diseases, cancers, injuries, respiratory diseases, and hospital admissions, and we calculated the age-standardised and sex-standardised incidence of these events per 1000 person-years. FINDINGS: This analysis assesses the incidence of events in 162 534 participants who were enrolled in the first two phases of the PURE core study, between Jan 6, 2005, and Dec 4, 2016, and who were assessed for a median of 9·5 years (IQR 8·5-10·9). During follow-up, 11 307 (7·0%) participants died, 9329 (5·7%) participants had cardiovascular disease, 5151 (3·2%) participants had a cancer, 4386 (2·7%) participants had injuries requiring hospital admission, 2911 (1·8%) participants had pneumonia, and 1830 (1·1%) participants had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Cardiovascular disease occurred more often in LICs (7·1 cases per 1000 person-years) and in MICs (6·8 cases per 1000 person-years) than in HICs (4·3 cases per 1000 person-years). However, incident cancers, injuries, COPD, and pneumonia were most common in HICs and least common in LICs. Overall mortality rates in LICs (13·3 deaths per 1000 person-years) were double those in MICs (6·9 deaths per 1000 person-years) and four times higher than in HICs (3·4 deaths per 1000 person-years). This pattern of the highest mortality in LICs and the lowest in HICs was observed for all causes of death except cancer, where mortality was similar across country income levels. Cardiovascular disease was the most common cause of deaths overall (40%) but accounted for only 23% of deaths in HICs (vs 41% in MICs and 43% in LICs), despite more cardiovascular disease risk factors (as judged by INTERHEART risk scores) in HICs and the fewest such risk factors in LICs. The ratio of deaths from cardiovascular disease to those from cancer was 0·4 in HICs, 1·3 in MICs, and 3·0 in LICs, and four upper-MICs (Argentina, Chile, Turkey, and Poland) showed ratios similar to the HICs. Rates of first hospital admission and cardiovascular disease medication use were lowest in LICs and highest in HICs. INTERPRETATION: Among adults aged 35-70 years, cardiovascular disease is the major cause of mortality globally. However, in HICs and some upper-MICs, deaths from cancer are now more common than those from cardiovascular disease, indicating a transition in the predominant causes of deaths in middle-age. As cardiovascular disease decreases in many countries, mortality from cancer will probably become the leading cause of death. The high mortality in poorer countries is not related to risk factors, but it might be related to poorer access to health care. FUNDING: Full funding sources are listed at the end of the paper (see Acknowledgments).

11.
Lancet ; 394(10205): 1231-1242, 2019 10 05.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31488369

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Hypertension is the leading cause of cardiovascular disease globally. Despite proven benefits, hypertension control is poor. We hypothesised that a comprehensive approach to lowering blood pressure and other risk factors, informed by detailed analysis of local barriers, would be superior to usual care in individuals with poorly controlled or newly diagnosed hypertension. We tested whether a model of care involving non-physician health workers (NPHWs), primary care physicians, family, and the provision of effective medications, could substantially reduce cardiovascular disease risk. METHODS: HOPE 4 was an open, community-based, cluster-randomised controlled trial involving 1371 individuals with new or poorly controlled hypertension from 30 communities (defined as townships) in Colombia and Malaysia. 16 communities were randomly assigned to control (usual care, n=727), and 14 (n=644) to the intervention. After community screening, the intervention included treatment of cardiovascular disease risk factors by NPHWs using tablet computer-based simplified management algorithms and counselling programmes; free antihypertensive and statin medications recommended by NPHWs but supervised by physicians; and support from a family member or friend (treatment supporter) to improve adherence to medications and healthy behaviours. The primary outcome was the change in Framingham Risk Score 10-year cardiovascular disease risk estimate at 12 months between intervention and control participants. The HOPE 4 trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01826019. FINDINGS: All communities completed 12-month follow-up (data on 97% of living participants, n=1299). The reduction in Framingham Risk Score for 10-year cardiovascular disease risk was -6·40% (95% CI 8·00 to -4·80) in the control group and -11·17% (-12·88 to -9·47) in the intervention group, with a difference of change of -4·78% (95% CI -7·11 to -2·44, p<0·0001). There was an absolute 11·45 mm Hg (95% CI -14·94 to -7·97) greater reduction in systolic blood pressure, and a 0·41 mmol/L (95% CI -0·60 to -0·23) reduction in LDL with the intervention group (both p<0·0001). Change in blood pressure control status (<140 mm Hg) was 69% in the intervention group versus 30% in the control group (p<0·0001). There were no safety concerns with the intervention. INTERPRETATION: A comprehensive model of care led by NPHWs, involving primary care physicians and family that was informed by local context, substantially improved blood pressure control and cardiovascular disease risk. This strategy is effective, pragmatic, and has the potential to substantially reduce cardiovascular disease compared with current strategies that are typically physician based. FUNDING: Canadian Institutes of Health Research; Grand Challenges Canada; Ontario SPOR Support Unit and the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care; Boehringer Ingelheim; Department of Management of Non-Communicable Diseases, WHO; and Population Health Research Institute. VIDEO ABSTRACT.


Assuntos
Doenças Cardiovasculares/prevenção & controle , Participação da Comunidade/métodos , Hipertensão/complicações , Idoso , Colômbia , Feminino , Humanos , Hipertensão/tratamento farmacológico , Hipertensão/prevenção & controle , Hipertensão/terapia , Malásia , Masculino , Comportamento de Redução do Risco
12.
Circulation ; 140(18): 1451-1459, 2019 Oct 29.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31510769

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Patients treated with antithrombotic drugs are at risk of bleeding. Bleeding may be the first manifestation of underlying cancer. METHODS: We examined new cancers diagnosed in relation to gastrointestinal or genitourinary bleeding among patients enrolled in the COMPASS trial (Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies) and determined the hazard of new cancer diagnosis after bleeding at these sites. RESULTS: Of 27 395 patients enrolled (mean age, 68 years; women, 21%), 2678 (9.8%) experienced any (major or minor) bleeding, 713 (2.6%) experienced major bleeding, and 1084 (4.0%) were diagnosed with cancer during a mean follow-up of 23 months. Among 2678 who experienced bleeding, 257 (9.9%) were subsequently diagnosed with cancer. Gastrointestinal bleeding was associated with a 20-fold higher hazard of new gastrointestinal cancer diagnosis (7.4% versus 0.5%; hazard ratio [HR], 20.6 [95% CI, 15.2-27.8]) and 1.7-fold higher hazard of new nongastrointestinal cancer diagnosis (3.8% versus 3.1%; HR, 1.70 [95% CI, 1.20-2.40]). Genitourinary bleeding was associated with a 32-fold higher hazard of new genitourinary cancer diagnosis (15.8% versus 0.8%; HR, 32.5 [95% CI, 24.7-42.9]), and urinary bleeding was associated with a 98-fold higher hazard of new urinary cancer diagnosis (14.2% versus 0.2%; HR, 98.5; 95% CI, 68.0-142.7). Nongastrointestinal, nongenitourinary bleeding was associated with a 3-fold higher hazard of nongastrointestinal, nongenitourinary cancers (4.4% versus 1.9%; HR, 3.02 [95% CI, 2.32-3.91]). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with atherosclerosis treated with antithrombotic drugs, any gastrointestinal or genitourinary bleeding was associated with higher rates of new cancer diagnosis. Any gastrointestinal or genitourinary bleeding should prompt investigation for cancers at these sites. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01776424.

13.
JAMA Neurol ; 2019 Sep 16.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31524941

RESUMO

Importance: The COMPASS (Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies) randomized clinical trial was stopped early owing to the efficacy of low-dose rivaroxaban plus aspirin in preventing major cardiovascular events. The main reason for early trial termination was the effect of combination therapy on reducing ischemic strokes. Objective: To analyze the association between low-dose rivaroxaban with or without aspirin and different ischemic stroke subtypes. Design, Setting, and Participants: This is a secondary analysis of a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study that was performed in 33 countries from March 12, 2013, to May 10, 2016. Patients with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease were eligible, and a total of 27 395 participants were randomized and followed up to February 6, 2017. All first ischemic strokes and uncertain strokes that occurred by this date were adjudicated using TOAST (Trial of Org 10172 in Acute Stroke Treatment) criteria. The analysis of ischemic stroke subtypes was evaluated using an intention-to-treat principle. Statistical analysis was performed from March 12, 2013, to February 6, 2017. Interventions: Participants received rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice a day) plus aspirin (100 mg once a day), rivaroxaban (5 mg twice a day), or aspirin (100 mg once a day). Main Outcomes and Measures: Risk of ischemic stroke subtypes during follow-up. Results: A total of 291 patients (66 women; mean [SD] age, 69.4 [8.5] years; 43 [14.8%] had a previous nonlacunar stroke) experienced an ischemic stroke. During the study, 49 patients (16.8%) received a diagnosis of atrial fibrillation. Applying TOAST criteria, 59 strokes (20.3%) were cardioembolic, 54 strokes (18.6%) were secondary to greater than 50% stenosis of the ipsilateral internal carotid artery, 42 strokes (14.4%) had a negative evaluation that met criteria for embolic stroke of undetermined source, and 21 strokes (7.2%) were secondary to small vessel disease. There were significantly fewer cardioembolic strokes (hazard ratio [HR], 0.40 [95% CI, 0.20-0.78]; P = .005) and embolic strokes of undetermined source (HR, 0.30 [95% CI, 0.12-0.74]; P = .006) in the combination therapy group compared with the aspirin-only group. A trend for reduction in strokes secondary to small vessel disease (HR, 0.36 [95% CI, 0.12-1.14]; P = .07) was not statistically significant. No significant difference was observed between the 2 groups in strokes secondary to greater than 50% carotid artery stenosis (HR, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.45-1.60]; P = .61). Rivaroxaban, 5 mg, twice daily showed a trend for reducing cardioembolic strokes compared with aspirin (HR, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.31-1.03]; P = .06) but was not associated with reducing other stroke subtypes. Conclusions and Relevance: For patients with systemic atherosclerosis, low-dose rivaroxaban plus aspirin was associated with large, significant reductions in cardioembolic strokes and embolic strokes of undetermined source. However, these results of exploratory analysis need to be independently confirmed before influencing clinical practice. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01776424.

14.
J Am Coll Cardiol ; 74(5): 672-682, 2019 Aug 06.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31370960

RESUMO

As new treatments continue to improve clinical outcomes in coronary artery disease (CAD) and heart failure, it is necessary to characterize the appropriate use of ß-adrenergic receptor blockers (ß-blockers) in the contemporary management of these conditions. This review examines the current evidence supporting ß-blocker use in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), heart failure with midrange ejection fraction (HFmEF), and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), following acute coronary syndrome and in stable CAD. ß-Blockers remain essential in the treatment of HFrEF, but limited evidence supports their use in HFmEF or HFpEF. They should still be considered routinely following acute coronary syndrome, but there is a need for contemporary trials that re-examine this in patients without left ventricular dysfunction, as well as in patients with stable CAD. From a global perspective, more studies are needed to characterize the extent of ß-blocker use in CAD and heart failure, and how evidence-based use can be improved in these conditions.

15.
J Am Coll Cardiol ; 74(5): 683-698, 2019 Aug 06.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31370961

RESUMO

The pharmacological inhibition of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system as a therapeutic strategy is one of the most significant advances in the treatment and prevention of cardiovascular disease in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and in coronary artery disease. Recently, the addition of neprilysin inhibition to angiotensin receptor blockade has been shown to be even more effective than angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition alone in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, marking an important new milestone in heart failure treatment. This review summarizes the major trials that have informed the clinical role of inhibition of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone and neprilysin pathways, as well as the limitations of these strategies.

16.
Gastroenterology ; 157(3): 682-691, ago., 30 2019. ilus, tab
Artigo em Inglês | Sec. Est. Saúde SP, SESSP-IDPCPROD, Sec. Est. Saúde SP | ID: biblio-1015771

RESUMO

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are effective at treating acid-related disorders. These drugs are well tolerated in the short term, but long-term treatment was associated with adverse events in observational studies. We aimed to confirm these findings in an adequately powered randomized trial. METHODS: We performed a 3 x 2 partial factorial double-blind trial of 17,598 participants with stable cardiovascular disease and peripheral artery disease randomly assigned to groups given pantoprazole (40 mg daily, n = 8791) or placebo (n = 8807). Participants were also randomly assigned to groups that received rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) with aspirin (100 mg once daily), rivaroxaban (5mg twice daily), or aspirin (100 mg) alone. We collected data on development of pneumonia, Clostridium difficile infection, other enteric infections, fractures, gastric atrophy, chronic kidney disease, diabetes, chronic obstructive lung disease, dementia, cardiovascular disease, cancer, hospitalizations, and all-cause mortality every 6 months. Patients were followed up for a median of 3.01 years, with 53,152 patient-years of follow-up. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between the pantoprazole and placebo groups in safety events except for enteric infections (1.4% vs 1.0% in the placebo group; odds ratio, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.75). For all other safety outcomes, proportions were similar between groups except for C difficile infection, which was approximately twice as common in the pantoprazole vs the placebo group, although there were only 13 events, so this difference was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: In a large placebo-controlled randomized trial, we found that pantoprazole is not associated with any adverse event when used for 3 years, with the possible exception of an increased risk of enteric infections. (AU)


Assuntos
Bactérias , Doenças Cardiovasculares , Aspirina
17.
Gastroenterology ; 157(2): 403-412, Aug., 2019. tabela, grafico
Artigo em Inglês | Sec. Est. Saúde SP, SESSP-IDPCPROD, Sec. Est. Saúde SP | ID: biblio-1022748

RESUMO

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Antiplatelets and anticoagulants are associated with increased upper gastrointestinal bleeding. We evaluated whether proton pump inhibitor therapy could reduce this risk. METHODS: We performed a 3 × 2 partial factorial double-blind trial of 17,598 participants with stable cardiovascular disease and peripheral artery disease. Participants were randomly assigned to groups given pantoprazole 40 mg daily or placebo, as well as rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily with aspirin 100 mg once daily, rivaroxaban 5 mg twice daily, or aspirin 100 mg alone. The primary outcome was time to first upper gastrointestinal event, defined as a composite of overt bleeding, upper gastrointestinal bleeding from a gastroduodenal lesion or of unknown origin, occult bleeding, symptomatic gastroduodenal ulcer or ≥5 erosions, upper gastrointestinal obstruction, or perforation. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in upper gastrointestinal events between the pantoprazole group (102 of 8791 events) and the placebo group (116 of 8807 events) (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.67-1.15). Pantoprazole significantly reduced bleeding of gastroduodenal lesions (hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.28-0.94; P = .03); this reduction was greater when we used a post-hoc definition of bleeding gastroduodenal lesion (hazard ratio, 0.45; 95% confidence interval, 0.27-0.74), although the number needed to treat still was high (n = 982; 95% confidence interval, 609-2528).CONCLUSIONS: In a randomized placebo-controlled trial, we found that routine use of proton pump inhibitors in patients receiving low-dose anticoagulation and/or aspirin for stable cardiovascular disease does not reduce upper gastrointestinal events, but may reduce bleeding from gastroduodenal lesions. ClinicalTrials. (AU)


Assuntos
Humanos , Masculino , Feminino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Doenças Cardiovasculares/prevenção & controle , Aspirina/administração & dosagem , Método Duplo-Cego , Relação Dose-Resposta a Droga , Hemorragia Gastrointestinal/prevenção & controle , Anticoagulantes/administração & dosagem
18.
Circulation ; 140(7): 529-537, Aug. 13, 2019. ilus, tab
Artigo em Inglês | Sec. Est. Saúde SP, SESSP-IDPCPROD, Sec. Est. Saúde SP | ID: biblio-1015340

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic coronary artery disease or peripheral artery disease and history of heart failure (HF) are at high risk for major adverse cardiovascular events. We explored the effects of rivaroxaban with or without aspirin in these patients. METHODS: The COMPASS trial (Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies) randomized 27 395 participants with chronic coronary artery disease or peripheral artery disease to rivaroxaban 2.5mg twice daily plus aspirin 100 mg daily, rivaroxaban 5 mg twice daily alone, or aspirin 100 mg alone. Patients with New York Heart Association functional class III or IV HF or left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) <30% were excluded. The primary major adverse cardiovascular events outcome comprised cardiovascular death, stroke, or myocardial infarction, and the primary safety outcome was major bleeding using modified International Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis criteria. Investigators recorded a history of HF and EF at baseline, if available. We examined the effects of rivaroxaban on major adverse cardiovascular events and major bleeding in patients with or without a history of HF and an EF <40% or >/=40% at baseline. RESULTS: Of the 5902 participants (22%) with a history of HF, 4971 (84%) had EF recorded at baseline, and 12% had EF <40%. Rivaroxaban and aspirin had similar relative reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events compared with aspirin in participants with HF (5.5% versus 7.9%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.68; 95% CI, 0.53-0.86) and those without HF (3.8% versus 4.7%; HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.68-0.93; P for interaction 0.28) but larger absolute risk reduction in those with HF (HF absolute risk reduction 2.4%, number needed to treat=42; no HF absolute risk reduction 1.0%, number needed to treat=103). The primary major adverse cardiovascular events outcome was not statistically different between those with EF <40% (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.55-1.42) and >/=40% (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.67-0.98; P for interaction 0.36). The excesso hazard for major bleeding was not different in participants with HF (2.5% versus 1.8%; HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 0.88-2.09) than in those without HF (3.3% versus 1.9%; HR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.45-2.21; P for interaction 0.26). There were no significant differences in the primary outcomes with rivaroxaban alone. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with chronic coronary artery disease or peripheral artery disease and a history of mild or moderate HF, combination rivaroxaban and aspirin compared with aspirin alone produces similar relative but larger absolute benefits than in those without HF.(AU)


Assuntos
Doenças Cardiovasculares , Aspirina , Doença das Coronárias , Doença Arterial Periférica , Rivaroxabana , Insuficiência Cardíaca
19.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31401207

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: Steroids suppress the inflammatory response to cardiopulmonary bypass, but the impact on death at 30 days, myocardial infarction or injury, stroke, renal failure, respiratory failure, new atrial fibrillation, transfusion requirement, infection, and length of intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital stays are uncertain. DESIGN: Patient-level data meta-analysis of 2 randomized trials. SETTING: Eighty-eight cardiac surgical centers in 19 countries. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 11,989 participants, from the Steroids in Cardiac Surgery trial and the Dexamethasone in Cardiac Surgery study, undergoing cardiac surgery with the use of cardiopulmonary bypass. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomly assigned to steroid or placebo. MEASURES AND MAIN RESULTS: Outcomes assessed were mortality at 30 days, myocardial infarction or injury, stroke, renal failure, respiratory failure, new atrial fibrillation, transfusion requirement, infection, and length of ICU and hospital stays. There was no significant difference in death at 30 days between the steroid and placebo groups (odds ratio [OR], 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72-1.07). Myocardial infarction did not differ significantly (OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.93-1.47); however, myocardial injury was higher in the steroid group (OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.12-1.40). There were no significant differences for the outcomes of stroke, renal failure, new atrial fibrillation, or transfusion. Steroids significantly reduced respiratory failure (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.75-0.99), infection (OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.72-0.89), and length of ICU (p < 0.001) and hospital stays (p = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: This patient-level meta-analysis does not support the routine use of steroids in cardiac surgery. Steroid administration did not decrease the risk of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, renal failure, new atrial fibrillation, or transfusion. Steroids increased the risk of myocardial injury in both the Steroids in Cardiac Surgery and Dexamethasone in Cardiac Surgery trials. Finally, steroids lowered the risk of respiratory failure and infection, and reduced length of ICU and hospital stay.

20.
Am Heart J ; 216: 9-19, 2019 Oct.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31377568

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: There is a need to identify and test low-cost approaches for cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk reduction that can enable health systems to achieve such a strategy. OBJECTIVE: Community health workers (CHWs) are an integral part of health-care delivery system in lower income countries. Our aim was to assess impact of CHW based interventions in reducing CVD risk factors in rural households in India. METHODS: We performed an open-label cluster-randomized trial in 28 villages in 3 states of India with the household as a unit of randomization. Households with individuals at intermediate to high CVD risk were randomized to intervention and control groups. In the intervention group, trained CHWs delivered risk-reduction advice and monitored risk factors during 6 household visits over 12 months. Households in the non-intervention group received usual care. Primary outcomes were a reduction in systolic BP (SBP) and adherence to prescribed BP lowering drugs. RESULTS: We randomized 2312 households (3261 participants at intermediate or high risk) to intervention (1172 households) and control (1140 households). At baseline prevalence of tobacco use (48.5%) and hypertension (34.7%) were high. At 12 months, there was significant decline in SBP (mmHg) from baseline in both groups- controls 130.3 ±â€¯21 to 128.3 ±â€¯15; intervention 130.3 ±â€¯21 to 127.6 ±â€¯15 (P < .01 for before and after comparison) but there was no difference between the 2 groups at 12 months (P = .18). Adherence to antihypertensive drugs was greater in intervention vs control households (74.9% vs 61.4%, P = .001). CONCLUSION: A 12-month CHW-led intervention at household level improved adherence to prescribed drugs, but did not impact SBP. To be more impactful, a more comprehensive solution that addresses escalation and access to useful therapies is needed.

SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA