1,721,206 research outputs found
Longitudinal changes in cardiac biomarkers and outcome in heart failure: Sex-related differences
Full text link
Myocardial perfusion years after radiation therapy for left-sided breast cancer: Normal or abnormal? This is the question
Full text linkDigoxin use in patients with cardiovascular diseases: An old remedy for future medicine?
No full textAspirin for primary cardiovascular prevention: Why the wonder drug should not be precipitously dismissed
Full text linkPrimary cardiovascular prevention is the combined set of actions aimed at reducing the likelihood of symptomatic atherosclerotic disease or major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) in currently asymptomatic individuals. Older studies on aspirin for primary prevention were positive or neutral as to the primary ischemic endpoint (often represented by MACE), but the reduction in nonfatal ischemic events seemed largely counterbalanced by an increase in bleeding events. The 3 latest large randomized controlled trials on aspirin in primary prevention, all published in 2018, reached basically similar conclusions, leading to an intense debate on whether aspirin therapy is warranted in asymptomatic patients and whether there are subgroups that may benefit. In the present review, we provide an overview of the available evidence on aspirin for primary cardiovascular prevention, focusing on the results of meta-analyses and on strengths and pitfalls of meta-analytic assessments. Based on a meta-regression of the benefits and harm of aspirin therapy in primary prevention as a function of the 10-year risk of MACE, which is an alternative type of pooled analysis of available evidence, we propose a treatment algorithm acknowledging differences among patients and emphasizing the need for an individualized assessment of benefits and risks. Following general preventive measures (physical exercise, smoking cessation, treatment of hypertension and hypercholesterolemia, etc), a tailored approach to aspirin prescription is warranted. When patients are younger than 70 years of age, clinicians should assess the 10-year cardiovascular risk: when such risk is high and bleeding risk is low, aspirin treatment should still be considered, also taking patients' preferences into account
Aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: Advice for a decisional strategy based on risk stratification
Full text linkThe need for aspirin therapy as part of primary prevention of cardiovascular (CV) disease is currently being highly debated, especially after 3 studies in different settings reported that a reduction in ischemic events is largely counterbalanced by an increase in bleeding events. One possible explanation for these results is the progressive reduction in the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) as a result of primary prevention, which has accompanied global education programs that have led to patients smoking less, exercising more, and increasingly undertaking lipid-lowering therapies. Based on a meta-regression of the benefits and harmful effects of aspirin therapy in primary prevention as a function of the 10-year risk of MACE, we favor a differentiated and personalized approach that acknowledged differences between patients and emphasized an individualized assessment of benefits and risks. Following general preventive measures (physical exercise, cessation of smoking, treatment of hypertension and hypercholesterolemia, etc.), an individualized approach to prescribing aspirin is still warranted. When patients are less than 70 years of age, clinicians should assess the 10-year CV risk. Aspirin treatment should be considered only when the CV risk is very high and the bleeding risk is low, after taking into account the patient's preferences
Aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: Advice for a decisional strategy based on risk stratification
Full text linkThe need for aspirin therapy as part of primary prevention of cardiovascular (CV) disease is currently being highly debated, especially after 3 studies in different settings reported that a reduction in ischemic events is largely counterbalanced by an increase in bleeding events. One possible explanation for these results is the progressive reduction in the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) as a result of primary prevention, which has accompanied global education programs that have led to patients smoking less, exercising more, and increasingly undertaking lipid-lowering therapies. Based on a meta-regression of the benefits and harmful effects of aspirin therapy in primary prevention as a function of the 10-year risk of MACE, we favor a differentiated and personalized approach that acknowledged differences between patients and emphasized an individualized assessment of benefits and risks. Following general preventive measures (physical exercise, cessation of smoking, treatment of hypertension and hypercholesterolemia, etc.), an individualized approach to prescribing aspirin is still warranted. When patients are less than 70 years of age, clinicians should assess the 10-year CV risk. Aspirin treatment should be considered only when the CV risk is very high and the bleeding risk is low, after taking into account the patient’s preferences
Oral anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation and stage 4 or 5 chronic kidney disease
No full textPatients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) have a high prevalence of atrial fibrillation (AF). Stroke in patients with CKD and AF is frequent, and is usually more severe than in the absence of CKD. Current European Society of Cardiology guidelines recommend oral anticoagulant therapy in order to reduce thromboembolic risk in AF patients in general, and also in the presence of CKD, excluding however stage 4 and dialysis (stage 5) patients. Warfarin and other vitamin K antagonists are still the most frequently used drugs in these settings, despite the high bleeding risk. In the United States, the non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants, especially apixaban, are here used off-label, despite the absence of strong evidences of efficacy and safety. Several clinical trials are ongoing, and further evidence is needed before non-vitamin K antagonists can be recommended in these patients
- …
