Search

Background: Previous studies have shown an association between gut microbiota and cardiovascular diseases (CVDs). However, the underlying causal relationship remains unclear. This study aims to elucidate the causal relationship between gut microbiota and CVDs and to explore the pathogenic role of gut microbiota in CVDs. Methods: In this two-sample Mendelian randomization study, we used genetic instruments from publicly available genome-wide association studies, including single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with gut microbiota (n = 14,306) and CVDs (n = 2,207,591). We employed multiple statistical analysis methods, including inverse variance weighting, MR Egger, weighted median, MR pleiotropic residuals and outliers, and the leave-one-out method, to estimate the causal relationship between gut microbiota and CVDs. Additionally, we conducted multiple analyses to assess horizontal pleiotropy and heterogeneity. Results: GWAS summary data were available from a pooled sample of 2,221,897 adult and adolescent participants. Our findings indicated that specific gut microbiota had either protective or detrimental effects on CVDs. Notably, Howardella (OR = 0.955, 95% CI: 0.913–0.999, P =.05), Intestinibacter (OR = 0.908, 95% CI:0.831–0.993, P =.03), Lachnospiraceae (NK4A136 group) (OR = 0.904, 95% CI:0.841–0.973, P =.007), Turicibacter (OR = 0.904, 95% CI: 0.838–0.976, P =.01), Holdemania (OR, 0.898; 95% CI: 0.810–0.995, P =.04) and Odoribacter (OR, 0.835; 95% CI: 0.710–0.993, P =.04) exhibited a protective causal effect on atrial fibrillation, while other microbiota had adverse causal effects. Similar effects were observed with respect to coronary artery disease, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, and hypertension. Furthermore, reversed Mendelian randomization analyses revealed that atrial fibrillation and ischemic stroke had causal effects on certain gut microbiotas. Conclusion: Our study underscored the importance of gut microbiota in the context of CVDs and lent support to the hypothesis that increasing the abundance of probiotics or decreasing the abundance of harmful bacterial populations may offer protection against specific CVDs. Nevertheless, further research is essential to translate these findings into clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Coprescribing of clopidogrel and other drugs is common. Available reviews have addressed the drug-drug interactions (DDIs) when clopidogrel is as an object drug, or focused on combination use of clopidogrel and a special class of drugs. Clinicians may still be ignorant of those DDIs when clopidogrel is a precipitant drug, the factors determining the degree of DDIs, and corresponding risk management.Methods: A literature search was performed using PubMed, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library to analyze the pharmacokinetic DDIs of clopidogrel and new P2Y12 receptor inhibitors.Results: Clopidogrel affects the pharmacokinetics of cerivastatin, repaglinide, ferulic acid, sibutramine, efavirenz, and omeprazole. Low efficacy of clopidogrel is anticipated in the presence of omeprazole, esomeprazole, morphine, grapefruit juice, scutellarin, fluoxetine, azole antifungals, calcium channel blockers, sulfonylureas, and ritonavir. Augmented antiplatelet effects are anticipated when clopidogrel is coprescribed with aspirin, curcumin, cyclosporin, St John's wort, rifampicin, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. The factors determining the degree of DDIs with clopidogrel include genetic status (eg, cytochrome P540 [CYP]2B6*6, CYP2C19 polymorphism, CYP3A5*3, CYP3A4*1G, and CYP1A2-163C.A), species differences, and dose strength. The DDI risk does not exhibit a class effect, eg, the effects of clopidogrel on cerivastatin versus other statins, the effects of proton pump inhibitors on clopidogrel (omeprazole, esomeprazole versus pantoprazole, rabeprazole), the effects of rifampicin on clopidogrel versus ticagrelor and prasugrel, and the effects of calcium channel blockers on clopidogrel (amlodipine versus P-glycoprotein-inhibiting calcium channel blockers). The mechanism of the DDIs with clopidogrel involves modulating CYP enzymes (eg, CYP2B6, CYP2C8, CYP2C19, and CYP3A4), paraoxonase-1, hepatic carboxylesterase 1, P-glycoprotein, and organic anion transporter family member 1B1.Conclusion: Effective and safe clopidogrel combination therapy can be achieved by increasing the awareness of potential changes in efficacy and toxicity, rationally selecting alternatives, tailoring drug therapy based on genotype, checking the appropriateness of physician orders, and performing therapeutic monitoring. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) greatly improve survival and life quality of patients. However, there are gender differences regarding both the utilization and benefit of these devices. In this prospective CIED registry, we aim to appraise the gender differences in CIED utilization in China., Methods: Twenty centers from 14 provinces in China were included in our registry study. All patients who underwent a CIED implantation in these twenty centers between Jan 2015 and Dec 2016 were included., Results: A total of 8570 patients were enrolled in the baseline cohort, including 7203 pacemaker, 664 implantable cardiac defibrillators (ICD) implants and 703 cardiac resynchronization therapy device (CRT/D). Totally, 4117 (48.0%) CIED patients were female, and more than 59% pacemaker patients were female, but women account only one third of ICD or CRT/D implantation in this registry. There were significant differences between genders at pacemaker and ICD indications. Female was more likely received a pacemaker due to sick sinus syndrome (SSS) (63.9% vs. 51.0%, P < 0.001). Female patients receiving an ICD were more likely due to cardiac ion channel disease (29.2% vs. 4.2%, P < 0.001). The percentage of utilization of dual-chamber pacemaker in female patients was significantly higher than male (85.3% vs. 81.1%, P < 0.001). But male patients were more likely received a cardiac resynchronization therapy devices with defibrillator than female (56.5% vs. 41.9%, P = 0.001). In pacemaker patient, male was more likely to have structure heart disease (31.3% vs. 28.0%, P = 0.002). In ICD patient, male patients were more likely to have ischemic heart disease (48.2% vs. 29.2%, P < 0.001). The mean age of women at the time of CRT/D implantation was older than men ( P = 0.014). Nonischemic cardiomyopathy (70.9%) was the most common etiology in the patients who underwent the treatment of CRT/D, no matter male or female., Conclusions: In real-world setting, female do have different epidemiology, pathophysiology and clinical presentation of many cardiac rhythm disorders when compared with male, and all these factors may affect the utilization of CIED implantation. But it also possibility that cultural and socioeconomic features may play a role in this apparent discrimination.

Objective: The relative preventative efficacy of amiodarone and lidocaine for ventricular fibrillation (VF) after release of an aortic cross-clamp (ACC) during open heart surgery has not been determined. This meta-analysis was designed to systematically evaluate the influence of amiodarone, lidocaine, or placebo on the incidence of VF after ACC., Methods: Prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the VF-preventative effects of amiodarone with lidocaine, or amiodarone or lidocaine with placebo were included. PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched for relevant RCTs. Fixed or randomized effect models were applied according to the heterogeneity of the data from the selected studies., Results: We included eight RCTs in the analysis. Pooled results suggested that the preventative effects of amiodarone and lidocaine were comparable (relative risk (RR)=1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.70 to 1.80, P=0.63), but both were superior to the placebo (amiodarone, RR=0.71, 95% CI: 0.51 to 1.00, P=0.05; lidocaine, RR=0.63, 95% CI: 0.46 to 0.88, P=0.006). The percentage of patients requiring electric defibrillation counter shocks (DCSs) did not differ significantly among patients administered amiodarone (RR=0.21, 95% CI: 0.04 to 1.19, P=0.08), lidocaine (RR=2.44, 95% CI: 0.13 to 44.02, P=0.55), or the placebo (RR=0.56, 95% CI: 0.25 to 1.25, P=0.16)., Conclusions: Amiodarone and lidocaine are comparably effective in preventing VF after ACC, but the percentage of patients who subsequently require DCSs does not differ among those administered amiodarone, lidocaine, or placebo.