Search

BACKGROUND: Non-attendance for vascular screening potentially restricts the overall benefit of screening at population level, but may be the result of rational judgment on the part of invitees who might not consider their risk to be relevant. The aim of this study was to investigate the role of current use of preventive medication and personal risk attitude as potential factors explaining non-attendance at triple vascular screening.METHODS: This was a case control study across 25,078 men offered screening and intervention for abdominal aortic aneurysm, peripheral artery disease, and hypertension in the Viborg Vascular (VIVA) screening trial. Data on socio-demographic and socio-economic characteristics, diagnoses, and use of preventive medication were extracted from national registries. A proxy for personal risk attitude was constructed. Logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals.RESULTS: Use of statins (0.78; 95% CI 0.71-0.85), antihypertensives (1.26, 95% CI 1.13-1.41), or antithrombotics (1.13, 95% CI 1.04-1.23) were all associated with non-attendance. With regards to personal risk attitude, a statistically significant association was found between users of preventive medication with no recent diagnosis of cardiovascular disease and non-attendance (0.82, 95% CI 0.72-0.94). The role of traditional factors explaining non-attendance at vascular screening, such as low socio-economic status and comorbidity, was confirmed.CONCLUSION: Non-attendance at triple vascular screening is influenced by use of preventive medications and traditional explanatory factors of non-attendance at vascular screening, including existing CVD comorbidity. Attendance rates might benefit from rethinking risk communication alongside screening invitations according to varying invitee profiles and clinical risk scenarios, and from providing interventions targeted at individuals with lower levels of health literacy.

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 × 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 (5 mg 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. ClinicalTrials.gov Number: NCT01776424.

Objective Although evidence has shown that ischemic heart disease (IHD) in vascular surgery patients has a negative impact on the prognosis after surgery, it is unclear whether directed treatment of IHD may influence cause-specific and overall mortality. The objective of this study was to determine the prognostic implication of coronary revascularization (CR) on overall and cause-specific mortality in vascular surgery patients. Methods Patients undergoing surgery for abdominal aortic aneurysm, carotid artery stenosis, or peripheral artery disease in a university hospital in The Netherlands between January 2003 and December 2011 were retrospectively included. Survival estimates were obtained by Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analysis. Results A total of 1104 patients were included. Adjusted survival analyses showed that IHD significantly increased the risk of overall mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 1.50; 95% confidence interval, 1.21-1.87) and cardiovascular death (HR, 1.93; 95% confidence interval, 1.35-2.76). Compared with those without CR, patients previously undergoing CR had similar overall mortality (HR, 1.38 vs 1.62; P = .274) and cardiovascular mortality (HR, 1.83 vs 2.02; P = .656). Nonrevascularized IHD patients were more likely to die of IHD (6.9% vs 35.7%), whereas revascularized IHD patients more frequently died of cardiovascular causes unrelated to IHD (39.1% vs 64.3%; P = .018). Conclusions This study confirms the significance of IHD for postoperative survival of vascular surgery patients. CR was associated with lower IHD-related death rates. However, it failed to provide an overall survival benefit because of an increased rate of cardiovascular mortality unrelated to IHD. Intensification of secondary prevention regimens may be required to prevent this shift toward non-IHD-related death and thereby improve life expectancy.