Search

BackgroundIntensive care treatment can be life-saving, but it is invasive and distressing for patients receiving it and it is not always successful. Deciding whether or not a patient will benefit from intensive care is a difficult clinical and ethical challenge.ObjectivesTo explore the decision-making process for referral and admission to the intensive care unit and to develop and test an intervention to improve it.MethodsA mixed-methods study comprising (1) two systematic reviews investigating the factors associated with decisions to admit patients to the intensive care unit and the experiences of clinicians, patients and families; (2) observation of decisions and interviews with intensive care unit doctors, referring doctors, and patients and families in six NHS trusts in the Midlands, UK; (3) a choice experiment survey distributed to UK intensive care unit consultants and critical care outreach nurses, eliciting their preferences for factors used in decision-making for intensive care unit admission; (4) development of a decision-support intervention informed by the previous work streams, including an ethical framework for decision-making and supporting referral and decision-support forms and patient and family information leaflets. Implementation feasibility was tested in three NHS trusts; (5) development and testing of a tool to evaluate the ethical quality of decision-making related to intensive care unit admission, based on the assessment of patient records. The tool was tested for inter-rater and intersite reliability in 120 patient records.ResultsInfluences on decision-making identified in the systematic review and ethnographic study included age, presence of chronic illness, functional status, presence of a do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation order, referring specialty, referrer seniority and intensive care unit bed availability. Intensive care unit doctors used a gestalt assessment of the patient when making decisions. The choice experiment showed that age was the most important factor in consultants’ and critical care outreach nurses’ preferences for admission. The ethnographic study illuminated the complexity of the decision-making process, and the importance of interprofessional relationships and good communication between teams and with patients and families. Doctors found it difficult to articulate and balance the benefits and burdens of intensive care unit treatment for a patient. There was low uptake of the decision-support intervention, although doctors who used it noted that it improved articulation of reasons for decisions and communication with patients.LimitationsLimitations existed in each of the component studies; for example, we had difficulty recruiting patients and families in our qualitative work. However, the project benefited from a mixed-method approach that mitigated the potential limitations of the component studies.ConclusionsDecision-making surrounding referral and admission to the intensive care unit is complex. This study has provided evidence and resources to help clinicians and organisations aiming to improve the decision-making for and, ultimately, the care of critically ill patients.Future workFurther research is needed into decision-making practices, particularly in how best to engage with patients and families during the decision process. The development and evaluation of training for clinicians involved in these decisions should be a priority for future work.Study registrationThe systematic reviews of this study are registered as PROSPERO CRD42016039054, CRD42015019711 and CRD42015019714.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme. The University of Aberdeen and the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates fund the Health Economics Research Unit.

Background:\ud The glycaemic index (GI) is a physiological measure of the ability of a carbohydrate to affect blood glucose. Interest is growing in this area for the clinical management of people at risk of, or with, established cardiovascular disease. There is a need to review the current evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in this area. This is an update of the original review published in 2008.\ud \ud Objectives:\ud To assess the effect of the dietary GI on total mortality, cardiovascular events, and cardiovascular risk factors (blood lipids, blood pressure) in healthy people or people who have established cardiovascular disease or related risk factors, using all eligible randomised controlled trials.\ud \ud Search methods:\ud We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL in July 2016. We also checked reference lists of relevant articles. No language restrictions were applied.\ud \ud Selection criteria:\ud We selected RCTs that assessed the effects of low GI diets compared to diets with a similar composition but a higher GI on cardiovascular disease and related risk factors. Minimum trial duration was 12 weeks. Participants included were healthy adults or those at increased risk of cardiovascular disease, or previously diagnosed with cardiovascular disease. Studies in people with diabetes mellitus were excluded.\ud \ud Data collection and analysis:\ud Two reviewers independently screened and selected studies. Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias, evaluated the overall quality of the evidence using GRADE, and extracted data following the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We contacted trial authors for additional information. Analyses were checked by a second reviewer. Continuous outcomes were synthesized using mean differences and adverse events were synthesized narratively.\ud \ud Main results:Twenty-one RCTs were included, with a total of 2538 participants randomised to low GI intervention (1288) or high GI (1250). All 21 included studies reported the effect of low GI diets on risk factors for cardiovascular disease, including blood lipids and blood pressure.\ud \ud Twenty RCTs (18 of which were newly included in this version of the review) included primary prevention populations (healthy individuals or those at high risk of CVD, with mean age range from 19 to 69 years) and one RCT was in those diagnosed with pre-existing CVD (a secondary prevention population, with mean age 26.9 years). Most of the studies did not have an intervention duration of longer than six months. Difference in GI intake between comparison groups varied widely from 0.6 to 42.\ud \ud None of the included studies reported the effect of low GI dietary intake on cardiovascular mortality and cardiovascular events such as fatal and nonfatal myocardial infarction, unstable angina, coronary artery bypass graft surgery, percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty, and stroke. The unclear risk of bias of most of the included studies makes overall interpretation of the data difficult. Only two of the included studies (38 participants) reported on adverse effects and did not observe any harms (low-quality evidence).\ud \ud Authors' conclusions:\ud There is currently no evidence available regarding the effect of low GI diets on cardiovascular disease events. Moreover, there is currently no convincing evidence that low GI diets have a clear beneficial effect on blood lipids or blood pressure parameters.

Background\ud \ud Vitamin C is an essential micronutrient and powerful antioxidant. Observational studies have shown an inverse relationship between vitamin C intake and major cardiovascular events and cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors. Results from clinical trials are less consistent.\ud Objectives\ud \ud To determine the effectiveness of vitamin C supplementation as a single supplement for the primary prevention of CVD.\ud Search methods\ud \ud We searched the following electronic databases on 11 May 2016: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (Ovid); Embase Classic and Embase (Ovid); Web of Science Core Collection (Thomson Reuters); Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE); Health Technology Assessment Database and Health Economics Evaluations Database in the Cochrane Library. We searched trial registers on 13 April 2016 and reference lists of reviews for further studies. We applied no language restrictions.\ud Selection criteria\ud \ud Randomised controlled trials of vitamin C supplementation as a single nutrient supplement lasting at least three months and involving healthy adults or adults at moderate and high risk of CVD were included. The comparison group was no intervention or placebo. The outcomes of interest were CVD clinical events and CVD risk factors.\ud Data collection and analysis\ud \ud Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, abstracted the data and assessed the risk of bias.\ud Main results\ud \ud We included eight trials with 15,445 participants randomised. The largest trial with 14,641 participants provided data on our primary outcomes. Seven trials reported on CVD risk factors. Three of the eight trials were regarded at high risk of bias for either reporting or attrition bias, most of the 'Risk of bias' domains for the remaining trials were judged as unclear, with the exception of the largest trial where most domains were judged to be at low risk of bias.\ud \ud The composite endpoint, major CVD events was not different between the vitamin C and placebo group (hazard ratio (HR) 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89 to 1.10; 1 study; 14,641 participants; low-quality evidence) in the Physicians Health Study II over eight years of follow-up. Similar results were obtained for all-cause mortality HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.18; 1 study; 14,641 participants; very low-quality evidence, total myocardial infarction (MI) (fatal and non-fatal) HR 1.04 (95% CI 0.87 to 1.24); 1 study; 14,641 participants; low-quality evidence, total stroke (fatal and non-fatal) HR 0.89 (95% CI 0.74 to 1.07); 1 study; 14,641 participants; low-quality evidence, CVD mortality HR 1.02 (95% 0.85 to 1.22); 1 study; 14,641 participants; very low-quality evidence, self-reported coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG)/percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) HR 0.96 (95% CI 0.86 to 1.07); 1 study; 14,641 participants; low-quality evidence, self-reported angina HR 0.93 (95% CI 0.84 to 1.03); 1 study; 14,641 participants; low-quality evidence.\ud \ud The evidence for the majority of primary outcomes was downgraded (low quality) because of indirectness and imprecision. For all-cause mortality and CVD mortality, the evidence was very low because more factors affected the directness of the evidence and because of inconsistency.\ud \ud Four studies did not state sources of funding, two studies declared non-commercial funding and two studies declared both commercial and non-commercial funding.\ud Authors' conclusions\ud \ud Currently, there is no evidence to suggest that vitamin C supplementation reduces the risk of CVD in healthy participants and those at increased risk of CVD, but current evidence is limited to one trial of middle-aged and older male physicians from the USA. There is limited low- and very low-quality evidence currently on the effect of vitamin C supplementation and risk of CVD risk factors.

Background Omega 6 plays a vital role in many physiological functions but there is controversy concerning its effect on cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. There is conflicting evidence whether increasing or decreasing omega 6 intake results in beneficial effects. Objectives The two primary objectives of this Cochrane review were to determine the effectiveness of: 1. Increasing omega 6 (Linoleic acid (LA), Gamma-linolenic acid (GLA), Dihomo-gamma-linolenic acid (DGLA), Arachidonic acid (AA), or any combination) intake in place of saturated or monounsaturated fats or carbohydrates for the primary prevention of CVD. 2. Decreasing omega 6 (LA, GLA, DGLA, AA, or any combination) intake in place of carbohydrates or protein (or both) for the primary prevention of CVD. Search methods We searched the following electronic databases up to 23 September 2014: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) on the Cochrane Library (Issue 8 of 12, 2014); MEDLINE (Ovid) (1946 to September week 2, 2014); EMBASE Classic and EMBASE (Ovid) (1947 to September 2014); Web of Science Core Collection (Thomson Reuters) (1990 to September 2014); Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) and Health Technology Assessment Database, and Health Economics Evaluations Database on the Cochrane Library (Issue 3 of 4, 2014). We searched trial registers and reference lists of reviews for further studies. We applied no language restrictions. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions stating an intention to increase or decrease omega 6 fatty acids, lasting at least six months, and including healthy adults or adults at high risk of CVD. The comparison group was given no advice, no supplementation, a placebo, a control diet, or continued with their usual diet. The outcomes of interest were CVD clinical events (all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, non-fatal end points) and CVD risk factors (changes in blood pressure, changes in blood lipids, occurrence of type 2 diabetes). We excluded trials involving exercise or multifactorial interventions to avoid confounding. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted the data, and assessed the risk of bias in the included trials. Main results We included four RCTs (five papers) that randomised 660 participants. No ongoing trials were identified. All included trials had at least one domain with an unclear risk of bias. There were no RCTs of omega 6 intake reporting CVD clinical events. Three trials investigated the effect of increased omega 6 intake on lipid levels (total cholesterol, low density lipoprotein (LDL-cholesterol), and high density lipoprotein (HDL-cholesterol)), two trials reported triglycerides, and two trials reported blood pressure (diastolic and systolic blood pressure). Two trials, one with two relevant intervention arms, investigated the effect of decreased omega 6 intake on blood pressure parameters and lipid levels (total cholesterol, LDL-cholesterol, and HDL-cholesterol) and one trial reported triglycerides. Our analyses found no statistically significant effects of either increased or decreased omega 6 intake on CVD risk factors. Two studies were supported by funding from the UK Food Standards Agency and Medical Research Council. One study was supported by Lipid Nutrition, a commercial company in the Netherlands and the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs. The final study was supported by grants from the Finnish Food Research Foundation, Finnish Heart Research Foundation, Aarne and Aili Turnen Foundation, and the Research Council for Health, Academy of Finland. Authors' conclusions We found no studies examining the effects of either increased or decreased omega 6 on our primary outcome CVD clinical endpoints and insufficient evidence to show an effect of increased or decreased omega 6 intake on CVD risk factors such as blood lipids and blood pressure. Very few trials were identified with a relatively small number of participants randomised. There is a need for larger well conducted RCTs assessing cardiovascular events as well as cardiovascular risk factors.

Background A deficiency in vitamin K has been associated with increased calcium deposition and coronary artery calcification, which may lead to cardiovascular disease. Objectives To determine the effectiveness of vitamin K supplementation as a single nutrient supplement for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Search methods We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 8 of 12, 2014); MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to September week 2 2014); EMBASE Classic + EMBASE (Ovid, 1947 to September 18 2014); Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED) and Conference Proceedings Citation Index, Science (CPCI-S) (both 1990 to 17 September 2014) on Web of Science (Thomson Reuters); Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE); Health Technology Assessment Database and Health Economics Evaluations Database (Issue 3 of 4, 2014). We searched trial registers and reference lists of reviews for further studies. We applied no language restrictions. Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials of vitamin K supplementation as a single nutrient supplement, lasting at least three months, and involving healthy adults or adults at high risk of cardiovascular disease. The comparison group was no intervention or placebo. The outcomes of interest were cardiovascular disease clinical events and cardiovascular disease risk factors. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, abstracted the data and assessed the risk of bias. Main results We included only one small trial (60 participants randomised) which overall was judged to be at low risk of bias. The study examined two doses of menaquinone (vitamin K2) over 3 months in healthy participants aged 40 to 65 years. The primary focus of the trial was to examine the effects of menaquinone (subtype MK7) on different matrix Gla proteins (MGP - vitamin K dependent proteins in the vessel wall) at different doses, but the authors also reported blood pressure and lipid levels. The trial did not report on our primary outcomes (cardiovascular disease clinical events) as it was small, short term and conducted in healthy participants. In terms of cardiovascular disease risk factors, no effects were seen for vitamin K2 on blood pressure or lipid levels, although the trial was small and findings are limited. The trial did not report any of our other secondary outcomes. Authors' conclusions The very limited results of this review highlight the lack of evidence currently available to determine the effectiveness of vitamin K supplementation for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease, and demonstrate the need for further high quality trials in this area.

Background Two major determinants of cardiovascular disease (CVD) are a sedentary lifestyle and stress. Qigong involves physical exercise, mind regulation and breathing control to restore the flow of Qi (a pivotal life energy). As it is thought to help reduce stress and involves exercise, qigong may be an effective strategy for the primary prevention of CVD. Objectives To determine the effectiveness of qigong for the primary prevention of CVD. Search methods We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (November 2014, Issue 10 of 12); MEDLINE (Ovid) (1946 to 2014 October week 4); EMBASE Classic + EMBASE (Ovid) (1947 to 2014 November 4); Web of Science Core Collection (1970 to 31 October 2014); Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Health Technology Assessment Database and Health Economics Evaluations Database (November 2014, Issue 4 of 4). We searched several Asian databases (inception to July 2013) and the Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED) (inception to December 2013), as well as trial registers and reference lists of reviews and articles; we also approached experts in the field and applied no language restrictions in our search. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials lasting at least three months involving healthy adults or those at high risk of CVD. Trials examined any type of qigong, and comparison groups provided no intervention or minimal intervention. Outcomes of interest included clinical CVD events and major CVD risk factors. We did not include trials that involved multi-factorial lifestyle interventions or weight loss. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion. Two review authors extracted data from included studies and assessed the risk of bias. Main results We identified 11 completed trials (1369 participants) and one ongoing trial. Trials were heterogeneous in participants recruited, qigong duration and length of follow-up periods. We were unable to ascertain the risk of bias in nine trials published in Chinese, as insufficient methodological details were reported and we were unable to contact the study authors to clarify this. We performed no meta-analyses, as trials were small and were at significant risk of bias. Clinical events were detailed in subsequent reports of two trials when statistically significant effects of qigong were seen for all-cause mortality, stroke mortality and stroke incidence at 20 to 30 years after completion of the trials. However, these trials were designed to examine outcomes in the short term, and it is not clear whether qigong was practised during extended periods of follow-up; therefore effects cannot be attributed to the intervention. None of the included studies reported other non-fatal CVD events. Six trials provided data that could be used to examine the effects of qigong on blood pressure. Reductions in systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) were seen in three and two trials, respectively. Three trials examined the effects of qigong on blood lipids when favourable effects were seen in one trial for total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol and triglycerides, and two trials showed favourable effects on high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol. The only trial considered at low risk of selection and detection bias did not demonstrate statistically significant effects on CVD risk factors with qigong, but this study was small and was underpowered. None of the included studies reported incidence of type 2 diabetes (T2D), adverse events, quality of life or costs. Authors' conclusions Currently, very limited evidence is available on the effectiveness of qigong for the primary prevention of CVD. Most of the trials included in this review are likely to be at high risk of bias, so we have very low confidence in the validity of the results. Publication of the ongoing trial will add to the limited evidence base, but further trials of high methodological quality with sufficient sample size and follow-up are needed to be incorporated in an update of this review before the effectiveness of qigong for CVD prevention can be established.

Background Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the number one cause of death and disability worldwide and public health interventions focus on modifiable risk factors, such as diet. Coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10) is an antioxidant that is naturally synthesised by the body and can also be taken as a dietary supplement. Studies have shown that a CoQ10 deficiency is associated with cardiovascular disease. Objectives To determine the effects of coenzyme Q10 supplementation as a single ingredient for the primary prevention of CVD. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2013, Issue 11); MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to November week 3 2013); EMBASE (Ovid, 1947 to 27 November 2013) and other relevant resources on 2 December 2013. We applied no language restrictions. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) lasting at least three months involving healthy adults or those at high risk of CVD but without a diagnosis of CVD. Trials investigated the supplementation of CoQ10 alone as a single supplement. The comparison group was no intervention or placebo. The outcomes of interest were CVD clinical events and major CVD risk factors, adverse effects and costs. We excluded any trials involving multifactorial lifestyle interventions to avoid confounding. Data collection and analysis Two authors independently selected trials for inclusion, abstracted data and assessed the risk of bias.We contacted authors for additional information where necessary. Main results We identified six RCTs with a total of 218 participants randomised, one trial awaiting classification and five ongoing trials. All trials were conducted in participants at high risk of CVD, two trials examined CoQ10 supplementation alone and four examined CoQ10 supplementation in patients on statin therapy; we analysed these separately. All six trials were small-scale, recruiting between 20 and 52 participants; one trial was at high risk of bias for incomplete outcome data and one for selective reporting; all studies were unclear in the method of allocation and therefore for selection bias. The dose of CoQ10 varied between 100 mg/day and 200 mg/day and the duration of the interventions was similar at around three months. No studies reported mortality or non-fatal cardiovascular events. None of the included studies provided data on adverse events. Two trials examined the effect of CoQ10 on blood pressure. For systolic blood pressure we did not perform a meta-analysis due to significant heterogeneity. In one trial CoQ10 supplementation had no effect on systolic blood pressure (mean difference (MD) -1.90 mmHg, 95% confidence interval (CI) -13.17 to 9.37, 51 patients randomised). In the other trial there was a statistically significant reduction in systolic blood pressure (MD -15.00 mmHg, 95% CI -19.06 to -10.94, 20 patients randomised). For diastolic blood pressure we performed a random-effects meta-analysis, which showed no evidence of effect of CoQ10 supplementation when these two small trials were pooled (MD -1.62 mmHg, 95% CI -5.2 to 1.96). One trial (51 patients randomised) looked at the effect of CoQ10 on lipid levels. The trial showed no evidence of effect of CoQ10 supplementation on total cholesterol (MD 0.30 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.70), high-density lipoprotein (HDL)-cholesterol (MD 0.02 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.17) or triglycerides (MD 0.05 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.42 to 0.52). Of the four trials that investigated CoQ10 supplementation in patients on statin therapy, three of them showed that simultaneous administration of CoQ10 did not significantly influence lipid levels or systolic blood pressure levels between the two groups. The fourth trial showed a significant increase in the change in total and low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol at three months across the four arms of the trial (α-tocopherol, CoQ10, CoQ10 + α-tocopherol and placebo), however the way in which the data were presented meant that we were unable to determine if there was any significant difference between the CoQ10 only and placebo arms. In contrast, there was no significant difference in the change in HDL-cholesterol and triglycerides after three months between the four arms of the trial. Authors' conclusions There are very few studies to date examining CoQ10 for the primary prevention of CVD. The results from the ongoing studies will add to the evidence base. Due to the small number of underpowered trials contributing to the analyses, the results presented should be treated with caution and further high quality trials with longer-term follow-up are needed to determine the effects on cardiovascular events.

Background A major determinant in cardiovascular disease (CVD) is stress. As transcendental meditation (TM) is thought to help in lowering negative stress indicators, it may be a beneficial strategy for the primary prevention of CVD. Objectives To determine the effectiveness of TM for the primary prevention of CVD. Search methods We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2013, Issue 10); MEDLINE (Ovid) (1946 to week three November 2013); EMBASE Classic and EMBASE (Ovid) (1947 to week 48 2013); ISI Web of Science (1970 to 28 November 2013); and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) and Health Technology Assessment Database and Health Economics Evaluations Database (November 2013). We also searched the Allied and complementary Medicine Database (AMED) (inception to January 2014) and IndMed (inception to January 2014). We handsearched trial registers and reference lists of reviews and articles and contacted experts in the field. We applied no language restrictions. Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of at least three months' duration involving healthy adults or adults at high risk of CVD. Trials examined TM only and the comparison group was no intervention or minimal intervention. We excluded trials that involved multi-factorial interventions. Outcomes of interest were clinical CVD events (cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality and non-fatal events) and major CVD risk factors (e.g. blood pressure and blood lipids, occurrence of type 2 diabetes, quality of life, adverse events and costs). Data collection and analysis Two authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. Main results We identified four trials (four papers) (430 participants) for inclusion in this review. We identified no ongoing studies. The included trials were small, short term (three months) and at risk of bias. In all studies, TM was practised for 15 to 20 minutes twice a day. None of the included studies reported all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality or non-fatal endpoints as trials were short term, but one study reported survival rate three years after the trial was completed. In view of the considerable statistical heterogeneity between the results of the studies for the only outcomes reported, systolic blood pressure (I2 = 72%) and diastolic blood pressure (I2 = 66%), we decided not to undertake a meta-analysis. None of the four trials reported blood lipids, occurrence of type 2 diabetes, adverse events, costs or quality of life. Authors' conclusions Currently, there are few trials with limited outcomes examining the effectiveness of TM for the primary prevention of CVD. Due to the limited evidence to date, we could draw no conclusions as to the effectiveness of TM for the primary prevention of CVD. There was considerable heterogeneity between trials and the included studies were small, short term and at overall serious risk of bias. More and larger long-term, high-quality trials are needed.

Background Stress and a sedentary lifestyle are major determinants of cardiovascular disease (CVD). As tai chi involves exercise and can help in stress reduction, it may be effective in the primary prevention of CVD. Objectives To determine the effectiveness of tai chi for the primary prevention of CVD. Search methods We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Issue 11, 2013); MEDLINE (Ovid) (1946 to November week 3, 2013); EMBASE Classic + EMBASE (Ovid) (1947 to 6 December 2013); Web of Science (Thomson Reuters) (1970 to 6 December 2013); PsycINFO (Ovid) (1806 to December week 1, 2013); Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE); Health Technology Assessment Database and Health Economics Evaluations Database (Issue 4, 2013). We also searched the Allied and complementary Medicine Database (AMED) and OpenGrey (inception to October 2012) and several Asian databases. We searched trial registers and reference lists of reviews for further studies. We applied no language restrictions. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials of tai chi lasting at least three months involving healthy adults or adults at high risk of CVD. The comparison group was no intervention or minimal intervention. The outcomes of interest were CVD clinical events and CVD risk factors. We excluded trials involving multifactorial lifestyle interventions or focusing on weight loss to avoid confounding. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, abstracted the data and assessed the risk of bias. Main results We identified 13 small trials (1520 participants randomised) and three ongoing trials. All studies had at least one domain with unclear risk of bias, and some studies were at high risk of bias for allocation concealment (one study) and selective reporting (two studies). Duration and style of tai chi differed between trials. Seven studies recruited 903 healthy participants, the other studies recruited people with borderline hypertension or hypertension, elderly people at high risk of falling, and people with hypertension with liver and kidney yin deficiency syndrome. No studies reported on cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality or non-fatal events as most studies were short term (all studies had follow-up of one year or less). There was also considerable heterogeneity between studies, which meant that it was not possible to combine studies statistically for cardiovascular risk (I2 statistic for systolic blood pressure (SBP) was 96%, for diastolic blood pressure (DBP) 96%, for total cholesterol 96%, low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) 95%, high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (HDL-C) 98%, triglycerides 75%). Nine trials measured blood pressure, six individual trials found reductions in SBP (reductions ranged from -22.0 mmHg (95% confidence interval (CI) -26.3 to -17.7) to -11.5 mmHg (95% CI -21.5 to -1.46)), two trials found no clear evidence of a difference (however, CIs were wide and an increase or decrease in SBP cannot be ruled out), and one trial found an increase in SBP with tai chi (increase 5.2 mmHg, 95% CI 3.73 to 6.67). A similar pattern was seen for DBP: three trials found a reduction in DBP (reductions ranged from -12.2 mmHg (95% CI -15.8 to -8.7) to -4.43 mmHg (95% CI -7.14 to -1.72)) and three trials found no clear evidence of a difference, however again with wide CIs. Three trials reported lipid levels and two found reductions in total cholesterol, LDL-C and triglycerides (total cholesterol reductions ranged from -1.30 mmol/L (95% CI -1.57 to -1.03) to -0.50 mmol/L (95% CI -0.74 to -0.26): LDL-C reductions ranged from -0.76 mmol/L (95% CI -0.93 to -0.59) to -0.59 mmol/L (95% CI -0.80 to -0.38): triglyceride reductions ranged from -0.46 mmol/L (95% CI -0.62 to -0.30) to -0.37 mmol/L (95% CI -0.67 to-0.07)) and increased HDL-C with the intervention (HDL-C increases ranged from 0.61 mmol/L (95% CI 0.51 to 0.71) to 0.16 mmol/L (95% CI 0.02 to 0.30)), while the third study found no clear evidence of a difference between groups on lipid levels. Quality of life was measured in one trial: tai chi improved quality of life at three months. None of the included trials reported on adverse events, costs or occurrence of type 2 diabetes. Authors' conclusions There are currently no long-term trials examining tai chi for the primary prevention of CVD. Due to the limited evidence available currently no conclusions can be drawn as to the effectiveness of tai chi on CVD risk factors. There was some suggestion of beneficial effects of tai chi on CVD risk factors but this was not consistent across all studies. There was considerable heterogeneity between the studies included in this review and studies were small and at some risk of bias. Results of the ongoing trials will add to the evidence base but additional longer-term, high-quality trials are needed.

Background: The Seven Countries study in the 1960s showed that populations in the Mediterranean region experienced lower cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality probably as a result of different dietary patterns. Later observational studies have confirmed the benefits of adherence to a Mediterranean dietary pattern on CVD risk factors. Clinical trial evidence is limited, and is mostly in secondary prevention.\ud \ud Objectives: To determine the effectiveness of a Mediterranean dietary pattern for the primary prevention of CVD.\ud \ud Search methods: We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 9 of 12, September 2012); MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to October week 1 2012); EMBASE (Ovid, 1980 to 2012 week 41); ISI Web of Science (1970 to 16 October 2012); Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Health Technology Assessment Database and Health Economics Evaluations Database (Issue 3 of 12, September 2012). We searched trial registers and reference lists of reviews and applied no language restrictions.\ud \ud Selection criteria: We selected randomised controlled trials in healthy adults and adults at high risk of CVD. A Mediterranean dietary pattern was defined as comprising at least two of the following components: (1) high monounsaturated/saturated fat ratio, (2) low to moderate red wine consumption, (3) high consumption of legumes, (4) high consumption of grains and cereals, (5) high consumption of fruits and vegetables, (6) low consumption of meat and meat products and increased consumption of fish, and (7) moderate consumption of milk and dairy products. The comparison group received either no intervention or minimal intervention. Outcomes included clinical events and CVD risk factors.\ud \ud Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently extracted data and contacted chief investigators to request additional relevant information.\ud \ud Main results: We included 11 trials (15 papers) (52,044 participants randomised). Trials were heterogeneous in the participants recruited, in the number of dietary components and follow-up periods. Seven trials described the intervention as a Mediterranean diet. Clinical events were reported in only one trial (Women's Health Initiative 48,835 postmenopausal women, intervention not described as a Mediterranean diet but increased fruit and vegetable and cereal intake) where no statistically significant effects of the intervention were seen on fatal and non-fatal endpoints at eight years. Small reductions in total cholesterol (-0.16 mmol/L, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.26 to -0.06; random-effects model) and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol (-0.07 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.13 to -0.01) were seen with the intervention. Subgroup analyses revealed statistically significant greater reductions in total cholesterol in those trials describing the intervention as a Mediterranean diet (-0.23 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.27 to -0.2) compared with control (-0.06 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.01). Heterogeneity precluded meta-analyses for other outcomes. Reductions in blood pressure were seen in three of five trials reporting this outcome. None of the trials reported adverse events.\ud \ud Authors' conclusions: The limited evidence to date suggests some favourable effects on cardiovascular risk factors. More comprehensive interventions describing themselves as the Mediterranean diet may produce more beneficial effects on lipid levels than those interventions with fewer dietary components. More trials are needed to examine the impact of heterogeneity of both participants and the intervention on outcomes.

Background: There is increasing evidence that both green and black tea are beneficial for cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention. \ud \ud Objectives: To determine the effects of green and black tea on the primary prevention of CVD. \ud \ud Search methods: We searched the following databases on 12 October 2012 without language restrictions: CENTRAL in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (OVID), EMBASE (OVID) and Web of Science (Thomson Reuters). We also searched trial registers, screened reference lists and contacted authors for additional information where necessary. \ud \ud Selection criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) lasting at least three months involving healthy adults or those at high risk of CVD. Trials investigated the intake of green tea, black tea or tea extracts. The comparison group was no intervention, placebo or minimal intervention. The outcomes of interest were CVD clinical events and major CVD risk factors. Any trials involving multifactorial lifestyle interventions or focusing on weight loss were excluded to avoid confounding. \ud \ud Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, abstracted data and assessed the risk of bias. Trials of green tea were analysed separately from trials of black tea. \ud \ud Main results: We identified 11 RCTs with a total of 821 participants, two trials awaiting classification and one ongoing trial. Seven trials examined a green tea intervention and four examined a black tea intervention. Dosage and form of both green and black tea differed between trials. The ongoing trial is examining the effects of green tea powder capsules. \ud \ud No studies reported cardiovascular events. \ud \ud Black tea was found to produce statistically significant reductions in low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol (mean difference (MD) -0.43 mmol/L, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.56 to -0.31) and blood pressure (systolic blood pressure (SBP): MD -1.85 mmHg, 95% CI -3.21 to -0.48. Diastolic blood pressure (DBP): MD -1.27 mmHg, 95% CI -3.06 to 0.53) over six months, stable to sensitivity analysis, but only a small number of trials contributed to each analysis and studies were at risk of bias. \ud \ud Green tea was also found to produce statistically significant reductions in total cholesterol (MD -0.62 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.77 to - 0.46), LDL cholesterol (MD -0.64 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.77 to -0.52) and blood pressure (SBP: MD -3.18 mmHg, 95% CI -5.25 to - 1.11; DBP: MD -3.42, 95% CI -4.54 to -2.30), but only a small number of studies contributed to each analysis, and results were not stable to sensitivity analysis. When both tea types were analysed together they showed favourable effects on LDL cholesterol (MD - 0.48 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.61 to -0.35) and blood pressure (SBP: MD -2.25 mmHg, 95% CI -3.39 to -1.11; DBP: MD -2.81 mmHg, 95% CI -3.77 to -1.86). Adverse events were measured in five trials and included a diagnosis of prostate cancer, hospitalisation for influenza, appendicitis and retinal detachment but these are unlikely to be directly attributable to the intervention. \ud \ud Authors' conclusions: There are very few long-term studies to date examining green or black tea for the primary prevention of CVD. The limited evidence suggests that tea has favourable effects on CVD risk factors, but due to the small number of trials contributing to each analysis the results should be treated with some caution and further high quality trials with longer-term follow-up are needed to confirm this.

Intervention protocol - To determine the effectiveness of qigong for the primary prevention of CVD.

Background:\ud Selenium is a key component of a number of selenoproteins which protect against oxidative stress and have the potential to prevent chronic diseases including cardiovascular disease (CVD). However, observational studies have shown inconsistent associations between selenium intake and CVD risk; in addition, there is concern around a possible increased risk of type 2 diabetes with high selenium exposure.\ud Objectives:\ud To determine the effectiveness of selenium only supplementation for the primary prevention of CVD and examine the potential adverse effect of type 2 diabetes.\ud Search methods:\ud The following electronic databases were searched: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Issue 10 of 12, October 2012) on The Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (Ovid) (1946 to week 2 October 2012); EMBASE Classic + EMBASE (Ovid) (1947 to 2012 Week 42); CINAHL (EBSCO) (to 24 October 2012); ISI Web of Science (1970 to 24 October 2012); PsycINFO (Ovid) (1806 to week 3 October 2012); Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Health Technology Assessment Database and Health Economics Evaluations Database (Issue 4 of 4, October 2012) on The Cochrane Library. Trial registers and reference lists of reviews and articles were searched and experts in the field were approached. No language restrictions were applied.\ud Selection criteria:\ud Randomised controlled trials on the effects of selenium only supplementation on major CVD end-points, mortality, changes in CVD risk factors, and type 2 diabetes were included both in adults of all ages from the general population and in those at high risk of CVD. Trials were only considered where the comparison group was placebo or no intervention. Only studies with at least three months follow-up were included in the meta-analyses, shorter term studies were dealt with descriptively.\ud Data collection and analysis:\ud Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information.\ud Main results:\ud Twelve trials (seven with duration of at least three months) met the inclusion criteria, with 19,715 participants randomised. The two largest trials that were conducted in the USA (SELECT and NPC) reported clinical events. There were no statistically significant effects of selenium supplementation on all cause mortality (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.08), CVD mortality (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.2), non-fatal CVD events (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.04) or all CVD events (fatal and non-fatal) (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.11). There was a small increased risk of type 2 diabetes with selenium supplementation but this did not reach statistical significance (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.15). Other adverse effects that increased with selenium supplementation, as reported in the SELECT trial, included alopecia (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.62) and dermatitis grade 1 to 2 (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.0 to 1.35). Selenium supplementation reduced total cholesterol but this did not reach statistical significance (WMD - 0.11 mmol/L, 95% CI - 0.3 to 0.07). Mean high density lipoprotein (HDL) levels were unchanged. There was a statistically significant reduction in non-HDL cholesterol (WMD - 0.2 mmol/ L, 95% CI - 0.41 to 0.00) in one trial of varying selenium dosage. None of the longer term trials examined effects on blood pressure. Overall, the included studies were regarded as at low risk of bias.\ud Authors’ conclusions:\ud The limited trial evidence that is available to date does not support the use of selenium supplements in the primary prevention of CVD.

This Cochrane Review has been superseded by a review entitled Vegan dietary pattern for the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular diseases (https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD013501.pub2/full) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33629376/There is increasing evidence that high consumption of fruit and vegetables is beneficial for cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention.The primary objective is to determine the effectiveness of i) advice to increase fruit and vegetable consumption ii) the provision of fruit and vegetables to increase consumption, for the primary prevention of CVD.We searched the following electronic databases: The Cochrane Library (2012, issue 9-CENTRAL, HTA, DARE, NEED), MEDLINE (1946 to week 3 September 2012); EMBASE (1980 to 2012 week 39) and the Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science on ISI Web of Science (5 October 2012). We searched trial registers, screened reference lists and contacted authors for additional information where necessary. No language restrictions were applied.Randomised controlled trials with at least three months follow-up (follow-up was considered to be the time elapsed since the start of the intervention) involving healthy adults or those at high risk of CVD. Trials investigated either advice to increase fruit and vegetable intake (via any source or modality) or the provision of fruit and vegetables to increase intake. The comparison group was no intervention or minimal intervention. Outcomes of interest were CVD clinical events (mortality (CVD and all-cause), myocardial infarction (MI), coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA), angiographically-defined angina pectoris, stroke, carotid endarterectomy, peripheral arterial disease (PAD)) and major CVD risk factors (blood pressure, blood lipids, type 2 diabetes). Trials involving multifactorial lifestyle interventions (including different dietary patterns, exercise) or where the focus was weight loss were excluded to avoid confounding.Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. Trials of provision of fruit and vegetables were analysed separately from trials of dietary advice.We identified 10 trials with a total of 1730 participants randomised, and one ongoing trial. Six trials investigated the provision of fruit and vegetables, and four trials examined advice to increase fruit and vegetable consumption.The ongoing trial is examining the provision of an avocado-rich diet.The number and type of intervention components for provision, and the dietary advice provided differed between trials.None of the trials reported clinical events as they were all relatively short term. There was no strong evidence for effects of individual trials of provision of fruit and vegetables on cardiovascular risk factors, but trials were heterogeneous and short term. Furthermore, five of the six trials only provided one fruit or vegetable. Dietary advice showed some favourable effects on blood pressure (systolic blood pressure (SBP): mean difference (MD) -3.0 mmHg (95% confidence interval (CI) -4.92 to -1.09), diastolic blood pressure (DBP): MD -0.90 mmHg (95% CI -2.03 to 0.24)) and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol but analyses were based on only two trials. Three of the 10 included trials examined adverse effects, which included increased bowel movements, bad breath and body odour.There are very few studies to date examining provision of, or advice to increase the consumption of, fruit and vegetables in the absence of additional dietary interventions or other lifestyle interventions for the primary prevention of CVD. The limited evidence suggests advice to increase fruit and vegetables as a single intervention has favourable effects on CVD risk factors but more trials are needed to confirm this.

Background This is an update of the original review published in 2008. The risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes is increased with influenza-like infection, and vaccination against influenza may improve cardiovascular outcomes. Objectives To assess the potential benefits of influenza vaccination for primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Search methods We searched the following electronic databases on 18 October 2013: The Cochrane Library (including Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Economic Evaluation Database (EED) and Health Technology Assessment database (HTA)), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index Expanded, Conference Proceedings Citation Index – Science and ongoing trials registers (www.controlled-trials.com/ and www.clinicaltrials.gov). We examined reference lists of relevant primary studies and systematic reviews. We performed a limited PubMed search on 20 February 2015, just before publication. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of influenza vaccination compared with placebo or no treatment in participants with or without cardiovascular disease, assessing cardiovascular death or non-fatal cardiovascular events. Data collection and analysis We used standard methodological procedures as expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. We carried out meta-analyses only for cardiovascular death, as other outcomes were reported too infrequently. We expressed effect sizes as risk ratios (RRs), and we used random-effects models. Main results We included eight trials of influenza vaccination compared with placebo or no vaccination, with 12,029 participants receiving at least one vaccination or control treatment. We included six new studies (n = 11,251), in addition to the two included in the previous version of the review. Four of these trials (n = 10,347) focused on prevention of influenza in the general or elderly population and reported cardiovascular outcomes among their safety analyses; four trials (n = 1682) focused on prevention of cardiovascular events in patients with established coronary heart disease. These populations were analysed separately. Follow-up continued between 42 days and one year. Five RCTs showed deficits in at least three of the risk of bias criteria assessed. When reported (seven studies), vaccination provided adequate immunogenicity or protection against influenza. Cardiovascular mortality was reported by four secondary prevention trials and was significantly reduced by influenza vaccination overall (risk ratio (RR) 0.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 0.76; P value 0.003) with no significant heterogeneity between studies, and by three trials reporting cardiovascular mortality as part of their safety analyses when the numbers of events were too small to permit conclusions. In studies of patients with coronary heart disease, composite outcomes of cardiovascular events tended to be decreased with influenza vaccination compared with placebo. Generally no significant difference was found between comparison groups regarding individual outcomes such as myocardial infarction. Authors' conclusions In patients with cardiovascular disease, influenza vaccination may reduce cardiovascular mortality and combined cardiovascular events. However, studies had some risk of bias, and results were not always consistent, so additional higher-quality evidence is necessary to confirm these findings. Not enough evidence was available to establish whether influenza vaccination has a role to play in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease.