Search

The use of antiplatelet therapy (APT) is prevalent among the general population, sometimes without clear indications. We provided updated figures on the incidence and prognosis of first-ever intracerebral hemorrhage occurring on APT (APT-ICH) over 10 years in a population-based stroke registry and investigated the rates of inappropriate APT prescription. We included all cases of first-ever ICH not on anticoagulants from January 2011 to December 2020 in the district of L'Aquila (Southern Italy). Indication to APT was adjudicated according to 2021 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines for cardiovascular prevention. We included 606 first-ever ICHs, of whom 251 (41.4%) were APT-related. One-hundred-forty-two APT-ICHs (56.6%) occurred in patients without clear indications to APT. While the incidence of non-APT-ICH decreased over time, the incidence of APT-ICH was stable. APT-ICH showed higher 30-day and 1-year case-fatality rates versus non-APT-ICH (44.7% versus 25.6%, 50.6% versus 34.4%; p < 0.001). APT intake was independently associated with higher 30-day case-fatality (HR 1.51, 95%CI 1.03–2.14; p = 0.023). Our findings suggest that APT-ICH exhibits sustained incidence over time and elevated mortality. Urgent initiatives are needed to enhance adherence to established guidelines for APT use. This effort has the potential to mitigate the risk of ICH and to reduce the associated mortality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Vitamin D supplementation has no beneficial effect on self-reported SAMS intensity. • Vitamin D supplementation has no beneficial effect on self-reported HRQoL. • Vitamin D supplementation has no beneficial effect on objective muscle performance. Statins are the leading lipid-lowering drugs, reducing blood cholesterol by controlling its synthesis. Side effects are linked to the use of statins, in particular statin-associated muscle symptoms (SAMS). Some data suggest that vitamin D supplementation could reduce SAMS. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the potential benefits of vitamin D supplementation in a randomized controlled trial. Men (n = 23) and women (n = 15) (50.5 ± 7.7 years [mean ± SD]) in primary cardiovascular prevention, self-reporting or not SAMS, were recruited. Following 2 months of statin withdrawal, patients were randomized to supplementation (vitamin D or placebo). After 1 month of supplementation, statins were reintroduced. Before and 2 months after drug reintroduction, muscle damage (creatine kinase and myoglobin) was measured. Force (F), endurance (E) and power (P) of the leg extensors (ext) and flexors (fle) and handgrip strength (FHG) were also measured with isokinetic and handheld dynamometers, respectively. The Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36) questionnaire and a visual analog scale (VAS) were administrated to assess participants' self-reported health-related quality of life and SAMS intensity, respectively. Repeated-measures analysis was used to investigate the effects of time, supplementation, and their interaction, according to the presence of SAMS. Despite no change for objective measures, subjective measures worsened after reintroduction of statins, independent of supplementation (VAS, SF-36 mental component score, all p < 0.05). However, no interaction between time and supplementation according to the presence of SAMS was observed for any variables. Vitamin D supplementation does not appear to mitigate SAMS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: While some work has been done on Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) in statin users, none has focused specifically on statin-associated muscle symptoms (SAMS) sufferers. The objective was to assess self-reported HRQoL, before and after statin withdrawal, in patients reporting SAMS. We hypothesized that the presence of SAMS associated with decreased self-reported physical and mental well-being. Methods: Patients (50 men/28 women [M/W], aged 49 ± 9 years [Mean ± SD]) in primary cardiovascular prevention were recruited into three cohorts: statin users with (SAMS, 29 M/18W) or without symptoms (No SAMS, 10 M/5W) and controls (11 M/5W). The Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36) was used to assess HRQoL. All variables were measured before and after 2 months of statin withdrawal, and repeated measures analyses were used to verify withdrawal and group effects as well as their interaction. Results: SF-36 physical and mental component scores (respectively, PCS and MCS) were lower in the SAMS group compared with other groups (both p < 0.01). Statin withdrawal led to an increase in LDL cholesterol for statin users (+69.0%, p < 0.01) and an improvement in well-being in the SAMS group, other groups showing no change. A time x category interaction (p = 0.02) was seen for PCS and post hoc analyses showed that statin withdrawal improved PCS and MCS (respectively, +12.5% [ES 0.77] and +5.1% [ES 0.27], both p < 0.05) in the SAMS group. Conclusion: Patients self-reporting SAMS showed improved HRQoL following drug withdrawal, but this was mirrored by a rise in LDL cholesterol. These findings should be considered by clinicians in the evaluation and follow-up of treatment with statins. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is a pandemic of physical inactivity that appears to parallel the widespread prevalence of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Yet, regular physical activity (PA) and exercise can play an important role not only in primary cardiovascular prevention but also in secondary prevention. This review discusses some of the main cardiovascular effects of PA/exercise and the mechanisms involved, including a healthier metabolic milieu with attenuation of systemic chronic inflammation, as well as adaptations at the vascular (antiatherogenic effects) and heart tissue (myocardial regeneration and cardioprotection) levels. The current evidence for safe implementation of PA and exercise in patients with CVD is also summarized. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains a major challenge, especially in communities of low- and middle-income countries with poor medical assistance influenced by distinct local, financial, infrastructural, and resource-related factors. Objective: This a community-based study aimed to determine the proportion and prevalence of uncontrolled cardiovascular risk factors (CRF) in Brazilian communities. Methods: The EPICO study was an observational, cross-sectional, and community clinic-based study. Subjects were living in Brazilian communities and were of both sexes and ≥18 years old, without a history of a stroke or myocardial infarction but presenting at least one of the following cardiovascular risk factors: hypertension, diabetes mellitus and hypercholesterolemia. The study was carried out in Brazil, including 322 basic health units (BHU) in 32 cities. Results: A total of 7,724 subjects with at least one CRF were evaluated, and one clinical visit was performed. Mean age was 59.2 years-old (53.7% were >60 years old). A total of 66.7% were women. Of the total, 96.2% had hypertension, 78.8% had diabetes mellitus type II, 71.1% had dyslipidemia, and 76.6% of patients were overweight/obese. Controlled hypertension (defined by

Abstract Background Aspirin at low doses has been reported to be a potential drug candidate to treat or prevent severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19). Objectives We aimed to explore whether low‐dose aspirin used for primary cardiovascular prevention was associated with a lower risk of severe COVID‐19. Method A large cohort of patients without known cardiovascular comorbidities was constructed from the entire French population registered in national health care databases. In total, 31.1 million patients aged ≥40 years, including 1.5 million reimbursed for low‐dose aspirin at least at three time points during the 6 months before the epidemic, were followed until hospitalization with a COVID‐19 diagnosis or intubation/death for hospitalized patients. Results Cox models adjusted for age and sex showed a positive association between low‐dose aspirin and the risk of hospitalization (hazard ratio [HR], 1.33; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.29‐1.37]) or death/intubation (HR, 1.40 [95% CI, 1.33‐1.47]). In fully adjusted models, associations were close to null (HR, 1.03 [95% CI, 1.00‐1.06] and 1.04 [95% CI, 0.98‐1.10], respectively). Conclusion There was no evidence for an effect of low‐dose aspirin for primary cardiovascular prevention in reducing severe COVID‐19.

Background translation of the available evidence concerning primary cardiovascular prevention into clinical guidance for the heterogeneous population of older adults is challenging. With this review, we aimed to give an overview of the thresholds and targets of antihypertensive drug therapy for older adults in currently used guidelines on primary cardiovascular prevention. Secondly, we evaluated the relationship between the advised targets and guideline characteristics, including guideline quality. Methods we systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Emcare and five guideline databases. We selected guidelines with (i) numerical thresholds for the initiation or target values of antihypertensive drug therapy in context of primary prevention (January 2008–July 2020) and (ii) specific advice concerning antihypertensive drug therapy in older adults. We extracted the recommendations and appraised the quality of included guidelines with the AGREE II instrument. Results thirty-four guidelines provided recommendations concerning antihypertensive drug therapy in older adults. Twenty advised a higher target of systolic blood pressure (SBP) for octogenarians in comparison with the general population and three advised a lower target. Over half of the guidelines (n  = 18) recommended to target a SBP <150 mmHg in the oldest old, while four endorsed targets of SBP lower than 130 or 120 mmHg. Although many guidelines acknowledged frailty, only three gave specific thresholds and targets. Guideline characteristics, including methodological quality, were not related with the recommended targets. Conclusion the ongoing debate concerning targets of antihypertensive treatment in older adults, is reflected in an inconsistency of recommendations across guidelines. Recommended targets are largely set on chronological rather than biological age. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is well established that people with diabetes mellitus (DM) are at increased risk of cardiovascular disease compared with those without DM. Although the protective role of aspirin in secondary prevention is well documented, its role in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in people with DM is unclear, even after publication of the results of major clinical trials and meta-analyses. The observed discrepancies may be explained in part by the differences between the study populations in terms of the background cardiovascular risks, age and gender, and the follow-up periods. Recently, the results of the ASCEND (A Study of Cardiovascular Events in People with Diabetes) trial in people with DM documented the cardiovascular benefit of aspirin for primary prevention, but with an increased risk of bleeding that might outweigh the observed cardiovascular benefit. The current guidelines, therefore, recommend its use for primary prevention in people with and without DM under specific circumstances. This review summarizes the current literature on the place of aspirin in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in people with DM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The 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.

It is well established that people with diabetes are at an increased risk of cardiovascular disease compared with those without diabetes. Although the protective role of aspirin in secondary prevention is well documented, its role in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in people with diabetes, after the results of major clinical trials and meta-analyses, is unclear. The observed discrepancies might be explained in part in terms of the differences between the background cardiovascular risks, follow-up periods, age and gender of the study populations. Recently, the results of the ASCEND trial in people with diabetes documented the cardiovascular benefit of aspirin for primary prevention, but with an increased risk of bleeding that might outweigh the observed cardiovascular benefit. Therefore, current guidelines recommend its use for primary prevention in people with and without diabetes under specific circumstances. The purpose of the present review is to summarize the existing literature data regarding the place that aspirin has in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in people with diabetes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Patients with heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HeFH) present elevated cardiovascular (CV) risk. Current CV risk stratification algorithms developed for the general population are not adapted for heFH patients. It is therefore of singular importance to develop and validate CV prediction tools, which are dedicated to the HeFH population. Our first objective was to validate the Spanish SAFEHEART-risk equation (RE) in the French HeFH cohort (REFERCHOL), and the second to compare SAFEHEART-RE with the low-density-lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C)-year-score for the prediction of CV events in the HeFH French population. We included HeFH (n = 1473) patients with a genetic or clinical diagnosis (DLCN score ≥8). Among them, 512 patients with a 5-year follow-up were included to validate the 5 year-CV-RE. A total of 152 events (10.3%) occurred in the entire population of 1473 patients during a mean follow-up of 3.9 years. Over the five-year follow-up, non-fatal CV events occurred in 103 patients (20.2%). Almost all the parameters used in the SAFEHEART-RE were confirmed as strong predictors of CV events in the REFERCHOL cohort. The C-statistic revealed a satisfactory performance of both the SAFEHEART-RE and LDL-C-year-scores in predicting CV events for all the patients (primary and secondary prevention) (C-index 0.77 and 0.70, respectively) as well as for those in primary prevention at inclusion (C-index 0.78 and 0.77, respectively). This analysis represents the first external validation of the SAFEHEART-RE and demonstrated that both SAFEHEART-RE and the LDL-C-year-score are good predictors of CV events in primary prevention HeFH patients. SAFEHEART-RE and LDL-C-year score are good predictors of CV events in patients with heterozygous Familial Hypercholesterolemia in primary prevention (left ROC curves) and in primary and secondary prevention (right ROC curves). Image 1 • SAFEHEART-risk equation can now be used in other European population of HeFH patients to predict CV events. • The cholesterol-year-score is a robust predictor of CV events in HeFH patients. • SAFEHEART-RE and the cholesterol-year-score are valid in primary prevention heFH patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose Of Review: People with diabetes are at a higher risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) compared with those without diabetes. Though aspirin has been shown to have an overall net clinical benefit when used for secondary prevention of ASCVD in people with and without diabetes, the evidence for primary prevention, especially in those with diabetes, remains inconsistent. In this article, we review the latest studies examining the risks and benefits of aspirin use for primary prevention of ASCVD in adults with diabetes, discuss key aspects in assessing the risk-benefit ratio of aspirin use for primary prevention of ASCVD, and summarize current guidelines from professional societies on aspirin use for primary prevention in adults with diabetes.Recent Findings: In the general population, past studies have shown no difference in the beneficial effect of aspirin for primary cardiovascular disease prevention by diabetes status. However, several randomized controlled studies and meta-analyses in adults with diabetes have shown lack of net clinical benefit of aspirin use for primary prevention of ASCVD. The recent ASCEND trial documented cardiovascular benefit of aspirin for primary prevention in adults with diabetes but suggested that the increased risk of bleeding may outweigh the cardiovascular benefit. The decision to initiate aspirin for primary prevention of ASCVD must be considered carefully on an individual basis to balance the cardiovascular benefit and bleeding risk in all patients, especially those with diabetes. A multifactorial approach that focuses on managing ASCVD risk factors such as hypertension, dyslipidemia, dysglycemia, and smoking is recommended in all patients. More research is needed to identify subgroups of people with diabetes who are more likely to benefit from aspirin use for primary prevention of ASCVD and develop better antithrombotic strategies that shift the risk-benefit balance toward an overall net clinical benefit. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

AimWe investigated whether the risk estimates of General Practitioners (GPs) and their treatment decisions mutually influence each other and whether factors not related to the patient's risk, such as the gender and length in clinical practice, interact.BackgroundThe quantitative assessment of the absolute risk of developing coronary heart disease (CHD) and the decision to start treatment with lipid-lowering drugs are crucial tasks in the primary prevention of CHD.MethodsNine clinical vignettes, four rated high-risk and five rated low-risk according to the Framingham equation, were mailed to three groups of 90 randomly selected GPs in Stockholm. One group (R) was asked to estimate the risk of CHD within 10 years on a visual analogue scale. A second group (R + D) was asked to estimate the risk and to specify whether they would recommend a pharmacological lipid-lowering treatment. A third group (D) only to indicate whether they would recommend treatment.ResultsResponse rate ranged from 42.2% to 45.6%. The median risk estimates were higher in the R group than in the R + D group (difference not statistically significant). R + D group showed higher proportions of correct decisions to start treatment compared with the R group (86.2% versus 77.5%, P = 0.19). More correct decisions were made by female doctors (OR 1.77, 95% CI 1.19–2.61, P = 0.004) and by less experienced doctors (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.95–0.99, P = 0.016).ConclusionsThe task of making CHD risk estimates and the task of making decisions whether to start lipid-lowering treatment do not seem to influence each other. The gender of physicians and the length of clinical experience seem to affect treatment decisions. Female GPs and less experienced GPs are more likely to make correct decisions. However, the relatively low response rate to the questionnaires may limit the generalizability of these results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background: Current European guidelines for coronary heart diseases (CHD) prevention recommend to base any intervention on individual''s global risk evaluation. An extensive survey was conducted to evaluate the ten-year CHD risk of the general population of Abruzzo, Italy. Methods: In 2007, all regional general practitioners (GPs) received educational intervention; software allowing immediate risk calculation and data transmission to the Region; economic incentives for participation. Results: Overall, 78.6% of all GPs (n =873) assessed and reported the CHD risk of 155,900 individuals (31.6% of the population aged 40–69 years with no history of CHD). Ninety seven GPs sent data on >90% of their patients (n =47,120), and analyses were based upon this restricted sample with lower potential for selection bias. According to Italian CUORE risk-scoring chart, the estimated prevalence of high-risk (> =20%) subjects for CHD was 5.0% (males=8.5%; females=1.6%). According to European SCORE chart, the estimated prevalence of subjects at high risk (> =5%) for fatal CHD was 8.6% (males=15.0%; females=2.3%). The agreement between SCORE and CUORE methods was moderate (kappa=0.51). Conclusions: Beyond epidemiological significance, the composite approach of the survey represents a promising intervention of CHD prevention, as almost one third of the target population was evaluated by GPs with subsequent implications for clinical practice. Among the key reasons for the high participation rate, educational interventions and economic incentives played a role, but software characteristics may have been crucial. Because no individual aged 40–49 years was considered at high risk using both CUORE and SCORE charts, their widespread use in such age class deserves discussion. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Background: Quantitative assessment of an individual''s absolute cardiovascular risk is essential for primary prevention. Although risk-scoring tools have been developed for this task, risk estimates are usually made subjectively. We investigated whether general practitioners (GPs), internists and cardiologists differ in their quantitative estimates of cardiovascular risk and their recommendations about lipid-lowering treatment for the same set of patients. Methods: Mail survey. Nine written clinical vignettes, four rated high-risk and five rated low-risk according to the Framingham equation, were mailed to 90 randomly selected GPs and to the same number of internists and cardiologists in Sicily. The doctors were then asked to estimate the 10-year coronary risk in each case and to decide whether they would recommend a lipid-lowering treatment. Results: In the majority of the nine cases, the cardiologists'' risk estimates were significantly lower than those of the other two groups. A higher proportion of internists (mean value 0.68) decided to start treatment than GPs (0.54) or cardiologists (0.57). In all three groups, the doctors'' willingness to begin treatment was over 90% when their risk estimate was above 20%, and less than 50% when it fell below this level. Internists were more prone to treat than the other two groups even when their patients'' estimated risk was below 20%. Conclusion: When presented with the same set of clinical cases, GPs, internists and cardiologists make different quantitative risk estimates and come to different conclusions about the need for lipid-lowering treatment. This may result in over- or under-prescription of lipid-lowering drugs and inconsistencies in the care provided by different categories of doctors. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

The aim of this study was to assess the interventions by general practitioners on cardiovascular risk factors among persons without a history of cardiovascular disease attending for a cardiovascular check-up. All inhabitants of three Belgian towns aged between 45 and 64 years were invited for a cardiovascular check-up and blood test. Of all the attending persons without a history of cardiovascular disease (n = 898), 51% received at least one prescription, diet or health advice: 28% for hyperlipidaemia, 23% for physical activity, 22% for caloric intake, 9% for blood sugar, 5% for blood pressure and 4% for smoking. Interventions on lipoproteins, blood sugar and smoking habits were significantly more often proposed to persons with a medium or high cardiovascular risk compared to those at low cardiovascular risk. For persons at low cardiovascular risk, therapeutic lifestyle changes are often not advised, and isolated risk factors often remain untreated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is well established that people with diabetes are at an increased risk of cardiovascular disease compared with those without diabetes. Although the protective role of aspirin in secondary prevention is well documented, its role in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in people with diabetes, after the results of major clinical trials and meta-analyses, is unclear. The observed discrepancies might be explained in part in terms of the differences between the background cardiovascular risks, follow-up periods, age and gender of the study populations. Recently, the results of the ASCEND trial in people with diabetes documented the cardiovascular benefit of aspirin for primary prevention, but with an increased risk of bleeding that might outweigh the observed cardiovascular benefit. Therefore, current guidelines recommend its use for primary prevention in people with and without diabetes under specific circumstances. The purpose of the present review is to summarize the existing literature data regarding the place that aspirin has in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in people with diabetes., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright: © 2021 Termedia & Banach.)