Objective To evaluate the clinical benefit of lipid lowering drug treatment in patients with and without diabetes mellitus, for primary and secondary prevention. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources Cochrane, Medline, Embase, and reference lists up to April 2004. Study selection Randomised, placebo controlled, double blind trials with a follow-up of at least three years that evaluated lipid lowering drug treatment in patients with and without diabetes mellitus. Data extraction Two independent reviewers extracted data. The primary outcome was major coronary events defined as coronary heart disease death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, or myocardial revascularisation procedures. Results Twelve studies were included. Lipid lowering drug treatment was found to be at least as effective in diabetic patients as in non-diabetic patients. In primary prevention, the risk reduction for major coronary events was 21% (95% confidence interval 11% to 30%; P < 0.0001) in diabetic patients and 23% (12% to 33%; P = 0.0003) in non-diabetic patients. In secondary prevention, the corresponding risk reductions were 21% (10% to 31%; P = 0.0005) and 23% (19% to 26%; P ≤ 0.00001). However, the absolute risk difference was three times higher in secondary prevention. When results were adjusted for baseline risk, diabetic patients benefited more in both primary and secondary prevention. Blood lipids were reduced to a similar degree in both groups. Conclusions The evidence that lipid lowering drug treatment (especially statins) significantly reduce cardiovascular risk in diabetic and non-diabetic patients is strong and suggests that diabetic patients benefit more, in both primary and secondary prevention. Future research should define the threshold for treatment of these patients and the desired target lipid concentrations, especially for primary prevention.

No abstract

No abstract

Atrial fibrillation is the most frequently occurring sustained cardiac arrhythmia and is associated with a significantly increased risk of thromboembolic events and death. We sought to compare the clinical efficacy of rate and rhythm control strategies in patients with non-postoperative atrial fibrillation. We searched the PubMed database and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomized controlled trials comparing rate versus rhythm control in patients with atrial fibrillation. Studies were retrieved and we analysed major clinical outcomes. Risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals were calculated assuming random effects due to the clinical heterogeneity of the study populations. Eight randomized controlled trials were identified, with a total of 7499 patients with atrial fibrillation. There were no significant differences in the effects of rate and rhythm control on any outcome: all-cause mortality (RR: 0.95; CI: 0.86-1.05), cardiovascular mortality (RR: 0.99; CI: 0.87-1.13), arrhythmic/sudden death (RR: 1.12; CI: 0.91-1.38), ischaemic stroke (RR: 0.89; CI: 0.52-1.53), systemic embolism (RR: 0.89; CI: 0.69-1.14) and major bleeding (RR: 1.10; CI: 0.89-1.36). Updated data pooled from a large population of patients with atrial fibrillation suggests that rate and rhythm control strategies have similar effects on major clinical outcomes. Other factors, including individual preferences, comorbidities, drug tolerance and cost issues, should be considered when choosing the approach for these patients.

ObjectiveDespite the progression of treatments over decades, heart failure (HF) is a disease with high morbidity, mortality and economic burden. Influenza infection is an important trigger for cardiovascular (CV) events, including HF. Influenza vaccination has been seen to reduce the risk of CV mortality in patients with coronary disease, but the effect in patients with HF is still unclear. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review to evaluate the effect of influenza vaccination in the morbimortality of patients with HF.MethodsMEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Health Technology Assessment and PsycINFO databases (December 2018) were searched for longitudinal studies evaluating influenza vaccination compared with a non-vaccination control group in patients with HF. The risk of bias was assessed according to the ROBINS-I tool. We performed a random-effects meta-analysis to estimate the pooled HRs with 95% CIs, and heterogeneity was evaluated using the I2 statistics.ResultsSix cohort studies evaluating 179 158 patients with HF were included in the meta-analysis. Influenza vaccination was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality (HR=0.83; 95% CI 0.76 to 0.91; I2=75%). The effect of the influenza vaccination was not statistically significant in a pooled analysis of CV mortality (HR=0.92, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.15; 2 studies) and of all-cause hospitalisations (HR=1.01, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.11; 2 studies). The majority of outcomes in the included studies had a serious risk of bias and almost all evaluated outcomes had very low Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) evidence.ConclusionsInfluenza vaccination was associated with a significant decrease in all-cause mortality risk in patients with HF.

ACE inhibitor rechallenge should be discouraged in patients with previous intolerance to ACE inhibitors due to a higher risk of cough. ARBs had cough and angioedema incidences similar to placebo. Despite a significantly higher incidence of hypotension, renal dysfunction and hyperkalemia, discontinuation of ARBs was similar to placebo.

The non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) were approved for non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) but this term may be misnomer. Thus, the term non-mechanical and rheumatic mitral valvular (non-MARM) AF was proposed to exclude patients with valvular heart disease (VHD) without contraindications for NOACs. We aimed to review the efficacy and safety of NOACs in patients with AF and VHD compared to Vitamin K Antagonists (VKA). We performed a systematic review with meta-analysis (PROSPERO CRD42015024837) including data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) retrieved in November 2016. The efficacy and safety data were pooled using random-effects meta-analyses using the hazard ratio (HR) with the 95% confidence interval (95%CI). Trial sequential analysis (TSA) was performed in statistical significant results to evaluate whether cumulative sample size was powered for the obtained effect. In 5 RCTs (with 12 653 VHD AF patients), NOACs significantly reduced the risk of stroke and systemic embolism (HR 0.73, 95%CI:0.60-0.90; TSA showed estimate was robust - O'Brien-Fleming α-spending boundary crossed before reaching the estimated information size) and intracranial hemorrhage (HR 0.45, 95%CI:0.24-0.87) compared with VKA. Major bleeding risk was not significantly different. In patients with bioprosthesis (3 trials-280 patients) the risks of thromboembolism (HR 0.65, 95%CI:0.20-2.08) and major bleeding (HR 0.94, 95%CI:0.28-3.18) with NOACs were similar to VKA. NOACs are efficacious and safe in patients with non-MARM VHD AF, showing significant reduction in the risk of stroke and systemic embolism and intracranial hemorrage compared with VKA.

MCE detected abnormal perfusion reserve in patients with SCD, which correlated with systolic function indices. This suggests that perfusion plays a role in SCD ventricular dysfunction.