Overall, deferral of revascularization is equally safe with both iFR and FFR, with a low MACE rate of about 4%. Lesions were more frequently deferred when iFR was used to assess physiological significance. In deferred patients presenting with ACS, the event rate was significantly increased compared with SAP at 1 year.
35Background: There is a pressing need for blood pressure control strategies with improved efficacy and 36 tolerability. We examine whether using ultra-low dose quadruple combination therapy provides an 37 approach with greater efficacy and tolerability. 38
There is a critical need for blood pressure-lowering strategies that have greater efficacy and minimal side effects. Low-dose combinations hold promise in this regard, but there are few data on very-low-dose therapy. We, therefore, conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials with at least one quarter-dose and one placebo and standard-dose monotherapy arm. A search was conducted of Medline, Embase, Cochrane Registry, Food and Drug Administration, and European Medicinal Agency websites. Data on blood pressure and adverse events were pooled using a fixed-effect model, and bias was assessed using Cochrane risk of bias. The review included 42 trials involving 20 284 participants. Thirty-six comparisons evaluated quarter-dose with placebo and indicated a blood pressure reduction of -4.7/-2.4 mm Hg (<0.001). Six comparisons were of dual quarter-dose therapy versus placebo, observing a -6.7/ -4.4 mm Hg (<0.001) blood pressure reduction. There were no trials of triple quarter-dose combination versus placebo, but one quadruple quarter-dose study observed a blood pressure reduction of -22.4/-13.1 mm Hg versus placebo (<0.001). Compared with standard-dose monotherapy, the blood pressure differences achieved by single (37 comparisons), dual (7 comparisons), and quadruple (1 trial) quarter-dose combinations were +3.7/+2.6 (<0.001), +1.3/-0.3 (NS), and -13.1/-7.9 (<0.001) mm Hg, respectively. In terms of adverse events, single and dual quarter-dose therapy was not significantly different from placebo and had significantly fewer adverse events compared with standard-dose monotherapy. Quarter-dose combinations could provide improvements in efficacy and tolerability of blood pressure-lowering therapy.
BackgroundAdverse effects of air pollution on cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality are well established. There are comparatively fewer studies in Europe, and in the UK particularly, than in North America. We examined associations in two British cohorts with > 25 years of follow-up.MethodsAnnual average NO2, SO2 and black smoke (BS) air pollution exposure estimates for 1991 were obtained from land use regression models using contemporaneous monitoring data. From the European Study of Cohorts and Air Pollution (ESCAPE), air pollution estimates in 2010–11 were obtained for NO2, NOx, PM10, PMcoarse and PM2.5. The exposure estimates were assigned to place of residence 1989 for participants in a national birth cohort born in 1946, the MRC National Study of Health and Development (NSHD), and an adult multi-ethnic London cohort, Southall and Brent Revisited (SABRE) recruited 1988–91. The combined median follow-up was 26 years. Single-pollutant competing risk models were employed, adjusting for individual risk factors.ResultsElevated non-significant hazard ratios for CVD mortality were seen with 1991 BS and SO2 and with ESCAPE PM10 and PM2.5 in fully adjusted linear models. Per 10 μg/m3 increase HRs were 1.11 [95% CI: 0.76–1.61] for BS, 1.05 [95% CI: 0.91–1.22] for SO2, 1.16 [95% CI: 0.70–1.92] for PM10 and 1.30 [95% CI: 0.39–4.34] for PM2.5, with largest effects seen in the fourth quartile of BS and PM2.5 compared to the first with HR 1.24 [95% CI: 0.91–1.61] and 1.21 [95% CI: 0.88–1.66] respectively. There were no consistent associations with other ESCAPE pollutants, or with 1991 NO2. Modelling using Cox regression led to similar results.ConclusionOur results support a detrimental long-term effect for air pollutants on cardiovascular mortality.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.