No abstract

BACKGROUND Many patients have symptoms suggestive of coronary artery disease (CAD) and are often evaluated with the use of diagnostic testing, although there are limited data from randomized trials to guide care. METHODS We randomly assigned 10,003 symptomatic patients to a strategy of initial anatomical testing with the use of coronary computed tomographic angiography (CTA) or to functional testing (exercise electrocardiography, nuclear stress testing, or stress echocardiography). The composite primary end point was death, myocardial infarction, hospitalization for unstable angina, or major procedural complication. Secondary end points included invasive cardiac catheterization that did not show obstructive CAD and radiation exposure. RESULTS The mean age of the patients was 60.8±8.3 years, 52.7% were women, and 87.7% had chest pain or dyspnea on exertion. The mean pretest likelihood of obstructive CAD was 53.3±21.4%. Over a median follow-up period of 25 months, a primary end-point event occurred in 164 of 4996 patients in the CTA group (3.3%) and in 151 of 5007 (3.0%) in the functional-testing group (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.83 to 1.29; P = 0.75). CTA was associated with fewer catheterizations showing no obstructive CAD than was functional testing (3.4% vs. 4.3%, P = 0.02), although more patients in the CTA group underwent catheterization within 90 days after randomization (12.2% vs. 8.1%). The median cumulative radiation exposure per patient was lower in the CTA group than in the functional-testing group (10.0 mSv vs. 11.3 mSv), but 32.6% of the patients in the functional-testing group had no exposure, so the overall exposure was higher in the CTA group (mean, 12.0 mSv vs. 10.1 mSv; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS In symptomatic patients with suspected CAD who required noninvasive testing, a strategy of initial CTA, as compared with functional testing, did not improve clinical outcomes over a median follow-up of 2 years. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; PROMISE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01174550.)

No abstract

W orldwide, cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the largest single cause of death among women, accounting for one third of all deaths. 1 In many countries, including the United States, more women than men die every year of CVD, a fact largely unknown by physicians. 2,3 The public health impact of CVD in women is not related solely to the mortality rate, given that advances in science and medicine allow many women to survive heart disease. For example, in the United States, 38.2 million women (34%) are living with CVD, and the population at risk is even larger. 2 In China, a country with a population of approximately 1.3 billion, the agestandardized prevalence rates of dyslipidemia and hypertension in women 35 to 74 years of age are 53% and 25%, respectively, which underscores the enormity of CVD as a global health issue and the need for prevention of risk factors in the first place. 4 As life expectancy continues to increase and economies become more industrialized, the burden of CVD on women and the global economy will continue to increase. 5 The human toll and economic impact of CVD are difficult to overstate. In the United States alone, $403 billion was estimated to be spent in 2006 on health care or in lost †Representation does not imply endorsement by the American College of Physicians. The online-only Data Supplement is available with this article at http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.181546/DC1. The American Heart Association makes every effort to avoid any actual or potential conflicts of interest that may arise as a result of an outside relationship or a personal, professional, or business interest of a member of the writing panel. Specifically, all members of the writing group are required to complete and submit a Disclosure Questionnaire showing all such relationships that might be perceived as real or potential conflicts of interest.This statement was approved by the American Heart Association Science Advisory and Coordinating Committee on January 9, 2007. A single reprint is available by calling 800-242-8721 (US only) or writing the American Heart Association, Public Information, 7272 Greenville Ave, Dallas, TX 75231-4596. Ask for reprint No. 71-0401. To purchase additional reprints, call 843-216-2533 or e-mail kelle.ramsay@wolterskluwer.com.This article has been copublished in the March 20, 2007, issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. Expert peer review of AHA Scientific Statements is conducted at the AHA National Center. For more on AHA statements and guidelines development, visit http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifierϭ3023366.Permissions: Multiple copies, modification, alteration, enhancement, and/or distribution of this document are not permitted without the express permission of the American Heart Association. Instructions for obtaining permission are located at http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml? Identifierϭ4431. A link to the "Permission Request Form" appears on the right side of the page.( Fortunately, most CVD in wome...

The PCMH holds promise for improving the experiences of patients and staff and potentially for improving care processes,but current evidence is insufficient to determine effects on clinical and most economic outcomes

BACKGROUNDObservational studies support an association between a low blood 25-hydroxyvitamin D level and the risk of type 2 diabetes. However, whether vitamin D supplementation lowers the risk of diabetes is unknown. METHODSWe randomly assigned adults who met at least two of three glycemic criteria for prediabetes (fasting plasma glucose level, 100 to 125 mg per deciliter; plasma glucose level 2 hours after a 75-g oral glucose load, 140 to 199 mg per deciliter; and glycated hemoglobin level, 5.7 to 6.4%) and no diagnostic criteria for diabetes to receive 4000 IU per day of vitamin D 3 or placebo, regardless of the baseline serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D level. The primary outcome in this time-to-event analysis was new-onset diabetes, and the trial design was event-driven, with a target number of diabetes events of 508. RESULTSA total of 2423 participants underwent randomization (1211 to the vitamin D group and 1212 to the placebo group). By month 24, the mean serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D level in the vitamin D group was 54.3 ng per milliliter (from 27.7 ng per milliliter at baseline), as compared with 28.8 ng per milliliter in the placebo group (from 28.2 ng per milliliter at baseline). After a median follow-up of 2.5 years, the primary outcome of diabetes occurred in 293 participants in the vitamin D group and 323 in the placebo group (9.39 and 10.66 events per 100 person-years, respectively). The hazard ratio for vitamin D as compared with placebo was 0.88 (95% confidence interval, 0.75 to 1.04; P = 0.12). The incidence of adverse events did not differ significantly between the two groups. CONCLUSIONSAmong persons at high risk for type 2 diabetes not selected for vitamin D insufficiency, vitamin D 3 supplementation at a dose of 4000 IU per day did not result in a significantly lower risk of diabetes than placebo. (Funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and others; D2d ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01942694.)A BS TR AC T

Background-The (40%), and stroke (38%) and lowest for heart failure (29%), coronary artery disease (25%), and hyperlipidemia (28%). By contrast, women accounted for 53% of all individuals with hypertension, 50% with diabetes, 51% with heart failure, 49% with hyperlipidemia, and 46% with coronary artery disease. Sex-specific results were discussed in only 31% of primary trial publications. Conclusions-Enrollment of women in randomized clinical trials has increased over time but remains low relative to their overall representation in disease populations. Efforts are needed to reach a level of representation that is adequate to ensure evidence-based sex-specific recommendations. (Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2010;3:135-142.)

Background-Awareness of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk has been linked to taking preventive action in women. The purpose of this study was to assess contemporary awareness of CVD risk and barriers to prevention in a nationally representative sample of women and to evaluate trends since 1997 from similar triennial surveys. Methods and Results-A standardized survey about awareness of CVD risk was completed in 2009 by 1142 women Ն25 years of age, contacted through random digit dialing oversampled for racial/ethnic minorities, and by 1158 women contacted online. There was a significant increase in the proportion of women aware that CVD is the leading cause of death since 1997 (P for trendϭϽ0.0001). Awareness among telephone participants was greater in 2009 compared with 1997 (54% versus 30%, PϽ0.0001) but not different from 2006 (57%). In multivariate analysis, African American and Hispanic women were significantly less aware than white women, although the gap has narrowed since 1997. Only 53% of women said they would call 9-1-1 if they thought they were having symptoms of a heart attack. The majority of women cited therapies to prevent CVD that are not evidence-based. Common barriers to prevention were family/caretaking responsibilities (51%) and confusion in the media (42%). Community-level changes women thought would be helpful were access to healthy foods (91%), public recreation facilities (80%), and nutrition information in restaurants (79%). Conclusions-Awareness of CVD as the leading cause of death among women has nearly doubled since 1997 but is stabilizing and continues to lag in racial/ethnic minorities. Numerous misperceptions and barriers to prevention persist and women strongly favored environmental approaches to facilitate preventive action. (Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2010;3:120-127.)