Secondary prevention for coronary artery disease

Abstract

Secondary prevention measures are improving, especially in prophylactic prescribing, lipid management and smoking cessation, although scope for further improvement remains. No difference was seen between the patient subgroups. Lifestyle measures need to be addressed to gain maximum benefit in addressing overall cardiovascular risk.

Cardiovascular Risks of Nonsteroidal Antiinflammatory Drugs in Patients After Hospitalization for Serious Coronary Heart Disease

“…First, these patients have a greater baseline absolute risk and thus small differences in relative risk may be important. Second, approximately 90% of such patients take low dose aspirin, 37,38 which may interact with the NSAID. Third, either recent episodes of acute disease (eg, myocardial infarction) or disease treatment (eg, percutaneous interventions) may alter the cardiac safety of NSAIDs.…”

“…For similar reasons, misclassification of low-dose aspirin use also is likely for the North American sites, although the practical effect of such misclassification should be limited given that an estimated 90% of the cohort will be using low-dose aspirin. 37,38 Hence, the comparisons with naproxen are important, as these misclassification effects should be reduced for between-NSAID comparisons.…”

Comparison of in-hospital secondary prevention for different vascular diseases

“…those reported in a recent survey of outpatients (97%, 59% and 80%) [7]. Most patients had a lipid profile measured and were successively prescribed a corresponding therapy.…”

“…Over the last few years several studies have demonstrated clear improvements in the pharmacological prevention of coronary artery disease [5][6][7]. However, the targets are still not met and the most evident gaps may be found in older people, women, outpatients and diabetics [7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16].…”

“…However, studies testing adherence to these recommendations have been performed very rarely for PAD and CVD [21], and this minor attention might hide a reduced adherence to guidelines [11,13,22]. Moreover, previous research only reports prescription rates of the single preventive drugs, and does not analyze overall medication rates and to which degree patients are prescribed a complete set of recommended drugs [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][22][23].…”