-
Journal of the American College of... Jan 2022The guideline for coronary artery revascularization replaces the 2011 coronary artery bypass graft surgery and the 2011 and 2015 percutaneous coronary intervention...
2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Coronary Artery Revascularization: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.
AIM
The guideline for coronary artery revascularization replaces the 2011 coronary artery bypass graft surgery and the 2011 and 2015 percutaneous coronary intervention guidelines, providing a patient-centric approach to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with significant coronary artery disease undergoing coronary revascularization as well as the supporting documentation to encourage their use.
METHODS
A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2019 to September 2019, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, CINHL Complete, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2021, were also considered.
STRUCTURE
Coronary artery disease remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. Coronary revascularization is an important therapeutic option when managing patients with coronary artery disease. The 2021 coronary artery revascularization guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with coronary artery disease who are being considered for coronary revascularization, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests.
Topics: American Heart Association; Cardiology; Coronary Artery Disease; Humans; Myocardial Revascularization; United States
PubMed: 34895950
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2021.09.006 -
Immunity, Inflammation and Disease Mar 2023Since publishing successful clinical trial results of mRNA coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines in December 2020, multiple reports have arisen about... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
Since publishing successful clinical trial results of mRNA coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines in December 2020, multiple reports have arisen about cardiovascular complications following the mRNA vaccination. This study provides an in-depth account of various cardiovascular adverse events reported after the mRNA vaccines' first or second dose including pericarditis/myopericarditis, myocarditis, hypotension, hypertension, arrhythmia, cardiogenic shock, stroke, myocardial infarction/STEMI, intracranial hemorrhage, thrombosis (deep vein thrombosis, cerebral venous thrombosis, arterial or venous thrombotic events, portal vein thrombosis, coronary thrombosis, microvascular small bowel thrombosis), and pulmonary embolism.
METHODS
A systematic review of original studies reporting confirmed cardiovascular manifestations post-mRNA COVID-19 vaccination was performed. Following the PRISMA guidelines, electronic databases (PubMed, PMC NCBI, and Cochrane Library) were searched until January 2022. Baseline characteristics of patients and disease outcomes were extracted from relevant studies.
RESULTS
A total of 81 articles analyzed confirmed cardiovascular complications post-COVID-19 mRNA vaccines in 17,636 individuals and reported 284 deaths with any mRNA vaccine. Of 17,636 cardiovascular events with any mRNA vaccine, 17,192 were observed with the BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) vaccine, 444 events with mRNA-1273 (Moderna). Thrombosis was frequently reported with any mRNA vaccine (n = 13,936), followed by stroke (n = 758), myocarditis (n = 511), myocardial infarction (n = 377), pulmonary embolism (n = 301), and arrhythmia (n = 254). Stratifying the results by vaccine type showed that thrombosis (80.8%) was common in the BNT162b2 cohort, while stroke (39.9%) was common with mRNA-1273 for any dose. The time between the vaccination dosage and the first symptom onset averaged 5.6 and 4.8 days with the mRNA-1273 vaccine and BNT162b2, respectively. The mRNA-1273 cohort reported 56 deaths compared to the 228 with BNT162b2, while the rest were discharged or transferred to the ICU.
CONCLUSION
Available literature includes more studies with the BNT162b2 vaccine than mRNA-1273. Future studies must report mortality and adverse cardiovascular events by vaccine types.
Topics: Humans; 2019-nCoV Vaccine mRNA-1273; BNT162 Vaccine; COVID-19; COVID-19 Vaccines; Myocardial Infarction; Myocarditis; Pulmonary Embolism; Stroke; Thrombocytopenia; Thrombosis
PubMed: 36988252
DOI: 10.1002/iid3.807 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2021Coronary heart disease (CHD) is the most common cause of death globally. However, with falling CHD mortality rates, an increasing number of people living with CHD may... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Coronary heart disease (CHD) is the most common cause of death globally. However, with falling CHD mortality rates, an increasing number of people living with CHD may need support to manage their symptoms and prognosis. Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) aims to improve the health and outcomes of people with CHD. This is an update of a Cochrane Review previously published in 2016.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of exercise-based CR (exercise training alone or in combination with psychosocial or educational interventions) compared with 'no exercise' control, on mortality, morbidity and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in people with CHD.
SEARCH METHODS
We updated searches from the previous Cochrane Review, by searching CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two other databases in September 2020. We also searched two clinical trials registers in June 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of exercise-based interventions with at least six months' follow-up, compared with 'no exercise' control. The study population comprised adult men and women who have had a myocardial infarction (MI), coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), or have angina pectoris, or coronary artery disease.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We screened all identified references, extracted data and assessed risk of bias according to Cochrane methods. We stratified meta-analysis by duration of follow-up: short-term (6 to 12 months); medium-term (> 12 to 36 months); and long-term ( > 3 years), and used meta-regression to explore potential treatment effect modifiers. We used GRADE for primary outcomes at 6 to 12 months (the most common follow-up time point). MAIN RESULTS: This review included 85 trials which randomised 23,430 people with CHD. This latest update identified 22 new trials (7795 participants). The population included predominantly post-MI and post-revascularisation patients, with a mean age ranging from 47 to 77 years. In the last decade, the median percentage of women with CHD has increased from 11% to 17%, but females still account for a similarly small percentage of participants recruited overall ( < 15%). Twenty-one of the included trials were performed in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Overall trial reporting was poor, although there was evidence of an improvement in quality over the last decade. The median longest follow-up time was 12 months (range 6 months to 19 years). At short-term follow-up (6 to 12 months), exercise-based CR likely results in a slight reduction in all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 1.04; 25 trials; moderate certainty evidence), a large reduction in MI (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.93; 22 trials; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 75, 95% CI 47 to 298; high certainty evidence), and a large reduction in all-cause hospitalisation (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.77; 14 trials; NNTB 12, 95% CI 9 to 21; moderate certainty evidence). Exercise-based CR likely results in little to no difference in risk of cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.14; 15 trials; moderate certainty evidence), CABG (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.27; 20 trials; high certainty evidence), and PCI (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.19; 13 trials; moderate certainty evidence) up to 12 months' follow-up. We are uncertain about the effects of exercise-based CR on cardiovascular hospitalisation, with a wide confidence interval including considerable benefit as well as harm (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.59; low certainty evidence). There was evidence of substantial heterogeneity across trials for cardiovascular hospitalisations (I = 53%), and of small study bias for all-cause hospitalisation, but not for all other outcomes. At medium-term follow-up, although there may be little to no difference in all-cause mortality (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.02; 15 trials), MI (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.27; 12 trials), PCI (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.35; 6 trials), CABG (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.23; 9 trials), and all-cause hospitalisation (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.03; 9 trials), a large reduction in cardiovascular mortality was found (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.93; 5 trials). Evidence is uncertain for difference in risk of cardiovascular hospitalisation (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.12; 3 trials). At long-term follow-up, although there may be little to no difference in all-cause mortality (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.10), exercise-based CR may result in a large reduction in cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.78; 8 trials) and MI (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.90; 10 trials). Evidence is uncertain for CABG (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.27; 4 trials), and PCI (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.20; 3 trials). Meta-regression showed benefits in outcomes were independent of CHD case mix, type of CR, exercise dose, follow-up length, publication year, CR setting, study location, sample size or risk of bias. There was evidence that exercise-based CR may slightly increase HRQoL across several subscales (SF-36 mental component, physical functioning, physical performance, general health, vitality, social functioning and mental health scores) up to 12 months' follow-up; however, these may not be clinically important differences. The eight trial-based economic evaluation studies showed exercise-based CR to be a potentially cost-effective use of resources in terms of gain in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This updated Cochrane Review supports the conclusions of the previous version, that exercise-based CR provides important benefits to people with CHD, including reduced risk of MI, a likely small reduction in all-cause mortality, and a large reduction in all-cause hospitalisation, along with associated healthcare costs, and improved HRQoL up to 12 months' follow-up. Over longer-term follow-up, benefits may include reductions in cardiovascular mortality and MI. In the last decade, trials were more likely to include females, and be undertaken in LMICs, increasing the generalisability of findings. Well-designed, adequately-reported RCTs of CR in people with CHD more representative of usual clinical practice are still needed. Trials should explicitly report clinical outcomes, including mortality and hospital admissions, and include validated HRQoL outcome measures, especially over longer-term follow-up, and assess costs and cost-effectiveness.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Cardiac Rehabilitation; Coronary Artery Disease; Exercise; Exercise Therapy; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Myocardial Infarction
PubMed: 34741536
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001800.pub4 -
BMC Cardiovascular Disorders Apr 2023Myocardial infarction (MI) is one of the life-threatening coronary-associated pathologies characterized by sudden cardiac death. The provision of complete insight into... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Myocardial infarction (MI) is one of the life-threatening coronary-associated pathologies characterized by sudden cardiac death. The provision of complete insight into MI complications along with designing a preventive program against MI seems necessary.
METHODS
Various databases (PubMed, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, Scopus, Embase, and Google scholar search engine) were hired for comprehensive searching. The keywords of "Prevalence", "Outbreak", "Burden", "Myocardial Infarction", "Myocardial Infarct", and "Heart Attack" were hired with no time/language restrictions. Collected data were imported into the information management software (EndNote v.8x). Also, citations of all relevant articles were screened manually. The search was updated on 2022.9.13 prior to the publication.
RESULTS
Twenty-two eligible studies with a sample size of 2,982,6717 individuals (< 60 years) were included for data analysis. The global prevalence of MI in individuals < 60 years was found 3.8%. Also, following the assessment of 20 eligible investigations with a sample size of 5,071,185 individuals (> 60 years), this value was detected at 9.5%.
CONCLUSION
Due to the accelerated rate of MI prevalence in older ages, precise attention by patients regarding the complications of MI seems critical. Thus, determination of preventive planning along with the application of safe treatment methods is critical.
Topics: Humans; Myocardial Infarction
PubMed: 37087452
DOI: 10.1186/s12872-023-03231-w -
BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.) Mar 2023To determine the relative efficacy of structured named diet and health behaviour programmes (dietary programmes) for prevention of mortality and major cardiovascular... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Comparison of seven popular structured dietary programmes and risk of mortality and major cardiovascular events in patients at increased cardiovascular risk: systematic review and network meta-analysis.
OBJECTIVE
To determine the relative efficacy of structured named diet and health behaviour programmes (dietary programmes) for prevention of mortality and major cardiovascular events in patients at increased risk of cardiovascular disease.
DESIGN
Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
DATA SOURCES
AMED (Allied and Complementary Medicine Database), CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), Embase, Medline, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched up to September 2021.
STUDY SELECTION
Randomised trials of patients at increased risk of cardiovascular disease that compared dietary programmes with minimal intervention (eg, healthy diet brochure) or alternative programmes with at least nine months of follow-up and reporting on mortality or major cardiovascular events (such as stroke or non-fatal myocardial infarction). In addition to dietary intervention, dietary programmes could also include exercise, behavioural support, and other secondary interventions such as drug treatment.
OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
All cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and individual cardiovascular events (stroke, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and unplanned cardiovascular interventions).
REVIEW METHODS
Pairs of reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. A random effects network meta-analysis was performed using a frequentist approach and grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) methods to determine the certainty of evidence for each outcome.
RESULTS
40 eligible trials were identified with 35 548 participants across seven named dietary programmes (low fat, 18 studies; Mediterranean, 12; very low fat, 6; modified fat, 4; combined low fat and low sodium, 3; Ornish, 3; Pritikin, 1). At last reported follow-up, based on moderate certainty evidence, Mediterranean dietary programmes proved superior to minimal intervention for the prevention of all cause mortality (odds ratio 0.72, 95% confidence interval 0.56 to 0.92; patients at intermediate risk: risk difference 17 fewer per 1000 followed over five years), cardiovascular mortality (0.55, 0.39 to 0.78; 13 fewer per 1000), stroke (0.65, 0.46 to 0.93; 7 fewer per 1000), and non-fatal myocardial infarction (0.48, 0.36 to 0.65; 17 fewer per 1000). Based on moderate certainty evidence, low fat programmes proved superior to minimal intervention for prevention of all cause mortality (0.84, 0.74 to 0.95; 9 fewer per 1000) and non-fatal myocardial infarction (0.77, 0.61 to 0.96; 7 fewer per 1000). The absolute effects for both dietary programmes were more pronounced for patients at high risk. There were no convincing differences between Mediterranean and low fat programmes for mortality or non-fatal myocardial infarction. The five remaining dietary programmes generally had little or no benefit compared with minimal intervention typically based on low to moderate certainty evidence.
CONCLUSIONS
Moderate certainty evidence shows that programmes promoting Mediterranean and low fat diets, with or without physical activity or other interventions, reduce all cause mortality and non-fatal myocardial infarction in patients with increased cardiovascular risk. Mediterranean programmes are also likely to reduce stroke risk. Generally, other named dietary programmes were not superior to minimal intervention.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42016047939.
Topics: Humans; Cardiovascular Diseases; Network Meta-Analysis; Risk Factors; Myocardial Infarction; Stroke; Diet, Fat-Restricted
PubMed: 36990505
DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2022-072003 -
JAMA Internal Medicine May 2022The association between statin-induced reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels and the absolute risk reduction of individual, rather than... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Evaluating the Association Between Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Reduction and Relative and Absolute Effects of Statin Treatment: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
IMPORTANCE
The association between statin-induced reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels and the absolute risk reduction of individual, rather than composite, outcomes, such as all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, or stroke, is unclear.
OBJECTIVE
To assess the association between absolute reductions in LDL-C levels with treatment with statin therapy and all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke to facilitate shared decision-making between clinicians and patients and inform clinical guidelines and policy.
DATA SOURCES
PubMed and Embase were searched to identify eligible trials from January 1987 to June 2021.
STUDY SELECTION
Large randomized clinical trials that examined the effectiveness of statins in reducing total mortality and cardiovascular outcomes with a planned duration of 2 or more years and that reported absolute changes in LDL-C levels. Interventions were treatment with statins (3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors) vs placebo or usual care. Participants were men and women older than 18 years.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS
Three independent reviewers extracted data and/or assessed the methodological quality and certainty of the evidence using the risk of bias 2 tool and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation. Any differences in opinion were resolved by consensus. Meta-analyses and a meta-regression were undertaken.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
Primary outcome: all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes: myocardial infarction, stroke.
FINDINGS
Twenty-one trials were included in the analysis. Meta-analyses showed reductions in the absolute risk of 0.8% (95% CI, 0.4%-1.2%) for all-cause mortality, 1.3% (95% CI, 0.9%-1.7%) for myocardial infarction, and 0.4% (95% CI, 0.2%-0.6%) for stroke in those randomized to treatment with statins, with associated relative risk reductions of 9% (95% CI, 5%-14%), 29% (95% CI, 22%-34%), and 14% (95% CI, 5%-22%) respectively. A meta-regression exploring the potential mediating association of the magnitude of statin-induced LDL-C reduction with outcomes was inconclusive.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
The results of this meta-analysis suggest that the absolute risk reductions of treatment with statins in terms of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke are modest compared with the relative risk reductions, and the presence of significant heterogeneity reduces the certainty of the evidence. A conclusive association between absolute reductions in LDL-C levels and individual clinical outcomes was not established, and these findings underscore the importance of discussing absolute risk reductions when making informed clinical decisions with individual patients.
Topics: Cardiovascular Diseases; Cholesterol, LDL; Female; Humans; Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors; Male; Myocardial Infarction; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Stroke
PubMed: 35285850
DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2022.0134 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2020Reducing saturated fat reduces serum cholesterol, but effects on other intermediate outcomes may be less clear. Additionally, it is unclear whether the energy from... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Reducing saturated fat reduces serum cholesterol, but effects on other intermediate outcomes may be less clear. Additionally, it is unclear whether the energy from saturated fats eliminated from the diet are more helpfully replaced by polyunsaturated fats, monounsaturated fats, carbohydrate or protein.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effect of reducing saturated fat intake and replacing it with carbohydrate (CHO), polyunsaturated (PUFA), monounsaturated fat (MUFA) and/or protein on mortality and cardiovascular morbidity, using all available randomised clinical trials.
SEARCH METHODS
We updated our searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid) and Embase (Ovid) on 15 October 2019, and searched Clinicaltrials.gov and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) on 17 October 2019.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Included trials fulfilled the following criteria: 1) randomised; 2) intention to reduce saturated fat intake OR intention to alter dietary fats and achieving a reduction in saturated fat; 3) compared with higher saturated fat intake or usual diet; 4) not multifactorial; 5) in adult humans with or without cardiovascular disease (but not acutely ill, pregnant or breastfeeding); 6) intervention duration at least 24 months; 7) mortality or cardiovascular morbidity data available.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed inclusion, extracted study data and assessed risk of bias. We performed random-effects meta-analyses, meta-regression, subgrouping, sensitivity analyses, funnel plots and GRADE assessment.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 15 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (16 comparisons, ~59,000 participants), that used a variety of interventions from providing all food to advice on reducing saturated fat. The included long-term trials suggested that reducing dietary saturated fat reduced the risk of combined cardiovascular events by 21% (risk ratio (RR) 0.79; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 0.93, 11 trials, 53,300 participants of whom 8% had a cardiovascular event, I² = 65%, GRADE moderate-quality evidence). Meta-regression suggested that greater reductions in saturated fat (reflected in greater reductions in serum cholesterol) resulted in greater reductions in risk of CVD events, explaining most heterogeneity between trials. The number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) was 56 in primary prevention trials, so 56 people need to reduce their saturated fat intake for ~four years for one person to avoid experiencing a CVD event. In secondary prevention trials, the NNTB was 32. Subgrouping did not suggest significant differences between replacement of saturated fat calories with polyunsaturated fat or carbohydrate, and data on replacement with monounsaturated fat and protein was very limited. We found little or no effect of reducing saturated fat on all-cause mortality (RR 0.96; 95% CI 0.90 to 1.03; 11 trials, 55,858 participants) or cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.80 to 1.12, 10 trials, 53,421 participants), both with GRADE moderate-quality evidence. There was little or no effect of reducing saturated fats on non-fatal myocardial infarction (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.07) or CHD mortality (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.16, both low-quality evidence), but effects on total (fatal or non-fatal) myocardial infarction, stroke and CHD events (fatal or non-fatal) were all unclear as the evidence was of very low quality. There was little or no effect on cancer mortality, cancer diagnoses, diabetes diagnosis, HDL cholesterol, serum triglycerides or blood pressure, and small reductions in weight, serum total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol and BMI. There was no evidence of harmful effects of reducing saturated fat intakes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The findings of this updated review suggest that reducing saturated fat intake for at least two years causes a potentially important reduction in combined cardiovascular events. Replacing the energy from saturated fat with polyunsaturated fat or carbohydrate appear to be useful strategies, while effects of replacement with monounsaturated fat are unclear. The reduction in combined cardiovascular events resulting from reducing saturated fat did not alter by study duration, sex or baseline level of cardiovascular risk, but greater reduction in saturated fat caused greater reductions in cardiovascular events.
Topics: Adult; Cardiovascular Diseases; Cause of Death; Cholesterol; Dietary Carbohydrates; Dietary Fats; Dietary Fats, Unsaturated; Dietary Proteins; Energy Intake; Fatty Acids; Female; Humans; Male; Myocardial Infarction; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Stroke
PubMed: 32428300
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011737.pub2 -
European Heart Journal May 2022Obesity is a global health problem, associated with significant morbidity and mortality, often due to cardiovascular (CV) diseases. While bariatric surgery is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIMS
Obesity is a global health problem, associated with significant morbidity and mortality, often due to cardiovascular (CV) diseases. While bariatric surgery is increasingly performed in patients with obesity and reduces CV risk factors, its effect on CV disease is not established. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of bariatric surgery on CV outcomes, in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guideline.
METHODS AND RESULTS
PubMed and Embase were searched for literature until August 2021 which compared bariatric surgery patients to non-surgical controls. Outcomes of interest were all-cause and CV mortality, atrial fibrillation (AF), heart failure (HF), myocardial infarction, and stroke. We included 39 studies, all prospective or retrospective cohort studies, but randomized outcome trials were not available. Bariatric surgery was associated with a beneficial effect on all-cause mortality [pooled hazard ratio (HR) of 0.55; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49-0.62, P < 0.001 vs. controls], and CV mortality (HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.47-0.73, P < 0.001). In addition, bariatric surgery was also associated with a reduced incidence of HF (HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.38-0.66, P < 0.001), myocardial infarction (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.43-0.76, P < 0.001), and stroke (HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.53-0.77, P < 0.001), while its association with AF was not statistically significant (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.64-1.06, P = 0.12).
CONCLUSION
The present systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that bariatric surgery is associated with reduced all-cause and CV mortality, and lowered incidence of several CV diseases in patients with obesity. Bariatric surgery should therefore be considered in these patients.
Topics: Atrial Fibrillation; Bariatric Surgery; Cardiovascular Diseases; Heart Failure; Humans; Myocardial Infarction; Obesity; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Stroke
PubMed: 35243488
DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehac071 -
Cardiovascular Diabetology Jul 2022The triglyceride-glucose (TyG) index is a new alternative measure for insulin resistance. This meta-analysis was conducted to assess the associations of the TyG index... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The triglyceride-glucose (TyG) index is a new alternative measure for insulin resistance. This meta-analysis was conducted to assess the associations of the TyG index with the risks of cardiovascular diseases and mortality in the general population.
METHODS
The PubMed, Cochrane Library and Embase databases were searched for randomized controlled trials or observational cohort studies reporting associations of the TyG index with cardiovascular diseases and mortality from inception to April 16, 2022. Effect sizes were pooled using random-effects models. Robust error meta-regression methods were applied to fit nonlinear dose-response associations. Evidence quality levels and recommendations were assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system (GRADE).
RESULTS
Twelve cohort studies (6 prospective and 6 retrospective cohorts) involving 6,354,990 participants were included in this meta-analysis. Compared with the lowest TyG index category, the highest TyG index was related to a higher incidence of coronary artery disease (CAD) (3 studies; hazard ratio [HR] = 2.01; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.68-2.40; I = 0%), myocardial infarction (MI) (2 studies; HR = 1.36; 95% CI 1.18-1.56; I = 35%), and composite cardiovascular disease (CVD) (5 studies; HR = 1.46; 95% CI 1.23-1.74; I = 82%). However, there was no association between the TyG index and mortality (cardiovascular mortality [3 studies; HR = 1.10; 95% CI 0.82-1.47; I = 76%] or all-cause mortality [4 studies; HR = 1.08; 95% CI 0.92-1.27; I = 87%]). In the dose-response analysis, there was a linear association of the TyG index with the risk of CAD (P = 0.3807) or CVD (P = 0.0612). GRADE assessment indicated very low certainty for CVD, MI, cardiovascular mortality and all-cause mortality, and moderate certainty for CAD.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on our current evidence, a higher TyG index may be associated with an increased incidence of CAD (moderate certainty), MI (very low certainty) and CVD (very low certainty) in the general population. There is a potential linear association of the TyG index with CAD and the composite CVD incidence. Further prospective studies (especially in non-Asians) are needed to confirm our findings.
Topics: Blood Glucose; Cardiovascular Diseases; Coronary Artery Disease; Glucose; Humans; Myocardial Infarction; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Triglycerides
PubMed: 35778731
DOI: 10.1186/s12933-022-01546-0 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2021Coenzyme Q10, or ubiquinone, is a non-prescription nutritional supplement. It is a fat-soluble molecule that acts as an electron carrier in mitochondria, and as a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Coenzyme Q10, or ubiquinone, is a non-prescription nutritional supplement. It is a fat-soluble molecule that acts as an electron carrier in mitochondria, and as a coenzyme for mitochondrial enzymes. Coenzyme Q10 deficiency may be associated with a multitude of diseases, including heart failure. The severity of heart failure correlates with the severity of coenzyme Q10 deficiency. Emerging data suggest that the harmful effects of reactive oxygen species are increased in people with heart failure, and coenzyme Q10 may help to reduce these toxic effects because of its antioxidant activity. Coenzyme Q10 may also have a role in stabilising myocardial calcium-dependent ion channels, and in preventing the consumption of metabolites essential for adenosine-5'-triphosphate (ATP) synthesis. Coenzyme Q10, although not a primary recommended treatment, could be beneficial to people with heart failure. Several randomised controlled trials have compared coenzyme Q10 to other therapeutic modalities, but no systematic review of existing randomised trials was conducted prior to the original version of this Cochrane Review, in 2014.
OBJECTIVES
To review the safety and efficacy of coenzyme Q10 in heart failure.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL Plus, and AMED on 16 October 2020; ClinicalTrials.gov on 16 July 2020, and the ISRCTN Registry on 11 November 2019. We applied no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials of either parallel or cross-over design that assessed the beneficial and harmful effects of coenzyme Q10 in people with heart failure. When we identified cross-over studies, we considered data only from the first phase.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard Cochrane methods, assessed study risk of bias using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, and GRADE methods to assess the quality of the evidence. For dichotomous data, we calculated the risk ratio (RR); for continuous data, the mean difference (MD), both with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Where appropriate data were available, we conducted meta-analysis. When meta-analysis was not possible, we wrote a narrative synthesis. We provided a PRISMA flow chart to show the flow of study selection.
MAIN RESULTS
We included eleven studies, with 1573 participants, comparing coenzyme Q10 to placebo or conventional therapy (control). In the majority of the studies, sample size was relatively small. There were important differences among studies in daily coenzyme Q10 dose, follow-up period, and the measures of treatment effect. All studies had unclear, or high risk of bias, or both, in one or more bias domains. We were only able to conduct meta-analysis for some of the outcomes. None of the included trials considered quality of life, measured on a validated scale, exercise variables (exercise haemodynamics), or cost-effectiveness. Coenzyme Q10 probably reduces the risk of all-cause mortality more than control (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.95; 1 study, 420 participants; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 13.3; moderate-quality evidence). There was low-quality evidence of inconclusive results between the coenzyme Q10 and control groups for the risk of myocardial infarction (RR 1.62, 95% CI 0.27 to 9.59; 1 study, 420 participants), and stroke (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.48; 1 study, 420 participants). Coenzyme Q10 probably reduces hospitalisation related to heart failure (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.78; 2 studies, 1061 participants; NNTB 9.7; moderate-quality evidence). Very low-quality evidence suggests that coenzyme Q10 may improve the left ventricular ejection fraction (MD 1.77, 95% CI 0.09 to 3.44; 7 studies, 650 participants), but the results are inconclusive for exercise capacity (MD 48.23, 95% CI -24.75 to 121.20; 3 studies, 91 participants); and the risk of developing adverse events (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.10; 2 studies, 568 participants). We downgraded the quality of the evidence mainly due to high risk of bias and imprecision.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The included studies provide moderate-quality evidence that coenzyme Q10 probably reduces all-cause mortality and hospitalisation for heart failure. There is low-quality evidence of inconclusive results as to whether coenzyme Q10 has an effect on the risk of myocardial infarction, or stroke. Because of very low-quality evidence, it is very uncertain whether coenzyme Q10 has an effect on either left ventricular ejection fraction or exercise capacity. There is low-quality evidence that coenzyme Q10 may increase the risk of adverse effects, or have little to no difference. There is currently no convincing evidence to support or refute the use of coenzyme Q10 for heart failure. Future trials are needed to confirm our findings.
Topics: Ataxia; Heart Failure; Humans; Mitochondrial Diseases; Muscle Weakness; Myocardial Infarction; Quality of Life; Stroke; Stroke Volume; Ubiquinone; Ventricular Function, Left
PubMed: 35608922
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008684.pub3