myocardial infarction

No surprise that the USPSTF recommends in-office screening for hypertension. What seems interesting is that they suggest getting confirmatory readings from outside the office before making the diagnosis. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Free full text

View

IMPORTANCE Hypertension is a prevalent condition that affects approximately 45% of the adult US population and is the most commonly diagnosed condition at outpatient office visits. Hypertension is a major contributing risk factor for heart failure, myocardial infarction, stroke, and chronic kidney disease. OBJECTIVE To reaffirm its 2015 recommendation, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) commissioned a systematic review to evaluate the benefits and harms of screening for hypertension in adults, the accuracy of office blood pressure measurement for initial screening, and the accuracy of various confirmatory blood pressure measurement methods. POPULATION Adults 18 years or older without known hypertension. EVIDENCE ASSESSMENT Using a reaffirmation deliberation process, the USPSTF concludes with high certainty that screening for hypertension in adults has substantial net benefit. RECOMMENDATION The USPSTF recommends screening for hypertension in adults 18 years or older with office blood pressure measurement. The USPSTF recommends obtaining blood pressure measurements outside of the clinical setting for diagnostic confirmation before starting treatment. (A recommendation)

Author/s:

U.S. Preventative Services Task Force

Aspirin for Primary Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Prevention as Baseline Risk Increases: A Meta-Regression Analysis

John Bayhi — Thu, 21 May 2020 16:39:36 +0000

Date Added:

May 21, 2020

Journal/Publication:

The American Journal of Medicine

Publisher:

Elsevier Inc

Publication Date:

May 20, 2020

Volume:

Article in Press

URL:

Aspirin for Primary Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Prevention as Baseline Risk Increases: A Meta-Regression Analysis

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.1016/j.amjmed.2020.04.028

Keywords

aspirin

primary prevention

Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease

myocardial infarction

MeSH

cardiovascular diseases

Brain Ischemia

follow-up studies

myocardial infarction

This analysis of 12 RCTs involving almost 1 million patients found that low-dose aspirin prevents major cardiovascular events (RRReduction 14%; ARR/1000 patient years 0.06%) but increases major bleeding events (RRIncrease 40%; ARR/1000 patient years 0.1%) across all levels of baseline risk. The researchers concluded that the absolute risk reduction and the risk: benefit ratio suggest that we should probably not prescribe low-dose aspirin for primary prevention even if the baseline risk of CV events is high and the risk of bleeding is low. James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Commercial full text (fees may apply)

View

Background

Aspirin is often prescribed for the primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) however, recent randomized trials (RCTs) have challenged this practice. Despite this, aspirin is commonly recommended for high risk primary prevention. We tested the hypothesis that aspirin is more efficacious for the primary prevention of ASCVD, as the baseline risk increases.

Methods

RCTs that compared aspirin to control for primary prevention and evaluated ASCVD (composite of myocardial infarction and ischemic stroke) and major bleeding were included. Rate ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. A regression analysis was performed using the ASCVD event rate in the control arm of each RCT as the moderator.

Results

Twelve RCTs were identified with 963,829 patient years of follow-up. Aspirin was associated with a reduction in ASCVD (4.7 versus 5.3 events per 1,000 patient years; RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.79-0.92). There was increased major bleeding among aspirin users (2.5 versus 1.8 events per 1000 patient years, RR 1.41 95% CI, 1.29-1.54). Regression analysis found no relationship between the log rate ratio of ASCVD or major bleeding and incidence of ASCVD in the control arm of each RCT.

Conclusion

Aspirin is associated with a reduction in ASCVD when used for primary prevention; however, it is unlikely to be clinically significant given the increase in bleeding. More importantly, aspirin's treatment effect does not increase as ASCVD risk increases as many hypothesize. There is no suggestion from this data that use of aspirin for higher risk primary prevention patients is beneficial.

Author/s:

Nudy, M, Cooper, J, Ghahramani, M, Ruzieh, M, Mandrola, J, Foy, AJ

Meta-Analysis of Oral Anticoagulant Monotherapy as an Antithrombotic Strategy in Patients With Stable Coronary Artery Disease and Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation

John Bayhi — Thu, 12 Sep 2019 13:06:34 +0000

Date Added:

September 12, 2019

Journal/Publication:

The American Journal of Cardiology

Publisher:

Elsevier Inc.

Publication Date:

September 15, 2019

Issue:

Volume:

124

Pages:

879-885

URL:

Meta-Analysis of Oral Anticoagulant Monotherapy as an Antithrombotic Strategy in Patients With Stable Coronary Artery Disease and Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation

Type:

Meta-analyses, Reviews, and Guidelines

Format:

Article

DOI (1):

10.1016/j.amjcard.2019.05.072

Keywords

atrial fibrillation

coronary artery disease

CAD

myocardial infarction

stroke

PMID (1):

31311662

MeSH

atrial fibrillation

coronary artery disease

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

myocardial infarction

anticoagulants

stroke

This systematic review found that it is unwise to add low-dose aspirin to warfarin in patients with CAD and non-valvular atrial fibrillation (no benefit; more bleeding). James W. Mold, MD, MPH

Commercial full text (fees may apply)

View

Guidelines recommend oral anticoagulant (OAC) monotherapy without antiplatelet therapy (APT) in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF) with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) of >1 year after myocardial infarction or percutaneous coronary intervention. More evidences are required for the safety and efficacy of OAC monotherapy compared with OAC plus APT. PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were systematically searched up to February 2019. Nonrandomized studies and randomized clinical trials comparing OAC monotherapy with OAC plus single APT (SAPT) for patients with stable CAD and nonvalvular AF. The primary end point was major adverse cardiovascular events (composite of ischemic or thrombotic events) and secondary outcomes included major bleeding, stroke, all-cause death, and net adverse events (composite of ischemic, thrombotic, or bleeding events). From 6 trials, 8,855 patients were included. There was no significant difference in major adverse cardiovascular event in patients with AF treated using OAC plus SAPT compared with those treated with OAC monotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.92 to 1.29). OAC plus SAPT was associated with a significantly higher risk of major bleeding compared with OAC monotherapy (HR 1.61; 95% CI 1.38 to 1.87), as well as in terms of net adverse event (HR 1.21; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.43). There were no significant differences in rates of stroke and all-cause death. In conclusion, in this meta-analysis, OAC monotherapy and OAC plus SAPT treatment showed similar effectiveness, but OAC monotherapy was significantly associated with a lower risk of bleeding compared with OAC plus SAPT in patients with nonvalvular AF and stable CAD.

Author/s:

Lee, SR, Rhee, TM, Kang, DY, Choi, EK, Oh, S, Lip, GYH