Explore the vast range of titles available.

This secondary analysis of findings from a trial that assessed the effect of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels in patients with coronary artery disease shows that body-weight fluctuation was associated with an increased risk of death and cardiovascular events. Obesity is an independent risk factor for cardiovascular death and disease. 1 , 2 Among participants in the Framingham Heart Study who were between 35 and 75 years of age and were followed for up to 44 years, overweight and obese participants were at a higher risk for the development of cardiovascular disease than participants of normal weight. 3 Weight gain is strongly associated with an increased risk of death and disease among participants without evident cardiovascular disease at baseline. 4 , 5 Indeed, in obese persons, bariatric surgery followed by weight loss reduces the risk of cardiovascular disease, including hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, and diabetes. 6 – . . .

There is concern that patients taking renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system inhibitors have an increased risk of Covid-19, because angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 is a receptor for the virus. This study showed no increase in likelihood of a positive Covid-19 test or severe Covid-19 in patients taking any of five common classes of antihypertensive drugs.

In a registry study involving 9223 matched pairs of patients, outcomes after PCI with everolimus-eluting stents or CABG were compared. There was no difference in the risk of death, but PCI was associated with higher risks of MI and repeat revascularization and lower risk of stroke. Coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are treatment options for patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. Prior studies have shown a mortality benefit of CABG, as compared with PCI. 1 – 4 However, these studies compared CABG with balloon angioplasty, bare-metal stents, or first-generation drug-eluting stents. Second-generation drug-eluting stents have thinner struts and have thinner and more biocompatible polymer with more uniform polymer coating of the strut surface, resulting in less inflammation and thrombogenicity, as compared with the first-generation drug-eluting stents and even bare-metal stents. 5 Consequently, the newer-generation drug-eluting stents, especially the everolimus-eluting stent, have been shown to reduce . . .

Objective To evaluate the outcomes with use of renin angiotensin system (RAS) blockers compared with other antihypertensive agents in people with diabetes.Design Meta-analysis.Data sources and study selection PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane central register of controlled trials databases for randomized trials of RAS blockers versus other antihypertensive agents in people with diabetes mellitus. Outcomes were death, cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, angina, stroke, heart failure, revascularization, and end stage renal disease.Results The search yielded 19 randomized controlled trials that enrolled 25 414 participants with diabetes for a total of 95 910 patient years of follow-up. When compared with other antihypertensive agents, RAS blockers were associated with a similar risk of death (relative risk 0.99, 95% confidence interval 0.93 to 1.05), cardiovascular death (1.02, 0.83 to 1.24), myocardial infarction (0.87, 0.64 to 1.18), angina pectoris (0.80, 0.58 to 1.11), stroke (1.04, 0.92 to 1.17), heart failure (0.90, 0.76 to 1.07), and revascularization (0.97, 0.77 to 1.22). There was also no difference in the hard renal outcome of end stage renal disease (0.99, 0.78 to 1.28) (power of 94% to show a 23% reduction in end stage renal disease).Conclusions In people with diabetes, RAS blockers are not superior to other antihypertensive drug classes such as thiazides, calcium channel blockers, and β blockers at reducing the risk of hard cardiovascular and renal endpoints. These findings support the recommendations of the guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology/European Society of Hypertension and eighth Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure to also use other antihypertensive agents in people with diabetes but without kidney disease.

In the ISCHEMIA trial, patients with stable ischemic heart disease were randomly assigned to invasive or conservative treatment. As reported separately, the invasive strategy did not reduce clinical events. Improvements in health status were slightly greater with the invasive strategy, reflecting minimal effects in asymptomatic patients and larger effects in patients with angina symptoms at baseline.

Ever since Schlaich et al. 1 first reported on a patient with a blood pressure of 161/107 mm Hg (despite treatment with seven different antihypertensive drugs) that decreased to 127/81 mm Hg after renal denervation, the medical community has been enamored with this procedure. Resistant hypertension evolved into a fashionable diagnosis, and the number of publications pertaining to it grew rapidly. 2 Medical-device companies fancied renal denervation as the next big innovation and as a blockbuster therapy for millions of patients. A press release from the American Heart Association even touted renal denervation as a potential “cure” for mild hypertension. 3 Trials such . . .

Transradial access for cardiac catheterisation results in lower bleeding and vascular complications than the traditional transfemoral access route. However, the increased radiation exposure potentially associated with transradial access is a possible drawback of this method. Whether transradial access is associated with a clinically significant increase in radiation exposure that outweighs its benefits is unclear. Our aim was therefore to compare radiation exposure between transradial access and transfemoral access for diagnostic coronary angiograms and percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of the scientific literature by searching the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases with relevant terms, and cross-referencing relevant articles for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared radiation parameters in relation to access site, published from Jan 1, 1989, to June 3, 2014. Three investigators independently sorted the potentially relevant studies, and two others extracted data. We focused on the primary radiation outcomes of fluoroscopy time and kerma-area product, and used meta-regression to assess the changes over time. Secondary outcomes were operator radiation exposure and procedural time. We used both fixed-effects and random-effects models with inverse variance weighting for the main analyses, and we did confirmatory analyses for observational studies. Of 1252 records identified, we obtained data from 24 published RCTs for 19 328 patients. Our primary analyses showed that transradial access was associated with a small but significant increase in fluoroscopy time for diagnostic coronary angiograms (weighted mean difference [WMD], fixed effect: 1·04 min, 95% CI 0·84–1·24; p<0·0001) and PCI (1·15 min, 95% CI 0·96–1·33; p<0·0001), compared with transfemoral access. Transradial access was also associated with higher kerma-area product for diagnostic coronary angiograms (WMD, fixed effect: 1·72 Gy·cm2, 95% CI −0·10 to 3·55; p=0·06), and significantly higher kerma-area product for PCI (0·55 Gy·cm2, 95% CI 0·08–1·02; p=0·02). Mean operator radiation doses for PCI with basic protection were 107 μSv (SD 110) with transradial access and 74 μSv (68) with transfemoral access; with supplementary protection, the doses decreased to 21 μSv (17) with transradial access and 46 μSv (9) with transfemoral. Meta-regression analysis showed that the overall difference in fluoroscopy time between the two procedures has decreased significantly by 75% over the past 20 years from 2 min in 1996 to about 30 s in 2014 (p<0·0001). In observational studies, differences and effect sizes remained consistent with RCTs. Transradial access was associated with a small but significant increase in radiation exposure in both diagnostic and interventional procedures compared with transfemoral access. Since differences in radiation exposure narrow over time, the clinical significance of this small increase is uncertain and is unlikely to outweigh the clinical benefits of transradial access. None.

To compare the efficacy and safety of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEis) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) in patients without heart failure. Meta-analysis of randomized trials identified using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials searches from January 1, 1980, through April 13, 2015, of ACEis and ARBs compared with placebo or active controls and corroborated with head-to-head trials of ARBs vs ACEis. Outcomes were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), angina, stroke, heart failure, revascularization, and new-onset diabetes. Our search yielded 106 randomized trials that enrolled 254,301 patients. Compared with placebo, ACEis but not ARBs reduced the outcomes of all-cause mortality (ACEis vs placebo: relative risk [RR], 0.89; 95% CI, 0.80-1.00; ARBs vs placebo: RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.96-1.06; Pinteraction=.04), cardiovascular death (RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.70-0.99 and RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.92-1.14; Pinteraction=.05), and MI (RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.78-0.90 and RR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.85-1.03; Pinteraction=.06). The meta-regression analysis revealed that the difference between ACEis and ARBs compared with placebo was due to a higher placebo event rate in the ACEis trials (most of these trials were conducted a decade earlier than the ARB trials) for the outcome of all-cause mortality (P=.001), cardiovascular death (P<.001), and MI (P=.02). Sensitivity analyses restricted to trials published after 2000 revealed similar outcomes with ACEis vs placebo and ARBs vs placebo (Pinteraction>.05). Head-to-head comparison trials of ARBs vs ACEis exhibited no difference in outcomes except for a lower risk of drug withdrawal due to adverse effects with ARBs (RR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.65-0.81). In patients without heart failure, evidence from placebo-controlled trials (restricted to trials after 2000), active controlled trials, and head-to-head randomized trials all suggest ARBs to be as efficacious and safe as ACEis, with the added advantage of better tolerability.

A number of trials have assessed the efficacy and safety of short-term dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in patients who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, whether to continue aspirin or a P2Y12 inhibitor after a short course of DAPT is actively debated. PUBMED and EMBASE were searched through March 2020 for randomized controlled trials evaluating short-term DAPT (≤6 months) when compared with longer-term (≥12 months) DAPT among patients undergoing PCI. The ischemic outcomes were all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, and stroke. The safety outcome was major and/or clinically relevant bleeding. The primary objective was to investigate the outcomes with aspirin monotherapy (Aspirin group) versus P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy (P2Y12i group) after short-term DAPT. Our search identified 17 eligible trials enrolling a total of 54,625 patients comparing different DAPT duration. Either of the 2 monotherapy groups did not increase the risk of ischemic outcomes when compared with the long-term DAPT group, without difference between the Aspirin versus the P2Y12i groups. However, both monotherapy groups significantly reduced bleeding when compared with long-term DAPT (Aspirin group: hazard ratio [95% CI]: 0.62 [0.45-0.86], P=.004 and P2Y12i group: 0.68 [0.50-0.93], P=.015). There was no difference in bleeding between the Aspirin versus P2Y12i groups (hazard ratio=0.91 [0.58-1.43], P=.70). Among patients undergoing PCI, short-term DAPT with continuation of either aspirin or P2Y12i reduced bleeding without increasing ischemic outcomes when compared with long-term DAPT. The choice of antiplatelet therapy after short-term DAPT should be evaluated in well-powered trials.

To analyze trends in the incidence, in-hospital management, and outcomes of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicating pregnancy and the puerperium in the United States. Women 18 years or older hospitalized during pregnancy and the puerperium were identified from the National Inpatient Sample database from January 1, 2002, to December 31, 2014. International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision diagnosis and procedure codes were used to identify AMI during pregnancy-related admissions. Overall, 55,402,290 pregnancy-related hospitalizations were identified. A total of 4471 cases of AMI (8.1 [95% CI, 7.5-8.6] cases per 100,000 hospitalizations) occurred, with 922 AMI cases (20.6%) identified in the antepartum period, 1061 (23.7%) during labor and delivery, and 2390 (53.5%) in the postpartum period. ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction occurred in 1895 cases (42.4%), and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction occurred in 2576 cases (57.6%). Among patients with pregnancy-related AMI, 2373 (53.1%) underwent invasive management and 1120 (25.1%) underwent coronary revascularization. In-hospital mortality was significantly higher in patients with AMI than in those without AMI during pregnancy (adjusted odds ratio, 39.9; 95% CI, 23.3-68.4; P<.001). The rate of AMI during pregnancy and the puerperium increased over time (adjusted odds ratio, 1.25 [for 2014 vs 2002]; 95% CI, 1.02-1.52). In patients hospitalized during pregnancy and the puerperium, AMI occurred in 1 of every 12,400 hospitalizations and rates of AMI increased over time. Maternal mortality rates were high. Additional research on the prevention and optimal management of AMI during pregnancy is necessary.