Search

BackgroundThe rates of readmission for serious cardiovascular events among patients admitted with a diagnosis of non-specific chest pain are unknown.MethodsA national retrospective cohort study in the United States was undertaken to evaluate the rates, trends and predictors of readmission for serious cardiovascular events (acute coronary syndrome (ACS), pulmonary embolism (PE) and aortic dissection (AD)) after an inpatient episode with a primary diagnosis of non-specific chest pain.ResultsAmong 1,172,430 patients with an index diagnosis of non-specific chest pain between 2010 and 2014, 2.4% were readmitted with an ACS, 0.4% with a PE and 0.06% with an AD within 6 months of discharge. Predictors of ACS readmissions were diabetes (OR 1.49 95% CI 1.17–1.32), coronary artery disease (OR 2.29 95% CI 2.15–2.44), previous percutaneous coronary intervention (OR 1.65 95% CI 1.56–1.75), previous CABG (OR 1.52 95% CI 1.43–1.61) and discharge against medical advice (OR 1.94 95% CI 1.78–2.12). Female patients (OR 0.82 95% CI 0.78–0.86) and patients in whom a coronary angiogram was undertaken (OR 0.48 95% CI 0.45–0.52) were less likely to be readmitted for ACS. For PE, predictors of readmission were pulmonary circulatory disorder (OR 2.20 95% CI 1.09–4.43), anemia (OR 1.62 95% CI 1.40–1.86) and cancer (OR 4.15 95% CI 3.43–5.02). Peripheral vascular disease (OR 8.63 95% CI 5.47–13.60), renal failure (OR 2.08 95% CI 1.34–3.24) were predictors of AD.ConclusionsNon-specific chest pain may not be a benign condition as readmissions for serious cardiovascular events occur in 3% of patients within 180 days. Research is needed to define measures that may mitigate readmissions among these patients.

Background Bariatric surgery has been shown to improve cardiovascular risk factors but long term benefits for survival and cardiovascular events are still uncertain. Methods We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for parallel group studies that evaluated the clinical outcomes associated with bariatric surgery as compared to non-surgical treatment. Relevant studies were pooled using random effects meta-analysis for risk of myocardial infarction, stroke, cardiovascular events and mortality. Results 14 studies met the inclusion criteria, which included 29,208 patients who underwent bariatric surgery and 166,200 nonsurgical controls (mean age 48years, 30% male, follow up period ranged from 2years to 14.7years). Four studies were considered at moderate–high risk of bias, whilst ten studies were at moderate or lower risk of bias. Compared to nonsurgical controls there was more than 50% reduction in mortality amongst patients who had bariatric surgery (OR 0.48 95% CI 0.35–0.64, I 2 =86%, 14 studies). In pooled analysis of four studies with adjusted data, bariatric surgery was associated with a significantly reduced risk of composite cardiovascular adverse events (OR 0.54 95% CI 0.41–0.70, I 2 =58%). Bariatric surgery was also associated with significant reduction in specific endpoints of myocardial infarction (OR 0.46 95% CI 0.30–0.69, I 2 =79%, 4 studies) and stroke (OR 0.49 95% CI 0.32–0.75, I 2 =59%, 4 studies). Conclusions Data from observational studies indicates that patients undergoing bariatric surgery have a reduced risk of myocardial infarction, stroke, cardiovascular events and mortality compared to non-surgical controls. Future randomized studies should investigate whether these observations are reproduced in a clinical trials setting.

Background Data from pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies indicate that the adverse clopidogrel – proton pump inhibitor (PPI) interaction may vary between PPIs, with pantoprazole considered relatively less problematic. We aimed to evaluate systematically whether individual PPIs differ in their risk for cardiovascular events when concomitantly administered with clopidogrel. Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Trials Register up to December 2011 for randomized and non-randomized studies that reported adverse cardiovascular events with exposure to specific PPIs in patients receiving clopidogrel. We performed random effects meta-analysis, and assessed heterogeneity using the I 2 statistic. Results A total of 23 studies with 222,311 participants were included. Meta-analysis of major adverse cardiovascular events was mostly limited by moderate-substantial heterogeneity. Pooled estimates of cardiovascular risk were significantly elevated for individual PPIs such as omeprazole, esomeprazole, lansoprazole, and pantoprazole when used with clopidogrel. However, meta-analysis of adverse cardiovascular risk in seven observational studies reporting on PPI therapy alone (without concomitant clopidogrel) also found an elevated odds ratio of 1.28 (95% CI 1.14–1.44) compared with no clopidogrel/no PPI exposure. Meta-analysis of two randomized controlled trials did not show significant adverse cardiovascular effect from omeprazole or esomeprazole. Conclusions The absence of consistent evidence on differential cardiovascular risk amongst PPIs (particularly regarding safety of pantoprazole) is in direct opposition to the platelet function and pharmacokinetic data. Our findings of increased cardiovascular risk with PPIs in the absence of clopidogrel suggest that confounding and bias are strong possibilities. The clinical validity or relevance of the hypothesized PPI-clopidogrel interaction remains questionable.

Whether physical activity increases or decreases the risk of atrial fibrillation (AF) remains controversial. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the relationship between AF and extent of physical activity. We searched Medline and EMBASE in June 2014 for studies that reported on the associated risk of AF according to history of physical activity. Pooled risk ratios for AF were calculated using inverse variance random effects model, and heterogeneity assessed using I(2). Subgroup analysis was performed according to the nature of the physical activity, and the quality of the studies. We identified 19 relevant studies with a total of over half a million participants (n=511,503). The pooled analysis showed no association between intensive physical activity and AF (RR 1.00 95% CI 0.82-1.22, I(2)=73%, 8 studies, 152,925 participants) with no difference considering low and moderate to high risk of bias studies. Pooled analysis of studies reporting on increasing amount of time spent on physical activities did not show a significant association with AF (RR 0.95 95% CI 0.72-1.26, I(2)=84%, 4 studies, 112,784 participants). Studies of athletes or participants with a history of sports activity which were of poor methodology quality showed a borderline significant association with AF (pooled RR 1.98 95% CI 1.00-3.94, I(2)=59%, 6 studies, 1973 participants). In conclusion, we found no significant increase in AF with a higher level of physical activity. These findings support clinical guidelines encouraging patients to exercise as there is no evidence for harm associated with increased physical activity.

Background: Duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) following drug-eluting stents (DES) remains controversial and is a topic of ongoing research. Methods: Direct and adjusted indirect comparisons of all the recent randomized control trials (RCTs) were performed to evaluate the safety of short-term versus long-term DAPT following DES. Results: 8 RCTs were identified and 7 (16,318 subjects) were included. 4 groups of 3 vs 12 months, 6 vs 12 months, 6 vs 24 months and 12 vs 24 months of DAPT were used for direct comparison. There was no significant difference in stent thrombosis, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke and revascularization, cardiovascular and all-cause mortality between the different durations in all 4 groups. Pooling trials of 3–6 months of DAPT against 12 months, we found a significant reduction in the risk of total bleeding (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.43–0.87). Adjusted indirect comparison between 3 vs 6 months, 3 vs 24 months and 6 vs 24 month duration of DAPT showed no significant differences in risk of death or MI, or revascularization between 3 or 6 months and 24 months. However, 24 months of DAPT was associated with significantly more bleeding than 3 or 6 months. Conclusions: 3 to 6 months of DAPT following second generation DES and above is safe with no increased risk of thrombotic complications and mortality, and lower bleeding risk. However a tailored approach may be more appropriate for high-risk patients. Keywords: Percutaneous coronary intervention; Drug-eluting stent; Acute coronary syndrome; Dual antiplatelet treatment; Duration of therapy

Background Dietary interventions are an important component of cardiovascular risk factor management although their impact on cardiovascular risk and mortality remains uncertain. We have studied influence of a vegetarian diet on cardiovascular risk and mortality. Methods We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for comparative studies that evaluated clinical outcomes associated with vegetarian diet as compared to non-vegetarian controls or the general population. Relevant studies were pooled using random effects meta-analysis for risk of death, ischaemic heart disease (IHD) and cerebrovascular disease. We conducted subgroup analysis according to specific type of cohort (e.g. Seventh Day Adventist [SDA]) and gender. Results Eight studies met the inclusion criteria with 183,321 participants (n=183,321). There was significant heterogeneity in all the meta-analyses, particularly evident with the studies of SDA. In all instances, we found that SDA studies showed greater effect size as compared to non-SDA studies: death (RR 0.68 95% CI 0.45–1.02 vs RR 1.04 95% CI 0.98–1.10), ischaemic heart disease (IHD) (RR 0.60 95% CI 0.43–0.80 vs RR 0.84 95% CI 0.74–0.96) and cerebrovascular disease (RR 0.71 95% CI 0.41–1.20 vs RR 1.05 95% CI 0.89–1.24). Sex specific analyses showed that IHD was significantly reduced in both genders but risk of death and cerebrovascular disease was only significantly reduced in men. Conclusions Data from observational studies indicates that there is modest cardiovascular benefit, but no clear reduction in overall mortality associated with a vegetarian diet. This evidence of benefit is driven mainly by studies in SDA, whereas the effect of vegetarian diet in other cohorts remains unproven.