Search

BACKGROUND: The safety and efficacy of aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in patients with diabetes mellitus remains controversial. DESIGN: A meta-analysis to investigate the effects of aspirin for the prevention of cardiovascular disease in diabetes mellitus. METHODS: Ten randomized controlled trials were selected using MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL databases until 27 September 2018. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and risk differences (RDs) reported as incident events per 1000 person-years were calculated. RESULTS: In 33,679 patients, aspirin did not significantly reduce the risk of major adverse cardiovascular outcomes (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.87–1.00, P = 0.06; RD −0.68 incident cases per 1000 person-years (95% CI −1.54, 0.17)), cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.83–1.09, P = 0.49; RD 0.11 incident cases per 1000 person-years (95% CI −0.80, 1.02)), myocardial infarction (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.75–1.11, P = 0.36; RD −0.66 incident cases per 1000 person-years (95% CI −2.07, 0.75)), or stroke (RR 0.91,95% C, 0.76–1.10, P = 0.33; RD −0.55 incident cases per 1000 person-years (95% CI −1.57, 0.47)). There was a significantly higher risk of total bleeding associated with aspirin (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.07–1.55, P = 0.01; RD 1.49 incident cases per 1000 person-years (95% CI 0.36, 2.61)). CONCLUSION: The use of aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in patients with diabetes mellitus increases the risk of total bleeding without reducing the risk of major adverse cardiovascular outcomes.

The very significant and well-presented clinical study by Taylor et al. [(1)][1] reports findings from a meta-analysis demonstrating the significant impact of cardiac rehabilitation or exercise training in 13 trials of 3,990 patients with heart failure. We have 3 comments. First, physical activity

We read with great attention and interest the very insightful and well-performed clinical study by Wolsk et al. [(1)][1], a retrospective analysis using baseline data from 2 trials and 1 population study aimed at determining which central and/or peripheral factors during exercise were most strongly

The very significant and well-presented clinical cohort study by Beale et al. [(1)][1] was aimed at characterizing sex differences in the physiological determinants of exercise capacity and intolerance in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Women displayed a complex pattern of