| 1. |
- Douketis, James D., et al.
(författare)
-
Urgent surgery or procedures in patients taking dabigatran or warfarin : Analysis of perioperative outcomes from the RE-LY trial
- 2016
-
Ingår i: Thrombosis Research. - : Elsevier BV. - 0049-3848 .- 1879-2472. ; 139, s. 77-81
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: There is concern about the management of anticoagulated patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) who require an urgent surgery/procedure, especially in those who are receiving a direct oral anticoagulant such as dabigatran. Methods: We accessed the database from RE-LY, a randomized trial comparing dabigatran (110 mg and 150 mg twice daily) with warfarin for stroke prevention in AF, to assess patients who had an urgent and elective surgery/procedure. We compared the risk for thromboembolism, major bleeding and mortality according to treatment allocation (dabigatran 110 mg or 150 mg, or warfarin) or surgery/procedure type (urgent or elective). Outcomes were assessed from day-7 to day 30 after a surgery/procedure. Results: 353 patients (2.0% of study population) had an urgent surgery/procedure and 4168 patients (23.1% of study population) had an elective surgery/procedure. In patients on dabigatran 110 mg, dabigatran 150 mg and warfarin who had an urgent surgery/procedure: rates of thromboembolism were 16.1%, 7.4%, and 10.5%; rates of major bleeding were 17.0%, 17.6%, and 22.9%; rates of mortality were 6.3%, 1.5%, and 2.9%, respectively (P > 0.50 for all comparisons). Rates of these outcomes were multi-fold higher in patients having an urgent rather than an elective surgery/procedure (P < 0.5 for all comparisons). Conclusion: In anticoagulated patients with atrial fibrillation who require an urgent surgery/procedure, the risks for thromboembolism, major bleeding and mortality did not differ depending on treatment with dabigatran or warfarin, but rates of these outcomes were multi-fold higher than in patients having an elective surgery/procedure.
|
|
| 2. |
- Morales Salinas, Alberto, et al.
(författare)
-
Clinical Perspective on Antihypertensive Drug Treatment in Adults With Grade 1 Hypertension and Low-to-Moderate Cardiovascular Risk : An International Expert Consultation
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Current problems in cardiology. - : Elsevier. - 0146-2806 .- 1535-6280. ; 42:7, s. 198-225
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Hypertension is a leading risk factor for disease burden globally. An unresolved question is whether grade 1 hypertension (140-159/90-99 mm Hg) with low (cardiovascular mortality < 1% at 10 years) to moderate (cardiovascular mortality ≥ 1% and <5% at 10 years) absolute total cardiovascular risk (CVR) should be treated with antihypertensive agents. A virtual international consultation process was undertaken to summarize the opinions of select experts. After holistic analysis of all epidemiological, clinical, psychosocial, and public health elements, this consultation process reached the following consensus in hypertensive adults aged < 80 years: (1) The question of whether drug treatment in grade 1 should be preceded by a period of some weeks or months during which only lifestyle measures are recommended cannot be evidence based, but the consensus opinion is to have a period of lifestyle alone reserved only to patients with grade 1 "isolated" hypertension (grade 1 uncomplicated hypertension with low absolute total CVR, and without other major CVR factors and risk modifiers). (2) The initiation of antihypertensive drug therapy in grade 1 hypertension with moderate absolute total CVR should not be delayed. (3) Men ≥ 55 years and women ≥ 60 years with uncomplicated grade 1 hypertension should automatically be classified within the moderate absolute total CVR category, even in the absence of other major CVR factors and risk modifiers. (4) Statins should be considered along with blood-pressure lowering therapy, irrespective of cholesterol levels, in patients with grade 1 hypertensive with moderate CVR.
|
|
| 3. |
- Salam, Abdul, et al.
(författare)
-
Effects of blood pressure lowering on cardiovascular events, in the context of regression to the mean : a systematic review of randomized trials
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Journal of Hypertension. - : Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. - 0263-6352 .- 1473-5598. ; 37:1, s. 16-23
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective: To assess the clinical relevance of regression to the mean for clinical trials and clinical practice. Methods: MEDLINE was searched until February 2018 for randomized trials of BP lowering with over 1000 patient-years follow-up per group. We estimated baseline mean BP, follow-up mean (usual) BP amongst patients grouped by 10 mmHg strata of baseline BP, and assessed effects of BP lowering on coronary heart disease (CHD) and stroke according to these BP levels. Results: Eighty-six trials (349 488 participants), with mean follow-up of 3.7 years, were included. Most mean BP change was because of regression to the mean rather than treatment. At high baseline BP levels, even after rigorous hypertension diagnosis, downwards regression to the mean caused much of the fall in BP. At low baseline BP levels, upwards regression to the mean increased BP levels, even in treatment groups. Overall, a BP reduction of 6/3 mmHg lowered CHD by 14% (95% CI 11-17%) and stroke by 18% (15-22%), and these treatment effects occurred at follow-up BP levels much closer to the mean than baseline BP levels. In particular, more evidence was available in the SBP 130-139 mmHg range than any other range. Benefits were apparent in numerous high-risk patient groups with baseline mean SBP less than 140 mmHg. Conclusion: Clinical practice should focus less on pretreatment BP levels, which rarely predict future untreated BP levels or rule out capacity to benefit from BP lowering in high cardiovascular risk patients. Instead, focus should be on prompt, empirical treatment to maintain lower BP for those with high BP and/or high risk.
|
|
| 4. |
- Teo, Koon K., et al.
(författare)
-
Effects of telmisartan, irbesartan, valsartan, candesartan, and losartan on cancers in 15 trials enrolling 138 769 individuals The ARB Trialists Collaboration
- 2011
-
Ingår i: Journal of Hypertension. - 0263-6352 .- 1473-5598. ; 29:4, s. 623-635
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) reduce cardiovascular disease (CVD) events, but a recent meta-analysis of selected studies suggested that ARBs may increase cancer risks.Objective Candesartan, irbesartan, telmisartan, valsartan, and losartan were assessed for incident cancers in 15 large parallel long-term multicenter double-blind clinical trials of these agents involving 138 769 participants.Patients and methods Individuals at high CVD risk were randomized to telmisartan (three trials, n=51 878), irbesartan (three trials, n=14 859), valsartan (four trials, n=44 264), candesartan (four trials, n=18 566), and losartan (one trial, n=9193) and followed for 23-60 months. Incident cancer cases were compared in patients randomized to ARBs versus controls. In five trials (n=42 403), the ARBs were compared to ACEi and in 11 trials (n=63 313) to controls without ACEi. In addition, in seven trials (n=47 020), the effect of ARBs with ACEi was compared to ACEi alone and in two trials ARBs with ACEi versus ARB alone (n=25 712).Results Overall, there was no excess of cancer incidence with ARB therapy compared to controls in the 15 trials [ 4549 (6.16%) cases of 73 808 allocated to ARB versus 3856 (6.31%) of 61 106 assigned to non-ARB controls; odds ratio (OR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95-1.04] overall or when individual ARBs were examined. ORs comparing combination therapy with ARB along with ACEi versus ACEi was 1.01 (95% CI 0.94-1.10), combination versus ARB alone 1.02 (95% CI 0.91-1.13), ARB alone versus ACEi alone 1.06 (95% CI 0.97-1.16) and ARB versus placebo/control without ACEi 0.97 (95% CI 0.91-1.04). There was no excess of lung, prostate or breast cancer, or overall cancer deaths associated with ARB treatment.Conclusion There was no significant increase in the overall or site-specific cancer risk from ARBs compared to controls.
|
|
