小剂量阿司匹林对心血管病一级预防效果及安全性的系统评价

目的 系统评价小剂量阿司匹林在高危人群中一级预防心血管病的有效性和安全性.方法 计算机检索MEDLINE、EMbase、Cochrane图书馆(2008年第3期)、中国生物医学文献数据库、中国学术期刊全文数据库,同时筛检了纳入文献的参考文献.收集小剂量阿司匹林(75～150 mg)一级预防心血管病的随机对照试验(RCT),2名评价员独立评价文献质量和提取资料,并采用RevMan4.2软件对资料进行荟萃分析.结果 共纳入6个研究(TPT,HOT,PPP,WHS,POPADAD,JPAD),72 466例患者.(1)小剂量阿司匹林总的心血管事件的发生率(RR=0.85,95% CI:0.80～0.92)、卒中发生率(RR=0.87,95% CI:0.77～0.98)、非致死性卒中发生率(RR=0.81,95%CI:0.70～0.95)、短暂脑缺血发作发生率(RR=0.76,95%CI:0.64～0.90)均低于安慰剂(均P＜0.05).(2)小剂量阿司匹林非致死性心肌梗死(RR=0.89,95%CI:0.77～1.02)、心血管性死亡(RR=0.98,95% CI:0.86～1.13)、全因死亡发生率(RR=0.95,95%CI:0.88～1.02)与安慰剂比较,差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).(3)在老年人群中分析显示,小剂量阿司匹林冠心病的发生率低于安慰剂(RR=0.81,95%CI:0.70～0.94,P＜0.01).(4)在安全性方面,与安慰剂比较,小剂量阿司匹林有出血并发症的风险(RR=1.15,95%CI:1.12～1.18,P＜0.01),而在过敏反应方面差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).结论 小剂最阿司匹林能降低总的心血管事件、短暂脑缺血发作、卒中、非致死性卒中的发生率;对降低非致死性心肌梗死、心血管性死亡、全因死亡方面效果不明显;在老年人群中小剂量阿司匹林能降低冠心病的发牛率;长期应用无明显过敏反应,但存在出血并发症的风险.     

阿司匹林对于心血管疾病一级预防的效果及安全性的系统综述及meta分析

目的使用系统综述和meta分析评价阿司匹林在心血管一级预防中的效果及安全性。方法 2014年12月利用阿司匹林、一级预防、心血管等作为检索词检索PubMed、EMBASE、Cochrane Library、ClinicalTrials.gov、中国生物医学文献数据库(CBM)、中国生物医学期刊引文数据库(CMCI)、中国期刊全文数据库(CNKI)、中国科技期刊数据库(VIP)及万方数据库等多个数据库。根据纳入排除标准对检索出的文献进行筛选。对纳入的文献进行方法学评价,并提取基本信息、方法学特征、干预措施和结局指标等信息。根据异质性检验选择固定效应模型或随机效应模型对各个研究的结果进行meta分析。数据分析和图表制作使用Stata11.0等软件完成。结果本研究共纳入10项研究,阿司匹林组共纳入59 365人,其中发生主要不良心血管事件(MACE)2222件(3.74%);安慰剂组纳入57 720人,发生MACE 2306件(4.00%)。使用固定效应模型的汇总结果显示出MACE风险显著减少10%(RR=0.90,95%CI:0.85~0.96,P0.000);心肌梗死风险降低16%(RR=0.84,95%CI:0.72~0.98,P=0.023);卒中风险降低了6%(RR=0.94,95%CI:0.86~1.04,P=0.211);全因死亡风险降低了5%(RR=0.94,95%CI:0.90~1.01,P=0.075);心血管死亡降低2%(RR=0.98,95%CI:0.89~1.09,P=0.776);大出血风险增加77%(RR=1.77,95%CI:1.40~2.22,P=0.000)。结论阿司匹林不适宜用于心血管疾病的一级预防,虽然可使MACE及心肌梗死事件的发生率降低,但是会增加发生大出血的风险。     

经皮冠状动脉介入术后以CYP2C19基因分型为指导的抗血小板治疗研究的荟萃分析

目的 评价CYP2C19基因分型为指导的抗血小板治疗策略对冠心病(CAD)患者预后的影响。方法 通过计算机检索PubMed、Embase、Cochrane library、中国知网、万方和维普数据库，经过严格的纳排标准和文献质量评估，采用风险比(RR)比较治疗的有效性和安全性。结果 共纳入10项随机对照研究，包括11 065例CAD患者。结果表明：相较于常规治疗组，基因指导组在PCI术后发生心肌梗死风险(RR=0.55,95%CI:0.42～0.72,P<0.0001)、支架内血栓形成风险(RR=0.62,95%CI:0.42～0.91,P=0.02)、心血管死亡风险(RR=0.67,95%CI:0.46～0.97,P=0.03)和不良心血管事件发生风险(RR=0.60,95%CI:0.39～0.91,P=0.02)均更低。而两组的靶血管血运重建风险(RR=0.90,95%CI:0.75～1.08,P=0.26)和大出血风险(RR=0.87,95%CI:0.73～1.03,P=0.11)的差异均无统计学意义。结论 CYP2C19基因分型为指导的抗血小板策略可以显著提高CAD患者的...     

替格瑞洛与氯吡格雷的安全性和有效性在东亚急性心肌梗死患者的比较:系统回顾和荟萃分析

目的此荟萃分析是为了更好地评价替格瑞洛与氯吡格雷相比在东亚急性冠脉综合征患者中的作用。方法使用常用的在线检索数据库(Cochrane library、PubMed和Medline)检索相关文献。主要终点为不良心血管事件,次要结果是出血事件。该分析采用RevMan 5.3进行,以RR和95%CI作为统计参数。结果这项分析包括8项研究,共30 366例参与者。基于笔者的研究结果,替格瑞洛主要疗效终点风险(定义为血管死因、心肌梗死或卒中的复合死亡)的数值较低(无统计学意义)(RR 1.12,95%CI0.78～1.62,I2=55%,P=0.09)。主要不良心血管事件、卒中和心肌梗死发生率显著降低,替格瑞洛优于氯吡格雷(RR 1.38,95%CI1.05～1.80,I2=59%,P0.02; RR 1.46,95%CI 1.16～1.85,P0.02,I2=1%; RR 1.15,95%CI 1.01～1.31,P=0.03,I2=28%)。此外,与氯吡格雷相比,替格瑞洛主要出血事件及全因死亡率无统计学意义(RR 1.12,95%CI 0.78～1.62,P=0.53,I2=54%; RR 1.37,95%CI 0.89～2.11,P=0.16,I2=82%)。结论荟萃分析表明,在东亚急性冠脉综合征患者中,替格瑞洛明显优于氯吡格雷,经皮冠状动脉介入治疗后全因死亡率、主要不良心血管事件和卒中显著降低。替格瑞洛与氯吡格雷相比,二者主要出血风险无差异。     

达格列净治疗心力衰竭疗效和安全性的Meta分析

目的:达格列净属于钠-葡萄糖协同转运蛋白2(SGLT-2)抑制剂。本研究评价达格列净治疗心力衰竭的疗效和安全性。方法:根据协同检索策略,检索Medline、Embase、中文万方数据库、CNKI、Cochrane图书馆临床对照试验资料库。仅纳入所有关于达格列净治疗心力衰竭的随机对照试验(RCT)。由2名评价员独立对纳入的文献进行质量评价和数据提取。采用风险比(hazard ratio,HR)和相对危险度(relative risk,RR)及其95%置信区间(CI)评价达格列净治疗心力衰竭的疗效和安全性。采用Stata 11.0软件进行Meta分析。结果:纳入5项随机对照试验,共计5998例患者。Meta分析结果显示达格列净联合常规治疗与安慰剂联合常规治疗比较,有效降低心血管死亡/心力衰竭住院复合终点事件(HR=0.73,95%CI 0.64～0.83,P0.001),降低心血管死亡风险(RR=0.80,95%CI 0.68～0.93,P=0.005),降低心力衰竭住院风险(HR=0.68,95%CI 0.58～0.80,P0.001),降低全因死亡风险(RR=0.80,95%CI 0.70～0.92,P=0.002)。达格列净不增加严重低血糖、容量不足、肾脏不良事件和截肢等风险。结论:达格列净可以降低心力衰竭患者的死亡和心力衰竭住院风险。     

华法林基因型指导临床用药疗效的Meta分析

目的:系统评价华法林基因型指导临床用药的有效性及安全性。方法:检索建库至2018年10月Pubmed、Embase、Cochrane图书馆、万方数据库和中国知网的随机对照试验,同时采用Revman5.3软件对纳入的随机对照试验进行荟萃分析。根据随访时间不同对TTR、INR4、大出血事件、血栓栓塞事件变量行亚组分析,评估华法林基因型指导临床用药的有效性及安全性。绘制漏斗图评价发表偏倚。结果:纳入11项研究共4 475例患者。随访时间1个月内的亚组分析显示,试验组与对照组TTR无显著统计学差异(WMD=1.30%,95%CI:-0.27～2.87,P=0.11),INR4事件无显著统计学差异(RR=0.88,95%CI:0.6～1.3,P=0.52),试验组大出血事件显著降低(RR=0.41,95%CI:0.18～0.94,P=0.03)。在随访时间大于1个月的亚组分析中,试验组TTR显著优于对照组(WMD=5.37%,95%CI:3.24～7.50,P0.000 01),两组INR4事件无显著统计学差异(RR=1.01,95%CI:0.83～1.23,P=0.93),试验组大出血事件显著降低(RR=0.5,95%CI:0.28～0.9,P=0.02),两组栓塞事件无显著统计学差异(RR=0.73,95%CI:0.48～1.1,P=0.14)。结论:对于需长期抗凝、高出血风险的患者,华法林基因型指导临床用药显示出其优越性。     

比伐卢定与肝素制剂在PCI患者中疗效与出血风险比较的Meta分析

目的 系统评价比伐卢定与肝素制剂（普通肝素及低分子肝素）在经皮冠状动脉介入治疗（PCI）患者中的疗效与出血风险.方法 计算机检索PubMed、Embase、Elsevier、Cochrane图书馆数据库及中国万方、中国知网（CNKI）数据库,收集比伐卢定与肝素制剂治疗PCI患者的随机对照试验（RCTs）,由两名研究者独立检索和评价相关文献,利用RevMan 5.1及Stata软件进行数据统计学处理.分别观察近期（术后30d内）及远期（术后1年）的主要不良心血管事件（MACEs）及术后出血风险.结果 共纳入12项研究,37 024例患者,Meta分析显示：比伐卢定与肝素制剂无论单用或者联用血小板膜糖蛋白GPⅡb/Ⅲa受体拮抗剂,短期（RR=0.96,95%CI：0.78～1.18,P=0.26）及1年时（RR=0.94,95%CI：0.81～1.08,P=0.15）死亡率的比较两组均无统计学差异;短期（RR=1.00,95%CI：0.91～1.09,P=0.19）及1年时（RR=1.06,95%CI：0.95～1.18,P=0.25）心肌梗死发生率两组均无统计学差异;短期（RR=1.04,95%CI：0.89～1.23,P=0.21）及1年时（RR=1.03,95%CI：0.94～1.12,P=0.07）再次血运重建发生率两组均无统计学差异;而比伐卢定组短期出血风险较肝素制剂组显著降低（RR=0.58,95%CI：0.48～0.69,P=0.02）.结论 对PCI治疗患者,比伐卢定与肝素制剂在死亡率、心肌梗死、再次血运重建等主要不良心血管事件的结局相似,但比伐卢定在降低术后出血风险较肝素制剂更有优势.     

强化降压对中老年慢性肾脏病患者心血管及肾脏事件影响的荟萃分析

目的比较强化降压与标准降压对中老年慢性肾脏病(CKD)患者心血管及肾脏结局的影响。方法通过计算机检索英文数据库Pubmed、Embase、Cochrane,同时手工检索纳入文献的参考文献,收集截至2017年12月发表的比较中老年CKD患者强化降压与标准降压的随机临床试验,运用RevMan 5.3软件评价中老年CKD患者强化降压对心血管事件及肾脏事件的影响。结果共纳入随机对照试验4项,包含患者8 122例,其中强化降压组4 057例,标准降压组4 065例。分析发现,与标准降压组比较,强化降压组发生心血管病死亡风险降低31%(95%CI 10%～47%,P0.01),全因死亡风险降低23%(95%CI 8%～36%,P0.05),综合心血管事件风险降低17%(95%CI 3%～28%,P=0.02)。而两组主要冠状动脉事件(RR=0.88,95%CI 0.70～0.90,P=0.24)和综合肾脏事件(RR=0.92,95%CI 0.70～1.21,P=0.53)差异无统计学意义。结论强化降压能降低中老年CKD患者心血管病死亡率、全因死亡率及综合心血管事件发生率,而在主要冠状动脉事件发生率及综合肾脏事件发生率上没有明显差异。     

PCI术后造影随访和常规随访对患者预后影响的Meta分析

目的系统评价经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)后造影随访和常规随访对患者预后的影响。方法计算机检索PubMed、Web of Science、Cochrane Library和EMbase数据库,同时手工检索纳入研究的参考文献,检索时间均为建库至2019年7月1日,搜集有关PCI术后造影随访(AF)和常规随访(CF)对患者预后影响的随机对照研究。由2位评价员按纳入与排除标准独立筛选文献、提取数据并按照Cochrane偏倚风险评估工具进行纳入研究的质量评价后,采用RevMan5.3软件进行Meta分析。结果共纳入随机对照试验6篇,患者7065例,其中AF组3492例,CF组4113例。Meta分析结果显示,与CF组相比,AF组患者总的再次血运重建率(RR=1.62,95%CI:1.32～2.00,P0.00001)升高,靶血管血运重建(TVR)(RR=1.68,95%CI:1.18～2.38,P=0.004)和靶病变血运重建(TLR)(RR=1.64,95%CI:1.39～1.95,P0.00001)发生率均明显升高;全因死亡率(RR=0.66,95%CI:0.50～0.87,P=0.004)下降;心肌梗死(MI)率(RR=0.80,95%CI:0.52～1.23,P=0.31)两组间无明显差异。结论冠状动脉(冠脉)造影作为PCI的随访手段之一,增加再次血运重建的机率,可能减少患者远期的全因死亡率和心肌梗死率。对高缺血风险患者的价值还需大样本完全随机方法的研究结果支持。     

完全血运重建对合并多支血管病变的急性ST段抬高型心肌梗死患者预后影响的Meta分析

目的系统评价完全血运重建与仅罪犯血管介入治疗合并多支血管病变的急性ST段抬高型心肌梗死患者的临床疗效。方法计算机检索PubMed、EMBASE、Cochrane Library、CBM、CNKI、万方数据库,纳入有关完全血运重建和仅罪犯血管介入治疗合并多支血管病变的急性ST段抬高型心肌梗死预后比较的随机对照研究。由两名评价员按照纳入与排除标准筛选文献,提取资料和评价质量后,采用Cochrane协作网提供的RevMan5.3统计软件进行Meta分析。结果最终纳入11篇随机对照研究,共计3697例患者,其中完全血运重建组1675例,仅罪犯血管经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)组2022例。Meta分析结果显示,与仅罪犯血管PCI组相比,完全血运重建组在主要心血管事件(MACE)发生率(RR=0.53,95%CI:0.42～0.69,P0.001)、心血管死亡率(RR=0.46,95%CI:0.30～0.71,P0.001)、全因死亡率(RR=0.68,95%CI:0.50～0.92,P=0.01)、再次血运重建(RR=0.38,95%CI:0.31～0.47,P0.001)发生率显著降低,差异有统计学意义;但两组再发急性心肌梗死率无统计学差异(RR=0.74,95%CI:0.54～1.01,P=0.06)。结论在合并多支血管病变的急性ST段抬高型心肌梗死患者的介入治疗中,与仅罪犯血管介入治疗相比,完全血运重建治疗策略是安全有效的,可降低患者的MACE发生率、心血管死亡率、全因死亡率及再次血运重建,改善预后。     

P2Y12 Inhibitors versus Aspirin Monotherapy for Long-term Secondary Prevention of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Events: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) need long-term antiplatelet therapy to decrease the risk of future ASCVD events. We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov (inception through September 2021) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating P2Y₁₂ inhibitors vs aspirin for secondary prevention of ASCVD events. Seven RCTs including a total of 56,982 patients were included in this analysis. The median follow-up duration was 22.8 (IQR 12) months. When P2Y₁₂ inhibitors were compared with aspirin as long-term antiplatelet therapy for secondary prevention of ASCVD events, there was a significant decrease in the risk of myocardial infarction [RR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.72-0.94], and stroke [RR: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.83-0.99]. However, there was no significant difference in all-cause mortality [RR: 1.02; 95% CI: 0.92-1.12], or cardiovascular mortality [RR: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.83-1.08] between P2Y₁₂ inhibitors and aspirin users. Additionally, there was no significant difference in major bleeding events [RR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.74-1.04], or all bleeding events [RR: 1.09; 95% CI: 0.90-1.33] between P2Y₁₂ inhibitors and aspirin groups. Use of P2Y₁₂ inhibitor monotherapy is associated with lower rates of myocardial infarction and stroke in ASCVD patients without any significant difference in mortality, or bleeding compared to aspirin monotherapy.     

Aspirin in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease on diabetic patients: Systematic review and meta-analysis

AimsThe publication of new trials brought additional data to the controversial topic of aspirin use in diabetic patients for primary prevention. Therefore, we aimed to systematically review all randomized controlled trials evaluating the clinical impact of aspirin in this setting.MethodsWe searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the impact of aspirin in patients with diabetes in primary prevention, in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL (November/2018). The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and the composite outcome of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). A meta-analysis was performed deriving risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI).ResultsAll-cause mortality was not significantly reduced with RR 0.96 (95% CI 0.90–1.03; 7RCT; 27,595 patients). Regarding MACE, there was an 8% risk reduction (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.84-0.999; I² = 0%; 8RCT; 29,814 patients). The risks of major bleeding (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.10–1.53; 2RCTs, 18,019 patients), and major GI bleeding (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.08–1.80; 2RCTs, 18,019 patients) were significantly increased.The risks of cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke and amputation were not significantly different from control arm.ConclusionsAspirin use among diabetic patients in primary prevention appears was associated with increased risk of major bleeding, a modest decrease of MACE and lack of mortality benefit.     

Effect of aspirin on mortality in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease

Objective

The lack of a mortality benefit of aspirin in prior meta-analyses of primary prevention trials of cardiovascular disease has contributed to uncertainty about the balance of benefits and risks of aspirin in primary prevention. We performed an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of aspirin to obtain best estimates of the effect of aspirin on mortality in primary prevention.

Methods

Eligible articles were identified by searches of electronic databases and reference lists. Outcomes of interest were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, and bleeding. Data were pooled from individual trials using the DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model, and results are presented as relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Results

Nine randomized controlled trials enrolling 100,076 participants were included. Aspirin reduced all-cause mortality (RR 0.94; 95% CI, 0.88-1.00), myocardial infarction (RR 0.83; 95% CI, 0.69-1.00), ischemic stroke (RR 0.86; 95% CI, 0.75-0.98), and the composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, or cardiovascular death (RR 0.88; 95% CI, 0.83-0.94), but did not reduce cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.96; 95% CI, 0.84-1.09). Aspirin increased the risk of hemorrhagic stroke (RR 1.36; 95% CI, 1.01-1.82), major bleeding (RR 1.66; 95% CI, 1.41-1.95), and gastrointestinal bleeding (RR 1.37; 95% CI, 1.15-1.62). A lack of availability of patient-level data precluded exploration of benefits and risks of aspirin in key subgroups.

Conclusion

Aspirin prevents deaths, myocardial infarction, and ischemic stroke, and increases hemorrhagic stroke and major bleeding when used in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease.     

A Meta-Analysis of Aspirin for the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Diseases in the Context of Contemporary Preventive Strategies

BackgroundThe role of aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular diseases remains controversial, particularly in the context of contemporary aggressive preventive strategies.MethodsRelevant randomized clinical trials were included, and risk ratios (RRs) were calculated using random-effects models. Additional moderator analyses were performed to compare the pooled treatment effects from recent trials (those reported after the guidelines of the National Cholesterol Education Program Third Adult Treatment Panel were published in 2001; thus, conducted on the background of contemporary preventive strategies) to the results of older trials.ResultsData from 14 randomized controlled trials involving 164,751 patients were included. Aspirin use decreased myocardial infarction risk by 16% compared with placebo (RR 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75-0.94); however, in the moderator analyses, aspirin was not associated with a decreased risk of myocardial infarction in recent trials, but was in older trials (P-interaction = .02). Overall, aspirin use significantly increased the occurrence of major bleeding (RR 1.49; 95% CI, 1.32-1.69) and hemorrhagic stroke (RR 1.25; 95% CI, 1.01-1.54). In moderator analyses, the risk of major bleeding (P-interaction = .12) or hemorrhagic stroke (P-interaction = .44) with aspirin was not significantly different between the older and new trials. Differences between aspirin and placebo in the risks for all-cause stroke, cardiac death, and all-cause mortality were not found.ConclusionsIn the context of contemporary primary prevention guidelines, the effect of aspirin on myocardial infarction risk was significantly attenuated, whereas its major bleeding and hemorrhagic stroke complications were retained. Therefore, in contemporary practice, routine use of aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular events may have a net harmful effect.     

Ticagrelor versus clopidogrel after fibrinolytic therapy in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel are recommended as adjuncts to fibrinolytic-treated patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). However, the role of switching to ticagrelor within 24 h of fibrinolytics compared with clopidogrel continuation in this setting is uncertain. Hence, we conducted a comprehensive search of electronic databases for all randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that evaluated the safety and efficacy of ticagrelor versus clopidogrel after fibrinolytic therapy in patients with STEMI. A random-effects model was used to calculate the risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A total of 5 RCTs that evaluated the efficacy of ticagrelor post-fibrinolysis were identified. We included 3 RCTs with 3999 total patients for our meta-analysis. The results showed similar short-term clinical outcomes between ticagrelor and clopidogrel with regard to rates of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type?≥?2 bleeding (RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.56–1.60; P?=?0.83), major adverse cardiovascular events (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.49–1.52; P?=?0.62), mortality (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.53–1.59; P?=?0.77), myocardial infarction (RR 0.76; 95% CI 0.43–1.36; P?=?0.36), and stroke (RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.50–1.73; P?=?0.82). Our results demonstrate that in STEMI patients treated with fibrinolytic therapy, switching to ticagrelor was associated with similar bleeding and ischemic outcomes compared with clopidogrel continuation.     

The efficacy and safety of P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy in patients after percutaneous coronary intervention

The optimal antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains to be elucidated. Monotherapy with a P2Y12 inhibitor may be inferior to dual antiplatelet therapy in patients after PCI. PubMed, EMBASE (by Ovidsp), Web of Science, and The Cochrane Library were searched from database inception to 2 October 2019. The composite of cardiovascular outcomes, all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, stent thrombosis, and major bleeding were evaluated. Pooled outcomes were presented as relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A total of four trials randomizing 29 089 participants were included. Compared with the dual antiplatelet therapy group (n = 14 559), the P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy group (n = 14 530) significantly decreased the incidence of bleeding events (2.0% vs 3.1%; RR: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.43-0.84; P = .005). There were no significant differences in all-cause mortality (1.3% vs 1.5%; RR: 0.87; 95% CI, 0.71-1.06; P = .16), myocardial infarction (2.1% vs 1.9%; RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.90-1.25; P = .46), stroke (0.6% vs 0.5%; RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.67-2.07; P = .57), or stent thrombosis (0.5% vs 0.4%; RR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.81-1.61; P = .44) between the two groups. P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy did not show any significant difference in the adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events, but markedly decreased the risk of bleeding among patients after PCI vs dual antiplatelet therapy. However, it still needs to be further confirmed due to limited data.     

Antithrombotic Therapy With or Without Aspirin After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention or Acute Coronary Syndrome in Patients Taking Oral Anticoagulation: A Meta-Analysis and Network Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

IntroductionTrials investigating aspirin omission in patients taking oral anticoagulation (OAC) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or acute coronary syndrome (ACS) were not powered to assess rates of major bleeding or ischemic events.MethodsWe performed an updated meta-analysis and network analysis of randomized trials comparing treatment with or without aspirin in patients taking OAC and a P2Y12-inhibitor after PCI or ACS. The primary outcome was TIMI major bleeding.ResultsFive trials enrolling 11,542 patients allocated to antithrombotic regimens omitting (n = 5795) or including aspirin (n = 5747) were included. Aspirin omission was associated with a lower risk of TIMI major bleeding (RR = 0.56, 95% CI [0.44–0.71]; P < 0.001) but a trend towards a higher risk of MI (RR = 1.21, 95% CI [0.99–1.47]; P = 0.06), which was significantly higher when only non-vitamin K antagonist OAC (NOAC)-based trials were considered (P_interaction = 0.02). The risk of stent thrombosis was comparable with both strategies (RR = 1.29, 95% CI [0.87–1.90]; P = 0.20), with a trend towards a higher risk of ST with aspirin omission when only NOAC-based trials were considered (P_interaction = 0.06). Risks of stroke and death were similar with both strategies. Network meta-analysis ranked dabigatran (low dose) without aspirin as the best strategy for bleeding reduction (P-score = 0.86) and apixaban with aspirin as the best strategy for MI reduction (P-score = 0.66).ConclusionsIn patients taking OAC after PCI or ACS, aspirin omission is associated with a lower risk of TIMI major bleeding, with a numerically increased risk of MI, which is statistically significant when only NOAC-based trials are considered. This supports individualization of the treatment regimen based on patient risk.     

Aspirin for Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Events

BackgroundThe efficacy and safety of aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) remain debatable.ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to examine the clinical outcomes with aspirin for primary prevention of CVD after the recent publication of large trials adding >45,000 individuals to the published data.MethodsRandomized controlled trials comparing clinical outcomes with aspirin versus control for primary prevention with follow-up duration of ≥1 year were included. Efficacy outcomes included all-cause death, cardiovascular (CV) death, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), and major adverse cardiovascular events. Safety outcomes included major bleeding, intracranial bleeding, fatal bleeding, and major gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. Random effects DerSimonian-Laird risk ratios (RRs) for outcomes were calculated.ResultsA total of 15 randomized controlled trials including 165,502 participants (aspirin n = 83,529, control n = 81,973) were available for analysis. Compared with control, aspirin was associated with similar all-cause death (RR: 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.93 to 1.01), CV death (RR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.86 to 1.00), and non-CV death (RR: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.92 to 1.05), but a lower risk of nonfatal MI (RR: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.72 to 0.94), TIA (RR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.71 to 0.89), and ischemic stroke (RR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.79 to 0.95). Aspirin was associated with a higher risk of major bleeding (RR: 1.5; 95% CI: 1.33 to 1.69), intracranial bleeding (RR: 1.32; 95% CI: 1.12 to 1.55), and major GI bleeding (RR: 1.52; 95% CI: 1.34 to 1.73), with similar rates of fatal bleeding (RR: 1.09; 95% CI: 0.78 to 1.55) compared with the control subjects. Total cancer and cancer-related deaths were similar in both groups within the follow-up period of the study.ConclusionsAspirin for primary prevention reduces nonfatal ischemic events but significantly increases nonfatal bleeding events.     

Effects of omega-3 fatty acid on major cardiovascular outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background:The effects of omega-3 fatty acid on cardiovascular health obtained inconsistent results. A systematic review and meta-analysis were therefore conducted to assess the effects of omega-3 fatty acid supplementation for primary and secondary prevention strategies of major cardiovascular outcomes.Methods:The databases of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane library were systematically searched from their inception until September 2020. Relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals were used to assess effect estimates by using the random-effects model.Results:Twenty-eight randomized controlled trials involving 136,965 individuals were selected for the final meta-analysis. Omega-3 fatty acid was noted to be associated with a lower risk of major cardiovascular events (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.89–1.00; P = .049) and cardiac death (RR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.85–0.99; P = .022). However, no significant differences was noted between omega-3 fatty acid and the control for the risks of all-cause mortality (RR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.92–1.03; P = .301), myocardial infarction (RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.80–1.01; P = .077), and stroke (RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.94–1.11; P = .694).Conclusions:Major cardiovascular events and cardiac death risks could be avoided with the use of omega-3 fatty acid. However, it has no significant effects on the risk of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke.