Israel Medical Association Journal

In this review, the authors re-examine the role of aspirin in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. They discuss the history of the use of aspirin in primary prevention, the current guidelines, and the recent evidence surrounding aspirin use as primary prevention in special populations such as those with moderate cardiovascular risk, diabetes mellitus, and the elderly

Background: The salutary effects of statin therapy in patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) are well established. Although generally considered safe, statin therapy has been reported to contribute to induction of diabetes mellitus (DM).

Objectives: To assess the risk-benefit of statin therapy, prescribed for the prevention of CVD, in the development of DM.

Methods: In a population-based real-life study, the incidence of DM and CVD were assessed retrospectively among 265,414 subjects aged 40–70 years, 17.9% of whom were treated with statins. Outcomes were evaluated according to retrospectively determined baseline 10 year cardiovascular (CV) mortality risks as defined by the European Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation, statin dose-intensity regimen, and level of drug adherence.

Results: From 2010 to 2014, 5157 (1.9%) new cases of CVD and 11,637 (4.4%) of DM were observed. Low-intensity statin therapy with over 50% adherence was associated with increased DM incidence in patients at low or intermediate baseline CV risk, but not in patients at high CV risk. In patients at low CV risk, no CV protective benefit was obtained. The number needed to harm (NNH; incident DM) for low-intensity dose regimens with above 50% adherence was 40. In patients at intermediate and high CV risk, the number needed to treat was 125 and 29; NNH was 50 and 200, respectively.

Conclusions: Prescribing low-dose statins for primary prevention of CVD is beneficial in patients at high risk and may be detrimental in patients at low CV risk. In patients with intermediate CV risk, our data support current recommendations of individualizing treatment decisions.

Background: Syncope prognosis varies widely: 1 year mortality may range from 0% in the case of vasovagal events up to 30% in the presence of heart disease. 

Objectives: To assess the outcomes and prognosis of patients with implantable cardiac defibrillator (ICD) and indication of primary prevention and compare patients presenting with or without prior syncope.

Methods: We reviewed the charts of 75 patients who underwent ICD implantation with the indication of primary prevention and history of syncope and compared them to a control group of 80 patients without prior syncope. We assessed the number of ventricular tachycardia (VT), ventricular fibrillation (VF), shock, anti-tachycardia pacing (ATP), and death in each group during the follow-up.

Results: Mean follow-up was 893 days (810–976, 95% confidence interval) (no difference between groups). Patients with prior syncope had a higher ejection fraction (EF) (35.5 ± 12.6 vs. 31.4 ± 8.76, P = 0.02), more episodes of VT (21.3% vs. 3.8%, P = 0.001) and VF (8% vs. 0%, P = 0.01) and also received more electric shocks (18.7% vs. 3.8%, P = 0.004) and ATP (17.3% vs. 6.2%, P = 0.031). There were no differences in inappropriate shocks (6.7% vs. 5%, P = 0.74), in cardiovascular mortality (cumulative 5 year estimate 29.9% vs. 32.2% P = 0.97) and any death (cumulative 5 year estimate 38.1% vs. 48.9% P = 0.18) during the follow-up.

Conclusions: Syncopal patients before ICD implantation seem to have more episodes of VT/VF and shock or ATP. No mortality differences were observed

 

Background: Syncope is a common clinical condition spanning from benign to life-threatening diseases. There is sparse information on the outcomes of syncopal patients who received an implantable cardiac defibrillator (ICD) for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD). 

Objectives: To assess the outcomes and prognosis of patients who underwent implantable cardiac defibrillator (ICD) implantation for primary prevention of SCD and compare them to patients who presented with or without prior syncope.

Methods: We compared the medical records of 75 patients who underwent ICD implantation for primary prevention of SCD and history of syncope to those of a similar group of 80 patients without prior syncope. We assessed the episodes of ventricular tachycardia (VT), ventricular fibrillation (VF), shock, anti-tachycardia pacing (ATP) and mortality in each group during follow-up.

Results: Mean follow-up was 893 days (810–976, 95%CI) (no difference between groups). There was no significant difference in gender or age. Patients with prior syncope had a higher ejection fraction rate (35.5 ± 12.6 vs. 31.4 ± 8.76, P = 0.02), experienced more episodes of VT (21.3% vs. 3.8%, P = 0.001) and VF (8% vs. 0%, P = 0.01), and received more electric shocks (18.7% vs. 3.8%, P = 0.004) and ATP (17.3% vs. 6.2%, P = 0.031). There were no differences in inappropriate shocks (6.7% vs. 5%, P = 0.74), cardiovascular mortality (cumulative 5 year estimate 29.9% vs. 32.2%, P = 0.97) and any death (cumulative 5 year estimate 38.1% vs. 48.9%, P = 0.18).

Conclusions: Patients presenting with syncope before ICD implantation seemed to have more episodes of VT/VF and shock or ATP. No differences in mortality were observed