[Secondary prevention of coronary heart disease in women and men in Germany from 1997-1999 and from 2008-2011-Trend analysis with two national health population surveys]

The efficacy of fish oil in preventing coronary heart disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Coronary heart disease (CHD) is one of the most common causes of death and disease burden in the world. Current fish oil aiming to prevent and treat CHD have shown a large variety of effects with low levels of evidence.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of fish oil for protection against CHD, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the use of fish oil for protection against CHD.

METHODS

We retrieved relevant articles published from January 1966 to January 2020 by searching the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Web of Science databases. RCTs of fish oil in preventing CHD were selected. The study quality was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool with RevMan 5.3 software. The first selection involved 360 citations. After screening and evaluation of suitability, 19 RCTs adjusted for clustering were included in the meta-analysis. All selected manuscripts considered that fish oil was effective in preventing CHD, secondary outcome measures included angina, sepsis and death.

RESULTS

Compared with the control group, fish oil may confer significant protection against CHD (odds ratio = 0.84; 95% confidence interval: 0.72-0.98). There was no significant difference in the incidence of secondary outcomes between the observation group and the control group (P > .05).

CONCLUSION

The above results show that fish oil plays an important role in reducing CHD and cardiovascular events. However, because of the suboptimal quality of the studies included into the meta-analysis, these results do not justify adding fish oils systematically to the heavy pharmaceutical assortment already recommended in CHD patients.

REGISTRATION DETAILS

CRD42020183719.

[Social inequalities in healthcare provision for patients with coronary heart disease: Results from the GEDA (German Health Update) study 2014/2015]

INTRODUCTION

Little is known about social inequalities in outpatient long-term care of coronary heart disease (CHD) in Germany.

METHODS

Regression analyses are based on the responses of women and men who participated in the national cross-sectional study "German Health update" (GEDA) 2014/2015 and had self-reported CHD (N=920). Outpatient healthcare of CHD was analysed on the basis of the self-reported administration of antihypertensive and cholesterol-lowering drugs, and the frequency of general practitioner (GP) contacts.

RESULTS

On average, respondents visited their GP 7.5 times a year (mean). 46 % did not receive guideline-consistent treatment, i. e. both antihypertensive and cholesterol-lowering drugs. Respondents of lower social status consulted their GP more frequently (approx. two visits per year) than those of higher social status (AME: 1.94; 95% CI 0.56 to 3.31). Regarding treatment with antihypertensive and cholesterol-lowering drugs, there were no significant differences for either gender or social status. Nevertheless, the probability that respondents with increased levels of blood lipids or cholesterol took only one or none of the two medications recommended for long-term treatment of CHD was reduced by 54 percentage points (AME: -0,54; 95% CI -0,61 to -0,48).

DISCUSSION

There are no social inequalities in the treatment of CHD patients with antihypertensive and cholesterol-lowering drugs, but inequalities exist in the frequency of visits to the GP who is more often consulted by the more socially disadvantaged patients.

CONCLUSION

With about 7.5 consultations per year, CHD patients visit their general practitioner more often than average, but in about half of these patients the medication supply is less than optimal. This may indicate a deficit in the medical treatment of CHD that cannot be explained by social inequalities. A possible starting point for improving healthcare, especially for patients without other risk factors, is to focus more strongly on a guideline-based approach to prescribing medication for CHD patients.

Sex and Age Differences in Patients With Unstable Angina Pectoris: A Single-Center Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND

Sex and age may affect the pathogenesis of coronary heart disease, such as cardiovascular risk factors, treatment and prognosis, but this information is not well known.

METHODS

This was a single-center retrospective cohort study. Patients with unstable angina pectoris between January 2013 and June 2018 were included and stratified into 4 age groups (<55, 55-64, 65-74 and ≥75 years). The cardiovascular risk factors profile, treatment and in-hospital prognosis differences by sex and age were explored.

RESULTS

This study included 5,908 patients (2,198 women). The women were older than the men (mean age 67 vs. 62 years). Approximately 2 of 3 patients had ≥3 cardiovascular risk factors. Men were more likely to be smokers, and women had a higher level of total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Hypertension, diabetes and chronic kidney disease were more frequent in women ≥ 65 years old than in similarly aged men. Men and women less than 65 years of age had more frequent family history of coronary heart disease, higher body mass index, higher fasting plasma glucose, and higher lipid levels, especially for patients <55 years of age. More women tended to receive medical therapy than men (51.6% vs. 42.8%, P < 0.01). The overall incidence of in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular events was higher in men than in women (4.1% vs. 2.6%, P < 0.05), whereas there was no sex difference in the in-hospital cardiac mortality (0.2% vs. 0.2%, P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Women had higher cholesterol levels, and were less likely to undergo revascularization therapy than similarly aged men, and elderly women had a higher prevalence of hypertension, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease than elderly men. In-hospital major adverse cardiovascular events were lower in women than in men; however, there was no sex difference in the in-hospital cardiac mortality.