Search PubMedSearch

PubMed · 9664741

[In Process Citation]

Abstract

The confirmation of ischaemic disease of the heart increases the probability of death due to cardiovascular causes to more than 80%. The overcoming of myocardial infarction increases, according to the past AHA data, the risk of the origin of a new coronary episode 5 or 7 fold. The necessity of decreasing this risk in the frame of secondary prevention is therefore very urgent. The first assumption of success in secondary prevention resides in optimal therapy in the acute phase of myocardial infarction. The thrombolytic therapy is accompanied by risks of re-perfusion lesion implying from the increased production of free oxygen radical, activation of leukocytes, intracellular calcium overload at a current deficit in potassium and magnesium, the defects of coronary microcirculation, increased sympathetic activities general disturbances of energetic reserves in myocardium. Very significantly is an early stratification of patients after MI to those indicated to intervention / in case that the mass of ischaemic myocardium exceeds 20%, or if EF is below 40%, and to patients who regarding the low risk are manageable by conservative procedure. Both groups profit from the modification of classical risk factors (hypertension, smoking, hypercholesterolaemia). The values of cholesterol measured within the acute phase of myocardial infarction are not indicative, very often they are low. Finally, also in the later period with so-called adequate values of the total cholesterol, the patient after overcoming IM is increasingly under threat. The aim of secondary prevention is to reduce the chief pathogen, namely LDL cholesterol below 2.6 mmol/l, the level of HDL cholesterol on the opposite should be above 1.0 mmol/l. It is necessary to re-emphasize that the bioactive capacity is borne but by the oxidated form of LDL. Oxidative stress has a direct negative effect on vascular endothelium, and haemocoagulation potential, it participates in the metabolic X syndrome (insulin resistance, hyperinsulinaemia, defects in glucose tolerance, hypertriglyceridaemia, hypertension). (Ref. 41.)

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

V Bada. 1998. [In Process Citation]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9664741/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccines against hospitalisation according to frailty risk: a prespecified analysis of the randomised trial DANFLU-2.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a major risk factor for influenza-related complications and can influence vaccine effectiveness. We aimed to assess the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of high-dose (HD-IIV) versus standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (SD-IIV) in older adults aged 65 years or older according to frailty risk. METHODS: This study was a prespecified analysis of DANFLU-2, an open-label, individually randomised trial, conducted in Denmark during three consecutive influenza seasons (2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25). Adults aged 65 years or older were randomised (1:1) to the HD-IIV or SD-IIV group. The primary endpoint was hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia. Frailty was defined according to the validated Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) based on ICD-10 codes within 10 years before randomisation. Participants were stratified into three HFRS categories, namely low (<5 points), intermediate (5-15 points), and high (>15 points) frailty risk. The rVE of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint was assessed across prespecified HFRS categories and treating HFRS as a continuous variable. Pearson's chi-square test was used to compare safety events across frailty risk groups and randomisation groups. FINDINGS: Among 332&#x2009;438 randomised participants (mean age 73&#xb7;7 years [SD 5&#xb7;8]; 161&#x2009;538 [48&#xb7;6%] were female), 276&#x2009;173 (83&#xb7;1%) had low frailty risk, 52&#x2009;395 (15&#xb7;8%) had intermediate frailty risk, and 3861 (1&#xb7;2%) had high frailty risk. The primary endpoint of hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia occurred in 1424 (0&#xb7;5%) of 276&#x2009;173 participants with low frailty risk, 761 (1&#xb7;5%) of 52&#x2009;395 with intermediate frailty risk, and 163 (4&#xb7;2%) of 3861 with high frailty risk (relative risk [RR] for intermediate vs low frailty risk 2&#xb7;8 [95% CI 2&#xb7;6-3&#xb7;1]; RR for high vs low frailty risk 8&#xb7;2 [7&#xb7;0-9&#xb7;6]). HFRS as a continuous variable significantly modified the effect of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint with higher rVE estimates with increasing HFRS (pinteraction=0&#xb7;020). The rVE was 0&#xb7;2% (95% CI -10&#xb7;8 to 10&#xb7;2) among those with low frailty risk, 13&#xb7;1% (-0&#xb7;4 to 24&#xb7;8) among those with intermediate frailty risk, and 19&#xb7;9% (-10&#xb7;3 to 42&#xb7;1) among those with high frailty risk. No significant interaction was observed when HFRS was assessed according to the prespecified categorical frailty groups (pinteraction=0&#xb7;17). The proportion of participants with at least one serious adverse event increased across frailty risk groups (13&#x2009;366 [4&#xb7;8%] of 275&#x2009;795 for low frailty risk, 5475 [10&#xb7;5%] of 52&#x2009;315 for intermediate frailty risk, and 777 [20&#xb7;2%] of 3850 for high frailty risk; p<0&#xb7;0001), with similar proportions of serious adverse events in the HD-IIV and SD-IIV groups for each frailty risk group. INTERPRETATION: Among adults aged 65 years or older in Denmark, frailty risk might modify the effects of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia, with higher rVE estimates with increasing frailty risk. These findings might support considering high-dose influenza vaccines for frail older adults. However, effect modification was not evident when frailty was assessed using prespecified categorical subgroups, and subgroup-specific estimates were imprecise, with 95% CIs crossing the null. These results should be considered exploratory, warranting further investigation. FUNDING: The DANFLU-2 trial was funded by Sanofi.

Journal Article