Given rapid advancements in medical science, it is often challenging for the busy clinician to remain up-to-date on the fundamental and multifaceted aspects of preventive cardiology and maintain awareness of the latest guidelines applicable to cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors. The "American Society for Preventive Cardiology (ASPC) Top Ten CVD Risk Factors 2021 Update" is a summary document (updated yearly) regarding CVD risk factors. This "ASPC Top Ten CVD Risk Factors 2021 Update" summary document reflects the perspective of the section authors regarding ten things to know about ten sentinel CVD risk factors. It also includes quick access to sentinel references (applicable guidelines and select reviews) for each CVD risk factor section. The ten CVD risk factors include unhealthful nutrition, physical inactivity, dyslipidemia, hyperglycemia, high blood pressure, obesity, considerations of select populations (older age, race/ethnicity, and sex differences), thrombosis/smoking, kidney dysfunction and genetics/familial hypercholesterolemia. For the individual patient, other CVD risk factors may be relevant, beyond the CVD risk factors discussed here. However, it is the intent of the "ASPC Top Ten CVD Risk Factors 2021 Update" to provide a succinct overview of things to know about ten common CVD risk factors applicable to preventive cardiology.

/pdf/ten-things-to-know-about-ten-cardiovascular-disease-risk-1y5o1sikh9.pdf

Ten things to know about ten cardiovascular disease risk factors

The American Society for Preventive Cardiology (ASPC) "Ten things to know about ten cardiovascular disease risk factors – 2022" is a summary document regarding cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors. This 2022 update provides summary tables of ten things to know about 10 CVD risk factors and builds upon the foundation of prior annual versions of "Ten things to know about ten cardiovascular disease risk factors” published since 2020. This 2022 version provides the perspective of ASPC members and includes updated sentinel references (i.e., applicable guidelines and select reviews) for each CVD risk factor section. The ten CVD risk factors include unhealthful dietary intake, physical inactivity, dyslipidemia, pre-diabetes/diabetes, high blood pressure, obesity, considerations of select populations (older age, race/ethnicity, and sex differences), thrombosis (with smoking as a potential contributor to thrombosis), kidney dysfunction and genetics/familial hypercholesterolemia. Other CVD risk factors may be relevant, beyond the CVD risk factors discussed here. However, it is the intent of the ASPC "Ten things to know about ten cardiovascular disease risk factors – 2022” to provide a tabular overview of things to know about ten of the most common CVD risk factors applicable to preventive cardiology and provide ready access to applicable guidelines and sentinel reviews. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajpc.2022.100342

Ten things to know about ten cardiovascular disease risk factors – 2022

http://www.ajkd.org/article/S0272638621010192/pdf

Diuretics in States of Volume Overload: Core Curriculum 2022.

Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients With Diabetes and Kidney Disease: JACC Review Topic of the Week.

Evolving understanding of cardiovascular protection by SGLT2 inhibitors: focus on renal protection, myocardial effects, uric acid, and magnesium balance.

This study aims to assess the comparative benefit and risk profile of treatment with mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) with regard to all-cause mortality (primary endpoint), cardiovascular mortality, or heart failure (HF)-related hospitalization (secondary endpoints) and the safety endpoints hyperkalemia, acute renal failure, and gynecomastia in patients with chronic HF. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis following PRISMA-P and PRISMA-NMA guidelines. From 16 different sources, 14 randomized controlled trials totaling 12,213 patients testing an active treatment of either spironolactone, eplerenone, or canrenone/potassium-canreonate in adults with symptomatic HF due to systolic dysfunction reporting any of the above endpoints were retained. Efficacy in comparison to placebo/standard medical care with respect to all-cause mortality was confirmed for spironolactone and eplerenone while no conclusion could be drawn for canrenone (HR 0.69 (0.62; 0.77), 0.82 (0.75; 0.91), and 0.50 (0.17; 1.45), respectively). Indirect comparisons hint a potential (non-significant) preference of spironolactone over eplerenone (HR 0.84 (0.68; 1.03)). The overall risk of bias was low to intermediate. Results for secondary endpoints as well as sensitivity analyses essentially mirrored these findings. The beta-blocker adjusted meta-analysis for the primary endpoint showed the same tendency as the unadjusted one (HR 0.39 (0.07; 2.03)). Results need to be interpreted with caution, though, as the resultant mix of patient- and study-level covariates produced unstable statistical modeling. We found no significant and systematic superiority of either MRA regarding efficacy toward all endpoints considered in both direct and indirect comparisons.

Relative Efficacy of Spironolactone, Eplerenone, and cAnRenone in patients with Chronic Heart failure (RESEARCH): a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

The majority of patients with chronic heart failure (HF) receive long-term treatment with loop diuretics. The comparative effectiveness of different loop diuretics is unknown. We searched PubMed, clinicaltrials.gov
 , the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the European Union Clinical Trials Register for randomised clinical trials exploring the efficacy of the loop diuretics azosemide, bumetanide, furosemide or torasemide in patients with HF. Comparators included placebo, standard medical care or any other active treatment. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. Secondary endpoints included cardiovascular mortality, HF-related hospitalisation and any combined endpoint thereof. Hypokalaemia and acute renal failure were defined as additional safety endpoints. Evidence was synthesised using network meta-analysis (NMA). Thirty-four trials reporting on 2647 patients were included. The overall quality of evidence was rated as moderate. NMA demonstrated no significant differences between loop diuretics with respect to all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality or hypokalaemia. In contrast, torasemide ranked best in terms of HF hospitalisation, and there was a trend towards benefits with torasemide with regard to occurrence of acute renal failure. Sensitivity analyses excluding trials with a follow-up < 6 months, trials with a cross-over design and those including < 25 patients confirmed the main results. We found no significant superiority of either loop diuretic with respect to mortality and safety endpoints. However, clinicians may prefer torasemide, as it was associated with fewer HF-related hospitalisations.

READY: relative efficacy of loop diuretics in patients with chronic systolic heart failure-a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials.

Comparative effectiveness of loop diuretics on mortality in the treatment of patients with chronic heart failure – A multicenter propensity score matched analysis

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

Mirjam Seiz

Author Tools

Chat about Author

Papers

Relative Efficacy of Spironolactone, Eplerenone, and cAnRenone in patients with Chronic Heart failure (RESEARCH): a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

READY: relative efficacy of loop diuretics in patients with chronic systolic heart failure-a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials.

Comparative effectiveness of loop diuretics on mortality in the treatment of patients with chronic heart failure – A multicenter propensity score matched analysis