CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

What's new in the Fourth Universal Definition of Myocardial infarction? Respiratory syncytial virus infection and risk of acute myocardial infarction Global, regional, and national age-sex specific mortality for 264 causes of death, 1980–2016: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016 Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: from mechanisms to therapies The SABRE Trial (Sirolimus Angioplasty Balloon for Coronary In-Stent Restenosis): Angiographic Results and 1-Year Clinical Outcomes Does calcium burden impact culprit lesion morphology and clinical results? An ADAPT-DES IVUS substudy Sex Differences in Clinical Profiles and Quality of Care Among Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction From 2001 to 2011: Insights From the China Patient-Centered Evaluative Assessment of Cardiac Events (PEACE)-Retrospective Study Direct comparison of cardiac myosin-binding protein C with cardiac troponins for the early diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction Low-Dose Aspirin Discontinuation and Risk of Cardiovascular Events: A Swedish Nationwide, Population-Based Cohort Study Wearable Cardioverter-Defibrillator after Myocardial Infarction

Original Research2018 Jun 12;137(24):2551-2553.

JOURNAL: Article Link

Conceptual Framework for Addressing Residual Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease Risk in the Era of Precision Medicine

Patel KV, Pandey A, de Lemos JA et al. Keywords: atherosclerosis; biomarkers; precision medicine; residual risk; secondary prevention

ABSTRACT

Until recently, therapies to mitigate atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk have been limited to lifestyle interventions, blood pressure-lowering medications, high-intensity statin therapy, antiplatelet agents, and, in select patients, coronary artery revascularization. Despite administration of these evidence-based therapies, substantial residual risk for cardiovascular events persists, particularly among individuals with known ASCVD. Moreover, the current guideline-based approach does not adequately account for patient-specific, causal pathways that lead to ASCVD progression and complications. In the past few years, multiple new pharmacological agents, targeting conceptually distinct pathophysiological targets, have been shown in large and well-conducted clinical trials to lower cardiovascular risk among patients with established ASCVD receiving guideline-directed medical care. These evidenced-based therapies reduce event rates and, in some cases, all-cause and cardiovascular mortality; these benefits confirm important new disease targets and challenge the adequacy of the current standard of care for secondary prevention.

After years of treating our patients after an acute coronary syndrome event with the same core group of medications that have been proven to be safe, beneficial, and cost-effective, a diverse array of potentially beneficial options to address residual risk is now available. The near simultaneous development of these new approaches to secondary prevention disrupts existing paradigms regarding assessment and treatment of residual risk. For example, consider a hypothetical patient with obesity, hypertension, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and hyperlipidemia who had a non-ST elevation myocardial infarction and received an intracoronary drug-eluting stent. This patient would likely be …

Please click the "Article Link" to address the full text.