Gun Ownership and Firearm-related Deaths

BACKGROUND: A variety of claims about possible associations between gun ownership rates, mental illness burden, and the risk of fi rearm-related deaths have been put forward. However, systematic data on this issue among various countries remain scant. Our objective was to assess whether the popular notion "guns make a nation safer" has any merits.METHODS: Data on gun ownership were obtained from the Small Arms Survey, and for fi rearm-related deaths from a European detailed mortality database (World Health Organization), the National Center for Health Statistics, and others. Crime rate was used as an indicator of safety of the nation and was obtained from the United Nations Surveys of Crime Trends. Age-standardized disability-adjusted life- year rates due to major depressive disorder per 100,000 inhabitants with data obtained from the World Health Organization database were used as a putative indicator for mental illness burden in a given country.RESULTS: Among the 27 developed countries, there was a significant positive correlation between guns per capita per country and the rate of fi rearm-related deaths ( r ¼ 0.80; P < .0001). In addition, there was a positive correlation (r ¼ 0.52; P ¼ .005) between mental illness burden in a country and fi rearm-related deaths. However, there was no significant correlation (P ¼ .10) between guns per capita per country and crime rate ( r ¼ .33), or between mental illness and crime rate ( r ¼ 0.32; P ¼ .11). In a linear regression model with fi rearm-related deaths as the dependent variable with gun ownership and mental illness as independent covariates, gun ownership was a significant predictor ( P < .0001) of fi rearm-related deaths, whereas mental illness was of borderline significance ( P ¼ .05) only.CONCLUSION: The number of guns per capita per country was a strong and independent predictor of fi rearm-related death in a given country, whereas the predictive power of the mental illness burden was of borderline significance in a multivariable model. Regardless of exact cause and effect, however, the current study debunks the widely quoted hypothesis that guns make a nation safer

Fixed combination of amlodipine and atorvastatin in cardiovascular risk management: patient perspectives

Hypertension and dyslipidemia are two of the most commonly co-occurring cardiovascular risk factors which together cause an increase in coronary heart disease-related events that is more than simply additive for anticipated event rates with each condition. Data have shown that even relatively small reductions in both blood pressure and cholesterol levels can lead to large reductions in the risk for cardiovascular events. However, though there are robust data on the beneficial effect of concomitant reduction in these risk factors, the reality is that this is achieved in <10% of patients. There is nonadherence with prescribed therapies with up to 50% of patients stopping their medications of their own volition for a variety of reasons. There is a reasonable evidence base to suggest that simplifying drug regimens and reducing pill burden will enhance patient adherence. The fixed-dose combination containing the antihypertensive agent amlodipine besylate and the statin atorvastatin is the first combination of its kind, which is both efficacious and safe and could potentially improve medication compliance, thereby improving the outcomes in these patients

Resistant hypertension: what the cardiologist needs to know

Treatment-resistant hypertension (TRH) affects between 3 and 30% of hypertensive patients, and its presence is associated with increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Until recently, the interest on these patients has been limited, because providing care for them is difficult and often frustrating. However, the arrival of new treatment options [i.e. catheter-based renal denervation (RDN) and baroreceptor stimulation] has revitalized the interest in this topic. The very promising results of the initial uncontrolled studies on the blood pressure (BP)-lowering effect of RDN in TRH seemed to suggest that this intervention might represent an easy solution for a complex problem. However, subsequently, data from controlled studies have tempered the enthusiasm of the medical community (and the industry). Conversely, these new studies emphasized some seminal aspects on this topic: (i) the key role of 24 h ambulatory BP and arterial stiffness measurement to identify ‘true' resistant patients; (ii) the high prevalence of secondary hypertension among this population; and (iii) the difficulty to identify those patients who may profit from device-based interventions. Accordingly, for those patients with documented TRH, the guidelines suggest to refer them to a hypertension specialist/centre in order to perform adequate work-up and treatment strategies. The aim of this review is to provide guidance for the cardiologist on how to identify patients with TRH and elucidate the prevailing underlying pathophysiological mechanism(s), to define a strategy for the identification of patients with TRH who may benefit from device-based interventions and discuss results and limitations of these interventions, and finally to briefly summarize the different drug-based treatment strategie

Efficacy and safety of dual blockade of the renin-angiotensin system: meta-analysis of randomised trials

Objective To compare the long term efficacy and adverse events of dual blockade of the renin-angiotensin system with monotherapy. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane central register of controlled trials, January 1990 to August 2012. Study selection Randomised controlled trials comparing dual blockers of the renin-angiotensin system with monotherapy, reporting data on either long term efficacy (≥1 year) or safety events (≥4 weeks), and with a sample size of at least 50. Analysis was stratified by trials with patients with heart failure versus patients without heart failure. Results 33 randomised controlled trials with 68 405 patients (mean age 61 years, 71% men) and mean duration of 52 weeks were included. Dual blockade of the renin-angiotensin system was not associated with any significant benefit for all cause mortality (relative risk 0.97, 95% confidence interval 0.89 to 1.06) and cardiovascular mortality (0.96, 0.88 to 1.05) compared with monotherapy. Compared with monotherapy, dual therapy was associated with an 18% reduction in admissions to hospital for heart failure (0.82, 0.74 to 0.92). However, compared with monotherapy, dual therapy was associated with a 55% increase in the risk of hyperkalaemia (P less than 0.001), a 66% increase in the risk of hypotension (P less than 0.001), a 41% increase in the risk of renal failure (P=0.01), and a 27% increase in the risk of withdrawal owing to adverse events (P less than 0.001). Efficacy and safety results were consistent in cohorts with and without heart failure when dual therapy was compared with monotherapy except for all cause mortality, which was higher in the cohort without heart failure (P=0.04 v P=0.15), and renal failure was significantly higher in the cohort with heart failure (P less than 0.001 v P=0.79). Conclusion Although dual blockade of the renin-angiotensin system may have seemingly beneficial effects on certain surrogate endpoints, it failed to reduce mortality and was associated with an excessive risk of adverse events such as hyperkalaemia, hypotension, and renal failure compared with monotherapy. The risk to benefit ratio argues against the use of dual therapy

Resistant hypertension: what the cardiologist needs to know.

Treatment-resistant hypertension (TRH) affects between 3 and 30% of hypertensive patients, and its presence is associated with increased cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Until recently, the interest on these patients has been limited, because providing care for them is difficult and often frustrating. However, the arrival of new treatment options [i.e. catheter-based renal denervation (RDN) and baroreceptor stimulation] has revitalized the interest in this topic. The very promising results of the initial uncontrolled studies on the blood pressure (BP)-lowering effect of RDN in TRH seemed to suggest that this intervention might represent an easy solution for a complex problem. However, subsequently, data from controlled studies have tempered the enthusiasm of the medical community (and the industry). Conversely, these new studies emphasized some seminal aspects on this topic: (i) the key role of 24 h ambulatory BP and arterial stiffness measurement to identify 'true' resistant patients; (ii) the high prevalence of secondary hypertension among this population; and (iii) the difficulty to identify those patients who may profit from device-based interventions. Accordingly, for those patients with documented TRH, the guidelines suggest to refer them to a hypertension specialist/centre in order to perform adequate work-up and treatment strategies. The aim of this review is to provide guidance for the cardiologist on how to identify patients with TRH and elucidate the prevailing underlying pathophysiological mechanism(s), to define a strategy for the identification of patients with TRH who may benefit from device-based interventions and discuss results and limitations of these interventions, and finally to briefly summarize the different drug-based treatment strategies

Everolimus-eluting stents or bypass surgery for multivessel coronary disease

Copyright © 2015 Massachusetts Medical Society. BACKGROUND: Results of trials and registry studies have shown lower long-term mortality after coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG) than after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) among patients with multivessel disease. These previous analyses did not evaluate PCI with second-generation drug-eluting stents. METHODS: In an observational registry study, we compared the outcomes in patients with multivessel disease who underwent CABG with the outcomes in those who underwent PCI with the use of everolimus-eluting stents. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were the rates of myocardial infarction, stroke, and repeat revascularization. Propensity-score matching was used to assemble a cohort of patients with similar baseline characteristics. RESULTS: Among 34,819 eligible patients, 9223 patients who underwent PCI with everolimus-eluting stents and 9223 who underwent CABG had similar propensity scores and were included in the analyses. At a mean follow-up of 2.9 years, PCI with everolimus-eluting stents, as compared with CABG, was associated with a similar risk of death (3.1% per year and 2.9% per year, respectively; hazard ratio, 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93 to 1.17; P = 0.50), higher risks of myocardial infarction (1.9% per year vs. 1.1% per year; hazard ratio, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.29 to 1.77; P<0.001) and repeat revascularization (7.2% per year vs. 3.1% per year; hazard ratio, 2.35; 95% CI, 2.14 to 2.58; P<0.001), and a lower risk of stroke (0.7% per year vs. 1.0% per year; hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.76; P<0.001). The higher risk of myocardial infarction with PCI than with CABG was not significant among patients with complete revascularization but was significant among those with incomplete revascularization (P = 0.02 for interaction). CONCLUSIONS: In a contemporary clinical-practice registry study, the risk of death associated with PCI with everolimus-eluting stents was similar to that associated with CABG. PCI was associated with a higher risk of myocardial infarction (among patients with incomplete revascularization) and repeat revascularization but a lower risk of stroke. (Funded by Abbott Vascular.)published_or_final_versio