Preventing cognitive decline and dementia from cerebral small vessel disease: The LACI-1 Trial. Protocol and statistical analysis plan of a phase IIa dose escalation trial testing tolerability, safety and effect on intermediary endpoints of isosorbide mononitrate and cilostazol, separately and in combination

Rationale The pathophysiology of most lacunar stroke, a form of small vessel disease, is thought to differ from large artery atherothrombo- or cardio-embolic stroke. Licensed drugs, isosorbide mononitrate and cilostazol, have promising mechanisms of action to support their testing to prevent stroke recurrence, cognitive impairment, or radiological progression after lacunar stroke. Aim LACI-1 will assess the tolerability, safety, and efficacy, by dose, of isosorbide mononitrate and cilostazol, alone and in combination, in patients with ischemic lacunar stroke. Sample size A sample of 60 provides 80+% power (significance 0.05) to detect a difference of 35% (90% versus 55%) between those reaching target dose on one versus both drugs. Methods and design LACI-1 is a phase IIa partial factorial, dose-escalation, prospective, randomized, open label, blinded endpoint trial. Participants are randomized to isosorbide mononitrate and/or cilostazol for 11 weeks with dose escalation to target as tolerated in two centers (Edinburgh, Nottingham). At three visits, tolerability, safety, blood pressure, pulse wave velocity, and platelet function are assessed, plus magnetic resonance imaging to assess cerebrovascular reactivity in a subgroup. Study outcomes Primary: proportion of patients completing study achieving target maximum dose. Secondary Symptoms whilst taking medications; safety (hemorrhage, recurrent vascular events, falls); blood pressure, platelet function, arterial stiffness, and cerebrovascular reactivity. Discussion This study will inform the design of a larger phase III trial of isosorbide mononitrate and cilostazol in lacunar stroke, whilst providing data on the drugs’ effects on vascular and platelet function

Cardiovasc Diabetol

Lower-extremity arterial disease (LEAD) is a major endemic disease with an alarming increased prevalence worldwide. It is a common and severe condition with excess risk of major cardiovascular events and death. It also leads to a high rate of lower-limb adverse events and non-traumatic amputation. The American Diabetes Association recommends a widespread medical history and clinical examination to screen for LEAD. The ankle brachial index (ABI) is the first non-invasive tool recommended to diagnose LEAD although its variable performance in patients with diabetes. The performance of ABI is particularly affected by the presence of peripheral neuropathy, medial arterial calcification, and incompressible arteries. There is no strong evidence today to support an alternative test for LEAD diagnosis in these conditions. The management of LEAD requires a strict control of cardiovascular risk factors including diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidaemia. The benefit of intensive versus standard glucose control on the risk of LEAD has not been clearly established. Antihypertensive, lipid-lowering, and antiplatelet agents are obviously worthfull to reduce major cardiovascular adverse events, but few randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have evaluated the benefits of these treatments in terms of LEAD and its related adverse events. Smoking cessation, physical activity, supervised walking rehabilitation and healthy diet are also crucial in LEAD management. Several advances have been achieved in endovascular and surgical revascularization procedures, with obvious improvement in LEAD management. The revascularization strategy should take into account several factors including anatomical localizations of lesions, medical history of each patients and operator experience. Further studies, especially RCTs, are needed to evaluate the interest of different therapeutic strategies on the occurrence and progression of LEAD and its related adverse events in patients with diabetes

Nivel de conocimientos de estudiantes de medicina sobre diagnóstico y manejo del infarto agudo del miocardio

Introduction: acute myocardial infarction is a disease with high morbidity and mortality.Objective: to determine the knowledge level of medical students about the diagnosis and management of acute myocardial infarction.Method: an observational, descriptive and cross-sectional study was carried out between January and February 2022 in medical students from the University of Medical Sciences of Pinar del Río who participated in the provincial update workshop on acute myocardial infarction. Through intentional sampling, a sample of 92 students was selected. To collect the information, a survey was used using Google Forms.Results: the female sex (65,21%), the age group from 21 to 22 years (65,21%) and the fourth-year students (50%) prevailed. Hypertension was the most identified risk factor (97,98%). 97,82% of the students identified precordial pain as the main clinical manifestation. 100% identified the presentation with complications, where sudden death was the most identified (81,52%). 100% point to the electrocardiogram as the main complementary, where ST alterations were the most identified (84,78%). 95,65% of the students indicated constant monitoring of vital parameters and cardiovascular function as the management measure.Conclusions: Medicine students belonging to the clinical area at the University of Medical Sciences of Pinar del Río have an adequate level of knowledge about the diagnosis and management of acute myocardial infarction.Introducción: el infarto agudo del miocardio constituye una enfermedad con elevada morbilidad y mortalidad.Objetivo: determinar el nivel de conocimientos de estudiantes de medicina sobre el diagnóstico y manejo del infarto agudo del miocardioMétodo: se realizó un estudio observacional, descriptivo y transversal entre enero y febrero de 2022 en estudiantes de Medicina de la Universidad de Ciencias Médicas de Pinar del Río del ciclo clínico que participaron en el Taller provincial de actualización sobre infarto agudo de miocardio. Mediante un muestreo intencional se seleccionó una muestra de 92 estudiantes. Para la recolección de la información se empleó una encuesta mediante Google Forms.Resultados: predominó el sexo femenino (65,21 %), el grupo etario de 21 a 22 años (65,21 %) y los estudiantes de cuarto año (50 %). La hipertensión fue el factor de riesgo más identificado (97,98 %). El 97,82 % de los estudiantes identificó el dolor precordial como principal manifestación clínica. El 100 % identificó la presentación con complicaciones, donde la muerte súbita fue la más identificada (81,52 %). El 100 % señala al electrocardiograma como principal complementario, donde las alteraciones del ST fueron las más identificada (84,78 %). El 95,65 % de los estudiantes indicaron la monitorización constante de los parámetros vitales y función cardiovascular como la medida de manejo.Conclusiones: los estudiantes de Medicina pertenecientes al área clínica en la Universidad de Ciencias Médicas de Pinar del Río poseen un adecuado nivel de conocimientos sobre el diagnóstico y manejo del infarto agudo del miocardio.  

Antiplatelet agents for preventing thrombosis after peripheral arterial bypass surgery

Background Peripheral arterial disease (PAD) may cause occlusions (blockages) in the main arteries of lower limbs. One treatment option is bypass surgery using autologous (the patient's own tissue) vein graft or prosthetic (artificial) graft. A number of factors influence occlusion rates in these patients, including the material used. To prevent graft occlusion patients are usually treated with antiplatelet, antithrombotic drugs, or a combination of both. Objectives To determine the effects of antiplatelet agents for the prevention of thrombosis in people with lower limb atherosclerosis who were undergoing femoropopliteal or femorodistal bypass grafting. Outcomes included the overall success of therapy (graft patency and limb salvage rates) and complications of treatment. Search methods For this update the Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Specialised Register (last searched June 2014) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2014, Issue 5). We sought additional trials through screening the reference lists of relevant papers. Selection criteria Two review authors, RB and AL, independently reviewed studies found in the search and evaluated them based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, resolving disagreements through discussion. Data collection and analysis RB and AL independently extracted details of the selected studies for the update. We compared the treatment and control groups for important prognostic factors and differences described. If any data were unavailable, we sought further information from study authors. We synthesised data by comparing group results. We addressed unit of analysis issues by subgroup analysis. Main results We include 16 studies with 5683 randomised participants. Nine different treatment groups were evaluated: aspirin (ASA) or aspirin and dipyridamole (ASA/DIP) versus placebo or nothing (six studies); ASA or ASA/DIP versus pentoxifylline (two studies); ASA/DIP versus indobufen (one study); ASA or ASA/DIP versus vitamin K antagonists (two studies); ASA/DIP versus low molecular weight heparin (one study); ticlopidine versus placebo (one study); ASA versus prostaglandin E1 (one study); ASA versus naftidrofuryl (one study); and clopidogrel and ASA versus ASA alone (one study). The treatment comparisons were evaluated separately, and, where possible, we performed subgroup analysis for venous grafts and prosthetic grafts and at different follow-up time points. The quality of evidence was low to moderate as many of the treatment comparisons had very few studies to contribute data, several of the included studies had unit of analysis issues, the treatment dosages varied between studies, and data for many outcomes important to this review were not given in any of the studies, or differed greatly between studies. Overall study quality was moderate, with the largest problem being that the majority of studies did not describe their methods of randomisation, allocation concealment or blinding of outcome assessors, leading to risk ratings of 'unclear'. The other main issue with study quality was studies not blinding participants or personnel. The treatment comparison with the most number of included studies, which allowed for robust conclusions, was that of aspirin (ASA) or ASA and dipyridamole (ASA/DIP) versus placebo or nothing, covered by six studies. For this treatment group, there was improved graft patency in the ASA or ASA/DIP treatment group, odds ratio (OR) 0.42 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.22 to 0.83; P = 0.01; 952 participants). This effect was not seen for venous grafts alone at any of the time points, but was observed for all time points in prosthetic grafts, including the final time point of 12 months (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.36; P < 0.00001; 222 participants). Only a single study evaluated secondary patency, for which there was no difference between treatment groups. For the comparison ASA or ASA/DIP versus placebo or nothing there was no difference for any of the side effects, including general, gastrointestinal, bleeding and wound/graft infection. Amputations, cardiovascular events and mortality were also similar between the treatment groups. The comparison of ASA or ASA/DIP versus vitamin K antagonists included two studies, one of which was very large, with over 2000 participants. There were no differences between treatment for primary graft patency at three, six, 12 or 24 months, and there was also no evidence of a difference for limb amputation, cardiovascular events or mortality. One large study (851 participants) evaluated clopidogrel and ASA versus ASA alone, and for all grafts there was no evidence of a difference of primary patency at 24 months. There was evidence of increased total bleeding in the clopidogrel and ASA group (OR 2.65, 95% CI 1.69 to 4.15) from an increase in mild (OR 2.34, 95% CI 1.37 to 4.00), and moderate bleeding (OR 4.13, 95% CI 1.37 to 12.45), but no difference in severe or fatal bleeding. There was no difference between the treatment groups for limb amputation or mortality. For the remaining treatment comparisons there is not currently enough evidence to draw any robust conclusions about the efficacy or safety of the treatment on graft patency after peripheral bypass. Authors' conclusions Antiplatelet therapy with aspirin or with aspirin plus dipyridamole had a beneficial effect on primary patency of peripheral bypass grafts compared to placebo or no treatment. This effect was not evident when evaluating venous grafts alone, but antiplatelet therapy did have a beneficial effect on patency in those who had prosthetic grafts. There was no evidence of differences in side effects (including general, gastrointestinal, bleeding or infection), amputation, cardiovascular events or mortality between the treatment groups. However, the number of participants included in this analysis might be too small to detect a statistically significant effect for side effects, amputation, cardiovascular morbidity or mortality. We found no difference in primary graft patency when aspirin or aspirin with dipyridamole was compared to a vitamin K antagonist or when clopidogrel with aspirin was compared to aspirin alone. However, there was evidence of increase bleeding in the clopidogrel with aspirin group for the latter comparison. The remaining six treatment comparisons did not include enough data to draw any robust conclusions about their efficacy or safety at this time