The impact of type of dietary protein, animal versus vegetable, in modifying cardiometabolic risk factors: A position paper from the International Lipid Expert Panel (ILEP)

Proteins play a crucial role in metabolism, in maintaining fluid and acid-base balance and antibody synthesis. Dietary proteins are important nutrients and are classified into: 1) animal proteins (meat, fish, poultry, eggs and dairy), and, 2) plant proteins (legumes, nuts and soy). Dietary modification is one of the most important lifestyle changes that has been shown to significantly decrease the risk of cardiovascular (CV) disease (CVD) by attenuating related risk factors. The CVD burden is reduced by optimum diet through replacement of unprocessed meat with low saturated fat, animal proteins and plant proteins. In view of the available evidence, it has become acceptable to emphasize the role of optimum nutrition to maintain arterial and CV health. Such healthy diets are thought to increase satiety, facilitate weight loss, and improve CV risk. Different studies have compared the benefits of omnivorous and vegetarian diets. Animal protein related risk has been suggested to be greater with red or processed meat over and above poultry, fish and nuts, which carry a lower risk for CVD. In contrast, others have shown no association of red meat intake with CVD. The aim of this expert opinion recommendation was to elucidate the different impact of animal vs vegetable protein on modifying cardiometabolic risk factors. Many observational and interventional studies confirmed that increasing protein intake, especially plant-based proteins and certain animal-based proteins (poultry, fish, unprocessed red meat low in saturated fats and low-fat dairy products) have a positive effect in modifying cardiometabolic risk factors. Red meat intake correlates with increased CVD risk, mainly because of its non-protein ingredients (saturated fats). However, the way red meat is cooked and preserved matters. Thus, it is recommended to substitute red meat with poultry or fish in order to lower CVD risk. Specific amino acids have favourable results in modifying major risk factors for CVD, such as hypertension. Apart from meat, other animal-source proteins, like those found in dairy products (especially whey protein) are inversely correlated to hypertension, obesity and insulin resistance

Radial Access for Coronary Angiography Carries Fewer Complications Compared with Femoral Access : A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background and Aim: In patients undergoing diagnostic coronary angiography (CA) and percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI), the benefits associated with radial access compared with the femoral access approach remain controversial. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the short-term evidence-based clinical outcome of the two approaches. Methods: The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing radial versus femoral access for CA and PCI. We identified 34 RCTs with 29,352 patients who underwent CA and/or PCI and compared 14,819 patients randomized for radial access with 14,533 who underwent procedures using femoral access. The follow-up period for clinical outcome was 30 days in all studies. Data were pooled by meta-analysis using a fixed-effect or a random-effect model, as appropriate. Risk ratios (RRs) were used for efficacy and safety outcomes.Results: Compared with femoral access, the radial access was associated with significantly lower risk for all-cause mortality (RR: 0.74; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.61 to 0.88; p = 0.001), major bleeding (RR: 0.53; 95% CI:0.43 to 0.65; p ˂ 0.00001), major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE)(RR: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.74 to 0.91; p = 0.0002), and major vascular complications (RR: 0.37; 95% CI: 0.29 to 0.48; p ˂ 0.00001). These results were consistent irrespective of the clinical presentation of ACS or STEMI. Conclusions: Radial access in patients undergoing CA with or without PCI is associated with lower mortality, MACE, major bleeding and vascular complications, irrespective of clinical presentation, ACS or STEMI, compared with femoral access

Safety and efficacy of radial access vs femoral access in st-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a meta- analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background and Aim: The survival benefit associated with radial access compared with femoral access in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) referred for primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains controversial. The aim of this meta- analysis was to assess whether there are additional short-term benefits associated with the use radial access in patients undergoing primary PCI for STEMI. Methods: The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing radial and femoral access for primary PCI in patients presenting with STEMI. We identified 14 RCTs with 11,060 patients, 5,480 underwent radial access and 5,580 femoral access, all were followed up for a minimum of 30 days. Data were pooled by meta- analysis using a fixed-effects or a random-effects model, as appropriate. Random effect odds ratios were used for efficacy and safety outcomes. Results: Compared with femoral access, the radial access was associated with a significantly lower risk for all-cause mortality (odds ratio [OR]: 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.54 to 0.86; p = 0.001), major adverse cardiovascular events (OR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.70 to 0.98; p = 0.03), major bleeding (OR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.35 to 0.70; p \u3c 0.0001), and major vascular complications (OR: 0.48; 95% CI: 0.36 to 0.64; p \u3c 0.00001). The frequency of acute myocardial infarction or stroke were not different between the two approaches. Conclusions: In patients with STEMI treated by PCI, the radial access approach is associated with less mortality, MACE, major bleeding and vascular complications compared with femoral access

Long-Term Outcomes of Patients with Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Disease Treated with Percutaneous Angioplasty versus Bypass Grafting : A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background and Aim: Treatment of patients with left main coronary artery disease (LMCA) with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) remains controversial. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the long-term clinical outcomes of patients with unprotected LMCA treated randomly by PCI or CABG. Methods: PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Google Scholar, CENTRAL and ClinicalTrials.gov database searches identified five randomized trials (RCTs) including 4499 patients with unprotected LMCA comparing PCI (n= 2249) vs. CABG (n= 2250), with a minimum clinical follow-up of five years. Random effect risk ratios were used for efficacy and safety outcomes. The study was registered in PROSPERO. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACE), defined as a composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction or stroke. Results: Compared to CABG, patients assigned to PCI had a similar rate of MACE (risk ratio (RR): 1.13; 95% CI: 0.94 to 1.36;p= 0.19), myocardial infarction (RR: 1.48; 95% CI: 0.97 to 2.25;p= 0.07) and stroke (RR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.62 to 1.23;p= 0.42). Additionally, all-cause mortality (RR: 1.07; 95% CI: 0.89 to 1.28;p= 0.48) and cardiovascular (CV) mortality (RR: 1.13; 95% CI: 0.89 to 1.43;p= 0.31) were not different. However, the risk of any repeat revascularization (RR: 1.70; 95% CI: 1.34 to 2.15;p< 0.00001) was higher in patients assigned to PCI. Conclusions: The findings of this meta-analysis suggest that the long-term survival and MACE of patients who underwent PCI for unprotected LMCA stenosis were comparable to those receiving CABG, despite a higher rate of repeat revascularization