Plasma lipoprotein(a) levels: a comparison between diabetic and non-diabetic patients with acute ischemic stroke

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate lipoprotein(a) (Lp(a)), total cholesterol, high density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL), low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL), very low density lipoprotein cholesterol (VLDL ), triglycerides , apolipoprotein A (apo A) and B100 (apo B100), uric acid, glycaemic and insulin plasmatic concentrations in patients affected by acute stroke. In this group of patients, we have compared the variables between type 2 diabetic patients and non-diabetic patients. METHOD: We evaluate a total of 34 non-diabetic patients (22 males and 12 females; mean age 66.71 ± 10.83 years) and a group of 26 type 2 diabetic patients (15 males and 11 females; mean age 66.35 ± 9.92 years) in a cross-sectional study. RESULTS: Mean Lp(a) concentration did not significantly differ between type 2 diabetic patients and non-diabetic subjects (29.49 ± 23.09 vs 44.81 ± 44.34 mg/dl). The distribution of Lp(a)levels was highly skewed towards the higher levels in both groups, being over 30 mg/dl in 50%. Lp(a) concentration was positively correlated with abdominal adiposity, using waist-hip ratio(WHR)(p< 0.05). No association was found between Lp(a) and others risk factors like sex, age, other lipidic parameters and the presence of stroke. CONCLUSIONS: Our results showed that there were no significant differences between diabetic and non-diabetic patients' serum Lp(a) levels, which indicates that elevated Lp(a) levels were associated with ischemic stroke, irrespective of the presence of type 2 diabetes mellitus (type 2 DM)

Implementation of a Brazilian Cardioprotective Nutritional (BALANCE) Program for improvement on quality of diet and secondary prevention of cardiovascular events: A randomized, multicenter trial

Background: Appropriate dietary recommendations represent a key part of secondary prevention in cardiovascular disease (CVD). We evaluated the effectiveness of the implementation of a nutritional program on quality of diet, cardiovascular events, and death in patients with established CVD. Methods: In this open-label, multicenter trial conducted in 35 sites in Brazil, we randomly assigned (1:1) patients aged 45 years or older to receive either the BALANCE Program (experimental group) or conventional nutrition advice (control group). The BALANCE Program included a unique nutritional education strategy to implement recommendations from guidelines, adapted to the use of affordable and regional foods. Adherence to diet was evaluated by the modified Alternative Healthy Eating Index. The primary end point was a composite of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular death, cardiac arrest, myocardial infarction, stroke, myocardial revascularization, amputation, or hospitalization for unstable angina. Secondary end points included biochemical and anthropometric data, and blood pressure levels. Results: From March 5, 2013, to Abril 7, 2015, a total of 2534 eligible patients were randomly assigned to either the BALANCE Program group (n = 1,266) or the control group (n = 1,268) and were followed up for a median of 3.5 years. In total, 235 (9.3%) participants had been lost to follow-up. After 3 years of follow-up, mean modified Alternative Healthy Eating Index (scale 0-70) was only slightly higher in the BALANCE group versus the control group (26.2 ± 8.4 vs 24.7 ± 8.6, P <.01), mainly due to a 0.5-serving/d greater intake of fruits and of vegetables in the BALANCE group. Primary end point events occurred in 236 participants (18.8%) in the BALANCE group and in 207 participants (16.4%) in the control group (hazard ratio, 1.15; 95% CI 0.95-1.38; P =.15). Secondary end points did not differ between groups after follow-up. Conclusions: The BALANCE Program only slightly improved adherence to a healthy diet in patients with established CVD and had no significant effect on the incidence of cardiovascular events or death. © 2019 The Author