Cardiovascular Prevention and Pharmacotherapy

Volume 5(4); October 2023

Editorial

Cardiovascular-related health behavior changes: lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic and post-pandemic challenges: Inha Jung, Won-Young Lee; Cardiovasc Prev Pharmacother. 2023;5(4):99-101. Published online October 25, 2023; DOI: https://doi.org/10.36011/cpp.2023.5.e13

551 View
12 Download

PDF

Review Articles

Decision-making for recurrent atrial fibrillation after catheter ablation: Jum Suk Ko, Sung Soo Kim, Hyung Ki Jeong, Nam Ho Kim; Cardiovasc Prev Pharmacother. 2023;5(4):102-112. Published online October 27, 2023; DOI: https://doi.org/10.36011/cpp.2023.5.e15

3,474 View
115 Download

Abstract PDF: Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF), especially pulmonary vein (PV) isolation, is widely used for rhythm control. However, AF recurrence remains a challenge, affecting 20% to 50% of cases. This review focuses on AF recurrence after catheter ablation. AF recurrence can be categorized into early recurrence (ER) within 3 months after index procedure, late recurrence (LR) within 1 year, and very LR (VLR) occurring beyond 1 year. ER has emerged as a significant predictor of LR, contrary to the traditional understanding. LR is primarily caused by PV reconnection, while VLR more involves non-PV triggers or substrates. Managing AF recurrence includes antiarrhythmic drugs, steroids, colchicine, and repeat ablation. Antiarrhythmic drugs reduce ER but have a limited impact on LR. Steroids have been shown to reduce ER, but not long-term recurrence. Colchicine, an anti-inflammatory agent, shows promise in reducing both ER and LR, although further research is necessary. Whether to perform early repeat ablation after ER remains uncertain, as not all patients require immediate intervention. In conclusion, AF recurrence after ablation remains a complex issue. Understanding the underlying mechanisms is essential for personalized management. Tailored approaches, considering individual characteristics, are crucial for long-term success. Future research should focus on improving therapeutic strategies for AF recurrence.

Calcium channel blockers for hypertension: old, but still useful: Eun Mi Lee; Cardiovasc Prev Pharmacother. 2023;5(4):113-125. Published online October 30, 2023; DOI: https://doi.org/10.36011/cpp.2023.5.e16

3,388 View
249 Download
1 Citations

Abstract PDF

Calcium channel blockers (CCBs) constitute a heterogeneous class of drugs that can be divided into dihydropyridines (DHPs) and non-DHPs. DHP-CCBs are subcategorized into four generations based on the duration of activity and pharmacokinetics, while non-DHP-CCBs are subcategorized into phenylethylamine and benzodiazepine derivatives. DHP-CCBs are vascular-selective and function as potent vasodilators, whereas non-DHP-CCBs are cardiac-selective and are useful for treating tachyarrhythmia, but reduce cardiac contractility and heart rate. Traditional DHP-CCBs (nifedipine) mainly block L-type calcium channels, whereas novel CCBs block N-type (amlodipine) and/or T-type channels (efonidipine) in addition to L-type channels, leading to organ-protective effects. DHP-CCBs have a potent blood pressure–lowering effect and suppress atherosclerosis and coronary vasospasm. Diltiazem, a non-DHP-CCB, is highly effective for vasospasm control. CCBs reduce left ventricular hypertrophy and arterial stiffness. Amlodipine, a DHP-CCB, reduces blood pressure variability. L/N- and L/T-type CCBs combined with renin-angiotensin system blockers reduce proteinuria and improve kidney function compared with L-type CCBs. According to large-scale trials, DHP-CCBs reduce cardiovascular events in patients with isolated systolic hypertension, as well as in elderly and high-risk patients. Accordingly, CCBs are indicated for hypertension in elderly patients, isolated systolic hypertension, angina pectoris, and coronary vasospasm. Non-DHP-CCBs are contraindicated in high-grade heart block, bradycardia (<60 beats per minute [bpm]), and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). DHP-CCBs should be used with caution in patients with tachyarrhythmia, HFrEF, and severe leg edema, and non-DHP-CCBs should be used carefully in those with constipation. Each CCB has distinct pharmacokinetics and side effects, underscoring the need for meticulous consideration in clinical practice.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

Design of Experimental Approach for Development of Rapid High Performance Liquid Chromatographic Process for Simultaneous Estimation of Metoprolol, Telmisartan, and Amlodipine from Formulation: Greenness and Whiteness Evaluation
Mahesh Attimarad, Mohammed Jassim Alali, Hussain Ali Alali, Dana Hisham Alabdulmuhsin, Aljohara Khalid Alnajdi, Katharigatta Narayanaswamy Venugopala, Anroop B. Nair
Molecules.2024; 29(5): 1087. CrossRef

Lipid variability in patients with diabetes mellitus: Jeongmin Lee, Seung-Hwan Lee; Cardiovasc Prev Pharmacother. 2023;5(4):126-133. Published online October 25, 2023; DOI: https://doi.org/10.36011/cpp.2023.5.e18

838 View
57 Download

Abstract PDF: Diabetic dyslipidemia is characterized by hypertriglyceridemia, low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), and the predominance of small dense LDL particles caused by insulin resistance in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) or insulin deficiency in patients with type 1 DM. Dyslipidemia is a major risk factor for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in individuals with DM, and lowering lipid levels can reduce the associated morbidity and mortality. The current guidelines for dyslipidemia management recommend an LDL-C goal lower than 55 to 100 mg/dL, depending on the underlying risk factors. However, greater visit-to-visit variability in cholesterol levels might be an independent predictor of major adverse cardiovascular events, high incidence of atrial fibrillation, poor renal outcomes, and cognitive dysfunction in patients with DM. This review focuses on the clinical implications of lipid variability in patients with DM.

COVID-19 vaccination–related cardiovascular complications: Jae Yeong Cho, Kye Hun Kim; Cardiovasc Prev Pharmacother. 2023;5(4):134-143. Published online October 27, 2023; DOI: https://doi.org/10.36011/cpp.2023.5.e17

903 View
20 Download
1 Citations

Abstract PDF

The global response to the COVID-19 pandemic has led to rapid vaccine development and distribution. As vaccination efforts continue, concerns have arisen regarding potential adverse events associated with COVID-19 vaccination. This article examines emerging evidence on adverse events, including myocarditis, pericarditis, and thrombotic complications, in relation to COVID-19 vaccination. Reports of myocarditis and pericarditis cases following messenger RNA vaccines have sparked interest, with discussions revolving around potential mechanisms and genetic predispositions. The contrasting findings on pericarditis risk postvaccination highlight the complexity of studying this phenomenon. Thrombotic events, particularly vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia, have garnered attention, prompting investigations into antibody responses and mechanisms. This article underscores the importance of ongoing research, collaboration, and data analysis for accurately understanding adverse events. While the COVID-19 vaccination campaign may have ended, it is still vital to maintain vigilance, collect comprehensive data and foster interdisciplinary collaboration to uphold vaccine safety and steer public health strategies in the upcoming period.

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

The Role of COVID-19 Vaccination for Patients With Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease in the Upcoming Endemic Era
Kye Hun Kim
Journal of Lipid and Atherosclerosis.2024; 13(1): 21. CrossRef

Original Article

Variation in blood viscosity based on the potential cause of stroke of undetermined etiology: Jinyoung Oh, Youngchan Jung, Jin Kim, Sun Ki Min, Sang Won Han, Jong Sam Baik; Cardiovasc Prev Pharmacother. 2023;5(4):144-150. Published online October 25, 2023; DOI: https://doi.org/10.36011/cpp.2023.5.e14

710 View
16 Download

Abstract PDF: Background
This study investigated potential differences in blood viscosity (BV) among patients with stroke of undetermined etiology, negative evaluation (SUDn), specifically those with potential atherothrombosis (SUDn-AT) and those with possible embolism (SUDn-E).
Methods
This single-center study employed a retrospective observational design. The participants were patients over 20 years old with the SUDn stroke subtype who were admitted within 5 days of symptom onset. These patients were categorized as SUDn-AT or SUDn-E. Patients in the SUDn-AT group had nonsignificant stenosis (<50%) of a major brain artery relevant to their symptoms and exhibited one or more signs of systemic atherosclerosis, including atherosclerosis of at least one major brain artery other than those clinically relevant, coronary artery disease, and/or peripheral artery disease. For the SUDn-E group, the SUDn criteria from the TOAST (Trial of Org 10172 in Acute Stroke Treatment) classification system were strictly applied.
Results
The final analysis included 153 patients, with 104 (68%) classified as SUDn-E and the remaining 32% as SUDn-AT. Patients in the SUDn-AT group had a higher systolic BV (P=0.012) and diastolic BV (P=0.020) than those in the SUDn-E group. Multivariable logistic regression analysis revealed that age (odds ratio [OR], 1.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03–1.13; P=0.003), systolic BV (OR, 3.11; 95% CI, 1.41–6.85; P=0.005), and diastolic BV (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.02–1.14; P=0.009) were associated with SUDn-AT.
Conclusions
Within the TOAST system, two SUDn entities may be distinguishable, with potentially different underlying etiologies: atherothrombosis and embolic stroke of undetermined source.

First
Prev
Page of 1
Next
Last

Previous issues