4.7 Article

Benefits of Statins in Elderly Subjects Without Established Cardiovascular Disease A Meta-Analysis

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY
卷 62, 期 22, 页码 2090-2099

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2013.07.069

关键词

cardiovascular risk; elderly; primary prevention; statins

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives The purpose of this paper was to assess whether statins reduce all-cause mortality and cardiovascular (CV) events in elderly people without established CV disease. Background Because of population aging, prevention of CV disease in the elderly is relevant. In elderly patients with previous CV events, the use of statins is recommended by guidelines, whereas the benefits of these drugs in elderly subjects without previous CV events are still debated. Methods Randomized trials comparing statins versus placebo and reporting all-cause and CV mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and new cancer onset in elderly subjects (age >= 65 years) without established CV disease were included. Results Eight trials enrolling 24,674 subjects (42.7% females; mean age 73.0 +/- 2.9 years; mean follow up 3.5 +/- 1.5 years) were included in analyses. Statins, compared with placebo, significantly reduced the risk of MI by 39.4% (relative risk [RR]: 0.606 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.434 to 0.847]; p = 0.003) and the risk of stroke by 23.8% (RR: 0.762 [95% CI: 0.626 to 0.926]; p = 0.006). In contrast, the risk of all-cause death (RR: 0.941 [95% CI: 0.856 to 1.035]; p = 0.210) and of CV death (RR: 0.907 [95% CI: 0.686 to 1.199]; p = 0.493) were not significantly reduced. New cancer onset did not differ between statin-and placebo-treated subjects (RR: 0.989 [95% CI: 0.851 to 1.151]; p = 0.890). Conclusions In elderly subjects at high CV risk without established CV disease, statins significantly reduce the incidence of MI and stroke, but do not significantly prolong survival in the short-term. (C) 2013 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据