4.7 Review

Lipid-Lowering Therapy in Patients with Coronary Heart Disease and Prior Stroke: Mission Impossible?

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
卷 10, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm10040886

关键词

coronary heart disease; stroke; lipid-lowering therapy; cholesterol; triglycerides

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hyperlipidemia is a significant risk factor for coronary heart disease, but its relationship to stroke has been less clear. Recent data demonstrate the positive impact of cholesterol-lowering on stroke, while also dispelling concerns about increased risk of hemorrhagic stroke. Despite guidelines recommending aggressive lipid-lowering therapy for at-risk patients, secondary prevention patients often do not receive adequate treatment.
Hyperlipidemia is a powerful risk factor for coronary heart disease (CHD). It has been known for a long time that lipid-lowering drugs significantly reduce morbidity from CHD, thus proving a causal role for cholesterol in coronary events. Conversely, the relationship between low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels and stroke has been less clear and debated for many years. Recent data conclusively demonstrate not only the inverse epidemiological relationship of blood LDL-C with stroke, but also the efficacy of different strategies to attain cholesterol-lowering on stroke. They also dissipate lingering doubts about the possibility that lipid-lowering is linked to an increase in hemorrhagic stroke. However, despite current international lipid guidelines now strongly recommend aggressive lipid-lowering therapy in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, including CHD and cerebrovascular disease (CeVD), secondary prevention patients are often undertreated with lipid-lowering therapies in routine clinical practice. This review highlights that patients with CHD and concomitant CeVD do not receive aggressive lipid-lowering therapy despite being at very high risk and with clear evidence of benefit from lowering LDL-C levels below current targets.

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