Faculty Bibliography

PURPOSE OF REVIEW/OBJECTIVE:Treatment of diabetic dyslipidemia is necessary because of its impact on cardiovascular disease, which is the leading cause of death in patients with diabetes. In the past, standard treatment of diabetic dyslipidemia focused only on correcting lipids. Although this remains the mainstay of treatment, because new antihyperglycemic treatments reduce cardiovascular events with minimal effect on dyslipidemia, a new approach is both timely and relevant. RECENT FINDINGS/RESULTS:LDL-lowering remains the focus of treatment for diabetic dyslipidemia, especially in patients with both diabetes and cardiovascular disease (CVD). Higher intensity statin therapy or lower LDL cholesterol goals are recommended in these patients. Combination therapy, especially with ezetimibe, fibrates, bile acid sequestrants, PCSK9 inhibitors and omega 3 fatty acids should be considered along with selected new agents to reduce glycemia. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS:As diabetic dyslipidemia plays a key role in CVD, aggressive treatment is indicated. New research targets include apo-CIII and lipoprotein(a) [Lp(a)]. In addition, new antihyperglycemic therapy is changing diabetes care and altering treatment guidelines. The most recent American Diabetes Association Standards of Care has expanded its recommendations for people with CVD and diabetes, suggesting that medications validated to improve cardiac health should be strongly considered.

OBJECTIVE:Patients undergoing noncardiac surgery frequently have diabetes mellitus (DM) and an elevated risk of cardiovascular disease. It is unknown whether temporal declines in the frequency of perioperative major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs) apply to patients with DM. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS/METHODS:Patients ≥45 years of age who underwent noncardiac surgery from January 2004 to December 2013 were identified using the U.S. National Inpatient Sample. DM was identified using ICD-9 diagnosis codes. Perioperative MACCEs (in-hospital all-cause mortality, acute myocardial infarction, or acute ischemic stroke) by DM status were evaluated over time. RESULTS:for interaction <0.001). Trends for individual end points were all less favorable for patients with DM versus those without DM. CONCLUSIONS:In an analysis of >10.5 million noncardiac surgeries from a large U.S. hospital admission database, perioperative MACCEs were more common among patients with DM versus without DM. Perioperative MACCEs increased over time and individual end points were all less favorable for patients with DM. Our findings suggest that a substantial unmet need exists for strategies to reduce the risk of perioperative cardiovascular events among patients with DM.

BACKGROUND:Patients undergoing cardiovascular (CV) procedures often have suboptimal CV risk factor control and may benefit from strategies targeting healthy lifestyle behaviors and education. Implementation of prevention strategies may be particularly effective at this point of heightened motivation. METHODS:A prospective, randomized, pilot study was conducted in 400 patients undergoing a nonurgent CV procedure (cardiac catheterization ± revascularization) to evaluate the impact of different prevention strategies. Patients were randomized in a 1:1:1 fashion to usual care (UC; group A, n = 134), in-hospital CV prevention consult (PC; group B, n = 130), or PC plus behavioral intervention program (telephone-based motivational interviewing and optional tailored text messages) (group C, n = 133). The primary end point was the Δ change in non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) from baseline to 6 month. RESULTS:The mean age was 64.6 ± 10.8 years, 23.7% were female, and 31.5% were nonwhite. After 6 months, the absolute difference in non-HDL-C for all participants was -19.8 mg/dL (95% CI -24.1 to -15.6, P < .001). There were no between-group differences in the primary end point for the combined PC groups (B and C) versus UC, with a Δ adjusted between group difference of -5.5 mg/dL (95% CI -13.1 to 2.1, P = .16). Patients in the PC groups were more likely to be on high-intensity statins at 6 months (52.9% vs 38.1%, P = .01). After excluding participants with baseline non-HDL-C <100 mg/dL (initial exclusion criterion), Δ non-HDL-C and Δ low-density lipoprotein cholesterol were improved in the PC groups compared to UC (non-HDL-C -8.13 mg/dL [-16.00 to -0.27], P = .04; low-density lipoprotein cholesterol -7.87mg/dL [-15.10 to -0.64], P = .03). CONCLUSIONS:Although non-HDL-C reduction at 6 months following a nonurgent CV procedure was not significant in the overall cohort, an increased uptake in high-potency statins may translate into improved long-term health outcomes and cost reductions.

Chelation therapy, typically used to remove heavy metal toxins, has also been controversially used as a treatment for coronary artery disease. The first Trial to Assess Chelation Therapy (TACT) aimed to provide evidence on chelation therapy's potential for benefit or harm. Although TACT had some significant results, the trial does not provide enough evidence to recommend routine chelation therapy and has limitations. The second TACT was recently funded reigniting a discussion about the value of chelation therapy, its efficacy, and allocation of research resources. Despite limited evidence, patients continue to pursue chelation therapy as a treatment for coronary artery disease. As the medical community has a responsibility to understand all treatments patients pursue, it is important to comprehensively appraise chelation therapy for cardiovascular disease. Understanding the background of heavy metal toxicity, the putative target of chelation therapy, on the cardiovascular system is important to contextualize the role of chelation therapy in cardiovascular disease prevention. We review the clinical evidence of heavy metal toxicity and cardiovascular disease, and available clinical trial data on use of chelation therapy to minimize the cardiovascular burden of heavy metal toxicity.