METHODS: The concepts and items were developed based on findings from our prior exploratory qualitative study on factors influencing individuals' intention to undergo CVD health checks. Content validity of the questionnaire was assessed by a panel of six experts and the item-level content validity index (I-CVI) was determined. After pretesting the questionnaire was pilot tested to check reliability of the items. Exploratory factor analysis was used to test for dimensionality using a sample of 240 participants.
RESULTS: The finalized questionnaire consists of 36 items, covering nine concepts. The I-CVI for all items was satisfactory with values ranging from 0.83 to 1.00. The exploratory factor analysis showed that the number of factors extracted was consistent with the theoretical concepts. Correlations values between items ranged from 0.30 to 0.85 and all the factor loadings were more than 0.40, indicating satisfactory structural validity. All concepts showed good internal consistency, Cronbach's alpha values ranged 0.66-0.85.
CONCLUSIONS: The determinants for CVD health check questionnaire has good content and structural validity, and its reliability was established. It can be used to assess determinants influencing individuals' intention to undergo CVD health checks.
OBJECTIVES: This study sought to conduct a systematic published data review and meta-analysis of RCTs comparing RM with IO follow-up.
METHODS: Electronic databases and reference lists were searched for RCTs reporting clinical outcomes in ICD patients who did or did not undergo RM. Data were extracted from 9 RCTs, including 6,469 patients, 3,496 of whom were randomized to RM and 2,973 to IO follow-up.
RESULTS: In the RCT setting, RM demonstrated clinical outcomes comparable with office follow-up in terms of all-cause mortality (odds ratio [OR]: 0.83; p = 0.285), cardiovascular mortality (OR: 0.66; p = 0.103), and hospitalization (OR: 0.83; p = 0.196). However, a reduction in all-cause mortality was noted in the 3 trials using home monitoring (OR: 0.65; p = 0.021) with daily verification of transmission. Although the odds of receiving any ICD shock were similar in RM and IO patients (OR: 1.05; p = 0.86), the odds of inappropriate shock were reduced in RM patients (OR: 0.55; p = 0.002).
CONCLUSIONS: Meta-analysis of RCTs demonstrates that RM and IO follow-up showed comparable overall outcomes related to patient safety and survival, with a potential survival benefit in RCTs using daily transmission verification. RM benefits include more rapid clinical event detection and a reduction in inappropriate shocks.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cardiovascular risk factors (CRFs) were estimated using the 30-year Framingham Risk Score in 73 childhood leukemia survivors (median age: 25; median years from diagnosis: 19) and 78 healthy controls (median age: 23). Radial arterial stiffness was measured using pulse wave analyzer, while endothelial activation markers were measured by soluble intercellular adhesion molecule 1 (sICAM-1) and soluble vascular cell adhesion molecule 1 (sVCAM-1). Retinal fundus images were analyzed for central retinal artery/vein equivalents (CRAE/CRVE) and arteriolar-venular ratio (AVR).
RESULTS: cALL survivors had higher CRF (P<0.0001), arterial stiffness (P=0.001), and sVCAM-1 (P=0.007) compared with controls. Survivors also had significantly higher CRVE (P=0.021) while AVR was significantly lower (P=0.026) in survivors compared with controls, compatible with endothelial dysfunction. In cALL survivors with intermediate risk for CVD, CRAE, and AVR are significantly lower, while sVCAM-1 and sICAM-1 are significantly higher when compared with survivors with low CVD risk after adjusting with covariates (age, sex, and smoking status).
CONCLUSIONS: cALL survivors have an increased risk of CVD compared with age-matched peers. The survivors demonstrated microvasculopathy, as measured by retinal vascular analysis, in addition to physical and biochemical evidence of endothelial dysfunction. These changes predate other measures of CVD. Retinal vessel analysis may be utilized as a robust screening tool for identifying survivors at increased risk for developing CVD.
AREAS COVERED: There is no specific contraindication or caution related to COVID-19 on the use of antihypertensives unless patients develop severe hypotension from septic shock where all antihypertensives should be discontinued or severe hyperkalemia in which continuation of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors is not desired. The continuation of antiplatelet or statin is not desired when severe thrombocytopenia or severe transminitis develop, respectively. Patients with atrial fibrillation receiving oral anticoagulants, particularly those who are critically ill, should be considered for substitution to parenteral anticoagulants.
EXPERT OPINION: An individualized approach to medication management among hospitalized COVID-19 patients with concurrent CVDs would seem prudent with attention paid to changes in clinical conditions and medications intended for COVID-19. The decision to modify prescribed long-term CV medications should be entailed by close follow-up to check if a revision on the decision is needed, with resumption of any long-term CV medication before discharge if it is discontinued during hospitalization for COVID-19, to ensure continuity of care.