1.
Beneficial Effects of Vitamin E Supplementation on Endothelial Dysfunction, Inflammation, and Oxidative Stress Biomarkers in Patients Receiving Hemodialysis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Nguyen, TTU, Yeom, JH, Kim, W
International journal of molecular sciences. 2021;(21)
Abstract
Inflammation and oxidative stress are closely related to cardiovascular complications and atherosclerosis, and have the potential to lead to an increase in death in patients receiving hemodialysis. Vitamin E has antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effects of vitamin E supplementation on endothelial dysfunction, inflammation, and oxidative stress biomarkers in adult patients receiving hemodialysis. We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases and identified randomized controlled trials of adult patients receiving hemodialysis until 30 August 2021. A total of 11 trials with 491 randomized patients were included. The pooled data indicated that vitamin E supplementation significantly decreased intercellular adhesion molecule-1 [standardized mean difference (SMD): -1.35; 95% confidence interval (CI): -2.57, -0.13; p = 0.03, I2 = 89%], vascular cell adhesion molecule-1 (SMD: -1.08; 95% CI: -2.05, -0.11; p = 0.03, I2 = 81%), C-reactive protein (SMD: -0.41; 95% CI: -0.75, -0.07; p = 0.02, I2 = 64%), and malondialdehyde (SMD: -0.76; 95% CI: -1.26, -0.25; p = 0.003, I2 = 77%) levels, but not interleukin-6 levels compared to those in the control group. Our results suggest that vitamin E supplementation may help alleviate oxidative stress and both vascular and systemic inflammation in patients receiving hemodialysis.
2.
Anticancer Therapy-Related Increases in Arterial Stiffness: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Parr, SK, Liang, J, Schadler, KL, Gilchrist, SC, Steele, CC, Ade, CJ
Journal of the American Heart Association. 2020;(14):e015598
Abstract
Background Cardio-oncology is a clinical discipline focused primarily on the early detection of anticancer therapy-related cardiomyopathy. However, there is growing evidence that the direct adverse consequences extend beyond the myocardium to affect the vasculature, but this evidence remains limited. In addition, there remains a paucity of clinically based strategies for monitoring vascular toxicity in these patients. Importantly, arterial stiffness is increasingly recognized as a surrogate end point for cardiovascular disease and may be an important vascular outcome to consider. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to summarize evidence of increased arterial stiffening with anticancer therapy and evaluate the effect of treatment modifiers. Methods and Results A total of 19 longitudinal and cross-sectional studies that evaluated arterial stiffness both during and following anticancer therapy were identified using multiple databases. Two separate analyses were performed: baseline to follow-up (12 studies) and control versus patient groups (10 studies). Subgroup analysis evaluated whether stiffness differed as a function of treatment type and follow-up time. Standard mean differences and mean differences were calculated using random effect models. Significant increases in arterial stiffness were identified from baseline to follow-up (standard mean difference, 0.890; 95% CI, 0.448-1.332; P<0.0001; mean difference, 1.505; 95% CI, 0.789-2.221; P≤0.0001) and in patient versus control groups (standard mean difference, 0.860; 95% CI, 0.402-1.318; P=0.0002; mean difference, 1.437; 95% CI, 0.426-2.448; P=0.0052). Subgroup analysis indicated differences in arterial stiffness between anthracycline-based and non-anthracycline-based therapies (standard mean difference, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.001-0.41; P=0.048), but not follow-up time. Conclusions Significant arterial stiffening occurs following anticancer therapy. Our findings support the use of arterial stiffness as part of a targeted vascular imaging strategy for the identification of early cardiovascular injury during treatment and for the detection of long-term cardiovascular injury into survivorship.
3.
Efficacy of Ruscus extract, HMC and vitamin C, constituents of Cyclo 3 fort®, on improving individual venous symptoms and edema: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trials.
Kakkos, SK, Allaert, FA
International angiology : a journal of the International Union of Angiology. 2017;(2):93-106
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Venoactive drugs (VADs) are considered an important component of the medical (conservative) treatment of chronic venous disorders (CVDs). However, the efficacy of certain VADs on one or more individual leg symptoms may have not been extensively studied to justify a high level or grade of recommendation in guidelines on CVD. The aim of the present systematic review and meta-analysis was to study the effectiveness of VADs containing Ruscus across the spectrum of defined venous symptoms. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION On November 14 2016, a literature search of the databases MEDLINE and Scopus was performed, supplemented by hand searching, to identify randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trials on Ruscus extracts in patients with CVD. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS The main outcome measures were the effects of Ruscus on individual symptoms and leg edema, which were expressed as risk ratio (RR) or standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Trial quality of evidence was graded using the GRADE system. We identified 10 trials, mostly with low risk of bias, on 719 patients. On qualitative analysis, Ruscus significantly improved seven defined leg symptoms, including pain, heaviness, fatigue, feeling of swelling, cramps, itching and paresthesia compared to placebo. On quantitative analysis, Ruscus compared with placebo, assessed as a categorical variable, reduced leg pain (RR=0.35, P=0.01, number needed to treat [NNT] 5, with no heterogeneity), heaviness (RR=0.26, P<0.00001, NNT=2.4, with a small amount of heterogeneity), feeling of swelling (RR=0.53, P<0.0001, NNT=4, with considerable heterogeneity, minimized after sensitivity analysis), paresthesia (RR=0.27, P<0.0001, NNT=1.8), global symptoms (RR=0.54, P<0.00001, NNT=4.3) and the total number of venous symptoms (RR 0.41, P=0.002). Similarly, Ruscus compared to placebo, assessed as a continuous variable reduced pain (SMD=-0.80, 95% CI: -1.21 to -0.39), heaviness (SMD=-1.23, 95% CI: -1.60 to -0.86), fatigue (SMD -1.16, 95% CI: -1.71 to -0.61), feeling of swelling (SMD=-2.27, 95% CI: -3.83 to -0.70), and paresthesia (SMD=-0.86, 95% CI: -1.51 to -0.21). Regarding objective assessments of leg edema, the use of Ruscus compared with placebo reduced ankle circumference (SMD=-0.74, 95% CI: -1.01 to -0.47) and leg or foot volume (SMD=-0.61, 95% CI: -0.91 to -0.31). The existing evidence, where sufficient, was mostly of high quality. CONCLUSIONS Based on high quality evidence, Ruscus extracts are highly effective in reducing symptoms and edema of patients with CVD.