@article{TiffeWagnerRueckeretal.2017,
  author    = {Tiffe, Theresa and Wagner, Martin and R{\"u}cker, Viktoria and Morbach, Caroline and Gelbrich, G{\"o}tz and St{\"o}rk, Stefan and Heuschmann, Peter U.},
  title     = {Control of cardiovascular risk factors and its determinants in the general population - findings from the STAAB cohort study},
  series = {BMC Cardiovascular Disorders},
  volume    = {17},
  journal   = {BMC Cardiovascular Disorders},
  number    = {276},
  doi       = {10.1186/s12872-017-0708-x},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-159391},
  year      = {2017},
  abstract  = {Background: While data from primary care suggest an insufficient control of vascular risk factors, little is known about vascular risk factor control in the general population. We therefore aimed to investigate the adoption of adequate risk factor control and its determinants in the general population free of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Methods: Data from the Characteristics and Course of Heart Failure Stages A-B and Determinants of Progression (STAAB) Cohort Study, a population-based study of inhabitants aged 30 to 79 years from the general population of W{\"u}rzburg (Germany), were used. Proportions of participants without established CVD meeting targets for risk factor control recommended by 2016 ESC guideline were identified. Determinants of the accumulation of insufficiently controlled vascular risk factors (three or more) were assessed. Results: Between December 2013 and April 2015, 1379 participants without CVD were included; mean age was 53.1 ± 11.9 years and 52.9\% were female; 30.8\% were physically inactive, 55.2\% overweight, 19.3\% current smokers. Hypertension, dyslipidemia, and diabetes mellitus were prevalent in 31.8\%, 57.6\%, and 3.9\%, respectively. Treatment goals were not reached despite medication in 52.7\% of hypertensive, in 37.3\% of hyperlipidemic and in 44.0\% of diabetic subjects. Insufficiently controlled risk was associated with male sex (OR 1.94, 95\%CI 1.44-2.61), higher age (OR for 30-39 years vs. 70-79 years 4.01, 95\%CI 1.94-8.31) and lower level of education (OR for primary vs. tertiary 2.15, 95\%CI 1.48-3.11). Conclusions: In the general population, prevalence of vascular risk factors was high. We found insufficient identification and control of vascular risk factors and a considerable potential to improve adherence to cardiovascular guidelines for primary prevention. Further studies are needed to identify and overcome patient- and physician-related barriers impeding successful control of vascular risk factors in the general population.},
  language  = {en}
}
@article{RahimiBhalaKamphuisenetal.2012,
  author    = {Rahimi, Kazem and Bhala, Neeraj and Kamphuisen, Pieter and Emberson, Jonathan and Biere-Rafi, Sara and Krane, Vera and Robertson, Michele and Wikstrand, John and McMurray, John},
  title     = {Effect of Statins on Venous Thromboembolic Events: A Meta-analysis of Published and Unpublished Evidence from Randomised Controlled Trials},
  series = {PLoS Medicine},
  volume    = {9},
  journal   = {PLoS Medicine},
  number    = {9},
  doi       = {10.1371/journal.pmed.1001310},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-134279},
  pages     = {e1001310},
  year      = {2012},
  abstract  = {Background: It has been suggested that statins substantially reduce the risk of venous thromboembolic events. We sought to test this hypothesis by performing a meta-analysis of both published and unpublished results from randomised trials of statins. Methods and Findings: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL up to March 2012 for randomised controlled trials comparing statin with no statin, or comparing high dose versus standard dose statin, with 100 or more randomised participants and at least 6 months' follow-up. Investigators were contacted for unpublished information about venous thromboembolic events during follow-up. Twenty-two trials of statin versus control (105,759 participants) and seven trials of an intensive versus a standard dose statin regimen (40,594 participants) were included. In trials of statin versus control, allocation to statin therapy did not significantly reduce the risk of venous thromboembolic events (465 [0.9\%] statin versus 521 [1.0\%] control, odds ratio [OR] = 0.89, 95\% CI 0.78-1.01, p = 0.08) with no evidence of heterogeneity between effects on deep vein thrombosis (266 versus 311, OR 0.85, 95\% CI 0.72-1.01) and effects on pulmonary embolism (205 versus 222, OR 0.92, 95\% CI 0.76-1.12). Exclusion of the trial result that provided the motivation for our meta-analysis (JUPITER) had little impact on the findings for venous thromboembolic events (431 [0.9\%] versus 461 [1.0\%], OR = 0.93 [95\% CI 0.82-1.07], p = 0.32 among the other 21 trials). There was no evidence that higher dose statin therapy reduced the risk of venous thromboembolic events compared with standard dose statin therapy (198 [1.0\%] versus 202 [1.0\%], OR = 0.98, 95\% CI 0.80-1.20, p = 0.87). Risk of bias overall was small but a certain degree of effect underestimation due to random error cannot be ruled out. Conclusions: The findings from this meta-analysis do not support the previous suggestion of a large protective effect of statins (or higher dose statins) on venous thromboembolic events. However, a more moderate reduction in risk up to about one-fifth cannot be ruled out. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.},
  language  = {en}
}