RESUMO
In subjects with cardiovascular risk factors or in patients in need of secondary prevention, hypertriglyceridemia is a well-defined risk factor for adverse cardiac events. Drugs containing n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (n-3 PUFAs) are approved for treatment of hypertriglyceridemia. In 1999, a cardioprotective effect in post infarct patients was suggested by a large multicentre study, the GISSI prevention trial. The hypothesized mechanism of action was an antiarrhythmic action leading to reduction of the sudden death. However, such a cardioprotective effect of n-3 PUFAs has not been straightforward like for other cardiovascular drugs such as aspirin, statins or ACE inhibitors. On the contrary, it has been a long journey with several ups and downs. Recently, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has not confirmed the risk benefit of low dose of n-3 PUFA in preventing outcomes after a myocardial infarction. Since the EMA decision, the use of a high dose (4g daily) of pure and stable EPA in a multicentre, international trial, the REDUCE-IT study showed a clear cardiovascular event reduction which was not confirmed in another trial, the STRENGTH study, which utilized 4g daily of an EPA+DHA mixture. It follows that the OMEGA-3 fatty acid story seems to be endless and the last word on cardiovascular benefits cannot be pronounced. We report a brief narrative of an entire journey from the beginning to nowadays.
RESUMO
Asymptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF) is common and in view of its prognostic impact (the same as of clinically overt AF) knowledge of the overall AF burden (defined as the amount of time spent in AF) appears to be important, both for scientific and clinical reasons. Data collected on more than 12,000 patients indicate that cardiac implantable electrical devices (CIEDs) are validated tools for measuring AF burden and that AF burden is associated with an increased risk of stroke. A maximum daily AF burden of ≥ 1 h carries important negative prognostic implications and may be a clinically relevant parameter for improving risk stratification for stroke. Decision-making should primarily consider the context in which asymptomatic, subclinical arrhythmias are detected (i.e. primary or secondary prevention of stroke and systemic embolism) and the risk profile of every individual patient with regard to thromboembolic and haemorrhagic risk, as well as patient preferences and values. Continuous monitoring using CIEDs with extensive data storage capabilities allow in-depth study of the temporal relationship between AF and ischaemic stroke. The relationships between AF and stroke are complex. AF is certainly a risk factor for cardioembolic stroke, with a cause-effect relationship between the arrhythmia and a thromboembolic event, the latter being related to atrial thrombi. However, AF can also be a simple 'marker of risk', with a non-causal association between the arrhythmia and stroke, the latter being possibly related to atheroemboli from the aorta, the carotid arteries or from other sources.
