Suppr超能文献

比较七种流行的结构化饮食方案与心血管风险增加患者的死亡率和主要心血管事件的风险:系统评价和网络荟萃分析。

Comparison of seven popular structured dietary programmes and risk of mortality and major cardiovascular events in patients at increased cardiovascular risk: systematic review and network meta-analysis.

机构信息

Max Rady College of Medicine, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.

Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

出版信息

BMJ. 2023 Mar 29;380:e072003. doi: 10.1136/bmj-2022-072003.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To determine the relative efficacy of structured named diet and health behaviour programmes (dietary programmes) for prevention of mortality and major cardiovascular events in patients at increased risk of cardiovascular disease.

DESIGN

Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

DATA SOURCES

AMED (Allied and Complementary Medicine Database), CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), Embase, Medline, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched up to September 2021.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomised trials of patients at increased risk of cardiovascular disease that compared dietary programmes with minimal intervention (eg, healthy diet brochure) or alternative programmes with at least nine months of follow-up and reporting on mortality or major cardiovascular events (such as stroke or non-fatal myocardial infarction). In addition to dietary intervention, dietary programmes could also include exercise, behavioural support, and other secondary interventions such as drug treatment.

OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

All cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and individual cardiovascular events (stroke, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and unplanned cardiovascular interventions).

REVIEW METHODS

Pairs of reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. A random effects network meta-analysis was performed using a frequentist approach and grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) methods to determine the certainty of evidence for each outcome.

RESULTS

40 eligible trials were identified with 35 548 participants across seven named dietary programmes (low fat, 18 studies; Mediterranean, 12; very low fat, 6; modified fat, 4; combined low fat and low sodium, 3; Ornish, 3; Pritikin, 1). At last reported follow-up, based on moderate certainty evidence, Mediterranean dietary programmes proved superior to minimal intervention for the prevention of all cause mortality (odds ratio 0.72, 95% confidence interval 0.56 to 0.92; patients at intermediate risk: risk difference 17 fewer per 1000 followed over five years), cardiovascular mortality (0.55, 0.39 to 0.78; 13 fewer per 1000), stroke (0.65, 0.46 to 0.93; 7 fewer per 1000), and non-fatal myocardial infarction (0.48, 0.36 to 0.65; 17 fewer per 1000). Based on moderate certainty evidence, low fat programmes proved superior to minimal intervention for prevention of all cause mortality (0.84, 0.74 to 0.95; 9 fewer per 1000) and non-fatal myocardial infarction (0.77, 0.61 to 0.96; 7 fewer per 1000). The absolute effects for both dietary programmes were more pronounced for patients at high risk. There were no convincing differences between Mediterranean and low fat programmes for mortality or non-fatal myocardial infarction. The five remaining dietary programmes generally had little or no benefit compared with minimal intervention typically based on low to moderate certainty evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

Moderate certainty evidence shows that programmes promoting Mediterranean and low fat diets, with or without physical activity or other interventions, reduce all cause mortality and non-fatal myocardial infarction in patients with increased cardiovascular risk. Mediterranean programmes are also likely to reduce stroke risk. Generally, other named dietary programmes were not superior to minimal intervention.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42016047939.

摘要

目的

评估结构化命名饮食和健康行为方案(饮食方案)在心血管疾病风险增加的患者中预防死亡率和主要心血管事件的相对疗效。

设计

对随机对照试验进行系统评价和网络荟萃分析。

数据来源

AMED(辅助和补充医学数据库)、CENTRAL(Cochrane 对照试验中心注册库)、Embase、Medline、CINAHL(护理与联合健康文献累积索引)和 ClinicalTrials.gov 于 2021 年 9 月进行了检索。

研究选择

纳入心血管疾病风险增加的患者的随机试验,这些患者比较了饮食方案与最小干预(例如,健康饮食小册子)或其他方案的差异,最小干预组的随访时间至少为 9 个月,并报告死亡率或主要心血管事件(如中风或非致命性心肌梗死)。除了饮食干预,饮食方案还可以包括运动、行为支持和其他二级干预,如药物治疗。

结果

确定了 40 项符合条件的试验,涉及 35548 名参与者,涉及 7 种命名饮食方案(低脂,18 项研究;地中海,12 项;极低脂,6 项;改良脂肪,4 项;低脂肪和低钠联合,3 项;奥尼什,3 项;普里提金,1 项)。根据最后一次报告的随访情况,基于中等确定性证据,地中海饮食方案在预防全因死亡率方面优于最小干预(优势比 0.72,95%置信区间 0.56 至 0.92;中等风险患者:五年内每 1000 人减少 17 例)、心血管死亡率(0.55,0.39 至 0.78;每 1000 人减少 13 例)、中风(0.65,0.46 至 0.93;每 1000 人减少 7 例)和非致命性心肌梗死(0.48,0.36 至 0.65;每 1000 人减少 17 例)。基于中等确定性证据,低脂方案在预防全因死亡率(0.84,0.74 至 0.95;每 1000 人减少 9 例)和非致命性心肌梗死(0.77,0.61 至 0.96;每 1000 人减少 7 例)方面优于最小干预。对于高危患者,两种饮食方案的绝对效果更为明显。地中海和低脂方案在死亡率或非致命性心肌梗死方面没有明显差异。基于低至中等确定性证据,其余五种饮食方案通常与最小干预相比获益较小或没有获益。

结论

中等确定性证据表明,促进地中海饮食和低脂饮食的方案,无论是否结合体力活动或其他干预措施,均可降低心血管风险增加患者的全因死亡率和非致命性心肌梗死发生率。地中海方案还可能降低中风风险。一般来说,其他命名的饮食方案并不优于最小干预。

系统评价注册

PROSPERO CRD42016047939。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/60af/10053756/6e4413fdc8ad/karg072003.va.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验