Prevention Patients(예방 환자)란 무엇입니까?
Prevention Patients 예방 환자 - Atorvastatin, which has been approved by regulatory agencies for primary- and secondary-prevention patients with dyslipidemia, has historically been the most commonly prescribed statin and is now widely available in generic formulations. [1] Statin intolerance was perceived as infrequent, affecting 1-5% of patients according to most respondents but was the main reason for not prescribing a statin to secondary-prevention patients, followed by patient non-adherence. [2] METHODS Secondary AMI-prevention patients (n = 256) were included in the study and categorized into three groups depending on the drug scheme, as follows: polypill (n = 150), polypill+BB (n = 91), and polypill + BB + TD (n = 15). [3]이상지질혈증이 있는 1차 및 2차 예방 환자에 대해 규제 기관에서 승인한 아토르바스타틴은 역사적으로 가장 일반적으로 처방되는 스타틴이었고 현재 일반 제형으로 널리 사용 가능합니다. [1] 스타틴 불내성은 드물다고 인식되어 대부분의 응답자에 따르면 환자의 1-5%에 영향을 주었지만 2차 예방 환자에게 스타틴을 처방하지 않은 주된 이유였으며 환자가 순응하지 않았다. [2] 행동 양식 이차 AMI 예방 환자(n=256)가 연구에 포함되었으며 약물 계획에 따라 다음과 같이 세 그룹으로 분류되었습니다. polypill(n=150), polypill+BB(n=91), polypill + BB + TD(n = 15). [3]
lipid lowering therapy 지질 저하 요법
We have introduced the concept of lipid/lipoprotein treatment thresholds for intensifying lipid-lowering therapy with non-statin agents, and have identified the secondary prevention patients who have been shown to derive the largest benefit from intensification of therapy with these agents. [1] We review the evidence base that was used to generate recommendations focusing on 4 distinct themes: 1) the threshold of absolute 10-year ASCVD risk to start a clinician-patient discussion for the initiation of statin therapy in primary prevention patients; 2) the utility of coronary artery calcium score to guide clinician-patient risk discussion pertaining to the initiation of statin therapy for primary ASCVD prevention; 3) the use of moderate versus high-intensity statin therapy in patients with established ASCVD; and 4) the utility of ordering lipid panels after initiation or intensification of lipid lowering therapy to document efficacy and monitor adherence to lipid lowering therapy. [2] However, despite current international lipid guidelines now strongly recommend aggressive lipid-lowering therapy in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, including CHD and cerebrovascular disease (CeVD), secondary prevention patients are often undertreated with lipid-lowering therapies in routine clinical practice. [3] METHODS The DA VINCI study was a cross-sectional observational study of primary and secondary prevention patients receiving lipid-lowering therapy across Europe between June 2017 and November 2018. [4]우리는 비스타틴 제제를 이용한 지질저하 요법을 강화하기 위한 지질/지단백질 치료 역치 개념을 도입했으며, 이러한 제제의 요법 강화로부터 가장 큰 이익을 얻는 것으로 나타난 2차 예방 환자를 식별했습니다. [1] 우리는 다음과 같은 4가지 주제에 초점을 맞춘 권장 사항을 생성하는 데 사용된 근거 기반을 검토합니다. 2) 1차 ASCVD 예방을 위한 스타틴 요법의 시작과 관련된 임상의-환자 위험 논의를 안내하기 위한 관상동맥 칼슘 점수의 유용성; 3) ASCVD가 확립된 환자에서 중등도 대 고강도 스타틴 요법의 사용; 및 4) 효능을 문서화하고 지질 저하 요법에 대한 순응도를 모니터링하기 위해 지질 저하 요법의 개시 또는 강화 후에 지질 패널을 주문하는 유용성. [2] nan [3] nan [4]
Secondary Prevention Patients 2차 예방 환자
8% among secondary prevention patients). [1] Using a sex-adjusted logarithmic model, we calculated event rates in MESA as a function of CAC, and compared to those observed in the placebo group of stable secondary prevention patients in the FOURIER clinical trial. [2] We have introduced the concept of lipid/lipoprotein treatment thresholds for intensifying lipid-lowering therapy with non-statin agents, and have identified the secondary prevention patients who have been shown to derive the largest benefit from intensification of therapy with these agents. [3] The remaining respondents perform it in specific cases: right sided implantations (54%), poor signal sensing (46%), secondary prevention patients (42%), arrhythmic syndromes (13%), hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (8%). [4] Using a sex-adjusted logarithmic model, we calculated event rates in MESA as a function of CAC and compared them with those observed in the placebo group of stable secondary prevention patients in the FOURIER clinical trial (Further Cardiovascular Outcomes Research With PCSK9 Inhibition in Subjects With Elevated Risk). [5] Primary and secondary prevention patients scored similarly, except for worse GH in primary prevention (p=0. [6] BACKGROUND & AIMS To evaluate the effect of the Brazilian Cardioprotective Diet Program (BALANCE Program) on inflammatory biomarkers, involved in the pathophysiology of the atherosclerosis, on inflammatory biomarkers, cardiovascular risk factors, and on plasma fatty acids in cardiovascular disease secondary prevention patients. [7] Study group consisted of patients with a mean age of 55 ±27 years; 74% of them were male, 85% were secondary prevention patients, 62% had coronary artery disease (CAD), 15% hypertropic cardiomyopathy (HCM), 15% dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM), and 8% diseases of other etiology. [8] Conclusions: Patients with cardiometabolic disease but without clinical evidence of COVID-19 showed significant medication non-adherence, especially in secondary prevention patients. [9] Cost-effectiveness was calculated for a mixed cohort of secondary prevention patients (weighed post-CHD: 57. [10] However, despite current international lipid guidelines now strongly recommend aggressive lipid-lowering therapy in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, including CHD and cerebrovascular disease (CeVD), secondary prevention patients are often undertreated with lipid-lowering therapies in routine clinical practice. [11] METHODS The DA VINCI study was a cross-sectional observational study of primary and secondary prevention patients receiving lipid-lowering therapy across Europe between June 2017 and November 2018. [12] CONCLUSIONS The performance of the SMART model in this validation cohort demonstrates its potential utility in routine healthcare settings in guiding both population and individual-level decision-making for secondary prevention patients. [13] Moreover, though several aspects remain to be clarified, these trials have shown the potential of modulating inflammation as a new target to reduce the risk of cardiovascular events in secondary prevention patients. [14] Cost-effectiveness was calculated for two cohorts (n = 1,000) of secondary prevention patients with previous CHD or stroke. [15] 007) and secondary prevention patients (IRR, 0. [16] In this study, we investigated if the association between aging and physical inactivity was different between men and women and between primary and secondary prevention patients. [17] The guidelines also recommend risk stratification of secondary prevention patients to identify those at very high-risk of ASCVD events as these patients would derive the most absolute risk reduction from the addition of non-statin therapies. [18] Background Under SIGN cardiovascular disease guidelines (2007, 2017), patients >40 years in Scotland are classified as being at high or low risk of a CVD event in the next ten years, with secondary prevention patients automatically considered high risk. [19] 99) and when stratified by primary versus secondary prevention patients. [20] BACKGROUND We aimed to investigate the comparative cardiovascular benefits of high-dose statin, ezetimibe-statin, and PCSK9 inhibitor-statin treatments in secondary prevention patients. [21] 1 billion for high-risk secondary prevention patients and US$691 million for heterozygous familial hypercholesterolemia patients. [22] In light of this evidence, the 2018 Cholesterol Guideline incorporated PCSK9 inhibitors into the treatment algorithm for select secondary prevention patients unable to achieve an LDL-C below 70 mg/dL despite maximally tolerated statin plus ezetimibe. [23] The authors stated that cardiology specialists tend to practice lipid-lowering treatment more aggressively than those with other areas of medical expertise, which may be because they generally treat secondary prevention patients and that the increasing number of patients who are candidates for secondary prevention of ASCVD could predispose these specialists to develop a mindset toward ASCVD therapy similar to that seen in the US and Europe. [24] So where might FDC fit into current medical management? The first target population would be secondary prevention patients who remain at high residual ASCVD risk due to persistent LDL-C elevation. [25] A sub-study of the Evaluation of Cardiovascular Outcomes After an Acute Coronary Syndrome During Treatment With Alirocumab (ODYSSEY OUTCOMES) trial provides further support for stratification of secondary prevention patients to help define the magnitude of risk reduction associated with PCSK9 inhibitor therapy. [26] CONCLUSION High-intensity statin use among secondary prevention patients increased significantly immediately after the 2013 ACC/AHA guidelines release, primarily in those managed by subspecialists. [27] 3) years were included (307 with familial hypercholesterolaemia (FH), 943 secondary prevention patients). [28] SummaryThe management of dyslipidemias continues to be an exciting field with several ongoing cardiovascular outcomes trials, improvement in risk prediction models, and new therapeutic agents in the pipeline that will further mitigate residual cardiovascular risk in both primary and secondary prevention patients. [29] This cross-sectional study investigated (1) the association between symptoms of depression and physical inactivity, and (2) whether this association is different between primary and secondary prevention patients, and between men and women. [30] The authors must be congratulated not only for this last study but also for the four previous ones clearly showing that there was an improvement in how secondary prevention patients have been treated over the last 30 years in Europe (Figures 1 and 2). [31] Methods and Results The PALM (Patient and Provider Assessment of Lipid Management) registry collected data on statin use, intensity, and core laboratory low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol levels for 3232 secondary prevention patients treated at 133 US clinics. [32] It is unsurpris ing that secondary prevention patients received more appropriate ICD interventions for ventric ular arrhythmias. [33]2차 예방 환자 중 8%). [1] 성별 조정 로그 모델을 사용하여 MESA에서 CAC의 함수로 이벤트 비율을 계산하고 FOURIER 임상 시험에서 안정적인 2차 예방 환자의 위약 그룹에서 관찰된 이벤트 비율과 비교했습니다. [2] 우리는 비스타틴 제제를 이용한 지질저하 요법을 강화하기 위한 지질/지단백질 치료 역치 개념을 도입했으며, 이러한 제제의 요법 강화로부터 가장 큰 이익을 얻는 것으로 나타난 2차 예방 환자를 식별했습니다. [3] nan [4] 성별 보정 로그 모델을 사용하여 MESA의 이벤트 비율을 CAC의 함수로 계산하고 FOURIER 임상 시험에서 안정적인 2차 예방 환자의 위약 그룹에서 관찰된 이벤트 비율과 비교했습니다. 위험 증가). [5] nan [6] nan [7] nan [8] nan [9] nan [10] nan [11] nan [12] nan [13] nan [14] nan [15] 007) 및 2차 예방 환자(IRR, 0. [16] 이 연구에서 우리는 노화와 신체 활동 부족 간의 연관성이 남성과 여성, 그리고 1차 예방과 2차 예방 환자 사이에서 다른지 조사했습니다. [17] 가이드라인은 또한 ASCVD 사건의 고위험군을 식별하기 위해 2차 예방 환자의 위험 계층화를 권장합니다. 이러한 환자는 비스타틴 요법의 추가로부터 가장 절대적인 위험 감소를 이끌어낼 것이기 때문입니다. [18] 배경 SIGN 심혈관 질환 가이드라인(2007, 2017)에 따르면 스코틀랜드에서 40세 이상의 환자는 향후 10년 동안 CVD 사건의 고위험 또는 저위험으로 분류되며 2차 예방 환자는 자동으로 고위험으로 간주됩니다. [19] 99) 1차 예방 대 2차 예방 환자로 계층화할 때. [20] 배경 우리는 2차 예방 환자에서 고용량 스타틴, ezetimibe-statin 및 PCSK9 억제제-스타틴 치료의 비교 심혈관 이점을 조사하는 것을 목표로 했습니다. [21] 고위험 2차 예방 환자의 경우 10억 달러, 이형 가족성 고콜레스테롤혈증 환자의 경우 6억 9,100만 달러. [22] 이러한 증거에 비추어, 2018 콜레스테롤 가이드라인은 최대 내약성 스타틴과 에제티미브에도 불구하고 LDL-C를 70mg/dL 미만으로 달성할 수 없는 일부 2차 예방 환자를 위한 치료 알고리즘에 PCSK9 억제제를 포함했습니다. [23] 저자들은 심장내과 전문의가 다른 의학적 전문 분야를 가진 사람들보다 지질 저하 치료를 더 적극적으로 시행하는 경향이 있다고 밝혔습니다. 이러한 전문가들이 미국과 유럽에서 볼 수 있는 것과 유사한 ASCVD 치료에 대한 사고방식을 개발하도록 하는 경향이 있습니다. [24] 그렇다면 FDC는 현재의 의료 관리에 어디에 적합할까요? 첫 번째 대상 집단은 지속적인 LDL-C 상승으로 인해 잔류 ASCVD 위험이 높은 2차 예방 환자입니다. [25] 알리로쿠맙으로 치료하는 동안 급성 관상동맥 증후군 후 심혈관 결과 평가(ODYSSEY OUTCOMES) 시험에 대한 하위 연구는 PCSK9 억제제 요법과 관련된 위험 감소의 규모를 정의하는 데 도움이 되는 이차 예방 환자의 계층화에 대한 추가 지원을 제공합니다. [26] 결론 2013년 ACC/AHA 가이드라인 발표 직후 2차 예방 환자의 고강도 스타틴 사용은 주로 하위 전문의가 관리하는 환자에서 크게 증가했습니다. [27] 3) 년이 포함되었습니다(가족성 고콜레스테롤혈증(FH)이 있는 307명, 2차 예방 환자 943명). [28] 요약이상지질혈증의 관리는 여러 심혈관 결과 시험, 위험 예측 모델의 개선, 1차 및 2차 예방 환자 모두에서 잔류 심혈관 위험을 더욱 완화할 파이프라인의 새로운 치료제로 계속해서 흥미로운 분야입니다. [29] 이 횡단면 연구는 (1) 우울증의 증상과 신체 활동 부족 간의 연관성, (2) 이러한 연관성이 1차 및 2차 예방 환자 사이, 그리고 남성과 여성 간에 다른지 여부를 조사했습니다. [30] 저자들은 이 마지막 연구뿐만 아니라 유럽에서 지난 30년 동안 2차 예방 환자가 치료된 방식이 개선되었음을 분명히 보여주는 이전 4개 연구에 대해 축하해야 합니다(그림 1 및 2). [31] 방법 및 결과 PALM(Patient and Provider Assessment of Lipid Management) 레지스트리는 133개의 미국 클리닉에서 치료를 받은 3,232명의 2차 예방 환자에 대한 스타틴 사용, 강도 및 핵심 실험실 저밀도 지단백 콜레스테롤 수치에 대한 데이터를 수집했습니다. [32] 2차 예방 환자가 심실 부정맥에 대해 보다 적절한 ICD 중재를 받은 것은 놀라운 일이 아닙니다. [33]
Primary Prevention Patients 1차 예방 환자
Conclusions In primary prevention patients undergoing routine care, CHD polygenic risk modified statin relative risk reduction of incident myocardial infarction independent of statin LDL-C lowering. [1] 3% of primary prevention patients still had an arrhythmic event in the first 6 months after treatment with sacubitril/valsartan started. [2] Background Patients with implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) use for primary prevention (primary prevention patients) of sudden cardiac death have lower incidence of appropriate ICD therapy (app-Tx) compared with those with ICD use for secondary prevention (secondary prevention patients). [3] In the overall cohort, PVR before ICD implantation was also independently associated with a lower risk of appropriate ICD therapy in primary prevention patients (HR 0. [4] Background The value of antitachycardia pacing (ATP) in the overall cohort of primary prevention patients who receive implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) remains uncertain. [5] We review the evidence base that was used to generate recommendations focusing on 4 distinct themes: 1) the threshold of absolute 10-year ASCVD risk to start a clinician-patient discussion for the initiation of statin therapy in primary prevention patients; 2) the utility of coronary artery calcium score to guide clinician-patient risk discussion pertaining to the initiation of statin therapy for primary ASCVD prevention; 3) the use of moderate versus high-intensity statin therapy in patients with established ASCVD; and 4) the utility of ordering lipid panels after initiation or intensification of lipid lowering therapy to document efficacy and monitor adherence to lipid lowering therapy. [6] In the overall cohort, PVR before ICD implantation was also independently associated with a lower risk of appropriate ICD therapy in primary prevention patients (HR: 0. [7] For these reasons, the current consensus document of the Spanish Society of Cardiology proposes 4 simple and feasible decision-making algorithms according to cardiovascular risk, with the aim of attaining cholesterol goals in the majority of primary prevention patients in a rapid an efficient way. [8] Background: Uncertainty still surrounds implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) generator change at time of elective replacement indicator, in primary prevention patients with improved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) beyond guideline recommendations or without prior appropriate ICD therapies. [9] Patients were categorized into (1) primary prevention patients and (2) secondary prevention patients at the index event and were followed until death, they moved out of the province, or they were censored at March 2018. [10] In primary prevention patients (n = 583) freedom from ICD therapy (91. [11] 0%) primary prevention patients, the annual rate of appropriate ICD therapies was 4. [12] High-risk primary prevention patients are those with severe hypercholesterolemia, diabetes with associated risk factors, and patients aged 40 to 75 years with a 10-year risk for ASCVD of 20% or greater. [13] The study sample included 373 389 primary prevention patients and 97 832 secondary prevention patients. [14] 9%), while only one out of three primary prevention patients (75, 33. [15] We examined 131 patients and calculated the risks of developing adverse events as for primary prevention patients on 3 scales, namely HeartScore (HS), Framingham Risk Score (FRS), and ASCVD Risk Estimator Plus. [16] However, individuals with coronary artery calcium >0 Agatston units have substantially higher risks despite lipid‐lowering therapy, suggesting that statin treatment in midlife may not restore a low‐risk state in primary prevention patients with established coronary atherosclerosis. [17] Conclusion Statin discontinuation was associated with a 33% increased risk of admission for cardiovascular event in 75-year-old primary prevention patients. [18] Methods: We included 147 primary prevention patients with ischaemic and non-ischaemic aetiology. [19] However, data are limited in primary prevention patients. [20] Clinicians would then advise the use of aspirin in primary prevention patients at the highest risk of MACE who do not have a prohibitive risk of bleeding, and in the majority of cases after initiation of properly titrated statin therapy. [21] The score was developed and verified in 295 primary prevention patients, and the predictive value was confirmed by comparing the SCD events between the high-risk patients stratified by the score and 100 secondary prevention patients. [22] Despite this, residual risk remains an unmet need for secondary prevention and high-risk primary prevention patients. [23] Results Compared with high-adherent patients (MPR >80%), low-adherent primary prevention patients (MPR ≤80%) showed higher risk of all outcomes: 44%–51 % for CV events, doubled for all-cause mortality and 79%–90% for CV mortality. [24] 42) were significant predictors of appropriate intervention in primary prevention patients. [25] 2%) primary prevention patients who underwent ICD generator exchange, of which 1 patient was hospitalized for observation of the hematoma. [26] Methods and Results: Changes in beta-blocker dose following CRT-D in consecutive primary prevention patients implanted between 2008 and 2015 were retrospectively studied. [27] OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study is to characterize acute performance for primary prevention patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤35% (primary prevention ≤35%). [28] Background The 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Cholesterol Treatment Guideline increased the number of primary prevention patients eligible for statin therapy, yet uptake of these guidelines has been modest. [29] Based on obvious advantages compared to conventional ICD systems, the question arises whether the S-ICD should actually be the first choice in the majority of all primary prevention patients in the future. [30] The outcome did not differ between the primary prevention patients with either of these risk factors and the secondary prevention cohort (2% to 4% annual event rate) whereas patients without risk factors did not have any appropriate ICD shocks during follow-up. [31]결론 일상적인 치료를 받는 1차 예방 환자에서 CHD 폴리유전자 위험은 스타틴 LDL-C 저하와 무관하게 발생하는 심근경색증의 스타틴 상대 위험 감소를 수정했습니다. [1] 1차 예방 환자의 3%는 사쿠비트릴/발사르탄 치료를 시작한 후 첫 6개월 동안 여전히 부정맥 사건이 있었습니다. [2] nan [3] nan [4] nan [5] 우리는 다음과 같은 4가지 주제에 초점을 맞춘 권장 사항을 생성하는 데 사용된 근거 기반을 검토합니다. 2) 1차 ASCVD 예방을 위한 스타틴 요법의 시작과 관련된 임상의-환자 위험 논의를 안내하기 위한 관상동맥 칼슘 점수의 유용성; 3) ASCVD가 확립된 환자에서 중등도 대 고강도 스타틴 요법의 사용; 및 4) 효능을 문서화하고 지질 저하 요법에 대한 순응도를 모니터링하기 위해 지질 저하 요법의 개시 또는 강화 후에 지질 패널을 주문하는 유용성. [6] nan [7] nan [8] nan [9] nan [10] nan [11] nan [12] nan [13] nan [14] nan [15] nan [16] nan [17] 결론 스타틴 중단은 75세의 1차 예방 환자에서 심혈관 사건에 대한 입원 위험을 33% 증가시키는 것과 관련이 있었습니다. [18] 방법: 허혈성 및 비허혈성 병인을 가진 147명의 1차 예방 환자를 포함했습니다. [19] 그러나 1차 예방 환자에 대한 데이터는 제한적입니다. [20] 그런 다음 임상의는 MACE 위험이 가장 높은 1차 예방 환자에서 출혈 위험이 없고 대부분의 경우 적절하게 적정된 스타틴 요법을 시작한 후 아스피린 사용을 권장합니다. [21] 점수는 295명의 1차 예방 환자에서 개발 및 검증되었으며, 점수로 계층화된 고위험 환자와 100명의 2차 예방 환자 간의 SCD 이벤트를 비교하여 예측값을 확인했습니다. [22] 그럼에도 불구하고 잔류 위험은 2차 예방 및 고위험 1차 예방 환자에 대한 충족되지 않은 요구로 남아 있습니다. [23] 결과 순응도가 높은 환자(MPR >80%)에 비해 순응도가 낮은 1차 예방 환자(MPR ≤80%)는 모든 결과의 위험이 더 높았습니다. CV 사건의 경우 44%–51%, 모든 원인 사망률의 경우 두 배, 79 CV 사망률의 경우 %–90%. [24] 42) 1차 예방 환자에서 적절한 개입의 중요한 예측인자였습니다. [25] 2%) ICD 발생기 교체를 받은 1차 예방 환자 중 1명의 환자가 혈종 관찰을 위해 입원했습니다. [26] 방법 및 결과: 2008년에서 2015년 사이에 이식된 연속 1차 예방 환자에서 CRT-D 후 베타 차단제 용량의 변화를 후향적으로 연구했습니다. [27] 목적 이 연구의 목적은 좌심실 박출률(LVEF) ≤35%(일차 예방 ≤35%)인 1차 예방 환자의 급성 수행을 특성화하는 것입니다. [28] 배경 2013년 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association 콜레스테롤 치료 가이드라인은 스타틴 치료에 적합한 1차 예방 환자의 수를 증가시켰지만 이러한 가이드라인의 활용은 미미했습니다. [29] 기존의 ICD 시스템과 비교하여 명백한 이점을 기반으로, S-ICD가 미래에 모든 1차 예방 환자의 대다수에서 실제로 첫 번째 선택이어야 하는지에 대한 질문이 발생합니다. [30] 이러한 위험 요인 중 하나가 있는 1차 예방 환자와 2차 예방 코호트(연간 이벤트 비율 2%~4%) 간에 결과는 차이가 없었지만 위험 요인이 없는 환자는 추적 기간 동안 적절한 ICD 쇼크가 없었습니다. [31]
Cardiovascular Prevention Patients
The RDW represents an independent predictor of overall and cardiovascular mortality in secondary cardiovascular prevention patients undergoing cardiac rehabilitation. [1] On the other hand, no study has evaluated the prognostic role of education level in secondary cardiovascular prevention patients undergoing cardiac rehabilitation. [2]RDW는 심장 재활을 받는 이차 심혈관 예방 환자의 전체 및 심혈관 사망률의 독립적인 예측 변수를 나타냅니다. [1] 한편, 심장재활을 받고 있는 2차 심혈관 예방 환자에서 교육수준의 예후적 역할을 평가한 연구는 없었다. [2]
prevention patients undergoing 예방 중인 환자
Conclusions In primary prevention patients undergoing routine care, CHD polygenic risk modified statin relative risk reduction of incident myocardial infarction independent of statin LDL-C lowering. [1] The RDW represents an independent predictor of overall and cardiovascular mortality in secondary cardiovascular prevention patients undergoing cardiac rehabilitation. [2] On the other hand, no study has evaluated the prognostic role of education level in secondary cardiovascular prevention patients undergoing cardiac rehabilitation. [3]결론 일상적인 치료를 받는 1차 예방 환자에서 CHD 폴리유전자 위험은 스타틴 LDL-C 저하와 무관하게 발생하는 심근경색증의 스타틴 상대 위험 감소를 수정했습니다. [1] RDW는 심장 재활을 받는 이차 심혈관 예방 환자의 전체 및 심혈관 사망률의 독립적인 예측 변수를 나타냅니다. [2] 한편, 심장재활을 받고 있는 2차 심혈관 예방 환자에서 교육수준의 예후적 역할을 평가한 연구는 없었다. [3]