Voedingsadvies El MondoResearch Question:
There is a considerable controversy about the relationship of omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (Pufas) and the main cardiovascular end points. This meta-analysis of clinical studies was to the role of PUFA supplementation on major cardiovascular outcomes.
PUFA supplements decrease chances of getting heart disease?
Study Design:
This overview article contained 20 clinical studies with patients, of which 68680 kill 7044, 3993 cardiac death, heart attacks and sudden death, 1150 1837 1490 strokes.
Results and conclusions:
The meta-analysis showed that between swallowing PUFA supplements and total mortality no statistically significant Association existed. The relative risk was 0.96 [95% CI = 0.91-1.02]. No significance because the relative risk of 1 sat in the 95% CI of 0.91-1.02. No significance is, no connection.
The meta-analysis showed that between swallowing PUFA supplements and heart death no statistically significant Association existed.
The meta-analysis showed that between swallowing PUFA supplements and sudden death no statistically significant Association existed. The relative risk was 0.87 [95% CI = 0.75-1.01].
The meta-analysis showed that between swallowing PUFA supplements and heart attacks no statistically significant Association existed. The relative risk was 0.89 [95% CI = 0.76-1.04].
The meta-analysis showed that between swallowing PUFA supplements and strokes no statistically significant Association existed. The relative risk was 1.05 [95% CI = 0.93-1.18].
The researchers concluded that swallowing of PUFA supplements was not associated with a lower risk of total mortality, cardiac death, sudden death, heart attacks or stroke.
Original title:
Association Between Omega-3 Fatty Acid Supplementation and Risk of Major Cardiovascular Disease Events: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis by Rizos EC, Ntzani EE, [...], Elisaf MS.
Link:
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1357266
Additional information about El Mondo:
In advertising on the basis of scientific studies in people, claimed that foodstuffs enriched with Pufas are good for the heart and there are more and more products enriched with Pufas on the market. But review articles of studies in people can not substantiate this claim. Where is the difference? The difference is in 2 points.
Firstly, advertising only 1 or 2 studies (sometimes of poor quality) in people quoted while an overview article multiple studies (good quality).
Secondly, often in advertising studies with soft endpoints used while an overview article hard endpoints. Soft endpoints are high cholesterol or blood fat levels. Hard endpoints are death to a heart attack or stroke.
To really know if Pufas in the long run the risk of cardiovascular disease reduces, so should the conclusions of studies (preferably a review article) with hard endpoints.
Soft and hard endpoints of a scientific study are similar to the following example:
A runner that 35 km WINS, does not mean that that also 42 km WINS. So someone with high cholesterol does not mean that who also dies of a heart attack.