Central obesity in the subgroups of Asians studied showed a close association with hyperinsulinaemia and the risk of coronary artery disease. A predisposition to insulin resistance and its metabolic abnormalities in this group of Asians seems to be genetically determined, environmental changes after migration having only a small additional effect.

No abstract

Objective-To evaluate the relation of physical activity to diVerent clinical and biochemical risk factors for coronary artery disease among people from diVerent ethnic groups with angiographically proven coronary artery disease. Subjects-British Asians, Indian Asians, and white people suVering from coronary artery disease, and their respective controls. Interventions

Summary:Asians in the United Kingdom surpass the already high mortality from coronary artery disease seen in Caucasians. In the present study, the angiographic features of consecutive series of 87 Caucasians, 83 British Asian and 30 Asian patients in India with coronary artery disease were assessed. Blood samples at fasting and after ingestion of75 g ofdextrose were taken to assess the extent ofdiabetes. Fasting blood samples were also taken for measurement of cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and triglyceride. Coronary angiograms were scored by two independent observers who were blinded to the patients' ethnic origin.The Asians were younger than the Caucasians, but did not differ in their body mass index, systolic or diastolic blood pressure or in cigarette consumption. Lipids were similar apart from Indian Asians having lower cholesterol than British Asians, and Caucasians having lower triglyceride than Asians. There were more diabetics in Asians than in Caucasians. Asians in Britain wait longer than Caucasians and Asians in India from onset of angina to undergoing coronary angiography.The presence oftriple vessel disease was not significantly different (P = 0.19) in the three groups, that is, 38%, 43% and 27% in Caucasians, British Asians and Indian Asians, respectively. The geometric mean coronary score was 26.3 (C.I. 22.6-30.6), 25.3 (C.I. 21.8-29.4), and 25.2 (C.I. 19.6-32.5) in Caucasians, British Asians and Indian Asians, respectively. This difference was not significant (P = 0.92). Total number of lesions more than three were similar, that is, in 25% Caucasian, 41% British Asian and 40% Indian Asian patients (P <0.10). British Asians had less proximal disease (P = 0.0002), and Indian Asians less distal disease (P = 0.003) compared to Caucasians. Non-discrete (long) lesions were more prevalent in Asians than Caucasians (P = 0.0005).The total number of lesions more than three in diabetic Asians was significantly more than in the non-diabetic, 71% versus 31% in British Asians (P = 0.002) and 90% versus 15% in Indian Asians (P= 0.0001). The relationship between diabetes and long lesions in both British and Indian Asians was highly significant (P < 0.00001 and P < 0.001, respectively).Thus severity and extent of coronary disease is no different in Asians as compared to Caucasians. Diabetes is perhaps responsible for the more diffuse disease seen in Asians.

Ischaemic heart disease is probably the most important cause of heart failure. All patients with heart failure may benefit from treatment designed to retard progressive ventricular dysfunction and arrhythmias. Patients with heart failure due to ischaemic heart disease may also, theoretically, benefit from treatments designed to relieve ischaemia and prevent coronary occlusion and from revascularisation. However, there is little evidence to show that effective treatments, such as angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and beta-blockers, exert different effects in patients with heart failure with or without coronary disease. Moreover, there is no evidence that treatment directed specifically at myocardial ischaemia, whether or not symptomatic, or coronary disease alters outcome in patients with heart failure. Some agents, such as aspirin, designed to reduce the risk of coronary occlusion appear ineffective or harmful in patients with heart failure. There is no evidence, yet, that revascularisation improves prognosis in patients with heart failure, even in patients who are demonstrated to have extensive myocardial hibernation. On current evidence, revascularisation should be reserved for the relief of angina. Large-scale, randomised controlled trials are currently underway investigating the role of specific treatments targeted at coronary syndromes in patients who have heart failure. The CHRISTMAS study is investigating the effects of carvedilol in a large cohort of patients with and without hibernating myocardium. The WATCH study is comparing the efficacy of aspirin, clopidogrel and warfarin. The HEART-UK study is assessing the effect of revascularisation on mortality in patients with heart failure and myocardial hibernation. Smaller scale studies are currently assessing the safety and efficacy of statin therapy in patients with heart failure. Only when the results of these and other studies are known will it be possible to come to firm conclusions about whether patients with heart failure and coronary disease should be treated differently from other patients with heart failure due to left ventricular systolic dysfunction.