Among the new cardiovascular event (CVE) risk biomarkers, C-reactive protein detected using high sensitive techniques (hs-CRP) has been one of the most commonly evaluated. In this review, the available evidence on the usefulness of hs-CRP was explored as an independent risk event factor in subjects with no cardiovascular history and as prognosis in case of chronic or acute cardiovascular condition. An overview (revision of revisions) was carried out searching in the main bibliographic databases and in other general Internet search engines. During the first stage, systematic reviews, clinical practice guidelines, health technology assessments and coverage policies were found and, during the second stage primary studies published after the systematic review search dates were added. Seven hundred and seventy four quotes were found, including 36 papers assessing the role of hs-CRP in healthy populations or with cardiovascular history. High quality evidence was found pointing out hs-CRP, both as risk factor in the general population and as prognostic factor in those with CVE, in all the populations assessed. It was most useful in subjects with a history of CVE and intermediate risk of events at 10 years; where adding hs-CRP to the classical models for event risk estimation improves risk staging. There was no consensus on its clinical usefulness as a prognostic marker in subjects with chronic or acute disease.

Background: Aortic aneurysm (AA) is a pathology with high morbidity and mortality. The management can be expectant, surgical, or through endovascular repair (EVAR). In Latin America the incidence of AA has increased and the analysis of therapeutic options, especially if they are expensive, is fundamental. Objective: To analyze available evidence on the effectiveness, safety and coverage policies of the EVAR. Methodology: Panoramic review in the main bibliographical bases (MEDLINE, LILACS, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, DARE) and generic internet searchers, main health technology assessment (HTA) agencies and health insurance companies. Systematic reviews (SR), clinical practice guidelines (CPG), HTA and coverage policies, followed by the identification of primary studies published after the SR search date were included. A search of studies published until November 2015 in English and Spanish was carried out. Results: 311 references were recovered, from which seven SRs were selected, one clinical study and 15 CPGs, consensus or coverage policies and ETS. Conclusions: For abdominal AA, high quality evidence showed no differences inlong-term survival with the use of EVAR compared to conventional surgery, but lower early mortality was observed (OR = 0.33, 95% CI 0.20 À0.55). EVAR was associated with a greater need for re-intervention. In the case of other types of AA, further evidence is still required to establish the benefit of EVAR. The CPGs, consensus, HTAs and coverage policies identified, mostly consider open surgery as the treatment of choice, reserving the EVAR for patients with high surgical risk for conventional surgery in the presence of favorable anatomy.