Background Many studies have assessed the association between consumption of red and processed meat and the risk of heart failure, but the results are not consistent. This meta-analysis aimed to comprehensively evaluate the relationship between intake of red and processed meat and the risk of heart failure. Methods Databases of Web of Knowledge, PubMed, and Wan Fang Med Online were retrieved up to date of August 31st, 2017. Suitable publications were identified through using the defined inclusion criteria. The summarized relative risk (RR) with the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated. Results Six scientific literatures were included in this study. In comparison with the lowest category, the summarized RR and 95% CI of the highest category of processed meat intake for heart failure risk was 1.23 (95% CI = 1.07–1.41, I 2 = 58.9%, P = 0.045). A significant connection between processed meat intake and heart failure was identified among the Europeans (RR = 1.33, 95% CI = 1.15–1.54), but not the Americans. Yet few of essential association was found between heart failure risk and red meat intake (RR = 1.04, 95% CI = 0.96–1.12). Conclusions Findings of this meta-analysis indicated that the highest category of processed meat intake, other than red meat intake, correlated with an increased risk of heart failure. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12889-019-6653-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundRisk scores for predicting in-hospital major bleeding in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) are rare. The Swedish web-system for the enhancement and development of evidence-based care in heart disease evaluated according to recommended therapies (SWEDEHEART) score (SS), consisting of five common clinical variables, is a novel model for predicting in-hospital major bleeding. External validation of SS has not yet been completed.Methods and resultsA retrospective study recruiting consecutive East Asian patients diagnosed with AMI was conducted in the Second Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University. The primary endpoint was the ability of SS to predict in-hospital major bleeding, which was defined as Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 3 or 5 bleeding. To validate SS, the discrimination and calibration were assessed in the overall population and several subgroups. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and the areas under ROC curves (AUCs) were calculated for discrimination. The calibration of SS was evaluated with the unreliability U test. A total of 2,841 patients diagnosed with AMI during hospitalization were included, and 1.94% (55) of them experienced in-hospital major bleeding events. The AUC of SS for the whole population was only 0.60 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.52–0.67], without an acceptable calibration (p = 0.001). Meanwhile, the highest AUC (0.72; 95% CI, 0.61–0.82) of SS for the primary endpoint was found in the diabetes subgroup, with an acceptable calibration (p = 0.87).ConclusionThis external validation study showed that SS failed to exhibit sufficient accuracy in predicting in-hospital major bleeding among East Asian patients with AMI despite demonstrating acceptable performance in the diabetic subgroup of patients. Studies to uncover optimal prediction tools for in-hospital major bleeding risk in AMI are urgently warranted.