Display options
Cite
Shah B, Ganguzza L, Slater J, et al. The Effect of a Vegan versus AHA DiEt in Coronary Artery Disease (EVADE CAD) trial: study design and rationale. Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2017;8:90-98doi: 10.1016/j.conctc.2017.09.003.
Shah, B., Ganguzza, L., Slater, J., Newman, J. D., Allen, N., Fisher, E., Larigakis, J., Ujueta, F., Gianos, E., Guo, Y., & Woolf, K. (2017). The Effect of a Vegan versus AHA DiEt in Coronary Artery Disease (EVADE CAD) trial: study design and rationale. Contemporary clinical trials communications, 890-98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conctc.2017.09.003
Shah, Binita, et al. "The Effect of a Vegan versus AHA DiEt in Coronary Artery Disease (EVADE CAD) trial: study design and rationale." Contemporary clinical trials communications vol. 8 (2017): 90-98. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conctc.2017.09.003
Shah B, Ganguzza L, Slater J, Newman JD, Allen N, Fisher E, Larigakis J, Ujueta F, Gianos E, Guo Y, Woolf K. The Effect of a Vegan versus AHA DiEt in Coronary Artery Disease (EVADE CAD) trial: study design and rationale. Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2017 Dec;8:90-98. doi: 10.1016/j.conctc.2017.09.003. Epub 2017 Sep 14. PMID: 29333503; PMCID: PMC5764176.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2017 Dec;8:90-98. doi: 10.1016/j.conctc.2017.09.003. Epub 2017 Sep 14.

The Effect of a Vegan versus AHA DiEt in Coronary Artery Disease (EVADE CAD) trial: study design and rationale.

Contemporary clinical trials communications

Binita Shah, Lisa Ganguzza, James Slater, Jonathan D Newman, Nicole Allen, Edward Fisher, John Larigakis, Francisco Ujueta, Eugenia Gianos, Yu Guo, Kathleen Woolf

Affiliations

  1. Department of Medicine (Cardiology), New York University (NYU) School of Medicine, New York, NY.
  2. Department of Medicine (Cardiology), Veterans Affairs New York Harbor Healthcare System: Manhattan Campus, New York, NY.
  3. Department of Population Health (Biostatistics), NYU School of Medicine, New York, NY.
  4. Department of Nutrition and Food Studies, NYU Steinhardt, New York, NY.

PMID: 29333503 PMCID: PMC5764176 DOI: 10.1016/j.conctc.2017.09.003

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Multiple studies demonstrate the benefit of a vegan diet on cardiovascular risk factors when compared to no intervention or usual dietary patterns. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of a vegan diet versus the American Heart Association (AHA)-recommended diet on inflammatory and glucometabolic profiles in patients with angiographically defined coronary artery disease (CAD).

STUDY DESIGN: This study is a randomized, open label, blinded end-point trial of 100 patients with CAD as defined by ≥50% diameter stenosis in a coronary artery ≥2 mm in diameter on invasive angiography. Participants are randomized to 8 weeks of either a vegan or AHA-recommended diet (March 2014 and February 2017). Participants are provided weekly groceries that adhere to the guidelines of their diet. The primary endpoint is high sensitivity C-reactive concentrations. Secondary endpoints include anthropometric data, other markers of inflammation, lipid parameters, glycemic markers, endothelial function, quality of life data, and assessment of physical activity. Endpoints are measured at each visit (baseline, 4 weeks, and 8 weeks). Dietary adherence is measured by two weekly 24-hour dietary recalls, a 4-day food record during the week prior to each visit, and both plasma and urine levels of trimethylamine-

CONCLUSION: This study is the first to comprehensively assess multiple indices of inflammation and glucometabolic profile in a rigorously conducted randomized trial of patients with CAD on a vegan versus AHA-recommended diet.

Keywords: Diet intervention; coronary artery disease; glucose; inflammation; lipids

References

  1. Ann Med. 2001 Jul;33(5):337-43 - PubMed
  2. Control Clin Trials. 2003 Oct;24(5):610-28 - PubMed
  3. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Feb 28;(2):CD008722 - PubMed
  4. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1999 Nov 1;34(5):1512-21 - PubMed
  5. J Biomed Inform. 2009 Apr;42(2):377-81 - PubMed
  6. N Engl J Med. 2013 Apr 4;368(14):1279-90 - PubMed
  7. JAMA. 1983 Jan 7;249(1):54-9 - PubMed
  8. Lancet. 1990 Jul 21;336(8708):129-33 - PubMed
  9. Circulation. 2005 Feb 8;111(5):697-716 - PubMed
  10. Health Educ Res. 2007 Oct;22(5):691-702 - PubMed
  11. Int J Food Sci Nutr. 2015 Feb;66(1):114-9 - PubMed
  12. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001 Mar 1;37(3):839-46 - PubMed
  13. Lancet. 1994 Jun 11;343(8911):1454-9 - PubMed
  14. JAMA. 2006 Feb 8;295(6):655-66 - PubMed
  15. Atherosclerosis. 2005 Oct;182(2):341-8 - PubMed
  16. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013 Jan 29;61(4):404-10 - PubMed
  17. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004 Dec 7;44(11):2137-41 - PubMed
  18. Clin Chem. 2008 Jan;54(1):24-38 - PubMed
  19. BMC Public Health. 2011 Feb 17;11:111 - PubMed
  20. Br J Nutr. 2015 Oct 14;114(7):1088-98 - PubMed
  21. Am J Cardiol. 2010 Feb 1;105(3):362-7 - PubMed
  22. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006 Oct 17;48(8):1560-6 - PubMed
  23. Circ Res. 2017 Jan 6;120(1):229-243 - PubMed
  24. Am J Cardiol. 2007 Mar 15;99(6):805-7 - PubMed
  25. N Engl J Med. 1997 Apr 17;336(16):1117-24 - PubMed
  26. Am J Clin Nutr. 2011 May;93(5):1073-9 - PubMed
  27. Nat Med. 2013 May;19(5):576-85 - PubMed
  28. JAMA. 2005 Nov 16;294(19):2455-64 - PubMed
  29. Circulation. 2004 Aug 10;110(6):674-8 - PubMed
  30. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2003 Aug;35(8):1381-95 - PubMed
  31. N Engl J Med. 2008 Nov 20;359(21):2195-207 - PubMed
  32. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1989 Nov;57(5):749-61 - PubMed
  33. Blood Press. 1992 Aug;1(2):113-9 - PubMed
  34. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2009 Nov;63(11):1345-52 - PubMed

Publication Types

Grant support