A randomized trial of colchicine for acute pericarditis.

BACKGROUND: Colchicine is effective for the treatment of recurrent pericarditis. However, conclusive data are lacking regarding the use of colchicine during a first attack of acute pericarditis and in the prevention of recurrent symptoms. METHODS: In a multicenter, double-blind trial, eligible adults with acute pericarditis were randomly assigned to receive either colchicine (at a dose of 0.5 mg twice daily for 3 months for patients weighing >70 kg or 0.5 mg once daily for patients weighing ≤70 kg) or placebo in addition to conventional antiinflammatory therapy with aspirin or ibuprofen. The primary study outcome was incessant or recurrent pericarditis. RESULTS: A total of 240 patients were enrolled, and 120 were randomly assigned to each of the two study groups. The primary outcome occurred in 20 patients (16.7%) in the colchicine group and 45 patients (37.5%) in the placebo group (relative risk reduction in the colchicine group, 0.56; 95% confidence interval, 0.30 to 0.72; number needed to treat, 4; P<0.001). Colchicine reduced the rate of symptom persistence at 72 hours (19.2% vs. 40.0%, P=0.001), the number of recurrences per patient (0.21 vs. 0.52, P=0.001), and the hospitalization rate (5.0% vs. 14.2%, P=0.02). Colchicine also improved the remission rate at 1 week (85.0% vs. 58.3%, P<0.001). Overall adverse effects and rates of study-drug discontinuation were similar in the two study groups. No serious adverse events were observed. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with acute pericarditis, colchicine, when added to conventional antiinflammatory therapy, significantly reduced the rate of incessant or recurrent pericarditis. (Funded by former Azienda Sanitaria Locale 3 of Turin [now Azienda Sanitaria Locale 2] and Acarpia; ICAP ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00128453.).

Efficacy and safety of colchicine for treatment of multiple recurrences of pericarditis (CORP-2): a multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Colchicine is effective for the treatment of acute pericarditis and first recurrences. However, conclusive data are lacking for the efficacy and safety of colchicine for treatment of multiple recurrences of pericarditis. METHODS: We did this multicentre, double-blind trial at four general hospitals in northern Italy. Adult patients with multiple recurrences of pericarditis (≥two) were randomly assigned (1:1) to placebo or colchicine (0·5 mg twice daily for 6 months for patients weighing more than 70 kg or 0·5 mg once daily for patients weighing 70 kg or less) in addition to conventional anti-inflammatory treatment with aspirin, ibuprofen, or indometacin. Permuted block randomisation (size four) was done with a central computer-based automated sequence. Patients and all investigators were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was recurrent pericarditis in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00235079. FINDINGS: 240 patients were enrolled and 120 were assigned to each group. The proportion of patients who had recurrent pericarditis was 26 (21·6%) of 120 in the colchicine group and 51 (42·5%) of 120 in the placebo group (relative risk 0·49; 95% CI 0·24-0·65; p=0·0009; number needed to treat 5). Adverse effects and discontinuation of study drug occurred in much the same proportions in each group. The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal intolerance (nine patients in the colchicine group vs nine in the placebo group) and hepatotoxicity (three vs one). No serious adverse events were reported. INTERPRETATION: Colchicine added to conventional anti-inflammatory treatment significantly reduced the rate of subsequent recurrences of pericarditis in patients with multiple recurrences. Taken together with results from other randomised controlled trials, these findings suggest that colchicine should be probably regarded as a first-line treatment for either acute or recurrent pericarditis in the absence of contraindications or specific indications. FUNDING: Azienda Sanitaria 3 of Torino (now ASLTO2).

Colchicine for prevention of postpericardiotomy syndrome and postoperative atrial fibrillation: the COPPS-2 randomized clinical trial.

IMPORTANCE: Postpericardiotomy syndrome, postoperative atrial fibrillation (AF), and postoperative effusions may be responsible for increased morbidity and health care costs after cardiac surgery. Postoperative use of colchicine prevented these complications in a single trial. OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy and safety of perioperative use of oral colchicine in reducing postpericardiotomy syndrome, postoperative AF, and postoperative pericardial or pleural effusions. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Investigator-initiated, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial among 360 consecutive candidates for cardiac surgery enrolled in 11 Italian centers between March 2012 and March 2014. At enrollment, mean age of the trial participants was 67.5 years (SD, 10.6 years), 69% were men, and 36% had planned valvular surgery. Main exclusion criteria were absence of sinus rhythm at enrollment, cardiac transplantation, and contraindications to colchicine. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to receive placebo (n=180) or colchicine (0.5 mg twice daily in patients ≥70 kg or 0.5 mg once daily in patients <70 kg; n=180) starting between 48 and 72 hours before surgery and continued for 1 month after surgery. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Occurrence of postpericardiotomy syndrome within 3 months; main secondary study end points were postoperative AF and pericardial or pleural effusion. RESULTS: The primary end point of postpericardiotomy syndrome occurred in 35 patients (19.4%) assigned to colchicine and in 53 (29.4%) assigned to placebo (absolute difference, 10.0%; 95% CI, 1.1%-18.7%; number needed to treat = 10). There were no significant differences between the colchicine and placebo groups for the secondary end points of postoperative AF (colchicine, 61 patients [33.9%]; placebo, 75 patients [41.7%]; absolute difference, 7.8%; 95% CI, -2.2% to 17.6%) or postoperative pericardial/pleural effusion (colchicine, 103 patients [57.2%]; placebo, 106 patients [58.9%]; absolute difference, 1.7%; 95% CI, -8.5% to 11.7%), although there was a reduction in postoperative AF in the prespecified on-treatment analysis (placebo, 61/148 patients [41.2%]; colchicine, 38/141 patients [27.0%]; absolute difference, 14.2%; 95% CI, 3.3%-24.7%). Adverse events occurred in 21 patients (11.7%) in the placebo group vs 36 (20.0%) in the colchicine group (absolute difference, 8.3%; 95% CI; 0.76%-15.9%; number needed to harm = 12), but discontinuation rates were similar. No serious adverse events were observed. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients undergoing cardiac surgery, perioperative use of colchicine compared with placebo reduced the incidence of postpericardiotomy syndrome but not of postoperative AF or postoperative pericardial/pleural effusion. The increased risk of gastrointestinal adverse effects reduced the potential benefits of colchicine in this setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01552187.

Colchicine reduces postoperative atrial fibrillation: results of the Colchicine for the Prevention of the Postpericardiotomy Syndrome (COPPS) atrial fibrillation substudy.

BACKGROUND: Inflammation and pericarditis may be contributing factors for postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF), and both are potentially affected by antiinflammatory drugs and colchicine, which has been shown to be safe and efficacious for the prevention of pericarditis and the postpericardiotomy syndrome (PPS). The aim of the Colchicine for the Prevention of the Post-Pericardiotomy Syndrome (COPPS) POAF substudy was to test the efficacy and safety of colchicine for the prevention of POAF after cardiac surgery. METHODS AND RESULTS: The COPPS POAF substudy included 336 patients (mean age, 65.7±12.3 years; 69% male) of the COPPS trial, a multicenter, double-blind, randomized trial. Substudy patients were in sinus rhythm before starting the intervention (placebo/colchicine 1.0 mg twice daily starting on postoperative day 3 followed by a maintenance dose of 0.5 mg twice daily for 1 month in patients ≥70 kg, halved doses for patients <70 kg or intolerant to the highest dose). The substudy primary end point was the incidence of POAF on intervention at 1 month. Despite well-balanced baseline characteristics, patients on colchicine had a reduced incidence of POAF (12.0% versus 22.0%, respectively; P=0.021; relative risk reduction, 45%; number needed to treat, 11) with a shorter in-hospital stay (9.4±3.7 versus 10.3±4.3 days; P=0.040) and rehabilitation stay (12.1±6.1 versus 13.9±6.5 days; P=0.009). Side effects were similar in the study groups. CONCLUSION: Colchicine seems safe and efficacious in the reduction of POAF with the potentiality of halving the complication and reducing the hospital stay.

Colchicine for recurrent pericarditis (CORP): a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Recurrence is the most common complication of pericarditis, affecting 10% to 50% of patients. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of colchicine for the secondary prevention of recurrent pericarditis. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicenter trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT00128414) SETTING: 4 general hospitals in urban areas of Italy. PATIENTS: 120 patients with a first recurrence of pericarditis. INTERVENTION: In addition to conventional treatment, patients were randomly assigned to receive either placebo or colchicine, 1.0 to 2.0 mg on the first day followed by a maintenance dose of 0.5 to 1.0 mg/d, for 6 months. MEASUREMENTS: The primary study end point was the recurrence rate at 18 months. Secondary end points were symptom persistence at 72 hours, remission rate at 1 week, number of recurrences, time to first recurrence, disease-related hospitalization, cardiac tamponade, and rate of constrictive pericarditis. RESULTS: At 18 months, the recurrence rate was 24% in the colchicine group and 55% in the placebo group (absolute risk reduction, 0.31 [95% CI, 0.13 to 0.46]; relative risk reduction, 0.56 [CI, 0.27 to 0.73]; number needed to treat, 3 [CI, 2 to 7]). Colchicine reduced the persistence of symptoms at 72 hours (absolute risk reduction, 0.30 [CI, 0.13 to 0.45]; relative risk reduction, 0.56 [CI, 0.27 to 0.74]) and mean number of recurrences, increased the remission rate at 1 week, and prolonged the time to subsequent recurrence. The study groups had similar rates of side effects and drug withdrawal. LIMITATION: Multiple recurrences and neoplastic or bacterial causes were excluded. CONCLUSION: Colchicine is safe and effective for secondary prevention of recurrent pericarditis.

Colchicine prevents early postoperative pericardial and pleural effusions.

BACKGROUND: No preventive pharmacologic strategies have been proven efficacious for the prevention of postoperative effusions after cardiac surgery. Colchicine is safe and efficacious for the prevention of pericarditis. On this basis, we realized a substudy of the COPPS trial to assess the efficacy and safety of colchicine for the prevention of postoperative pericardial and pleural effusions. METHODS: The COPPS is a multicenter, double-blind, randomized trial, where 360 consecutive patients (mean age 65.7 ± 12.3 years, 66% men), 180 in each treatment arm, were randomized on the third postoperative day to receive placebo or colchicine for 1 month (1.0 mg twice daily for the first day, followed by a maintenance dose of 0.5 mg twice daily in patients ≥70 kg, and halved doses for patients <70 kg). The incidence of postoperative effusions was evaluated in each study group. RESULTS: Despite similar baseline features, colchicine significantly reduced the incidence of postoperative pericardial (12.8% vs 22.8%, P = .019, relative risk reduction 43.9%, no. of patients needed to treat 10) and pleural effusions (12.2% vs 25.6%, P = .002, relative risk reduction 52.3%, no. of patients needed to treat 8). The rate of side effects (only gastrointestinal intolerance) and drug withdrawal was similar in the study groups with a trend toward an increased rate of both events for colchicine. In multivariable analysis, female gender (hazard ratio 1.76, 95% CI 1.03-3.03, P = .040) and pleura incision (hazard ratio 2.58, 95% CI 1.53-4.53, P < .001) were risk factors for postoperative effusions. CONCLUSIONS: Colchicine is safe and efficacious for the primary prevention of postoperative effusions after cardiac surgery.

COlchicine for the Prevention of the Post-pericardiotomy Syndrome (COPPS): a multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

AIMS: No drug has been proven efficacious to prevent the post-pericardiotomy syndrome (PPS), but colchicine seems safe and effective for the treatment and prevention of pericarditis. The aim of the COlchicine for the Prevention of the Post-pericardiotomy Syndrome (COPPS) trial is to test the efficacy and safety of colchicine for the primary prevention of the PPS. METHODS AND RESULTS: The COPPS study is a multicentre, double-blind, randomized trial. On the third post-operative day, 360 patients (mean age 65.7 ± 12.3 years, 66% males), 180 in each treatment arm, were randomized to receive placebo or colchicine (1.0 mg twice daily for the first day followed by a maintenance dose of 0.5 mg twice daily for 1 month in patients ≥70 kg, and halved doses for patients <70 kg or intolerant to the highest dose). The primary efficacy endpoint was the incidence of PPS at 12 months. Secondary endpoint was the combined rate of disease-related hospitalization, cardiac tamponade, constrictive pericarditis, and relapses. Baseline characteristics were well balanced between the study groups. Colchicine significantly reduced the incidence of the PPS at 12 months compared with placebo (respectively, 8.9 vs. 21.1%; P = 0.002; number needed to treat = 8). Colchicine also reduced the secondary endpoint (respectively, 0.6 vs. 5.0%; P = 0.024). The rate of side effects (mainly related to gastrointestinal intolerance) was similar in the colchicine and placebo groups (respectively, 8.9 vs. 5.0%; P = 0.212). CONCLUSION: Colchicine is safe and efficacious in the prevention of the PPS and its related complications and may halve the risk of developing the syndrome following cardiac surgery. ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00128427.

Incomplete Left Atrial Appendage Closure Successfully Treated With a Redo Procedure.

A 68 year's old man with permanent atrial fibrillation, underwent a left atrial appendage closure because of high bleeding risk. However, after one month, an incomplete occlusion of the left atrial appendage due to a too deep position of the device, was detected by a transesophageal echocardiogram. Considering the residual high risk of thrombi formation, a new different device was successfully implanted with a correct closure of the appendage.

Multidisciplinary strategies for the management of heart failure patients at high risk for admission: a systematic review of randomized trials.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine whether multidisciplinary strategies improve outcomes for heart failure (HF) patients. BACKGROUND: Because the prognosis of HF remains poor despite pharmacotherapy, there is increasing interest in alternative models of care delivery for these patients. METHODS: Randomized trials of multidisciplinary management programs in HF were identified by searching electronic databases and bibliographies and via contact with experts. RESULTS: Twenty-nine trials (5,039 patients) were identified but were not pooled, because of considerable heterogeneity. A priori, we divided the interventions into homogeneous groups that were suitable for pooling. Strategies that incorporated follow-up by a specialized multidisciplinary team (either in a clinic or a non-clinic setting) reduced mortality (risk ratio [RR] 0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.59 to 0.96), HF hospitalizations (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.87), and all-cause hospitalizations (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.92). Programs that focused on enhancing patient self-care activities reduced HF hospitalizations (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.83) and all-cause hospitalizations (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.93) but had no effect on mortality (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.94). Strategies that employed telephone contact and advised patients to attend their primary care physician in the event of deterioration reduced HF hospitalizations (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.99) but not mortality (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.29) or all-cause hospitalizations (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.20). In 15 of 18 trials that evaluated cost, multidisciplinary strategies were cost-saving. CONCLUSIONS: Multidisciplinary strategies for the management of patients with HF reduce HF hospitalizations. Those programs that involve specialized follow-up by a multidisciplinary team also reduce mortality and all-cause hospitalizations.

Determination of left ventricular long-axis orientation using MRI: changes during the respiratory and cardiac cycles in normal and diseased subjects.

BACKGROUND: It has previously been shown that magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can be used to accurately determine left ventricular (LV) long-axis orientation in healthy individuals. However, the inter- and intra-observer variability in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and chronic heart failure (CHF) has not been explored. Furthermore, the changes in LV long-axis orientation because of respiration and during the cardiac cycle remain to be determined. METHODS: LV long-axis orientation was determined by MRI in the frontal and transverse planes in 44 subjects with no cardiac disease, 20 ACS patients and 13 CHF patients. Changes in LV long-axis orientation because of respiration were assessed in a subset of 25 subjects. Changes during the cardiac cycle were assessed in six subjects from each subject group. Reproducibility was assessed by a re-examination of 17 subjects after 28 days. RESULTS: The inter- and intra-observer variability for LV long-axis orientation was low for all subject groups. The difference between the baseline and the 28 days examinations was -1.4+/-5.9 degrees and -0.8+/-4.4 degrees in the frontal and transverse planes, respectively. No significant change in LV long-axis orientation was found between end-expiration and end-inspiration (frontal plane, P=0.63 and transverse plane, P=0.42; n=25). No significant difference in change of the LV long-axis orientation during the cardiac cycle was found between the subject groups (frontal plane, chi-square 1.8, P=0.40 and transverse plane, chi-square 5.7, P=0.06). CONCLUSIONS: There is a low inter-and intra-observer variability and a high reproducibility for determining LV long-axis orientation in patients with no cardiac disease as well as in patients with ACS or CHF. There is no significant change in LV long-axis orientation due to respiration, and only small changes during the cardiac cycle in these groups.

Contemporary features, risk factors, and prognosis of the post-pericardiotomy syndrome.

Contemporary series of postpericardiotomy syndrome (PPS) are lacking. The aim of this study was to evaluate the incidence, time course, features at presentation, risk factors, and prognosis of PPS. The study population consisted of 360 consecutive candidates to cardiac surgery enrolled in a prospective cohort study. PPS was diagnosed in 54 patients (15.0%; mean age 66 ± 12 years, 48.1% women): 79.6% in the first month, 13.0% in the second month, and 7.4% in the third month. Specific symptoms, signs, or features were pleuritic chest pain (55.6%), fever (53.7%), elevated markers of inflammation (74.1%), pericardial effusion (88.9%), and pleural effusion (92.6%). Cardiac tamponade was rare at presentation (1.9%). Female gender (hazard ratio 2.32, 95% confidence interval 1.22 to 4.39, p = 0.010), and pleura incision (hazard ratio 4.31, 95% confidence interval 2.22 to 8.33, p <0.001) were identified as risk factors in multivariate analysis. Patients with PPS had longer cardiac surgery stays (11.5 ± 4.6 vs 9.9 ± 4.7 days, p = 0.021) and rehabilitation stays (16.4 ± 6.7 vs 12.4 ± 6.2 days, p <0.001) and more readmissions (13.0% vs 0%, p <0.001). Adverse events after a mean follow-up period of 19.8 months were recurrences (3.7%), cardiac tamponade (<2%), but no cases of constriction. In conclusion, despite advances in cardiac surgery techniques, PPS is a common postoperative complication, generally occurring in the first 3 months after surgery. Severe complications are rare, but the syndrome is responsible for hospital stay prolongation and readmissions. Female gender and pleura incision are risk factors for PPS.

Does carvedilol impair insulin sensitivity in heart failure patients without diabetes?

BACKGROUND: An increased risk for impaired glucose tolerance or diabetes was shown in patients on beta-blockers, whereas alpha1 blockers seem to have favorable effects on glycemic profile. In this study, the metabolic effect of carvedilol in nondiabetic patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) was evaluated. METHODS AND RESULTS: Twenty-eight nondiabetic CHF patients were enrolled. Before being started on carvedilol and on the highest tolerated dose, each patient underwent an oral glucose tolerance test and fasting insulin, glycohemoglobin, lipid concentrations were measured and insulin sensitivity indices (HOMA, ISI-gly, and ISI-composite) were calculated. An impaired glucose tolerance was found (2-hour glycemia 144 +/- 42 mg/dL), with a fasting glycemia at upper limits of normal (108 +/- 13 mg/dL) and no significant differences between basal and carvedilol treatment measurements. Fasting insulinemia significantly decreased during carvedilol treatment (13.6 +/- 7.3 versus 9.8 +/- 5.1 muU/mL; P = .022), with a reduction of the HOMA index (3.75 +/- 1.95 versus 2.73 +/- 1.47; P = 034) and an increase of the ISI-gly index (0.85 +/- 0.22 versus 1.03 +/- 0.31; P = .025). The lipoprotein profile did not significantly change. CONCLUSION: Carvedilol might have some positive metabolic effects on increasing insulin sensitivity that would make it suitable for diabetic patients that have a worse prognosis than non diabetic patients with CHF.

Survival and hospitalization in heart failure patients with or without diabetes treated with beta-blockers.

BACKGROUND: Physicians are still concerned about prescribing beta-blockers in diabetic patients with heart failure. METHODS: In the outcome research study (the Beta-Blockers in Patients With Congestive Heart Failure: Guided Use in Clinical Practice [BRING-UP] study), the responsible clinicians could decide whether to start beta-blocker treatment and which agent to use. A total of 3091 patients were enrolled by 202 cardiologic centers: 25% of the recruited patients were already on beta-blockers, 28% started treatment at the enrollment visit, and 47% were not started on beta-blockers. RESULTS: The 1-year mortality, hospitalization rate, and the combined end point of mortality or hospitalization were higher in diabetic patients (15.8% versus 10.9%; relative risk [RR] = 1.44; 95% confidence intervals [CI] 1.16-1.78, P =.001) (31.0% versus 24.0%; RR = 1.28; 95% CI 1.11-1.49; P =.0009) (40.5% versus 30.1%; RR = 1.35; 95% CI 1.19-1.51; P =.0001). The event-free analysis of the 4 groups (diabetic patients not treated with beta-blockers, diabetic patients treated with beta-blockers, nondiabetic patients not treated with beta-blockers, nondiabetic patients treated with beta-blockers) showed that patients treated with beta-blockers had a higher event-free probability than patients not treated with beta-blockers regardless the presence of diabetes (P <.0001). CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of post hoc analysis, diabetic patients with chronic heart failure benefit from beta-blockers even if at a lower degree. Thus, there are no justifications to avoid beta-blockers in heart failure patients in the presence of diabetes.