Beta-Blockers after Myocardial Infarction and Preserved Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: Most trials that have shown a benefit of beta-blocker treatment after myocardial infarction included patients with large myocardial infarctions and were conducted in an era before modern biomarker-based diagnosis of myocardial infarction and treatment with percutaneous coronary intervention, antithrombotic agents, high-intensity statins, and renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system antagonists. METHODS: In a parallel-group, open-label trial performed at 45 centers in Sweden, Estonia, and New Zealand, we randomly assigned patients with an acute myocardial infarction who had undergone coronary angiography and had a left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 50% to receive either long-term treatment with a beta-blocker (metoprolol or bisoprolol) or no beta-blocker treatment. The primary end point was a composite of death from any cause or new myocardial infarction. RESULTS: From September 2017 through May 2023, a total of 5020 patients were enrolled (95.4% of whom were from Sweden). The median follow-up was 3.5 years (interquartile range, 2.2 to 4.7). A primary end-point event occurred in 199 of 2508 patients (7.9%) in the beta-blocker group and in 208 of 2512 patients (8.3%) in the no-beta-blocker group (hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.79 to 1.16; P = 0.64). Beta-blocker treatment did not appear to lead to a lower cumulative incidence of the secondary end points (death from any cause, 3.9% in the beta-blocker group and 4.1% in the no-beta-blocker group; death from cardiovascular causes, 1.5% and 1.3%, respectively; myocardial infarction, 4.5% and 4.7%; hospitalization for atrial fibrillation, 1.1% and 1.4%; and hospitalization for heart failure, 0.8% and 0.9%). With regard to safety end points, hospitalization for bradycardia, second- or third-degree atrioventricular block, hypotension, syncope, or implantation of a pacemaker occurred in 3.4% of the patients in the beta-blocker group and in 3.2% of those in the no-beta-blocker group; hospitalization for asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in 0.6% and 0.6%, respectively; and hospitalization for stroke in 1.4% and 1.8%. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with acute myocardial infarction who underwent early coronary angiography and had a preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (≥50%), long-term beta-blocker treatment did not lead to a lower risk of the composite primary end point of death from any cause or new myocardial infarction than no beta-blocker use. (Funded by the Swedish Research Council and others; REDUCE-AMI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03278509.).

Temporal trends in characteristics and outcome of heart failure patients with and without significant coronary artery disease.

AIMS: Ischaemic coronary artery disease (CAD) remains the leading cause of mortality globally due to sudden death and heart failure (HF). Invasive coronary angiography (CAG) is the gold standard for evaluating the presence and severity of CAD. Our objective was to assess temporal trends in CAG utilization, patient characteristics, and prognosis in HF patients undergoing CAG at a national level. METHODS AND RESULTS: We used data from the Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry. Data on all patients undergoing CAG for HF indication in Sweden between 2000 and 2018 were collected and analysed. Long-term survival was estimated with multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression adjusted for differences in patient characteristics. In total, 22 457 patients (73% men) with mean age 64.2 ± 11.3 years were included in the study. The patients were increasingly older with more comorbidities over time. The number of CAG specifically for HF indication increased by 5.5% per calendar year (P < 0.001). No such increase was seen for indications angina pectoris and ST-elevation myocardial infarction. A normal CAG or non-obstructive CAD was reported in 63.2% (HF-NCAD), and 36.8% had >50% diameter stenosis in one or more coronary arteries (HF-CAD). The median follow-up time was 3.6 years in HF-CAD and 5 years in HF-NCAD. Age and sex-adjusted survival improved linearly by 1.3% per calendar year in all patients. Compared with HF-NCAD, long-term mortality was higher in HF-CAD patients. The risk of death increased with the increasing severity of CAD. Compared with HF-NCAD, the risk estimate in patients with a single-vessel disease was higher [hazard ratio (HR) 1.3; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.20-1.41; P < 0.001], a multivessel disease without the involvement of left main coronary artery (HR 1.72; 95% CI 1.58-1.88; P < 0.001), and with left main disease (HR 2.02; 95% CI 1.88-2.18; P < 0.001). The number of HF patients undergoing revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) increased by 7.5% (P < 0.001) per calendar year. The majority (53.4%) of HF-CAD patients were treated medically, while a minority (46.6%) were referred for revascularization with PCI or CABG. Compared with patients treated with PCI, the proportion of patients treated medically or with CABG decreased substantially (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Over 18 years, the number of patients with HF undergoing CAG has increased substantially. Expanded utilization of CAG increased the number of HF patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass surgery. Long-term survival improved in all HF patients despite a steady increase of elderly patients with comorbidities.

Avoiding Routine Oxygen Therapy in Patients With Myocardial Infarction Saves Significant Expenditure for the Health Care System-Insights From the Randomized DETO2X-AMI Trial.

Background: Myocardial infarction (MI) occurs frequently and requires considerable health care resources. It is important to ensure that the treatments which are provided are both clinically effective and economically justifiable. Based on recent new evidence, routine oxygen therapy is no longer recommended in MI patients without hypoxemia. By using data from a nationwide randomized clinical trial, we estimated oxygen therapy related cost savings in this important clinical setting. Methods: The DETermination of the role of Oxygen in suspected Acute Myocardial Infarction (DETO2X-AMI) trial randomized 6,629 patients from 35 hospitals across Sweden to oxygen at 6 L/min for 6-12 h or ambient air. Costs for drug and medical supplies, and labor were calculated per patient, for the whole study population, and for the total annual care episodes for MI in Sweden (N = 16,100) with 10 million inhabitants. Results: Per patient, costs were estimated to 36 USD, summing up to a total cost of 119,832 USD for the whole study population allocated to oxygen treatment. Applied to the annual care episodes for MI in Sweden, costs sum up to between 514,060 and 604,777 USD. In the trial, 62 (2%) patients assigned to oxygen and 254 (8%) patients assigned to ambient air developed hypoxemia. A threshold analysis suggested that up to a cut-off of 624 USD spent for hypoxemia treatment related costs per patient, avoiding routine oxygen therapy remains cost saving. Conclusions: Avoiding routine oxygen therapy in patients with suspected or confirmed MI without hypoxemia at baseline saves significant expenditure for the health care system both with regards to medical and human resources. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT01787110.

Uninterrupted Oral Anticoagulant Therapy in Patients Undergoing Unplanned Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare interrupted and uninterrupted oral anticoagulant therapy (I-OAC vs. U-OAC) in patients on OAC undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of data regarding the optimal peri-procedural management of OAC-treated patients. METHODS: In the SWEDEHEART registry, all patients on OAC who were admitted acutely and underwent percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary angiography with a diagnostic procedure, from 2005 to 2017, were included. Outcomes were major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE; death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) and bleeds at 120 days. Propensity score was used to adjust for the nonrandomized treatment selection. RESULTS: The study included 6,485 patients: 3,322 in the I-OAC group and 3,163 in the U-OAC group. The cumulative incidence of MACCE was 8.2% (269 events) versus 8.2% (254 events) in the I-OAC and the U-OAC groups, respectively. The adjusted risk for MACCE did not differ between the groups (I-OAC vs. U-OAC hazard ratio: 0.89; 95% confidence interval: 0.71 to 1.12). Similarly, no difference was found in the risk for MACCE or bleeds (12.6% vs. 12.9%, adjusted hazard ratio: 0.87; 95% confidence interval: 0.70 to 1.07). The risk for major or minor in-hospital bleeds did not differ between the groups. However, U-OAC was associated with a significantly shorter duration of hospitalization: 4 (3 to 7) days versus 5 (3 to 8) days; p < 0.01. CONCLUSIONS: I-OAC and U-OAC were associated with equivalent risk for MACCE and bleeding complications. An U-OAC strategy was associated with shorter length of hospitalization. These data support U-OAC as the preferable strategy in patients on OAC undergoing coronary intervention.