Asundexian versus Apixaban in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Stroke prevention with direct-acting oral anticoagulant agents in patients with atrial fibrillation confers a risk of bleeding and limits their use. Asundexian, an activated factor XI (XIa) inhibitor, is an oral anticoagulant that may prevent strokes with less bleeding. METHODS: In a phase 3, international, double-blind trial, we randomly assigned high-risk patients with atrial fibrillation in a 1:1 ratio to receive asundexian at a dose of 50 mg once daily or standard-dose apixaban. The primary efficacy objective was to determine whether asundexian is at least noninferior to apixaban for the prevention of stroke or systemic embolism. The primary safety objective was to determine whether asundexian is superior to apixaban with respect to major bleeding events. RESULTS: A total of 14,810 randomly assigned patients were included in the intention-to-treat population. The mean (±SD) age of the patients was 73.9±7.7 years, 35.2% were women, 18.6% had chronic kidney disease, 18.2% had a previous stroke or transient ischemic attack, 16.8% had received oral anticoagulants for no more than 6 weeks, and the mean CHA2DS2-VASc score (range, 0 to 9, with higher scores indicating a greater risk of stroke) was 4.3±1.3. The trial was stopped prematurely at the recommendation of the independent data monitoring committee. Stroke or systemic embolism occurred in 98 patients (1.3%) assigned to receive asundexian and in 26 (0.4%) assigned to receive apixaban (hazard ratio, 3.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.46 to 5.83). Major bleeding occurred in 17 patients (0.2%) who received asundexian and in 53 (0.7%) who received apixaban (hazard ratio, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.18 to 0.55). The incidence of any adverse event appeared to be similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with atrial fibrillation at risk for stroke, treatment with asundexian at a dose of 50 mg once daily was associated with a higher incidence of stroke or systemic embolism than treatment with apixaban in the period before the trial was stopped prematurely. There were fewer major bleeding events with asundexian than with apixaban during this time. (Funded by Bayer; OCEANIC-AF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05643573; EudraCT number, 2022-000758-28.).

Kidney and Cardiovascular Effectiveness of SGLT2 Inhibitors vs GLP-1 Receptor Agonists in Type 2 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Emerging data suggest that glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) improve kidney outcomes for people with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Direct comparisons of the kidney and cardiovascular effectiveness of GLP-1 RA with sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i), a first-line therapy for this population, are needed. OBJECTIVES: The authors compared kidney and cardiovascular outcomes for new users of SGLT2i and GLP-1 RAs with T2D. METHODS: Using propensity score overlap weighting, we analyzed electronic health record data from 20 U.S. health systems contributing to PCORnet between 2015 and 2020. The primary kidney outcome was a composite of sustained 40% estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) decline, incident end-stage kidney disease, or all-cause mortality over 2 years or until censoring. In addition, we examined cardiovascular and safety outcomes. RESULTS: The weighted study cohort included 35,004 SGLT2i and 47,268 GLP-1 RA initiators. Over a median of 1.2 years, the primary outcome did not differ between treatments (HR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.81-1.02), although SGLT2i were associated with a lower risk of 40% eGFR decline (HR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.65-0.91). Risks of mortality (HR: 1.08; 95% CI: 0.92-1.27), a composite of stroke, myocardial infarction, or death (HR: 1.03; 95% CI: 0.93-1.14), and heart failure hospitalization (HR: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.80-1.13) did not differ. Genital mycotic infections were more common for SGLT2i initiators, but other safety outcomes did not differ. The results were similar regardless of chronic kidney disease status. CONCLUSIONS: SGLT2i and GLP-1 RAs led to similar kidney and cardiovascular outcomes in people with T2D, though SGLT2i initiation was associated with a lower risk of 40% eGFR decline. (Evaluating Comparative Effectiveness of Empagliflozin in Type 2 Diabetes Population With and Without Chronic Kidney Disease; NCT05465317).

Risk of Bleeding Among Cangrelor-Treated Patients Administered Upstream P2Y12 Inhibitor Therapy: The CAMEO Registry.

Background: Little is known about the bleeding risk associated with cangrelor use in patients with myocardial infarction (MI) who are exposed to an oral P2Y12 inhibitor before coronary angiography. Methods: Cangrelor in Acute MI: Effectiveness and Outcomes (CAMEO) is an observational registry studying platelet inhibition for patients with MI. Upstream oral P2Y12 inhibition was defined as receipt of an oral P2Y12 inhibitor within 24 hours before hospitalization or in-hospital before angiography. Among cangrelor-treated patients, we compared bleeding after cangrelor use through 7 days postdischarge between patients with and without upstream oral P2Y12 inhibitor exposure. Results: Among 1802 cangrelor-treated patients with MI, 385 (21.4%) received upstream oral P2Y12 inhibitor treatment. Of these, 101 patients (33.8%) started cangrelor within 1 hour, 103 (34.4%) between 1 and 3 hours, and 95 (31.8%), >3 hours after in-hospital oral P2Y12 inhibitor administration; the remaining received an oral P2Y12 inhibitor before hospitalization. There was no statistically significant difference in rates of bleeding among cangrelor-treated patients with and without upstream oral P2Y12 inhibitor exposure (6.5% vs 8.8%; adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.38-1.01). Bleeding was observed in 5.0%, 10.7%, and 3.2% of patients treated with cangrelor <1, 1 to 3, and >3 hours after the last oral PY12 inhibitor dose, respectively; bleeding rates were not statistically different between groups (1-3 hours vs <1 hour: adjusted OR, 2.70; 95% CI, 0.87-8.32; >3 hours vs <1 hour: adjusted OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.15-2.85). Conclusions: Bleeding risk was not observed to be significantly higher after cangrelor treatment in patients with and without upstream oral P2Y12 inhibitor exposure.

Medication-Induced Weight Change Across Common Antidepressant Treatments : A Target Trial Emulation Study.

BACKGROUND: Antidepressants are among the most commonly prescribed medications, but evidence on comparative weight change for specific first-line treatments is limited. OBJECTIVE: To compare weight change across common first-line antidepressant treatments by emulating a target trial. DESIGN: Observational cohort study over 24 months. SETTING: Electronic health record (EHR) data from 2010 to 2019 across 8 U.S. health systems. PARTICIPANTS: 183 118 patients. MEASUREMENTS: Prescription data determined initiation of treatment with sertraline, citalopram, escitalopram, fluoxetine, paroxetine, bupropion, duloxetine, or venlafaxine. The investigators estimated the population-level effects of initiating each treatment, relative to sertraline, on mean weight change (primary) and the probability of gaining at least 5% of baseline weight (secondary) 6 months after initiation. Inverse probability weighting of repeated outcome marginal structural models was used to account for baseline confounding and informative outcome measurement. In secondary analyses, the effects of initiating and adhering to each treatment protocol were estimated. RESULTS: Compared with that for sertraline, estimated 6-month weight gain was higher for escitalopram (difference, 0.41 kg [95% CI, 0.31 to 0.52 kg]), paroxetine (difference, 0.37 kg [CI, 0.20 to 0.54 kg]), duloxetine (difference, 0.34 kg [CI, 0.22 to 0.44 kg]), venlafaxine (difference, 0.17 kg [CI, 0.03 to 0.31 kg]), and citalopram (difference, 0.12 kg [CI, 0.02 to 0.23 kg]); similar for fluoxetine (difference, -0.07 kg [CI, -0.19 to 0.04 kg]); and lower for bupropion (difference, -0.22 kg [CI, -0.33 to -0.12 kg]). Escitalopram, paroxetine, and duloxetine were associated with 10% to 15% higher risk for gaining at least 5% of baseline weight, whereas bupropion was associated with 15% reduced risk. When the effects of initiation and adherence were estimated, associations were stronger but had wider CIs. Six-month adherence ranged from 28% (duloxetine) to 41% (bupropion). LIMITATION: No data on medication dispensing, low medication adherence, incomplete data on adherence, and incomplete data on weight measures across time points. CONCLUSION: Small differences in mean weight change were found between 8 first-line antidepressants, with bupropion consistently showing the least weight gain, although adherence to medications over follow-up was low. Clinicians could consider potential weight gain when initiating antidepressant treatment. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institutes of Health.

Aspirin Dosing for Secondary Prevention of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease in Male and Female Patients: A Secondary Analysis of the ADAPTABLE Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) remains the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the US. Although aspirin is recommended for secondary prevention of ASCVD, there was no difference in safety and effectiveness of aspirin dosed daily at 81 mg or 325 mg in the ADAPTABLE (Aspirin Dosing: A Patient-Centric Trial Assessing Benefits and Long-Term Effectiveness) randomized clinical trial. However, it is unknown whether differences by sex exist in the safety and effectiveness of the different aspirin doses. Objective: To evaluate sex-specific differences in the safety and effectiveness of 2 aspirin doses in the ADAPTAPLE trial. Design, Setting, and Participants: The ADAPTABLE study was an open-label, pragmatic, randomized clinical trial that randomly assigned participants with chronic, stable ASCVD to 81 mg vs 325 mg of aspirin daily. Using Cox proportional-hazard models, male and female participants were compared for outcomes. In addition, it was assessed whether sex was an effect modifier in the association between aspirin dose and outcomes. The ADAPTABLE trial was conducted at 40 medical centers and 1 health plan. Eligible patients were 18 years and older and had established ASCVD. Study data were analyzed from December 2021 to March 2024. Interventions: Patients received 81 mg or 325 mg of aspirin daily for the secondary prevention of ASCVD. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary effectiveness outcomes included all-cause death and hospitalization for myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke. The primary safety outcome was hospitalization for major bleeding requiring transfusion. Results: A total of 15 076 patients (median [IQR] age, 67.6 [60.7-73.6] years; 10 352 male [68.7%]) were followed up for a median (IQR) of 26.2 (19.0-34.9) months. Overall, 4724 (31.3%) were female, and 2307 of the female participants (48.8%) received aspirin 81 mg. Compared with males, female participants were younger (median [IQR] age, 66.3 [59.4-72.6] years vs 68.2 (61.4-73.9) years, less likely to self-report White race (3426 [72.5%] vs 8564 [82.7%]), more likely to smoke (564 [12.9%] vs 818 [8.4%]), and more likely to have a history of peripheral arterial disease (1179 [25.7%] vs 2314 [23.0%]). The primary effectiveness outcome of all-cause death and hospitalization for MI or stroke occurred in 379 female participants (8.1%) and 780 male participants (7.1%). There was no significant interaction by sex for the primary effectiveness end point between the 2 aspirin doses (female adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.01; 95% CI, 0.82-1.26 and male aHR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.91-1.23; P interaction term for sex = .74). During the trial, female participants had fewer revascularization procedures (237 [5.0%] vs 680 [6.6%]; aHR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.68-0.92; P = .002) but had a higher risk of hospitalization for stroke (aHR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.27-2.33; P < .001). Among female participants, there was a slightly higher rate of bleeding in the 81-mg aspirin cohort compared with the 325-mg cohort (20 [0.83%] vs 13 [0.52%]; aHR, 2.21; 95% CI, 1.04-4.70; P interaction term for sex = .07). There were no significant differences between female and male participants regarding aspirin dose adherence. Conclusions and Relevance: In this secondary analysis of the ADAPTABLE trial, there were no significant sex-specific differences in the effectiveness and safety of 2 aspirin doses for secondary prevention of ASCVD events. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02697916.

Contribution of Clinical Trial Event Data by Data Source: A Prespecified Analysis of the ADAPTABLE Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Pragmatic randomized clinical trials (RCTs) often use multiple data sources to examine clinical events, but the relative contribution of data sources to clinical end-point rates is understudied. Objective: To assess the contribution of data sources (electronic health records [EHRs], public/private insurance claims, and/or participant-reported data) to clinical end points among ADAPTABLE participants who had available data. Design, Setting, and Participants: The ADAPTABLE study was an open-label, pragmatic RCT from April 2016 through June 2019 conducted in research networks within clinical practice. Participants had existing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and available data to analyze. The characteristics of patients by combinations of data source availability were compared to examine the contribution of each of the data sources to end-point ascertainment. Data for this prespecified analysis were examined from January 2022 to June 2023. Exposures: Randomized exposure to 81 mg or 325 mg of aspirin daily. Main Outcomes and Measures: Number of events for the primary end point (composite of death, hospitalization for myocardial infarction, and hospitalization for stroke) that were contributed by EHR or claims data and then number of events contributed by each additional data source. Results: Of 15 006 participants randomized with at least 1 other source of data available beyond participant-reported data, there were 8756 (58.3%) with participant-reported and EHR data; 4291 (28.6%) with participant-reported, EHR, and claims data; 1412 (9.4%) with EHR-only data; 262 (1.7%) with participant-reported and claims data; 202 (1.3%) with EHR and claims data; and 83 (0.6%) with claims-only data. Participants with EHR-only data were younger (median age, 63.7 years; IQR, 55.8-71.4) compared with the other groups (range, 65.6-71.9 years). Among participants with both EHR and claims data, with or without participant-reported data (n = 4493), for each outcome, most events (92%-100%) were identified in the EHR or in claims data. For all clinical end points, participant-reported data contributed less than 10% of events not otherwise available from claims or EHR data. Conclusions and Relevance: In this analysis of a pragmatic RCT, claims and EHR data provided the most clinical end-point data when compared with participant-reported events. These findings provide a framework for collecting end points in pragmatic clinical trials. Further work is needed to understand the data source combinations that most effectively provide clinical end-point data in RCTs.

Concordance With Screening and Treatment Guidelines for Chronic Kidney Disease in Type 2 Diabetes.

Importance: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is an often-asymptomatic complication of type 2 diabetes (T2D) that requires annual screening to diagnose. Patient-level factors linked to inadequate screening and treatment can inform implementation strategies to facilitate guideline-recommended CKD care. Objective: To identify risk factors for nonconcordance with guideline-recommended CKD screening and treatment in patients with T2D. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study was performed at 20 health care systems contributing data to the US National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network. To evaluate concordance with CKD screening guidelines, adults with an outpatient clinician visit linked to T2D diagnosis between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2020, and without known CKD were included. A separate analysis reviewed prescription of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors in adults with CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] of 30-90 mL/min/1.73 m2 and urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio [UACR] of 200-5000 mg/g) and an outpatient clinician visit for T2D between October 1, 2019, and December 31, 2020. Data were analyzed from July 8, 2022, through June 22, 2023. Exposures: Demographics, lifestyle factors, comorbidities, medications, and laboratory results. Main Outcomes and Measures: Screening required measurement of creatinine levels and UACR within 15 months of the index visit. Treatment reflected prescription of ACEIs or ARBs and SGLT2 inhibitors within 12 months before or 6 months following the index visit. Results: Concordance with CKD screening guidelines was assessed in 316 234 adults (median age, 59 [IQR, 50-67] years), of whom 51.5% were women; 21.7%, Black; 10.3%, Hispanic; and 67.6%, White. Only 24.9% received creatinine and UACR screening, 56.5% received 1 screening measurement, and 18.6% received neither. Hispanic ethnicity was associated with lack of screening (relative risk [RR], 1.16 [95% CI, 1.14-1.18]). In contrast, heart failure, peripheral arterial disease, and hypertension were associated with a lower risk of nonconcordance. In 4215 patients with CKD and albuminuria, 3288 (78.0%) received an ACEI or ARB; 194 (4.6%), an SGLT2 inhibitor; and 885 (21.0%), neither therapy. Peripheral arterial disease and lower eGFR were associated with lack of CKD treatment, while diuretic or statin prescription and hypertension were associated with treatment. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of patients with T2D, fewer than one-quarter received recommended CKD screening. In patients with CKD and albuminuria, 21.0% did not receive an SGLT2 inhibitor or an ACEI or an ARB, despite compelling indications. Patient-level factors may inform implementation strategies to improve CKD screening and treatment in people with T2D.

Diagnostic Performance of Coronary Angiography Derived Computational Fractional Flow Reserve.

BACKGROUND: Computational fluid dynamics can compute fractional flow reserve (FFR) accurately. However, existing models are limited by either the intravascular hemodynamic phenomarkers that can be captured or the fidelity of geometries that can be modeled. METHODS AND RESULTS: This study aimed to validate a new coronary angiography-based FFR framework, FFRHARVEY, and examine intravascular hemodynamics to identify new biomarkers that could augment FFR in discerning unrevascularized patients requiring intervention. A 2-center cohort was used to examine diagnostic performance of FFRHARVEY compared with reference wire-based FFR (FFRINVASIVE). Additional biomarkers, longitudinal vorticity, velocity, and wall shear stress, were evaluated for their ability to augment FFR and indicate major adverse cardiac events. A total of 160 patients with 166 lesions were investigated. FFRHARVEY was compared with FFRINVASIVE by investigators blinded to the invasive FFR results with a per-stenosis area under the curve of 0.91, positive predictive value of 90.2%, negative predictive value of 89.6%, sensitivity of 79.3%, and specificity of 95.4%. The percentage ofdiscrepancy for continuous values of FFR was 6.63%. We identified a hemodynamic phenomarker, longitudinal vorticity, as a metric indicative of major adverse cardiac events in unrevascularized gray-zone cases. CONCLUSIONS: FFRHARVEY had high performance (area under the curve: 0.91, positive predictive value: 90.2%, negative predictive value: 89.6%) compared with FFRINVASIVE. The proposed framework provides a robust and accurate way to compute a complete set of intravascular phenomarkers, in which longitudinal vorticity was specifically shown to differentiate vessels predisposed to major adverse cardiac events.

Framework of the strengths and challenges of clinically integrated trials: An expert panel report.

The limitations of the explanatory clinical trial framework include the high expense of implementing explanatory trials, restrictive entry criteria for participants, and redundant logistical processes. These limitations can result in slow evidence generation that is not responsive to population health needs, yielding evidence that is not generalizable. Clinically integrated trials, which integrate clinical research into routine care, represent a potential solution to this challenge and an opportunity to support learning health systems. The operational and design features of clinically integrated trials include a focused scope, simplicity in design and requirements, the leveraging of existing data structures, and patient participation in the entire trial process. These features are designed to minimize barriers to participation and trial execution and reduce additional research burdens for participants and clinicians alike. Broad adoption and scalability of clinically integrated trials are dependent, in part, on continuing regulatory, healthcare system, and payer support. This analysis presents a framework of the strengths and challenges of clinically integrated trials and is based on a multidisciplinary expert "Think Tank" panel discussion that included representatives from patient populations, academia, non-profit funding agencies, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and industry.

Case Volumes and Outcomes Among Early-Career Interventional Cardiologists in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the procedural characteristics, case volumes, and mortality rates for early- vs non-early-career interventional cardiologists in the United States. OBJECTIVES: This study examined operator-level data for patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) between April 2018 and June 2022. METHODS: Data were collected from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI Registry, American Board of Internal Medicine certification database, and National Plan and Provider Enumeration System database. Early-career operators were within 5 years of the end of training. Annual case volume, expected mortality and bleeding risk, and observed/predicted mortality and bleeding outcomes were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 1,451 operators were early career; 1,011 changed their career status during the study; and 6,251 were non-early career. Overall, 514,540 patients were treated by early-career and 2,296,576 patients by non-early-career operators. The median annual case volume per operator was 59 (Q1-Q3: 31-97) for early-career and 57 (Q1-Q3: 28-100) for non-early-career operators. Early-career operators were more likely to treat patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and urgent indications for PCI (both P < 0.001). The median predicted mortality risk was 2.0% (Q1-Q3: 1.5%-2.7%) for early-career and 1.8% (Q1-Q3: 1.2%-2.4%) for non-early-career operators. The median predicted bleeding risk was 4.9% (Q1-Q3: 4.2%-5.7%) for early-career and 4.4% (Q1-Q3: 3.7%-5.3%) for non-early-career operators. After adjustment, an increased risk of mortality (OR: 1.08; 95% CI: 1.05-1.17; P < 0.0001) and bleeding (OR: 1.08; 95% CI: 1.05-1.12; P < 0.0001) were associated with early-career status. CONCLUSIONS: Early-career operators are caring for patients with more acute presentations and higher predicted risk of mortality and bleeding compared with more experienced colleagues, with modestly worse outcomes. These data should inform institutional practices to support the development of early-career proceduralists.

2024 ACC/AHA/AACVPR/APMA/ABC/SCAI/SVM/SVN/SVS/SIR/VESS Guideline for the Management of Lower Extremity Peripheral Artery Disease: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: The "2024 ACC/AHA/AACVPR/APMA/ABC/SCAI/SVM/SVN/SVS/SIR/VESS Guideline for the Management of Lower Extremity Peripheral Artery Disease" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with lower extremity peripheral artery disease across its multiple clinical presentation subsets (ie, asymptomatic, chronic symptomatic, chronic limb-threatening ischemia, and acute limb ischemia). METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from October 2020 to June 2022, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that was published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINHL Complete, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2023 during the peer review process, were also considered by the writing committee and added to the evidence tables where appropriate. STRUCTURE: Recommendations from the "2016 AHA/ACC Guideline on the Management of Patients With Lower Extremity Peripheral Artery Disease" have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing comprehensive care for patients with peripheral artery disease have been developed.

2024 ACC/AHA/AACVPR/APMA/ABC/SCAI/SVM/SVN/SVS/SIR/VESS Guideline for the Management of Lower Extremity Peripheral Artery Disease: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: The "2024 ACC/AHA/AACVPR/APMA/ABC/SCAI/SVM/SVN/SVS/SIR/VESS Guideline for the Management of Lower Extremity Peripheral Artery Disease" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with lower extremity peripheral artery disease across its multiple clinical presentation subsets (ie, asymptomatic, chronic symptomatic, chronic limb-threatening ischemia, and acute limb ischemia). METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from October 2020 to June 2022, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that was published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINHL Complete, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2023 during the peer review process, were also considered by the writing committee and added to the evidence tables where appropriate. STRUCTURE: Recommendations from the "2016 AHA/ACC Guideline on the Management of Patients With Lower Extremity Peripheral Artery Disease" have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing comprehensive care for patients with peripheral artery disease have been developed.

Left Ventricular Function, Congestion, and Effect of Empagliflozin on Heart Failure Risk After Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: Empagliflozin reduces the risk of heart failure (HF) hospitalizations but not all-cause mortality when started within 14 days of acute myocardial infarction (AMI). OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate the association of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), congestion, or both, with outcomes and the impact of empagliflozin in reducing HF risk post-AMI. METHODS: In the EMPACT-MI (Trial to Evaluate the Effect of Empagliflozin on Hospitalization for Heart Failure and Mortality in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction) trial, patients were randomized within 14 days of an AMI complicated by either newly reduced LVEF<45%, congestion, or both, to empagliflozin (10 mg daily) or placebo and were followed up for a median of 17.9 months. RESULTS: Among 6,522 patients, the mean baseline LVEF was 41 ± 9%; 2,648 patients (40.6%) presented with LVEF <45% alone, 1,483 (22.7%) presented with congestion alone, and 2,181 (33.4%) presented with both. Among patients in the placebo arm of the trial, multivariable adjusted risk for each 10-point reduction in LVEF included all-cause death or HF hospitalization (HR: 1.49; 95% CI: 1.31-1.69; P < 0.0001), first HF hospitalization (HR: 1.64; 95% CI: 1.37-1.96; P < 0.0001), and total HF hospitalizations (rate ratio [RR]: 1.89; 95% CI: 1.51-2.36; P < 0.0001). The presence of congestion was also associated with a significantly higher risk for each of these outcomes (HR: 1.52, 1.94, and RR: 2.03, respectively). Empagliflozin reduced the risk for first (HR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.60-0.98) and total (RR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.50-0.89) HF hospitalizations, irrespective of LVEF or congestion, or both. The safety profile of empagliflozin was consistent across baseline LVEF and irrespective of congestion status. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with AMI, the severity of left ventricular dysfunction and the presence of congestion was associated with worse outcomes. Empagliflozin reduced first and total HF hospitalizations across the range of LVEF with and without congestion. (Trial to Evaluate the Effect of Empagliflozin on Hospitalization for Heart Failure and Mortality in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction [EMPACT-MI]; NCT04509674).

Effect of Empagliflozin on Heart Failure Outcomes After Acute Myocardial Infarction: Insights From the EMPACT-MI Trial.

BACKGROUND: Empagliflozin reduces the risk of heart failure (HF) events in patients with type 2 diabetes at high cardiovascular risk, chronic kidney disease, or prevalent HF irrespective of ejection fraction. Whereas the EMPACT-MI trial (Effect of Empagliflozin on Hospitalization for Heart Failure and Mortality in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction) showed that empagliflozin does not reduce the risk of the composite of hospitalization for HF and all-cause death, the effect of empagliflozin on first and recurrent HF events after myocardial infarction is unknown. METHODS: EMPACT-MI was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, event-driven trial that randomized 6522 patients hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction at risk for HF on the basis of newly developed left ventricular ejection fraction of <45% or signs or symptoms of congestion to receive empagliflozin 10 mg daily or placebo within 14 days of admission. In prespecified secondary analyses, treatment groups were analyzed for HF outcomes. RESULTS: Over a median follow-up of 17.9 months, the risk for first HF hospitalization and total HF hospitalizations was significantly lower in the empagliflozin compared with the placebo group (118 [3.6%] versus 153 [4.7%] patients with events; hazard ratio, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.60, 0.98]; P=0.031, for first HF hospitalization; 148 versus 207 events; rate ratio, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.51, 0.89]; P=0.006, for total HF hospitalizations). Subgroup analysis showed consistency of empagliflozin benefit across clinically relevant patient subgroups for first and total HF hospitalizations. The need for new use of diuretics, renin-angiotensin modulators, or mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists after discharge was less in patients randomized to empagliflozin versus placebo (all P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Empagliflozin reduced the risk of HF in patients with left ventricular dysfunction or congestion after acute myocardial infarction. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04509674.

Empagliflozin after Acute Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: Empagliflozin improves cardiovascular outcomes in patients with heart failure, patients with type 2 diabetes who are at high cardiovascular risk, and patients with chronic kidney disease. The safety and efficacy of empagliflozin in patients who have had acute myocardial infarction are unknown. METHODS: In this event-driven, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, we assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, patients who had been hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction and were at risk for heart failure to receive empagliflozin at a dose of 10 mg daily or placebo in addition to standard care within 14 days after admission. The primary end point was a composite of hospitalization for heart failure or death from any cause as assessed in a time-to-first-event analysis. RESULTS: A total of 3260 patients were assigned to receive empagliflozin and 3262 to receive placebo. During a median follow-up of 17.9 months, a first hospitalization for heart failure or death from any cause occurred in 267 patients (8.2%) in the empagliflozin group and in 298 patients (9.1%) in the placebo group, with incidence rates of 5.9 and 6.6 events, respectively, per 100 patient-years (hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76 to 1.06; P = 0.21). With respect to the individual components of the primary end point, a first hospitalization for heart failure occurred in 118 patients (3.6%) in the empagliflozin group and in 153 patients (4.7%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.98), and death from any cause occurred in 169 (5.2%) and 178 (5.5%), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.19). Adverse events were consistent with the known safety profile of empagliflozin and were similar in the two trial groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients at increased risk for heart failure after acute myocardial infarction, treatment with empagliflozin did not lead to a significantly lower risk of a first hospitalization for heart failure or death from any cause than placebo. (Funded by Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly; EMPACT-MI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04509674.).

Shorter Dual Antiplatelet Therapy for Older Adults After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

Importance: The optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) for older adults after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is uncertain because they are simultaneously at higher risk for both ischemic and bleeding events. Objective: To investigate the association of abbreviated DAPT with adverse clinical events among older adults after PCI. Data Sources: The Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched from inception to August 9, 2023. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials comparing any 2 of 1, 3, 6, and 12 months of DAPT were included if they reported results for adults aged 65 years or older or 75 years or older. Data Extraction and Synthesis: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline was used to abstract data and assess data quality. Risk ratios for each duration of DAPT were calculated with alternation of the reference group. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome of interest was net adverse clinical events (NACE). Secondary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and bleeding. Results: In 14 randomized clinical trials comprising 19 102 older adults, no differences were observed in the risks of NACE or MACE for 1, 3, 6, and 12 months of DAPT. However, 3 months of DAPT was associated with a lower risk of bleeding compared with 6 months of DAPT (relative risk [RR], 0.50 [95% CI, 0.29-0.84]) and 12 months of DAPT (RR, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.45-0.71]) among older adults. One month of DAPT was also associated with a lower risk of bleeding compared with 6 months of DAPT (RR, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.54-0.86]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this systematic review and meta-analysis of different durations of DAPT for older adults after PCI, an abbreviated DAPT duration was associated with a lower risk of bleeding without any concomitant increase in the risk of MACE or NACE despite the concern for higher-risk coronary anatomy and comorbidities among older adults. This study, which represents the first network meta-analysis of this shortened treatment for older adults, suggests that clinicians may consider abbreviating DAPT for older adults.

Age and Aspirin Dosing in Secondary Prevention of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease.

BACKGROUND: In patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, increasing age is concurrently associated with higher risks of ischemic and bleeding events. The objectives are to determine the impact of aspirin dose on clinical outcomes according to age in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. METHODS AND RESULTS: In the ADAPTABLE (Aspirin Dosing: A Patient-Centric Trial Assessing Benefits and Long-Term Effectiveness) trial, patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease were randomized to daily aspirin doses of 81 mg or 325 mg. The primary effectiveness end point was death from any cause, hospitalization for myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for stroke. The primary safety end point was hospitalization for bleeding requiring transfusion. A total of 15 076 participants were randomized to aspirin 81 mg (n=7540) or 325 mg (n=7536) daily (median follow-up: 26.2 months; interquartile range: 19.0-34.9 months). Median age was 67.6 years (interquartile range: 60.7-73.6 years). Among participants aged <65 years (n=5841 [38.7%]), a primary end point occurred in 226 (7.54%) in the 81 mg group, and in 191 (6.80%) in the 325 mg group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.23 [95% CI, 1.01-1.49]). Among participants aged ≥65 years (n=9235 [61.3%]), a primary end point occurred in 364 (7.12%) in the 81 mg group, and in 378 (7.96%) in the 325 mg group (adjusted HR, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.82-1.10]). The age-dose interaction was not significant (P=0.559). There was no significant interaction between age and the randomized aspirin dose for the secondary effectiveness and the primary safety bleeding end points (P>0.05 for all). CONCLUSIONS: Age does not modify the impact of aspirin dosing (81 mg or 325 mg daily) on clinical end points in secondary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

Outcomes of peripheral artery disease and polyvascular disease in patients with end-stage kidney disease.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) and end-stage kidney disease are a high-risk population, and concomitant atherosclerosis in coronary arteries (CAD) or cerebral arteries (CVD) is common. The aim of the study was to assess long-term outcomes of PAD and the impact of coexistent CAD and CVD on outcomes. METHODS: The United States Renal Data System was used to identify patients with PAD within 6 months of incident dialysis. Four groups were formed: PAD alone, PAD with CAD, PAD with CVD, and PAD with CAD and CVD. PAD-specific outcomes (chronic limb-threatening ischemia, major amputation, percutaneous/surgical revascularization, and their composite, defined as major adverse limb events [MALE]) as well as all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke were studied. RESULTS: The study included 106,567 patients (mean age, 71.2 years; 40.8% female) with a median follow-up of 546 days (interquartile range, 214-1096 days). Most patients had PAD and CAD (49.8%), 25.8% had PAD alone, and 19.2% had all three territories involved. MALE rate in patients with PAD was 22.3% and 35.0% at 1 and 3 years, respectively. In comparison to PAD alone, the coexistence of both CAD and CVD (ie, polyvascular disease) was associated with a higher adjusted rates of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 1.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.24-1.31), myocardial infarction (HR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.69-1.88), stroke (HR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.52,1.80), and MALE (HR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.04-1.11). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with end-stage kidney disease have a high burden of PAD with poor long-term outcomes, which worsen, in an incremental fashion, with the involvement of each additional diseased arterial bed.

Comparative Effectiveness of Aspirin Dosing in Cardiovascular Disease and Diabetes Mellitus: A Subgroup Analysis of the ADAPTABLE Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) and concomitant atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) must be on the most effective dose of aspirin to mitigate risk of future adverse cardiovascular events. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: ADAPTABLE, an open-label, pragmatic study, randomized patients with stable, chronic ASCVD to 81 mg or 325 mg of daily aspirin. The effects of aspirin dosing was assessed on the primary effectiveness outcome, a composite of all-cause death, hospitalization for myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for stroke, and the primary safety outcome of hospitalization for major bleeding. In this prespecified analysis, we used Cox proportional hazards models to compare aspirin dosing in patients with and without DM for the primary effectiveness and safety outcome. RESULTS: Of 15,076 patients, 5,676 (39%) had DM of whom 2,820 (49.7%) were assigned to 81 mg aspirin and 2,856 (50.3%) to 325 mg aspirin. Patients with versus without DM had higher rates of the composite cardiovascular outcome (9.6% vs. 5.9%; P < 0.001) and bleeding events (0.78% vs. 0.50%; P < 0.001). When comparing 81 mg vs. 325 mg of aspirin, patients with DM had no difference in the primary effectiveness outcome (9.3% vs. 10.0%; hazard ratio [HR] 0.98 [95% CI 0.83-1.16]; P = 0.265) or safety outcome (0.87% vs. 0.69%; subdistribution HR 1.25 [95% CI 0.72-2.16]; P = 0.772). CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms the inherently higher risk of patients with DM irrespective of aspirin dosing. Our findings suggest that a higher dose of aspirin yields no added clinical benefit, even in a more vulnerable population.