Sex Differences in Revascularization, Treatment Goals, and Outcomes of Patients With Chronic Coronary Disease: Insights From the ISCHEMIA Trial.

BACKGROUND: Women with chronic coronary disease are generally older than men and have more comorbidities but less atherosclerosis. We explored sex differences in revascularization, guideline-directed medical therapy, and outcomes among patients with chronic coronary disease with ischemia on stress testing, with and without invasive management. METHODS AND RESULTS: The ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches) trial randomized patients with moderate or severe ischemia to invasive management with angiography, revascularization, and guideline-directed medical therapy, or initial conservative management with guideline-directed medical therapy alone. We evaluated the primary outcome (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest) and other end points, by sex, in 1168 (22.6%) women and 4011 (77.4%) men. Invasive group catheterization rates were similar, with less revascularization among women (73.4% of invasive-assigned women revascularized versus 81.2% of invasive-assigned men; P<0.001). Women had less coronary artery disease: multivessel in 60.0% of invasive-assigned women and 74.8% of invasive-assigned men, and no ≥50% stenosis in 12.3% versus 4.5% (P<0.001). In the conservative group, 4-year catheterization rates were 26.3% of women versus 25.6% of men (P=0.72). Guideline-directed medical therapy use was lower among women with fewer risk factor goals attained. There were no sex differences in the primary outcome (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] for women versus men, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.77-1.13]; P=0.47) or the major secondary outcome of cardiovascular death/myocardial infarction (adjusted HR, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.76-1.14]; P=0.49), with no significant sex-by-treatment-group interactions. CONCLUSIONS: Women had less extensive coronary artery disease and, therefore, lower revascularization rates in the invasive group. Despite lower risk factor goal attainment, women with chronic coronary disease experienced similar risk-adjusted outcomes to men in the ISCHEMIA trial. REGISTRATION: URL: http://wwwclinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01471522.

Safety and Efficacy of CYP2C19 Genotype-Guided Escalation of P2Y12 Inhibitor Therapy After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Chronic Kidney Disease: a Post Hoc Analysis of the TAILOR-PCI Study.

PURPOSE: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a risk factor for ischemic and bleeding events with dual antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Whether the presence of CYP2C19 loss of function (LOF) alleles modifies this risk, and whether a genotype-guided (GG) escalation of P2Y12 inhibitor therapy post PCI is safe in this population is unclear. METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of randomized patients in TAILOR PCI. Patients were divided into two groups based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) threshold of < 60 ml/min/1.73 m2 for CKD (n = 539) and non-CKD (n = 4276). The aggregate of cardiovascular death, stroke, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, and severe recurrent coronary ischemia at 12-months post-PCI was assessed as the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoint was major or minor bleeding. RESULTS: Mean (standard deviation) eGFR among patients with CKD was 49.5 (8.4) ml/min/1.72 m2. Among all patients, there was no significant interaction between randomized strategy and CKD status for any endpoint. Among LOF carriers, the interaction between randomized strategy and CKD status on composite ischemic outcome was not significant (p = 0.2). GG strategy was not associated with an increased risk of bleeding in either CKD group. CONCLUSIONS: In this exploratory analysis, escalation of P2Y12 inhibitor therapy following a GG strategy did not reduce the primary outcome in CKD. However, P2Y12 inhibitor escalation following a GG strategy was not associated with increased bleeding risk in CKD. Larger studies in CKD are needed. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01742117?term=TAILOR-PCI&draw=2&rank=1 . NCT01742117.

Causes of cardiovascular and noncardiovascular death in the ISCHEMIA trial.

BACKGROUND: The International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches trial demonstrated no overall difference in the composite primary endpoint and the secondary endpoints of cardiovascular (CV) death/myocardial infarction or all-cause mortality between an initial invasive or conservative strategy among participants with chronic coronary disease and moderate or severe myocardial ischemia. Detailed cause-specific death analyses have not been reported. METHODS: We compared overall and cause-specific death rates by treatment group using Cox models with adjustment for pre-specified baseline covariates. Cause of death was adjudicated by an independent Clinical Events Committee as CV, non-CV, and undetermined. We evaluated the association of risk factors and treatment strategy with cause of death. RESULTS: Four-year cumulative incidence rates for CV death were similar between invasive and conservative strategies (2.6% vs 3.0%; hazard ratio [HR] 0.98; 95% CI [0.70-1.38]), but non-CV death rates were higher in the invasive strategy (3.3% vs 2.1%; HR 1.45 [1.00-2.09]). Overall, 13% of deaths were attributed to undetermined causes (38/289). Fewer undetermined deaths (0.6% vs 1.3%; HR 0.48 [0.24-0.95]) and more malignancy deaths (2.0% vs 0.8%; HR 2.11 [1.23-3.60]) occurred in the invasive strategy than in the conservative strategy. CONCLUSIONS: In International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches, all-cause and CV death rates were similar between treatment strategies. The observation of fewer undetermined deaths and more malignancy deaths in the invasive strategy remains unexplained. These findings should be interpreted with caution in the context of prior studies and the overall trial results.

Outcomes of Participants With Diabetes in the ISCHEMIA Trials.

BACKGROUND: Among patients with diabetes and chronic coronary disease, it is unclear if invasive management improves outcomes when added to medical therapy. METHODS: The ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches) trials (ie, ISCHEMIA and ISCHEMIA-Chronic Kidney Disease) randomized chronic coronary disease patients to an invasive (medical therapy + angiography and revascularization if feasible) or a conservative approach (medical therapy alone with revascularization if medical therapy failed). Cohorts were combined after no trial-specific effects were observed. Diabetes was defined by history, hemoglobin A1c ≥6.5%, or use of glucose-lowering medication. The primary outcome was all-cause death or myocardial infarction (MI). Heterogeneity of effect of invasive management on death or MI was evaluated using a Bayesian approach to protect against random high or low estimates of treatment effect for patients with versus without diabetes and for diabetes subgroups of clinical (female sex and insulin use) and anatomic features (coronary artery disease severity or left ventricular function). RESULTS: Of 5900 participants with complete baseline data, the median age was 64 years (interquartile range, 57-70), 24% were female, and the median estimated glomerular filtration was 80 mL·min-1·1.73-2 (interquartile range, 64-95). Among the 2553 (43%) of participants with diabetes, the median percent hemoglobin A1c was 7% (interquartile range, 7-8), and 30% were insulin-treated. Participants with diabetes had a 49% increased hazard of death or MI (hazard ratio, 1.49 [95% CI, 1.31-1.70]; P<0.001). At median 3.1-year follow-up the adjusted event-free survival was 0.54 (95% bootstrapped CI, 0.48-0.60) and 0.66 (95% bootstrapped CI, 0.61-0.71) for patients with diabetes versus without diabetes, respectively, with a 12% (95% bootstrapped CI, 4%-20%) absolute decrease in event-free survival among participants with diabetes. Female and male patients with insulin-treated diabetes had an adjusted event-free survival of 0.52 (95% bootstrapped CI, 0.42-0.56) and 0.49 (95% bootstrapped CI, 0.42-0.56), respectively. There was no difference in death or MI between strategies for patients with diabetes versus without diabetes, or for clinical (female sex or insulin use) or anatomic features (coronary artery disease severity or left ventricular function) of patients with diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: Despite higher risk for death or MI, chronic coronary disease patients with diabetes did not derive incremental benefit from routine invasive management compared with initial medical therapy alone. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01471522.

Improving the Design of Future PCI Trials for Stable Coronary Artery Disease: JACC State-of-the-Art Review.

The role of percutaneous coronary interventions in addition to medical therapy for patients with stable coronary artery disease continues to be debated in routine clinical practice, despite more than 2 decades of randomized controlled trials. The residual uncertainty arises from particular challenges facing revascularization trials. Which endpoint do doctors care about, and which do patients care about? Which participants should be enrolled? What background medical therapy should we use? When is placebo control relevant? In this paper, we discuss how these questions can be approached and examine the merits and disadvantages of possible options. Engaging multiple stakeholders, including patients, researchers, regulators, and funders, to ensure the design elements are methodologically valid and clinically meaningful should be an aspirational goal in the development of future trials.

Effect of Catheter Ablation vs Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy on Mortality, Stroke, Bleeding, and Cardiac Arrest Among Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: The CABANA Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Catheter ablation is effective in restoring sinus rhythm in atrial fibrillation (AF), but its effects on long-term mortality and stroke risk are uncertain. Objective: To determine whether catheter ablation is more effective than conventional medical therapy for improving outcomes in AF. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Catheter Ablation vs Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation trial is an investigator-initiated, open-label, multicenter, randomized trial involving 126 centers in 10 countries. A total of 2204 symptomatic patients with AF aged 65 years and older or younger than 65 years with 1 or more risk factors for stroke were enrolled from November 2009 to April 2016, with follow-up through December 31, 2017. Interventions: The catheter ablation group (n = 1108) underwent pulmonary vein isolation, with additional ablative procedures at the discretion of site investigators. The drug therapy group (n = 1096) received standard rhythm and/or rate control drugs guided by contemporaneous guidelines. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was a composite of death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest. Among 13 prespecified secondary end points, 3 are included in this report: all-cause mortality; total mortality or cardiovascular hospitalization; and AF recurrence. Results: Of the 2204 patients randomized (median age, 68 years; 37.2% female; 42.9% had paroxysmal AF and 57.1% had persistent AF), 89.3% completed the trial. Of the patients assigned to catheter ablation, 1006 (90.8%) underwent the procedure. Of the patients assigned to drug therapy, 301 (27.5%) ultimately received catheter ablation. In the intention-to-treat analysis, over a median follow-up of 48.5 months, the primary end point occurred in 8.0% (n = 89) of patients in the ablation group vs 9.2% (n = 101) of patients in the drug therapy group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.86 [95% CI, 0.65-1.15]; P = .30). Among the secondary end points, outcomes in the ablation group vs the drug therapy group, respectively, were 5.2% vs 6.1% for all-cause mortality (HR, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.60-1.21]; P = .38), 51.7% vs 58.1% for death or cardiovascular hospitalization (HR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.74-0.93]; P = .001), and 49.9% vs 69.5% for AF recurrence (HR, 0.52 [95% CI, 0.45-0.60]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with AF, the strategy of catheter ablation, compared with medical therapy, did not significantly reduce the primary composite end point of death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest. However, the estimated treatment effect of catheter ablation was affected by lower-than-expected event rates and treatment crossovers, which should be considered in interpreting the results of the trial. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00911508.

Baseline Characteristics and Risk Profiles of Participants in the ISCHEMIA Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: It is unknown whether coronary revascularization, when added to optimal medical therapy, improves prognosis in patients with stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD) at increased risk of cardiovascular events owing to moderate or severe ischemia. Objective: To describe baseline characteristics of participants enrolled and randomized in the International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches (ISCHEMIA) trial and to evaluate whether qualification by stress imaging or nonimaging exercise tolerance test (ETT) influenced risk profiles. Design, Setting, and Participants: The ISCHEMIA trial recruited patients with SIHD with moderate or severe ischemia on stress testing. Blinded coronary computed tomography angiography was performed in most participants and reviewed by a core laboratory to exclude left main stenosis of at least 50% or no obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) (<50% for imaging stress test and <70% for ETT). The study included 341 enrolling sites (320 randomizing) in 38 countries and patients with SIHD and moderate or severe ischemia on stress testing. Data presented were extracted on December 17, 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures: Enrolled, excluded, and randomized participants' baseline characteristics. No clinical outcomes are reported. Results: A total of 8518 patients were enrolled, and 5179 were randomized. Common reasons for exclusion were core laboratory determination of insufficient ischemia, unprotected left main stenosis of at least 50%, or no stenosis that met study obstructive CAD criteria on study coronary computed tomography angiography. Randomized participants had a median age of 64 years, with 1168 women (22.6%), 1726 nonwhite participants (33.7%), 748 Hispanic participants (15.5%), 2122 with diabetes (41.0%), and 4643 with a history of angina (89.7%). Among the 3909 participants randomized after stress imaging, core laboratory assessment of ischemia severity (in 3901 participants) was severe in 1748 (44.8%), moderate in 1600 (41.0%), mild in 317 (8.1%) and none or uninterpretable in 236 (6.0%), Among the 1270 participants who were randomized after nonimaging ETT, core laboratory determination of ischemia severity (in 1266 participants) was severe (an eligibility criterion) in 1051 (83.0%), moderate in 101 (8.0%), mild in 34 (2.7%) and none or uninterpretable in 80 (6.3%). Among the 3912 of 5179 randomized participants who underwent coronary computed tomography angiography, 79.0% had multivessel CAD (n = 2679 of 3390) and 86.8% had left anterior descending (LAD) stenosis (n = 3190 of 3677) (proximal in 46.8% [n = 1749 of 3739]). Participants undergoing ETT had greater frequency of 3-vessel CAD, LAD, and proximal LAD stenosis than participants undergoing stress imaging. Conclusions and Relevance: The ISCHEMIA trial randomized an SIHD population with moderate or severe ischemia on stress testing, of whom most had multivessel CAD. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01471522.

Use of troponin assay 99th percentile as the decision level for myocardial infarction diagnosis.

BACKGROUND: The Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction recommends the 99th percentile concentration of cardiac troponin in a normal reference population as part of the decision threshold to diagnose type 1 spontaneous myocardial infarction. Adoption of this recommendation in contemporary worldwide practice is not well known. METHODS: We performed a cohort study of 276 hospital laboratories in 31 countries participating in the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute-sponsored International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches trial. Each hospital laboratory's troponin assay manufacturer and model, the recommended assay's 99th percentile upper reference limit (URL) from the manufacturer's package insert, and the troponin concentration used locally as the decision level to diagnose myocardial infarction were ascertained. RESULTS: Twenty-one unique troponin assays from 9 manufacturers were used by the surveyed hospital laboratories. The ratio of the troponin concentration used locally to diagnose myocardial infarction to the assay manufacturer-determined 99th percentile URL was <1 at 19 (6.6%) laboratories, equal to 1 at 91 (31.6%) laboratories, >1 to ≤5 at 101 (35.1%) laboratories, >5 to ≤10 at 34 (11.8%) laboratories, and >10 at 43 (14.9%) laboratories. The variability in troponin decision level for myocardial infarction relative to the assay 99th percentile URL was present for laboratories in and outside of the United States, as well as for high- and standard-sensitivity assays. CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial hospital-level variation in the troponin threshold used to diagnose myocardial infarction; only one-third of hospital laboratories currently follow the Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction consensus recommendation for use of troponin concentration at the 99th percentile of a normal reference population as the decision level to diagnose myocardial infarction. This variability across laboratories has important implications for both the diagnosis of myocardial infarction in clinical practice as well as adjudication of myocardial infarction in clinical trials.

A pharmacogenetic versus a clinical algorithm for warfarin dosing.

BACKGROUND: The clinical utility of genotype-guided (pharmacogenetically based) dosing of warfarin has been tested only in small clinical trials or observational studies, with equivocal results. METHODS: We randomly assigned 1015 patients to receive doses of warfarin during the first 5 days of therapy that were determined according to a dosing algorithm that included both clinical variables and genotype data or to one that included clinical variables only. All patients and clinicians were unaware of the dose of warfarin during the first 4 weeks of therapy. The primary outcome was the percentage of time that the international normalized ratio (INR) was in the therapeutic range from day 4 or 5 through day 28 of therapy. RESULTS: At 4 weeks, the mean percentage of time in the therapeutic range was 45.2% in the genotype-guided group and 45.4% in the clinically guided group (adjusted mean difference, [genotype-guided group minus clinically guided group], -0.2; 95% confidence interval, -3.4 to 3.1; P=0.91). There also was no significant between-group difference among patients with a predicted dose difference between the two algorithms of 1 mg per day or more. There was, however, a significant interaction between dosing strategy and race (P=0.003). Among black patients, the mean percentage of time in the therapeutic range was less in the genotype-guided group than in the clinically guided group. The rates of the combined outcome of any INR of 4 or more, major bleeding, or thromboembolism did not differ significantly according to dosing strategy. CONCLUSIONS: Genotype-guided dosing of warfarin did not improve anticoagulation control during the first 4 weeks of therapy. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; COAG ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00839657.).

Rationale and design of the Clarification of Optimal Anticoagulation through Genetics trial.

BACKGROUND: Current dosing practices for warfarin are empiric and result in the need for frequent dose changes as the international normalized ratio gets too high or too low. As a result, patients are put at increased risk for thromboembolism, bleeding, and premature discontinuation of anticoagulation therapy. Prior research has identified clinical and genetic factors that can alter warfarin dose requirements, but few randomized clinical trials have examined the utility of using clinical and genetic information to improve anticoagulation control or clinical outcomes among a large, diverse group of patients initiating warfarin. METHODS: The COAG trial is a multicenter, double-blind, randomized trial comparing 2 approaches to guiding warfarin therapy initiation: initiation of warfarin therapy based on algorithms using clinical information plus an individual's genotype using genes known to influence warfarin response ("genotype-guided dosing") versus only clinical information ("clinical-guided dosing") (www.clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00839657). RESULTS: The COAG trial design is described. The study hypothesis is that, among 1,022 enrolled patients, genotype-guided dosing relative to clinical-guided dosing during the initial dosing period will increase the percentage of time that patients spend in the therapeutic international normalized ratio range in the first 4 weeks of therapy. CONCLUSION: The COAG will determine if genetic information provides added benefit above and beyond clinical information alone.

Study design for the Immediate Myocardial Metabolic Enhancement During Initial Assessment and Treatment in Emergency Care (IMMEDIATE) Trial: A double-blind randomized controlled trial of intravenous glucose, insulin, and potassium for acute coronary syndromes in emergency medical services.

BACKGROUND: Experimental studies suggest that metabolic myocardial support by intravenous (IV) glucose, insulin, and potassium (GIK) reduces ischemia-induced arrhythmias, cardiac arrest, mortality, progression from unstable angina pectoris to acute myocardial infarction (AMI), and myocardial infarction size. However, trials of hospital administration of IV GIK to patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) have generally not shown favorable effects possibly because of the GIK intervention taking place many hours after ischemic symptom onset. A trial of GIK used in the very first hours of ischemia has been needed, consistent with the timing of benefit seen in experimental studies. OBJECTIVE: The IMMEDIATE Trial tested whether, if given very early, GIK could have the impact seen in experimental studies. Accordingly, distinct from prior trials, IMMEDIATE tested the impact of GIK (1) in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS), rather than only AMI or STEMI, and (2) administered in prehospital emergency medical service settings, rather than later, in hospitals, after emergency department evaluation. DESIGN: The IMMEDIATE Trial was an emergency medical service-based randomized placebo-controlled clinical effectiveness trial conducted in 13 cities across the United States that enrolled 911 participants. Eligible were patients 30 years or older for whom a paramedic performed a 12-lead electrocardiogram to evaluate chest pain or other symptoms suggestive of ACS for whom electrocardiograph-based acute cardiac ischemia time-insensitive predictive instrument indicated a ≥75% probability of ACS, and/or the thrombolytic predictive instrument indicated the presence of a STEMI, or if local criteria for STEMI notification of receiving hospitals were met. Prehospital IV GIK or placebo was started immediately. Prespecified were the primary end point of progression of ACS to infarction and, as major secondary end points, the composite of cardiac arrest or in-hospital mortality, 30-day mortality, and the composite of cardiac arrest, 30-day mortality, or hospitalization for heart failure. Analyses were planned on an intent-to-treat basis, on a modified intent-to-treat group who were confirmed in emergency departments to have ACS, and for participants presenting with STEMI. CONCLUSION: The IMMEDIATE Trial tested whether GIK, when administered as early as possible in the course of ACS by paramedics using acute cardiac ischemia time-insensitive predictive instrument and thrombolytic predictive instrument decision support, would reduce progression to AMI, mortality, cardiac arrest, and heart failure. It also tested whether it would provide clinical and pathophysiologic information on GIK's biological mechanisms.

Long-term effects of intensive glucose lowering on cardiovascular outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Intensive glucose lowering has previously been shown to increase mortality among persons with advanced type 2 diabetes and a high risk of cardiovascular disease. This report describes the 5-year outcomes of a mean of 3.7 years of intensive glucose lowering on mortality and key cardiovascular events. METHODS: We randomly assigned participants with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease or additional cardiovascular risk factors to receive intensive therapy (targeting a glycated hemoglobin level below 6.0%) or standard therapy (targeting a level of 7 to 7.9%). After termination of the intensive therapy, due to higher mortality in the intensive-therapy group, the target glycated hemoglobin level was 7 to 7.9% for all participants, who were followed until the planned end of the trial. RESULTS: Before the intensive therapy was terminated, the intensive-therapy group did not differ significantly from the standard-therapy group in the rate of the primary outcome (a composite of nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or death from cardiovascular causes) (P=0.13) but had more deaths from any cause (primarily cardiovascular) (hazard ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02 to 1.44) and fewer nonfatal myocardial infarctions (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.66 to 0.95). These trends persisted during the entire follow-up period (hazard ratio for death, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.38; and hazard ratio for nonfatal myocardial infarction, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.70 to 0.96). After the intensive intervention was terminated, the median glycated hemoglobin level in the intensive-therapy group rose from 6.4% to 7.2%, and the use of glucose-lowering medications and rates of severe hypoglycemia and other adverse events were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: As compared with standard therapy, the use of intensive therapy for 3.7 years to target a glycated hemoglobin level below 6% reduced 5-year nonfatal myocardial infarctions but increased 5-year mortality. Such a strategy cannot be recommended for high-risk patients with advanced type 2 diabetes. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00000620.).

Lack of association between thiazolidinediones and macular edema in type 2 diabetes: the ACCORD eye substudy.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cross-sectional association of thiazolidinediones with diabetic macular edema (DME). METHODS: The cross-sectional association of DME and visual acuity with thiazolidinediones was examined by means of baseline fundus photographs and visual acuity measurements from the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD) trial. Visual acuity was assessed in 9690 participants in the ACCORD trial, and 3473 of these participants had fundus photographs that were centrally read in a standardized fashion by masked graders to assess DME and retinopathy from October 23, 2003, to March 10, 2006. RESULTS: Among the subsample, 695 (20.0%) people had used thiazolidinediones, whereas 217 (6.2%) people had DME. Thiazolidinedione use was not associated with DME in unadjusted (odds ratio [OR], 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-1.44; P = .95) and adjusted (OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.67-1.40; P = .86) analyses. Significant associations with DME were found for retinopathy severity (P < .001) and age (OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.952-0.997; P = .03) but not for hemoglobin A(1c) (P = .06), duration of diabetes (P = .65), sex (P = .72), and ethnicity (P = .20). Thiazolidinedione use was associated with slightly greater visual acuity (0.79 letter; 95% CI, 0.20-1.38; P = .009) of uncertain clinical significance. CONCLUSIONS: In a cross-sectional analysis of data from the largest study to date, no association was observed between thiazolidinedione exposure and DME in patients with type 2 diabetes; however, we cannot exclude a modest protective or harmful association. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00542178.

Angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibition in stable coronary artery disease.

BACKGROUND: Angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors are effective in reducing the risk of heart failure, myocardial infarction, and death from cardiovascular causes in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction or heart failure. ACE inhibitors have also been shown to reduce atherosclerotic complications in patients who have vascular disease without heart failure. METHODS: In the Prevention of Events with Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibition (PEACE) Trial, we tested the hypothesis that patients with stable coronary artery disease and normal or slightly reduced left ventricular function derive therapeutic benefit from the addition of ACE inhibitors to modern conventional therapy. The trial was a double-blind, placebo-controlled study in which 8290 patients were randomly assigned to receive either trandolapril at a target dose of 4 mg per day (4158 patients) or matching placebo (4132 patients). RESULTS: The mean (+/-SD) age of the patients was 64+/-8 years, the mean blood pressure 133+/-17/78+/-10 mm Hg, and the mean left ventricular ejection fraction 58+/-9 percent. The patients received intensive treatment, with 72 percent having previously undergone coronary revascularization and 70 percent receiving lipid-lowering drugs. The incidence of the primary end point--death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or coronary revascularization--was 21.9 percent in the trandolapril group, as compared with 22.5 percent in the placebo group (hazard ratio in the trandolapril group, 0.96; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.88 to 1.06; P=0.43) over a median follow-up period of 4.8 years. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with stable coronary heart disease and preserved left ventricular function who are receiving "current standard" therapy and in whom the rate of cardiovascular events is lower than in previous trials of ACE inhibitors in patients with vascular disease, there is no evidence that the addition of an ACE inhibitor provides further benefit in terms of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or coronary revascularization.

Gender differences in advanced heart failure: insights from the BEST study.

OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to determine the influence of gender on baseline characteristics, response to treatment, and prognosis in patients with heart failure (HF) and impaired left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). BACKGROUND: Under-representation of women in HF clinical trials has limited our understanding of gender-related differences in patients with HF. METHODS: The impact of gender was assessed in the Beta-Blocker Evaluation of Survival Trial (BEST) which randomized 2,708 patients with New York Heart Association class III/IV and LVEF < or =0.35 to bucindolol versus placebo. Women (n = 593) were compared with men (n = 2,115). Mean follow-up period was two years. RESULTS: Significant differences in baseline clinical and laboratory characteristics were found. Women were younger, more likely to be black, had a higher prevalence of nonischemic etiology, higher right and left ventricular ejection fraction, higher heart rate, greater cardiothoracic ratio, higher prevalence of left bundle branch block, lower prevalence of atrial fibrillation, and lower plasma norepinephrine level. Ischemic etiology and measures of severity of HF were found to be predictors of prognosis in women and men. However, differences in the predictive values of various variables were noted; most notably, coronary artery disease and LVEF appear to be stronger predictors of prognosis in women. In the nonischemic patients, women had a significantly better survival rate compared with men. CONCLUSIONS: In HF patients with impaired LVEF, significant gender differences are present, and the prognostic predictive values of some variables vary in magnitude between women and men. The survival advantage of women is confined to patients with nonischemic etiology.

Hormone replacement therapy is associated with improved survival in women with advanced heart failure.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine whether hormone replacement therapy (HRT) is associated with an improved prognosis in women with advanced heart failure (HF) and systolic dysfunction. BACKGROUND: There are about two million postmenopausal women in the U.S. with HF. However, limited data are available to assess the effects of HRT on survival in this large group of patients. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of women age 50 years and over entered into the Beta-Blocker Evaluation of Survival Trial (BEST) was conducted using Cox regression analysis comparing survival in HRT users and non-users after correcting for baseline variables known to predict survival in women with HF and systolic dysfunction. RESULTS: In 493 women age 50 years and older, HRT was associated with a significant reduction in mortality-21% mortality in HRT users and 34% in non-users (p = 0.025). Multivariate analysis demonstrated a hazard ratio for mortality of 0.6 (95% confidence interval = 0.36 to 0.97) (p = 0.039) for HRT users. The benefits of HRT were noted only in women with a nonischemic etiology of HF (n = 237). CONCLUSIONS: Hormone replacement therapy is associated with a marked improvement in survival in postmenopausal women with advanced HF. A prospective, randomized trial of HRT should be performed in this large group of patients.