Restrictive or Liberal Transfusion Strategy in Myocardial Infarction and Anemia.

BACKGROUND: A strategy of administering a transfusion only when the hemoglobin level falls below 7 or 8 g per deciliter has been widely adopted. However, patients with acute myocardial infarction may benefit from a higher hemoglobin level. METHODS: In this phase 3, interventional trial, we randomly assigned patients with myocardial infarction and a hemoglobin level of less than 10 g per deciliter to a restrictive transfusion strategy (hemoglobin cutoff for transfusion, 7 or 8 g per deciliter) or a liberal transfusion strategy (hemoglobin cutoff, <10 g per deciliter). The primary outcome was a composite of myocardial infarction or death at 30 days. RESULTS: A total of 3504 patients were included in the primary analysis. The mean (±SD) number of red-cell units that were transfused was 0.7±1.6 in the restrictive-strategy group and 2.5±2.3 in the liberal-strategy group. The mean hemoglobin level was 1.3 to 1.6 g per deciliter lower in the restrictive-strategy group than in the liberal-strategy group on days 1 to 3 after randomization. A primary-outcome event occurred in 295 of 1749 patients (16.9%) in the restrictive-strategy group and in 255 of 1755 patients (14.5%) in the liberal-strategy group (risk ratio modeled with multiple imputation for incomplete follow-up, 1.15; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.99 to 1.34; P = 0.07). Death occurred in 9.9% of the patients with the restrictive strategy and in 8.3% of the patients with the liberal strategy (risk ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.47); myocardial infarction occurred in 8.5% and 7.2% of the patients, respectively (risk ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.49). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with acute myocardial infarction and anemia, a liberal transfusion strategy did not significantly reduce the risk of recurrent myocardial infarction or death at 30 days. However, potential harms of a restrictive transfusion strategy cannot be excluded. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; MINT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02981407.).

Restrictive Versus Liberal Transfusion in Patients with Type 1 or Type 2 Myocardial Infarction: A Prespecified Analysis of the Myocardial Ischemia and Transfusion (MINT) Trial.

BACKGROUND: The MINT trial raised concern for harm from a restrictive versus liberal transfusion strategy in patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) and anemia. Type 1 and type 2 MI are distinct pathophysiological entities that may respond differently to blood transfusion. This analysis sought to determine if the effects of transfusion varied among patients with a type 1 or a type 2 MI and anemia. We hypothesized that the liberal transfusion strategy would be of greater benefit in type 2 than in type 1 MI. METHODS: We compared rates of death or MI at 30 days in patients with type 1 (n=1460) and type 2 (n=1955) MI and anemia who were randomly allocated to a restrictive (threshold of 7 to 8 g/dL) or a liberal (threshold of 10 g/dL) transfusion strategy. RESULTS: The primary outcome of death or MI was observed in 16% of type 1 MI and 15.4% of type 2 MI patients. The rate of death or MI was higher in patients with type 1 MI randomized to a restrictive (18.2%) versus liberal (13.2%) transfusion strategy (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.04 - 1.67) with no difference observed between the restrictive (15.8% ) and liberal (15.1% ) transfusion strategies in patients with type 2 MI (RR 1.05 95% CI 0.85-1.29). The test for a differential effect of transfusion strategy by MI type was not statistically significant (P-interaction = 0.16). CONCLUSIONS: The concern for harm with a restrictive transfusion strategy in patients with acute MI and anemia raised in the MINT primary outcome manuscript may be more apparent in patients with type 1 than type 2 MI. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02981407.

Predictors of bleeding and thrombotic events among patients admitted to the hospital with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer: insights from the ACTION randomized clinical trial.

Therapeutic anticoagulation showed inconsistent results in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and selection of the best patients to use this strategy still a challenge balancing the risk of thrombotic and hemorrhagic outcomes. The present post-hoc analysis of the ACTION trial evaluated the variables independently associated with both bleeding events (major bleeding or clinically relevant non-major bleeding) and the composite outcomes thrombotic events (venous thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, stroke, systemic embolism, or major adverse limb events). Variables were assessed one by one with independent logistic regressions and final models were chosen based on Akaike information criteria. The model for bleeding events showed an area under the curve of 0.63 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.53 to 0.73), while the model for thrombotic events had an area under the curve of 0.72 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.79). Non-invasive respiratory support was associated with thrombotic but not bleeding events, while invasive ventilation was associated with both outcomes (Odds Ratio of 7.03 [95 CI% 1.95 to 25.18] for thrombotic and 3.14 [95% CI 1.11 to 8.84] for bleeding events). Beyond respiratory support, creatinine level (Odds Ratio [OR] 1.01 95% CI 1.00 to 1.02 for every 1.0 mg/dL) and history of coronary disease (OR 3.67; 95% CI 1.32 to 10.29) were also independently associated to the risk of thrombotic events. Non-invasive respiratory support, history of coronary disease, and creatinine level may help to identify hospitalized COVID-19 patients at higher risk of thrombotic complications.ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04394377.

Hydroxychloroquine with or without Azithromycin in Mild-to-Moderate Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin have been used to treat patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). However, evidence on the safety and efficacy of these therapies is limited. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, randomized, open-label, three-group, controlled trial involving hospitalized patients with suspected or confirmed Covid-19 who were receiving either no supplemental oxygen or a maximum of 4 liters per minute of supplemental oxygen. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive standard care, standard care plus hydroxychloroquine at a dose of 400 mg twice daily, or standard care plus hydroxychloroquine at a dose of 400 mg twice daily plus azithromycin at a dose of 500 mg once daily for 7 days. The primary outcome was clinical status at 15 days as assessed with the use of a seven-level ordinal scale (with levels ranging from one to seven and higher scores indicating a worse condition) in the modified intention-to-treat population (patients with a confirmed diagnosis of Covid-19). Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 667 patients underwent randomization; 504 patients had confirmed Covid-19 and were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. As compared with standard care, the proportional odds of having a higher score on the seven-point ordinal scale at 15 days was not affected by either hydroxychloroquine alone (odds ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69 to 2.11; P = 1.00) or hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin (odds ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.57 to 1.73; P = 1.00). Prolongation of the corrected QT interval and elevation of liver-enzyme levels were more frequent in patients receiving hydroxychloroquine, alone or with azithromycin, than in those who were not receiving either agent. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients hospitalized with mild-to-moderate Covid-19, the use of hydroxychloroquine, alone or with azithromycin, did not improve clinical status at 15 days as compared with standard care. (Funded by the Coalition Covid-19 Brazil and EMS Pharma; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04322123.).

Rivaroxaban in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation and a Bioprosthetic Mitral Valve.

BACKGROUND: The effects of rivaroxaban in patients with atrial fibrillation and a bioprosthetic mitral valve remain uncertain. METHODS: In this randomized trial, we compared rivaroxaban (20 mg once daily) with dose-adjusted warfarin (target international normalized ratio, 2.0 to 3.0) in patients with atrial fibrillation and a bioprosthetic mitral valve. The primary outcome was a composite of death, major cardiovascular events (stroke, transient ischemic attack, systemic embolism, valve thrombosis, or hospitalization for heart failure), or major bleeding at 12 months. RESULTS: A total of 1005 patients were enrolled at 49 sites in Brazil. A primary-outcome event occurred at a mean of 347.5 days in the rivaroxaban group and 340.1 days in the warfarin group (difference calculated as restricted mean survival time, 7.4 days; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.4 to 16.3; P<0.001 for noninferiority). Death from cardiovascular causes or thromboembolic events occurred in 17 patients (3.4%) in the rivaroxaban group and in 26 (5.1%) in the warfarin group (hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.35 to 1.20). The incidence of stroke was 0.6% in the rivaroxaban group and 2.4% in the warfarin group (hazard ratio, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.07 to 0.88). Major bleeding occurred in 7 patients (1.4%) in the rivaroxaban group and in 13 (2.6%) in the warfarin group (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.21 to 1.35). The frequency of other serious adverse events was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with atrial fibrillation and a bioprosthetic mitral valve, rivaroxaban was noninferior to warfarin with respect to the mean time until the primary outcome of death, major cardiovascular events, or major bleeding at 12 months. (Funded by PROADI-SUS and Bayer; RIVER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02303795.).

The First Brazilian Cardiovascular Registry of Atrial Fibrillation: Primary Results of the RECALL Study.

BACKGROUND: It is estimated that atrial fibrillation (AF) affects approximately 1.5 million people in Brazil; however, epidemiological data are limited. We sought to evaluate the characteristics, treatment patterns, and clinical outcomes in patients with AF in Brazil by creating the first nationwide prospective registry. METHODS: RECALL was a multicenter, prospective registry that included and followed for 1 year 4,585 patients with AF at 89 sites across Brazil from April 2012 to August 2019. Patient characteristics, concomitant medication use, and clinical outcomes were analyzed using descriptive statistics and multivariable models. RESULTS: Of 4,585 patients enrolled, the median age was 70 (61, 78) years, 46% were women, and 53.8% had permanent AF. Only 4.4% of patients had a history of previous AF ablation and 25.2% had a previous cardioversion. The mean (SD) CHA2DS2-VASc score was 3.2 (1.6); median HAS-BLED score was 2 (2, 3). At baseline, 22% were not on anticoagulants. Of those taking anticoagulants, 62.6% were taking vitamin K antagonists and 37.4% were taking direct oral anticoagulants. The primary reasons for not using an oral anticoagulant were physician judgment (24.6%) and difficulty in controlling (14.7%) or performing (9.9%) INR. Mean (SD) TTR for the study period was 49.5% (27.5). During follow-up, the use of anticoagulants and INR in the therapeutic range increased to 87.1% and 59.1%, respectively. The rates/100 patient-years of death, hospitalization due to AF, AF ablation, cardioversion, stroke, systemic embolism, and major bleeding were 5.76 (5.12-6.47), 15.8 (14.6-17.0), 5.0 (4.4-5.7), 1.8 (1.4-2.2), 2.77 (2.32-3.32), 1.01 (0.75-1.36), and 2.21 (1.81-2.70). Older age, permanent AF, New York Heart Association class III/IV, chronic kidney disease, peripheral arterial disease, stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and dementia were independently associated with increased mortality while the use of anticoagulant was associated with lower risk of death. CONCLUSIONS: RECALL represents the largest prospective registry of patients with AF in Latin America. Our findings highlight important gaps in treatment, which can inform clinical practice and guide future interventions to improve the care of these patients.

In-Hospital Management and Long-term Clinical Outcomes and Adherence in Patients With Acute Decompensated Heart Failure: Primary Results of the First Brazilian Registry of Heart Failure (BREATHE).

BACKGROUND: Heart failure (HF), a common cause of hospitalization, is associated with poor short-term clinical outcomes. Little is known about the long-term prognoses of patients with HF in Latin America. METHODS: BREATHE was the first nationwide prospective observational study in Brazil that included patients hospitalized due to acute heart failure (HF). Patients were included during 2 time periods: February 2011-December 2012 and June 2016-July 2018 SUGGESTION FOR REPHRASING: In-hospital management, 12-month clinical outcomes and adherence to evidence-based therapies were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 3013 patients were enrolled at 71 centers in Brazil. At hospital admission, 83.8% had clear signs of pulmonary congestion. The main cause of decompensation was poor adherence to HF medications (27.8%). Among patients with reduced ejection fraction, concomitant use of beta-blockers, renin-angiotensin-aldosterone inhibitors and spironolactone decreased from 44.5% at hospital discharge to 35.2% at 3 months. The cumulative incidence of mortality at 12 months was 27.7%, with 24.3% readmission at 90 days and 44.4% at 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: In this large national prospective registry of patients hospitalized with acute HF, rates of mortality and readmission were higher than those reported globally. Poor adherence to evidence-based therapies was common at hospital discharge and at 12 months of follow-up.

Therapeutic versus prophylactic anticoagulation for patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration (ACTION): an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is associated with a prothrombotic state leading to adverse clinical outcomes. Whether therapeutic anticoagulation improves outcomes in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 is unknown. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of therapeutic versus prophylactic anticoagulation in this population. METHODS: We did a pragmatic, open-label (with blinded adjudication), multicentre, randomised, controlled trial, at 31 sites in Brazil. Patients (aged ≥18 years) hospitalised with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration, and who had COVID-19 symptoms for up to 14 days before randomisation, were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either therapeutic or prophylactic anticoagulation. Therapeutic anticoagulation was in-hospital oral rivaroxaban (20 mg or 15 mg daily) for stable patients, or initial subcutaneous enoxaparin (1 mg/kg twice per day) or intravenous unfractionated heparin (to achieve a 0·3-0·7 IU/mL anti-Xa concentration) for clinically unstable patients, followed by rivaroxaban to day 30. Prophylactic anticoagulation was standard in-hospital enoxaparin or unfractionated heparin. The primary efficacy outcome was a hierarchical analysis of time to death, duration of hospitalisation, or duration of supplemental oxygen to day 30, analysed with the win ratio method (a ratio >1 reflects a better outcome in the therapeutic anticoagulation group) in the intention-to-treat population. The primary safety outcome was major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding through 30 days. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04394377) and is completed. FINDINGS: From June 24, 2020, to Feb 26, 2021, 3331 patients were screened and 615 were randomly allocated (311 [50%] to the therapeutic anticoagulation group and 304 [50%] to the prophylactic anticoagulation group). 576 (94%) were clinically stable and 39 (6%) clinically unstable. One patient, in the therapeutic group, was lost to follow-up because of withdrawal of consent and was not included in the primary analysis. The primary efficacy outcome was not different between patients assigned therapeutic or prophylactic anticoagulation, with 28 899 (34·8%) wins in the therapeutic group and 34 288 (41·3%) in the prophylactic group (win ratio 0·86 [95% CI 0·59-1·22], p=0·40). Consistent results were seen in clinically stable and clinically unstable patients. The primary safety outcome of major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding occurred in 26 (8%) patients assigned therapeutic anticoagulation and seven (2%) assigned prophylactic anticoagulation (relative risk 3·64 [95% CI 1·61-8·27], p=0·0010). Allergic reaction to the study medication occurred in two (1%) patients in the therapeutic anticoagulation group and three (1%) in the prophylactic anticoagulation group. INTERPRETATION: In patients hospitalised with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration, in-hospital therapeutic anticoagulation with rivaroxaban or enoxaparin followed by rivaroxaban to day 30 did not improve clinical outcomes and increased bleeding compared with prophylactic anticoagulation. Therefore, use of therapeutic-dose rivaroxaban, and other direct oral anticoagulants, should be avoided in these patients in the absence of an evidence-based indication for oral anticoagulation. FUNDING: Coalition COVID-19 Brazil, Bayer SA.

Discontinuing vs continuing ACEIs and ARBs in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 according to disease severity: Insights from the BRACE CORONA trial.

BACKGROUND: We explored the effect of discontinuing versus continuing angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) on clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19 according to baseline disease severity. METHODS: We randomized 659 patients with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 and classified them as having mild or moderate COVID-19 disease severity at hospital presentation using blood oxygen saturation and lung imaging. The primary outcome was the mean ratio of number of days alive and out of the hospital at 30 days according to disease severity. RESULTS: At presentation, 376 patients (57.1%) had mild and 283 (42.9%) had moderate COVID-19. In patients with mild disease, there was no significant difference in the number of days alive and out of the hospital between ACEI/ARB discontinuation (mean 23.5 [SD 6.3] days) and continuation (mean 23.8 [SD 6.5] days), with a mean ratio of 0.98 (95% CI 0.92-1.04). However, in patients with moderate disease, there were fewer days alive and out of the hospital with ACEI/ARB discontinuation (mean 19.6 [SD 9.5] days) than continuation (mean 21.6 [SD 7.6] days), with a mean ratio of 0.90 (95% CI 0.81-1.00; P-interaction = .01). The impact of discontinuing versus continuing ACEIs/ARBs on days alive and out of hospital through 30 days differed according to baseline COVID-19 disease severity. CONCLUSIONS: Unlike patients with mild disease, patients with moderate disease who continued ACEIs/ARBs had more days alive and out of hospital through 30 days than those who discontinued ACEIs/ARBs. This suggests that ACEIs/ARBs should be continued for patients with moderate COVID-19 disease severity. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04364893).

Randomized clinical trial to evaluate a routine full anticoagulation Strategy in Patients with Coronavirus Infection (SARS-CoV2) admitted to hospital: Rationale and design of the ACTION (AntiCoagulaTlon cOroNavirus)-Coalition IV trial.

BACKGROUND: Observational studies have suggested a higher risk of thrombotic events in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Moreover, elevated D-dimer levels have been identified as an important prognostic marker in COVID-19 directly associated with disease severity and progression. Prophylactic anticoagulation for hospitalized COVID-19 patients might not be enough to prevent thrombotic events; therefore, therapeutic anticoagulation regimens deserve clinical investigation. DESIGN: ACTION is an academic-led, pragmatic, multicenter, open-label, randomized, phase IV clinical trial that aims to enroll around 600 patients at 40 sites participating in the Coalition COVID-19 Brazil initiative. Eligible patients with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 with symptoms up to 14 days and elevated D-dimer levels will be randomized to a strategy of full-dose anticoagulation for 30 days with rivaroxaban 20 mg once daily (or full-dose heparin if oral administration is not feasible) vs standard of care with any approved venous thromboembolism prophylaxis regimen during hospitalization. A confirmation of COVID-19 was mandatory for study entry, based on specific tests used in clinical practice (RT-PCR, antigen test, IgM test) collected before randomization, regardless of in the outpatient setting or not. Randomization will be stratified by clinical stability at presentation. The primary outcome is a hierarchical analysis of mortality, length of hospital stay, or duration of oxygen therapy at the end of 30 days. Secondary outcomes include the World Health Organization's 8-point ordinal scale at 30 days and the following efficacy outcomes: incidence of venous thromboembolism , acute myocardial infarction, stroke, systemic embolism, major adverse limb events, duration of oxygen therapy, disease progression, and biomarkers. The primary safety outcomes are major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding according to the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis criteria. SUMMARY: The ACTION trial will evaluate whether in-hospital therapeutic anticoagulation with rivaroxaban for stable patients, or enoxaparin for unstable patients, followed by rivaroxaban through 30 days compared with standard prophylactic anticoagulation improves clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer levels.

A randomized clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban in patients with bioprosthetic mitral valve and atrial fibrillation or flutter: Rationale and design of the RIVER trial.

The efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban in patients with bioprosthetic mitral valves and atrial fibrillation or flutter remain uncertain. DESIGN: RIVER was an academic-led, multicenter, open-label, randomized, non-inferiority trial with blinded outcome adjudication that enrolled 1005 patients from 49 sites in Brazil. Patients with a bioprosthetic mitral valve and atrial fibrillation or flutter were randomly assigned (1:1) to rivaroxaban 20 mg once daily (15 mg in those with creatinine clearance <50 mL/min) or dose-adjusted warfarin (target international normalized ratio 2.0-30.); the follow-up period was 12 months. The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality, stroke, transient ischemic attack, major bleeding, valve thrombosis, systemic embolism, or hospitalization for heart failure. Secondary outcomes included individual components of the primary composite outcome, bleeding events, and venous thromboembolism. SUMMARY: RIVER represents the largest trial specifically designed to assess the efficacy and safety of a direct oral anticoagulant in patients with bioprosthetic mitral valves and atrial fibrillation or flutter. The results of this trial can inform clinical practice and international guidelines.

The arrival of COVID-19 in Brazil and the impact on coronary artery bypass surgery.

BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE STUDY: This study analyzed the arrival of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Brazil and its impact on coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery. METHODS: Patients undergoing isolated CABG in six hospitals in Brazil were divided into two periods: pre-COVID-19 (March-May 2019, N = 468) and COVID-19 era (March-May 2020, N = 182). Perioperative data were included on a dedicated REDCap platform. Patients with clinical and tomographic criteria and/or PCR (+) for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection were considered COVID-19 (+). Logistic regression analysis was performed to create a multiple predictive model for mortality after CABG in COVID-19 era. RESULTS: Compared to 2019, in 2020, CABG surgeries had a 2.8-fold increased mortality risk (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1-7.6, p = .041), patients who evolved with COVID-19 had a 11-fold increased mortality risk (95% CI: 2.2-54.9, p < .003), rates of morbidities and readmission to the intensive care unit. The surgical volume was decreased by 60%. The model to predict mortality after CABG in the COVID-19 era was validated with good calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow = 1.43) and discrimination (receiver operating characteristic = 0.78). CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic had an adverse impact on mortality, morbidity and volume of patients undergoing CABG.

Effect of Discontinuing vs Continuing Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors and Angiotensin II Receptor Blockers on Days Alive and Out of the Hospital in Patients Admitted With COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: It is unknown whether angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) have a positive, neutral, or negative effect on clinical outcomes in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Objective: To determine whether discontinuation compared with continuation of ACEIs or ARBs changed the number of days alive and out of the hospital through 30 days. Design, Setting, and Participants: A randomized clinical trial of 659 patients hospitalized in Brazil with mild to moderate COVID-19 who were taking ACEIs or ARBs prior to hospitalization (enrolled: April 9-June 26, 2020; final follow-up: July 26, 2020). Interventions: Discontinuation (n = 334) or continuation (n = 325) of ACEIs or ARBs. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the number of days alive and out of the hospital through 30 days. Secondary outcomes included death, cardiovascular death, and COVID-19 progression. Results: Among 659 patients, the median age was 55.1 years (interquartile range [IQR], 46.1-65.0 years), 14.7% were aged 70 years or older, 40.4% were women, and 100% completed the trial. The median time from symptom onset to hospital admission was 6 days (IQR, 4-9 days) and 27.2% of patients had an oxygen saturation of less than 94% of room air at baseline. In terms of clinical severity, 57.1% of patients were considered mild at hospital admission and 42.9% were considered moderate. There was no significant difference in the number of days alive and out of the hospital in patients in the discontinuation group (mean, 21.9 days [SD, 8 days]) vs patients in the continuation group (mean, 22.9 days [SD, 7.1 days]) and the mean ratio was 0.95 (95% CI, 0.90-1.01). There also was no statistically significant difference in death (2.7% for the discontinuation group vs 2.8% for the continuation group; odds ratio [OR], 0.97 [95% CI, 0.38-2.52]), cardiovascular death (0.6% vs 0.3%, respectively; OR, 1.95 [95% CI, 0.19-42.12]), or COVID-19 progression (38.3% vs 32.3%; OR, 1.30 [95% CI, 0.95-1.80]). The most common adverse events were respiratory failure requiring invasive mechanical ventilation (9.6% in the discontinuation group vs 7.7% in the continuation group), shock requiring vasopressors (8.4% vs 7.1%, respectively), acute myocardial infarction (7.5% vs 4.6%), new or worsening heart failure (4.2% vs 4.9%), and acute kidney failure requiring hemodialysis (3.3% vs 2.8%). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients hospitalized with mild to moderate COVID-19 and who were taking ACEIs or ARBs before hospital admission, there was no significant difference in the mean number of days alive and out of the hospital for those assigned to discontinue vs continue these medications. These findings do not support routinely discontinuing ACEIs or ARBs among patients hospitalized with mild to moderate COVID-19 if there is an indication for treatment. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04364893.

Continuing versus suspending angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers: Impact on adverse outcomes in hospitalized patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)--The BRACE CORONA Trial.

Angiotensin-converting enzyme-2 (ACE2) expression may increase due to upregulation in patients using angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs). Because renin-angiotensin system blockers increase levels of ACE2, a protein that facilitates coronavirus entry into cells, there is concern that these drugs could increase the risk of developing a severe and fatal form of COVID-19. The impact of discontinuing ACEI and ARBs in patients with COVID-19 remains uncertain. DESIGN: BRACE CORONA is a pragmatic, multicenter, randomized, phase IV, clinical trial that aims to enroll around 500 participants at 34 sites in Brazil. Participants will be identified from an ongoing national registry of suspected and confirmed cases of COVID-19. Eligible patients using renin-angiotensin system blockers (ACEI/ARBs) with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 will be randomized to a strategy of continued ACEI/ARB treatment versus temporary discontinuation for 30 days. The primary outcome is the median days alive and out of the hospital at 30 days. Secondary outcomes include progression of COVID-19 disease, all-cause mortality, death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, stroke, transient ischemic attack, new or worsening heart failure, myocarditis, pericarditis, arrhythmias, thromboembolic events, hypertensive crisis, respiratory failure, hemodynamic decompensation, sepsis, renal failure, and troponin, B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP), N-terminal-proBNP, and D-dimer levels. SUMMARY: BRACE CORONA will evaluate whether the strategy of continued ACEI/ARB therapy compared with temporary discontinuation of these drugs impacts clinical outcomes among patients with COVID-19.

Intracranial hemorrhage in patients with atrial fibrillation receiving anticoagulation therapy.

We investigated the frequency and characteristics of intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), the factors associated with the risk of ICH, and outcomes post-ICH overall and by randomized treatment. We identified patients with ICH from the overall trial population enrolled in the Apixaban for Reduction in Stroke and Other Thromboembolic Events in Atrial Fibrillation trial who received ≥1 dose of the study drug (n = 18 140). ICH was adjudicated by a central committee. Cox regression models were used to identify factors associated with ICH. ICH occurred in 174 patients; most ICH events were spontaneous (71.7%) versus traumatic (28.3%). Apixaban resulted in significantly less ICH (0.33% per year), regardless of type and location, than warfarin (0.80% per year). Independent factors associated with increased risk of ICH were enrollment in Asia or Latin America, older age, prior stroke/transient ischemic attack, and aspirin use at baseline. Among warfarin-treated patients, the median (25th, 75th percentiles) time from most recent international normalized ratio (INR) to ICH was 13 days (6, 21 days). Median INR prior to ICH was 2.6 (2.1, 3.0); 78.5% of patients had a pre-ICH INR <3.0. After ICH, the modified Rankin scale score at discharge was ≥4 in 55.7% of patients, and the overall mortality rate at 30 days was 43.3% with no difference between apixaban- and warfarin-treated patients. ICH occurred at a rate of 0.80% per year with warfarin regardless of INR control and at a rate of 0.33% per year with apixaban and was associated with high short-term morbidity and mortality. This highlights the clinical relevance of reducing ICH by using apixaban rather than warfarin and avoiding concomitant aspirin, especially in patients of older age. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT00412984.

Clinical-care protocol for preventing mediastinitis after coronary artery bypass graft surgery: A quality improvement initiative from a private hospital.

BACKGROUND: Surgical site infections after cardiac surgery are associated with severe outcomes, including reoperation and death. We aimed to describe the effect of a standardized clinical-care protocol for preventing mediastinitis in patients who underwent coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG). METHODS: In a hospital certified by Joint Commission International, all patients who underwent CABG from January 2011 to December 2016 were compared in two periods according to the moment of implementation of a standardized clinical-care protocol for prevention of mediastinitis (CCPPM): pre-protocol (January 2011-December 2012) and post-protocol (January 2013-December 2016). The CCPPM consisted of the patient using a kit containing chlorhexidine 2% for bathing, mupirocin 20 mg/g for nasal topical use and chlorhexidine 0.12% for oral hygiene for 5 days before surgery, in addition to prophylaxis with a glycopeptide antimicrobial and strict glucose control (110-140 mg/dL) during surgery and immediate postoperative. RESULTS: We evaluated 1760 patients who underwent CABG in both periods. The occurrence of mediastinitis before protocol implementation was 1.44% (10 of 692 CABG). After the implementation of the protocol, there was an important reduction in the incidence of mediastinitis to 0.09% (1 of 1068 CABG) (P = 0.002). Although we did not observe a significant difference in mortality between the groups (2.3% vs 1%, P = 0.77), there was fewer in-hospital mortality due to mediastinitis after the CCPPM (0.2% vs 0%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Implementation of a standardized CCPPM was associated with a significant reduction in the incidence of mediastinitis after CABG and reduction of mortality in the group of patients with mediastinitis.

A multifaceted intervention to improve treatment with oral anticoagulants in atrial fibrillation (IMPACT-AF): an international, cluster-randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Oral anticoagulation is underused in patients with atrial fibrillation. We assessed the impact of a multifaceted educational intervention, versus usual care, on oral anticoagulant use in patients with atrial fibrillation. METHODS: This study was a two-arm, prospective, international, cluster-randomised, controlled trial. Patients were included who had atrial fibrillation and an indication for oral anticoagulation. Clusters were randomised (1:1) to receive a quality improvement educational intervention (intervention group) or usual care (control group). Randomisation was carried out centrally, using the eClinicalOS electronic data capture system. The intervention involved education of providers and patients, with regular monitoring and feedback. The primary outcome was the change in the proportion of patients treated with oral anticoagulants from baseline assessment to evaluation at 1 year. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02082548. FINDINGS: 2281 patients from five countries (Argentina, n=343; Brazil, n=360; China, n=586; India, n=493; and Romania, n=499) were enrolled from 48 clusters between June 11, 2014, and Nov 13, 2016. Follow-up was at a median of 12·0 months (IQR 11·8-12·2). Oral anticoagulant use increased in the intervention group from 68% (804 of 1184 patients) at baseline to 80% (943 of 1184 patients) at 1 year (difference 12%), whereas in the control group it increased from 64% (703 of 1092 patients) at baseline to 67% (732 of 1092 patients) at 1 year (difference 3%). Absolute difference in the change between groups was 9·1% (95% CI 3·8-14·4); odds ratio of change in the use of oral anticoagulation between groups was 3·28 (95% CI 1·67-6·44; adjusted p value=0·0002). Kaplan-Meier estimates showed a reduction in the secondary outcome of stroke in the intervention versus control groups (HR 0·48, 95% CI 0·23-0·99; log-rank p value=0·0434). INTERPRETATION: A multifaceted and multilevel educational intervention, aimed to improve use of oral anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation and at risk for stroke, resulted in a significant increase in the proportion of patients treated with oral anticoagulants. Such an intervention has the potential to improve stroke prevention around the world for patients with atrial fibrillation. FUNDING: Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, and Pfizer.

Ticagrelor versus clopidogrel after fibrinolytic therapy in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction: Rationale and design of the ticagrelor in patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction treated with thrombolysis (TREAT) trial.

BACKGROUND: The safety and efficacy of ticagrelor in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) treated with fibrinolytic therapy remain uncertain. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of the TicagRElor in pAtients with ST elevation myocardial infarction treated with Thrombolysis (TREAT) trial is to evaluate the short-term safety of ticagrelor when compared with clopidogrel in STEMI patients treated with fibrinolytic therapy. Key secondary objectives are to assess the safety and efficacy of ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel at 12-months. DESIGN: The TREAT trial is a multicenter, randomized, phase III, Prospective randomized open blinded end-point (PROBE) study that enrolled 3,799 patients in 152 sites from 10 countries. Following administration of fibrinolytic therapy patients were randomized to a loading dose of ticagrelor 180 mg or clopidogrel 300 mg followed by a maintenance dose of ticagrelor 90 mg twice daily or clopidogrel 75 mg/day for 12-months. The primary outcome is the rate of TIMI major bleeding at 30-days and will be assessed for non-inferiority using an intention-to-treat analysis. Co-treatments include aspirin and anticoagulants. Other evidence based therapies are also recommended. Secondary efficacy outcome include a composite of death from vascular causes, myocardial infarction, stroke, severe recurrent ischemia, transient ischemic attack or other arterial thrombotic event. All-cause mortality as well as individual components of the combined efficacy endpoint will also be ascertained. SUMMARY: TREAT is an international randomized controlled trial comparing ticagrelor with clopidogrel in STEMI patients treated with fibrinolytic therapy. The results of this trial will inform clinical practice and international guidelines.

Rationale and design of the Statins Evaluation in Coronary procedUres and REvascularization: The SECURE-PCI Trial.

BACKGROUND: Previous evidence suggests that acute treatment with statins reduce atherosclerotic complications, including periprocedural myocardial infarction, but currently, there are no large, adequately powered studies to define the effects of early, high-dose statins in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and planned invasive management. OBJECTIVES: The main goal of Statins Evaluation in Coronary procedUres and REvascularization (SECURE-PCI) Trial is to determine whether the early use of a loading dose of 80 mg of atorvastatin before an intended percutaneous coronary intervention followed by an additional dose of 80 mg 24 hours after the procedure will be able to reduce the rates of major cardiovascular events at 30 days in patients with an ACS. DESIGN: The SECURE-PCI study is a pragmatic, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial planned to enroll around 4,200 patients in 58 different sites in Brazil. The primary outcome is the rate of major cardiovascular events at 30 days defined as a composite of all-cause mortality, nonfatal acute myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, and coronary revascularization. SUMMARY: The SECURE PCI is a large randomized trial testing a strategy of early, high-dose statin in patients with ACS and will provide important information about the acute treatment of this patient population.