Transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement in lower-risk and higher-risk patients: a meta-analysis of randomized trials.

AIMS: Additional randomized clinical trial (RCT) data comparing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is available, including longer term follow-up. A meta-analysis comparing TAVI to SAVR was performed. A pragmatic risk classification was applied, partitioning lower-risk and higher-risk patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: The main endpoints were death, strokes, and the composite of death or disabling stroke, occurring at 1 year (early) or after 1 year (later). A random-effects meta-analysis was performed. Eight RCTs with 8698 patients were included. In lower-risk patients, at 1 year, the risk of death was lower after TAVI compared with SAVR [relative risk (RR) 0.67; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47 to 0.96, P = 0.031], as was death or disabling stroke (RR 0.68; 95% CI 0.50 to 0.92, P = 0.014). There were no differences in strokes. After 1 year, in lower-risk patients, there were no significant differences in all main outcomes. In higher-risk patients, there were no significant differences in main outcomes. New-onset atrial fibrillation, major bleeding, and acute kidney injury occurred less after TAVI; new pacemakers, vascular complications, and paravalvular leak occurred more after TAVI. CONCLUSION: In lower-risk patients, there was an early mortality reduction with TAVI, but no differences after later follow-up. There was also an early reduction in the composite of death or disabling stroke, with no difference at later follow-up. There were no significant differences for higher-risk patients. Informed therapy decisions may be more dependent on the temporality of events or secondary endpoints than the long-term occurrence of main clinical outcomes.

Lowering cholesterol, blood pressure, or both to prevent cardiovascular events: results of 8.7 years of follow-up of Heart Outcomes Evaluation Prevention (HOPE)-3 study participants.

AIMS: Rosuvastatin (10 mg per day) compared with placebo reduced major adverse cardiovascular (CV) events by 24% in 12 705 participants at intermediate CV risk after 5.6 years. There was no benefit of blood pressure (BP) lowering treatment in the overall group, but a reduction in events in the third of participants with elevated systolic BP. After cessation of all the trial medications, we examined whether the benefits observed during the active treatment phase were sustained, enhanced, or attenuated. METHODS AND RESULTS: After the randomized treatment period (5.6 years), participants were invited to participate in 3.1 further years of observation (total 8.7 years). The first co-primary outcome for the entire length of follow-up was the composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, or CV death [major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE)-1], and the second was MACE-1 plus resuscitated cardiac arrest, heart failure, or coronary revascularization (MACE-2). In total, 9326 (78%) of 11 994 surviving Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation (HOPE)-3 subjects consented to participate in extended follow-up. During 3.1 years of post-trial observation (total follow-up of 8.7 years), participants originally randomized to rosuvastatin compared with placebo had a 20% additional reduction in MACE-1 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.64-0.99] and a 17% additional reduction in MACE-2 (95% CI 0.68-1.01). Therefore, over the 8.7 years of follow-up, there was a 21% reduction in MACE-1 (95% CI 0.69-0.90, P = 0.005) and 21% reduction in MACE-2 (95% CI 0.69-0.89, P = 0.002). There was no benefit of BP lowering in the overall study either during the active or post-trial observation period, however, a 24% reduction in MACE-1 was observed over 8.7 years. CONCLUSION: The CV benefits of rosuvastatin, and BP lowering in those with elevated systolic BP, compared with placebo continue to accrue for at least 3 years after cessation of randomized treatment in individuals without cardiovascular disease indicating a legacy effect. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00468923.

Effect of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation vs Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement on All-Cause Mortality in Patients With Aortic Stenosis: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a less invasive alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement and is the treatment of choice for patients at high operative risk. The role of TAVI in patients at lower risk is unclear. Objective: To determine whether TAVI is noninferior to surgery in patients at moderately increased operative risk. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this randomized clinical trial conducted at 34 UK centers, 913 patients aged 70 years or older with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis and moderately increased operative risk due to age or comorbidity were enrolled between April 2014 and April 2018 and followed up through April 2019. Interventions: TAVI using any valve with a CE mark (indicating conformity of the valve with all legal and safety requirements for sale throughout the European Economic Area) and any access route (n = 458) or surgical aortic valve replacement (surgery; n = 455). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 1 year. The primary hypothesis was that TAVI was noninferior to surgery, with a noninferiority margin of 5% for the upper limit of the 1-sided 97.5% CI for the absolute between-group difference in mortality. There were 36 secondary outcomes (30 reported herein), including duration of hospital stay, major bleeding events, vascular complications, conduction disturbance requiring pacemaker implantation, and aortic regurgitation. Results: Among 913 patients randomized (median age, 81 years [IQR, 78 to 84 years]; 424 [46%] were female; median Society of Thoracic Surgeons mortality risk score, 2.6% [IQR, 2.0% to 3.4%]), 912 (99.9%) completed follow-up and were included in the noninferiority analysis. At 1 year, there were 21 deaths (4.6%) in the TAVI group and 30 deaths (6.6%) in the surgery group, with an adjusted absolute risk difference of -2.0% (1-sided 97.5% CI, -∞ to 1.2%; P < .001 for noninferiority). Of 30 prespecified secondary outcomes reported herein, 24 showed no significant difference at 1 year. TAVI was associated with significantly shorter postprocedural hospitalization (median of 3 days [IQR, 2 to 5 days] vs 8 days [IQR, 6 to 13 days] in the surgery group). At 1 year, there were significantly fewer major bleeding events after TAVI compared with surgery (7.2% vs 20.2%, respectively; adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.33 [95% CI, 0.24 to 0.45]) but significantly more vascular complications (10.3% vs 2.4%; adjusted HR, 4.42 [95% CI, 2.54 to 7.71]), conduction disturbances requiring pacemaker implantation (14.2% vs 7.3%; adjusted HR, 2.05 [95% CI, 1.43 to 2.94]), and mild (38.3% vs 11.7%) or moderate (2.3% vs 0.6%) aortic regurgitation (adjusted odds ratio for mild, moderate, or severe [no instance of severe reported] aortic regurgitation combined vs none, 4.89 [95% CI, 3.08 to 7.75]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients aged 70 years or older with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis and moderately increased operative risk, TAVI was noninferior to surgery with respect to all-cause mortality at 1 year. Trial Registration: isrctn.com Identifier: ISRCTN57819173.

Antihypertensives and Statin Therapy for Primary Stroke Prevention: A Secondary Analysis of the HOPE-3 Trial.

Background and Purpose: The HOPE-3 trial (Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation­3) found that antihypertensive therapy combined with a statin reduced first stroke among people at intermediate cardiovascular risk. We report secondary analyses of stroke outcomes by stroke subtype, predictors, treatment effects in key subgroups. Methods: Using a 2-by-2 factorial design, 12 705 participants from 21 countries with vascular risk factors but without overt cardiovascular disease were randomized to candesartan 16 mg plus hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg daily or placebo and to rosuvastatin 10 mg daily or placebo. The effect of the interventions on stroke subtypes was assessed. Results: Participants were 66 years old and 46% were women. Baseline blood pressure (138/82 mm Hg) was reduced by 6.0/3.0 mm Hg and LDL-C (low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; 3.3 mmol/L) was reduced by 0.90 mmol/L on active treatment. During 5.6 years of follow-up, 169 strokes occurred (117 ischemic, 29 hemorrhagic, 23 undetermined). Blood pressure lowering did not significantly reduce stroke (hazard ratio [HR], 0.80 [95% CI, 0.59­1.08]), ischemic stroke (HR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.55­1.15]), hemorrhagic stroke (HR, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.34­1.48]), or strokes of undetermined origin (HR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.41­2.08]). Rosuvastatin significantly reduced strokes (HR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.52­0.95]), with reductions mainly in ischemic stroke (HR, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.37­0.78]) but did not significantly affect hemorrhagic (HR, 1.22 [95% CI, 0.59­2.54]) or strokes of undetermined origin (HR, 1.29 [95% CI, 0.57­2.95]). The combination of both interventions compared with double placebo substantially and significantly reduced strokes (HR, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.36­0.87]) and ischemic strokes (HR, 0.41 [95% CI, 0.23­0.72]). Conclusions: Among people at intermediate cardiovascular risk but without overt cardiovascular disease, rosuvastatin 10 mg daily significantly reduced first stroke. Blood pressure lowering combined with rosuvastatin reduced ischemic stroke by 59%. Both therapies are safe and generally well tolerated. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT00468923.

Catheter ablation vs. thoracoscopic surgical ablation in long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation: CASA-AF randomized controlled trial.

AIMS: Long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation (LSPAF) is challenging to treat with suboptimal catheter ablation (CA) outcomes. Thoracoscopic surgical ablation (SA) has shown promising efficacy in atrial fibrillation (AF). This multicentre randomized controlled trial tested whether SA was superior to CA as the first interventional strategy in de novo LSPAF. METHODS AND RESULTS: We randomized 120 LSPAF patients to SA or CA. All patients underwent predetermined lesion sets and implantable loop recorder insertion. Primary outcome was single procedure freedom from AF/atrial tachycardia (AT) ≥30 s without anti-arrhythmic drugs at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included clinical success (≥75% reduction in AF/AT burden); procedure-related serious adverse events; changes in patients' symptoms and quality-of-life scores; and cost-effectiveness. At 12 months, freedom from AF/AT was recorded in 26% (14/54) of patients in SA vs. 28% (17/60) in the CA group [OR 1.128, 95% CI (0.46-2.83), P = 0.83]. Reduction in AF/AT burden ≥75% was recorded in 67% (36/54) vs. 77% (46/60) [OR 1.13, 95% CI (0.67-4.08), P = 0.3] in SA and CA groups, respectively. Procedure-related serious adverse events within 30 days of intervention were reported in 15% (8/55) of patients in SA vs. 10% (6/60) in CA, P = 0.46. One death was reported after SA. Improvements in AF symptoms were greater following CA. Over 12 months, SA was more expensive and provided fewer quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) compared with CA (0.78 vs. 0.85, P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Single procedure thoracoscopic SA is not superior to CA in treating LSPAF. Catheter ablation provided greater improvements in symptoms and accrued significantly more QALYs during follow-up than SA. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN18250790 and ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02755688.

Blood-Pressure Lowering in Intermediate-Risk Persons without Cardiovascular Disease.

BACKGROUND: Antihypertensive therapy reduces the risk of cardiovascular events among high-risk persons and among those with a systolic blood pressure of 160 mm Hg or higher, but its role in persons at intermediate risk and with lower blood pressure is unclear. METHODS: In one comparison from a 2-by-2 factorial trial, we randomly assigned 12,705 participants at intermediate risk who did not have cardiovascular disease to receive either candesartan at a dose of 16 mg per day plus hydrochlorothiazide at a dose of 12.5 mg per day or placebo. The first coprimary outcome was the composite of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke; the second coprimary outcome additionally included resuscitated cardiac arrest, heart failure, and revascularization. The median follow-up was 5.6 years. RESULTS: The mean blood pressure of the participants at baseline was 138.1/81.9 mm Hg; the decrease in blood pressure was 6.0/3.0 mm Hg greater in the active-treatment group than in the placebo group. The first coprimary outcome occurred in 260 participants (4.1%) in the active-treatment group and in 279 (4.4%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79 to 1.10; P=0.40); the second coprimary outcome occurred in 312 participants (4.9%) and 328 participants (5.2%), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.11; P=0.51). In one of the three prespecified hypothesis-based subgroups, participants in the subgroup for the upper third of systolic blood pressure (>143.5 mm Hg) who were in the active-treatment group had significantly lower rates of the first and second coprimary outcomes than those in the placebo group; effects were neutral in the middle and lower thirds (P=0.02 and P=0.009, respectively, for trend in the two outcomes). CONCLUSIONS: Therapy with candesartan at a dose of 16 mg per day plus hydrochlorothiazide at a dose of 12.5 mg per day was not associated with a lower rate of major cardiovascular events than placebo among persons at intermediate risk who did not have cardiovascular disease. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and AstraZeneca; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00468923.).

Blood-Pressure and Cholesterol Lowering in Persons without Cardiovascular Disease.

BACKGROUND: Elevated blood pressure and elevated low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol increase the risk of cardiovascular disease. Lowering both should reduce the risk of cardiovascular events substantially. METHODS: In a trial with 2-by-2 factorial design, we randomly assigned 12,705 participants at intermediate risk who did not have cardiovascular disease to rosuvastatin (10 mg per day) or placebo and to candesartan (16 mg per day) plus hydrochlorothiazide (12.5 mg per day) or placebo. In the analyses reported here, we compared the 3180 participants assigned to combined therapy (with rosuvastatin and the two antihypertensive agents) with the 3168 participants assigned to dual placebo. The first coprimary outcome was the composite of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke, and the second coprimary outcome additionally included heart failure, cardiac arrest, or revascularization. The median follow-up was 5.6 years. RESULTS: The decrease in the LDL cholesterol level was 33.7 mg per deciliter (0.87 mmol per liter) greater in the combined-therapy group than in the dual-placebo group, and the decrease in systolic blood pressure was 6.2 mm Hg greater with combined therapy than with dual placebo. The first coprimary outcome occurred in 113 participants (3.6%) in the combined-therapy group and in 157 (5.0%) in the dual-placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56 to 0.90; P=0.005). The second coprimary outcome occurred in 136 participants (4.3%) and 187 participants (5.9%), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.89; P=0.003). Muscle weakness and dizziness were more common in the combined-therapy group than in the dual-placebo group, but the overall rate of discontinuation of the trial regimen was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of rosuvastatin (10 mg per day), candesartan (16 mg per day), and hydrochlorothiazide (12.5 mg per day) was associated with a significantly lower rate of cardiovascular events than dual placebo among persons at intermediate risk who did not have cardiovascular disease. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and AstraZeneca; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00468923.).

Cholesterol Lowering in Intermediate-Risk Persons without Cardiovascular Disease.

BACKGROUND: Previous trials have shown that the use of statins to lower cholesterol reduces the risk of cardiovascular events among persons without cardiovascular disease. Those trials have involved persons with elevated lipid levels or inflammatory markers and involved mainly white persons. It is unclear whether the benefits of statins can be extended to an intermediate-risk, ethnically diverse population without cardiovascular disease. METHODS: In one comparison from a 2-by-2 factorial trial, we randomly assigned 12,705 participants in 21 countries who did not have cardiovascular disease and were at intermediate risk to receive rosuvastatin at a dose of 10 mg per day or placebo. The first coprimary outcome was the composite of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke, and the second coprimary outcome additionally included revascularization, heart failure, and resuscitated cardiac arrest. The median follow-up was 5.6 years. RESULTS: The overall mean low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level was 26.5% lower in the rosuvastatin group than in the placebo group. The first coprimary outcome occurred in 235 participants (3.7%) in the rosuvastatin group and in 304 participants (4.8%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64 to 0.91; P=0.002). The results for the second coprimary outcome were consistent with the results for the first (occurring in 277 participants [4.4%] in the rosuvastatin group and in 363 participants [5.7%] in the placebo group; hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.64 to 0.88; P<0.001). The results were also consistent in subgroups defined according to cardiovascular risk at baseline, lipid level, C-reactive protein level, blood pressure, and race or ethnic group. In the rosuvastatin group, there was no excess of diabetes or cancers, but there was an excess of cataract surgery (in 3.8% of the participants, vs. 3.1% in the placebo group; P=0.02) and muscle symptoms (in 5.8% of the participants, vs. 4.7% in the placebo group; P=0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with rosuvastatin at a dose of 10 mg per day resulted in a significantly lower risk of cardiovascular events than placebo in an intermediate-risk, ethnically diverse population without cardiovascular disease. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and AstraZeneca; HOPE-3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00468923.).

Inadequacy of existing clinical prediction models for predicting mortality after transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

BACKGROUND: The performance of emerging transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) clinical prediction models (CPMs) in national TAVI cohorts distinct from those where they have been derived is unknown. This study aimed to investigate the performance of the German Aortic Valve, FRANCE-2, OBSERVANT and American College of Cardiology (ACC) TAVI CPMs compared with the performance of historic cardiac CPMs such as the EuroSCORE and STS-PROM, in a large national TAVI registry. METHODS: The calibration and discrimination of each CPM were analyzed in 6676 patients from the UK TAVI registry, as a whole cohort and across several subgroups. Strata included gender, diabetes status, access route, and valve type. Furthermore, the amount of agreement in risk classification between each of the considered CPMs was analyzed at an individual patient level. RESULTS: The observed 30-day mortality rate was 5.4%. In the whole cohort, the majority of CPMs over-estimated the risk of 30-day mortality, although the mean ACC score (5.2%) approximately matched the observed mortality rate. The areas under ROC curve were between 0.57 for OBSERVANT and 0.64 for ACC. Risk classification agreement was low across all models, with Fleiss's kappa values between 0.17 and 0.50. CONCLUSIONS: Although the FRANCE-2 and ACC models outperformed all other CPMs, the performance of current TAVI-CPMs was low when applied to an independent cohort of TAVI patients. Hence, TAVI specific CPMs need to be derived outside populations previously used for model derivation, either by adapting existing CPMs or developing new risk scores in large national registries.

Heart failure in patients with sick sinus syndrome treated with single lead atrial or dual-chamber pacing: no association with pacing mode or right ventricular pacing site.

AIMS: Previous studies indicate that ventricular pacing may precipitate heart failure (HF). We investigated occurrence of HF during long-term follow-up among patients with sick sinus syndrome (SSS) randomized to AAIR or DDDR pacing. Furthermore, we investigated effects of percentage of ventricular pacing (%VP) and pacing site in the ventricle. METHODS AND RESULTS: We analysed data from 1415 patients randomized to AAIR (n = 707) or DDDR pacing (n = 708). Ventricular pacing leads were recorded as located in either an apical or a non-apical position. The %VP and HF hospitalizations were recorded during follow-up. Patients were classified with new HF, if in New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class IV or if presence of ≥2 of: oedema; dyspnoea; NYHA functional class III. Mean follow-up was 5.4 ± 2.4 years. Heart failure hospitalizations did not differ between groups. In the AAIR group, 170 of the 707 (26%) patients developed HF vs. 169 of the 708 (26%) patients in the DDDR group, hazard rate ratio (HR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79-1.22, P = 0.87. In DDDR patients, 146 of the 512 patients (29%) with ventricular leads in an apical position developed HF vs. 28 of the 161 patients (17%) with the leads in a non-apical position, HR 0.67, CI 0.45-1.00, P = 0.05. After adjustments this difference was non-significant. The incidence of HF was not associated with %VP (P = 0.57). CONCLUSION: In patients with SSS, HF was not associated with pacing mode, %VP, or ventricular lead localization. This suggests that DDDR pacing is safe in patients with SSS without precipitating HF.

Atrial fibrillation in patients with sick sinus syndrome: the association with PQ-interval and percentage of ventricular pacing.

AIMS: In the recently published DANPACE trial, incidence of atrial fibrillation (AF) was significantly higher with single-lead atrial (AAIR) pacing than with dual-chamber (DDDR) pacing. The present analysis aimed to evaluate the importance of baseline PQ-interval and percentage of ventricular pacing (VP) on AF. METHODS AND RESULTS: We analysed data on AF during follow-up in 1415 patients included in the DANPACE trial. In a subgroup of 650 patients with DDDR pacemaker, we studied whether %VP, baseline PQ-interval, and programmed atrio-ventricular interval (AVI) was associated with AF burden measured as time in mode-switch (MS) detected by the pacemaker. In the entire DANPACE study population, the incidence of AF was significantly higher in patients with baseline PQ-interval >180 ms (P< 0.001). Among 650 patients with DDDR pacemaker, telemetry data were available for 1.337 ± 786 days, %VP was 66 ± 33%, AF was detected at planned follow-up in 160 patients (24.6%), MS occurred in 422 patients (64.9%), and AF burden was marginally higher with baseline PQ-interval >180 ms (P= 0.028). No significant association was detected between %VP and %MS (Spearman's ρ 0.056, P= 0.154). %MS was not different between minimal-paced programmed AVI ≤ 100 and >100 ms (median value), respectively (P= 0.60). CONCLUSIONS: The present study indicates that a longer baseline PQ-interval is associated with an increased risk of AF in patients with sick sinus syndrome. Atrial fibrillation burden is not associated with the percentage of VP or the length of the programmed AVI.

Are elderly patients at increased risk of complications following pacemaker implantation? A meta-analysis of randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: Patients over the age of 75 represent more than half the recipients of permanent pacemakers. It is not known if they have a different risk of complications than younger patients. METHODS: Patient-level data were pooled from the CTOPP, UKPACE, and Danish pacing trials. These three randomized trials of pacing mode systematically captured early and late complications following pacemaker insertion. Early postimplant complications included lead dislodgement or loss of capture, cardiac perforation, pneumothorax, hematoma, infection, and death. Lead fracture was considered a late complication. RESULTS: A total of 4,814 patients were included in this analysis, with an average follow-up of 5.1 years. The average age was 76 years and 43% were female. Any early complication occurred in 5.1% of patients ≥75 years of age compared to 3.4% of patients aged <75 years (P = 0.006). This was driven by an increased risk of pneumothorax (1.6% vs 0.8%, P = 0.07) and both atrial and ventricular lead dislodgement/loss of capture (2.0% vs 1.1%, P = 0.07). Early complications were higher in patients receiving atrial-based pacemakers in both age groups (<75 years: 4.6% vs 2.4%; ≥75 years: 6.6% vs 3.7%); however, the relative risk was not influenced by age group. Older patients had a lower risk of lead fracture (3.6% vs 2.7%, P = 0.08). CONCLUSION: Elderly patients (≥75 years of age) are at increased risk of early postimplant complications but are at lower risk for lead fracture.

A comparison of single-lead atrial pacing with dual-chamber pacing in sick sinus syndrome.

AIMS: In patients with sick sinus syndrome, bradycardia can be treated with a single-lead pacemaker or a dual-chamber pacemaker. Previous trials have revealed that pacing modes preserving atrio-ventricular synchrony are superior to single-lead ventricular pacing, but it remains unclear if there is any difference between single-lead atrial pacing (AAIR) and dual-chamber pacing (DDDR). METHODS AND RESULTS: We randomly assigned 1415 patients referred for first pacemaker implantation to AAIR (n = 707) or DDDR (n = 708) pacing and followed them for a mean of 5.4 ± 2.6 years. The primary outcome was death from any cause. Secondary outcomes included paroxysmal and chronic atrial fibrillation, stroke, heart failure, and need for pacemaker reoperation. In the AAIR group, 209 patients (29.6%) died during follow-up vs. 193 patients (27.3%) in the DDDR group, hazard ratio (HR) 1.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88-1.29, P = 0.53. Paroxysmal atrial fibrillation was observed in 201 patients (28.4%) in the AAIR group vs. 163 patients (23.0%) in the DDDR group, HR 1.27, 95% CI 1.03-1.56, P = 0.024. A total of 240 patients underwent one or more pacemaker reoperations during follow-up, 156 (22.1%) in the AAIR group vs. 84 (11.9%) in the DDDR group (HR 1.99, 95% CI 1.53-2.59, P < 0.001). The incidence of chronic atrial fibrillation, stroke, and heart failure did not differ between treatment groups. CONCLUSION: In patients with sick sinus syndrome, there is no statistically significant difference in death from any cause between AAIR pacing and DDDR pacing. AAIR pacing is associated with a higher incidence of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation and a two-fold increased risk of pacemaker reoperation. These findings support the routine use of DDDR pacing in these patients. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00236158.

Home use of automated external defibrillators for sudden cardiac arrest.

BACKGROUND: The most common location of out-of-hospital sudden cardiac arrest is the home, a situation in which emergency medical services are challenged to provide timely care. Consequently, home use of an automated external defibrillator (AED) might offer an opportunity to improve survival for patients at risk. METHODS: We randomly assigned 7001 patients with previous anterior-wall myocardial infarction who were not candidates for an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator to receive one of two responses to sudden cardiac arrest occurring at home: either the control response (calling emergency medical services and performing cardiopulmonary resuscitation [CPR]) or the use of an AED, followed by calling emergency medical services and performing CPR. The primary outcome was death from any cause. RESULTS: The median age of the patients was 62 years; 17% were women. The median follow-up was 37.3 months. Overall, 450 patients died: 228 of 3506 patients (6.5%) in the control group and 222 of 3495 patients (6.4%) in the AED group (hazard ratio, 0.97; 95% confidence interval, 0.81 to 1.17; P=0.77). Mortality did not differ significantly in major prespecified subgroups. Only 160 deaths (35.6%) were considered to be from sudden cardiac arrest from tachyarrhythmia. Of these deaths, 117 occurred at home; 58 at-home events were witnessed. AEDs were used in 32 patients. Of these patients, 14 received an appropriate shock, and 4 survived to hospital discharge. There were no documented inappropriate shocks. CONCLUSIONS: For survivors of anterior-wall myocardial infarction who were not candidates for implantation of a cardioverter-defibrillator, access to a home AED did not significantly improve overall survival, as compared with reliance on conventional resuscitation methods. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00047411 [ClinicalTrials.gov].).

Follow-up care after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: A pilot study of survivors and families' experiences and recommendations.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Cognitive and physical difficulties are common in survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA); both survivors and close family members are also at risk of developing mood disorders. In the UK, dedicated follow-up pathways for OHCA survivors and their family are lacking. A cohort of survivors and family members were surveyed regarding their experience of post-discharge care and their recommended improvements. METHOD: 123 OHCA survivors and 39 family members completed questionnaires during an educational event or later online. Questions addressed both the actual follow-up offered and the perceived requirements for optimal follow-up from the patient and family perspective, including consideration of timing, professionals involved, involvement of family members and areas they felt should be covered. RESULTS: Outpatient follow-up was commonly arranged after OHCA (77%). This was most often conducted by a cardiologist alone (80%) but survivors suggested that other professionals should also be involved (e.g. psychologist/counsellor, 64%). Topics recommended for consideration included cardiac arrest-related issues (heart disease; cause of arrest) mental fatigue/sleep disturbance, cognitive problems, emotional problems and daily activities. Most survivors advocated an early review (<1month; 61%). Most family members reported some psychological difficulties (95%); many of them (95%) advocated a dedicated follow-up appointment for family members of survivors. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of OHCA survivors advocated an early follow-up following hospital discharge and a holistic, multidimensional assessment of arrest sequelae. These results suggest that current OHCA follow-up often fails to address patient-centred issues and to provide access to professionals deemed important by survivors and family members.

Quality of life effects of automatic external defibrillators in the home: results from the Home Automatic External Defibrillator Trial (HAT).

BACKGROUND: Public access automatic external defibrillators (AEDs) can save lives, but most deaths from out-of-hospital sudden cardiac arrest occur at home. The Home Automatic External Defibrillator Trial (HAT) found no survival advantage for adding a home AED to cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) training for 7,001 patients with a prior anterior wall myocardial infarction. Quality of life (QOL) outcomes for both the patient and spouse/companion were secondary end points. METHODS: A subset of 1,007 study patients and their spouse/companions was randomly selected for ascertainment of QOL by structured interview at baseline and 12 and 24 months after enrollment. The primary QOL measures were the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form psychological well-being (reflecting anxiety and depression) and vitality (reflecting energy and fatigue) subscales. RESULTS: For patients and spouse/companions, the psychological well-being and vitality scales did not differ significantly between those randomly assigned an AED plus CPR training and controls who received CPR training only. None of the other QOL measures collected showed a clinically and statistically significant difference between treatment groups. Patients in the AED group were more likely to report being extremely or quite a bit reassured by their treatment assignment. Spouse/companions in the AED group reported being less often nervous about the possibility of using AED/CPR treatment than those in the CPR group. CONCLUSIONS: Adding access to a home AED to CPR training did not affect QOL either for patients with a prior anterior myocardial infarction or their spouse/companion but did provide more reassurance to the patients without increasing anxiety for spouse/companions.

Care After REsuscitation: Implementation of the United Kingdom's First Dedicated Multidisciplinary Follow-Up Program for Survivors of Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest.

Survival rates after cardiac arrest (CA) are increasing, with more patients and their families living with the psychological consequences of surviving a sudden CA. The currently available neuropsychological assessment tools and therapies were not designed for CA, and may be inadequate. The Essex Cardiothoracic Centre set up the United Kingdom's first dedicated multidisciplinary "Care After REsuscitation" (CARE) service, offering CA survivors and their caregivers systematic psychological, cognitive, and specialized medical support for the first 6 months after CA. Twenty-one patients were recruited into the CARE pilot service evaluation. Patients' health at hospital discharge was poor; however, by 6 months all components (except general health) had improved significantly, and were close to that experienced by "healthy" individuals. Five (26%) required referral to a psychiatrist, with all 5 (26%) subsequently being diagnosed with moderate-to-severe depression, and 3 (16%) with comorbid post-traumatic stress disorder. Our study demonstrates a large unmet clinical need in general and neuropsychological assessment, and our results suggest that offering appropriate and prompt specialist diagnosis and therapies leads to an improvement in health at 6 months.

Effects of blood pressure and lipid lowering on cognition: Results from the HOPE-3 study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether long-term treatment with candesartan/hydrochlorothiazide, rosuvastatin, or their combination can slow cognitive decline in older people at intermediate cardiovascular risk. METHODS: The Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation-3 (HOPE-3) study was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial using a 2 × 2 factorial design. Participants without known cardiovascular disease or need for treatment were randomized to candesartan (16 mg) plus hydrochlorothiazide (12.5 mg) or placebo and to rosuvastatin (10 mg) or placebo. Participants who were ≥70 years of age completed the Digit Symbol Substitution Test (DSST), the modified Montreal Cognitive Assessment, and the Trail Making Test Part B at baseline and study end. RESULTS: Cognitive assessments were completed by 2,361 participants from 228 centers in 21 countries. Compared with placebo, candesartan/hydrochlorothiazide reduced systolic blood pressure by 6.0 mm Hg, and rosuvastatin reduced low-density lipoprotein cholesterol by 24.8 mg/dL. Participants were followed up for 5.7 years (median), and 1,626 completed both baseline and study-end assessments. Mean participant age was 74 years (SD ±3.5 years); 59% were women; 45% had hypertension; and 24% had ≥12 years of education. The mean difference in change in DSST scores was -0.91 (95% confidence interval [CI] -2.25 to 0.42) for candesartan/hydrochlorothiazide compared with placebo, -0.54 (95% CI -1.88 to 0.80) for rosuvastatin compared with placebo, and -1.43 (95% CI -3.37 to 0.50) for combination therapy vs double placebo. No significant differences were found for other measures. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term blood pressure lowering with candesartan plus hydrochlorothiazide, rosuvastatin, or their combination did not significantly affect cognitive decline in older people. CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER: NCT00468923. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class II evidence that for older people, candesartan plus hydrochlorothiazide, rosuvastatin, or their combination does not significantly affect cognitive decline.

Single-chamber versus dual-chamber pacing for high-grade atrioventricular block.

BACKGROUND: In the treatment of atrioventricular block, dual-chamber cardiac pacing is thought to confer a clinical benefit as compared with single-chamber ventricular pacing, but the supporting evidence is mainly from retrospective studies. Uncertainty persists regarding the true benefits of dual-chamber pacing, particularly in the elderly, in whom it is used less often than in younger patients. METHODS: In a multicenter, randomized, parallel-group trial, 2021 patients 70 years of age or older who were undergoing their first pacemaker implant for high-grade atrioventricular block were randomly assigned to receive a single-chamber ventricular pacemaker (1009 patients) or a dual-chamber pacemaker (1012 patients). In the single-chamber group, patients were randomly assigned to receive either fixed-rate pacing (504 patients) or rate-adaptive pacing (505 patients). The primary outcome was death from all causes. Secondary outcomes included atrial fibrillation, heart failure, and a composite of stroke, transient ischemic attack, or other thromboembolism. RESULTS: The median follow-up period was 4.6 years for mortality and 3 years for other cardiovascular events. The mean annual mortality rate was 7.2 percent in the single-chamber group and 7.4 percent in the dual-chamber group (hazard ratio, 0.96; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.83 to 1.11). We found no significant differences between the group with single-chamber pacing and that with dual-chamber pacing in the rates of atrial fibrillation, heart failure, or a composite of stroke, transient ischemic attack, or other thromboembolism. CONCLUSIONS: In elderly patients with high-grade atrioventricular block, the pacing mode does not influence the rate of death from all causes during the first five years or the incidence of cardiovascular events during the first three years after implantation of a pacemaker.

Rationale and design of the Home Automatic External Defibrillator Trial (HAT).

Most cardiac arrests occur in the home, where emergency medical services (EMS) systems are challenged to provide timely care. Because a large proportion of sudden cardiac arrests (SCAs) are due to ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation, home use of an automated external defibrillator (AED) might offer an opportunity to decrease mortality in those at risk. Predicting who will have a cardiac arrest in the general population is difficult. Individuals at high risk are usually easily identified and may become candidates for implantable cardioverter defibrillators. It is within the population at lower risk where home AEDs may be most useful. The purpose of the Home Automatic External Defibrillator Trial (HAT) is to test whether providing home access to an AED can improve survival in patients at modest risk of SCA, such as those surviving an anterior myocardial infarction but in whom implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy is not deemed necessary. Between January 23, 2003, and October 20, 2005, 7001 patients were enrolled, with completion of follow-up scheduled for September 30, 2007. Randomization was conducted in a 1:1 fashion between control therapy, comprising the standard lay response to SCA (calling the EMS and performing cardiopulmonary resuscitation), and the use of an AED first, followed by calling the EMS and performing cardiopulmonary resuscitation. The primary end point is all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes include survival from SCA (witnessed and unwitnessed, in home and out of home), incremental cost-effectiveness, and quality of life measures for both the patient and the spouse/companion. The results of the trial should be available in mid 2008.