Renin-Angiotensin System Blockade and Risk of Heart Failure After Myocardial Infarction Based on Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

INTRODUCTION: The goal of this study was to determine the association between the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) and follow-up heart failure (HF) according to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). METHODS: This cohort study used a retrospective registry of 8169 consecutive patients discharged with a diagnosis of AMI from two university hospitals in Spain between 2010 and 2016. We used a multivariable competing risk analysis, survival-time inverse probability weighting (IPW) propensity score adjusting, and propensity score matching (PSM) to investigate the association between ACEI/ARB treatment and follow-up HF. RESULTS: During the follow-up (3.3 ± 2.2 years), 1296 patients were admitted for HF (5.2 per 100 person-years). ACEI/ARB use was not associated with fewer follow-up HF admissions in patients with LVEF > 40% (univariate analysis: sub-hazard ratio [sHR] 1.10; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.95-1.27; p = 0.197; IPW adjusting analysis: sHR 1.11; 95% CI 0.95-1.29; p = 0.192; PSM analysis: sHR 1.12; 95% CI 0.92-1.36; p = 0.248). However, ACEI/ARB use was associated with a significant reduction in HF admission rates in patients with LVEF ≤ 40% (univariate analysis: HR 0.70; 95% CI 0.56-0.88; p = 0.003; IPW adjusting analysis: HR 0.64; 95% CI 0.50-0.83; p = 0.001; PSM analysis: HR 0.65; 95% CI 0.46-0.92; p = 0.014). CONCLUSION: Among hospitalized survivors of AMI, the use of ACEIs/ARBs was associated with a lower risk of follow-up HF in patients with LVEF ≤ 40% but not in those with LVEF > 40%. Further prospective studies are needed to confirm our results.

Differential Prognostic Impact on Mortality of Myocardial Infarction Compared With Bleeding Severity in Contemporary Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: The impact on mortality of myocardial infarction (MI) compared with the specific degree of bleeding severity occurring after discharge in acute coronary syndrome is poorly characterized. Defining this relationship may help to achieve a favorable therapeutic risk-benefit balance. METHODS: Using Cox-based shared frailty models, we assessed the relationship between mortality and postdischarge MI and bleeding severity-graded according to Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC)-in 4229 acute coronary syndrome patients undergoing in-hospital coronary arteriography between January 2012 and December 2015. RESULTS: Both MI (HR, 5.8; 95%CI, 3.7-9.8) and bleeding (HR, 5.1; 95%CI, 3.6-7.7) were associated with mortality. Myocardial infarction had a stronger impact on mortality than BARC type 2 and 3a bleedings: (RRr, 3.8 and 1.9; P < .05), respectively, but was equivalent to BARC type 3b (RRr, 0.9; P = .88). Mortality risk after MI was significantly lower than after BARC type 3c bleeding (RRr, 0.25; P < .001). Mortality was higher after an MI in patients on dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) at the time of the event (HR, 2.9; 95%CI, 1.8-4.5) than in those off-DAPT (HR, 1.5; 95%CI, 0.7-3.4). In contrast, mortality was lower after a bleeding event in patients on-DAPT (HR, 1.6; 95%CI, 1.1-2.6) than in those off-DAPT (HR, 3.2; 95%CI, 1.7-5.8). CONCLUSIONS: The differential effect on mortality of a postdischarge MI vs bleeding largely depends on bleeding severity. The DAPT status at the time of MI or bleeding is a modifier of subsequent mortality risk.

Evaluation of the CRUSADE Risk Score for Predicting Major Bleeding in Patients with Concomitant Kidney Dysfunction and Acute Coronary Syndromes.

BACKGROUND: Kidney dysfunction (KD) has been associated with increased risk for major bleeding (MB) in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and may be in part related to an underuse of evidence-based therapies. Our aim was to assess the predictive ability of the Can Rapid risk stratification of Unstable angina patients Suppress ADverse outcomes with Early implementation of the ACC/AHA guidelines (CRUSADE) risk score in patients with concomitant ACS and chronic kidney disease. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of a prospective registry including 1,587 ACS patients. In-hospital MB was prospectively recorded according to the CRUSADE and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) criteria. KD was defined as an estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/1.73 m2. RESULTS: The predictive ability of the CRUSADE risk score was assessed by discrimination and calibration analyses. A total of 465 (29%) subjects had KD. In multivariate logistic regression analyses, we found high CRUSADE risk score values to be associated with a higher rate of in-hospital MB; however, among patients with KD, it was not associated with BARC MB. Regardless of the MB definition, the predictive ability of the CRUSADE score in patients with KD was lower: area under the curve (AUC) 0.71 versus 0.79, p = 0.03 for CRUSADE MB and AUC 0.65 versus 0.75, p = 0.02 for BARC MB. Hosmer-Lemeshow analyses showed a good calibration in all renal function subgroups for both MB definitions (all p values >0.3). CONCLUSIONS: The CRUSADE risk score shows a lower accuracy for predicting in-hospital MB in KD patients compared to those without KD.

Comparison between type-2 and type-1 myocardial infarction: clinical features, treatment strategies and outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the differences in incidence, clinical features, current treatment strategies and outcome in patients with type-2 vs. type-1 acute myocardial infarction (AMI). METHODS: We included 824 consecutive patients with a diagnosis of type-1 or type-2 AMI. During index hospitalization, clinical features and treatment strategies were collected in detail. At 1-year follow-up, mortality, stroke, non-fatal myocardial infarction and major bleeding were recorded. RESULTS: Type-1 AMI was present in 707 (86%) of the cases while 117 (14%) were classified as type-2. Patients with type-2 AMI were more frequently female and had higher co-morbidities such as diabetes, previous non-ST segment elevation acute coronary syndromes, impaired renal function, anaemia, atrial fibrillation and malignancy. However, preserved left ventricular ejection fraction and normal coronary arteries were more frequently seen, an invasive treatment was less common, and anti-platelet medications, statins and beta-blockers were less prescribed in patients with type-2 AMI. At 1-year follow-up, type-2 AMI was associated with a higher crude mortality risk (HR: 1.75, 95% CI: 1.14-2.68; P = 0.001), but this association did not remain significant after multivariable adjustment (P = 0.785). Furthermore, we did not find type-2 AMI to be associated with other clinical outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In this real-life population, compared with type-1, type-2 AMI were predominantly women and had more co-morbidities. Invasive treatment strategies and cardioprotective medications were less used in type-2, while the 1-year clinical outcomes were similar.

Comparison of the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events Risk Score Versus the Can Rapid Risk Stratification of Unstable Angina Patients Suppress Adverse outcomes With Early Implementation of the ACC/AHA Guidelines Risk Score to Predict In-Hospital Mortality and Major Bleeding in Acute Coronary Syndromes.

Risk assessment plays a major role in the management of acute coronary syndrome. The aim was to compare the performance of the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) and the Can Rapid risk stratification of Unstable angina patients Suppress Adverse outcomes with Early implementation of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Asociation guidelines (CRUSADE) risk scores to predict in-hospital mortality and major bleeding (MB) in 1,587 consecutive patients with acute coronary syndrome. In-hospital deaths and bleeding complications were prospectively collected. Bleeding complications were defined according to CRUSADE and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) criteria. During the hospitalization, 71 patients (4.5%) died, 37 patients (2.3%) had BARC MB and 34 patients (2.1%) had CRUSADE MB. Receiver operating characteristic curves analyses showed GRACE risk score has better discrimination capacity than CRUSADE risk score for both, mortality (0.86 vs 0.79; p = 0.018) and BARC MB (0.80 vs 0.73; p = 0.028), but similar for CRUSADE MB (0.79 vs 0.79; p = 0.921). Both scores had low discrimination for predicting MB in the elderly (>75 years) and patients with atrial fibrillation, whereas CRUSADE risk score was especially poor for predicting MB in patients with <60 ml/min/1.73 m(2) or those treated with new antiplatelets. Reclassification analyses showed GRACE risk score was associated with a significant improvement in the predictive accuracy of CRUSADE risk score for predicting mortality (net reclassification improvement: 22.5%; p <0.001) and MB (net reclassification improvement: 17.6%; p = 0.033) but not for CRUSADE MB. In conclusion, GRACE risk score has a better predictive performance for predicting both in-hospital mortality and BARC MB. In light of these findings, we propose the GRACE score as a single score to predict these in-hospital complications.