Improving clinical practice guidelines for practicing cardiologists.

Cardiac-related clinical practice guidelines have become an integral part of the practice of cardiology. Unfortunately, these guidelines are often long, complex, and difficult for practicing cardiologists to use. Guidelines should be condensed and their format upgraded, so that the key messages are easier to comprehend and can be applied more readily by those involved in patient care. After presenting the historical background and describing the guideline structure, we make several recommendations to make clinical practice guidelines more user-friendly for clinical cardiologists. Our most important recommendations are that the clinical cardiology guidelines should focus exclusively on (1) class I recommendations with established benefits that are supported by randomized clinical trials and (2) class III recommendations for diagnostic or therapeutic approaches in which quality studies show no benefit or possible harm. Class II recommendations are not evidence based but reflect expert opinions related to published clinical studies, with potential for personal bias by members of the guideline committee. Class II recommendations should be published separately as "Expert Consensus Statements" or "Task Force Committee Opinions," so that both majority and minority expert opinions can be presented in a less dogmatic form than the way these recommendations currently appear in clinical practice guidelines.

Cardiovascular adverse events associated with smoking-cessation pharmacotherapies.

Smoking continues to be the leading cause of preventable deaths in the USA, accounting for one in every five deaths every year, and cardiovascular (CV) disease remains the leading cause of those deaths. Hence, there is increasing awareness to quit smoking among the public and counseling plays an important role in smoking cessation. There are different pharmacological methods to help quit smoking that includes nicotine replacement products available over the counter, including patch, gum, and lozenges, to prescription medications, such as bupropion and varenicline. There have been reports of both nonserious and serious adverse CV events associated with the use of these different pharmacological methods, especially varenicline, which has been gaining media attention recently. Therefore, we systematically reviewed the various pharmacotherapies used in smoking cessation and analyzed the evidence behind these CV events reported with these therapeutic agents.

Role of oral factor Xa inhibitors after acute coronary syndrome.

Despite an early invasive strategy and the use of dual antiplatelet therapy, patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) continue to be at substantial risk for recurrent ischemic events. It is believed that this risk is, at least in part, due to an intrinsic coagulation pathway that remains activated for a prolonged period after ACS. Earlier studies using warfarin showed a reduction in ischemic events, but the overall benefits were offset by increased bleeding complications. Recently, there has been increased interest in the potential role of new oral anticoagulants, some of which target factor Xa, after ACS. Factor Xa is important for the coagulation pathway and also plays a role in cellular proliferation and inflammation. It may thus be an attractive target for therapeutic intervention in ACS. Recently, various oral factor Xa inhibitors have been studied as potential treatment options for ACS. This review will focus on currently available data to evaluate the possible role of factor Xa inhibitors in the management of patients with ACS.

Relationship of body mass index with total mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and myocardial infarction after coronary revascularization: evidence from a meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relationship of body mass index (BMI) with total mortality, cardiovascular (CV) mortality, and myocardial infarction (MI) after coronary revascularization procedures (coronary artery bypass grafting [CABG] and percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI]). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Systematic search of studies was conducted using PubMed, CINAHL, Cochran CENTRAL, Scopus, and the Web of Science databases. We identified studies reporting the rate of MI, CV mortality, and total mortality among coronary artery disease patients' postcoronary revascularization procedures in various BMI categories: less than 20 (underweight), 20-24.9 (normal reference), 25-29.9 (overweight), 30-34.9 (obese), and 35 or more (severely obese). Event rates were compared using a random effects model assuming interstudy heterogeneity. RESULTS: A total of 36 studies (12 CABG; 26 PCI) were selected for final analyses. The risk of total mortality (relative risk [RR], 2.59; 95% CI, 2.09-3.21), CV mortality (RR, 2.67; 95% CI, 1.63-4.39), and MI (RR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.28-2.50) was highest among patients with low BMI at the end of a mean follow-up period of 1.7 years. The risk of CV mortality was lowest among overweight patients (RR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.68-0.95). Increasing degree of adiposity as assessed by BMI had a neutral effect on the risk of MI for overweight (RR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.84-1.01), obese (RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.85-1.15), and severely obese (RR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.78-1.11) patients. CONCLUSION: After coronary artery disease revascularization procedures (PCI and CABG), the risk of total mortality, CV mortality, and MI was highest among underweight patients as defined by low BMI and CV mortality was lowest among overweight patients.

Comparable benefit of ß-blocker therapy in heart failure across regions of the world: meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: There is a concern about geographical region heterogeneity regarding clinical benefit of ß-blocker (BB) therapy in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). This study sought to compare benefits of BB use within randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that enrolled patients with HFrEF from North America (NA) compared with other regions of the world (ROW). METHODS: We conducted a meta-analysis using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Scopus (inceptions-December 2012) of BB RCTs stratified according to NA vs ROW. The primary end point was all-cause mortality and secondary end points were cardiovascular death, sudden death, death due to pump failure, and premature drug discontinuation. Summary odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each outcome were calculated with interaction terms for region. Two-sided P values were calculated with P < 0.05 considered significant. RESULTS: The analysis included 16 RCTs with 14,452 patients; 7 trials were conducted in NA and 9 trials in ROW with follow-up durations of 3-58 months. All-cause mortality was consistently reduced in NA (OR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71-0.96; P = 0.01) and ROW (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.69-0.84; P < 0.001; P-interaction = 0.40). Overall and according to region, all secondary end points including premature drug discontinuation were also less with BB therapy (P-interactions all ≥ 0.10). CONCLUSIONS: For the regions represented in the included trials, there is no evidence to suggest that geographic region is a significant moderator of clinical outcomes with BB therapy in HFrEF patients.

Risk of atrial fibrillation with use of oral and intravenous bisphosphonates.

Clinical studies suggest an association between bisphosphonate use and new-onset atrial fibrillation (AF). Intravenous bisphosphonates more potently increase the release of inflammatory cytokines than do oral bisphosphonates; thus, the risk of developing AF may be greater with intravenous preparations. We have evaluated incidence of new-onset AF with use of oral and intravenous bisphosphonates through a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. We searched PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, and EMBASE databases for observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published from 1966 to April 2013 that reported the number of patients developing AF with use of oral or intravenous bisphosphonates. The random-effects Mantel-Haenszel test was used to evaluate the relative risk of AF with use of oral and intravenous bisphosphonates. Nine studies (5 RCTs and 4 observational studies) were included in the final analysis. Pooled data from RCTs and observational studies (n = 135,347) showed a statistically significantly increased risk of new-onset AF with both intravenous (relative risk 1.40, 95% confidence interval 1.32 to 1.49) and oral (relative risk 1.22, 95% confidence interval 1.14 to 1.31) bisphosphonates. The z statistic, which assesses the difference between the 2 risk ratios, indicated higher risk of AF with intravenous bisphosphonates versus oral bisphosphonates (p = 0.03). In conclusion, pooled data from RCTs and observational studies suggest that risk of AF is increased by use of oral or intravenous bisphosphonates but further suggest that risk is relatively greater with intravenous preparations.

Prognosis and response to therapy of first inpatient and outpatient heart failure event in a heart failure clinical trial: MADIT-CRT.

AIMS: Hospitalization for worsening heart failure (HF) is known to increase mortality and morbidity risk and has been frequently used as an endpoint in randomized clinical trials. Whether outpatient management of HF exacerbation carries similar prognostic and therapeutic information is less well known, but could be important for the design of trials that use HF hospitalization as an endpoint. METHODS AND RESULTS: MADIT-CRT randomized patients with mild HF symptoms to resynchronization therapy vs. control with an average follow-up of 3.3 years and a total of 191 deaths. HF events were centrally adjudicated for receiving i.v. decongestive therapy in an outpatient setting, or an augmented HF regimen during a hospital stay. Patients were compared according to whether their first HF was an out- or inpatient event. The first primary event was non-fatal outpatient HF, non-fatal inpatient HF, and death in 52, 331, and 78 patients, respectively. Patients with inpatient HF tended to be older and more likely to have HF of ischaemic aetiology than subjects who developed outpatient HF events. The risk of death following either type of non-fatal HF events was extremely high [hazard ratio (HR) 12.4, 95% confidence interval (CI) 9.1-16.9 for inpatient HF; HR 10.7, 95% CI 6.1-18.7 for outpatient HF] compared with subjects without non-fatal HF events. Allocation to CRT-D was associated with significant reduction in both types of HF. CONCLUSION: Outpatient management of worsening HF portends a high risk of death, similar to inpatient HF events, and may be equally sensitive to the effects of therapy. These findings suggest that outpatient HF events should be considered in publicly reported outcomes measures and future HF clinical trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01294449.

Meta-analysis of global left ventricular function comparing multidetector computed tomography with cardiac magnetic resonance imaging.

We compare the diagnostic accuracy of multidetector row computed tomography (MDCT) to cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) for evaluating global left ventricular function. We systematically searched PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL, Scopus, and the Web of Science databases for studies published between 1966 to January 2013 that compared left ventricle (LV) volumes, ejection fraction (EF) and LV mass measured by MDCT and CMR. We performed meta-analyses and used random-effects model with inverse variance weighting test to determine the overall bias and limits of agreement of LV end-diastolic volume, end-systolic volume, stroke volume, and EF measured by MDCT and CMR. Furthermore, subgroup analyses were performed to compare 16-slice and 64-slice MDCT with CMR. Two study authors independently reviewed the 90 articles originally identified and selected 27 studies (n = 831) for analysis. Excellent correlation and a linear relation were seen between MDCT and CMR for LV end-diastolic volume (r = 0.93; p <0.001), LV end-systolic volume (r = 0.95; p <0.001), LV stroke volume (r = 0.85; p <0.001), LV ejection fraction (r = 0.93; p <0.001), and LV mass (r = 0.86; p <0.001). Subgroup analyses showed strong positive correlations for both 16- and 64-slice MDCT. In conclusion, although not the first-line test for LV function assessment in most patients, when appropriate, retrospectively gated MDCT provides an accurate and valid assessment of LV function compared with CMR.

New oral anticoagulants are not superior to warfarin in secondary prevention of stroke or transient ischemic attacks, but lower the risk of intracranial bleeding: insights from a meta-analysis and indirect treatment comparisons.

PURPOSE: Patients with Atrial Fibrillation (AF) and prior stroke are classified as high risk in all risk stratification schemes. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to compare the efficacy and safety of New Oral Anticoagulants (NOACs) to warfarin in patients with AF and previous stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA). METHODS: Three randomized controlled trials (RCTs), including total 14527 patients, comparing NOACs (apixaban, dabigatran and rivaroxaban) with warfarin were included in the analysis. Primary efficacy endpoint was ischemic stroke, and primary safety endpoint was intracranial bleeding. Random-effects models were used to pool efficacy and safety data across RCTs. RevMan and Stata software were used for direct and indirect comparisons, respectively. RESULTS: In patients with AF and previous stroke or TIA, effects of NOACs were not statistically different from that of warfarin, in reduction of stroke (Odds Ratio [OR] 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.73- 1.01), disabling and fatal stroke (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.71-1.04), and all-cause mortality (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.79 -1.02). Randomization to NOACs was associated with a significantly lower risk of intracranial bleeding (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.25-0.70). There were no major differences in efficacy between apixaban, dabigatran (110 mg BID and 150 mg BID) and rivaroxaban. Major bleeding was significantly lower with apixaban and dabigatran (110 mg BID) compared with dabigatran (150 mg BID) and rivaroxaban. CONCLUSION: NOACs may not be more effective than warfarin in the secondary prevention of ischemic stroke in patients with a prior history of cerebrovascular ischemia, but have a lower risk of intracranial bleeding.

Rivaroxaban and risk of myocardial infarction: insights from a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the risk of myocardial infarction (MI) associated with the use of rivaroxaban. METHODS: We searched PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL, Scopus, and the Web of Science for randomized controlled trials of rivaroxaban that reported on MI as clinical outcomes. We express the associations as odds ratios and their 95% confidence intervals. A trial sequential analysis was carried out to ensure validity of our findings. RESULTS: Nine trials were selected (N=53 827), including one study on stroke prophylaxis in atrial fibrillation, two in acute coronary syndrome, four of short-term prophylaxis of deep venous thrombosis, and two for treatment of deep venous thrombosis/pulmonary embolism. Control arms included warfarin, enoxaparin, or placebo administration. Rivaroxaban was associated with a significantly lower risk of MI compared with the agents used in the control group (odds ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-0.94; P=0.004). No heterogeneity was noted in the risk (I=0%; P=0.55); trial sequential analysis reinforced the validity of our findings. CONCLUSION: Rivaroxaban is associated with a significantly lower risk of MI in a broad spectrum of patients when tested against different controls.

Risk of serious atrial fibrillation and stroke with use of bisphosphonates: evidence from a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Clinical studies have suggested an association between bisphosphonate use and the onset of atrial fibrillation (AF). However, data on the risk of developing AF, stroke, and cardiovascular mortality with the use of bisphosphonate are conflicting. The objective of this study was to evaluate the risk of serious AF (events that required hospital admission), stroke, and cardiovascular mortality with the use of bisphosphonates through a systematic review of the literature. METHODS: We searched the PubMed, CENTRAL, and EMBASE databases for observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the use of bisphosphonates from 1966 to April 2012 that reported the number of patients who developed serious AF, stroke, and cardiovascular mortality at follow-up. The random-effects Mantel-Haenszel test was used to evaluate relative risk-adverse cardiovascular outcomes with the use of bisphosphonates. RESULTS: Six observational studies (n = 149,856) and six RCTs (n = 41,375) were included for analysis. On pooling observational studies, there was an increased risk of AF (OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.16-1.39) among bisphosphonate users. Further, analysis of RCTs revealed a statistically significant increase in the risk of serious AF (OR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.02-1.93) and no increase in the risk of stroke (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.85-1.34) or cardiovascular mortality (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.68-1.26) with the use of bisphosphonates. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from RCTs and observational studies suggests a significantly increased risk of AF requiring hospitalization, but no increase in risk of stroke or cardiovascular mortality, with the use of bisphosphonate.

Timing and route of amiodarone for prevention of postoperative atrial fibrillation after cardiac surgery: a network regression meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: We attempted to evaluate if an oral-only regimen was as effective in preventing postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) after cardiac surgery, in comparison to a regimen that included intravenous (IV) administration using a network meta-analysis of available data, and also attempted to assess if preoperative administration at least 1 day before surgery was superior to postoperative prophylaxis (at least 1 day after surgery). METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials' databases for randomized controlled trials conducted between 1990 and 2011 that assessed rates of POAF with amiodarone. Finally an interaction odds ratio was computed to assess the efficacy of an oral-only regimen of amiodarone compared to one including IV administration and to evaluate if preoperative amiodarone was superior to postoperative prophylaxis. RESULTS: Twenty-three studies (total N = 3,950) were included. Both regimens of amiodarone improved risk of POAF; oral-only risk ratio (RR) was 0.59 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.49-0.70; P < 0.01) and regimen including IV RR was 0.57 (95% CI 0.43-0.75, P < 0.01). The interaction odds ratio was 1.17 (95% CI 0.72-1.89, P = 0.533). Both preoperative amiodarone (P < 0.01) and postoperative prophylaxis were effective (P = 0.0009), irrespective of duration. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review suggests a regimen of both oral-only and one including IV administration, as well pre- and postoperative administration of amiodarone is effective in prevention of POAF after cardiac surgery.

Senior academic physicians and retirement considerations.

An increasing number of academic senior physicians are approaching their potential retirement in good health with accumulated clinical and research experience that can be a valuable asset to an academic institution. Considering the need to let the next generation ascend to leadership roles, when and how should a medical career be brought to a close? We explore the roles for academic medical faculty as they move into their senior years and approach various retirement options. The individual and institutional considerations require a frank dialogue among the interested parties to optimize the benefits while minimizing the risks for both. In the United States there is no fixed age for retirement as there is in Europe, but European physicians are initiating changes. What is certain is that careful planning, innovative thinking, and the incorporation of new patterns of medical practice are all part of this complex transition and timing of senior academic physicians into retirement.

Benefits of ß blockers in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction: network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To clarify whether any particular ß blocker is superior in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction or whether the benefits of these agents are mainly due to a class effect. DESIGN: Systematic review and network meta-analysis of efficacy of different ß blockers in heart failure. DATA SOURCES: CINAHL(1982-2011), Cochrane Collaboration Central Register of Controlled Trials (-2011), Embase (1980-2011), Medline/PubMed (1966-2011), and Web of Science (1965-2011). STUDY SELECTION: Randomized trials comparing ß blockers with other ß blockers or other treatments. DATA EXTRACTION: The primary endpoint was all cause death at the longest available follow-up, assessed with odds ratios and Bayesian random effect 95% credible intervals, with independent extraction by observers. RESULTS: 21 trials were included, focusing on atenolol, bisoprolol, bucindolol, carvedilol, metoprolol, and nebivolol. As expected, in the overall analysis, ß blockers provided credible mortality benefits in comparison with placebo or standard treatment after a median of 12 months (odds ratio 0.69, 0.56 to 0.80). However, no obvious differences were found when comparing the different ß blockers head to head for the risk of death, sudden cardiac death, death due to pump failure, or drug discontinuation. Accordingly, improvements in left ventricular ejection fraction were also similar irrespective of the individual study drug. CONCLUSION: The benefits of ß blockers in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction seem to be mainly due to a class effect, as no statistical evidence from current trials supports the superiority of any single agent over the others.

Association of blood transfusion with increased mortality in myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis and diversity-adjusted study sequential analysis.

BACKGROUND: The benefit of blood transfusion in patients with myocardial infarction is controversial, and a possibility of harm exists. METHODS: A systematic search of studies published between January 1, 1966, and March 31, 2012, was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases. English-language studies comparing blood transfusion with no blood transfusion or a liberal vs restricted blood transfusion strategy were identified. Two study authors independently reviewed 729 originally identified titles and abstracts and selected 10 for analysis. Study title, follow-up period, blood transfusion strategy, and mortality outcomes were extracted manually from all selected studies, and the quality of each study was assessed using the strengthening Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology checklist. RESULTS: Studies of blood transfusion strategy in anemia associated with myocardial infarction were abstracted, as well as all-cause mortality rates at the longest available follow-up periods for the individual studies. Pooled effect estimates were calculated with random-effects models. Analyses of blood transfusion in myocardial infarction revealed increased all-cause mortality associated with a strategy of blood transfusion vs no blood transfusion during myocardial infarction (18.2% vs 10.2%) (risk ratio, 2.91; 95% CI, 2.46-3.44; P < .001), with a weighted absolute risk increase of 12% and a number needed to harm of 8 (95% CI, 6-17). Multivariate meta-regression revealed that blood transfusion was associated with a higher risk for mortality independent of baseline hemoglobin level, nadir hemoglobin level, and change in hemoglobin level during the hospital stay. Blood transfusion was also significantly associated with a higher risk for subsequent myocardial infarction (risk ratio, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.06-3.93; P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: Blood transfusion or a liberal blood transfusion strategy compared with no blood transfusion or a restricted blood transfusion strategy is associated with higher all-cause mortality rates. A practice of routine or liberal blood transfusion in myocardial infarction should not be encouraged but requires investigation in a large trial with low risk for bias.