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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Effects of Lipid-Lowering and Antihypertensive Treatments in Addition to Healthy Lifestyles in Primary Prevention: An Analysis of the HOPE-3 Trial.

BACKGROUND: It is not clear whether the effects of lipid-lowering or antihypertensive medications are influenced by adherence to healthy lifestyle factors. We assessed the effects of both drug interventions in subgroups by the number of healthy lifestyle factors in participants in the HOPE-3 (Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation) trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this primary prevention trial, 4 healthy lifestyle factors (nonsmoking status, physical activity, optimal body weight, and healthy diet) were recorded in 12 521 participants who were at intermediate risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and were randomized to rosuvastatin, candesartan/hydrochlorothiazide, their combination, or matched placebos. Median follow-up was 5.6 years. The outcome was a composite of CVD events. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using Cox regression models. Participants with ≥2 healthy lifestyle factors had a lower rate of CVD compared with those with fewer factors (HR: 0.85; 95% CI, 0.73-1.00). Rosuvastatin reduced CVD events in participants with ≥2 healthy lifestyle factors (HR: 0.74; 95% CI, 0.62-0.90) and in participants with <2 factors (HR: 0.79; 95% CI, 0.61-1.01). Consistent results were observed with combination therapy (≥2 factors: HR: 0.74; 95% CI, 0.57-0.97; <2 factors: HR: 0.61; 95% CI, 0.43-0.88). Candesartan/hydrochlorothiazide tends to reduce CVD only in participants with <2 healthy lifestyle factors (HR: 0.78; 95% CI, 0.61-1.00). CONCLUSIONS: Healthy lifestyles are associated with lower CVD. Rosuvastatin alone and combined with candesartan/hydrochlorothiazide is beneficial regardless of healthy lifestyle status; however, the benefit of antihypertensive treatment appears to be limited to patients with less healthy lifestyles. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00239681.

Relative Survival After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation: How Do Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Fare Relative to the General Population?

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is indicated for patients with aortic stenosis who are intermediate-high surgical risk. Although all-cause mortality rates after TAVI are established, survival attributable to the procedure is unclear because of competing causes of mortality. The aim was to report relative survival (RS) after TAVI, which accounts for background mortality risks in a matched general population. METHODS AND RESULTS: National cohort data (n=6420) from the 2007 to 2014 UK TAVI registry were matched by age, sex, and year to mortality rates for England and Wales (population, 57.9 million). The Ederer II method related observed patient survival to that expected from the matched general population. We modelled RS using a flexible parametric approach that modelled the log cumulative hazard using restricted cubic splines. RS of the TAVI cohort was 95.4%, 90.2%, and 83.8% at 30 days, 1 year, and 3 years, respectively. By 1-year follow-up, mortality hazards in the >85 years age group were not significantly different from those of the matched general population; by 3 years, survival rates were comparable. The flexible parametric RS model indicated that increasing age was associated with significantly lower excess hazards after the procedure; for example, by 2 years, a 5-year increase in age was associated with 20% lower excess mortality over the general population. CONCLUSIONS: RS after TAVI was high, and survival rates in those aged >85 years approximated those of a matched general population within 3 years. High rates of RS indicate that patients selected for TAVI tolerate the risks of the procedure well.

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.

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.).

Novel Approaches in Primary Cardiovascular Disease Prevention: The HOPE-3 Trial Rationale, Design, and Participants' Baseline Characteristics.

BACKGROUND: Cholesterol and blood pressure (BP) can be effectively and safely lowered with statin drugs and BP-lowering drugs, reducing major cardiovascular (CV) events by 20%-30% within 5 years in high-risk individuals. However, there are limited data in lower-risk populations. The Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation-3 (HOPE-3) trial is evaluating whether cholesterol lowering with a statin drug, BP lowering with low doses of 2 antihypertensive agents, and their combination safely reduce major CV events in individuals at intermediate risk who have had no previous vascular events and have average cholesterol and BP levels. METHODS: A total of 12,705 women 65 years or older and men 55 years or older with at least 1 CV risk factor, no known CV disease, and without any clear indication or contraindication to the study drugs were randomized to rosuvastatin 10 mg/d or placebo and to candesartan/hydrochlorothiazide 16/12.5 mg/d or placebo (2 × 2 factorial design) and will be followed for a mean of 5.8 years. The coprimary study outcomes are the composite of CV death, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), and nonfatal stroke and the composite of CV death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, resuscitated cardiac arrest, heart failure, and arterial revascularization. RESULTS: Participants were recruited from 21 countries in North America, South America, Europe, Asia, and Australia. Mean age at randomization was 66 years and 46% were women. CONCLUSIONS: The HOPE-3 trial will provide new information on cholesterol and BP lowering in intermediate-risk populations with average cholesterol and BP levels and is expected to inform approaches to primary prevention worldwide (HOPE-3 ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00468923).

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.