Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement for Asymptomatic Severe Aortic Stenosis.

BACKGROUND: For patients with asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction, current guidelines recommend routine clinical surveillance every 6 to 12 months. Data from randomized trials examining whether early intervention with transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) will improve outcomes in these patients are lacking. METHODS: At 75 centers in the United States and Canada, we randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, patients with asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis to undergo early TAVR with transfemoral placement of a balloon-expandable valve or clinical surveillance. The primary end point was a composite of death, stroke, or unplanned hospitalization for cardiovascular causes. Superiority testing was performed in the intention-to-treat population. RESULTS: A total of 901 patients underwent randomization; 455 patients were assigned to TAVR and 446 to clinical surveillance. The mean age of the patients was 75.8 years, the mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score was 1.8% (on a scale from 0 to 100%, with higher scores indicating a greater risk of death within 30 days after surgery), and 83.6% of patients were at low surgical risk. A primary end-point event occurred in 122 patients (26.8%) in the TAVR group and in 202 patients (45.3%) in the clinical surveillance group (hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% confidence interval, 0.40 to 0.63; P<0.001). Death occurred in 8.4% of the patients assigned to TAVR and in 9.2% of the patients assigned to clinical surveillance, stroke occurred in 4.2% and 6.7%, respectively, and unplanned hospitalization for cardiovascular causes occurred in 20.9% and 41.7%. During a median follow-up of 3.8 years, 87.0% of patients in the clinical surveillance group underwent aortic-valve replacement. There were no apparent differences in procedure-related adverse events between patients in the TAVR group and those in the clinical surveillance group who underwent aortic-valve replacement. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with asymptomatic severe aortic stenosis, a strategy of early TAVR was superior to clinical surveillance in reducing the incidence of death, stroke, or unplanned hospitalization for cardiovascular causes. (Funded by Edwards Lifesciences; EARLY TAVR ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03042104.).

Apolipoprotein A1 Infusions and Cardiovascular Outcomes after Acute Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular events frequently recur after acute myocardial infarction, and low cholesterol efflux - a process mediated by apolipoprotein A1, which is the main protein in high-density lipoprotein - has been associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events. CSL112 is human apolipoprotein A1 derived from plasma that increases cholesterol efflux capacity. Whether infusions of CSL112 can reduce the risk of recurrent cardiovascular events after acute myocardial infarction is unclear. METHODS: We conducted an international, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving patients with acute myocardial infarction, multivessel coronary artery disease, and additional cardiovascular risk factors. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either four weekly infusions of 6 g of CSL112 or matching placebo, with the first infusion administered within 5 days after the first medical contact for the acute myocardial infarction. The primary end point was a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, or death from cardiovascular causes from randomization through 90 days of follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 18,219 patients were included in the trial (9112 in the CSL112 group and 9107 in the placebo group). There was no significant difference between the groups in the risk of a primary end-point event at 90 days of follow-up (439 patients [4.8%] in the CSL112 group vs. 472 patients [5.2%] in the placebo group; hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81 to 1.05; P = 0.24), at 180 days of follow-up (622 patients [6.9%] vs. 683 patients [7.6%]; hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.01), or at 365 days of follow-up (885 patients [9.8%] vs. 944 patients [10.5%]; hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.02). The percentage of patients with adverse events was similar in the two groups; a higher number of hypersensitivity events was reported in the CSL112 group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with acute myocardial infarction, multivessel coronary artery disease, and additional cardiovascular risk factors, four weekly infusions of CSL112 did not result in a lower risk of myocardial infarction, stroke, or death from cardiovascular causes than placebo through 90 days. (Funded by CSL Behring; AEGIS-II ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03473223.).

Invasive Treatment Strategy for Older Patients with Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: Whether a conservative strategy of medical therapy alone or a strategy of medical therapy plus invasive treatment is more beneficial in older adults with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) remains unclear. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, multicenter, randomized trial involving patients 75 years of age or older with NSTEMI at 48 sites in the United Kingdom. The patients were assigned in a 1:1 ratio to a conservative strategy of the best available medical therapy or an invasive strategy of coronary angiography and revascularization plus the best available medical therapy. Patients who were frail or had a high burden of coexisting conditions were eligible. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes (cardiovascular death) or nonfatal myocardial infarction assessed in a time-to-event analysis. RESULTS: A total of 1518 patients underwent randomization; 753 patients were assigned to the invasive-strategy group and 765 to the conservative-strategy group. The mean age of the patients was 82 years, 45% were women, and 32% were frail. A primary-outcome event occurred in 193 patients (25.6%) in the invasive-strategy group and 201 patients (26.3%) in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.77 to 1.14; P = 0.53) over a median follow-up of 4.1 years. Cardiovascular death occurred in 15.8% of the patients in the invasive-strategy group and 14.2% of the patients in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.44). Nonfatal myocardial infarction occurred in 11.7% in the invasive-strategy group and 15.0% in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.99). Procedural complications occurred in less than 1% of the patients. CONCLUSIONS: In older adults with NSTEMI, an invasive strategy did not result in a significantly lower risk of cardiovascular death or nonfatal myocardial infarction (the composite primary outcome) than a conservative strategy over a median follow-up of 4.1 years. (Funded by the British Heart Foundation; BHF SENIOR-RITA ISRCTN Registry number, ISRCTN11343602.).

Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients at Five Years.

BACKGROUND: A previous analysis in this trial showed that among patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis who were at low surgical risk, the rate of the composite end point of death, stroke, or rehospitalization at 1 year was significantly lower with transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) than with surgical aortic-valve replacement. Longer-term outcomes are unknown. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis and low surgical risk to undergo either TAVR or surgery. The first primary end point was a composite of death, stroke, or rehospitalization related to the valve, the procedure, or heart failure. The second primary end point was a hierarchical composite that included death, disabling stroke, nondisabling stroke, and the number of rehospitalization days, analyzed with the use of a win ratio analysis. Clinical, echocardiographic, and health-status outcomes were assessed through 5 years. RESULTS: A total of 1000 patients underwent randomization: 503 patients were assigned to undergo TAVR, and 497 to undergo surgery. A component of the first primary end point occurred in 111 of 496 patients in the TAVR group and in 117 of 454 patients in the surgery group (Kaplan-Meier estimates, 22.8% in the TAVR group and 27.2% in the surgery group; difference, -4.3 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -9.9 to 1.3; P = 0.07). The win ratio for the second primary end point was 1.17 (95% CI, 0.90 to 1.51; P = 0.25). The Kaplan-Meier estimates for the components of the first primary end point were as follows: death, 10.0% in the TAVR group and 8.2% in the surgery group; stroke, 5.8% and 6.4%, respectively; and rehospitalization, 13.7% and 17.4%. The hemodynamic performance of the valve, assessed according to the mean (±SD) valve gradient, was 12.8±6.5 mm Hg in the TAVR group and 11.7±5.6 mm Hg in the surgery group. Bioprosthetic-valve failure occurred in 3.3% of the patients in the TAVR group and in 3.8% of those in the surgery group. CONCLUSIONS: Among low-risk patients with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis who underwent TAVR or surgery, there was no significant between-group difference in the two primary composite outcomes. (Funded by Edwards Lifesciences; PARTNER 3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02675114.).

Safety and Efficacy of Ticagrelor Monotherapy in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: An Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis of TWILIGHT and TICO Randomized Trials.

BACKGROUND: Dual antiplatelet therapy with a potent P2Y12 inhibitor coupled with aspirin for 1 year is the recommended treatment for patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). As an alternative, monotherapy with a P2Y12 inhibitor after a short period of dual antiplatelet therapy has emerged as a bleeding reduction strategy. METHODS: We pooled individual patient data from randomized trials that included patients with ACS undergoing PCI treated with an initial 3-month course of dual antiplatelet therapy followed by ticagrelor monotherapy versus continued ticagrelor plus aspirin. Patients sustaining a major ischemic or bleeding event in the first 3 months after PCI were excluded from analysis. The primary outcome was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 or 5 bleeding occurring between 3 and 12 months after index PCI. The key secondary end point was the composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. Hazard ratios and 95% CIs were generated using Cox regression with a one-stage approach in the intention-to-treat population. RESULTS: The pooled cohort (n=7529) had a mean age of 62.8 years, 23.2% were female, and 55% presented with biomarker-positive ACS. Between 3 and 12 months, ticagrelor monotherapy significantly reduced Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 3 or 5 bleeding compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin (0.8% versus 2.1%; hazard ratio, 0.37 [95% CI, 0.24-0.56]; P<0.001). Rates of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke were not significantly different between groups (2.4% versus 2.7%; hazard ratio, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.68-1.21]; P=0.515). Findings were unchanged among patients presenting with biomarker-positive ACS. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with ACS undergoing PCI who have completed a 3-month course of dual antiplatelet therapy, discontinuation of aspirin followed by ticagrelor monotherapy significantly reduced major bleeding without incremental ischemic risk compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero; Unique identifier: CRD42023449646.

Derivation and Validation of the PRECISE-HBR Score to Predict Bleeding After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

BACKGROUND: Accurate bleeding risk stratification after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is important for treatment individualization. However, there is still an unmet need for a more precise and standardized identification of high bleeding risk patients. We derived and validated a novel bleeding risk score by augmenting the PRECISE-DAPT score with the Academic Research Consortium for High Bleeding Risk (ARC-HBR) criteria. METHODS: The derivation cohort comprised 29,188 patients undergoing PCI, of whom 1136 (3.9%) had a Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 3 or 5 bleeding at 1 year, from four contemporary real-world registries and the XIENCE V USA trial. The PRECISE-DAPT score was refitted with a Fine-Gray model in the derivation cohort and extended with the ARC-HBR criteria. The primary outcome was BARC 3 or 5 bleeding within 1 year. Independent predictors of BARC 3 or 5 bleeding were selected at multivariable analysis (p<0.01). The discrimination of the score was internally assessed with apparent validation and cross-validation. The score was externally validated in 4578 patients from the MASTER DAPT trial and 5970 patients from the STOPDAPT-2 total cohort. RESULTS: The PRECISE-HBR score (age, estimated glomerular filtration rate, hemoglobin, white-blood-cell count, previous bleeding, oral anticoagulation, and ARC-HBR criteria) showed an area under the curve (AUC) for 1-year BARC 3 or 5 bleeding of 0.73 (95% CI, 0.71-0.74) at apparent validation, 0.72 (95% CI, 0.70-0.73) at cross-validation, 0.74 (95% CI, 0.68-0.80) in the MASTER DAPT, and 0.73 (95% CI, 0.66-0.79) in the STOPDAPT-2, with superior discrimination than the PRECISE-DAPT (cross-validation: Δ AUC, 0.01; p=0.02; MASTER DAPT: Δ AUC, 0.05; p=0.004; STOPDAPT-2: Δ AUC, 0.02; p=0.20) and other risk scores. In the derivation cohort, a cut-off of 23 points identified 11,414 patients (39.1%) with a 1-year BARC 3 or 5 bleeding risk ≥4%. An alternative version of the score, including acute myocardial infarction on admission instead of white-blood-cell count, showed similar predictive ability. CONCLUSIONS: The PRECISE-HBR score is a contemporary, simple 7-item risk score to predict bleeding after PCI, offering a moderate improvement in discrimination over multiple existing scores. Further evaluation is required to assess its impact on clinical practice.

Cerebral Embolic Protection during Transcatheter Aortic-Valve Replacement.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic-valve replacement (TAVR) for the treatment of aortic stenosis can lead to embolization of debris. Capture of debris by devices that provide cerebral embolic protection (CEP) may reduce the risk of stroke. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with aortic stenosis in a 1:1 ratio to undergo transfemoral TAVR with CEP (CEP group) or without CEP (control group). The primary end point was stroke within 72 hours after TAVR or before discharge (whichever came first) in the intention-to-treat population. Disabling stroke, death, transient ischemic attack, delirium, major or minor vascular complications at the CEP access site, and acute kidney injury were also assessed. A neurology professional examined all the patients at baseline and after TAVR. RESULTS: A total of 3000 patients across North America, Europe, and Australia underwent randomization; 1501 were assigned to the CEP group and 1499 to the control group. A CEP device was successfully deployed in 1406 of the 1489 patients (94.4%) in whom an attempt was made. The incidence of stroke within 72 hours after TAVR or before discharge did not differ significantly between the CEP group and the control group (2.3% vs. 2.9%; difference, -0.6 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, -1.7 to 0.5; P = 0.30). Disabling stroke occurred in 0.5% of the patients in the CEP group and in 1.3% of those in the control group. There were no substantial differences between the CEP group and the control group in the percentage of patients who died (0.5% vs. 0.3%); had a stroke, a transient ischemic attack, or delirium (3.1% vs. 3.7%); or had acute kidney injury (0.5% vs. 0.5%). One patient (0.1%) had a vascular complication at the CEP access site. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with aortic stenosis undergoing transfemoral TAVR, the use of CEP did not have a significant effect on the incidence of periprocedural stroke, but on the basis of the 95% confidence interval around this outcome, the results may not rule out a benefit of CEP during TAVR. (Funded by Boston Scientific; PROTECTED TAVR ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04149535.).

Polypill Strategy in Secondary Cardiovascular Prevention.

BACKGROUND: A polypill that includes key medications associated with improved outcomes (aspirin, angiotensin-converting-enzyme [ACE] inhibitor, and statin) has been proposed as a simple approach to the secondary prevention of cardiovascular death and complications after myocardial infarction. METHODS: In this phase 3, randomized, controlled clinical trial, we assigned patients with myocardial infarction within the previous 6 months to a polypill-based strategy or usual care. The polypill treatment consisted of aspirin (100 mg), ramipril (2.5, 5, or 10 mg), and atorvastatin (20 or 40 mg). The primary composite outcome was cardiovascular death, nonfatal type 1 myocardial infarction, nonfatal ischemic stroke, or urgent revascularization. The key secondary end point was a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal type 1 myocardial infarction, or nonfatal ischemic stroke. RESULTS: A total of 2499 patients underwent randomization and were followed for a median of 36 months. A primary-outcome event occurred in 118 of 1237 patients (9.5%) in the polypill group and in 156 of 1229 (12.7%) in the usual-care group (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60 to 0.96; P = 0.02). A key secondary-outcome event occurred in 101 patients (8.2%) in the polypill group and in 144 (11.7%) in the usual-care group (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.90; P = 0.005). The results were consistent across prespecified subgroups. Medication adherence as reported by the patients was higher in the polypill group than in the usual-care group. Adverse events were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with a polypill containing aspirin, ramipril, and atorvastatin within 6 months after myocardial infarction resulted in a significantly lower risk of major adverse cardiovascular events than usual care. (Funded by the European Union Horizon 2020; SECURE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02596126; EudraCT number, 2015-002868-17.).

The win ratio in cardiology trials: lessons learnt, new developments, and wise future use.

The win ratio method for analysing a composite clinical hierarchy of outcomes is growing in popularity especially in cardiovascular trials. This article gives a perspective on its use so far and the issues derived from that experience. Specifically, it focuses on the limitations of a conventional composite outcome; how does the win ratio work, what does it mean, and how to display its findings; guidance on choosing an appropriate clinical hierarchy of outcomes including clinical events, quantitative outcomes, and other options; the additional value of the win difference as a measure of absolute benefit: extension to stratified win ratio, subgroup analysis, matched win ratio, and covariate adjustment; determining trial size for a win ratio outcome; specific insights such as adaptive designs, use of repeat events, and use of margins and time averages for quantitative outcomes; a critique of potential misuses; availability of statistical software; and a statistical appendix on the methodological details. Throughout, each principle is illustrated by examples from specific cardiology trials. The article concludes with a set of recommendations for future use of the win ratio.

Invasive vs. conservative management of older patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome: individual patient data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Older patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTEACS) are less likely to receive guideline-recommended care including coronary angiography and revascularization. Evidence-based recommendations regarding interventional management strategies in this patient cohort are scarce. This meta-analysis aimed to assess the impact of routine invasive vs. conservative management of NSTEACS by using individual patient data (IPD) from all available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including older patients. METHODS: MEDLINE, Web of Science and Scopus were searched between 1 January 2010 and 11 September 2023. RCTs investigating routine invasive and conservative strategies in persons >70 years old with NSTEACS were included. Observational studies or trials involving populations outside the target range were excluded. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality and myocardial infarction (MI) at 1 year. One-stage IPD meta-analyses were adopted by use of random-effects and fixed-effect Cox models. This meta-analysis is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023379819). RESULTS: Six eligible studies were identified including 1479 participants. The primary endpoint occurred in 181 of 736 (24.5%) participants in the invasive management group compared with 215 of 743 (28.9%) participants in the conservative management group with a hazard ratio (HR) from random-effects model of 0.87 (95% CI 0.63-1.22; P = .43). The hazard for MI at 1 year was significantly lower in the invasive group compared with the conservative group (HR from random-effects model 0.62, 95% CI 0.44-0.87; P = .006). Similar results were seen for urgent revascularization (HR from random-effects model 0.41, 95% CI 0.18-0.95; P = .037). There was no significant difference in mortality. CONCLUSIONS: No evidence was found that routine invasive treatment for NSTEACS in older patients reduces the risk of a composite of all-cause mortality and MI within 1 year compared with conservative management. However, there is convincing evidence that invasive treatment significantly lowers the risk of repeat MI or urgent revascularisation. Further evidence is needed from ongoing larger clinical trials.

Apolipoprotein A-I Infusions and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Acute Myocardial Infarction According to Baseline LDL-Cholesterol Levels: The AEGIS-II Trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: In the AEGIS-II trial (NCT03473223), CSL112, a human apolipoprotein A1 derived from plasma that increases cholesterol efflux capacity, did not significantly reduce the risk of the primary endpoint through 90 days versus placebo after acute myocardial infarction (MI). Nevertheless, given the well-established relationship between higher low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and plaque burden, as well as greater risk reductions seen with PCSK9 inhibitors in patients with baseline LDL-C ≥100 mg/dL on statin therapy, the efficacy of CSL112 may be influenced by baseline LDL-C. METHODS: Overall, 18,219 patients with acute MI, multivessel coronary artery disease, and additional risk factors were randomized to either four weekly infusions of 6 g CSL112 or placebo. This exploratory post-hoc analysis evaluated cardiovascular outcomes by baseline LDL-C in patients prescribed guideline-directed statin therapy at the time of randomization (n=15,731). RESULTS: As baseline LDL-C increased, risk of the primary endpoint at 90 days lowered in those treated with CSL112 compared with placebo. In patients with LDL-C ≥100 mg/dL at randomization, there was a significant risk reduction of cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke in the CSL112 vs. placebo group at 90, 180, and 365 days (hazard ratio 0.69 [0.53-0.90], 0.71 [0.57-0.88], and 0.78 [0.65-0.93]). In contrast, there was no difference between treatment groups among those with LDL-C <100 mg/dL at baseline. CONCLUSIONS: In this population, treatment with CSL112 compared to placebo was associated with a significantly lower risk of recurrent cardiovascular events among patients with a baseline LDL-C ≥100 mg/dL. Further studies need to confirm that CSL112 efficacy is influenced by baseline LDL-C.

Blinded Withdrawal of Long-Term Randomized Treatment With Empagliflozin or Placebo in Patients With Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: It is not known whether the benefits of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors in heart failure persist after years of therapy. METHODS: In the EMPEROR-Reduced (Empagliflozin Outcome Trials in Chronic Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction) and EMPEROR-Preserved (Empagliflozin Outcome Trials in Chronic Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction) trials, patients with heart failure were randomly assigned (double-blind) to placebo or empagliflozin 10 mg/day for a median of 16 and 26 months, respectively. At the end of the trials, 6799 patients (placebo 3381, empagliflozin 3418) were prospectively withdrawn from treatment in a blinded manner, and, of these, 3981 patients (placebo 2020, empagliflozin 1961) underwent prespecified in-person assessments after ≈30 days off treatment. RESULTS: From 90 days from the start of closeout to the end of double-blind treatment, the annualized risk of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure was lower in empagliflozin-treated patients than in placebo-treated patients (10.7 [95% CI, 9.0-12.6] versus 13.5 [95% CI, 11.5-15.6] events per 100 patient-years, respectively; hazard ratio 0.76 [95% CI, 0.60-0.96]). When the study drugs were withdrawn for ≈30 days, the annualized risk of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure increased in patients withdrawn from empagliflozin but not in those withdrawn from placebo (17.0 [95% CI, 12.6-22.1] versus 14.1 [95% CI, 10.1-18.8] events per 100 patient-years for empagliflozin and placebo, respectively). The hazard ratio for the change in risk in the patients withdrawn from empagliflozin was 1.75 (95% CI, 1.20-2.54), P=0.0034, whereas the change in the risk in patients withdrawn from placebo was not significant (hazard ratio 1.12 [95% CI, 0.76-1.66]); time period-by-treatment interaction, P=0.068. After withdrawal, the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary Score declined by 1.6±0.4 in patients withdrawn from empagliflozin versus placebo (P<0.0001). Furthermore, withdrawal of empagliflozin was accompanied by increases in fasting glucose, body weight, systolic blood pressure, estimated glomerular filtration rate, N-terminal pro-hormone B-type natriuretic peptide, uric acid, and serum bicarbonate and decreases in hemoglobin and hematocrit (all P<0.01). These physiological and laboratory changes were the inverse of the effects of the drug seen at the start of the trials during the initiation of treatment (≈1-3 years earlier) in the same cohort of patients. CONCLUSIONS: These observations demonstrate a persistent effect of empagliflozin in patients with heart failure even after years of treatment, which dissipated rapidly after withdrawal of the drug. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifiers: NCT03057977 and NCT03057951.

Empagliflozin in Heart Failure with a Preserved Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors reduce the risk of hospitalization for heart failure in patients with heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction, but their effects in patients with heart failure and a preserved ejection fraction are uncertain. METHODS: In this double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 5988 patients with class II-IV heart failure and an ejection fraction of more than 40% to receive empagliflozin (10 mg once daily) or placebo, in addition to usual therapy. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure. RESULTS: Over a median of 26.2 months, a primary outcome event occurred in 415 of 2997 patients (13.8%) in the empagliflozin group and in 511 of 2991 patients (17.1%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69 to 0.90; P<0.001). This effect was mainly related to a lower risk of hospitalization for heart failure in the empagliflozin group. The effects of empagliflozin appeared consistent in patients with or without diabetes. The total number of hospitalizations for heart failure was lower in the empagliflozin group than in the placebo group (407 with empagliflozin and 541 with placebo; hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.88; P<0.001). Uncomplicated genital and urinary tract infections and hypotension were reported more frequently with empagliflozin. CONCLUSIONS: Empagliflozin reduced the combined risk of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure in patients with heart failure and a preserved ejection fraction, regardless of the presence or absence of diabetes. (Funded by Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly; EMPEROR-Preserved ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03057951).

Ticagrelor with or without aspirin following percutaneous coronary intervention in high-risk patients with concomitant peripheral artery disease: A subgroup analysis of the TWILIGHT randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The optimal antiplatelet regimen after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) is still debated. This analysis aimed to compare the effect of ticagrelor monotherapy versus ticagrelor plus aspirin in patients with PAD undergoing PCI. METHODS: In the TWILIGHT trial, patients at high ischemic or bleeding risk that underwent PCI were randomized after 3 months of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) to aspirin or matching placebo in addition to open-label ticagrelor for 12 additional months. In this post-hoc analysis, patient cohorts were examined according to the presence or absence of PAD. The primary endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 2, 3, or 5 bleeding. The key secondary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke. Endpoints were assessed at 12 months after randomization. RESULTS: Among 7,119 patients, 489 (7%) had PAD and were older, more likely to have comorbidities, and multivessel disease. PAD patients had more bleeding or ischemic complications than no-PAD patients. Ticagrelor monotherapy compared to ticagrelor plus aspirin was associated with less BARC 2, 3, or 5 bleeding in PAD (4.6% vs 8.7%; HR 0.52; 95%CI 0.25-1.07) and no-PAD patients (4.0% vs 7.0%; HR 0.56; 95%CI 0.45-0.69; interaction P-value .830) and a similar risk of death, MI, or stroke in these 2 groups (interaction P-value .446). CONCLUSIONS: Despite their higher ischemic and bleeding risk, patients with PAD undergoing PCI derived a consistent benefit from ticagrelor monotherapy after 3 months of DAPT in terms of bleeding reduction without any relevant increase in ischemic events. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY INFORMATION:: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov/study/NCT02270242.

Effect of empagliflozin on total myocardial infarction events by type and additional coronary outcomes: insights from the randomized EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial.

BACKGROUND: The effect of empagliflozin, a sodium-glucose-co-transporter-2 inhibitor, on risk for myocardial infarction has not been fully characterized. METHODS: This study comprised prespecified and post-hoc analyses of the EMPA-REG OUTCOME trial in which 7020 people with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and cardiovascular disease [mostly atherosclerotic (ASCVD)] were randomized to empagliflozin or placebo and followed for a median 3.1 years. We assessed the effect of empagliflozin on total (first plus recurrent) events of centrally adjudicated fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) using a negative binomial model with robust confidence intervals (CI) that preserves randomization and accounts for the within-patient correlation of multiple events. Post hoc, we analyzed types of MI: type 1 (related to plaque-rupture/thrombus), type 2 (myocardial supply-demand imbalance), type 3 (sudden-death related, i.e. fatal MI), type 4 (percutaneous coronary intervention-related), and type 5 (coronary artery bypass graft-related). MIs could be assigned to > 1 type. RESULTS: There were 421 total MIs (including recurrent); 299, 86, 26, 19, and 1 were classified as type 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 events, respectively. Overall, empagliflozin reduced the risk of total MI events by 21% [rate ratio for empagliflozin vs. placebo, 0.79 (95% CI, 0.620-0.998), P = 0.0486], largely driven by its effect on type 1 [rate ratio, 0.79 (95% CI, 0.61-1.04)] and type 2 MIs [rate ratio, 0.67 (95% CI, 0.41-1.10)]. CONCLUSIONS: In T2D patients with ASCVD, empagliflozin reduced the risk of MIs, with consistent effects across the two most common etiologies, i.e. type 1 and 2. TRAIL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov ; Unique identifier: NCT01131676.

Impact of empagliflozin on insulin needs in patients with heart failure and diabetes: An EMPEROR-Pooled analysis.

AIM: To assess the effect of empagliflozin on patients with comorbid heart failure (HF) and diabetes with or without baseline insulin, and to study the impact of empagliflozin on insulin requirements over time. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a post-hoc analysis of pooled patient-level data from two cardiovascular outcomes trials of empagliflozin in HF (EMPEROR-Reduced and EMPEROR-Preserved trials). We undertook a subgroup analysis stratified by baseline insulin use, including all patients with diabetes. The studied endpoints included the primary composite endpoint of first hospitalization for HF or cardiovascular death, rate of decline of estimated glomerular filtration rate, composite renal outcome and rates of sustained insulin initiation. RESULTS: Among 4794 patients with diabetes, 1333 (658 in empagliflozin, 675 in placebo) were using insulin at baseline. The treatment effect of empagliflozin on the primary endpoint was consistent irrespective of insulin use [no insulin, hazard ratio 0.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.63-0.86; using insulin, hazard ratio 0.81, 95% CI 0.66-1.00, pinteraction = .49], as was the effect on the rate of decline of the estimated glomerular filtration rate (pinteraction = .75). There was no effect of empagliflozin on the composite renal outcome in patients using or not using insulin (pinteraction = .30). Among patients not using insulin at baseline, those randomized to empagliflozin initiated insulin less frequently throughout the follow-up period compared with those receiving placebo (2.6% vs. 3.8%, odds ratio 0.66, 95% CI 0.50-0.88). CONCLUSIONS: Empagliflozin exerts a consistent benefit on cardiovascular outcomes and renal function decline, irrespective of baseline insulin use, and reduces the need for sustained insulin initiation in patients with HF and diabetes.

Empagliflozin, irrespective of blood pressure, improves outcomes in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: the EMPEROR-Preserved trial.

AIMS: Empagliflozin reduces the risk of cardiovascular death or heart failure (HF) hospitalization in patients with HF and preserved ejection fraction. This study aims to evaluate if systolic blood pressure (SBP) moderates these effects. METHODS AND RESULTS: The association of SBP and the treatment effects of empagliflozin in EMPEROR-Preserved (empagliflozin outcome trial in patients with chronic heart failure with preserved ejection fraction) was evaluated. Randomized patients (n 5988) were grouped according to SBP at baseline (110 mmHg, n 455; 110130 mmHg, n 2415; 130 mmHg, n 3118). The effect of empagliflozin on blood pressure, cardiovascular death or HF hospitalization (primary outcome), total HF hospitalizations, and rate of decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate was studied. Over a median of 26.2 months, the placebo-corrected decline was small and not significantly different across baseline SBP. On placebo, the risk of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for HF was 8.58 at 130 mmHg, 8.26 at 110130 mmHg, and 11.59 events per 100 patient-years at 110 mmHg (P 0.12 vs. 130 mmHg, P 0.08 vs. 110130 mmHg). There was no evidence for baseline SBP moderating the effect of empagliflozin on risk of HF events (primary endpoint interaction P 0.69, recurrent HF hospitalizations interaction P 0.55). When comparing empagliflozin with placebo, SBP did not meaningfully associate with adverse events such as hypotension, volume depletion, and acute renal failure. CONCLUSION: In EMPEROR-Preserved, empagliflozin was effective and safe without SBP meaningfully moderating empagliflozins treatment effects. This analysis of EMPEROR-Preserved shows that empagliflozin can be used safely and effectively without blood pressure being a meaningful moderator of the drug benefit. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov Unique identifier: NCT03057951.

Rapid, accurate publication and dissemination of clinical trial results: benefits and challenges.

Large-scale clinical trials are essential in cardiology and require rapid, accurate publication, and dissemination. Whereas conference presentations, press releases, and social media disseminate information quickly and often receive considerable coverage by mainstream and healthcare media, they lack detail, may emphasize selected data, and can be open to misinterpretation. Preprint servers speed access to research manuscripts while awaiting acceptance for publication by a journal, but these articles are not formally peer-reviewed and sometimes overstate the findings. Publication of trial results in a major journal is very demanding but the use of existing checklists can help accelerate the process. In case of rejection, procedures such as easing formatting requirements and possibly carrying over peer-review to other journals could speed resubmission. Secondary publications can help maximize benefits from clinical trials; publications of secondary endpoints and subgroup analyses further define treatment effects and the patient populations most likely to benefit. These rely on data access, and although data sharing is becoming more common, many challenges remain. Beyond publication in medical journals, there is a need for wider knowledge dissemination to maximize impact on clinical practice. This might be facilitated through plain language summary publications. Social media, websites, mainstream news outlets, and other publications, although not peer-reviewed, are important sources of medical information for both the public and for clinicians. This underscores the importance of ensuring that the information is understandable, accessible, balanced, and trustworthy. This report is based on discussions held on December 2021, at the 18th Global Cardiovascular Clinical Trialists meeting, involving a panel of editors of some of the top medical journals, as well as members of the lay press, industry, and clinical trialists.

Socioeconomic Deprivation: An Important, Largely Unrecognized Risk Factor in Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease.

BACKGROUND: Socioeconomic deprivation is associated with higher cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Whether deprivation status should be incorporated in more cardiovascular risk estimation scores remains unclear. This study evaluates how socioeconomic deprivation status affects the performance of 3 primary prevention cardiovascular risk scores. METHODS: The Generation Scotland Scottish Family Health Study was used to evaluate the performance of 3 cardiovascular risk scores with (ASSIGN [Assessing cardiovascular risk using SIGN (Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network) guidelines to ASSIGN preventive treatment]) and without (SCORE2 [Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation 2 algorithm], Pooled Cohort Equations) socioeconomic deprivation as a covariate in the risk prediction model. Deprivation was defined by Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation score. The predicted 10-year risk was evaluated against the observed event rate for the cardiovascular outcome of each risk score. The comparison was made across 3 groups defined by the deprivation index score consisting of group 1 defined as most deprived, group 3 defined as least deprived, and group 2, which consisted of individuals in the middle deprivation categories. RESULTS: The study population consisted of 15 506 individuals (60.0% female, median age of 51). Across the population, 1808 (12%) individuals were assigned to group 1 (most deprived), 8119 (52%) to group 2, and 4708 (30%) to group 3 (least deprived), and 871 (6%) individuals had a missing deprivation score. Risk scores based on models that did not include deprivation status significantly under predicted risk in the most deprived (6.43% observed versus 4.63% predicted for SCORE2 [P=0.001] and 6.69% observed versus 4.66% predicted for Pooled Cohort Equations [P<0.001]). Both risk scores also significantly overpredicted the risk in the least deprived group (3.97% observed versus 4.72% predicted for SCORE2 [P=0.007] and 4.22% observed versus 4.85% predicted for Pooled Cohort Equations [P=0.028]). In contrast, no significant difference was demonstrated in the observed versus predicted risk when using the ASSIGN risk score, which included socioeconomic deprivation status in the risk model. CONCLUSIONS: Socioeconomic status is a largely unrecognized risk factor in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Risk scores that exclude socioeconomic deprivation as a covariate under- and overestimate the risk in the most and least deprived individuals, respectively. This study highlights the importance of incorporating socioeconomic deprivation status in risk estimation systems to ultimately reduce inequalities in health care provision for cardiovascular disease.

Empagliflozin for Heart Failure With Preserved Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction With and Without Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Empagliflozin improves outcomes in patients with heart failure with a preserved ejection fraction, but whether the effects are consistent in patients with and without diabetes remains to be elucidated. METHODS: Patients with class II through IV heart failure and a left ventricular ejection fraction >40% were randomized to receive empagliflozin 10 mg or placebo in addition to usual therapy. We undertook a prespecified analysis comparing the effects of empagliflozin versus placebo in patients with and without diabetes. RESULTS: Of the 5988 patients enrolled, 2938 (49%) had diabetes. The risk of the primary outcome (first hospitalization for heart failure or cardiovascular death), total hospitalizations for heart failure, and estimated glomerular filtration rate decline was higher in patients with diabetes. Empagliflozin reduced the rate of the primary outcome irrespective of diabetes status (hazard ratio, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.67, 0.94] for patients with diabetes versus hazard ratio, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.64, 0.95] in patients without diabetes; Pinteraction=0.92). The effect of empagliflozin to reduce total hospitalizations for heart failure was also consistent in patients with and without diabetes. The effect of empagliflozin to attenuate estimated glomerular filtration rate decline during double-blind treatment was also present in patients with and without diabetes, although more pronounced in patients with diabetes (1.77 in diabetes versus 0.98 mL/min/1.73m2 in patients without diabetes; Pinteraction=0.01). Across these 3 end points, the effect of empagliflozin did not differ in patients with prediabetes or normoglycemia (33% and 18% of the patient population, respectively). When investigated as a continuous variable, baseline hemoglobin A1c did not modify the effects on the primary outcome (Pinteraction=0.26). There was no increased risk of hypoglycemic events in either subgroup as compared with placebo. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with heart failure and a preserved ejection fraction enrolled in the EMPEROR-Preserved (Empagliflozin Outcome Trial in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction), empagliflozin significantly reduced the risk of heart failure outcomes irrespective of diabetes status at baseline. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT03057951.