Empagliflozin after Acute Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: Empagliflozin improves cardiovascular outcomes in patients with heart failure, patients with type 2 diabetes who are at high cardiovascular risk, and patients with chronic kidney disease. The safety and efficacy of empagliflozin in patients who have had acute myocardial infarction are unknown. METHODS: In this event-driven, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, we assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, patients who had been hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction and were at risk for heart failure to receive empagliflozin at a dose of 10 mg daily or placebo in addition to standard care within 14 days after admission. The primary end point was a composite of hospitalization for heart failure or death from any cause as assessed in a time-to-first-event analysis. RESULTS: A total of 3260 patients were assigned to receive empagliflozin and 3262 to receive placebo. During a median follow-up of 17.9 months, a first hospitalization for heart failure or death from any cause occurred in 267 patients (8.2%) in the empagliflozin group and in 298 patients (9.1%) in the placebo group, with incidence rates of 5.9 and 6.6 events, respectively, per 100 patient-years (hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76 to 1.06; P = 0.21). With respect to the individual components of the primary end point, a first hospitalization for heart failure occurred in 118 patients (3.6%) in the empagliflozin group and in 153 patients (4.7%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.98), and death from any cause occurred in 169 (5.2%) and 178 (5.5%), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.19). Adverse events were consistent with the known safety profile of empagliflozin and were similar in the two trial groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients at increased risk for heart failure after acute myocardial infarction, treatment with empagliflozin did not lead to a significantly lower risk of a first hospitalization for heart failure or death from any cause than placebo. (Funded by Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly; EMPACT-MI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04509674.).

2024 ACC/AHA/AACVPR/APMA/ABC/SCAI/SVM/SVN/SVS/SIR/VESS Guideline for the Management of Lower Extremity Peripheral Artery Disease: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: The "2024 ACC/AHA/AACVPR/APMA/ABC/SCAI/SVM/SVN/SVS/SIR/VESS Guideline for the Management of Lower Extremity Peripheral Artery Disease" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with lower extremity peripheral artery disease across its multiple clinical presentation subsets (ie, asymptomatic, chronic symptomatic, chronic limb-threatening ischemia, and acute limb ischemia). METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from October 2020 to June 2022, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that was published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINHL Complete, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2023 during the peer review process, were also considered by the writing committee and added to the evidence tables where appropriate. STRUCTURE: Recommendations from the "2016 AHA/ACC Guideline on the Management of Patients With Lower Extremity Peripheral Artery Disease" have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing comprehensive care for patients with peripheral artery disease have been developed.

Effect of Empagliflozin on Heart Failure Outcomes After Acute Myocardial Infarction: Insights From the EMPACT-MI Trial.

BACKGROUND: Empagliflozin reduces the risk of heart failure (HF) events in patients with type 2 diabetes at high cardiovascular risk, chronic kidney disease, or prevalent HF irrespective of ejection fraction. Whereas the EMPACT-MI trial (Effect of Empagliflozin on Hospitalization for Heart Failure and Mortality in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction) showed that empagliflozin does not reduce the risk of the composite of hospitalization for HF and all-cause death, the effect of empagliflozin on first and recurrent HF events after myocardial infarction is unknown. METHODS: EMPACT-MI was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, event-driven trial that randomized 6522 patients hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction at risk for HF on the basis of newly developed left ventricular ejection fraction of <45% or signs or symptoms of congestion to receive empagliflozin 10 mg daily or placebo within 14 days of admission. In prespecified secondary analyses, treatment groups were analyzed for HF outcomes. RESULTS: Over a median follow-up of 17.9 months, the risk for first HF hospitalization and total HF hospitalizations was significantly lower in the empagliflozin compared with the placebo group (118 [3.6%] versus 153 [4.7%] patients with events; hazard ratio, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.60, 0.98]; P=0.031, for first HF hospitalization; 148 versus 207 events; rate ratio, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.51, 0.89]; P=0.006, for total HF hospitalizations). Subgroup analysis showed consistency of empagliflozin benefit across clinically relevant patient subgroups for first and total HF hospitalizations. The need for new use of diuretics, renin-angiotensin modulators, or mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists after discharge was less in patients randomized to empagliflozin versus placebo (all P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Empagliflozin reduced the risk of HF in patients with left ventricular dysfunction or congestion after acute myocardial infarction. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04509674.

Medication-Induced Weight Change Across Common Antidepressant Treatments : A Target Trial Emulation Study.

BACKGROUND: Antidepressants are among the most commonly prescribed medications, but evidence on comparative weight change for specific first-line treatments is limited. OBJECTIVE: To compare weight change across common first-line antidepressant treatments by emulating a target trial. DESIGN: Observational cohort study over 24 months. SETTING: Electronic health record (EHR) data from 2010 to 2019 across 8 U.S. health systems. PARTICIPANTS: 183 118 patients. MEASUREMENTS: Prescription data determined initiation of treatment with sertraline, citalopram, escitalopram, fluoxetine, paroxetine, bupropion, duloxetine, or venlafaxine. The investigators estimated the population-level effects of initiating each treatment, relative to sertraline, on mean weight change (primary) and the probability of gaining at least 5% of baseline weight (secondary) 6 months after initiation. Inverse probability weighting of repeated outcome marginal structural models was used to account for baseline confounding and informative outcome measurement. In secondary analyses, the effects of initiating and adhering to each treatment protocol were estimated. RESULTS: Compared with that for sertraline, estimated 6-month weight gain was higher for escitalopram (difference, 0.41 kg [95% CI, 0.31 to 0.52 kg]), paroxetine (difference, 0.37 kg [CI, 0.20 to 0.54 kg]), duloxetine (difference, 0.34 kg [CI, 0.22 to 0.44 kg]), venlafaxine (difference, 0.17 kg [CI, 0.03 to 0.31 kg]), and citalopram (difference, 0.12 kg [CI, 0.02 to 0.23 kg]); similar for fluoxetine (difference, -0.07 kg [CI, -0.19 to 0.04 kg]); and lower for bupropion (difference, -0.22 kg [CI, -0.33 to -0.12 kg]). Escitalopram, paroxetine, and duloxetine were associated with 10% to 15% higher risk for gaining at least 5% of baseline weight, whereas bupropion was associated with 15% reduced risk. When the effects of initiation and adherence were estimated, associations were stronger but had wider CIs. Six-month adherence ranged from 28% (duloxetine) to 41% (bupropion). LIMITATION: No data on medication dispensing, low medication adherence, incomplete data on adherence, and incomplete data on weight measures across time points. CONCLUSION: Small differences in mean weight change were found between 8 first-line antidepressants, with bupropion consistently showing the least weight gain, although adherence to medications over follow-up was low. Clinicians could consider potential weight gain when initiating antidepressant treatment. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institutes of Health.

Rivaroxaban Plus Aspirin Versus Aspirin Alone After Endovascular Revascularization for Symptomatic PAD: Insights From VOYAGER PAD.

BACKGROUND: Rivaroxaban plus aspirin compared with aspirin alone reduced major cardiac and ischemic limb events after lower extremity revascularization (LER) in the VOYAGER PAD (Vascular Outcomes Study of ASA Along With Rivaroxaban in Endovascular or Surgical Limb Revascularization for Peripheral Artery Disease) trial. The effect has not been described in patients undergoing endovascular LER. METHODS: The VOYAGER PAD trial randomized 6564 patients with symptomatic peripheral artery disease to a double-blinded treatment with 2.5 mg of rivaroxaban BID or matching placebo and 100 mg of aspirin daily. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of acute limb ischemia, major amputation of a vascular pathogenesis, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, or cardiovascular death. The principal safety end point was Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction major bleeding. A prespecified subgroup of patients who underwent endovascular revascularization was included. RESULTS: Endovascular LER occurred in 4379 (66.7%) patients and surgical LER in 2185 (33.3%). Over a 3-year follow-up, rivaroxaban reduced the risk of the primary outcome by 15% (hazard ratio [HR], 0.85 [95% CI, 0.76-0.96]) with an absolute risk reduction of 0.92% at 6 months and 1.04% at 3 years and a consistent benefit in those receiving endovascular (HR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.76-1.03]) or surgical LER (HR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.67-0.98]; P interaction=0.43). For endovascular-treated patients, rivaroxaban reduced the risk of acute limb ischemia or major amputation of a vascular pathogenesis by 30% (HR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.54-0.90]; P=0.005) with an absolute risk reduction of 1.0% at 6 months and 2.0% at 3 years compared with aspirin alone. Among endovascular-treated patients, the median duration of concomitant dual antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel treatment was 31 days (interquartile range, 30-58). There was a consistent benefit for rivaroxaban regardless of background clopidogrel. Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction major bleeding was significantly higher for the rivaroxaban and aspirin group for the endovascular cohort (HR, 1.66 [95% CI, 1.06-2.59]) with an absolute risk increase of 0.9% at 3 years with no increase in intracranial or fatal bleeding observed (HR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.40-1.87]; P=0.71). Mortality with rivaroxaban was higher in the endovascular-treated patients (HR, 1.24 [95% CI, 1.02-1.52]), although this finding was isolated to specific regions. CONCLUSIONS: Rivaroxaban added to aspirin or dual antiplatelet therapy after LER for peripheral artery disease reduces ischemic risk and increases major bleeding without an increased risk of intracranial or fatal bleeding. These benefits are consistent in those treated with endovascular and surgical approaches with significant benefits for major adverse limb events. These data support the use of rivaroxaban in addition to aspirin or dual antiplatelet therapy after endovascular intervention for symptomatic peripheral artery disease.

Comparative Effectiveness of Aspirin Dosing in Cardiovascular Disease.

BACKGROUND: The appropriate dose of aspirin to lower the risk of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke and to minimize major bleeding in patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease is a subject of controversy. METHODS: Using an open-label, pragmatic design, we randomly assigned patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease to a strategy of 81 mg or 325 mg of aspirin per day. The primary effectiveness outcome was a composite of death from any cause, hospitalization for myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for stroke, assessed in a time-to-event analysis. The primary safety outcome was hospitalization for major bleeding, also assessed in a time-to-event analysis. RESULTS: A total of 15,076 patients were followed for a median of 26.2 months (interquartile range [IQR], 19.0 to 34.9). Before randomization, 13,537 (96.0% of those with available information on previous aspirin use) were already taking aspirin, and 85.3% of these patients were previously taking 81 mg of daily aspirin. Death, hospitalization for myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for stroke occurred in 590 patients (estimated percentage, 7.28%) in the 81-mg group and 569 patients (estimated percentage, 7.51%) in the 325-mg group (hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91 to 1.14). Hospitalization for major bleeding occurred in 53 patients (estimated percentage, 0.63%) in the 81-mg group and 44 patients (estimated percentage, 0.60%) in the 325-mg group (hazard ratio, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.77). Patients assigned to 325 mg had a higher incidence of dose switching than those assigned to 81 mg (41.6% vs. 7.1%) and fewer median days of exposure to the assigned dose (434 days [IQR, 139 to 737] vs. 650 days [IQR, 415 to 922]). CONCLUSIONS: In this pragmatic trial involving patients with established cardiovascular disease, there was substantial dose switching to 81 mg of daily aspirin and no significant differences in cardiovascular events or major bleeding between patients assigned to 81 mg and those assigned to 325 mg of aspirin daily. (Funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute; ADAPTABLE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02697916.).

Framework of the strengths and challenges of clinically integrated trials: An expert panel report.

The limitations of the explanatory clinical trial framework include the high expense of implementing explanatory trials, restrictive entry criteria for participants, and redundant logistical processes. These limitations can result in slow evidence generation that is not responsive to population health needs, yielding evidence that is not generalizable. Clinically integrated trials, which integrate clinical research into routine care, represent a potential solution to this challenge and an opportunity to support learning health systems. The operational and design features of clinically integrated trials include a focused scope, simplicity in design and requirements, the leveraging of existing data structures, and patient participation in the entire trial process. These features are designed to minimize barriers to participation and trial execution and reduce additional research burdens for participants and clinicians alike. Broad adoption and scalability of clinically integrated trials are dependent, in part, on continuing regulatory, healthcare system, and payer support. This analysis presents a framework of the strengths and challenges of clinically integrated trials and is based on a multidisciplinary expert "Think Tank" panel discussion that included representatives from patient populations, academia, non-profit funding agencies, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and industry.

Outcomes of peripheral artery disease and polyvascular disease in patients with end-stage kidney disease.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) and end-stage kidney disease are a high-risk population, and concomitant atherosclerosis in coronary arteries (CAD) or cerebral arteries (CVD) is common. The aim of the study was to assess long-term outcomes of PAD and the impact of coexistent CAD and CVD on outcomes. METHODS: The United States Renal Data System was used to identify patients with PAD within 6 months of incident dialysis. Four groups were formed: PAD alone, PAD with CAD, PAD with CVD, and PAD with CAD and CVD. PAD-specific outcomes (chronic limb-threatening ischemia, major amputation, percutaneous/surgical revascularization, and their composite, defined as major adverse limb events [MALE]) as well as all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke were studied. RESULTS: The study included 106,567 patients (mean age, 71.2 years; 40.8% female) with a median follow-up of 546 days (interquartile range, 214-1096 days). Most patients had PAD and CAD (49.8%), 25.8% had PAD alone, and 19.2% had all three territories involved. MALE rate in patients with PAD was 22.3% and 35.0% at 1 and 3 years, respectively. In comparison to PAD alone, the coexistence of both CAD and CVD (ie, polyvascular disease) was associated with a higher adjusted rates of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 1.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.24-1.31), myocardial infarction (HR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.69-1.88), stroke (HR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.52,1.80), and MALE (HR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.04-1.11). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with end-stage kidney disease have a high burden of PAD with poor long-term outcomes, which worsen, in an incremental fashion, with the involvement of each additional diseased arterial bed.

A Multicenter, Phase 2, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Double-Blind, Parallel-Group, Dose-Finding Trial of the Oral Factor XIa Inhibitor Asundexian to Prevent Adverse Cardiovascular Outcomes After Acute Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: Oral activated factor XI (FXIa) inhibitors may modulate coagulation to prevent thromboembolic events without substantially increasing bleeding. We explored the pharmacodynamics, safety, and efficacy of the oral FXIa inhibitor asundexian for secondary prevention after acute myocardial infarction (MI). METHODS: We randomized 1601 patients with recent acute MI to oral asundexian 10, 20, or 50 mg or placebo once daily for 6 to 12 months in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2, dose-ranging trial. Patients were randomized within 5 days of their qualifying MI and received dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin plus a P2Y12 inhibitor. The effect of asundexian on FXIa inhibition was assessed at 4 weeks. The prespecified main safety outcome was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding comparing all pooled asundexian doses with placebo. The prespecified efficacy outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, or stent thrombosis comparing pooled asundexian 20 and 50 mg doses with placebo. RESULTS: The median age was 68 years, 23% of participants were women, 51% had ST-segment-elevation MI, 80% were treated with aspirin plus ticagrelor or prasugrel, and 99% underwent percutaneous coronary intervention before randomization. Asundexian caused dose-related inhibition of FXIa activity, with 50 mg resulting in >90% inhibition. Over a median follow-up of 368 days, the main safety outcome occurred in 30 (7.6%), 32 (8.1%), 42 (10.5%), and 36 (9.0%) patients receiving asundexian 10 mg, 20 mg, or 50 mg, or placebo, respectively (pooled asundexian versus placebo: hazard ratio, 0.98 [90% CI, 0.71-1.35]). The efficacy outcome occurred in 27 (6.8%), 24 (6.0%), 22 (5.5%), and 22 (5.5%) patients assigned asundexian 10 mg, 20 mg, or 50 mg, or placebo, respectively (pooled asundexian 20 and 50 mg versus placebo: hazard ratio, 1.05 [90% CI, 0.69-1.61]). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with recent acute MI, 3 doses of asundexian, when added to aspirin plus a P2Y12 inhibitor, resulted in dose-dependent, near-complete inhibition of FXIa activity without a significant increase in bleeding and a low rate of ischemic events. These data support the investigation of asundexian at a dose of 50 mg daily in an adequately powered clinical trial of patients who experienced acute MI. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT04304534; URL: https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/search; Unique identifier: 2019-003244-79.

Safety of the oral factor XIa inhibitor asundexian compared with apixaban in patients with atrial fibrillation (PACIFIC-AF): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, dose-finding phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: Direct-acting oral anticoagulant use for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation is limited by bleeding concerns. Asundexian, a novel, oral small molecule activated coagulation factor XIa (FXIa) inhibitor, might reduce thrombosis with minimal effect on haemostasis. We aimed to determine the optimal dose of asundexian and to compare the incidence of bleeding with that of apixaban in patients with atrial fibrillation. METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind, phase 2 dose-finding study, we compared asundexian 20 mg or 50 mg once daily with apixaban 5 mg twice daily in patients aged 45 years or older with atrial fibrillation, a CHA2DS2-VASc score of at least 2 if male or at least 3 if female, and increased bleeding risk. The study was conducted at 93 sites in 14 countries, including 12 European countries, Canada, and Japan. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to a treatment group using an interactive web response system, with randomisation stratified by whether patients were receiving a direct-acting oral anticoagulant before the study start. Masking was achieved using a double-dummy design, with participants receiving both the assigned treatment and a placebo that resembled the non-assigned treatment. The primary endpoint was the composite of major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding according to International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis criteria, assessed in all patients who took at least one dose of study medication. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04218266, and EudraCT, 2019-002365-35. FINDINGS: Between Jan 30, 2020, and June 21, 2021, 862 patients were enrolled. 755 patients were randomly assigned to treatment. Two patients (assigned to asundexian 20 mg) never took any study medication, resulting in 753 patients being included in the analysis (249 received asundexian 20 mg, 254 received asundexian 50 g, and 250 received apixaban). The mean age of participants was 73·7 years (SD 8·3), 309 (41%) were women, 216 (29%) had chronic kidney disease, and mean CHA2DS2-VASc score was 3·9 (1·3). Asundexian 20 mg resulted in 81% inhibition of FXIa activity at trough concentrations and 90% inhibition at peak concentrations; asundexian 50 mg resulted in 92% inhibition at trough concentrations and 94% inhibition at peak concentrations. Ratios of incidence proportions for the primary endpoint were 0·50 (90% CI 0·14-1·68) for asundexian 20 mg (three events), 0·16 (0·01-0·99) for asundexian 50 mg (one event), and 0·33 (0·09-0·97) for pooled asundexian (four events) versus apixaban (six events). The rate of any adverse event occurring was similar in the three treatment groups: 118 (47%) with asundexian 20 mg, 120 (47%) with asundexian 50 mg, and 122 (49%) with apixaban. INTERPRETATION: The FXIa inhibitor asundexian at doses of 20 mg and 50 mg once daily resulted in lower rates of bleeding compared with standard dosing of apixaban, with near-complete in-vivo FXIa inhibition, in patients with atrial fibrillation. FUNDING: Bayer.

Does early detection of atrial fibrillation reduce the risk of thromboembolic events? Rationale and design of the Heartline study.

BACKGROUND: The impact of using direct-to-consumer wearable devices as a means to timely detect atrial fibrillation (AF) and to improve clinical outcomes is unknown. METHODS: Heartline is a pragmatic, randomized, and decentralized application-based trial of US participants aged ≥65 years. Two randomized cohorts include adults with possession of an iPhone and without a history of AF and those with a diagnosis of AF taking a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) for ≥30 days. Participants within each cohort are randomized (3:1) to either a core digital engagement program (CDEP) via iPhone application (Heartline application) and an Apple Watch (Apple Watch Group) or CDEP alone (iPhone-only Group). The Apple Watch Group has the watch irregular rhythm notification (IRN) feature enabled and access to the ECG application on the Apple Watch. If an IRN notification is issued for suspected AF then the study application instructs participants in the Apple Watch Group to seek medical care. All participants were "watch-naïve" at time of enrollment and have an option to either buy or loan an Apple Watch as part of this study. The primary end point is time from randomization to clinical diagnosis of AF, with confirmation by health care claims. Key secondary endpoint are claims-based incidence of a 6-component composite cardiovascular/systemic embolism/mortality event, DOAC medication use and adherence, costs/health resource utilization, and frequency of hospitalizations for bleeding. All study assessments, including patient-reported outcomes, are conducted through the study application. The target study enrollment is approximately 28,000 participants in total; at time of manuscript submission, a total of 26,485 participants have been enrolled into the study. CONCLUSION: The Heartline Study will assess if an Apple Watch with the IRN and ECG application, along with application-facilitated digital health engagement modules, improves time to AF diagnosis and cardiovascular outcomes in a real-world environment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04276441.

Comparison of the effectiveness and safety of 2 aspirin doses in secondary prevention of cardiovascular outcomes in patients with chronic kidney disease: A subgroup analysis of ADAPTABLE.

BACKGROUND: Among patients with established cardiovascular disease, the ADAPTABLE trial found no significant differences in cardiovascular events and bleeding rates between 81 mg and 325 mg of aspirin (ASA) daily. In this secondary analysis from the ADAPTABLE trial, we studied the effectiveness and safety of ASA dosing in patients with a history of chronic kidney disease (CKD). METHODS: ADAPTABLE participants were stratified based on the presence or absence of CKD, defined using ICD-9/10-CM codes. Within the CKD group, we compared outcomes between patients taking ASA 81 mg and 325 mg. The primary effectiveness outcome was defined as a composite of all cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke and the primary safety outcome was hospitalization for major bleeding. Adjusted Cox proportional hazard models were utilized to report differences between the groups. RESULTS: After excluding 414 (2.7%) patients due to missing medical history, a total of 14,662 patients were included from the ADAPTABLE cohort, of whom 2,648 (18%) patients had CKD. Patients with CKD were older (median age 69.4 vs 67.1 years; P < .0001) and less likely to be white (71.5% vs 81.7%; P < .0001) when compared to those without CKD. At a median follow-up of 26.2 months, CKD was associated with an increased risk of both the primary effectiveness outcome (adjusted HR 1.79 [1.57, 2.05] P < .001 and the primary safety outcome (adjusted HR 4.64 (2.98, 7.21), P < .001 and P < .05, respectively) regardless of ASA dose. There was no significant difference in effectiveness (adjusted HR 1.01 95% CI 0.82, 1.23; P = .95) or safety (adjusted HR 0.93; 95% CI 0.52, 1.64; P = .79) between ASA groups. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with CKD were more likely than those without CKD to have adverse cardiovascular events or death and were also more likely to have major bleeding requiring hospitalization. However, there was no association between ASA dose and study outcomes among these patients with CKD.

Morbidity and Mortality Associated With Heart Failure in Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Pooled Analysis of 4 Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure (HF) may complicate acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and is associated with a high burden of short- and long-term morbidity and mortality. Only limited data regarding future ischemic events and rehospitalization are available for patients who suffer HF before or during ACS. METHODS: A secondary analysis of 4 large ACS trials (PLATO, APPRAISE-2, TRACER, and TRILOGY ACS) using Cox proportional hazards models was performed to investigate the association of HF status (no HF, chronic HF, de novo HF) at presentation for ACS with all-cause and cardiovascular death, major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE ), myocardial infarction, stroke, and hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) by 1 year. Cumulative incidence plots are presented at 30 days and 1 year. RESULTS: A total of 11.1% of the 47,474 patients presenting with ACS presented with evidence of acute HF, 55.0% of whom presented with de novo HF. Patients with chronic HF presented with evidence of acute HF at a higher rate than those with no previous HF (40.3% vs 6.9%). Compared to those without HF, those with chronic and de novo HF had higher rates of all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 2.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.72-2.34 and aHR 1.47, 95% CI1.15-1.88, respectively), MACE (aHR 1.47, 95% CI1.31-1-.66 and aHR 1.38, 95% CI1.12-1.69), and HHF (aHR 2.29, 95% CI2.02-2.61 and aHR 1.48, 95% CI 1.20-1.82) at 1 year. CONCLUSION: In this large cohort of patients with ACS, both prior and de novo HF complicating ACS were associated with significantly higher risk-adjusted rates of death, ischemic events and HHF at 30 days and 1 year. Further studies examining the association between HF and outcomes in this high-risk population are warranted, especially given the advent of more contemporary HF therapies.

Classification of Heart Failure Events by Severity: Insights From the VICTORIA Trial.

BACKGROUND: Hospitalization due to heart failure (HFH) is a major source of morbidity, consumes significant economic resources and is a key endpoint in HF clinical trials. HFH events vary in severity and implications, but they are typically considered equivalent when analyzing clinical trial outcomes. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to evaluate the frequency and severity of HF events, assess treatment effects and describe differences in outcomes by type of HF event in VICTORIA (Vericiguat Global Study in Subjects with Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction). METHODS: VICTORIA compared vericiguat with placebo in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (< 45%) and a recent worsening HF event. All HFHs were prospectively adjudicated by an independent clinical events committee (CEC) whose members were blinded to treatment assignment. We evaluated the frequency and clinical impact of HF events by severity, categorized by highest intensity of HF treatment (urgent outpatient visit or hospitalization treated with oral diuretics, intravenous diuretics, intravenous vasodilators, intravenous inotropes, or mechanical support) and treatment effect by event categories. RESULTS: In VICTORIA, 2948 HF events occurred in 5050 enrolled patients. Overall total CEC HF events for vericiguat vs placebo were 43.9 vs 49.1 events/100 patient-years (P = 0.01). Hospitalization for intravenous diuretics was the most common type of HFH event (54%). HF event types differed markedly in their clinical implications for both in-hospital and post-discharge events. We observed no difference in the distribution of HF events between randomized treatment groups (P = 0.78). CONCLUSION: HF events in large global trials vary significantly in severity and clinical implications, which may have implications for more nuanced trial design and interpretation. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02861534).

Timing of sedation and patient-reported pain outcomes during cardiac catheterization: Results from the UNTAP-intervention study.

BACKGROUND: Invasive cardiac catheterization (CC) temporarily increases pain, discomfort, and anxiety. Procedural sedation is deployed to mitigate these symptoms, though practice varies. Research evaluating peri-procedural patient-reported outcomes is lacking. METHODS AND RESULTS: We randomized 175 patients undergoing CC to short interval ([SI] group, <6 min) or long interval ([LI] group, ≥6 min) time intervals between initial intravenous sedation and local anesthetic administration. Outcomes included: (1) total pain medication use, (2) patient-reported and behaviorally assessed pain and (3) patient satisfaction during outpatient CC. Generalized linear mixed effect models were used to evaluate the impact of treatment time interval on total medication utilization, pain, and satisfaction. Among enrollees the mean age was 62 (standard deviation [SD] = 13.4), a majority were male (66%), white (74%), and overweight (mean body mass index = 28.5 [SD = 5.6]). Total pain medication use did not vary between treatment groups (p = 0.257), with no difference in total fentanyl (p = 0.288) or midazolam (p = 0.292). Post-treatment pain levels and nurse-observed pain were not statistically significant between groups (p = 0.324 & p = 0.656, respectively. No significant differences with satisfaction with sedation were found between the groups (p = 0.95) Patient-reported pain, satisfaction and nurse-observed measures of pain did not differ, after adjustment for demographic and procedural factors. Analyses of treatment effect modification revealed that postprocedure self-reported pain levels varied systematically between individuals undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (SI = 2.2 [0.8, 3.6] vs. LI = 0.7 [-0.6, 2.0]) compared with participants not undergoing PCI (SI = 0.4 [-0.8, 1.7] vs. LI = 0.7 [-0.3, 1.6]) (p = 0.043 for interaction). CONCLUSION: No consistent treatment differences were found for total medication dose, pain, or satisfaction regardless of timing between sedation and local anesthetic. Treatment moderations were seen for patients undergoing PCI. Further investigation of how procedural and individual factors impact the patient experience during CC is needed.

Outcomes among patients with peripheral artery disease in the Aspirin Dosing: A Patient-Centric Trial Assessing Benefits and Long-Term Effectiveness (ADAPTABLE) study.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to understand the effects of aspirin dose on outcomes in patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) as well as their participation in a pragmatic randomized controlled trial. METHODS: In a subanalysis of the Aspirin Dosing: A Patient-Centric Trial Assessing Benefits and Long-Term Effectiveness (ADAPTABLE) study, we compared aspirin doses (81 vs 325 mg) among participants with PAD and study participation metrics in patients with and without PAD. The primary outcome composite was all-cause mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal stroke. RESULTS: Among 14,662 participants enrolled in ADAPTABLE with PAD status available, 3493 (23.8%) had PAD. Participants with PAD were more likely to experience the primary composite (13.76% vs 5.31%, p < 0.001), all-cause mortality (7.55% vs 3.01%, p < 0.001), myocardial infarction (5.71% vs 2.09%, p < 0.001), stroke (2.45% vs 0.86%, p < 0.001), and major bleeding (1.19% vs 0.44%, p < 0.001). A higher aspirin dose did not reduce the primary outcome in patients with PAD (13.68% vs 13.84% in 81 mg and 325 mg groups; OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.88-1.25). Participants with PAD were less likely to enroll via email (33.0% vs 41.9%, p < 0.0001), less likely to choose internet follow-up (79.2% vs 89.5%, p < 0.0001), and were more likely to change their aspirin doses (39.7% vs 30.7%, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: ADAPTABLE participants with PAD did not benefit from a higher dose of aspirin and participated in the study differently from those without PAD. These results reinforce the need for additional PAD-specific research and suggest that different trial strategies may be needed for optimal engagement of patients with PAD. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02697916).

Importance of patient engagement in the conduct of pragmatic multicenter randomized controlled trials: The ADAPTABLE experience.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Actively engaging patient partners in the conduct of trials is crucial to ensure the studies answer genuine, patient-centered, unmet clinical needs, and to facilitate participant recruitment and retention. The aim of this article is to demonstrate the feasibility of patient engagement within a large pragmatic multicenter randomized controlled trial, specifically for the purposes of dissemination of study information/updates and to favorize recruitment and retention. METHODS: In the patient-centric, pragmatic ADAPTABLE randomized trial, transparent and timely dissemination of information on the study updates to the trial participants was undertaken to create meaningful engagement and to facilitate retention. A national panel of patient partners, the Adaptors, were directly involved in this information dissemination strategy, and study participants were engaged both nationally and locally to design recruitment methods iteratively during the conduct of the trial. All Adaptors had a lived experience with cardiovascular disease. RESULTS: Adaptors attended bi-weekly meetings facilitated by the director of the study's patient-powered research network. They drafted and/or edited newsletters and ad hoc educational information written in a lay-friendly manner for study participants, which were regularly distributed to the ADAPTABLE community, in addition to online forums where participants could share their experience of their involvement in ADAPTABLE. To spur recruitment, a patient-driven initiative was to draft letters sharing their story, which were distributed by the local study teams. Patient partners thought that using patients' voice to provide their perspectives on why they believed this project was important would be more engaging for prospective participants than traditional approaches. CONCLUSIONS: ADAPTABLE's experience has demonstrated the feasibility of engaging patients as partners in the conduct of a large-scale, multi-center, pragmatic randomized controlled trial. Future trials should embrace and iteratively improve this model by engaging patient partners as early as study protocol development and funding applications, and quantify its impact on the effectiveness and value of the trial.

Empagliflozin in patients post myocardial infarction rationale and design of the EMPACT-MI trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) are at risk for developing heart failure (HF) and subsequently are at an increased risk of mortality. Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors have been proven to improve outcomes in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction, and, in the case of empagliflozin, in HF with preserved ejection fraction even without diabetes, but their efficacy and safety in the post-MI population has not yet been evaluated. METHODS: The EMPACT-MI trial will evaluate the safety and efficacy of empagliflozin compared with placebo in patients hospitalized for MI with or at high risk of new onset HF, in addition to standard care. EMPACT-MI is a streamlined, multinational, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial randomizing 5,000 participants at approximately 480 centers in 22 countries. Eligible patients presenting with spontaneous MI must have new signs or symptoms of pulmonary congestion requiring treatment or new left ventricular dysfunction (LVEF<45%), and at least 1 additional risk factor for development of future HF. Eligible and consenting patients are randomized to empagliflozin 10mg or placebo daily in addition to standard of care within 14 days of hospital admission for MI. The primary composite end point is time to first hospitalization for HF or all-cause mortality. CONCLUSIONS: EMPACT-MI will inform clinical practice regarding the role of empagliflozin in patients after an MI with high-risk for the development of future HF and mortality.

Etiology and outcomes of amputation in patients with peripheral artery disease in the EUCLID trial.

OBJECTIVE: Amputation remains a frequent and feared outcome in patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD). Although typically characterized as major or minor on the extent of tissue loss, the etiologies and outcomes after amputation by extent are not well-understood. In addition, emerging data suggest that the drivers and outcomes of amputation in patients with PAD may differ in those with and without diabetes mellitus (DM). METHODS: The EUCLID trial randomized 13,885 patients with symptomatic PAD, including 5345 with concomitant diabetes, to ticagrelor or clopidogrel and followed them for long-term outcomes. Amputations were prospectively reported by trial investigators. Their primary and contributing drivers were adjudicated using safety data, including infection, ischemia, or multifactorial etiologies. Outcomes following major and minor amputations were analyzed, including recurrent amputation, major adverse limb events, adverse cardiovascular events, and mortality. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to identify independent predictors of minor amputations. Analyses were performed overall and stratified by the presence or absence of DM at baseline. RESULTS: Of the patients randomized, 398 (2.9%) underwent at least one lower extremity nontraumatic amputation, for a total of 511 amputations (255 major and 256 minor) over a median of 30 months. A history of minor amputation was the strongest independent predictor for a subsequent minor amputation (odds ratio, 7.29; 95% confidence interval, 5.17-10.30; P < .001) followed by comorbid DM (odds ratio, 4.60; 95% confidence interval, 3.16-6.69; P < .001). Compared with patients who had a major amputation, those with a minor amputation had similar rates of subsequent major amputation (12.2% vs 13.6%), major adverse limb events (15.1% vs 14.9%), and major adverse cardiovascular events (17.6% vs 16.3%). Ischemia alone was the primary driver of amputation (51%), followed by infection alone (27%), and multifactorial etiologies (22%); however, infection was the most frequent driver in those with DM (58%) but not in those without DM (15%). CONCLUSIONS: Outcomes after amputation remain poor regardless of whether they are categorized as major or minor. The pattern of amputation drivers in PAD differs by history of DM, with infection being the dominant etiology in those with DM and ischemia in those without DM. Greater focus is needed on the prognostic importance of minor amputation and of the multifactorial etiologies of amputation in PAD. Nomenclature with anatomical description of amputations and eliminating terms "major" or "minor" would seem appropriate.

Impact of risk factor control on peripheral artery disease outcomes and health disparities.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral artery disease (PAD) is associated with modifiable atherosclerotic risk factors like hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and smoking. However, the effect of risk factor control on outcomes and disparities in achieving control is less well understood. METHODS: All patients in an integrated, regional health system with PAD-related encounters, fee-for-service Medicare, and clinical risk factor control data were identified. Component risk factors were dichotomized into controlled and uncontrolled categories (control defined as low-density lipoprotein < 100 mg/dL, hemoglobin A1c < 7.0%, SBP < 140 mmHg, and current nonsmoker) and composite categories (none, 1, ⩾ 2 uncontrolled RFs) created. The primary outcome was major adverse vascular events (MAVE, a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, and lower-extremity revascularization and amputation). RESULTS: The cohort included 781 patients with PAD, average age 72.5 ± 9.8 years, of whom 30.1% were Black, and 19.1% were Medicaid dual-enrolled. In this cohort, 260 (33.3%) had no uncontrolled risk factors and 200 (25.6%) had two or more uncontrolled risk factors. Patients with the poorest risk factor control were more likely to be Black (p < 0.001), Medicaid dual-enrolled (p < 0.001), and have chronic limb-threatening ischemia (p = 0.009). Significant differences in MAVE by degree of risk factor control were observed at 30 days (none uncontrolled: 5.8%, 1 uncontrolled: 11.5%, ⩾ 2 uncontrolled: 13.6%; p = 0.01) but not at 1 year (p = 0.08). risk factor control was not associated with outcomes at 1 year after adjustment for patient and PAD-specific characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: risk factor control is poor among patients with PAD. Significant disparities in achieving optimal risk factor control represent a potential target for reducing inequities in outcomes.