Current concepts in coronary artery revascularisation.

Coronary artery revascularisation can be performed surgically or percutaneously. Surgery is associated with higher procedural risk and longer recovery than percutaneous interventions, but with long-term reduction of recurrent cardiac events. For many patients with obstructive coronary artery disease in need of revascularisation, surgical or percutaneous intervention is indicated on the basis of clinical and anatomical reasons or personal preferences. Medical therapy is a crucial accompaniment to coronary revascularisation, and data suggest that, in some subsets of patients, medical therapy alone might achieve similar results to coronary revascularisation. Most revascularisation data are based on prevalently White, non-elderly, male populations in high-income countries; robust data in women, older adults, and racial and other minorities, and from low-income and middle-income countries, are urgently needed.

Acute, periprocedural and longterm antithrombotic therapy in older adults: 2022 Update by the ESC Working Group on Thrombosis

The first international guidance on antithrombotic therapy in the elderly came from the European Society of Cardiology Working Group on Thrombosis in 2015. This same group has updated its previous report on antiplatelet and anticoagulant drugs for older patients with acute or chronic coronary syndromes, atrial fibrillation, or undergoing surgery or procedures typical of the elderly (transcatheter aortic valve implantation and left atrial appendage closure). The aim is to provide a succinct but comprehensive tool for readers to understand the bases of antithrombotic therapy in older patients, despite the complexities of comorbidities, comedications and uncertain ischaemic- vs. bleeding-risk balance. Fourteen updated consensus statements integrate recent trial data and other evidence, with a focus on high bleeding risk. Guideline recommendations, when present, are highlighted, as well as gaps in evidence. Key consensus points include efforts to improve medical adherence through deprescribing and polypill use; adoption of universal risk definitions for bleeding, myocardial infarction, stroke and cause-specific death; multiple bleeding-avoidance strategies, ranging from gastroprotection with aspirin use to selection of antithrombotic-drug composition, dosing and duration tailored to multiple variables (setting, history, overall risk, age, weight, renal function, comedications, procedures) that need special consideration when managing older adults.

Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety Outcomes of Edoxaban in 8040 Women Versus 13 065 Men With Atrial Fibrillation in the ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 Trial.

BACKGROUND: Female sex is an independent risk factor for stroke and systemic embolic events in patients with atrial fibrillation. This study aimed to examine the efficacy and safety profile of edoxaban in women versus men. METHODS: The ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 trial (Effective Anticoagulation with Factor Xa Next Generation in Atrial Fibrillation-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 48) randomly assigned 21 105 patients (8040 women) with atrial fibrillation and CHADS2 score ≥2 either to a higher-dose edoxaban regimen, a lower-dose edoxaban regimen, or warfarin. The primary end points of the trial were the composite of stroke or systemic embolic events (efficacy), and International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis-defined major bleeding (safety). RESULTS: In comparison with men, women were older, had lower body weight, were more likely to have hypertension and renal dysfunction, but less likely to smoke, drink alcohol, or have diabetes or coronary artery disease. Pretreatment endogenous factor Xa activity was significantly higher in women than in men (92.5% versus 86.1%, P<0.001). Treatment with edoxaban in women resulted in greater peak edoxaban concentration and inhibition of endogenous factor Xa in comparison with men, resulting in similar endogenous factor Xa activity between the sexes 2 to 4 hours after dose. Treatment with higher-dose edoxaban regimen (versus warfarin) resulted in similar reduction in the risk of stroke/systemic embolic events (women: hazard ratio [HR], 0.87 [0.69-1.11], men: HR, 0.87 [0.71-1.06]; P-interaction=0.97) and major bleeding (women: HR, 0.74 [0.59-0.92], men: HR, 0.84 [0.72-0.99]; P-interaction=0.34) in women and men. However, women assigned to higher-dose edoxaban regimen experienced greater reductions in hemorrhagic stroke (HR, 0.30 [95% CI, 0.15-0.59] versus HR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.46-1.06]), intracranial bleeding (HR, 0.20 [95% CI, 0.10-0.39] versus HR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.44-0.89]), and life-threatening or fatal bleeding (HR, 0.25 [95% CI, 0.15-0.42] versus HR, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.54-0.96]) than men (each P-interaction<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Despite many differences in baseline characteristics between women and men and higher baseline endogenous factor Xa levels in women, the intensity of anticoagulation achieved with edoxaban between the sexes was similar. Treatment with higher-dose edoxaban regimen resulted in an even greater reduction in hemorrhagic stroke and several serious bleeding outcomes in women than in men, whereas the efficacy profile was similar between sexes.

Cardiac mortality in patients randomised to elective coronary revascularisation plus medical therapy or medical therapy alone: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS: The value of elective coronary revascularisation plus medical therapy over medical therapy alone in managing stable patients with coronary artery disease is debated. We reviewed all trials comparing the two strategies in this population. METHODS AND RESULTS: From inception through November 2020, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and other databases were searched for randomised trials comparing revascularisation against medical therapy alone in clinically stable coronary artery disease patients. Treatment effects were measured by rate ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals, using random-effects models. Cardiac mortality was the pre-specified primary endpoint. Spontaneous myocardial infarction (MI) and its association with cardiac mortality were secondary endpoints. Further endpoints included all-cause mortality, any MI, and stroke. Longest follow-up data were abstracted. The study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021225598). Twenty-five trials involving 19 806 patients (10 023 randomised to revascularisation plus medical therapy and 9783 to medical therapy alone) were included. Compared with medical therapy alone, revascularisation yielded a lower risk of cardiac death [RR 0.79 (0.67-0.93), P < 0.01] and spontaneous MI [RR 0.74 (0.64-0.86), P < 0.01]. By meta-regression, the cardiac death risk reduction after revascularisation, compared with medical therapy alone, was linearly associated with follow-up duration [RR per 4-year follow-up: 0.81 (0.69-0.96), P = 0.008], spontaneous MI absolute difference (P = 0.01) and percentage of multivessel disease at baseline (P = 0.004). Trial sequential and sensitivity analyses confirmed the reliability of the cardiac mortality findings. All-cause mortality [0.94 (0.87-1.01), P = 0.11], any MI (P = 0.14), and stroke risk (P = 0.30) did not differ significantly between strategies. CONCLUSION: In stable coronary artery disease patients, randomisation to elective coronary revascularisation plus medical therapy led to reduced cardiac mortality compared with medical therapy alone. The cardiac survival benefit after revascularisation improved with longer follow-up times and was associated with fewer spontaneous MIs.

Prevalence, clinical impact and costs of hyperkalaemia: Special focus on heart failure.

BACKGROUND: Hyperkalaemia is a potential life-threatening electrolyte abnormality. Although renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors (RAASi) are potentially life-saving, they may contribute to hyperkalaemia. METHODS: The prevalence, comorbidities, comedications and 1-year outcomes of patients admitted or treated for hyperkalaemia were investigated in a large healthcare administrative database including 12 533 230 general population inhabitants. A similar analysis was performed in the Italian Network on Heart Failure (IN-HF), a cardiology registry of 1726 acute and 7589 chronic HF patients, stratified by serum potassium. General practice healthcare costs related to hyperkalaemia were also assessed. Hyperkalaemia was defined by hospital coding, potassium-binder prescription or serum levels (mild: 5-5.4, moderate-severe: ≥5.5 mmol/L). RESULTS: In the general population, the prevalence of hyperkalaemia was 0.035%. After excluding patients on haemodialysis, hyperkalaemia in the community (n = 2314) was significantly and directly associated with diabetes, chronic kidney disease, HF, RAASi prescriptions, 1-year hospitalisations and threefold annual healthcare costs, compared to age- and sex-matched non-hyperkalaemic subjects (n = 2314). In the IN-HF registry, hyperkalaemia affected 4.3% of acute and 3.6% of chronic patients and was significantly associated with diabetes, kidney disease and lesser use of RAASi, compared to normokalaemic patients. Among patients hospitalised for acute HF, those with hyperkalaemia at entry had significantly higher 1-year all-cause mortality compared with normokalaemic patients, even after adjustment for available confounders. CONCLUSIONS: Hyperkalaemia in the general population, although uncommon, was associated with increased hospitalisations and tripling of healthcare costs. Among HF patients, hyperkalaemia was common and associated with underuse of RAASi; in acutely decompensated patients, it remained independently associated with 1-year all-cause mortality.

Anti-inflammatory therapy in ischaemic heart disease: from canakinumab to colchicine.

Four large trials have recently evaluated the effects of anti-inflammatory drugs in the secondary prevention of major cardiovascular events (MACE) in over 25 000 patients followed for 1.9-3.7 years. CANTOS tested subcutaneous canakinumab [an anti-interleukin (IL) 1ß antibody] 300 mg every 3 months against placebo in patients with a history of myocardial infarction (MI) and serum C-reactive protein (CRP) >2 mg/L, demonstrating efficacy in preventing MACE but increased rates of fatal infections. COLCOT (in patients with recent MI) and LoDoCo2 (in patients with chronic coronary syndromes) tested oral colchicine (an NLRP3 inflammasome inhibitor) 0.5 mg daily vs. placebo, demonstrating prevention of MACE with a slightly increased risk of pneumonia in COLCOT (0.9 vs. 0.4%) but not in LoDoCo2. CIRT tested oral methotrexate (an anti-rheumatic anti-nuclear factor-kB) 15-20 mg per week against placebo in ischaemic heart disease patients with diabetes or metabolic syndrome, without significant reduction in MACE rates or in circulating IL6 or CRP levels, and with increased risk of skin cancers. In summary, canakinumab and colchicine have shown efficacy in preventing MACE in ischaemic heart disease patients, but only colchicine has acceptable safety (and cost) for use in secondary cardiovascular prevention. Clinical results are expected with the anti-IL6 ziltivekimab.

Four-year trends in oral anticoagulant use and declining rates of ischemic stroke among 194,030 atrial fibrillation patients drawn from a sample of 12 million people.

BACKGROUND: Administrative data were used to investigate changes in hospitalizations for atrial fibrillation (AF), AF-related stroke, and treatment patterns between 2012 and 2016. METHODS: From the 'Ricerca e Salute' database, a population- and patient-based repository involving >12 million inhabitants and linking demographics, prescriptions, and hospital discharge records, all patients discharged alive with a diagnosis of AF between 2012 and 2015 were followed for 1 year. RESULTS: A total of 194,030 AF patients were included. The number of AF cases increased ~10% over time, from 4.0 per 1,000 inhabitants in 2012 to 4.4 per 1,000 in 2015. At 1 year, hospitalizations for ischemic stroke decreased from 21.3 per 1,000 patients with AF in 2012-2013 to 14.7 per 1,000 in 2015-2016 (-31%, 95% CI -18 to -41). Over the same period, oral anticoagulant (OAC) use increased from 56.7% to 64.4% (+14%, 95% CI +8 to +26), vitamin K antagonist use decreased (from 55.9 to 36.7%; -34%, 95% CI -21 to -44), whereas direct OACs (DOACs) increased (from <1% in 2012 to 27.7% in 2015). Antiplatelet prescriptions fell from 42.6% in 2012 to 28.1% in 2015. Hospitalizations for major bleeds, mainly gastrointestinal, increased from 1.5‰ in 2012-2013 to 2.3‰ in 2015-2016, whereas hemorrhagic stroke admissions decreased from 6.5‰ to 4.1‰. CONCLUSIONS: There was a slight increase in the prevalence of AF between 2012 and 2015, whereas the overall use of antiplatelet agents decreased and that of OAC, particularly DOACs, increased. Over the same period, 1-year hospitalizations for ischemic stroke declined substantially, with a declining rate of hemorrhagic strokes.

Intracranial haemorrhages vs. stent thromboses with direct oral anticoagulant plus single antiplatelet agent or triple antithrombotic therapy: a meta-analysis of randomized trials in atrial fibrillation and percutaneous coronary intervention/acute coronary syndrome patients.

AIMS: To assess the efficacy-safety profile of dual antithrombotic therapy (DAT) including direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) vs. triple antithrombotic therapy (TAT) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and acute coronary syndrome (ACS) or undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS AND RESULTS: Randomized trials of AF patients with ACS/PCI, comparing DAT using DOACs against TAT, were selected. Overall, 11 161 studies were screened, 458 trials assessed, and four included, comprising 10 234 patients followed for a mean of 11 months. DAT compared to TAT resulted in significant reductions of trial-defined primary safety outcome [odds ratio (OR) 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50-0.79, number needed to treat (NNT) 17] and of thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) major bleeding (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.41-0.70, NNT 76) and in a numerical reduction of intracranial haemorrhage (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.21-1.19, NNT 314), which became significant after exclusion of DOACs from TAT and vitamin K antagonist from DAT arms (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.15-0.64). There were no significant differences in the risks of cardiovascular or any deaths or stroke, but with DAT, there was a numerical increase in myocardial infarctions (MIs) (OR 1.23, 95% CI 0.99-1.54, estimated NNT for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 151), which became significant in the ACS/PCI subgroup (OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.02-2.00), and a 60% significant increase in stent thrombosis risk (OR 1.60, 95% CI 1.02-2.52; NNTH 274). CONCLUSION: Dual antithrombotic therapy, compared to TAT, conferred a significantly reduced risk of overall bleeding but with a significant increase of stent thrombosis risk in the overall population and a significant 43% increase of MI in the ACS/PCI subgroup.

Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators for Primary Prevention in Patients With Ischemic or Nonischemic Cardiomyopathy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) have a role in preventing cardiac arrest in patients at risk for life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias. PURPOSE: To compare ICD therapy with conventional care for the primary prevention of death of various causes in adults with ischemic or nonischemic cardiomyopathy. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Google Scholar, and EMBASE databases, as well as several Web sites, from 1 April 1976 through 31 March 2017. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials, published in any language, comparing ICD therapy with conventional care and reporting mortality outcomes (all-cause, sudden, any cardiac, or noncardiac) in the primary prevention setting. DATA EXTRACTION: 2 independent investigators extracted study data and assessed risk of bias. DATA SYNTHESIS: Included were 11 trials involving 8716 patients: 4 (1781 patients) addressed nonischemic cardiomyopathy, 6 (4414 patients) ischemic cardiomyopathy, and 1 (2521 patients) both types of cardiomyopathy. Mean follow-up was 3.2 years. An overall reduction in all-cause mortality, from 28.26% with conventional care to 21.37% with ICD therapy (hazard ratio [HR], 0.81 [95% CI, 0.70 to 0.94]; P = 0.043), was found. The magnitude of reduction was similar in the cohorts with nonischemic (HR, 0.81 [CI, 0.72 to 0.91]) and ischemic (HR, 0.82 [CI, 0.63 to 1.06]) disease, although the latter estimate did not reach statistical significance. The rate of sudden death fell from 12.15% with conventional care to 4.39% with ICD therapy (HR, 0.41 [CI, 0.30 to 0.56]), with a similar magnitude of reduction in patients with ischemic (HR, 0.39 [CI, 0.23 to 0.68]) and those with nonischemic disease (HR, 0.44 [CI, 0.17 to 1.12]). Noncardiac and any cardiac deaths did not differ significantly by treatment. LIMITATION: Heterogeneous timing of ICD placement; heterogeneous pharmacologic and resynchronization co-interventions; trials conducted in different eras; adverse events and complications not reviewed. CONCLUSION: Overall, primary prevention with ICD therapy versus conventional care reduced the incidence of sudden and all-cause death. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

The left atrial appendage: from embryology to prevention of thromboembolism.

The left atrial appendage (LAA) is the main source of thromboembolism in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF). As such, the LAA can be the target of specific occluding device therapies. Optimal management of patients with AF includes a comprehensive knowledge of the many aspects related to LAA structure and thrombosis. Here we provide baseline notions on the anatomy and function of the LAA, and then focus on current imaging tools for the identification of anatomical varieties. We also describe pathogenetic mechanisms of LAA thrombosis in AF patients, and examine the available evidence on treatment strategies for LAA thrombosis, including the use of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants and interventional approaches.

Association Between Baseline LDL-C Level and Total and Cardiovascular Mortality After LDL-C Lowering: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Importance: Effects on specific fatal and nonfatal end points appear to vary for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C)-lowering drug trials. Objective: To evaluate whether baseline LDL-C level is associated with total and cardiovascular mortality risk reductions. Data Sourcesand Study Selection: Electronic databases (Cochrane, MEDLINE, EMBASE, TCTMD, ClinicalTrials.gov, major congress proceedings) were searched through February 2, 2018, to identify randomized clinical trials of statins, ezetimibe, and PCSK9-inhibiting monoclonal antibodies. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two investigators abstracted data and appraised risks of bias. Intervention groups were categorized as "more intensive" (more potent pharmacologic intervention) or "less intensive" (less potent, placebo, or control group). Main Outcomes and Measures: The coprimary end points were total mortality and cardiovascular mortality. Random-effects meta-regression and meta-analyses evaluated associations between baseline LDL-C level and reductions in mortality end points and secondary end points including major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Results: In 34 trials, 136 299 patients received more intensive and 133 989 received less intensive LDL-C lowering. All-cause mortality was lower for more vs less intensive therapy (7.08% vs 7.70%; rate ratio [RR], 0.92 [95% CI, 0.88 to 0.96]), but varied by baseline LDL-C level. Meta-regression showed more intensive LDL-C lowering was associated with greater reductions in all-cause mortality with higher baseline LDL-C levels (change in RRs per 40-mg/dL increase in baseline LDL-C, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.86 to 0.96]; P = .001; absolute risk difference [ARD], -1.05 incident cases per 1000 person-years [95% CI, -1.59 to -0.51]), but only when baseline LDL-C levels were 100 mg/dL or greater (P < .001 for interaction) in a meta-analysis. Cardiovascular mortality was lower for more vs less intensive therapy (3.48% vs 4.07%; RR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.79 to 0.89]) but varied by baseline LDL-C level. Meta-regression showed more intensive LDL-C lowering was associated with a greater reduction in cardiovascular mortality with higher baseline LDL-C levels (change in RRs per 40-mg/dL increase in baseline LDL-C, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.80 to 0.94]; P < .001; ARD, -1.0 incident cases per 1000 person-years [95% CI, -1.51 to -0.45]), but only when baseline LDL-C levels were 100 mg/dL or greater (P < .001 for interaction) in a meta-analysis. Trials with baseline LDL-C levels of 160 mg/dL or greater had the greatest reduction in all-cause mortality (RR, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.62 to 0.84]; P < .001; 4.3 fewer deaths per 1000 person-years) in a meta-analysis. More intensive LDL-C lowering was also associated with progressively greater risk reductions with higher baseline LDL-C level for myocardial infarction, revascularization, and MACE. Conclusions and Relevance: In these meta-analyses and meta-regressions, more intensive compared with less intensive LDL-C lowering was associated with a greater reduction in risk of total and cardiovascular mortality in trials of patients with higher baseline LDL-C levels. This association was not present when baseline LDL-C level was less than 100 mg/dL, suggesting that the greatest benefit from LDL-C-lowering therapy may occur for patients with higher baseline LDL-C levels.