Routine invasive strategies versus selective invasive strategies for unstable angina and non-ST elevation myocardial infarction in the stent era.

BACKGROUND: People with unstable angina and non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (UA/NSTEMI) are managed with a combination of medical therapy, invasive angiography and revascularisation. Specifically, two approaches have evolved: either a 'routine invasive' strategy whereby all patients undergo coronary angiography shortly after admission and, if indicated, coronary revascularisation; or a 'selective invasive' (also referred to as 'conservative') strategy in which medical therapy alone is used initially, with a selection of patients for angiography based upon evidence of persistent myocardial ischaemia. Uncertainty exists as to which strategy provides the best outcomes for these patients. This Cochrane review is an update of a Cochrane review originally published in 2006, to provide a robust comparison of these two strategies in the early management of patients with UA/NSTEMI. OBJECTIVES: To determine the benefits and harms associated with the following.1. A routine invasive versus a conservative or 'selective invasive' strategy for the management of UA/NSTEMI in the stent era.2. A routine invasive strategy with and without glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor antagonists versus a conservative strategy for the management of UA/NSTEMI in the stent era. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases and additional resources up to 25 August 2015: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) on the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE and EMBASE, with no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included prospective randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared invasive with conservative or 'selective invasive' strategies in participants with acute UA/NSTEMI. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors screened the records and extracted data in duplicate. Using intention-to-treat analysis with random-effects models, we calculated summary estimates of the risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the primary endpoints of all-cause death, fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), combined all-cause death or non-fatal MI, refractory angina and re-hospitalisation. We performed further analysis of included studies based on whether glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor antagonists were used routinely. We assessed the heterogeneity of included trials using Pearson χ² (Chi² test) and variance (I² statistic) analysis. Using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, we assessed the quality of the evidence and the GRADE profiler (GRADEPRO) was used to import data from Review Manager 5.3 (Review Manager) to create Summary of findings (SoF) tables. MAIN RESULTS: Eight RCTs with a total of 8915 participants (4545 invasive strategies, 4370 conservative strategies) were eligible for inclusion. We included three new studies and 1099 additional participants in this review update. In the all-study analysis, evidence did not show appreciable risk reductions in all-cause mortality (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.18; eight studies, 8915 participants; low quality evidence) and death or non-fatal MI (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.2; seven studies, 7715 participants; low quality evidence) with invasive strategies compared to conservative (selective invasive) strategies at six to 12 months follow-up. There was appreciable risk reduction in MI (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.00; eight studies, 8915 participants; moderate quality evidence), refractory angina (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.79; five studies, 8287 participants; moderate quality evidence) and re-hospitalisation (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.94; six studies, 6921 participants; moderate quality evidence) with routine invasive strategies compared to conservative (selective invasive) strategies also at six to 12 months follow-up.Evidence also showed increased risks in bleeding (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.30 to 2.31; six studies, 7584 participants; moderate quality evidence) and procedure-related MI (RR 1.87, 95% CI 1.47 to 2.37; five studies, 6380 participants; moderate quality evidence) with routine invasive strategies compared to conservative (selective invasive) strategies.The low quality evidence were as a result of serious risk of bias and imprecision in the estimate of effect while moderate quality evidence was only due to serious risk of bias. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In the all-study analysis, the evidence failed to show appreciable benefit with routine invasive strategies for unstable angina and non-ST elevation MI compared to conservative strategies in all-cause mortality and death or non-fatal MI at six to 12 months. There was evidence of risk reduction in MI, refractory angina and re-hospitalisation with routine invasive strategies compared to conservative (selective invasive) strategies at six to 12 months follow-up. However, routine invasive strategies were associated with a relatively high risk (almost double the risk) of procedure-related MI, and increased risk of bleeding complications. This systematic analysis of published RCTs supports the conclusion that, in patients with UA/NSTEMI, a selectively invasive (conservative) strategy based on clinical risk for recurrent events is the preferred management strategy.

Efficacy and safety of ablation for people with non-paroxysmal atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: The optimal rhythm management strategy for people with non-paroxysmal (persistent or long-standing persistent) atrial fibrilation is currently not well defined. Antiarrhythmic drugs have been the mainstay of therapy. But recently, in people who have not responded to antiarrhythmic drugs, the use of ablation (catheter and surgical) has emerged as an alternative to maintain sinus rhythm to avoid long-term atrial fibrillation complications. However, evidence from randomised trials about the efficacy and safety of ablation in non-paroxysmal atrial fibrillation is limited. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy and safety of ablation (catheter and surgical) in people with non-paroxysmal (persistent or long-standing persistent) atrial fibrillation compared to antiarrhythmic drugs. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, conference abstracts, clinical trial registries, and Health Technology Assessment Database. We searched these databases from their inception to 1 April 2016. We used no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised trials evaluating the effect of radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA) or surgical ablation compared with antiarrhythmic drugs in adults with non-paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, regardless of any concomitant underlying heart disease, with at least 12 months of follow-up. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies and extracted data. We evaluated risk of bias using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous data with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) a using fixed-effect model when heterogeneity was low (I² <= 40%) and a random-effects model when heterogeneity was moderate or substantial (I² > 40%). Using the GRADE approach, we evaluated the quality of the evidence and used the GRADE profiler (GRADEpro) to import data from Review Manager 5 to create 'Summary of findings' tables. MAIN RESULTS: We included three randomised trials with 261 participants (mean age: 60 years) comparing RFCA (159 participants) to antiarrhythmic drugs (102) for non-paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. We generally assessed the included studies as having low or unclear risk of bias across multiple domains, with reported outcomes generally lacking precision due to low event rates. Evidence showed that RFCA was superior to antiarrhythmic drugs in achieving freedom from atrial arrhythmias (RR 1.84, 95% CI 1.17 to 2.88; 3 studies, 261 participants; low-quality evidence), reducing the need for cardioversion (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.82; 3 studies, 261 participants; moderate-quality evidence), and reducing cardiac-related hospitalisation (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.72; 2 studies, 216 participants; low-quality evidence) at 12 months follow-up. There was substantial uncertainty surrounding the effect of RFCA regarding significant bradycardia (or need for a pacemaker) (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.63; 3 studies, 261 participants; low-quality evidence), periprocedural complications, and other safety outcomes (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.16 to 5.68; 3 studies, 261 participants; very low-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In people with non-paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, evidence suggests a superiority of RFCA to antiarrhythmic drugs in achieving freedom from atrial arrhythmias, reducing the need for cardioversion, and reducing cardiac-related hospitalisations. There was uncertainty surrounding the effect of RFCA with significant bradycardia (or need for a pacemaker), periprocedural complications, and other safety outcomes. Evidence should be interpreted with caution, as event rates were low and quality of evidence ranged from moderate to very low.

Statins for aortic valve stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Aortic valve stenosis is the most common type of valvular heart disease in the USA and Europe. Aortic valve stenosis is considered similar to atherosclerotic disease. Some studies have evaluated statins for aortic valve stenosis. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of statins in aortic valve stenosis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS - IBECS, Web of Science and CINAHL Plus. These databases were searched from their inception to 24 November 2015. We also searched trials in registers for ongoing trials. We used no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) comparing statins alone or in association with other systemic drugs to reduce cholesterol levels versus placebo or usual care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Primary outcomes were severity of aortic valve stenosis (evaluated by echocardiographic criteria: mean pressure gradient, valve area and aortic jet velocity), freedom from valve replacement and death from cardiovascular cause. Secondary outcomes were hospitalisation for any reason, overall mortality, adverse events and patient quality of life.Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. The GRADE methodology was employed to assess the quality of result findings and the GRADE profiler (GRADEPRO) was used to import data from Review Manager 5.3 to create a 'Summary of findings' table. MAIN RESULTS: We included four RCTs with 2360 participants comparing statins (1185 participants) with placebo (1175 participants). We found low-quality evidence for our primary outcome of severity of aortic valve stenosis, evaluated by mean pressure gradient (mean difference (MD) -0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.88 to 0.80; participants = 1935; studies = 2), valve area (MD -0.07, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.14; participants = 127; studies = 2), and aortic jet velocity (MD -0.06, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.14; participants = 155; study = 1). Moderate-quality evidence showed no effect on freedom from valve replacement with statins (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.06; participants = 2360; studies = 4), and no effect on muscle pain as an adverse event (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.09; participants = 2204; studies = 3; moderate-quality evidence). Low- and very low-quality evidence showed uncertainty around the effect of statins on death from cardiovascular cause (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.15; participants = 2297; studies = 3; low-quality evidence) and hospitalisation for any reason (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.84; participants = 155; study = 1; very low-quality evidence). None of the four included studies reported on overall mortality and patient quality of life. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Result findings showed uncertainty surrounding the effect of statins for aortic valve stenosis.The quality of evidence from the reported outcomes ranged from moderate to very low. These results give support to European and USA guidelines (2012 and 2014, respectively) that so far there is no clinical treatment option for aortic valve stenosis.

Development of mWellcare: an mHealth intervention for integrated management of hypertension and diabetes in low-resource settings.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular diseases and diabetes are among the leading causes of premature adult deaths in India. Innovative approaches such as clinical decision support (CDS) software could play a major role in improving the quality of hypertension/diabetes care in primary care settings. OBJECTIVE: To describe the steps and processes in the development of mWellcare, a complex intervention based on mobile health (mHealth) technology. METHODS: The Medical Research Council framework was used to develop mWellcare in four steps: (1) identify gaps in usual care through literature review and health facility assessments; (2) identify the components of the intervention through discussions and consultations with experts; (3) develop intervention (clinical algorithms and mHealth system); and (4) evaluate acceptability and feasibility through pilot testing in five community health centers. RESULTS: Lack of evidence-based, integrated, and systematic management of chronic conditions were major gaps identified. Experts in information technology, clinical fields, and public health professionals identified intervention components to address these gaps. Thereafter, clinical algorithm contextualized to primary care settings were prepared and the mWellcare intervention was developed. During the 2-month pilot, 631 patients diagnosed with hypertension and/or diabetes were registered, with a follow-up rate of 36.2%. The major barrier was resistance to follow mWellcare recommended patient workflow, and to overcome it, we emphasized onsite training and orientation program to cover all health care team member in each CHC. CONCLUSION: A pilot-tested mWellcare intervention is an mHealth system with important components, i.e. integrated management of chronic conditions, evidence-based CDS, longitudinal health data and automated short-messaging service to reinforce compliance to drug intake and follow-up visit, which will be used by nurses at primary health care settings in India. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the intervention will be tested through a cluster randomized trial (trial registration number NCT02480062).

Efficacy of Catheter Ablation for Nonparoxysmal Atrial Fibrillation.

Clinical Question: Is catheter ablation better than antiarrhythmic drugs for the prevention of nonparoxysmal atrial fibrillation? Bottom Line: Radiofrequency catheter ablation was found to be superior to antiarrhythmic drugs in preventing recurrences of nonparoxysmal atrial fibrillation and reducing hospital admissions.

The Development of mWellcare, an mHealth System for the Integrated Management of Hypertension and Diabetes in Primary Care.

This paper describes development of mhealth application "mWellcare" for the integrated management of hypertension and diabetes in public primary health care settings. mWellcare application was developed in four phases: identifying gaps in usual care; identifying components of intervention; developing intervention; evaluating acceptability and feasibility through pilot testing. Final version of mWellcare application is capable of computing personalized evidence-based management plan for hypertension, diabetes and co-morbid conditions (depression and alcohol use disorder).

Protocol for the mWellcare trial: a multicentre, cluster randomised, 12-month, controlled trial to compare the effectiveness of mWellcare, an mHealth system for an integrated management of patients with hypertension and diabetes, versus enhanced usual care in India.

INTRODUCTION: Rising burden of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and diabetes is a major challenge to the health system in India. Innovative approaches such as mobile phone technology (mHealth) for electronic decision support in delivering evidence-based and integrated care for hypertension, diabetes and comorbid depression have potential to transform the primary healthcare system. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: mWellcare trial is a multicentre, cluster randomised controlled trial evaluating the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a mHealth system and nurse managed care for people with hypertension and diabetes in rural India. mWellcare system is an Android-based mobile application designed to generate algorithm-based clinical management prompts for treating hypertension and diabetes and also capable of storing health records, sending alerts and reminders for follow-up and adherence to medication. We recruited a total of 3702 participants from 40 Community Health Centres (CHCs), with ≥90 at each of the CHCs in the intervention and control (enhanced care) arms. The primary outcome is the difference in mean change (from baseline to 1 year) in systolic blood pressure and glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) between the two treatment arms. The secondary outcomes are difference in mean change from baseline to 1 year in fasting plasma glucose, total cholesterol, predicted 10-year risk of CVD, depression, smoking behaviour, body mass index and alcohol use between the two treatment arms and cost-effectiveness. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by the institutional Ethics Committees at Public Health Foundation of India and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. Findings will be disseminated widely through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and other mechanisms. TRIAL REGISTRATION: mWellcare trial is registered with Clinicaltrial.gov (Registration number NCT02480062; Pre-results) and Clinical Trial Registry of India (Registration number CTRI/2016/02/006641). The current version of the protocol is Version 2 dated 19 October 2015 and the study sponsor is Public Health Foundation of India, Gurgaon, India (www.phfi.org).

Statins for aortic valve stenosis.

BACKGROUND:: Aortic valve stenosis is the most common type of valvular heart disease in the USA and Europe. Aortic valve stenosis is considered similar to atherosclerotic disease. Some studies have evaluated statins for aortic valve stenosis. OBJECTIVES:: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of statins in aortic valve stenosis. METHODS:: Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS - IBECS, Web of Science and CINAHL Plus. These databases were searched from their inception to 24 November 2015. We also searched trials in registers for ongoing trials. We used no language restrictions.Selection criteria: Randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) comparing statins alone or in association with other systemic drugs to reduce cholesterol levels versus placebo or usual care. Data collection and analysis: Primary outcomes were severity of aortic valve stenosis (evaluated by echocardiographic criteria: mean pressure gradient, valve area and aortic jet velocity), freedom from valve replacement and death from cardiovascular cause. Secondary outcomes were hospitalization for any reason, overall mortality, adverse events and patient quality of life.Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. The GRADE methodology was employed to assess the quality of result findings and the GRADE profiler (GRADEPRO) was used to import data from Review Manager 5.3 to create a 'Summary of findings' table. MAIN RESULTS:: We included four RCTs with 2360 participants comparing statins (1185 participants) with placebo (1175 participants). We found low-quality evidence for our primary outcome of severity of aortic valve stenosis, evaluated by mean pressure gradient (mean difference (MD) -0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.88 to 0.80; participants = 1935; studies = 2), valve area (MD -0.07, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.14; participants = 127; studies = 2), and aortic jet velocity (MD -0.06, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.14; participants = 155; study = 1). Moderate-quality evidence showed no effect on freedom from valve replacement with statins (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.06; participants = 2360; studies = 4), and no effect on muscle pain as an adverse event (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.09; participants = 2204; studies = 3; moderate-quality evidence). Low- and very low-quality evidence showed uncertainty around the effect of statins on death from cardiovascular cause (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.15; participants = 2297; studies = 3; low-quality evidence) and hospitalization for any reason (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.84; participants = 155; study = 1; very low-quality evidence). None of the four included studies reported on overall mortality and patient quality of life. AUTHORS CONCLUSIONS:: Result findings showed uncertainty surrounding the effect of statins for aortic valve stenosis. The quality of evidence from the reported outcomes ranged from moderate to very low. These results give support to European and USA guidelines (2012 and 2014, respectively) that so far there is no clinical treatment option for aortic valve stenosis.

Statins for aortic valve stenosis

ABSTRACT BACKGROUND: Aortic valve stenosis is the most common type of valvular heart disease in the USA and Europe. Aortic valve stenosis is considered similar to atherosclerotic disease. Some studies have evaluated statins for aortic valve stenosis. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of statins in aortic valve stenosis. METHODS: Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS - IBECS, Web of Science and CINAHL Plus. These databases were searched from their inception to 24 November 2015. We also searched trials in registers for ongoing trials. We used no language restrictions. Selection criteria: Randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) comparing statins alone or in association with other systemic drugs to reduce cholesterol levels versus placebo or usual care. Data collection and analysis: Primary outcomes were severity of aortic valve stenosis (evaluated by echocardiographic criteria: mean pressure gradient, valve area and aortic jet velocity), freedom from valve replacement and death from cardiovascular cause. Secondary outcomes were hospitalization for any reason, overall mortality, adverse events and patient quality of life. Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. The GRADE methodology was employed to assess the quality of result findings and the GRADE profiler (GRADEPRO) was used to import data from Review Manager 5.3 to create a 'Summary of findings' table. MAIN RESULTS: We included four RCTs with 2360 participants comparing statins (1185 participants) with placebo (1175 participants). We found low-quality evidence for our primary outcome of severity of aortic valve stenosis, evaluated by mean pressure gradient (mean difference (MD) -0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.88 to 0.80; participants = 1935; studies = 2), valve area (MD -0.07, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.14; participants = 127; studies = 2), and aortic jet velocity (MD -0.06, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.14; participants = 155; study = 1). Moderate-quality evidence showed no effect on freedom from valve replacement with statins (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.06; participants = 2360; studies = 4), and no effect on muscle pain as an adverse event (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.09; participants = 2204; studies = 3; moderate-quality evidence). Low- and very low-quality evidence showed uncertainty around the effect of statins on death from cardiovascular cause (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.15; participants = 2297; studies = 3; low-quality evidence) and hospitalization for any reason (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.84; participants = 155; study = 1; very low-quality evidence). None of the four included studies reported on overall mortality and patient quality of life. AUTHORS CONCLUSIONS: Result findings showed uncertainty surrounding the effect of statins for aortic valve stenosis. The quality of evidence from the reported outcomes ranged from moderate to very low. These results give support to European and USA guidelines (2012 and 2014, respectively) that so far there is no clinical treatment option for aortic valve stenosis.