New-onset atrial fibrillation and chronic coronary syndrome in the CLARIFY registry.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Data on new-onset atrial fibrillation (NOAF) in patients with chronic coronary syndromes (CCS) are scarce. This study aims to describe the incidence, predictors, and impact on cardiovascular (CV) outcomes of NOAF in CCS patients. METHODS: Data from the international (45 countries) CLARIFY registry (prospeCtive observational LongitudinAl RegIstry oF patients with stable coronary arterY disease) were used. Among 29 001 CCS outpatients without previously reported AF at baseline, patients with at least one episode of AF/flutter diagnosed during 5-year follow-up were compared with patients in sinus rhythm throughout the study. RESULTS: The incidence rate of NOAF was 1.12 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.06-1.18] per 100 patient-years (cumulative incidence at 5 years: 5.0%). Independent predictors of NOAF were increasing age, increasing body mass index, low estimated glomerular filtration rate, Caucasian ethnicity, alcohol intake, and low left ventricular ejection fraction, while high triglycerides were associated with lower incidence. New-onset atrial fibrillation was associated with a substantial increase in the risk of adverse outcomes, with adjusted hazard ratios of 2.01 (95% CI 1.61-2.52) for the composite of CV death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, or non-fatal stroke, 2.61 (95% CI 2.04-3.34) for CV death, 1.64 (95% CI 1.07-2.50) for non-fatal myocardial infarction, 2.27 (95% CI 1.85-2.78) for all-cause death, 8.44 (95% CI 7.05-10.10) for hospitalization for heart failure, and 4.46 (95% CI 2.85-6.99) for major bleeding. CONCLUSIONS: Among CCS patients, NOAF is common and is strongly associated with worse outcomes. Whether more intensive preventive measures and more systematic screening for AF would improve prognosis in this population deserves further investigation.

International Observational Analysis of Evolution and Outcomes of Chronic Stable Angina: The Multinational CLARIFY Study.

BACKGROUND: Although angina is common in patients with stable coronary artery disease, limited data are available on its prevalence, natural evolution, and outcomes in the era of effective cardiovascular drugs and widespread use of coronary revascularization. METHODS: Using data from 32 691 patients with stable coronary artery disease from the prospective observational CLARIFY registry (Prospective Observational Longitudinal Registry of Patients with Stable Coronary Artery Disease), anginal status was mapped each year in patients without new coronary revascularization or new myocardial infarction. The use of medical interventions in the year preceding angina resolution was explored. The effect of 1-year changes in angina status on 5-year outcomes was analyzed using multivariable analysis. RESULTS: Among 7212 (22.1%) patients who reported angina at baseline, angina disappeared (without coronary revascularization) in 39.6% at 1 year, with further annual decreases. In patients without angina at baseline, 2.0% to 4.8% developed angina each year. During 5-year follow-up, angina was controlled in 7773 patients, in whom resolution of angina was obtained with increased use of antianginal treatment in 11.1%, with coronary revascularization in 4.5%, and without any changes in medication or revascularization in 84.4%. Compared to patients without angina at baseline and 1 year, persistence of angina and occurrence of angina at 1 year with conservative management were each independently associated with higher rates of cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.32 [95% CI, 1.12-1.55] for persistence of angina; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.37 [95% CI, 1.11-1.70] for occurrence of angina) at 5 years. Patients whose angina had resolved at 1 year with conservative management were not at higher risk of cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction than those who never experienced angina (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.82-1.15]). CONCLUSIONS: Angina affects almost one-quarter of patients with stable coronary artery disease but resolves without events or coronary revascularization in most patients. Resolution of angina within 1 year with conservative management predicted outcomes similar to lack of angina, whereas persistence or occurrence was associated with worse outcomes. Because most patients with angina are likely to experience resolution of symptoms, and because there is no demonstrated outcome benefit to routine revascularization, this study emphasizes the value of conservative management of stable coronary artery disease. Registration: URL: https://www.isrctn.com; Unique identifier: ISRCTN43070564.

Ticagrelor in Patients with Stable Coronary Disease and Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Patients with stable coronary artery disease and diabetes mellitus who have not had a myocardial infarction or stroke are at high risk for cardiovascular events. Whether adding ticagrelor to aspirin improves outcomes in this population is unclear. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind trial, we assigned patients who were 50 years of age or older and who had stable coronary artery disease and type 2 diabetes mellitus to receive either ticagrelor plus aspirin or placebo plus aspirin. Patients with previous myocardial infarction or stroke were excluded. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. The primary safety outcome was major bleeding as defined by the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) criteria. RESULTS: A total of 19,220 patients underwent randomization. The median follow-up was 39.9 months. Permanent treatment discontinuation was more frequent with ticagrelor than placebo (34.5% vs. 25.4%). The incidence of ischemic cardiovascular events (the primary efficacy outcome) was lower in the ticagrelor group than in the placebo group (7.7% vs. 8.5%; hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81 to 0.99; P = 0.04), whereas the incidence of TIMI major bleeding was higher (2.2% vs. 1.0%; hazard ratio, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.82 to 2.94; P<0.001), as was the incidence of intracranial hemorrhage (0.7% vs. 0.5%; hazard ratio, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.18 to 2.48; P = 0.005). There was no significant difference in the incidence of fatal bleeding (0.2% vs. 0.1%; hazard ratio, 1.90; 95% CI, 0.87 to 4.15; P = 0.11). The incidence of an exploratory composite outcome of irreversible harm (death from any cause, myocardial infarction, stroke, fatal bleeding, or intracranial hemorrhage) was similar in the ticagrelor group and the placebo group (10.1% vs. 10.8%; hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.02). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with stable coronary artery disease and diabetes without a history of myocardial infarction or stroke, those who received ticagrelor plus aspirin had a lower incidence of ischemic cardiovascular events but a higher incidence of major bleeding than those who received placebo plus aspirin. (Funded by AstraZeneca; THEMIS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01991795.).

Balance of benefit and risk of ticagrelor in patients with diabetes and stable coronary artery disease according to bleeding risk assessment with the CRUSADE score: Data from THEMIS and THEMIS PCI.

BACKGROUND: The THEMIS trial demonstrated that in high-risk patients with stable coronary artery disease and diabetes without previous myocardial infarction or stroke, ticagrelor, in addition to aspirin, reduced the incidence of ischemic events but increased major bleeding. Identification of patients who could derive the greatest net benefit from the addition of ticagrelor appears important. We used the CRUSADE bleeding risk score to risk stratify the THEMIS population. METHODS: The population was divided into tertiles: score ≤22, 23 to 33, and ≥34. In each tertile, primary efficacy (composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) and safety (TIMI major bleeding) outcomes were analyzed. NACE (net adverse clinical events) was defined as the irreversible harm composite, in which all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, amputations, fatal bleeds, and intracranial hemorrhage were counted. RESULTS: Patients in the lower risk tertile experienced fewer ischemic events with ticagrelor than placebo, whereas there was no significant benefit from ticagrelor in the other tertiles (Pinteraction = .008). Bleeding rates were consistently increased with ticagrelor across all tertiles (Pinteraction = .79). Ticagrelor reduced NACE in the first tertile (HR = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.61-0.90) but not in the others (HR = 1.03, 95% CI = 0.86-1.23 and HR = 1.05, 95% CI = 0.91-1.22, respectively; Pinteraction = .012). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with stable coronary artery disease and diabetes without a history of myocardial infarction or stroke, only those at the lower end of the bleeding risk spectrum according to the CRUSADE score derived net benefit from ticagrelor.

Management of refractory angina: an update.

Despite the use of anti-anginal drugs and/or percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting, the proportion of patients with coronary artery disease who have daily or weekly angina ranges from 2% to 24%. Refractory angina refers to long-lasting symptoms (for >3 months) due to established reversible ischaemia, which cannot be controlled by escalating medical therapy with the use of 2nd- and 3rd-line pharmacological agents, bypass grafting, or stenting. While there is uncertain prognostic benefit, the treatment of refractory angina is important to improve the quality of life of the patients affected. This review focuses on conventional pharmacological approaches to treating refractory angina, including guideline directed drug combination and dosages. The symptomatic and prognostic impact of advanced and novel revascularization strategies such as chronic total occlusion PCI, transmyocardial laser revascularization, coronary sinus occlusion, radiation therapy for recurrent restenosis, and spinal cord stimulation are also covered and recommendations of the 2019 ESC Guidelines on the Diagnosis and Management of Chronic Coronary Syndromes discussed. Finally, the potential clinical use of current angiogenetic and stem cell therapies in reducing ischaemia and/or pain is evaluated.

Fractional flow reserve derived from computed tomography coronary angiography in the assessment and management of stable chest pain: the FORECAST randomized trial.

AIMS: Fractional flow reserve (FFRCT) using computed tomography coronary angiography (CTCA) determines both the presence of coronary artery disease and vessel-specific ischaemia. We tested whether an evaluation strategy based on FFRCT would improve economic and clinical outcomes compared with standard care. METHODS AND RESULTS: Overall, 1400 patients with stable chest pain in 11 centres were randomized to initial testing with CTCA with selective FFRCT (experimental group) or standard clinical care pathways (standard group). The primary endpoint was total cardiac costs at 9 months. Secondary endpoints were angina status, quality of life, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events, and use of invasive coronary angiography. Randomized groups were similar at baseline. Most patients had an initial CTCA: 439 (63%) in the standard group vs. 674 (96%) in the experimental group, 254 of whom (38%) underwent FFRCT. Mean total cardiac costs were higher by £114 (+8%) in the experimental group, with a 95% confidence interval from -£112 (-8%) to +£337 (+23%), though the difference was not significant (P = 0.10). Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events did not differ significantly (10.2% in the experimental group vs. 10.6% in the standard group) and angina and quality of life improved to a similar degree over follow-up in both randomized groups. Invasive angiography was reduced significantly in the experimental group (19% vs. 25%, P = 0.01). CONCLUSION: A strategy of CTCA with selective FFRCT in patients with stable angina did not differ significantly from standard clinical care pathways in cost or clinical outcomes, but did reduce the use of invasive coronary angiography.

Efficacy and safety of trimetazidine after percutaneous coronary intervention (ATPCI): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Angina might persist or reoccur despite successful revascularisation with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and antianginal therapy. Additionally, PCI in stable patients has not been shown to improve survival compared with optimal medical therapy. Trimetazidine is an antianginal agent that improves energy metabolism of the ischaemic myocardium and might improve outcomes and symptoms of patients who recently had a PCI. In this study, we aimed to assess the long-term potential benefits and safety of trimetazidine added to standard evidence-based medical treatment in patients who had a recent successful PCI. METHODS: We did a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, event-driven trial of trimetazidine added to standard background therapy in patients who had undergone successful PCI at 365 centres in 27 countries across Europe, South America, Asia, and north Africa. Eligible patients were aged 21-85 years and had had either elective PCI for stable angina or urgent PCI for unstable angina or non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction less than 30 days before randomisation. Patients were randomly assigned by an interactive web response system to oral trimetazidine 35 mg modified-release twice daily or matching placebo. Participants, study investigators, and all study staff were masked to treatment allocation. The primary efficacy endpoint was a composite of cardiac death; hospital admission for a cardiac event; recurrence or persistence of angina requiring an addition, switch, or increase of the dose of at least one antianginal drug; or recurrence or persistence of angina requiring a coronary angiography. Efficacy analyses were done according to the intention-to-treat principle. Safety was assessed in all patients who had at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with the EU Clinical Trials Register (EudraCT 2010-022134-89). FINDINGS: From Sept 17, 2014, to June 15, 2016, 6007 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive either trimetazidine (n=2998) or placebo (n=3009). After a median follow-up of 47·5 months (IQR 42·3-53·3), incidence of primary endpoint events was not significantly different between the trimetazidine group (700 [23·3%] patients) and the placebo group (714 [23·7%]; hazard ratio 0·98 [95% CI 0·88-1·09], p=0·73). When analysed individually, there were no significant differences in the incidence of the components of the primary endpoint between the treatment groups. Similar results were obtained when patients were categorised according to whether they had an elective or urgent PCI. 1219 (40·9%) of 2983 patients in the trimetazidine group and 1230 (41·1%) of 2990 patients in the placebo group had serious treatment-emergent adverse events. Frequencies of adverse events of interest were similar between the groups. INTERPRETATION: Our results show that the routine use of oral trimetazidine 35 mg twice daily over several years in patients receiving optimal medical therapy, after successful PCI, does not influence the recurrence of angina or the outcome; these findings should be taken into account when considering the place of trimetazidine in clinical practice. However, the long-term prescription of this treatment does not appear to be associated with any statistically significant safety concerns in the population studied. FUNDING: Servier.

Long-term outcomes of chronic coronary syndrome worldwide: insights from the international CLARIFY registry.

AIMS: Over the last decades, the profile of chronic coronary syndrome has changed substantially. We aimed to determine characteristics and management of patients with chronic coronary syndrome in the contemporary era, as well as outcomes and their determinants. METHODS AND RESULTS: Data from 32 703 patients (45 countries) with chronic coronary syndrome enrolled in the prospective observational CLARIFY registry (November 2009 to June 2010) with a 5-year follow-up, were analysed. The primary outcome [cardiovascular death or non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI)] 5-year rate was 8.0% [95% confidence interval (CI) 7.7-8.3] overall [male 8.1% (7.8-8.5); female 7.6% (7.0-8.3)]. A cox proportional hazards model showed that the main independent predictors of the primary outcome were prior hospitalization for heart failure, current smoking, atrial fibrillation, living in Central/South America, prior MI, prior stroke, diabetes, current angina, and peripheral artery disease. There was an interaction between angina and prior MI (P = 0.0016); among patients with prior MI, angina was associated with a higher primary event rate [11.8% (95% CI 10.9-12.9) vs. 8.2% (95% CI 7.8-8.7) in patients with no angina, P < 0.001], whereas among patients without prior MI, event rates were similar for patients with [6.3% (95% CI 5.4-7.3)] or without angina [6.4% (95% CI 5.9-7.0)], P > 0.99. Prescription rates of evidence-based secondary prevention therapies were high. CONCLUSION: This description of the spectrum of chronic coronary syndrome patients shows that, despite high rates of prescription of evidence-based therapies, patients with both angina and prior MI are an easily identifiable high-risk group who may deserve intensive treatment. CLINICAL REGISTRY: ISRCTN43070564.

Ticagrelor in patients with diabetes and stable coronary artery disease with a history of previous percutaneous coronary intervention (THEMIS-PCI): a phase 3, placebo-controlled, randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with stable coronary artery disease and diabetes with previous percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), particularly those with previous stenting, are at high risk of ischaemic events. These patients are generally treated with aspirin. In this trial, we aimed to investigate if these patients would benefit from treatment with aspirin plus ticagrelor. METHODS: The Effect of Ticagrelor on Health Outcomes in diabEtes Mellitus patients Intervention Study (THEMIS) was a phase 3 randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial, done in 1315 sites in 42 countries. Patients were eligible if 50 years or older, with type 2 diabetes, receiving anti-hyperglycaemic drugs for at least 6 months, with stable coronary artery disease, and one of three other mutually non-exclusive criteria: a history of previous PCI or of coronary artery bypass grafting, or documentation of angiographic stenosis of 50% or more in at least one coronary artery. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either ticagrelor or placebo, by use of an interactive voice-response or web-response system. The THEMIS-PCI trial comprised a prespecified subgroup of patients with previous PCI. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (measured in the intention-to-treat population). FINDINGS: Between Feb 17, 2014, and May 24, 2016, 11 154 patients (58% of the overall THEMIS trial) with a history of previous PCI were enrolled in the THEMIS-PCI trial. Median follow-up was 3·3 years (IQR 2·8-3·8). In the previous PCI group, fewer patients receiving ticagrelor had a primary efficacy outcome event than in the placebo group (404 [7·3%] of 5558 vs 480 [8·6%] of 5596; HR 0·85 [95% CI 0·74-0·97], p=0·013). The same effect was not observed in patients without PCI (p=0·76, pinteraction=0·16). The proportion of patients with cardiovascular death was similar in both treatment groups (174 [3·1%] with ticagrelor vs 183 (3·3%) with placebo; HR 0·96 [95% CI 0·78-1·18], p=0·68), as well as all-cause death (282 [5·1%] vs 323 [5·8%]; 0·88 [0·75-1·03], p=0·11). TIMI major bleeding occurred in 111 (2·0%) of 5536 patients receiving ticagrelor and 62 (1·1%) of 5564 patients receiving placebo (HR 2·03 [95% CI 1·48-2·76], p<0·0001), and fatal bleeding in 6 (0·1%) of 5536 patients with ticagrelor and 6 (0·1%) of 5564 with placebo (1·13 [0·36-3·50], p=0·83). Intracranial haemorrhage occurred in 33 (0·6%) and 31 (0·6%) patients (1·21 [0·74-1·97], p=0·45). Ticagrelor improved net clinical benefit: 519/5558 (9·3%) versus 617/5596 (11·0%), HR=0·85, 95% CI 0·75-0·95, p=0·005, in contrast to patients without PCI where it did not, pinteraction=0·012. Benefit was present irrespective of time from most recent PCI. INTERPRETATION: In patients with diabetes, stable coronary artery disease, and previous PCI, ticagrelor added to aspirin reduced cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke, although with increased major bleeding. In that large, easily identified population, ticagrelor provided a favourable net clinical benefit (more than in patients without history of PCI). This effect shows that long-term therapy with ticagrelor in addition to aspirin should be considered in patients with diabetes and a history of PCI who have tolerated antiplatelet therapy, have high ischaemic risk, and low bleeding risk. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

Can we remove scar and fibrosis from adult human myocardium?

The pathological processes leading to heart failure are characterized by the formation of fibrosis and scar, yet the dynamics of scar production and removal are incompletely understood. Spontaneous disappearance of myocardial collagen is reported in infancy but doubted in adulthood where scar volume constitutes a better prognostic indicator than the conventional parameters of ventricular function. Whilst certain drugs are known to attenuate myocardial fibrosis evidence is emerging that stem cell therapy also has the potential to reduce scar size and improve myocardial viability. Both animal studies and clinical trials support the concept that, as in infancy, cellular processes can be triggered to remove collagen and regenerate injured myocardium. The molecular mechanisms likely involve anti-fibrotic cytokines growth factors and matrix-metalloproteinases. Autologous cardiac, bone-marrow and adipose tissue derived stem cells have each shown efficacy. Specific immune privileged mesenchymal stem cells and genetically modified immunomodulatory progenitor cells may in turn provide an allogenic source for the paracrine effects. Thus autologous and allogenic cells both have the potential through paracrine action to reduce scar volume, boost angiogenesis and improve ventricular morphology. The potential benefit of myocardial cell therapy for routine treatment of heart failure is an area that requires further study.

Anti-anginal drugs-beliefs and evidence: systematic review covering 50 years of medical treatment.

Chronic stable angina is the most prevalent symptom of ischaemic heart disease and its management is a priority. Current guidelines recommend pharmacological therapy with drugs classified as being first line (beta blockers, calcium channel blockers, short acting nitrates) or second line (long-acting nitrates, ivabradine, nicorandil, ranolazine, and trimetazidine). Second line drugs are indicated for patients who have contraindications to first line agents, do not tolerate them or remain symptomatic. Evidence that one drug is superior to another has been questioned. Between January and March 2018, we performed a systematic review of articles written in English over the past 50 years English-written articles in Medline and Embase following preferred reporting items and the Cochrane collaboration approach. We included double blind randomized studies comparing parallel groups on treatment of angina in patients with stable coronary artery disease, with a sample size of, at least, 100 patients (50 patients per group), with a minimum follow-up of 1 week and an outcome measured on exercise testing, duration of exercise being the preferred outcome. Thirteen studies fulfilled our criteria. Nine studies involved between 100 and 300 patients, (2818 in total) and a further four enrolled greater than 300 patients. Evidence of equivalence was demonstrated for the use of beta-blockers (atenolol), calcium antagonists (amlodipine, nifedipine), and channel inhibitor (ivabradine) in three of these studies. Taken all together, in none of the studies was there evidence that one drug was superior to another in the treatment of angina or to prolong total exercise duration. There is a paucity of data comparing the efficacy of anti-anginal agents. The little available evidence shows that no anti-anginal drug is superior to another and equivalence has been shown only for three classes of drugs. Guidelines draw conclusions not from evidence but from clinical beliefs.

ß-blockers, calcium antagonists, and mortality in stable coronary artery disease: an international cohort study.

AIMS: The effect of first-line antianginal agents, ß-blockers, and calcium antagonists on clinical outcomes in stable coronary artery disease (CAD) remains uncertain. METHODS AND RESULTS: We analysed the use of ß-blockers or calcium antagonists (baseline and annually) and outcomes in 22 006 stable CAD patients (enrolled 2009-2010) followed annually to 5 years, in the CLARIFY registry (45 countries). Primary outcome was all-cause death. Secondary outcomes were cardiovascular death and the composite of cardiovascular death/non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI). After multivariable adjustment, baseline ß-blocker use was not associated with lower all-cause death [1345 (7.8%) in users vs. 407 (8.4%) in non-users; hazard ratio (HR) 0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84-1.06; P = 0.30]; cardiovascular death [861 (5.0%) vs. 262 (5.4%); HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.79-1.05; P = 0.20]; or cardiovascular death/non-fatal MI [1272 (7.4%) vs. 340 (7.0%); HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.91-1.16; P = 0.66]. Sensitivity analyses according to ß-blocker use over time and to prescribed dose produced similar results. Among prior MI patients, for those enrolled in the year following MI, baseline ß-blocker use was associated with lower all-cause death [205 (7.0%) vs. 59 (10.3%); HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.50-0.91; P = 0.01]; cardiovascular death [132 (4.5%) vs. 49 (8.5%); HR 0.52, 95% CI 0.37-0.73; P = 0.0001]; and cardiovascular death/non-fatal MI [212 (7.2%) vs. 59 (10.3%); HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.52-0.93; P = 0.01]. Calcium antagonists were not associated with any difference in mortality. CONCLUSION: In this contemporary cohort of stable CAD, ß-blocker use was associated with lower 5-year mortality only in patients enrolled in the year following MI. Use of calcium antagonists was not associated with superior mortality, regardless of history of MI.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to assess the efficAcy and safety of Trimetazidine in patients with angina pectoris having been treated by percutaneous coronary intervention (ATPCI study): Rationale, design, and baseline characteristics.

BACKGROUND: About 30% of angina patients have persisting symptoms despite successful revascularization and antianginal therapy. Moreover, in stable patients, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) does not improve survival as compared with medical therapy alone. Trimetazidine, an antianginal agent devoid of hemodynamic effect, may help reducing symptoms and improving outcomes after PCI. The ATPCI study is investigating the efficacy and safety of adding trimetazidine to standard-of-care in angina patients who had a recent PCI. METHODS: ATPCI is a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, event-driven study in patients with coronary artery disease having undergone PCI because of stable angina (elective PCI) or unstable angina/NSTEMI (urgent PCI). After PCI, patients were randomized to trimetazidine (35 mg bid) or placebo on top of standard-of-care including event prevention drugs and antianginal treatment. Patients will be followed for 2 to 4 years. The primary efficacy endpoint is a composite of cardiac death, hospitalization for a cardiac event and recurrence or persistence of angina. Safety events related to trimetazidine use will be monitored. RESULTS: Recruitment lasted from September 2014 to June 2016. A total of 6007 patients were enrolled (58% and 42% after elective and urgent PCI, respectively). Mean age was 61 years, 77% were males, and median durations of coronary artery disease were 1 and 5 months (if urgent or elective PCI, respectively). Almost all patients received drugs for event prevention and antianginal therapy at baseline. CONCLUSION: The ATPCI study will shed further light on the management of contemporary angina patients after PCI. Results are expected in 2019.

Potential impact of the 2017 ACC/AHA guideline on high blood pressure in normotensive patients with stable coronary artery disease: insights from the CLARIFY registry.

Aims: The 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guideline on high blood pressure (BP) lowered the threshold defining hypertension and BP target in high-risk patients to 130/80 mmHg. Patients with coronary artery disease and systolic BP 130-139 mmHg or diastolic BP 80-89 mmHg should now receive medication to achieve this target. We aimed to investigate the relationship between BP and cardiovascular events in 'real-life' patients with coronary artery disease considered as having normal BP until the recent guideline. Methods and results: Data from 5956 patients with stable coronary artery disease, no history of hypertension or heart failure, and average BP <140/90 mmHg, enrolled in the CLARIFY registry (November 2009 to June 2010), were analysed. In a multivariable-adjusted Cox proportional hazards model, after a median follow-up of 5.0 years, diastolic BP 80-89 mmHg, but not systolic BP 130-139 mmHg, was associated with increased risk of the primary endpoint, a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (hazard ratio 2.15, 95% confidence interval 1.22-3.81 vs. 70-79 mmHg and 1.12, 0.64-1.97 vs. 120-129 mmHg). No significant increase in risk for the primary endpoint was observed for systolic BP <120 mmHg or diastolic BP <70 mmHg. Conclusion: In patients with stable coronary artery disease defined as having normal BP according to the 140/90 mmHg threshold, diastolic BP 80-89 mmHg was associated with increased cardiovascular risk, whereas systolic BP 130-139 mmHg was not, supporting the lower diastolic but not the lower systolic BP hypertension-defining threshold and treatment target in coronary artery disease. ClinicalTrials identifier: ISRCTN43070564.

Cardiovascular event rates and mortality according to achieved systolic and diastolic blood pressure in patients with stable coronary artery disease: an international cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The optimum blood pressure target in hypertension remains debated, especially in coronary artery disease, given concerns for reduced myocardial perfusion if diastolic blood pressure is too low. We aimed to study the association between achieved blood pressure and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease and hypertension. METHODS: We analysed data from 22 672 patients with stable coronary artery disease enrolled (from Nov 26, 2009, to June 30, 2010) in the CLARIFY registry (including patients from 45 countries) and treated for hypertension. Systolic and diastolic blood pressures before each event were averaged and categorised into 10 mm Hg increments. The primary outcome was the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. Hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated with multivariable adjusted Cox proportional hazards models, using the 120-129 mm Hg systolic blood pressure and 70-79 mm Hg diastolic blood pressure subgroups as reference. FINDINGS: After a median follow-up of 5·0 years, increased systolic blood pressure of 140 mm Hg or more and diastolic blood pressure of 80 mm Hg or more were each associated with increased risk of cardiovascular events. Systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg was also associated with increased risk for the primary outcome (adjusted HR 1·56, 95% CI 1·36-1·81). Likewise, diastolic blood pressure of less than 70 mm Hg was associated with an increase in the primary outcome (adjusted HR 1·41 [1·24-1·61] for diastolic blood pressure of 60-69 mm Hg and 2·01 [1·50-2·70] for diastolic blood pressure of less than 60 mm Hg). INTERPRETATION: In patients with hypertension and coronary artery disease from routine clinical practice, systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg and diastolic blood pressure of less than 70 mm Hg were each associated with adverse cardiovascular outcomes, including mortality, supporting the existence of a J-curve phenomenon. This finding suggests that caution should be taken in the use of blood pressure-lowering treatment in patients with coronary artery disease. FUNDING: Servier.

Ivabradine in stable coronary artery disease without clinical heart failure.

BACKGROUND: An elevated heart rate is an established marker of cardiovascular risk. Previous analyses have suggested that ivabradine, a heart-rate-reducing agent, may improve outcomes in patients with stable coronary artery disease, left ventricular dysfunction, and a heart rate of 70 beats per minute or more. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of ivabradine, added to standard background therapy, in 19,102 patients who had both stable coronary artery disease without clinical heart failure and a heart rate of 70 beats per minute or more (including 12,049 patients with activity-limiting angina [class ≥II on the Canadian Cardiovascular Society scale, which ranges from I to IV, with higher classes indicating greater limitations on physical activity owing to angina]). We randomly assigned patients to placebo or ivabradine, at a dose of up to 10 mg twice daily, with the dose adjusted to achieve a target heart rate of 55 to 60 beats per minute. The primary end point was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes or nonfatal myocardial infarction. RESULTS: At 3 months, the mean (±SD) heart rate of the patients was 60.7±9.0 beats per minute in the ivabradine group versus 70.6±10.1 beats per minute in the placebo group. After a median follow-up of 27.8 months, there was no significant difference between the ivabradine group and the placebo group in the incidence of the primary end point (6.8% and 6.4%, respectively; hazard ratio, 1.08; 95% confidence interval, 0.96 to 1.20; P=0.20), nor were there significant differences in the incidences of death from cardiovascular causes and nonfatal myocardial infarction. Ivabradine was associated with an increase in the incidence of the primary end point among patients with activity-limiting angina but not among those without activity-limiting angina (P=0.02 for interaction). The incidence of bradycardia was higher with ivabradine than with placebo (18.0% vs. 2.3%, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients who had stable coronary artery disease without clinical heart failure, the addition of ivabradine to standard background therapy to reduce the heart rate did not improve outcomes. (Funded by Servier; SIGNIFY Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN61576291.).

The Intracranial-B2LEED3S Score and the Risk of Intracranial Hemorrhage in Ischemic Stroke Patients Under Antiplatelet Treatment.

BACKGROUND: Chronic antiplatelet therapy in the post-acute phase of non-cardioembolic ischemic stroke is limited by the risk of intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) complications. METHODS: We developed an ICH risk score based on the PERFORM trial cohort (n = 19,100), which included patients with a non-cardioembolic ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack, and externally validated this score in one contemporary trial of very similar size and inclusion criteria, the PRoFESS trial (n = 20,332 patients). Outcome was ICH over 2 years. A Cox proportional-hazard regression analysis identified risk factors. Discrimination was quantified with c-statistics and calibration was assessed by comparing predicted and observed ICH risk in PERFORM and PRoFESS. RESULTS: ICH occurred within 2 years in 263 (1.4%) patients in PERFORM trial and in 246 (1.2%) patients in PRoFESS trial. A 13-point score based on 9 items (Intracranial-B2LEED3S score - low body mass index, blood pressure, lacune, elderly, Asian ethnicity, coronary artery or cerebrovascular disease history, dual antithrombotic agent or oral anticoagulant, gender) was derived from the PERFORM trial. In PERFORM, the observed 2-year ICH risk varied from 0.75% in low-risk (score ≤2) to 2.44% in high-risk patients (score ≥5) with an acceptable calibration but a low discrimination both in PERFORM (c-statistic 0.64, 95% CI 0.61-0.68) and on external validation in PRoFESS (0.58, 95% CI 0.55-0.62). CONCLUSION: The Intracranial-B2LEED3S score helps identify patients who are at a high risk of bleeding. However, other variables need to be identified to improve the score (e.g., microbleeds) (Clinical Trial Registration Information ISRCTN66157730). URL: http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN66157730?totalResults=5&pageSize=10&page=1&searchType=basic-search&offset=3&q=&filters=conditionCategory%3ACirculatory+System%2CrecruitmentCountry%3ATaiwan%2CrecruitmentCountry%3AAustria&sort=.

Specificities of Ischemic Stroke Risk Factors in Arab-Speaking Countries.

BACKGROUND: Stroke is largely preventable, and therefore, a better understanding of risk factors is an essential step in reducing the population stroke rate and resulting disease burden in Arab countries. SUMMARY: We performed 2 separate analyses in 2 similar populations of patients with noncardioembolic ischemic stroke. This first involved 3,635 patients in the Outcomes in Patients with TIA and Cerebrovascular disease (OPTIC) registry (followed for 2 years), with baseline collection of the usual risk factors and 5 socioeconomic variables (unemployment status, residence in rural area, living in fully serviced accommodation, no health-insurance coverage, and low educational level). The second involved patients in the PERFORM trial (n = 19,100 followed up for 2 years), with baseline collection of the usual risk factors and 1 socioeconomic variable (low educational level). The primary outcome was a composite of nonfatal stroke, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or cardiovascular death. Stroke risk factors were more prevalent in patients in Arab countries. The incidence of major cardiovascular events (MACE; age- and gender-adjusted) was higher in Arab countries (OPTIC, 18.5 vs. 13.3%; PERFORM, 18.4 vs. 9.7%; both p ≤ 0.0001). These results remained significant after adjustment on risk factors and were attenuated in OPTIC after further adjustment on socioeconomic variables (hazard ratio 1.24; 95% CI 0.98-1.55; p = 0.07). Key Messages: Patients with ischemic stroke living in Arab countries had a lower mean socioeconomic status, a much higher prevalence of diabetes mellitus, and a higher rate of MACE compared with patients from non-Arab countries. This finding is partly explained by a higher prevalence of risk factors and also by a high prevalence of poverty and low educational level.

Paracetamol, Ibuprofen, and Recurrent Major Cardiovascular and Major Bleeding Events in 19 120 Patients With Recent Ischemic Stroke.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The presumed safety of paracetamol in high-cardiovascular risk patients has been questioned. We determined whether paracetamol or ibuprofen use is associated with major cardiovascular events (MACE) or major bleeding in 19 120 patients with recent ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack of mainly atherothrombotic origin included in the Prevention of cerebrovascular and cardiovascular events of ischemic origin with terutroban in patients with a history of ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack (PERFORM) trial. METHODS: We performed 2 nested case-control analysis (2153 cases with MACE during trial follow-up and 4306 controls matched on Essen stroke risk score; 809 cases with major bleeding matched with 1616 controls) and a separate time-varying analysis. RESULTS: 12.3% were prescribed paracetamol and 2.5% ibuprofen. Median duration of treatment was 14 (interquartile range 5-145) days for paracetamol and 9 (5-30) days for ibuprofen. Paracetamol, but not ibuprofen, was associated with increased risk of MACE (odds ratio 1.21, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04-1.42) or a major bleeding (odds ratio 1.60, 95% CI 1.26-2.03), with no impact of daily dose and duration of paracetamol treatment. Time-varying analysis found an increased risk of MACE with both paracetamol (hazard ratio 1.22, 95% CI 1.05-1.43) and ibuprofen (hazard ratio 1.47, 95% CI 1.06-2.03) and of major bleeding with paracetamol (hazard ratio 1.95, 95% CI 1.45-2.62). CONCLUSIONS: There was a weak and inconsistent signal for association between paracetamol or ibuprofen and MACE or major bleeding, which may be related to either a genuine but modest effect of these drugs or to residual confounding. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: http://www.isrctn.com. Unique identifier: ISRCTN66157730.