Risk markers of incident atrial fibrillation in patients with coronary heart disease.

BACKGROUND: In patients with coronary heart disease (CHD), atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. We investigated the associations between clinical risk factors and biomarkers with incident AF in patients with CHD. METHODS AND RESULTS: Around 13,153 patients with optimally treated CHD included in the STabilization of Atherosclerotic plaque By Initiation of darapLadIb TherapY (STABILITY) trial with plasma samples obtained at randomization. Mean follow-up time was 3.5 years. The association between clinical risk factors and biomarkers with incident AF was estimated with Cox-regression models. Validation was performed in 1,894 patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome included in the FRISC-II trial. The median (min-max) age was 64 years (range 26-92) and 2,514 (19.1%) were women. A total of 541 patients, annual incidence rate of 1.2%, developed AF during follow-up. In multivariable models, older age, higher levels of NT-proBNP, higher body mass index (BMI), male sex, geographic regions, low physical activity, and heart failure were independently associated with increased risk of incident AF with hazard ratios ranging from 1.04 to 1.79 (P ≤ .05). NT-proBNP improved the C-index from 0.70 to 0.71. In the validation cohort, age, BMI, and NT-proBNP were associated with increased risk of incident AF with similar hazard ratios. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with optimally treated CHD, the incidence of new AF was 1.2% per year. Age, NT-proBNP as a marker of impaired cardiac function, and BMI were the strongest factors, independently and consistently associated with incident AF. Male sex and low physical activity may also contribute to the risk of AF in patients with CHD.

Rationale and design of ApoA-I Event Reducing in Ischemic Syndromes II (AEGIS-II): A phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study to investigate the efficacy and safety of CSL112 in subjects after acute myocardial infarction.

Acute myocardial infarction (MI) patients remain at high risk for recurrent events. Cholesterol efflux, mediated by apolipoprotein A-I, removes excess cholesterol from atherosclerotic plaque and transports it to the liver for excretion. Impaired cholesterol efflux is associated with higher cardiovascular (CV) event rates among both patients with stable coronary artery disease and recent MI. CSL112, a novel intravenous formulation of apolipoprotein A-I (human) derived from human plasma, increases cholesterol efflux capacity. AEGIS-II is a phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial investigating the efficacy and safety of CSL112 compared to placebo among high-risk acute MI participants. Eligibility criteria include age ≥ 18 years with type 1 (spontaneous) MI, evidence of multivessel stable coronary artery disease, and presence of diabetes requiring pharmacotherapy, or ≥2 of the following: age ≥ 65 years, prior MI, or peripheral artery disease. A target sample of 17,400 participants will be randomized 1:1 to receive 4 weekly infusions of CSL112 6 g or placebo, initiated prior to or on the day of discharge and within 5 days of first medical contact. The primary outcome is the time to first occurrence of the composite of CV death, MI, or stroke through 90 days. Key secondary outcomes include the total number of hospitalizations for coronary, cerebral, or peripheral ischemia through 90 days and time to first occurrence of the composite primary outcome through 180 and 365 days. AEGIS-II will be the first trial to formally test whether enhancing cholesterol efflux can reduce the rate of recurrent major adverse CV events.

Clinical features and outcomes of patients with type 2 myocardial infarction: Insights from the Thrombin Receptor Antagonist for Clinical Event Reduction in Acute Coronary Syndrome (TRACER) trial.

BACKGROUND: Type 2 myocardial infarction (MI) is characterized by an imbalance between myocardial blood supply and demand, leading to myocardial ischemia without coronary plaque rupture, but its diagnosis is challenging. METHODS: In the TRACER trial, patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes were included. We aimed to describe provoking factors, cardiac biomarker profiles, treatment patterns, and clinical outcomes of patients with type 2 MIs. MI events during trial follow-up were adjudicated by an independent clinical events classification committee (CEC) and were classified according to the Third Universal Definition of MI. Using available source documents retrieved as part of the CEC process, we performed a retrospective chart abstraction to collect details on the type 2 MIs. Cox regression models were used to explore the association between MI type (type 1 or type 2) and cardiovascular death. RESULTS: Overall, 10.3% (n=1327) of TRACER participants had a total of 1579 adjudicated MIs during a median follow-up of 502 days (25th and 75th percentiles [IQR] 349-667). Of all MIs, 5.2% (n=82) were CEC-adjudicated type 2 MIs, occurring in 76 patients. The incidence of type 2 MI was higher in the first month following randomization, after which the distribution became more scattered. The most frequent potential provoking factors for type 2 MIs were tachyarrhythmias (38.2%), anemia/bleeding (21.1%), hypotension/shock (14.5%), and hypertensive emergencies (11.8%). Overall, 36.3% had a troponin increase >10× the upper limit of normal. Coronary angiography was performed in 22.4% (n=17) of patients during hospitalizations due to type 2 MIs. The hazard of cardiovascular death was numerically higher following type 2 MI (vs. no MI, adj. HR 11.82, 95% CI 5.71-24.46; P<.0001) than that of type 1 MI (vs. no MI, adj. HR 8.90, 95% CI 6.93-11.43; P<.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Type 2 MIs were more prevalent in the first month after ACS, were characterized by the presence of triggers and infrequent use of an invasive strategy, and were associated with a high risk of death. Further efforts are needed to better define the role and implications of type 2 MI in both clinical practice and research.

Trade-off of myocardial infarction vs. bleeding types on mortality after acute coronary syndrome: lessons from the Thrombin Receptor Antagonist for Clinical Event Reduction in Acute Coronary Syndrome (TRACER) randomized trial.

AIMS: Dual antiplatelet therapy reduces non-fatal ischaemic events after acute coronary syndrome (ACS) but increases bleeding to a similar extent. We sought to determine the prognostic impact of myocardial infarction (MI) vs. bleeding during an extended follow-up period to gain insight into the trade-off between efficacy and safety among patients after ACS. METHODS AND RESULTS: In 12 944 patients with non-ST-segment elevation ACS from the Thrombin Receptor Antagonist for Clinical Event Reduction in Acute Coronary Syndrome (TRACER) trial, we investigated the relative impact of MI and bleeding occurring >30 days post-ACS and subsequent all-cause mortality. Bleeding was graded according to Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) criteria. MI was associated with a five-fold increase in mortality. BARC type 2 and 3, but not type 1, bleeding had a significant impact on mortality. MI was associated with a greater risk of mortality compared with BARC 2 [relative risk (RR) 3.5; 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.08-4.77; P < 0.001] and BARC 3a bleeding (RR 2.23; 95% CI 1.36-3.64; P = 0.001), and a risk similar to BARC 3b bleeding (RR 1.37; 95% CI 0.81-2.30; P = 0.242). Risk of death after MI was significantly lower than after BARC 3c bleeding (RR 0.22; 95% CI 0.13-0.36; P < 0.001). MI and bleeding had similar time-associations with mortality, which remained significant for several months, still being higher early after the event. CONCLUSION: In patients treated with antiplatelet therapy after ACS, both MI and bleeding significantly impacted mortality with similar time-dependency. Although BARC 2 and 3a bleeding were less prognostic for death than MI, the risk of mortality was equivalent between BARC 3b bleeding and MI, and was higher following BARC 3c bleeding.

Visit-to-visit variability of blood pressure and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with stable coronary heart disease. Insights from the STABILITY trial.

AIMS: To study the relation between visit-to-visit variability of blood pressure (BP) and cardiovascular risk in patients with stable coronary heart disease. METHODS AND RESULTS: In 15 828 patients from the STABILITY trial (darapladib vs. placebo in patients with established coronary heart disease), BP variability was assessed by the standard deviation (SD) of systolic BP, the SD of diastolic BP, maximum BP, and minimum BP, from 5 measurements (baseline and months 1, 3, 6, and 12) during the first year after randomisation. Mean (SD) average BP during the first year of study was 131.0 (13.7) mmHg over 78.3 (8.3) mmHg. Mean (SD) of the visit-to-visit SD was 9.8 (4.8) mmHg for systolic and 6.3 (3.0) mmHg for diastolic BP. During the subsequent median follow-up of 2.6 years, 1010 patients met the primary endpoint, a composite of time to cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. In Cox regression models adjusted for average BP during first year of study, baseline vascular disease, treatment, renal function and cardiovascular risk factors, the primary endpoint was associated with SD of systolic BP (hazard ratio for highest vs. lowest tertile, 1.30, 95% CI 1.10-1.53, P = 0.007), and with SD of diastolic BP (hazard ratio for highest vs. lowest tertile, 1.38, 95% CI 1.18-1.62, P < 0.001). Peaks and troughs in BP were also independently associated with adverse events. CONCLUSION: In patients with stable coronary heart disease, higher visit-to-visit variabilities of both systolic and diastolic BP are strong predictors of increased risk of cardiovascular events, independently of mean BP.

Atherothrombotic Risk Stratification and the Efficacy and Safety of Vorapaxar in Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease and Previous Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: Patients with stable ischemic heart disease and previous myocardial infarction (MI) vary in their risk for recurrent cardiovascular events. Atherothrombotic risk assessment may be useful to identify high-risk patients who have the greatest potential to benefit from more intensive secondary preventive therapy such as treatment with vorapaxar. METHODS: We identified independent clinical indicators of atherothrombotic risk among 8598 stable, placebo-treated patients with a previous MI followed up for 2.5 years (median) in TRA 2°P-TIMI 50 [Thrombin Receptor Antagonist in Secondary Prevention of Atherothrombotic Ischemic Events-TIMI 50]. The efficacy and safety of vorapaxar (SCH 530348; MK-5348) were assessed by baseline risk among patients with previous MI without prior stroke or transient ischemic attack for whom there is a clinical indication for vorapaxar. End points were cardiovascular death, MI, or ischemic stroke and GUSTO (Global Use of Strategies to Open Occluded Coronary Arteries) severe bleeding. RESULTS: The 9 independent risk predictors were age, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, smoking, peripheral arterial disease, previous stroke, previous coronary bypass grafting, heart failure, and renal dysfunction. A simple integer-based scheme using these predictors showed a strong graded relationship with the rate of cardiovascular death/MI/ischemic stroke and the individual components (P for trend <0.001 for all). High-risk patients (≥3 risk indicators; 20% of population) had a 3.2% absolute risk reduction in cardiovascular disease/MI/ischemic stroke with vorapaxar, and intermediate-risk patients (1-2 risk indicators; 61%) had a 2.1% absolute risk reduction (P<0.001 each), translating to a number needed to treat of 31 and 48. Bleeding increased across risk groups (P for trend<0.01); however, net clinical outcome was increasingly favorable with vorapaxar across risk groups. Fatal bleeding or intracranial hemorrhage was 0.9% with both treatments in high-risk patients. CONCLUSIONS: Stratification of baseline atherothrombotic risk can assist with therapeutic decision making for vorapaxar use for secondary prevention after MI. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00526474.

Darapladib for preventing ischemic events in stable coronary heart disease.

BACKGROUND: Elevated lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A2 activity promotes the development of vulnerable atherosclerotic plaques, and elevated plasma levels of this enzyme are associated with an increased risk of coronary events. Darapladib is a selective oral inhibitor of lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A2. METHODS: In a double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 15,828 patients with stable coronary heart disease to receive either once-daily darapladib (at a dose of 160 mg) or placebo. The primary end point was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. Secondary end points included the components of the primary end point as well as major coronary events (death from coronary heart disease, myocardial infarction, or urgent coronary revascularization for myocardial ischemia) and total coronary events (death from coronary heart disease, myocardial infarction, hospitalization for unstable angina, or any coronary revascularization). RESULTS: During a median follow-up period of 3.7 years, the primary end point occurred in 769 of 7924 patients (9.7%) in the darapladib group and 819 of 7904 patients (10.4%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio in the darapladib group, 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85 to 1.03; P=0.20). There were also no significant between-group differences in the rates of the individual components of the primary end point or in all-cause mortality. Darapladib, as compared with placebo, reduced the rate of major coronary events (9.3% vs. 10.3%; hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.82 to 1.00; P=0.045) and total coronary events (14.6% vs. 16.1%; hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.84 to 0.98; P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with stable coronary heart disease, darapladib did not significantly reduce the risk of the primary composite end point of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline; STABILITY ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00799903.).

Growth Differentiation Factor 15 Predicts All-Cause Morbidity and Mortality in Stable Coronary Heart Disease.

BACKGROUND: Higher growth differentiation factor 15 (GDF-15) concentrations are associated with cardiovascular (CV) and non-CV morbidity and mortality. However, information on associations between GDF-15 and the risk of specific CV and non-CV events in stable coronary heart disease (CHD) patients is limited. METHODS: In 14 577 patients with stable CHD participating in the Stabilization of Atherosclerotic Plaque by Initiation of Darapladib Therapy Trial (STABILITY), GDF-15 and other prognostic biomarkers (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide, high-sensitivity troponin T, cystatin C, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein) were measured. In adjusted Cox regression models, the associations between GDF-15 and the composite CV end point [CV death, myocardial infarction (MI), and stroke], as well as other CV and non-CV events, were assessed. RESULTS: The median concentration (interquartile range) of GDF-15 at baseline was 1253 (915-1827) ng/L. The hazard ratio for the composite end point for the highest compared to the lowest quartile of GDF-15 was 1.8 (95% CI, 1.5-2.2); for CV death, 2.63 (1.9-3.6); for sudden death, 3.06 (1.9-4.8); for heart failure (HF) death, 4.3 (1.3-14); for cancer death, 2.5 (1.3-4.7); for hospitalization for HF, 5.8 (3.2-10); for MI 1.4 (95% CI, 1.1-1.9); and for stroke, 1.8 (95% CI, 1.1-2.8). After adjustment for other prognostic biomarkers, GDF-15 remained significantly associated with all outcomes except for MI. CONCLUSIONS: In stable CHD, GDF-15 was independently associated with CV, non-CV, and cancer mortality, as well as with MI and stroke. When also adjusting for other prognostic biomarkers, the associations to all fatal and nonfatal events were maintained except for MI. Information on GDF-15, therefore, might be helpful when assessing the risk of adverse outcomes in patients with stable CHD. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00799903.

The impact of atrial fibrillation type on the risk of thromboembolism, mortality, and bleeding: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS: Thromboembolic risk stratification schemes and clinical guidelines for atrial fibrillation (AF) regard risk as independent of classification into paroxysmal (PAF) and non-paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (NPAF). The aim of the current study was to conduct a systematic review evaluating the impact of AF type on thromboembolism, bleeding, and mortality. METHODS AND RESULTS: PubMed was searched through 27 November 2014 for randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and case series reporting prospectively collected clinical outcomes stratified by AF type. The incidence of thromboembolism, mortality, and bleeding was extracted. Atrial fibrillation clinical outcome data were extracted from 12 studies containing 99 996 patients. The unadjusted risk ratio (RR) for thromboembolism in NPAF vs. PAF was 1.355 (95% CI: 1.169-1.571, P < 0.001). In the study subset off oral anticoagulation, unadjusted RR was 1.689 (95% CI: 1.151-2.480, P = 0.007). The overall multivariable adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for thromboembolism was 1.384 (95% CI: 1.191-1.608, P < 0.001). The overall unadjusted RR for all-cause mortality was 1.462 (95% CI: 1.255-1.703, P < 0.001). Multivariable adjusted HR for all-cause mortality was 1.217 (95% CI: 1.085-1.365, P < 0.001). Rates of bleeding were similar, with unadjusted RR 1.00 (95% CI: 0.919-1.087, P = 0.994) and adjusted HR 1.025 (95% CI: 0.898-1.170, P = 0.715). CONCLUSION: Non-paroxysmal atrial fibrillation is associated with a highly significant increase in thromboembolism and death. These data suggest the need for new therapies to prevent AF progression and further studies to explore the integration of AF type into models of thromboembolic risk.

Corrigendum to 'National Heart Foundation of Australia & Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand: Australian Clinical Guidelines for the Management of Acute Coronary Syndromes 2016' Heart Lung and Circulation volume 25, (2016) 898 - 952.

Please note that on p.929 in 5.2.2.7, paragraph 3, the dose of dabigatran should read as BD rather than daily. We regret any inconvenience that this may have caused.