Direct Oral Anticoagulation Versus Warfarin in Left Ventricular Thrombus: Pooled Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Patients with impaired left ventricular (LV) function can develop LV thrombus, a potentially life-threatening condition due to risk of stroke and embolization. Conventional treatment with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs; e.g., warfarin) puts patients at risk of bleeding, and the use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) appears promising, although data are scant. We searched the published English language literature for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing DOACs with VKAs in LV thrombus. End points were failure to resolve, thromboembolic events (stroke, embolism), bleeding, or any adverse event (composite of thromboembolism or bleeding), or all-cause death. Data were pooled and analyzed in hierarchical Bayesian models. In three eligible RCTs, 141 patients were studied during an average of 4.6 months (53.8 patient-years; n = 71 assigned to DOAC, n = 70 assigned to VKA). A similar number of patients in each treatment arm demonstrated failure to resolve (DOAC: 14/71 vs. VKA: 15/70) and death events (3/71 vs. 4/70). However, patients on DOACs suffered fewer strokes/thromboembolic events (1/71 vs. 7/70; log odds ratio [OR], -2.02 [95% credible interval (CI95 ), -4.53 to -0.31]) and fewer bleeding events (2/71 vs. 9/70; log OR, -1.62 [CI95 , -3.43 to -0.26]), leading to fewer patients on DOACs with any adverse event versus VKAs (3/71 vs. 16/70; log OR, -1.93 [CI95 , -3.33 to -0.75]). In conclusion, pooled analysis of RCT data favors DOACs over VKAs in patients with LV thrombus in terms of both efficacy and safety.

The clinical value and cost-effectiveness of treatments for patients with coronary artery disease.

BACKGROUND: The clinical value and cost-effectiveness of invasive treatments for patients with coronary artery disease is unclear. Invasive treatments such as coronary artery bypass grafting and percutaneous coronary intervention are frequently used as a starting treatment, yet they are much more costly than optimal medical therapy. While patients may transition into other treatments over time, the choices of starting treatments are likely important determinants of costs and health outcomes. The aim is to predict by how much costs and health outcomes will change from a decision to use different starting treatments for patients with coronary artery disease in an Asian setting. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness study using a Markov model informed by data from Singapore General Hospital was done. All patients with initial presentations of stable coronary disease and no acute coronary syndromes who received medical treatments and interventional therapies were included. We compare existing practice, where the starting treatment can be medical therapy or stent percutaneous coronary interventions or coronary artery bypass grafting, with alternate starting treatment strategies. RESULTS: When compared to 'existing practice' a policy of starting 14% of patients with coronary artery bypass grafting and 86% with optimal medical therapy showed savings of $1,743 per patient and 0.23 additional quality adjusted life years. A change to policy nationwide would save $10 million and generate 1,380 quality adjusted life years. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing coronary artery bypass grafting and use of medical therapy in the setting of coronary artery disease is likely to saves costs and improve health outcomes. A definitive study to address the question we investigate would be very difficult to undertake and so using existing data to model the expected outcomes is a useful tool. There are likely to be large and complex barriers to the implementation of any policy change based on the findings of this study.

Performance of cardiac troponins within the HEART score in predicting major adverse cardiac events at the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: This study compared the performance of a single blood draw of high-sensitivity troponin T (hsTnT), high-sensitivity troponin I (hsTnI) and conventional troponin I (cTnI) within a modified HEART score for predicting 30-day MACE at Emergency Department (ED) presentation, and established local reference norms for all three assays by determining the cut-off point which yielded the highest sensitivity and negative predictive value for acute myocardial infarction and 30-day MACE. METHODS: This single-center prospective cohort study recruited chest pain patients at the ED, whose hsTnT, hsTnI and cTnI were taken on admission. Subjects were classified into low and non-low risk group according to their modified HEART score, with MACE as the primary endpoint. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves were generated, area under the curves (AUCs) were calculated; the performance characteristics were determined. RESULTS: The performance of modified HEART scores was comparable among the three assays for 30-day MACE (84.9-87.0% sensitivity, 95.6-96.0% NPV, 95%CI) and none of these had very high AUC and specificity (AUC 0.70-0.71, 53.7-56.7% specificity, 95% CI). The modified HEART score using a single blood draw of either hsTnT (3.9ng/L), hsTnI (0.9ng/L) or cTnI (0.0ng/L) at presentation yielded a sensitivity of 100% for 30-day MACE. CONCLUSION: The modified HEART score using a single blood draw of either hsTnT, hsTnI or cTnI was equally effective in risk-stratifying chest pain patients for safe discharge. The theoretical cut-off points yielding 100% sensitivity are potentially useful (when achieved) for safely discharging low risk patients with undifferentiated chest pain in the ED.