Invasive vs. conservative management of older patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome: individual patient data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Older patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTEACS) are less likely to receive guideline-recommended care including coronary angiography and revascularization. Evidence-based recommendations regarding interventional management strategies in this patient cohort are scarce. This meta-analysis aimed to assess the impact of routine invasive vs. conservative management of NSTEACS by using individual patient data (IPD) from all available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including older patients. METHODS: MEDLINE, Web of Science and Scopus were searched between 1 January 2010 and 11 September 2023. RCTs investigating routine invasive and conservative strategies in persons >70 years old with NSTEACS were included. Observational studies or trials involving populations outside the target range were excluded. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality and myocardial infarction (MI) at 1 year. One-stage IPD meta-analyses were adopted by use of random-effects and fixed-effect Cox models. This meta-analysis is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023379819). RESULTS: Six eligible studies were identified including 1479 participants. The primary endpoint occurred in 181 of 736 (24.5%) participants in the invasive management group compared with 215 of 743 (28.9%) participants in the conservative management group with a hazard ratio (HR) from random-effects model of 0.87 (95% CI 0.63-1.22; P = .43). The hazard for MI at 1 year was significantly lower in the invasive group compared with the conservative group (HR from random-effects model 0.62, 95% CI 0.44-0.87; P = .006). Similar results were seen for urgent revascularization (HR from random-effects model 0.41, 95% CI 0.18-0.95; P = .037). There was no significant difference in mortality. CONCLUSIONS: No evidence was found that routine invasive treatment for NSTEACS in older patients reduces the risk of a composite of all-cause mortality and MI within 1 year compared with conservative management. However, there is convincing evidence that invasive treatment significantly lowers the risk of repeat MI or urgent revascularisation. Further evidence is needed from ongoing larger clinical trials.

Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin Across the Spectrum of Kidney Function: Patient-Level Network Meta-Analyses From COMBINE AF.

BACKGROUND: There is uncertainty surrounding the use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in patients with kidney dysfunction. METHODS: Using the COMBINE AF (A Collaboration Between Multiple Institutions to Better Investigate Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulant Use in Atrial Fibrillation) database (data from RE-LY [Randomized Evaluation of Long-term Anticoagulation Therapy], ROCKET AF [Rivaroxaban Once Daily Oral Direct Factor Xa Inhibition Compared With Vitamin K Antagonism for Prevention of Stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fibrillation], ARISTOTLE [Apixaban for Reduction in Stroke and Other Thromboembolic Events in Atrial Fibrillation], and ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 [Effective Anticoagulation With Factor Xa Next Generation in Atrial Fibrillation-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 48]), we performed an individual patient-level network meta-analysis to evaluate the safety and efficacy of DOACs versus warfarin across continuous creatinine clearance (CrCl). A multivariable Cox model including treatment-by-CrCl interaction with random effects was fitted to estimate hazard ratios for paired treatment strategies (standard-dose DOAC, lower-dose DOAC, and warfarin). Outcomes included stroke and systemic embolism (S/SE), major bleeding, intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), and death. RESULTS: Among 71 683 patients (mean age, 70.6±9.4 years; 37.3% female; median follow-up, 23.1 months), the mean CrCl was 75.5±30.5 mL/min. The incidence of S/SE, major bleeding, ICH, and death increased significantly with worsening kidney function. Across continuous CrCl values down to 25 mL/min, the hazard of major bleeding did not change for patients randomized to standard-dose DOACs compared with those randomized to warfarin (Pinteraction=0.61). Compared with warfarin, standard-dose DOAC use resulted in a significantly lower hazard of ICH at CrCl values <122 mL/min, with a trend for increased safety with DOAC as CrCl decreased (6.2% decrease in hazard ratio per 10-mL/min decrease in CrCl; Pinteraction=0.08). Compared with warfarin, standard-dose DOAC use resulted in a significantly lower hazard of S/SE with CrCl <87 mL/min, with a significant treatment-by-CrCl effect (4.8% decrease in hazard ratio per 10-mL/min decrease in CrCl; Pinteraction=0.01). The hazard of death was significantly lower with standard-dose DOACs for patients with CrCl <77 mL/min, with a trend toward increasing benefit with lower CrCl (2.1% decrease in hazard ratio per 10-mL/min decrease in CrCl; Pinteraction=0.08). Use of lower-dose rather than standard-dose DOACs was not associated with a significant difference in incident bleeding or ICH in patients with reduced kidney function but was associated with a higher incidence4 of death and S/SE. CONCLUSIONS: Standard-dose DOACs are safer and more effective than warfarin down to a CrCl of at least 25 mL/min. Lower-dose DOACs do not significantly lower the incidence of bleeding or ICH compared with standard-dose DOACs but are associated with a higher incidence of S/SE and death. These findings support the use of standard-dose DOACs over warfarin in patients with kidney dysfunction.

Identifying the highest risk vascular patients: Insights from the XATOA registry.

BACKGROUND: Patients with coronary and peripheral artery disease (PAD) have a residual risk of major adverse cardiovascular and limb events despite standards of care. Among patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and/or PAD selected for low dose rivaroxaban (2.5 mg BID) and aspirin, we sought to determine the highest risk vascular patients. METHODS: Xarelto pluc Acetylsalicylic acid: Treatment patterns and Outcomes in patients with Atherosclerosis (XATOA) is a single-arm registry of CAD and/or PAD patients. All participants were initiated on low dose rivaroxaban (2.5 mg BID) and aspirin. We report the incidence risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) or major adverse limb events (MALE) and major bleeding. A classification and regression tree analysis determined independent subgroups. RESULTS: Between November 2018 and May 2020, 5,808 participants were enrolled in XATOA; 5,532 were included in the full analysis. The median follow-up (interquartile range) was 462 (371-577) days. The incidence risk per 100 patient-years of MACE or MALE was highest among participants with polyvascular disease (2 or more vascular beds affected, n = 2,889). The incidence risk was 9.16 versus 2.48 per 100 patient-years in polyvascular and nonpolyvascular patients respectively. Other subgroups of high-risk patients included participants 75 years or older, with a history of diabetes, heart failure, or chronic renal insufficiency (CRI). Rates of major bleeding were low overall. A classification and regression tree analysis showed that polyvascular disease was the most dominant factor separating higher from lower risk participants, and this was heightened with CRI or diabetes. CONCLUSION: Patients with polyvascular disease represent a substantial subset of patients in clinical practice and should be prioritized to receive maximal medical therapy including low dose rivaroxaban (2.5 mg BID) and aspirin.

Safety of the oral factor XIa inhibitor asundexian compared with apixaban in patients with atrial fibrillation (PACIFIC-AF): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy, dose-finding phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: Direct-acting oral anticoagulant use for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation is limited by bleeding concerns. Asundexian, a novel, oral small molecule activated coagulation factor XIa (FXIa) inhibitor, might reduce thrombosis with minimal effect on haemostasis. We aimed to determine the optimal dose of asundexian and to compare the incidence of bleeding with that of apixaban in patients with atrial fibrillation. METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind, phase 2 dose-finding study, we compared asundexian 20 mg or 50 mg once daily with apixaban 5 mg twice daily in patients aged 45 years or older with atrial fibrillation, a CHA2DS2-VASc score of at least 2 if male or at least 3 if female, and increased bleeding risk. The study was conducted at 93 sites in 14 countries, including 12 European countries, Canada, and Japan. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to a treatment group using an interactive web response system, with randomisation stratified by whether patients were receiving a direct-acting oral anticoagulant before the study start. Masking was achieved using a double-dummy design, with participants receiving both the assigned treatment and a placebo that resembled the non-assigned treatment. The primary endpoint was the composite of major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding according to International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis criteria, assessed in all patients who took at least one dose of study medication. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04218266, and EudraCT, 2019-002365-35. FINDINGS: Between Jan 30, 2020, and June 21, 2021, 862 patients were enrolled. 755 patients were randomly assigned to treatment. Two patients (assigned to asundexian 20 mg) never took any study medication, resulting in 753 patients being included in the analysis (249 received asundexian 20 mg, 254 received asundexian 50 g, and 250 received apixaban). The mean age of participants was 73·7 years (SD 8·3), 309 (41%) were women, 216 (29%) had chronic kidney disease, and mean CHA2DS2-VASc score was 3·9 (1·3). Asundexian 20 mg resulted in 81% inhibition of FXIa activity at trough concentrations and 90% inhibition at peak concentrations; asundexian 50 mg resulted in 92% inhibition at trough concentrations and 94% inhibition at peak concentrations. Ratios of incidence proportions for the primary endpoint were 0·50 (90% CI 0·14-1·68) for asundexian 20 mg (three events), 0·16 (0·01-0·99) for asundexian 50 mg (one event), and 0·33 (0·09-0·97) for pooled asundexian (four events) versus apixaban (six events). The rate of any adverse event occurring was similar in the three treatment groups: 118 (47%) with asundexian 20 mg, 120 (47%) with asundexian 50 mg, and 122 (49%) with apixaban. INTERPRETATION: The FXIa inhibitor asundexian at doses of 20 mg and 50 mg once daily resulted in lower rates of bleeding compared with standard dosing of apixaban, with near-complete in-vivo FXIa inhibition, in patients with atrial fibrillation. FUNDING: Bayer.

Sex-specific evaluation and redevelopment of the GRACE score in non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes in populations from the UK and Switzerland: a multinational analysis with external cohort validation.

BACKGROUND: The Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) 2.0 score was developed and validated in predominantly male patient populations. We aimed to assess its sex-specific performance in non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACS) and to develop an improved score (GRACE 3.0) that accounts for sex differences in disease characteristics. METHODS: We evaluated the GRACE 2.0 score in 420 781 consecutive patients with NSTE-ACS in contemporary nationwide cohorts from the UK and Switzerland. Machine learning models to predict in-hospital mortality were informed by the GRACE variables and developed in sex-disaggregated data from 386 591 patients from England, Wales, and Northern Ireland (split into a training cohort of 309 083 [80·0%] patients and a validation cohort of 77 508 [20·0%] patients). External validation of the GRACE 3.0 score was done in 20 727 patients from Switzerland. FINDINGS: Between Jan 1, 2005, and Aug 27, 2020, 400 054 patients with NSTE-ACS in the UK and 20 727 patients with NSTE-ACS in Switzerland were included in the study. Discrimination of in-hospital death by the GRACE 2.0 score was good in male patients (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC] 0·86, 95% CI 0·86-0·86) and notably lower in female patients (0·82, 95% CI 0·81-0·82; p<0·0001). The GRACE 2.0 score underestimated in-hospital mortality risk in female patients, favouring their incorrect stratification to the low-to-intermediate risk group, for which the score does not indicate early invasive treatment. Accounting for sex differences, GRACE 3.0 showed superior discrimination and good calibration with an AUC of 0·91 (95% CI 0·89-0·92) in male patients and 0·87 (95% CI 0·84-0·89) in female patients in an external cohort validation. GRACE 3·0 led to a clinically relevant reclassification of female patients to the high-risk group. INTERPRETATION: The GRACE 2.0 score has limited discriminatory performance and underestimates in-hospital mortality in female patients with NSTE-ACS. The GRACE 3.0 score performs better in men and women and reduces sex inequalities in risk stratification. FUNDING: Swiss National Science Foundation, Swiss Heart Foundation, Lindenhof Foundation, Foundation for Cardiovascular Research, and Theodor-Ida-Herzog-Egli Foundation.

Oral anticoagulation across diabetic subtypes in patients with newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation: A report from the GARFIELD-AF registry.

AIMS: This study aims to describe both management and prognosis of patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) and newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation (AF), overall as well as by antidiabetic treatment, and to assess the influence of oral anticoagulation (OAC) on outcomes by DM status. METHODS: The study population comprised 52 010 newly diagnosed patients with AF, 11 542 DM and 40 468 non-DM, enrolled in the GARFIELD-AF registry. Follow-up was truncated at 2 years after enrolment. Comparative effectiveness of OAC versus no OAC was assessed by DM status using a propensity score overlap weighting scheme and weights were applied to Cox models. RESULTS: Patients with DM [39.3% oral antidiabetic drug (OAD), 13.4% insulin ± OAD, 47.2% on no antidiabetic drug] had higher risk profile, OAC use, and rates of clinical outcomes compared with patients without DM. OAC use was associated in patients without DM and patients with DM with lower risk of all-cause mortality [hazard ratio 0.75 (0.69-0.83), 0.74 (0.64-0.86), respectively] and stroke/systemic embolism (SE) [0.69 (0.58-0.83), 0.70 (0.53-0.93), respectively]. The risk of major bleeding with OAC was similarly increased in patients without DM and those with DM [1.40 (1.14-1.71), 1.37 (0.99-1.89), respectively]. Patients with insulin-requiring DM had a higher risk of all-cause mortality and stroke/SE [1.91 (1.63-2.24)], [1.57 (1.06-2.35), respectively] compared with patients without DM, and experienced significant risk reductions of all-cause mortality and stroke/SE with OAC [0.73 (0.53-0.99); 0.50 (0.26-0.97), respectively]. CONCLUSIONS: In both patients with DM and patients without DM with AF, OAC was associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality and stroke/SE. Patients with insulin-requiring DM derived significant benefit from OAC.

Rivaroxaban and aspirin vs. aspirin alone in Asian compared with non-Asian patients with chronic coronary artery disease or peripheral arterial disease: the COMPASS trial.

AIMS: It is unknown whether Asian and non-Asian patients with atherosclerotic vascular disease derive similar benefits from long-term antithrombotic therapy. METHODS AND RESULTS: In patients with chronic coronary artery disease (CAD) and/or peripheral artery disease (PAD) enrolled in The Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies trial, the effects of rivaroxaban 2.5 mg b.i.d. plus aspirin 100 mg o.d. were compared with those of aspirin 100 mg o.d. in Asian vs. non-Asian patients (race was self-identified). Asians (n = 4269) vs. non-Asians (n = 23 126) had similar rates of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) (4.85% vs. 4.83%, P = 0.30) and modified International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH) major bleeding (2.72% vs. 2.58%, P = 0.22), but higher rates of intracranial haemorrhage (ICH) (0.63% vs. 0.29%, P = 0.01) and minor bleeding (13.61% vs. 6.49%, P < 0.001). In Asians vs. non-Asians, the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin compared with aspirin alone produced consistent reductions in MACE [Asians: hazard ratio (HR): 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.45-0.90; non-Asians: HR: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.67-0.90; P(heterogeneity) = 0.29], increases in modified ISTH major bleeding (Asians: HR 2.24, 95% CI: 1.40-3.58; non-Asians: HR: 1.60, 95% CI: 1.30-1.97; P = 0.20), and net clinical outcome (Asians: HR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.56-1.05; non-Asians: HR: 0.81, 95% CI: 0.70-0.93, P = 0.78), but borderline higher rates of ICH (Asians: HR: 3.50, 95% CI: 0.98-12.56; non-Asians: HR: 0.81, 95% CI: 0.43, 1.53; P = 0.04). CONCLUSION: Asian compared with non-Asian patients with chronic CAD and/or PAD have higher rates of ICH and minor bleeding. The combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin vs. aspirin alone produces similar effects for MACE, modified ISTH major bleeding, and net clinical outcome but may be associated with higher rates of ICH in Asian patients.

High-Sensitivity Cardiac Troponin on Presentation to Rule Out Myocardial Infarction: A Stepped-Wedge Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: High-sensitivity cardiac troponin assays enable myocardial infarction to be ruled out earlier, but the safety and efficacy of this approach is uncertain. We investigated whether an early rule-out pathway is safe and effective for patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome. METHODS: We performed a stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled trial in the emergency departments of 7 acute care hospitals in Scotland. Consecutive patients presenting with suspected acute coronary syndrome between December 2014 and December 2016 were included. Sites were randomized to implement an early rule-out pathway where myocardial infarction was excluded if high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I concentrations were <5 ng/L at presentation. During a previous validation phase, myocardial infarction was ruled out when troponin concentrations were <99th percentile at 6 to 12 hours after symptom onset. The coprimary outcome was length of stay (efficacy) and myocardial infarction or cardiac death after discharge at 30 days (safety). Patients were followed for 1 year to evaluate safety and other secondary outcomes. RESULTS: We enrolled 31 492 patients (59±17 years of age [mean±SD]; 45% women) with troponin concentrations <99th percentile at presentation. Length of stay was reduced from 10.1±4.1 to 6.8±3.9 hours (adjusted geometric mean ratio, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.73-0.83]; P<0.001) after implementation and the proportion of patients discharged increased from 50% to 71% (adjusted odds ratio, 1.59 [95% CI, 1.45-1.75]). Noninferiority was not demonstrated for the 30-day safety outcome (upper limit of 1-sided 95% CI for adjusted risk difference, 0.70% [noninferiority margin 0.50%]; P=0.068), but the observed differences favored the early rule-out pathway (0.4% [57/14 700] versus 0.3% [56/16 792]). At 1 year, the safety outcome occurred in 2.7% (396/14 700) and 1.8% (307/16 792) of patients before and after implementation (adjusted odds ratio, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.74-1.40]; P=0.894), and there were no differences in hospital reattendance or all-cause mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of an early rule-out pathway for myocardial infarction reduced length of stay and hospital admission. Although noninferiority for the safety outcome was not demonstrated at 30 days, there was no increase in cardiac events at 1 year. Adoption of this pathway would have major benefits for patients and health care providers. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03005158.

Health-Related Quality of Life and Mortality in Heart Failure: The Global Congestive Heart Failure Study of 23 000 Patients From 40 Countries.

BACKGROUND: Poor health-related quality of life (HRQL) is common in heart failure (HF), but there are few data on HRQL in HF and the association between HRQL and mortality outside Western countries. METHODS: We used the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-12 (KCCQ-12) to record HRQL in 23 291 patients with HF from 40 countries in 8 different world regions in the G-CHF study (Global Congestive Heart Failure). We compared standardized KCCQ-12 summary scores (adjusted for age, sex, and markers of HF severity) among regions (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher score indicating better HRQL). We used multivariable Cox regression with adjustment for 15 variables to assess the association between KCCQ-12 summary scores and the composite of all-cause death, HF hospitalization, and each component over a median follow-up of 1.6 years. RESULTS: The mean age of participants was 65 years; 61% were men; 40% had New York Heart Association class III or IV symptoms; and 46% had left ventricular ejection fraction ≥40%. Average HRQL differed between regions (lowest in Africa [mean± SE, 39.5±0.3], highest in Western Europe [62.5±0.4]). There were 4460 (19%) deaths, 3885 (17%) HF hospitalizations, and 6949 (30%) instances of either event. Lower KCCQ-12 summary score was associated with higher risk of all outcomes; the adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for each 10-unit KCCQ-12 summary score decrement was 1.18 (95% CI, 1.17-1.20) for death. Although this association was observed in all regions, it was less marked in South Asia, South America, and Africa (weakest association in South Asia: HR, 1.08 [95% CI, 1.03-1.14]; strongest association in Eastern Europe: HR, 1.31 [95% CI, 1.21-1.42]; interaction P<0.0001). Lower HRQL predicted death in patients with New York Heart Association class I or II and III or IV symptoms (HR, 1.17 [95% CI, 1.14-1.19] and HR, 1.14 [95% CI, 1.12-1.17]; interaction P=0.13) and was a stronger predictor for the composite outcome in New York Heart Association class I or II versus class III or IV (HR 1.15 [95% CI, 1.13-1.17] versus 1.09 [95% CI, [1.07-1.11]; interaction P<0.0001). HR for death was greater in ejection fraction ≥40 versus <40% (HR, 1.23 [95% CI, 1.20-1.26] and HR, 1.15 [95% CI, 1.13-1.17]; interaction P<0.0001). CONCLUSION: HRQL is a strong and independent predictor of all-cause death and HF hospitalization across all geographic regions, in mildly and severe symptomatic HF, and among patients with preserved and reduced ejection fraction. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03078166.

High-sensitivity cardiac troponin and the diagnosis of myocardial infarction in patients with kidney impairment.

The benefit and utility of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) in the diagnosis of myocardial infarction in patients with kidney impairment is unclear. Here, we describe implementation of hs-cTnI testing on the diagnosis, management, and outcomes of myocardial infarction in patients with and without kidney impairment. Consecutive patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome enrolled in a stepped-wedge, cluster-randomized controlled trial were included in this pre-specified secondary analysis. Kidney impairment was defined as an eGFR under 60mL/min/1.73m2. The index diagnosis and primary outcome of type 1 and type 4b myocardial infarction or cardiovascular death at one year were compared in patients with and without kidney impairment following implementation of hs-cTnI assay with 99th centile sex-specific diagnostic thresholds. Serum creatinine concentrations were available in 46,927 patients (mean age 61 years; 47% women), of whom 9,080 (19%) had kidney impairment. hs-cTnIs were over 99th centile in 46% and 16% of patients with and without kidney impairment. Implementation increased the diagnosis of type 1 infarction from 12.4% to 17.8%, and from 7.5% to 9.4% in patients with and without kidney impairment (both significant). Patients with kidney impairment and type 1 myocardial infarction were less likely to undergo coronary revascularization (26% versus 53%) or receive dual anti-platelets (40% versus 68%) than those without kidney impairment, and this did not change post-implementation. In patients with hs-cTnI above the 99th centile, the primary outcome occurred twice as often in those with kidney impairment compared to those without (24% versus 12%, hazard ratio 1.53, 95% confidence interval 1.31 to 1.78). Thus, hs-cTnI testing increased the identification of myocardial injury and infarction but failed to address disparities in management and outcomes between those with and without kidney impairment.

Use and outcomes of dual antiplatelet therapy for acute coronary syndrome in patients with chronic kidney disease: insights from the Canadian Observational Antiplatelet Study (COAPT).

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) increases the risk of adverse outcomes in acute coronary syndrome (ACS). The optimal regimen of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) post-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in CKD poses a challenge due to the increased bleeding and clotting tendencies, particularly since patients with CKD were underrepresented in randomized controlled trials. We examined the practice patterns of DAPT prescription stratified by the presence of CKD. The multicentre prospective Canadian Observational Antiplatelet Study (COAPT) enrolled patients with ACS between December 2011 and May 2013. The present study is a subgroup analysis comparing type and duration of DAPT and associated outcomes among patients with and without CKD (eGFR < 60 ml/min/1.73 m2, calculated by CKD-EPI). Patients with CKD (275/1921, 14.3%) were prescribed prasugrel/ticagrelor less (18.5% vs 25.8%, p = 0.01) and had a shorter duration of DAPT therapy versus patients without CKD (median 382 vs 402 days, p = 0.003). CKD was associated with major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) at 12 months (p < 0.001) but not bleeding when compared to patients without CKD. CKD was associated with MACE in both patients on prasugrel/ticagrelor (p = 0.017) and those on clopidogrel (p < 0.001) (p for heterogeneity = 0.70). CKD was associated with increased bleeding only among patients receiving prasugrel/ticagrelor (p = 0.007), but not among those receiving clopidogrel (p = 0.64) (p for heterogeneity = 0.036). Patients with CKD had a shorter DAPT duration and were less frequently prescribed potent P2Y12 inhibitors than patients without CKD. Overall, compared with patients without CKD, patients with CKD had higher rates of MACE and similar bleeding rates. However, among those prescribed more potent P2Y12 inhibitors, CKD was associated with more bleeding than those without CKD. Further studies are needed to better define the benefit/risk evaluation, and establish a more tailored and evidence-based DAPT regimen for this high-risk patient group.

Performance of the GRACE 2.0 score in patients with type 1 and type 2 myocardial infarction.

AIMS: The Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) score was developed to evaluate risk in patients with myocardial infarction. However, its performance in type 2 myocardial infarction is uncertain. METHODS AND RESULTS: In two cohorts of consecutive patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome from 10 hospitals in Scotland (n = 48 282) and a tertiary care hospital in Sweden (n = 22 589), we calculated the GRACE 2.0 score to estimate death at 1 year. Discrimination was evaluated by the area under the receiver operating curve (AUC), and compared for those with an adjudicated diagnosis of type 1 and type 2 myocardial infarction using DeLong's test. Type 1 myocardial infarction was diagnosed in 4981 (10%) and 1080 (5%) patients in Scotland and Sweden, respectively. At 1 year, 720 (15%) and 112 (10%) patients died with an AUC for the GRACE 2.0 score of 0.83 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82-0.85] and 0.85 (95% CI 0.81-0.89). Type 2 myocardial infarction occurred in 1121 (2%) and 247 (1%) patients in Scotland and Sweden, respectively, with 258 (23%) and 57 (23%) deaths at 1 year. The AUC was 0.73 (95% CI 0.70-0.77) and 0.73 (95% CI 0.66-0.81) in type 2 myocardial infarction, which was lower than for type 1 myocardial infarction in both cohorts (P < 0.001 and P = 0.008, respectively). CONCLUSION: The GRACE 2.0 score provided good discrimination for all-cause death at 1 year in patients with type 1 myocardial infarction, and moderate discrimination for those with type 2 myocardial infarction. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01852123.

The COMPASS Trial: Net Clinical Benefit of Low-Dose Rivaroxaban Plus Aspirin as Compared With Aspirin in Patients With Chronic Vascular Disease.

BACKGROUND: Rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily plus acetylsalicylic acid (aspirin; ASA) 100 mg reduced the risk of cardiovascular events as compared with ASA monotherapy in the COMPASS trial (Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies) but increased the risk of major bleedings. Analysis of net clinical benefit (NCB) is of key clinical relevance and represents an integrated measure of overall patient outcome. METHODS: The current prespecified analysis was performed to assess the NCB of adding rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily to ASA monotherapy in patients with chronic vascular disease in the COMPASS study cohort (intention-to-treat study population), with a specific focus on high-risk subgroups. The predefined NCB outcome was the composite of cardiovascular death, stroke, myocardial infarction, fatal bleeding, or symptomatic bleeding into a critical organ. RESULTS: A lower number of NCB adverse outcomes was observed with rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily plus ASA versus ASA alone (hazard ratio, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.70-0.91], P=0.0005), which became increasingly favorable with longer treatment duration. The main drivers of NCB outcomes were "efficacy" events, in particular stroke (0.5%/y versus 0.8%/y; hazard ratio, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.44-0.76], P<0.0001) and cardiovascular death (0.9%/y versus 1.2%/y; hazard ratio, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.64-0.96], P=0.02), whereas the bleeding components of the NCB, in particular fatal bleeding (0.09%/y versus 0.06%/y; hazard ratio, 1.49 [95% CI 0.67-3.33], P=0.32), only represented a minority of NCB events. In selected high-risk subgroups, including patients with polyvascular disease (≥2 vascular beds affected with atherosclerosis), impaired renal function, heart failure, and/or diabetes mellitus, a larger absolute risk reduction for experiencing a NCB event was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with ASA monotherapy, the combination of rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily plus ASA resulted in fewer NCB events primarily by preventing adverse efficacy events, particularly stroke and cardiovascular mortality, whereas severe bleedings were less frequent and with less clinical impact. The NCB was particularly favorable in high-risk subgroups and those with multiple risk characteristics. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01776424.

Role of Combination Antiplatelet and Anticoagulation Therapy in Diabetes Mellitus and Cardiovascular Disease: Insights From the COMPASS Trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with established coronary artery disease or peripheral artery disease often have diabetes mellitus. These patients are at high risk of future vascular events. METHODS: In a prespecified analysis of the COMPASS trial (Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies), we compared the effects of rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) plus aspirin (100 mg daily) versus placebo plus aspirin in patients with diabetes mellitus versus without diabetes mellitus in preventing major vascular events. The primary efficacy end point was the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. Secondary end points included all-cause mortality and all major vascular events (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or major adverse limb events, including amputation). The primary safety end point was a modification of the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis criteria for major bleeding. RESULTS: There were 10 341 patients with diabetes mellitus and 17 054 without diabetes mellitus in the overall trial. A consistent and similar relative risk reduction was seen for benefit of rivaroxaban plus aspirin (n=9152) versus placebo plus aspirin (n=9126) in patients both with (n=6922) and without (n=11 356) diabetes mellitus for the primary efficacy end point (hazard ratio, 0.74, P=0.002; and hazard ratio, 0.77, P=0.005, respectively, Pinteraction=0.77) and all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.81, P=0.05; and hazard ratio, 0.84, P=0.09, respectively; Pinteraction=0.82). However, although the absolute risk reductions appeared numerically larger in patients with versus without diabetes mellitus, both subgroups derived similar benefit (2.3% versus 1.4% for the primary efficacy end point at 3 years, Gail-Simon qualitative Pinteraction<0.0001; 1.9% versus 0.6% for all-cause mortality, Pinteraction=0.02; 2.7% versus 1.7% for major vascular events, Pinteraction<0.0001). Because the bleeding hazards were similar among patients with and without diabetes mellitus, the prespecified net benefit for rivaroxaban appeared particularly favorable in the patients with diabetes mellitus (2.7% versus 1.0%; Gail-Simon qualitative Pinteraction=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In stable atherosclerosis, the combination of aspirin plus rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily provided a similar relative degree of benefit on coronary, cerebrovascular, and peripheral end points in patients with and without diabetes mellitus. Given their higher baseline risk, the absolute benefits appeared larger in those with diabetes mellitus, including a 3-fold greater reduction in all-cause mortality. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01776424.

High-Sensitivity Cardiac Troponin and the Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: The introduction of more sensitive cardiac troponin assays has led to increased recognition of myocardial injury in acute illnesses other than acute coronary syndrome. The Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction recommends high-sensitivity cardiac troponin testing and classification of patients with myocardial injury based on pathogenesis, but the clinical implications of implementing this guideline are not well understood. METHODS: In a stepped-wedge cluster randomized, controlled trial, we implemented a high-sensitivity cardiac troponin assay and the recommendations of the Universal Definition in 48 282 consecutive patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome. In a prespecified secondary analysis, we compared the primary outcome of myocardial infarction or cardiovascular death and secondary outcome of noncardiovascular death at 1 year across diagnostic categories. RESULTS: Implementation increased the diagnosis of type 1 myocardial infarction by 11% (510/4471), type 2 myocardial infarction by 22% (205/916), and acute and chronic myocardial injury by 36% (443/1233) and 43% (389/898), respectively. Compared with those without myocardial injury, the rate of the primary outcome was highest in those with type 1 myocardial infarction (cause-specific hazard ratio [HR] 5.64 [95% CI, 5.12-6.22]), but was similar across diagnostic categories, whereas noncardiovascular deaths were highest in those with acute myocardial injury (cause specific HR 2.65 [95% CI, 2.33-3.01]). Despite modest increases in antiplatelet therapy and coronary revascularization after implementation in patients with type 1 myocardial infarction, the primary outcome was unchanged (cause specific HR 1.00 [95% CI, 0.82-1.21]). Increased recognition of type 2 myocardial infarction and myocardial injury did not lead to changes in investigation, treatment or outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin assays and the recommendations of the Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction identified patients at high-risk of cardiovascular and noncardiovascular events but was not associated with consistent increases in treatment or improved outcomes. Trials of secondary prevention are urgently required to determine whether this risk is modifiable in patients without type 1 myocardial infarction. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01852123.

Rivaroxaban Plus Aspirin Versus Aspirin Alone in Patients With Prior Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (COMPASS-PCI).

BACKGROUND: The COMPASS trial (Cardiovascular Outcomes for People using Anticoagulation Strategies) demonstrated that dual pathway inhibition (DPI) with rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily plus aspirin 100 mg once daily versus aspirin 100 mg once daily reduced the primary major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) outcome of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, as well as, mortality, in patients with chronic coronary syndromes or peripheral arterial disease. Whether this remains true in patients with a history of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is unknown. METHODS: In a prespecified subgroup analysis from COMPASS, we examined the outcomes of patients with chronic coronary syndrome with or without a previous PCI treated with DPI versus aspirin alone. Among patients with a previous PCI, we studied the effects of treatment according to the timing of the previous PCI. RESULTS: Of the 27 395 patients in COMPASS, 16 560 patients with a chronic coronary syndrome were randomly assigned to DPI or aspirin, and, of these, 9862 (59.6%) had previous PCI (mean age 68.2±7.8, female 19.4%, diabetes mellitus 35.7%, previous myocardial infarction 74.8%, multivessel PCI 38.0%). Average time from PCI to randomization was 5.4 years (SD, 4.4) and follow-up was 1.98 (SD, 0.72) years. Regardless of previous PCI, DPI versus aspirin produced consistent reductions in MACE (PCI: 4.0% versus 5.5%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.74 [95% CI, 0.61-0.88]; no PCI: 4.4% versus 5.7%; HR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.61-0.94], P-interaction=0.85) and mortality (PCI: 2.5% versus 3.5%; HR, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.58-0.92]; no PCI: 4.1% versus 5.0%; HR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.64-1.00], P-interaction=0.59), but increased major bleeding (PCI: 3.3% versus 2.0%; HR, 1.72 [95% CI, 1.34-2.21]; no PCI: 2.9% versus 1.8%; HR, 1.58 [95% CI, 1.15-2.17], P-interaction=0.68). In those with previous PCI, DPI compared with aspirin produced consistent (robust) reductions in MACE irrespective of time since previous PCI (as early as 1 year and as far as 10 years; P-interaction=0.65), irrespective of having a previous myocardial infarction (P-interaction=0.64). CONCLUSIONS: DPI compared with aspirin produced consistent reductions in MACE and mortality but with increased major bleeding with or without previous PCI. Among those with previous PCI 1 year and beyond, the effects on MACE and mortality were consistent irrespective of time since last PCI. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01776424.

Rivaroxaban versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation enrolled in Latin America: Insights from ROCKET AF.

BACKGROUND: ROCKET AF demonstrated the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban compared with warfarin for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism (SE) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). We examined baseline characteristics and outcomes in patients enrolled in Latin America compared with the rest of the world (ROW). METHODS: ROCKET AF enrolled 14,264 patients from 45 countries. Of these, 1,878 (13.2%) were from 7 Latin American countries. The clinical characteristics and outcomes (adjusted by baseline characteristics) of these patients were compared with 12,293 patients from the ROW. Treatment outcomes of rivaroxaban compared with warfarin were also stratified by region. RESULTS: The annual rate of stroke/SE was similar in those from Latin American and ROW (P= .63), but all-cause and vascular death were significantly higher than in ROW (HR 1.40, 95% CI 1.20-1.64; HR 1.38, 95% CI 1.14-1.68; P< .001). Rates of major or nonmajor clinically relevant bleeding tended to be lower in Latin America (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.80-1.0; P= .05). Rates of stroke and/or SE were similar with rivaroxaban and warfarin in patients from Latin America and ROW (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.54-1.29 vs HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.75-1.07; interaction P= .77). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with AF in Latin America had similar rates of stroke and/or SE, higher rates of vascular death, and lower rates of bleeding compared with patients in the ROW. The effect of rivaroxaban compared with warfarin in Latin America was similar to the ROW. Further studies analyzing patient- and country-specific determinants of these regional differences in Latin America are warranted.

Combination Antiplatelet and Oral Anticoagulant Therapy in Patients With Coronary and Peripheral Artery Disease.

Antiplatelet therapy is the mainstay for the treatment of acute and chronic arterial disease involving the coronary and peripheral beds. However, questions remain about optimal antithrombotic therapy for long-term treatment of chronic vascular disease. The observation that dual antiplatelet therapy with acetylsalicylic acid and clopidogrel was associated with lower thrombotic event rates than acetylsalicylic acid monotherapy in patients with acute coronary syndromes and those undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention changed the treatment paradigm. Moreover, the demonstration that more pharmacodynamically potent P2Y12 inhibitors than clopidogrel were associated with fewer thrombotic event occurrences further solidified the dual antiplatelet therapy approach. However, recurrent thrombotic events occur in ≈1 in 10 patients in the first year following an acute coronary syndrome event, despite treatment with the most potent P2Y12 inhibitors, a limitation that has stimulated interest in exploring the efficacy and safety of approaches using anticoagulants on top of antiplatelet therapy. These investigations have included treatment with very-low-dose oral anticoagulation, and even its replacement of acetylsalicylic acid in the presence of a P2Y12 inhibitor, in patients stabilized after an acute coronary syndrome event. Recent basic and translational studies have suggested noncanonical effects of coagulation factor inhibition that may further modulate clinical benefits. This in-depth review will discuss developments in our understanding of the roles that platelets and coagulation factors play in atherothrombosis and review the rationale and clinical evidence for combining antiplatelet and oral anticoagulant therapy in patients with coronary and peripheral artery disease.

Early Risks of Death, Stroke/Systemic Embolism, and Major Bleeding in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Atrial Fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation is associated with increased risks of death, stroke/systemic embolism, and bleeding (incurred by antithrombotic therapy), which may occur early after diagnosis. METHODS: We assessed the risk of early events (death, stroke/systemic embolism, and major bleeding) over 12 months and their relation to the time after diagnosis of atrial fibrillation in 52 014 patients prospectively enrolled in the GARFIELD-AF registry (Global Anticoagulant Registry in the FIELD-Atrial Fibrillation) between March 2010 and August 2016. RESULTS: Over 12 months, 2140 patients died (mortality rate, 4.3; 95% CI, 4.2-4.5 per 100 person-years), of whom 288 (13.5%) died in the first month (6.8; 95% CI, 6.1-7.6). Over 12 months, 657 patients had a stroke/systemic embolism (1.3; 95% CI, 1.2-1.4) and 411 had a major bleeding (0.8; 95% CI, 0.8-0.9). During the first month, the rates (per 100 person-years) of stroke/systemic embolism and major bleed were 2.3 (95% CI, 1.9-2.8) and 1.5 (95% CI, 1.2-1.9), respectively. The elevated 1-month mortality rate was mostly attributable to cardiovascular mortality (3.5; 95% CI, 3.0-4.1), in particular, heart failure, sudden death, and acute coronary syndromes (1.0 [95% CI, 0.8-1.4], 0.6 [95% CI, 0.4-0.8], and 0.5 [95% CI, 0.3-0.8], respectively). Age, heart failure, prior stroke, history of cirrhosis, vascular disease, moderate-to-severe kidney disease, diabetes mellitus, and living in North or Latin America were independent predictors of a higher risk of early death, whereas anticoagulation and living in Europe or Asia were independent predictors of a lower risk of early death. A predictive model developed for the 1-month risk of death had a C-statistic of 0.81 (95% CI, 0.78-0.83). CONCLUSIONS: The increased hazard of early events, in particular, cardiovascular mortality, in newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation points to the importance of comprehensive care for such patients and should alert clinicians to detect warning signs of possible early mortality. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01090362.

Rivaroxaban With or Without Aspirin in Patients With Heart Failure and Chronic Coronary or Peripheral Artery Disease.

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic coronary artery disease or peripheral artery disease and history of heart failure (HF) are at high risk for major adverse cardiovascular events. We explored the effects of rivaroxaban with or without aspirin in these patients. METHODS: The COMPASS trial (Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies) randomized 27 395 participants with chronic coronary artery disease or peripheral artery disease to rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily plus aspirin 100 mg daily, rivaroxaban 5 mg twice daily alone, or aspirin 100 mg alone. Patients with New York Heart Association functional class III or IV HF or left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) <30% were excluded. The primary major adverse cardiovascular events outcome comprised cardiovascular death, stroke, or myocardial infarction, and the primary safety outcome was major bleeding using modified International Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis criteria. Investigators recorded a history of HF and EF at baseline, if available. We examined the effects of rivaroxaban on major adverse cardiovascular events and major bleeding in patients with or without a history of HF and an EF <40% or ≥40% at baseline. RESULTS: Of the 5902 participants (22%) with a history of HF, 4971 (84%) had EF recorded at baseline, and 12% had EF <40%. Rivaroxaban and aspirin had similar relative reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events compared with aspirin in participants with HF (5.5% versus 7.9%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.68; 95% CI, 0.53-0.86) and those without HF (3.8% versus 4.7%; HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.68-0.93; P for interaction 0.28) but larger absolute risk reduction in those with HF (HF absolute risk reduction 2.4%, number needed to treat=42; no HF absolute risk reduction 1.0%, number needed to treat=103). The primary major adverse cardiovascular events outcome was not statistically different between those with EF <40% (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.55-1.42) and ≥40% (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.67-0.98; P for interaction 0.36). The excess hazard for major bleeding was not different in participants with HF (2.5% versus 1.8%; HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 0.88-2.09) than in those without HF (3.3% versus 1.9%; HR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.45-2.21; P for interaction 0.26). There were no significant differences in the primary outcomes with rivaroxaban alone. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with chronic coronary artery disease or peripheral artery disease and a history of mild or moderate HF, combination rivaroxaban and aspirin compared with aspirin alone produces similar relative but larger absolute benefits than in those without HF. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01776424.