Morphine and clinical outcomes in patients with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction treated with fibrinolytic and antiplatelet therapy: Insights from the TREAT trial.

BACKGROUND: Morphine is commonly used to relieve pain, anxiety and dyspnea in STEMI but it lowers blood pressure and delays the activity of oral antiplatelet agents. The impact of morphine on clinical outcomes remains unknown. This analysis was performed to determine if morphine use was associated with increased risk of adverse clinical events among STEMI patients treated with fibrinolytic therapy and clopidogrel or ticagrelor. METHODS: In the Ticagrelor in Patients with ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction Treated with Pharmacological Thrombolysis (TREAT) study, 3799 STEMI patients treated with fibrinolysis were randomized to receive clopidogrel or ticagrelor. Morphine use was left to the discretion of the treating physicians. In this pre-specified analysis, we evaluated clinical outcomes based on the use and timing of morphine administration. Outcomes were stratified by randomized treatment group. Multivariable analysis was performed using Inverse Probability Treatment Weighting (IPTW) weighting. RESULTS: Morphine was used in 53% of patients. After adjustment using IPTW weighting, morphine use was associated with higher hazard of reinfarction at 7 days (HR 4.9, P = .0006) and 30 days (HR 1.7, P = .04), and lower hazard of major bleeding (HR 0.37, P = .006). There was no significant difference in mortality at any time point. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with STEMI treated with fibrinolytic therapy, morphine use was associated with a higher risk of early reinfarction and a lower risk of major bleeding but no difference in mortality. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02298088.

Lowering cholesterol, blood pressure, or both to prevent cardiovascular events: results of 8.7 years of follow-up of Heart Outcomes Evaluation Prevention (HOPE)-3 study participants.

AIMS: Rosuvastatin (10 mg per day) compared with placebo reduced major adverse cardiovascular (CV) events by 24% in 12 705 participants at intermediate CV risk after 5.6 years. There was no benefit of blood pressure (BP) lowering treatment in the overall group, but a reduction in events in the third of participants with elevated systolic BP. After cessation of all the trial medications, we examined whether the benefits observed during the active treatment phase were sustained, enhanced, or attenuated. METHODS AND RESULTS: After the randomized treatment period (5.6 years), participants were invited to participate in 3.1 further years of observation (total 8.7 years). The first co-primary outcome for the entire length of follow-up was the composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, or CV death [major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE)-1], and the second was MACE-1 plus resuscitated cardiac arrest, heart failure, or coronary revascularization (MACE-2). In total, 9326 (78%) of 11 994 surviving Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation (HOPE)-3 subjects consented to participate in extended follow-up. During 3.1 years of post-trial observation (total follow-up of 8.7 years), participants originally randomized to rosuvastatin compared with placebo had a 20% additional reduction in MACE-1 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.64-0.99] and a 17% additional reduction in MACE-2 (95% CI 0.68-1.01). Therefore, over the 8.7 years of follow-up, there was a 21% reduction in MACE-1 (95% CI 0.69-0.90, P = 0.005) and 21% reduction in MACE-2 (95% CI 0.69-0.89, P = 0.002). There was no benefit of BP lowering in the overall study either during the active or post-trial observation period, however, a 24% reduction in MACE-1 was observed over 8.7 years. CONCLUSION: The CV benefits of rosuvastatin, and BP lowering in those with elevated systolic BP, compared with placebo continue to accrue for at least 3 years after cessation of randomized treatment in individuals without cardiovascular disease indicating a legacy effect. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00468923.

Rivaroxaban for Prevention of Covert Brain Infarcts and Cognitive Decline: The COMPASS MRI Substudy.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Covert brain infarcts are associated with cognitive decline. It is not known whether therapies that prevent symptomatic stroke prevent covert infarcts. COMPASS compared rivaroxaban with and without aspirin with aspirin for the prevention of stroke, myocardial infarction, and vascular death in participants with stable vascular disease and was terminated early because of benefits of rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily plus aspirin over aspirin. We obtained serial magnetic resonance imagings and cognitive tests in a consenting subgroup of COMPASS patients to examine treatment effects on infarcts, cerebral microbleeds, and white matter hyperintensities. METHODS: Baseline and follow-up magnetic resonance imagings were completed in 1445 participants with a mean (SD) interval of 2.0 (0.7) years. Whole-brain T1, T2 fluid-attenuated inversion recovery, T2* sequences were centrally interpreted by blinded, trained readers. Participants had serial measurements of cognition and function. The primary end point was the proportion of participants with incident covert infarcts. Secondary end points were the composite of clinical stroke and covert brain infarcts, cerebral microbleeds, and white matter hyperintensities. RESULTS: At baseline, 493 (34.1%) participants had infarcts. Incident covert infarcts occurred in 55 (3.8%) participants. In the overall trial rivaroxaban plus aspirin reduced ischemic stroke by 49% (0.7% versus 1.4%; hazard ratio [95% CI], 0.51 [0.38-0.68]). In the magnetic resonance imaging substudy the effects of rivaroxaban+aspirin versus aspirin were: covert infarcts: 2.7% versus 3.5% (odds ratio [95% CI], 0.77 [0.37-1.60]); Covert infarcts or ischemic stroke: 2.9% versus 5.3% (odds ratio [95% CI], 0.53 [0.27-1.03]). Incident microbleeds occurred in 6.6% of participants and 65.7% of participants had an increase in white matter hyperintensities volume with no effect of treatment for either end point. There was no effect on cognitive tests. CONCLUSIONS: Covert infarcts were not significantly reduced by treatment with rivaroxaban and aspirin but estimates for the combination of ischemic stroke and covert infarcts were consistent with the effect on ischemic stroke in the overall trial. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01776424.

Rivaroxaban with or without Aspirin in Stable Cardiovascular Disease.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated whether rivaroxaban alone or in combination with aspirin would be more effective than aspirin alone for secondary cardiovascular prevention. METHODS: In this double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 27,395 participants with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease to receive rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) plus aspirin (100 mg once daily), rivaroxaban (5 mg twice daily), or aspirin (100 mg once daily). The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, stroke, or myocardial infarction. The study was stopped for superiority of the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group after a mean follow-up of 23 months. RESULTS: The primary outcome occurred in fewer patients in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group than in the aspirin-alone group (379 patients [4.1%] vs. 496 patients [5.4%]; hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66 to 0.86; P<0.001; z=-4.126), but major bleeding events occurred in more patients in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group (288 patients [3.1%] vs. 170 patients [1.9%]; hazard ratio, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.40 to 2.05; P<0.001). There was no significant difference in intracranial or fatal bleeding between these two groups. There were 313 deaths (3.4%) in the rivaroxaban-plus-aspirin group as compared with 378 (4.1%) in the aspirin-alone group (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.96; P=0.01; threshold P value for significance, 0.0025). The primary outcome did not occur in significantly fewer patients in the rivaroxaban-alone group than in the aspirin-alone group, but major bleeding events occurred in more patients in the rivaroxaban-alone group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease, those assigned to rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) plus aspirin had better cardiovascular outcomes and more major bleeding events than those assigned to aspirin alone. Rivaroxaban (5 mg twice daily) alone did not result in better cardiovascular outcomes than aspirin alone and resulted in more major bleeding events. (Funded by Bayer; COMPASS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01776424 .).

Pantoprazole to Prevent Gastroduodenal Events in Patients Receiving Rivaroxaban and/or Aspirin in a Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Antiplatelets and anticoagulants are associated with increased upper gastrointestinal bleeding. We evaluated whether proton pump inhibitor therapy could reduce this risk. METHODS: We performed a 3 × 2 partial factorial double-blind trial of 17,598 participants with stable cardiovascular disease and peripheral artery disease. Participants were randomly assigned to groups given pantoprazole 40 mg daily or placebo, as well as rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily with aspirin 100 mg once daily, rivaroxaban 5 mg twice daily, or aspirin 100 mg alone. The primary outcome was time to first upper gastrointestinal event, defined as a composite of overt bleeding, upper gastrointestinal bleeding from a gastroduodenal lesion or of unknown origin, occult bleeding, symptomatic gastroduodenal ulcer or ≥5 erosions, upper gastrointestinal obstruction, or perforation. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in upper gastrointestinal events between the pantoprazole group (102 of 8791 events) and the placebo group (116 of 8807 events) (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.67-1.15). Pantoprazole significantly reduced bleeding of gastroduodenal lesions (hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.28-0.94; P = .03); this reduction was greater when we used a post-hoc definition of bleeding gastroduodenal lesion (hazard ratio, 0.45; 95% confidence interval, 0.27-0.74), although the number needed to treat still was high (n = 982; 95% confidence interval, 609-2528). CONCLUSIONS: In a randomized placebo-controlled trial, we found that routine use of proton pump inhibitors in patients receiving low-dose anticoagulation and/or aspirin for stable cardiovascular disease does not reduce upper gastrointestinal events, but may reduce bleeding from gastroduodenal lesions. ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT01776424.

Safety of Proton Pump Inhibitors Based on a Large, Multi-Year, Randomized Trial of Patients Receiving Rivaroxaban or Aspirin.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are effective at treating acid-related disorders. These drugs are well tolerated in the short term, but long-term treatment was associated with adverse events in observational studies. We aimed to confirm these findings in an adequately powered randomized trial. METHODS: We performed a 3 × 2 partial factorial double-blind trial of 17,598 participants with stable cardiovascular disease and peripheral artery disease randomly assigned to groups given pantoprazole (40 mg daily, n = 8791) or placebo (n = 8807). Participants were also randomly assigned to groups that received rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) with aspirin (100 mg once daily), rivaroxaban (5 mg twice daily), or aspirin (100 mg) alone. We collected data on development of pneumonia, Clostridium difficile infection, other enteric infections, fractures, gastric atrophy, chronic kidney disease, diabetes, chronic obstructive lung disease, dementia, cardiovascular disease, cancer, hospitalizations, and all-cause mortality every 6 months. Patients were followed up for a median of 3.01 years, with 53,152 patient-years of follow-up. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference between the pantoprazole and placebo groups in safety events except for enteric infections (1.4% vs 1.0% in the placebo group; odds ratio, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.75). For all other safety outcomes, proportions were similar between groups except for C difficile infection, which was approximately twice as common in the pantoprazole vs the placebo group, although there were only 13 events, so this difference was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: In a large placebo-controlled randomized trial, we found that pantoprazole is not associated with any adverse event when used for 3 years, with the possible exception of an increased risk of enteric infections. ClinicalTrials.gov Number: NCT01776424.

Five-Year Outcomes after Off-Pump or On-Pump Coronary-Artery Bypass Grafting.

BACKGROUND: We previously reported that there was no significant difference at 30 days or at 1 year in the rate of the composite outcome of death, stroke, myocardial infarction, or renal failure between patients who underwent coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG) performed with a beating-heart technique (off-pump) and those who underwent CABG performed with cardiopulmonary bypass (on-pump). We now report the results at 5 years (the end of the trial). METHODS: A total of 4752 patients (from 19 countries) who had coronary artery disease were randomly assigned to undergo off-pump or on-pump CABG. For this report, we analyzed a composite outcome of death, stroke, myocardial infarction, renal failure, or repeat coronary revascularization (either CABG or percutaneous coronary intervention). The mean follow-up period was 4.8 years. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the off-pump group and the on-pump group in the rate of the composite outcome (23.1% and 23.6%, respectively; hazard ratio with off-pump CABG, 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87 to 1.10; P=0.72) or in the rates of the components of the outcome, including repeat coronary revascularization, which was performed in 2.8% of the patients in the off-pump group and in 2.3% of the patients in the on-pump group (hazard ratio, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.73; P=0.29). The secondary outcome for the overall period of the trial - the mean cost in U.S. dollars per patient - also did not differ significantly between the off-pump group and the on-pump group ($15,107 and $14,992, respectively; between-group difference, $115; 95% CI, -$697 to $927). There were no significant between-group differences in quality-of-life measures. CONCLUSIONS: In our trial, the rate of the composite outcome of death, stroke, myocardial infarction, renal failure, or repeat revascularization at 5 years of follow-up was similar among patients who underwent off-pump CABG and those who underwent on-pump CABG. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research; CORONARY ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00463294 .).

Blood-Pressure Lowering in Intermediate-Risk Persons without Cardiovascular Disease.

BACKGROUND: Antihypertensive therapy reduces the risk of cardiovascular events among high-risk persons and among those with a systolic blood pressure of 160 mm Hg or higher, but its role in persons at intermediate risk and with lower blood pressure is unclear. METHODS: In one comparison from a 2-by-2 factorial trial, we randomly assigned 12,705 participants at intermediate risk who did not have cardiovascular disease to receive either candesartan at a dose of 16 mg per day plus hydrochlorothiazide at a dose of 12.5 mg per day or placebo. The first coprimary outcome was the composite of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke; the second coprimary outcome additionally included resuscitated cardiac arrest, heart failure, and revascularization. The median follow-up was 5.6 years. RESULTS: The mean blood pressure of the participants at baseline was 138.1/81.9 mm Hg; the decrease in blood pressure was 6.0/3.0 mm Hg greater in the active-treatment group than in the placebo group. The first coprimary outcome occurred in 260 participants (4.1%) in the active-treatment group and in 279 (4.4%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79 to 1.10; P=0.40); the second coprimary outcome occurred in 312 participants (4.9%) and 328 participants (5.2%), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.11; P=0.51). In one of the three prespecified hypothesis-based subgroups, participants in the subgroup for the upper third of systolic blood pressure (>143.5 mm Hg) who were in the active-treatment group had significantly lower rates of the first and second coprimary outcomes than those in the placebo group; effects were neutral in the middle and lower thirds (P=0.02 and P=0.009, respectively, for trend in the two outcomes). CONCLUSIONS: Therapy with candesartan at a dose of 16 mg per day plus hydrochlorothiazide at a dose of 12.5 mg per day was not associated with a lower rate of major cardiovascular events than placebo among persons at intermediate risk who did not have cardiovascular disease. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and AstraZeneca; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00468923.).

Blood-Pressure and Cholesterol Lowering in Persons without Cardiovascular Disease.

BACKGROUND: Elevated blood pressure and elevated low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol increase the risk of cardiovascular disease. Lowering both should reduce the risk of cardiovascular events substantially. METHODS: In a trial with 2-by-2 factorial design, we randomly assigned 12,705 participants at intermediate risk who did not have cardiovascular disease to rosuvastatin (10 mg per day) or placebo and to candesartan (16 mg per day) plus hydrochlorothiazide (12.5 mg per day) or placebo. In the analyses reported here, we compared the 3180 participants assigned to combined therapy (with rosuvastatin and the two antihypertensive agents) with the 3168 participants assigned to dual placebo. The first coprimary outcome was the composite of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke, and the second coprimary outcome additionally included heart failure, cardiac arrest, or revascularization. The median follow-up was 5.6 years. RESULTS: The decrease in the LDL cholesterol level was 33.7 mg per deciliter (0.87 mmol per liter) greater in the combined-therapy group than in the dual-placebo group, and the decrease in systolic blood pressure was 6.2 mm Hg greater with combined therapy than with dual placebo. The first coprimary outcome occurred in 113 participants (3.6%) in the combined-therapy group and in 157 (5.0%) in the dual-placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56 to 0.90; P=0.005). The second coprimary outcome occurred in 136 participants (4.3%) and 187 participants (5.9%), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.89; P=0.003). Muscle weakness and dizziness were more common in the combined-therapy group than in the dual-placebo group, but the overall rate of discontinuation of the trial regimen was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of rosuvastatin (10 mg per day), candesartan (16 mg per day), and hydrochlorothiazide (12.5 mg per day) was associated with a significantly lower rate of cardiovascular events than dual placebo among persons at intermediate risk who did not have cardiovascular disease. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and AstraZeneca; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00468923.).

Cholesterol Lowering in Intermediate-Risk Persons without Cardiovascular Disease.

BACKGROUND: Previous trials have shown that the use of statins to lower cholesterol reduces the risk of cardiovascular events among persons without cardiovascular disease. Those trials have involved persons with elevated lipid levels or inflammatory markers and involved mainly white persons. It is unclear whether the benefits of statins can be extended to an intermediate-risk, ethnically diverse population without cardiovascular disease. METHODS: In one comparison from a 2-by-2 factorial trial, we randomly assigned 12,705 participants in 21 countries who did not have cardiovascular disease and were at intermediate risk to receive rosuvastatin at a dose of 10 mg per day or placebo. The first coprimary outcome was the composite of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke, and the second coprimary outcome additionally included revascularization, heart failure, and resuscitated cardiac arrest. The median follow-up was 5.6 years. RESULTS: The overall mean low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level was 26.5% lower in the rosuvastatin group than in the placebo group. The first coprimary outcome occurred in 235 participants (3.7%) in the rosuvastatin group and in 304 participants (4.8%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64 to 0.91; P=0.002). The results for the second coprimary outcome were consistent with the results for the first (occurring in 277 participants [4.4%] in the rosuvastatin group and in 363 participants [5.7%] in the placebo group; hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.64 to 0.88; P<0.001). The results were also consistent in subgroups defined according to cardiovascular risk at baseline, lipid level, C-reactive protein level, blood pressure, and race or ethnic group. In the rosuvastatin group, there was no excess of diabetes or cancers, but there was an excess of cataract surgery (in 3.8% of the participants, vs. 3.1% in the placebo group; P=0.02) and muscle symptoms (in 5.8% of the participants, vs. 4.7% in the placebo group; P=0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with rosuvastatin at a dose of 10 mg per day resulted in a significantly lower risk of cardiovascular events than placebo in an intermediate-risk, ethnically diverse population without cardiovascular disease. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and AstraZeneca; HOPE-3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00468923.).

Rationale and design for a cluster randomized quality-improvement trial to increase the uptake of evidence-based therapies for patients at high cardiovascular risk: The BRIDGE-Cardiovascular Prevention trial.

BACKGROUND: Translating evidence into clinical practice in the management of high cardiovascular risk patients is challenging. Few quality improvement interventions have rigorously evaluated their impact on both patient care and clinical outcomes. OBJECTIVES: The main objectives are to evaluate the impact of a multifaceted educational intervention on adherence to local guidelines for the prescription of statins, antiplatelets and angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers for high cardiovascular risk patients, as well as on the incidence of major cardiovascular events. DESIGN: We designed a pragmatic two arm cluster randomized trial involving 40 clusters. Clusters are randomized to receive a multifaceted quality improvement intervention or to routine practice (control). The multifaceted intervention includes: reminders, care algorithms, training of a case manager, audit and feedback reports, and distribution of educational materials to health care providers. The primary endpoint is the adherence to combined evidence-based therapies (statins, antiplatelet therapy and angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers) at 12 months after the intervention period in patients without contra-indications for these medications. All analyses follow the intention-to-treat principle and take the cluster design into account using linear mixed logistic regression modeling. SUMMARY: If proven effective, this multifaceted intervention would have wide utility as a means of promoting optimal usage of evidence-based interventions for the management of high cardiovascular risk patients.

Ticagrelor versus clopidogrel after fibrinolytic therapy in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction: Rationale and design of the ticagrelor in patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction treated with thrombolysis (TREAT) trial.

BACKGROUND: The safety and efficacy of ticagrelor in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) treated with fibrinolytic therapy remain uncertain. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of the TicagRElor in pAtients with ST elevation myocardial infarction treated with Thrombolysis (TREAT) trial is to evaluate the short-term safety of ticagrelor when compared with clopidogrel in STEMI patients treated with fibrinolytic therapy. Key secondary objectives are to assess the safety and efficacy of ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel at 12-months. DESIGN: The TREAT trial is a multicenter, randomized, phase III, Prospective randomized open blinded end-point (PROBE) study that enrolled 3,799 patients in 152 sites from 10 countries. Following administration of fibrinolytic therapy patients were randomized to a loading dose of ticagrelor 180 mg or clopidogrel 300 mg followed by a maintenance dose of ticagrelor 90 mg twice daily or clopidogrel 75 mg/day for 12-months. The primary outcome is the rate of TIMI major bleeding at 30-days and will be assessed for non-inferiority using an intention-to-treat analysis. Co-treatments include aspirin and anticoagulants. Other evidence based therapies are also recommended. Secondary efficacy outcome include a composite of death from vascular causes, myocardial infarction, stroke, severe recurrent ischemia, transient ischemic attack or other arterial thrombotic event. All-cause mortality as well as individual components of the combined efficacy endpoint will also be ascertained. SUMMARY: TREAT is an international randomized controlled trial comparing ticagrelor with clopidogrel in STEMI patients treated with fibrinolytic therapy. The results of this trial will inform clinical practice and international guidelines.

Effects of off-pump and on-pump coronary-artery bypass grafting at 1 year.

BACKGROUND: Previously, we reported that there was no significant difference at 30 days in the rate of a primary composite outcome of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or new renal failure requiring dialysis between patients who underwent coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG) performed with a beating-heart technique (off-pump) and those who underwent CABG performed with cardiopulmonary bypass (on-pump). We now report results on quality of life and cognitive function and on clinical outcomes at 1 year. METHODS: We enrolled 4752 patients with coronary artery disease who were scheduled to undergo CABG and randomly assigned them to undergo the procedure off-pump or on-pump. Patients were enrolled at 79 centers in 19 countries. We assessed quality of life and cognitive function at discharge, at 30 days, and at 1 year and clinical outcomes at 1 year. RESULTS: At 1 year, there was no significant difference in the rate of the primary composite outcome between off-pump and on-pump CABG (12.1% and 13.3%, respectively; hazard ratio with off-pump CABG, 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.77 to 1.07; P=0.24). The rate of the primary outcome was also similar in the two groups in the period between 31 days and 1 year (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.55 to 1.13; P=0.19). The rate of repeat coronary revascularization at 1 year was 1.4% in the off-pump group and 0.8% in the on-pump group (hazard ratio, 1.66; 95% CI, 0.95 to 2.89; P=0.07). There were no significant differences between the two groups at 1 year in measures of quality of life or neurocognitive function. CONCLUSIONS: At 1 year after CABG, there was no significant difference between off-pump and on-pump CABG with respect to the primary composite outcome, the rate of repeat coronary revascularization, quality of life, or neurocognitive function. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research; CORONARY ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00463294.).

Off-pump or on-pump coronary-artery bypass grafting at 30 days.

BACKGROUND: The relative benefits and risks of performing coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG) with a beating-heart technique (off-pump CABG), as compared with cardiopulmonary bypass (on-pump CABG), are not clearly established. METHODS: At 79 centers in 19 countries, we randomly assigned 4752 patients in whom CABG was planned to undergo the procedure off-pump or on-pump. The first coprimary outcome was a composite of death, nonfatal stroke, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or new renal failure requiring dialysis at 30 days after randomization. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the rate of the primary composite outcome between off-pump and on-pump CABG (9.8% vs. 10.3%; hazard ratio for the off-pump group, 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79 to 1.14; P=0.59) or in any of its individual components. The use of off-pump CABG, as compared with on-pump CABG, significantly reduced the rates of blood-product transfusion (50.7% vs. 63.3%; relative risk, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.75 to 0.85; P<0.001), reoperation for perioperative bleeding (1.4% vs. 2.4%; relative risk, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.93; P=0.02), acute kidney injury (28.0% vs. 32.1%; relative risk, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.80 to 0.96; P=0.01), and respiratory complications (5.9% vs. 7.5%; relative risk, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.63 to 0.98; P=0.03) but increased the rate of early repeat revascularizations (0.7% vs. 0.2%; hazard ratio, 4.01; 95% CI, 1.34 to 12.0; P=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference between off-pump and on-pump CABG with respect to the 30-day rate of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or renal failure requiring dialysis. The use of off-pump CABG resulted in reduced rates of transfusion, reoperation for perioperative bleeding, respiratory complications, and acute kidney injury but also resulted in an increased risk of early revascularization. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research; CORONARY ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00463294.).

The Long-Term Multicenter Observational Study of Dabigatran Treatment in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation (RELY-ABLE) Study.

BACKGROUND: During follow-up of between 1 and 3 years in the Randomized Evaluation of Long-term Anticoagulation Therapy (RE-LY) trial, 2 doses of dabigatran etexilate were shown to be effective and safe for the prevention of stroke or systemic embolism in patients with atrial fibrillation. There is a need for longer-term follow-up of patients on dabigatran and for further data comparing the 2 dabigatran doses. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients randomly assigned to dabigatran in RE-LY were eligible for the Long-term Multicenter Extension of Dabigatran Treatment in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation (RELY-ABLE) trial if they had not permanently discontinued study medication at the time of their final RE-LY study visit. Enrolled patients continued to receive the double-blind dabigatran dose received in RE-LY, for up to 28 months of follow up after RE-LY (median follow-up, 2.3 years). There were 5851 patients enrolled, representing 48% of patients originally randomly assigned to receive dabigatran in RE-LY and 86% of RELY-ABLE-eligible patients. Rates of stroke or systemic embolism were 1.46% and 1.60%/y on dabigatran 150 and 110 mg twice daily, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.69-1.20). Rates of major hemorrhage were 3.74% and 2.99%/y on dabigatran 150 and 110 mg (hazard ratio, 1.26; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-1.53). Rates of death were 3.02% and 3.10%/y (hazard ratio, 0.97; 95% confidence interval, 0.80-1.19). Rates of hemorrhagic stroke were 0.13% and 0.14%/y. CONCLUSIONS: During 2.3 years of continued treatment with dabigatran after RE-LY, there was a higher rate of major bleeding with dabigatran 150 mg twice daily in comparison with 110 mg, and similar rates of stroke and death.

Rationale and design of the coronary artery bypass grafting surgery off or on pump revascularization study: a large international randomized trial in cardiac surgery.

BACKGROUND: Uncertainty remains regarding the benefits and risks of the technique of operating on a beating heart (off pump) for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery versus on-pump CABG. Prior trials had few events and relatively short follow-up. There is a need for a large randomized, controlled trial with long-term follow-up to inform both the short- and long-term impact of the 2 approaches to CABG. METHODS: We plan to randomize 4,700 patients in whom CABG is planned to undergo the procedure on pump or off pump. The coprimary outcomes are a composite of total mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and renal failure at 30 days and a composite of total mortality, MI, stroke, renal failure, and repeat revascularization at 5 years. We will also undertake a cost-effectiveness analysis at 30 days and 5 years after CABG surgery. Other outcomes include neurocognitive dysfunction, recurrence of angina, cardiovascular mortality, blood transfusions, and quality of life. RESULTS: As of May 3, 2011, CORONARY has recruited >3,884 patients from 79 centers in 19 countries. Currently, patient's mean age is 67.6 years, 80.7% are men, 47.0% have a history of diabetes, 51.4% have a history of smoking, and 34.4% had a previous MI. In addition, 20.9% of patients have a left main disease, and 96.6% have double or triple vessel disease. CONCLUSIONS: CORONARY is the largest trial yet conducted comparing off-pump CABG to on-pump CABG. Its results will lead to a better understanding of the safety and efficacy of off-pump CABG.

Long-Term Treatment with the Combination of Rivaroxaban and Aspirin in Patients with Chronic Coronary or Peripheral Artery Disease: Outcomes During the Open Label Extension of the COMPASS trial.

AIMS: To describe outcomes of patients with chronic coronary artery disease (CAD) and/or peripheral artery disease (PAD) enrolled in the Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) randomized trial who were treated with the combination of rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily and aspirin 100 mg once daily during long-term open-label extension (LTOLE). METHODS AND RESULTS: Of the 27 395 patients enrolled in COMPASS, 12 964 (mean age at baseline 67.2 years) from 455 sites in 32 countries were enrolled in LTOLE and treated with the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin for a median of 374 additional days (range 1-1191 days). During LTOLE, the incident events per 100 patient years were as follows: for the primary outcome [cardiovascular death, stroke, or myocardial infarction (MI)] 2.35 [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.11-2.61], mortality 1.87 (1.65-2.10), stroke 0.62 (0.50-0.76), and MI 1.02 (0.86-1.19), with CIs that overlapped those seen during the randomized treatment phase with the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin. The incidence rates for major and minor bleeding were 1.01 (0.86-1.19) and 2.49 (2.24-2.75), compared with 1.67 (1.48-1.87) and 5.11 (95% CI 4.77-5.47), respectively, during the randomized treatment phase with the combination. CONCLUSION: In patients with chronic CAD and/or PAD, extended combination treatment for a median of 1 year and a maximum of 3 years was associated with incidence rates for efficacy and bleeding that were similar to or lower than those seen during the randomized treatment phase, without any new safety signals.

Effects of a Brazilian cardioprotective diet and nuts on cardiometabolic parameters after myocardial infarction: study protocol for a randomized controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Nut consumption has been related to improvements on cardiometabolic parameters and reduction in the severity of atherosclerosis mainly in primary cardiovascular prevention. The objective of this trial is to evaluate the effects of the Brazilian Cardioprotective Diet (DIeta CArdioprotetora Brasileira, DICA Br) based on consumption of inexpensive locally accessible foods supplemented or not with mixed nuts on cardiometabolic features in patients with previous myocardial infarction (MI). METHODS: DICA-NUTS study is a national, multicenter, randomized 16-week follow-up clinical trial. Patients over 40 years old with diagnosis of previous MI in the last 2 to 6 months will be recruited (n = 388). A standardized questionnaire will be applied to data collection and blood samples will be obtained. Patients will be allocated in two groups: Group 1: DICA Br supplemented with 30 g/day of mixed nuts (10 g of peanuts, 10 g of cashew, 10 g of Brazil nuts); and Group 2: only DICA Br. The primary outcome will consist of LDL cholesterol means (in mg/dL) after 16 weeks of intervention. Secondary outcomes will consist of other markers of lipid profile, glycemic profile, and anthropometric data. DISCUSSION: It is expected that DICA Br supplemented with mixed nuts have superior beneficial effects on cardiometabolic parameters in patients after a MI, when compared to DICA Br. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03728127 . First register: November 1, 2018; Last update: June 16, 2021. World Health Organization Universal Trial Number (WHO-UTN): U1111-1259-8105.

Antithrombotic therapy with fondaparinux in relation to interventional management strategy in patients with ST- and non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes: an individual patient-level combined analysis of the Fifth and Sixth Organization to Assess Strategies in Ischemic Syndromes (OASIS 5 and 6) randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: The Fifth and Sixth Organization to Assess Strategies in Ischemic Syndromes (OASIS 5 and 6) trials evaluated fondaparinux, a synthetic factor Xa inhibitor, in patients with non-ST- and ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes, respectively. Combined results for these 2 trials on major efficacy and safety outcomes and data on the effects of fondaparinux in relation to interventional management strategy have not been previously reported. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed an individual patient-level combined analysis of 26 512 patients from the OASIS 5 and 6 trials who were randomized in a double-blind fashion to fondaparinux 2.5 mg daily or a heparin-based strategy (dose-adjusted unfractionated heparin or enoxaparin). Results were stratified according to whether an early invasive, a delayed invasive, or an initial conservative management strategy was performed. Fondaparinux was superior to heparin in reducing the composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (8.0% versus 7.2%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.91; P=0.03) and death alone (4.3% versus 3.8%; HR, 0.89; P=0.05). Fondaparinux reduced major bleeding by 41% (3.4% versus 2.1%; HR, 0.59; P<0.00001) and had a more favorable net clinical outcome than heparin (11.1% versus 9.3%; HR, 0.83; P<0.0001). In 19 085 patients treated with an invasive strategy, fondaparinux suppressed ischemic events to an extent similar to heparin and reduced major bleeding by more than one-half, resulting in a superior net clinical outcome (10.8% versus 9.4%; HR, 0.87; P=0.008). A similar benefit also was observed in those treated with a conservative strategy (HR, 0.74; 95% confidence interval, 0.64 to 0.85; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with a heparin-based strategy, fondaparinux reduced mortality, ischemic events, and major bleeding across the full spectrum of acute coronary syndromes and was associated with a more favorable net clinical outcome in patients undergoing either an invasive or a conservative management strategy.

Renal outcomes with telmisartan, ramipril, or both, in people at high vascular risk (the ONTARGET study): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) and angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors are known to reduce proteinuria. Their combination might be more effective than either treatment alone, but long-term data for comparative changes in renal function are not available. We investigated the renal effects of ramipril (an ACE inhibitor), telmisartan (an ARB), and their combination in patients aged 55 years or older with established atherosclerotic vascular disease or with diabetes with end-organ damage. METHODS: The trial ran from 2001 to 2007. After a 3-week run-in period, 25 620 participants were randomly assigned to ramipril 10 mg a day (n=8576), telmisartan 80 mg a day (n=8542), or to a combination of both drugs (n=8502; median follow-up was 56 months), and renal function and proteinuria were measured. The primary renal outcome was a composite of dialysis, doubling of serum creatinine, and death. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00153101. FINDINGS: 784 patients permanently discontinued randomised therapy during the trial because of hypotensive symptoms (406 on combination therapy, 149 on ramipril, and 229 on telmisartan). The number of events for the composite primary outcome was similar for telmisartan (n=1147 [13.4%]) and ramipril (1150 [13.5%]; hazard ratio [HR] 1.00, 95% CI 0.92-1.09), but was increased with combination therapy (1233 [14.5%]; HR 1.09, 1.01-1.18, p=0.037). The secondary renal outcome, dialysis or doubling of serum creatinine, was similar with telmisartan (189 [2.21%]) and ramipril (174 [2.03%]; HR 1.09, 0.89-1.34) and more frequent with combination therapy (212 [2.49%]: HR 1.24, 1.01-1.51, p=0.038). Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) declined least with ramipril compared with telmisartan (-2.82 [SD 17.2] mL/min/1.73 m(2)vs -4.12 [17.4], p<0.0001) or combination therapy (-6.11 [17.9], p<0.0001). The increase in urinary albumin excretion was less with telmisartan (p=0.004) or with combination therapy (p=0.001) than with ramipril. INTERPRETATION: In people at high vascular risk, telmisartan's effects on major renal outcomes are similar to ramipril. Although combination therapy reduces proteinuria to a greater extent than monotherapy, overall it worsens major renal outcomes.