Antithrombotic Strategies According to Age: Insights from the AUGUSTUS Trial.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of antithrombotic strategies by age in patients with atrial fibrillation and acute coronary syndrome and/or percutaneous coronary intervention in AUGUSTUS. METHODS: Patients were stratified into 3 age groups: <65, 65-74, and ≥75 years. Outcomes of interest were major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding, major bleeding, death or rehospitalization, and ischemic events. Treatment effects of apixaban vs. vitamin K antagonist (VKA) and aspirin vs. placebo were assessed across age groups using Cox models. RESULTS: Of 4614 patients, 1267 (27.5%) were <65, 1802 (39.0%) were 65-74, and 1545 (33.5%) were ≥75 years. Apixaban was associated with lower rates of major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding than VKA (<65: HR 0.69 [0.47-1.00]; 65-74: HR 0.57 [0.43-0.75]; ≥75: HR 0.81 [0.63-1.04]). Death or hospitalization occurred less often with apixaban, regardless of age. No differences were observed in rates of ischemic events between apixaban and VKA according to age. Aspirin was associated with higher rates of bleeding than placebo (<65: HR 1.67 [1.15-2.43]; 65-74: HR 2.32 [1.73-3.10]; ≥75: HR 1.69 [1.31-2.19]). Rates of death or rehospitalization and ischemic events were similar among patients receiving aspirin or placebo across age groups. CONCLUSIONS: Apixaban was associated with greater absolute reduction in bleeding than VKA in older age groups, reflecting their higher hemorrhagic risk. Aspirin increased bleeding in all age groups vs. placebo. Our findings support the use of apixaban plus a purinergic receptor P2Y12(P2Y12) inhibitor without aspirin in patients with atrial fibrillation and recent acute coronary syndrome/percutaneous coronary intervention, regardless of age.

Health status and clinical outcomes in older adults with chronic coronary disease: the ISCHEMIA trial

BACKGROUND: Whether initial invasive management in older vs younger adults with chronic coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia improves health status or clinical outcomes is unknown. OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to examine the impact of age on health status and clinical outcomes with invasive vs conservative management in the ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches) trial. METHODS: One-year angina-specific health status was assessed with the 7-item Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) (score range 0-100; higher scores indicate better health status). Cox proportional hazards models estimated the treatment effect of invasive vs conservative management as a function of age on the composite clinical outcome of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for resuscitated cardiac arrest, unstable angina, or heart failure. RESULTS: Among 4,617 participants, 2,239 (48.5%) were aged <65 years, 1,713 (37.1%) were aged 65 to 74 years, and 665 (14.4%) were aged ≥75 years. Baseline SAQ summary scores were lower in participants aged <65 years. Fully adjusted differences in 1-year SAQ summary scores (invasive minus conservative) were 4.90 (95% CI: 3.56-6.24) at age 55 years, 3.48 (95% CI: 2.40-4.57) at age 65 years, and 2.13 (95% CI: 0.75-3.51) at age 75 years (Pinteraction = 0.008). Improvement in SAQ Angina Frequency was less dependent on age (Pinteraction = 0.08). There were no age differences between invasive vs conservative management on the composite clinical outcome (Pinteraction = 0.29). CONCLUSIONS: Older patients with chronic coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia had consistent improvement in angina frequency but less improvement in angina-related health status with invasive management compared with younger patients. Invasive management was not associated with improved clinical outcomes in older or younger patients. (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches [ISCHEMIA]; NCT01471522).

Initial invasive versus conservative management of stable ischemic heart disease patients with a history of heart failure or left ventricular dysfunction: Insights from the ISCHEMIA trial

Background: It is unknown whether an initial invasive strategy in patients with stable ischemic heart disease and at least moderate ischemia improves outcomes in patients with a history of heart failure (HF) or left ventricular dysfunction (LVD) when EF >35%, but <45%. Methods: Among 5179 participants randomized into the International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches (ISCHEMIA), all of whom had LVEF >35%, we compared cardiovascular outcomes by treatment strategy in those with a history of HF or LV dysfunction (HF/LVD) at baseline versus those without HF/LVD. Median follow up was 3.2 years. Results: There were 398 (7.7%) participants with HF/LVD at baseline of whom 177 had HF/LVEF>45%, 28 had HF/LVEF 35-45% and 193 had LVEF 35-45% but no prior history of HF. HF/LVD was associated with more comorbidities at baseline, particularly prior myocardial infarction (MI), stroke and hypertension. Compared to those without HF/LVD, those with HF/LVD were more likely to experience a primary outcome composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, or hospitalization for unstable angina, HF, or resuscitated cardiac arrest; four-year cumulative incidence rate (22.7% vs. 13.8%), cardiovascular death or MI (19.7% vs. 12.3%), and all-cause death or HF (15.0% vs. 6.9%). Those with HF/LVD randomized to the invasive versus conservative strategy had a lower rate of the primary outcome (17.2% vs. 29.3%, difference in 4- year event rate -12.1%; 95% CI: -22.6, -1.6%), whereas those without HF/LVD did not (13.0% vs. 14.6%, difference in 4-year event rate -1.6%; 95% CI: -3.8%, 0.7%; p-interaction = 0.055). A similar differential effect was seen for the primary outcome, all-cause mortality, and CV mortality when invasive versus conservative strategy associated outcomes were analyzed with LVEF as a continuous variable for those with and without prior HF. Conclusions: ISCHEMIA trial participants with stable ischemic heart disease and at least moderate ischemia with a history of HF or LVD were at increased risk for the primary outcome. In the small, high-risk subgroup with HF and LVEF 35-45%, an initial invasive approach was associated with a better event-free survival. This result should be considered hypothesis generating.

Slow Gait Speed and Cardiac Rehabilitation Participation in Older Adults After Acute Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: Lack of participation in cardiac rehabilitation (CR) and slow gait speed have both been associated with poor long-term outcomes in older adults after acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Whether the effect of CR participation on outcomes after AMI differs by gait speed is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: We examined the association between gait speed and CR participation at 1 month after discharge after AMI, and death and disability at 1 year, in 329 patients aged ≥65 years enrolled in the TRIUMPH (Translational Research Investigating Underlying Disparities in Recovery From Acute Myocardial Infarction: Patients' Health Status) registry. Among these patients, 177 (53.7%) had slow gait speed (<0.8 m/s) and 109 (33.1%) participated in CR. Patients with slow gait speed were less likely to participate in CR compared with patients with normal gait speed (27.1% versus 40.1%; P=0.012). In unadjusted analysis, CR participants with normal gait speed had the lowest rate of death or disability at 1 year (9.3%), compared with those with slow gait speed and no CR participation (43.2%). After adjustment for cardiovascular risk factors and cognitive impairment, both slow gait speed (odds ratio, 2.30; 95% confidence interval, 1.30-4.06) and non-CR participation (odds ratio, 2.34; 95 confidence interval, 1.22-4.48) were independently associated with death or disability at 1 year. The effect of CR on the primary outcome did not differ by gait speed (P=0.70). CONCLUSIONS: CR participation is associated with reduced risk for death or disability after AMI. The beneficial effect of CR participation does not differ by gait speed, suggesting that slow gait speed alone should not preclude referral to CR for older adults after AMI.

Effect of age on efficacy and safety of vorapaxar in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome: Insights from the Thrombin Receptor Antagonist for Clinical Event Reduction in Acute Coronary Syndrome (TRACER) trial.

BACKGROUND: Antithrombotic therapy plays an important role in the treatment of non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE ACS) but is associated with bleeding risk. Advanced age may modify the relationship between efficacy and safety. METHODS: Efficacy and safety of vorapaxar (a protease-activated receptor 1 antagonist) was analyzed across ages as a continuous and a categorical variable in the 12,944 patients with NSTE ACS enrolled in the TRACER trial. To evaluate the effect of age, Cox regression models were developed to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) with the adjustment of other baseline characteristics and randomized treatment for the primary efficacy composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, recurrent ischemia with rehospitalization, or urgent coronary revascularization, and the primary safety composite of moderate or severe Global Use of Strategies to Open Occluded Coronary Arteries (GUSTO) bleeding. RESULTS: The median age of the population was 64years (25th, 75th percentiles = 58, 71). Also, 1,791 patients (13.8%) were ≤54years of age, 4,968 (38.4%) were between 55 and 64 years, 3,979 (30.7%) were between 65 and 74 years, and 2,206 (17.1%) were 75years or older. Older patients had higher rates of hypertension, renal insufficiency, and previous stroke and worse Killip class. The oldest age group (≥75years) had substantially higher 2-year rates of the composite ischemic end point and moderate or severe GUSTO bleeding compared with the youngest age group (≤54years). The relationships between treatment assignment (vorapaxar vs placebo) and efficacy outcomes did not vary by age. For the primary efficacy end point, the HRs (95% CIs) comparing vorapaxar and placebo in the 4 age groups were as follows: 1.12 (0.88-1.43), 0.88 (0.76-1.02), 0.89 (0.76-1.04), and 0.88 (0.74-1.06), respectively (P value for interaction = .435). Similar to what was observed for efficacy outcomes, we did not observe any interaction between vorapaxar and age on bleeding outcomes. For the composite of moderate or severe bleeding according to the GUSTO classification, the HRs (95% CIs) comparing vorapaxar and placebo in the 4 age groups were 1.73 (0.89-3.34), 1.39 (1.04-1.86), 1.10 (0.85-1.42), and 1.73 (1.29-2.33), respectively (P value for interaction = .574). CONCLUSION: Older patients had a greater risk for ischemic and bleeding events; however, the efficacy and safety of vorapaxar in NSTE ACS were not significantly influenced by age.

Effect of age on efficacy and safety of vorapaxar in patients with non–ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome: Insights from the Thrombin Receptor Antagonist for Clinical Event Reduction in Acute Coronary Syndrome (TRACER) trial

Methods: Efficacy and safety of vorapaxar (a protease-activated receptor 1 antagonist) was analyzed across ages as a continuous and a categorical variable in the 12,944 patients with NSTE ACS enrolled in the TRACER trial. To evaluate the effect of age, Cox regression models were developed to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) with the adjustment of other baseline characteristics and randomized treatment for the primary efficacy composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, recurrent ischemia with rehospitalization, or urgent coronary revascularization, and the primary safety composite of moderate or severe Global Use of Strategies to Open Occluded Coronary Arteries (GUSTO) bleeding. ResultsThe median age of the population was 64 years (25th, 75th percentiles = 58, 71). Also, 1,791 patients (13.8%) were ≤54 years of age, 4,968 (38.4%) were between 55 and 64 years, 3,979 (30.7%) were between 65 and 74 years, and 2,206 (17.1%) were 75 years or older. Older patients had higher rates of hypertension, renal insufficiency, and previous stroke and worse Killip class. The oldest age group (≥75 years) had substantially higher 2-year rates of the composite ischemic end point and moderate or severe GUSTO bleeding compared with the youngest age group (≤54 years). The relationships between treatment assignment (vorapaxar vs placebo) and efficacy outcomes did not vary by age. For the primary efficacy end point, the HRs (95% CIs) comparing vorapaxar and placebo in the 4 age groups were as follows: 1.12 (0.88-1.43), 0.88 (0.76-1.02), 0.89 (0.76-1.04), and 0.88 (0.74-1.06), respectively (P value for interaction = .435)...