Limb Outcomes With Ticagrelor Plus Aspirin in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus and Atherosclerosis.

BACKGROUND: Ticagrelor reduced major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and increased bleeding in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and coronary artery disease. Limb events including revascularization, acute limb ischemia (ALI), and amputation are major morbidities in patients with T2DM and atherosclerosis. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to determine the effect of ticagrelor on limb events. METHODS: Patients were randomized to ticagrelor or placebo on top of aspirin and followed for a median of 3 years. MACE (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke), limb events (ALI, amputation, revascularization), and bleeding were adjudicated by an independent and blinded clinical events committee. The presence of peripheral artery disease (PAD) was reported at baseline. RESULTS: Of 19,220 patients randomized, 1,687 (8.8%) had PAD at baseline. In patients receiving placebo, PAD was associated with higher MACE (10.7% vs 7.3%; HR: 1.48; P < 0.001) and limb (9.5% vs 0.8%; HR: 10.67; P < 0.001) risk. Ticagrelor reduced limb events (1.6% vs 1.3%; HR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.61-0.96; P = 0.022) with significant reductions for revascularization (HR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.62-0.99; P = 0.044) and ALI (HR: 0.24; 95% CI: 0.08-0.70; P = 0.009). The benefit was consistent with or without PAD (HR: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.58-1.11; and HR: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.55-1.05, respectively; Pinteraction = 0.81). There was no effect modification of ticagrelor vs placebo based on PAD for MACE (Pinteraction = 0.40) or TIMI major bleeding (Pinteraction = 0.3239). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with T2DM and atherosclerosis are at high risk of limb events. Ticagrelor decreased this risk, but increased bleeding. Future trials evaluating the combination of ticagrelor and aspirin would further elucidate the benefit/risk of such therapy in patients with PAD, including those without coronary artery disease. (A Study Comparing Cardiovascular Effects of Ticagrelor Versus Placebo in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus [THEMIS]: NCT01991795).

New-onset atrial fibrillation and chronic coronary syndrome in the CLARIFY registry.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Data on new-onset atrial fibrillation (NOAF) in patients with chronic coronary syndromes (CCS) are scarce. This study aims to describe the incidence, predictors, and impact on cardiovascular (CV) outcomes of NOAF in CCS patients. METHODS: Data from the international (45 countries) CLARIFY registry (prospeCtive observational LongitudinAl RegIstry oF patients with stable coronary arterY disease) were used. Among 29 001 CCS outpatients without previously reported AF at baseline, patients with at least one episode of AF/flutter diagnosed during 5-year follow-up were compared with patients in sinus rhythm throughout the study. RESULTS: The incidence rate of NOAF was 1.12 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.06-1.18] per 100 patient-years (cumulative incidence at 5 years: 5.0%). Independent predictors of NOAF were increasing age, increasing body mass index, low estimated glomerular filtration rate, Caucasian ethnicity, alcohol intake, and low left ventricular ejection fraction, while high triglycerides were associated with lower incidence. New-onset atrial fibrillation was associated with a substantial increase in the risk of adverse outcomes, with adjusted hazard ratios of 2.01 (95% CI 1.61-2.52) for the composite of CV death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, or non-fatal stroke, 2.61 (95% CI 2.04-3.34) for CV death, 1.64 (95% CI 1.07-2.50) for non-fatal myocardial infarction, 2.27 (95% CI 1.85-2.78) for all-cause death, 8.44 (95% CI 7.05-10.10) for hospitalization for heart failure, and 4.46 (95% CI 2.85-6.99) for major bleeding. CONCLUSIONS: Among CCS patients, NOAF is common and is strongly associated with worse outcomes. Whether more intensive preventive measures and more systematic screening for AF would improve prognosis in this population deserves further investigation.

Association between coffee or tea consumption and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with stable coronary artery disease: Analysis from the CLARIFY registry.

BACKGROUND: Conflicting data exist on the association between consumption of coffee or tea and cardiovascular outcomes, and few focus on patients with established coronary artery disease. AIM: To describe the association between coffee or tea consumption and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with stable coronary artery disease, using an extensive contemporary international registry, allowing the identification of multiple potential confounders. METHODS: The Prospective Observational Longitudinal Registry of Patients With Stable Coronary Artery Disease (CLARIFY) registry enrolled in 2009 and 2010 in 45 countries, with a 5-year follow-up. Patients were categorized according to daily consumption of coffee or tea, and were compared with those declaring neither. The primary composite outcome of myocardial infarction, stroke or cardiovascular death was analysed at 5years, as well as all-cause mortality. Sensitivity analyses were performed with a multivariable model. RESULTS: A total of 15,459 and 10,029 patients declared coffee or tea consumption, respectively. At 5years, after full adjustment, no association was found between coffee consumption and the primary outcome: hazard ratio 1.04 (95% confidence interval 0.89-1.21) for 1 cup; 0.94 (0.82-1.08) for 2-3 cups; and 1.04 (0.86-1.27) for ≥4 cups (P=0.51). Drinking tea was not associated with a different incidence of the primary outcome before or after adjustment, with fully adjusted hazard ratios of 1.08 (95% confidence interval 0.84-1.38) for 1 cup, 1.12 (0.96-1.31) for 2-3 cups and 0.95 (0.79-1.14) for ≥4 cups (P=0.30). After full adjustment, neither coffee nor tea drinking was associated with all-cause mortality. CONCLUSIONS: In outpatients with stable coronary artery disease, there was no association between coffee or tea consumption and ischaemic outcomes or all-cause mortality.

Optimal or standard control of systolic and diastolic blood pressure across risk factor categories in patients with chronic coronary syndromes.

AIMS: Guidelines have lowered blood pressure (BP) targets to <130/80 mmHg. We examined the benefit of intensive control for each BP component, vs. the burden of other modifiable risk factors, in patients with chronic coronary syndromes (CCS). METHODS AND RESULTS: The CLARIFY registry (ISRCTN43070564) enrolled 32 703 patients with CCS, from 2009 to 2010, with a 5-year follow-up. Patients with either BP component below European guideline safety boundaries (120/70 mmHg) were excluded, leaving 19 167 patients (mean age: 63.8 ± 10.1 years, 78% men) in the present analysis. A multivariable-adjusted Cox proportional hazards model showed a gradual increase in cardiovascular risk (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) when the number of uncontrolled risk factors (active smoking, no physical activity, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol ≥100 mg/dL, and diabetes with glycated haemoglobin ≥7%) increased [adjusted hazard ratio (HR): 1.34; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.17-1.52, 1.65 (1.40-1.94), and 2.47 (1.90-3.21) for 1, 2, and 3 or 4 uncontrolled risk factors, respectively, vs. 0], without significant interaction with BP. Although uncontrolled systolic (≥140 mmHg) and diastolic (≥90 mmHg) BP were both associated with higher risk than standard BP, standard BP was associated with higher risk than optimal control for only the diastolic component (adjusted HR: 1.08; 95% CI: 0.94-1.25 for systolic BP 130-139 vs. 120-129 mmHg and 1.43; 95% CI: 1.27-1.62 for diastolic BP 80-89 vs. 70-79 mmHg). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that the optimal BP target in CCS may be ≤139/79 mmHg and that optimizing the burden of other risk factors should be prioritized over the further reduction of systolic BP.

We aimed to compare the benefit associated with strict vs. standard control of blood pressure with the potential benefit of controlling other modifiable risk factors in patients with chronic coronary syndromes (CCS).Our analysis conducted in nearly 20 000 patients from the CLARIFY registry (a prospective international cohort of patients with CCS) showed that the benefit associated with strict blood pressure (BP) control (BP < 130/80 mmHg) was marginal and only driven by the diastolic component of blood pressure, whereas having one or more uncontrolled other risk factors was associated with a gradually increasing risk, for all underlying BP levels.Patients with CCS should be treated to achieve BP <140/80 mmHg. However, our results suggest that optimizing the burden of other risk factors (lipid-lowering therapy, exercise, smoking cessation, diabetes control) may need to be prioritized before considering further reduction of systolic BP.

Randomized comparison of chest pain evaluation with FFRCT or standard care: Factors determining US costs.

BACKGROUND: FFRCT assesses the functional significance of lesions seen on CTCA, and may be a more efficient approach to chest pain evaluation. The FORECAST randomized trial found no significant difference in costs within the UK National Health Service, but implications for US costs are unknown. The purpose of this study was to compare costs in the FORECAST trial based on US healthcare cost weights, and to evaluate factors affecting costs. METHODS: Patients with stable chest pain were randomized either to the experimental strategy (CTCA with selective FFRCT), or to standard clinical pathways. Pre-randomization, the treating clinician declared the planned initial test. The primary outcome was nine-month cardiovascular care costs. RESULTS: Planned initial tests were CTCA in 912 patients (65%), stress testing in 393 (28%), and invasive angiography in 94 (7%). Mean US costs did not differ overall between the experimental strategy and standard care (cost difference +7% (+$324), CI -12% to +26%, p â€‹= â€‹0.49). Costs were 4% lower with the experimental strategy in the planned invasive angiography stratum (p for interaction â€‹= â€‹0.66). Baseline factors independently associated with costs were older age (+43%), male sex (+55%), diabetes (+37%), hypertension (+61%), hyperlipidemia (+94%), prior angina (+24%), and planned invasive angiography (+160%). Post-randomization cost drivers were coronary revascularization (+348%), invasive angiography (267%), and number of tests (+35%). CONCLUSIONS: Initial evaluation of chest pain using CTCA with FFRCT had similar US costs as standard care pathways. Costs were increased by baseline coronary risk factors and planned invasive angiography, and post-randomization invasive procedures and the number of tests. Registration at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03187639).

External applicability of the Effect of ticagrelor on Health Outcomes in diabEtes Mellitus patients Intervention Study (THEMIS) trial: An analysis of patients with diabetes and coronary artery disease in the REduction of Atherothrombosis for Continued Health (REACH) registry.

AIMS: THEMIS is a double-blind, randomized trial of 19,220 patients with diabetes mellitus and stable coronary artery disease (CAD) comparing ticagrelor to placebo, in addition to aspirin. The present study aimed to describe the proportion of patients eligible and reasons for ineligibility for THEMIS within a population of patients with diabetes and CAD included in the Reduction of Atherothrombosis for Continued Health (REACH) registry. METHODS AND RESULTS: The THEMIS eligibility criteria were applied to REACH patients. THEMIS included patients ≥50 years with type 2 diabetes and stable CAD as determined by either a history of previous percutaneous coronary intervention, coronary artery bypass grafting, or documentation of angiographic stenosis of ≥50% of at least one coronary artery. Patients with prior myocardial infarction or stroke were excluded. In REACH, 10,156 patients had stable CAD and diabetes. Of these, 6515 (64.1%) patients had at least one exclusion criteria. From the remaining population, 784 patients did not meet inclusion criteria (7.7%) mainly due to absence of aspirin treatment (7.2%), yielding a 'THEMIS-eligible population' of 2857 patients (28.1% of patients with diabetes and stable CAD). The main reasons for exclusion were a history of myocardial infarction (53.1%), use of oral anticoagulation (14.5%), or history of stroke (12.9%). Among the 4208 patients with diabetes and a previous PCI, 1196 patients (28.4%) were eligible for inclusion in the THEMIS-PCI substudy. CONCLUSIONS: In a population of patients with diabetes and stable coronary artery disease, a sizeable proportion appear to be 'THEMIS eligible.' CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: http://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov identifier: NCT01991795.

Cost-effectiveness of ticagrelor in patients with type 2 diabetes and coronary artery disease: a European economic evaluation of the THEMIS trial.

AIMS: To conduct a health economic evaluation of ticagrelor in patients with type 2 diabetes and coronary artery disease (CAD) from a multinational payer perspective. Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of ticagrelor were evaluated in the overall effect of Ticagrelor on Health Outcomes in Diabetes Mellitus Patients Intervention Study (THEMIS) trial population and in the predefined patient group with prior percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS AND RESULTS: A Markov model was developed to extrapolate patient outcomes over a lifetime horizon. The primary outcome was incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), which were compared with conventional willingness-to-pay thresholds [€47 000/quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) in Sweden and €30 000/QALY in other countries].Treatment with ticagrelor resulted in QALY gains of up to 0.045 in the overall population and 0.099 in patients with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Increased costs and benefits translated to ICERs ranged between €27 894 and €42 252/QALY across Sweden, Germany, Italy, and Spain in the overall population. In patients with prior PCI, estimated ICERs improved to €18 449, €20 632, €20 233, and €13 228/QALY in Sweden, Germany, Italy, and Spain, respectively, driven by higher event rates and treatment benefit. CONCLUSION: Based on THEMIS results, ticagrelor plus aspirin compared with aspirin alone may be cost-effective in some European countries in patients with T2DM and CAD and no prior myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke. Additionally, ticagrelor is likely to be cost-effective across European countries in patients with a history of PCI.

Balance of benefit and risk of ticagrelor in patients with diabetes and stable coronary artery disease according to bleeding risk assessment with the CRUSADE score: Data from THEMIS and THEMIS PCI.

BACKGROUND: The THEMIS trial demonstrated that in high-risk patients with stable coronary artery disease and diabetes without previous myocardial infarction or stroke, ticagrelor, in addition to aspirin, reduced the incidence of ischemic events but increased major bleeding. Identification of patients who could derive the greatest net benefit from the addition of ticagrelor appears important. We used the CRUSADE bleeding risk score to risk stratify the THEMIS population. METHODS: The population was divided into tertiles: score ≤22, 23 to 33, and ≥34. In each tertile, primary efficacy (composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) and safety (TIMI major bleeding) outcomes were analyzed. NACE (net adverse clinical events) was defined as the irreversible harm composite, in which all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, amputations, fatal bleeds, and intracranial hemorrhage were counted. RESULTS: Patients in the lower risk tertile experienced fewer ischemic events with ticagrelor than placebo, whereas there was no significant benefit from ticagrelor in the other tertiles (Pinteraction = .008). Bleeding rates were consistently increased with ticagrelor across all tertiles (Pinteraction = .79). Ticagrelor reduced NACE in the first tertile (HR = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.61-0.90) but not in the others (HR = 1.03, 95% CI = 0.86-1.23 and HR = 1.05, 95% CI = 0.91-1.22, respectively; Pinteraction = .012). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with stable coronary artery disease and diabetes without a history of myocardial infarction or stroke, only those at the lower end of the bleeding risk spectrum according to the CRUSADE score derived net benefit from ticagrelor.

Prevalence of diabetes and impact on cardiovascular events and mortality in patients with chronic coronary syndromes, across multiple geographical regions and ethnicities.

BACKGROUND: In contrast with the setting of acute myocardial infarction, there are limited data regarding the impact of diabetes mellitus on clinical outcomes in contemporary cohorts of patients with chronic coronary syndromes. We aimed to investigate the prevalence and prognostic impact of diabetes according to geographical regions and ethnicity. METHODS AND RESULTS: CLARIFY is an observational registry of patients with chronic coronary syndromes, enrolled across 45 countries in Europe, Asia, America, Middle East, Australia, and Africa in 2009-2010, and followed up yearly for 5 years. Chronic coronary syndromes were defined by ≥1 of the following criteria: prior myocardial infarction, evidence of coronary stenosis >50%, proven symptomatic myocardial ischaemia, or prior revascularization procedure.Among 32 694 patients, 9502 (29%) had diabetes, with a regional prevalence ranging from below 20% in Northern Europe to ∼60% in the Gulf countries. In a multivariable-adjusted Cox proportional hazards model, diabetes was associated with increased risks for the primary outcome (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) with an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.28 (95% confidence interval 1.18, 1.39) and for all secondary outcomes (all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, and coronary revascularization). Differences on outcomes according to geography and ethnicity were modest. CONCLUSION: In patients with chronic coronary syndromes, diabetes is independently associated with mortality and cardiovascular events, including heart failure, which is not accounted by demographics, prior medical history, left ventricular ejection fraction, or use of secondary prevention medication. This is observed across multiple geographic regions and ethnicities, despite marked disparities in the prevalence of diabetes. CLINICALTRIALS IDENTIFIER: ISRCTN43070564.

Impact of smoking on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with stable coronary artery disease.

AIMS: Smoking is a major preventable risk factor for cardiovascular disease and mortality. However, the 'smoker's paradox' suggests that it is associated with better survival after acute myocardial infarction. We aimed to investigate the impact of smoking on mortality and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with stable coronary artery disease. METHODS: The international CLARIFY registry included 32,703 patients with stable coronary artery disease between 2009 and 2010. Among the 32,378 patients included in the present analysis, Cox proportional hazards models (adjusted for age, sex, geographic region, prior myocardial infarction, and revascularization status) were used to estimate associations between smoking status and outcomes. Patients were stratified as follows: 41.3% of patients never smoked, 12.5% were current smokers and 46.2% were former smokers. RESULTS: Current smokers were younger than never-smokers and former smokers (59 vs. 66 and 64 years old, respectively, p < 0.0001). There were more men among current or former smokers compared with never-smokers. Compared with never-smokers, both current and former smokers were at higher risk of all-cause death (hazard ratio = 1.96 and 1.37) and cardiovascular death (hazard ratio = 1.92 and 1.38) within five years (all p < 0.05). Similarly graded and increased risks were present for myocardial infarction and the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction and stroke (all p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: In contrast to the 'smoker's paradox', current smokers with stable coronary artery disease have a greatly increased risk of future cardiovascular events, including mortality, compared with never-smokers. In former smokers, cardiovascular risk remains elevated albeit at an intermediate level between that of current and never-smokers, reinforcing the importance of smoking cessation. (ISRCTN43070564).

International Observational Analysis of Evolution and Outcomes of Chronic Stable Angina: The Multinational CLARIFY Study.

BACKGROUND: Although angina is common in patients with stable coronary artery disease, limited data are available on its prevalence, natural evolution, and outcomes in the era of effective cardiovascular drugs and widespread use of coronary revascularization. METHODS: Using data from 32 691 patients with stable coronary artery disease from the prospective observational CLARIFY registry (Prospective Observational Longitudinal Registry of Patients with Stable Coronary Artery Disease), anginal status was mapped each year in patients without new coronary revascularization or new myocardial infarction. The use of medical interventions in the year preceding angina resolution was explored. The effect of 1-year changes in angina status on 5-year outcomes was analyzed using multivariable analysis. RESULTS: Among 7212 (22.1%) patients who reported angina at baseline, angina disappeared (without coronary revascularization) in 39.6% at 1 year, with further annual decreases. In patients without angina at baseline, 2.0% to 4.8% developed angina each year. During 5-year follow-up, angina was controlled in 7773 patients, in whom resolution of angina was obtained with increased use of antianginal treatment in 11.1%, with coronary revascularization in 4.5%, and without any changes in medication or revascularization in 84.4%. Compared to patients without angina at baseline and 1 year, persistence of angina and occurrence of angina at 1 year with conservative management were each independently associated with higher rates of cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.32 [95% CI, 1.12-1.55] for persistence of angina; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.37 [95% CI, 1.11-1.70] for occurrence of angina) at 5 years. Patients whose angina had resolved at 1 year with conservative management were not at higher risk of cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction than those who never experienced angina (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.82-1.15]). CONCLUSIONS: Angina affects almost one-quarter of patients with stable coronary artery disease but resolves without events or coronary revascularization in most patients. Resolution of angina within 1 year with conservative management predicted outcomes similar to lack of angina, whereas persistence or occurrence was associated with worse outcomes. Because most patients with angina are likely to experience resolution of symptoms, and because there is no demonstrated outcome benefit to routine revascularization, this study emphasizes the value of conservative management of stable coronary artery disease. Registration: URL: https://www.isrctn.com; Unique identifier: ISRCTN43070564.

Fractional flow reserve derived from computed tomography coronary angiography in the assessment and management of stable chest pain: the FORECAST randomized trial.

AIMS: Fractional flow reserve (FFRCT) using computed tomography coronary angiography (CTCA) determines both the presence of coronary artery disease and vessel-specific ischaemia. We tested whether an evaluation strategy based on FFRCT would improve economic and clinical outcomes compared with standard care. METHODS AND RESULTS: Overall, 1400 patients with stable chest pain in 11 centres were randomized to initial testing with CTCA with selective FFRCT (experimental group) or standard clinical care pathways (standard group). The primary endpoint was total cardiac costs at 9 months. Secondary endpoints were angina status, quality of life, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events, and use of invasive coronary angiography. Randomized groups were similar at baseline. Most patients had an initial CTCA: 439 (63%) in the standard group vs. 674 (96%) in the experimental group, 254 of whom (38%) underwent FFRCT. Mean total cardiac costs were higher by £114 (+8%) in the experimental group, with a 95% confidence interval from -£112 (-8%) to +£337 (+23%), though the difference was not significant (P = 0.10). Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events did not differ significantly (10.2% in the experimental group vs. 10.6% in the standard group) and angina and quality of life improved to a similar degree over follow-up in both randomized groups. Invasive angiography was reduced significantly in the experimental group (19% vs. 25%, P = 0.01). CONCLUSION: A strategy of CTCA with selective FFRCT in patients with stable angina did not differ significantly from standard clinical care pathways in cost or clinical outcomes, but did reduce the use of invasive coronary angiography.

Diabetes-Related Factors and the Effects of Ticagrelor Plus Aspirin in the THEMIS and THEMIS-PCI Trials.

BACKGROUND: THEMIS (The Effect of Ticagrelor on Health Outcomes in Diabetes Mellitus Patients Intervention Study) (n = 19,220) and its pre-specified THEMIS-PCI (The Effect of Ticagrelor on Health Outcomes in Diabetes Mellitus Patients Intervention Study-Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) (n = 11,154) subanalysis showed, in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (median duration 10.0 years; HbA1c 7.1%) and stable coronary artery disease without prior myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke, that ticagrelor plus aspirin (compared with placebo plus aspirin) produced a favorable net clinical benefit (composite of all-cause mortality, MI, stroke, fatal bleeding, and intracranial bleeding) if the patients had a previous percutaneous coronary intervention. OBJECTIVES: In these post hoc analyses, the authors examined whether the primary efficacy outcome (cardiovascular death, MI, stroke: 3-point major adverse cardiovascular events [MACE]), primary safety outcome (Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction-defined major bleeding) and net clinical benefit varied with diabetes-related factors. METHODS: Outcomes were analyzed across baseline diabetes duration, HbA1c, and antihyperglycemic medications. RESULTS: In THEMIS, the incidence of 3-point MACE increased with diabetes duration (6.7% for ≤5 years, 11.1% for >20 years) and HbA1c (6.4% for ≤6.0%, 11.8% for >10.0%). The relative benefits of ticagrelor plus aspirin on 3-point MACE reduction (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.90; p = 0.04) were generally consistent across subgroups. Major bleeding event rate (overall: 1.6%) did not vary by diabetes duration or HbA1c and was increased similarly by ticagrelor across all subgroups (HR: 2.32; p < 0.001). These findings were mirrored in THEMIS-PCI. The efficacy and safety of ticagrelor plus aspirin did not differ by baseline antihyperglycemic therapy. In THEMIS-PCI, but not THEMIS, ticagrelor generally produced favorable net clinical benefit across diabetes duration, HbA1c, and antihyperglycemic medications. CONCLUSION: Ticagrelor plus aspirin yielded generally consistent and favorable net clinical benefit across the diabetes-related factors in THEMIS-PCI but not in the overall THEMIS population.

Prevalence, Incidence and Prognostic Implications of Left Bundle Branch Block in Patients with Chronic Coronary Syndromes (From the CLARIFY Registry).

Left Bundle Branch Block (LBBB) is a frequently encountered electrical abnormality in patients with chronic (more than 3 months after myocardial infarction, or evidence of coronary artery disease with ischemia) coronary syndromes (CCS), but its prognostic significance remains unclear. We aimed to describe the prevalence, incidence and five-year outcomes of LBBB in outpatients with CCS using the CLARIFY registry. Main outcome was a composite of CV death, MI or stroke. Secondary outcomes included all cause death, hospitalization for heart failure (HF) and permanent pacemaker implantation. Among 23.544 patients with available information regarding LBBB status at baseline, 1.041 (4.4%) had LBBB at baseline and 1.015 (4.5%) patients developed a new LBBB during 5-year follow-up. In multivariate analysis, LBBB at baseline was not associated with the composite outcome of CV death, MI or stroke (HR 1.06, 95% CI [0.86 - 1.31], p = 0.67) or the risk of all-cause death (HR 1.07, 95% CI [0.87 - 1.32], p = 0.52) but was significantly associated with a higher risk of hospitalization for HF (HR 1.50, 95% CI [1.21 - 1.88], p < 0.001) and permanent pacemaker implantation (HR 2.11, 95% CI [1.45 - 3.07], p < 0.001). The main factors associated with new-onset LBBB were male sex (HR 0.8 [0.66-0.98], p = 0.028) history of atrial fibrillation (HR 1.29, 95% CI [1.01 - 1.64], p = 0.04), CABG (HR 1.27, [1.08 - 1.51], p = 0.004) and MI (HR 1.19, 95% CI [1.01 - 1.40], p = 0.034). In conclusion, in a contemporary registry of outpatients with CCS, the prevalence of LBBB was 4.4% and the additional 5-years incidence 6.2%. LBBB, in itself, was not associated with a higher risk of major adverse cardiovascular events or all cause mortality. It was however an independent predictor of risk of hospitalization for heart failure and permanent pacemaker implantation.

Simple risk models to predict cardiovascular death in patients with stable coronary artery disease.

AIMS: Risk estimation is important to motivate patients to adhere to treatment and to identify those in whom additional treatments may be warranted and expensive treatments might be most cost effective. Our aim was to develop a simple risk model based on readily available risk factors for patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD). METHODS AND RESULTS: Models were developed in the CLARIFY registry of patients with stable CAD, first incorporating only simple clinical variables and then with the inclusion of assessments of left ventricular function, estimated glomerular filtration rate, and haemoglobin levels. The outcome of cardiovascular death over ∼5 years was analysed using a Cox proportional hazards model. Calibration of the models was assessed in an external study, the CORONOR registry of patients with stable coronary disease. We provide formulae for calculation of the risk score and simple integer points-based versions of the scores with associated look-up risk tables. Only the models based on simple clinical variables provided both good c-statistics (0.74 in CLARIFY and 0.80 or over in CORONOR), with no lack of calibration in the external dataset. CONCLUSION: Our preferred model based on 10 readily available variables [age, diabetes, smoking, heart failure (HF) symptom status and histories of atrial fibrillation or flutter, myocardial infarction, peripheral arterial disease, stroke, percutaneous coronary intervention, and hospitalization for HF] had good discriminatory power and fitted well in an external dataset. STUDY REGISTRATION: The CLARIFY registry is registered in the ISRCTN registry of clinical trials (ISRCTN43070564).

Management of refractory angina: an update.

Despite the use of anti-anginal drugs and/or percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting, the proportion of patients with coronary artery disease who have daily or weekly angina ranges from 2% to 24%. Refractory angina refers to long-lasting symptoms (for >3 months) due to established reversible ischaemia, which cannot be controlled by escalating medical therapy with the use of 2nd- and 3rd-line pharmacological agents, bypass grafting, or stenting. While there is uncertain prognostic benefit, the treatment of refractory angina is important to improve the quality of life of the patients affected. This review focuses on conventional pharmacological approaches to treating refractory angina, including guideline directed drug combination and dosages. The symptomatic and prognostic impact of advanced and novel revascularization strategies such as chronic total occlusion PCI, transmyocardial laser revascularization, coronary sinus occlusion, radiation therapy for recurrent restenosis, and spinal cord stimulation are also covered and recommendations of the 2019 ESC Guidelines on the Diagnosis and Management of Chronic Coronary Syndromes discussed. Finally, the potential clinical use of current angiogenetic and stem cell therapies in reducing ischaemia and/or pain is evaluated.

Use of risk scores to identify lower and higher risk subsets among COMPASS-eligible patients with chronic coronary syndromes. Insights from the CLARIFY registry.

BACKGROUND: The COMPASS trial showed a reduction of ischemic events with low-dose rivaroxaban and aspirin in chronic coronary syndromes (CCS) compared with aspirin alone, at the expense of increased bleeding. HYPOTHESIS: The CHA2 DS2 VaSc Score, REACH Recurrent Ischemic (RIS), and REACH Bleeding Risk Score (BRS) could identify patients with a favorable trade-off between ischemic and bleeding events, among COMPASS-eligible patients. METHODS: We identified the COMPASS-eligible population within the CLARIFY registry (>30.000 patients with CCS). High-bleeding risk patients (REACH BRS > 10) were excluded, as in the COMPASS trial. Patients were categorized as low (0-1) or high (≥ 2) CHA2 DS2 VaSc; low (0-12) or intermediate (13-19) REACH RIS, and low (0-6) or intermediate (7-10) REACH BRS. Ischemic outcome was the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction or stroke. Bleeding was defined as serious bleeding (haemorrhagic stroke, hospitalization for bleeding, transfusion). RESULTS: The COMPASS-eligible population comprised 5.142 patients with ischemic and bleeding outcome of 2.3 (2.1-2.5) and 0.5 (0.4-0.6) per 100 patient-years, respectively. Patients with intermediate REACH RIS (n = 1934 [37.6%]) had the higher ischemic risk (3.0 [2.6-3.4]) with similar bleeding risk (0.5 [0.4-0.7]) as the overall population. Patients with low CHA2 DS2 VaSc (n = 229 [4.4%]) had a very low ischemic risk (0.6 [0.3-1.3]) with similar bleeding risk (0.5 [0.2-1.1]). CONCLUSIONS: Intermediate REACH RIS identified potential optimal candidates for adjunction of low-dose rivaroxaban while patients with low CHA2 DS2 VaSc score .appears unlikely to benefit from the COMPASS regimen. None of the three risk scores predicted the occurrence of serious bleeding.