Clinical efficacy and safety outcomes of bempedoic acid for LDL-C lowering therapy in patients at high cardiovascular risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Bempedoic acid (BA) is a novel oral low-density lipoprotein cholesterol lowering drug. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to assess efficacy and safety for clinical outcomes in high cardiovascular (CV) risk patients. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Google Scholar, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, Clinical Trial Results and the American College of Cardiology web site were searched. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of BA versus placebo in high CV risk patients reporting clinical outcomes were included. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Primary efficacy outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), all-cause mortality, CV mortality and non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI). Safety outcomes included new onset or worsening of diabetes mellitus (DM), muscular disorders, gout and worsening of renal function. RESULTS: Six RCTs with a total of 3956 patients and follow-ups of four to 52 weeks were identified. Heterogeneity mainly derived from differing follow-up duration and baseline CV risk. No difference in MACE (OR 0.84; 95% CI 0.61 to 1.15), all-cause mortality (OR 2.37; CI 0.80 to 6.99) and CV mortality (OR 1.66; CI 0.45 to 6.04) for BA versus placebo was observed. BA showed beneficial trends for non-fatal MI (OR 0.57; CI 0.32 to 1.00) and was associated with a lower risk of new-onset or worsening of DM (OR 0.68; CI 0.49 to 0.94), but higher risk of gout (OR 3.29; CI 1.28 to 8.46) and a trend for muscular disorders (OR 2.60; CI 1.15 to 5.91) and worsening of renal function (OR 4.24; CI 0.98 to 18.39). CONCLUSION: BA in high CV risk patients showed no significant effects on major CV outcomes in short-term follow-up. Unfavourable effects on muscular disorders, renal function and gout sound a note of caution. Hence, further studies with longer term follow-up in carefully selected populations are needed to clarify the risk/benefit ratio of this novel therapy.

Modern NCDR and ACTION risk models outperform the GRACE model for prediction of in-hospital mortality in acute coronary syndrome in a German cohort.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Risk prediction with the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) risk model is guideline-recommended in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients. However, the performance of more contemporary scores derived from ACTION (Acute Coronary Treatment and Intervention Outcomes Network) and National Cardiovascular Data (NCDR) registries remains incompletely understood. We aimed to compare these models in German ACS patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 1567 patients with (Non-)ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI: 1002 patients, STEMI: 565 patients) undergoing invasive management at University Hospital Düsseldorf (Germany) from 2014 to 2018 were included. Overall in-hospital mortality was 7.5% (NSTEMI 3.7%, STEMI 14.5%). Parameters for calculation of GRACE 1.0, GRACE 2.0, ACTION and NCDR risk models and in-hospital mortality were assessed and risk model performance was compared. The GRACE 1.0 risk model for prediction of in-hospital mortality discriminated risk superior (c-index 0.84) to its successor GRACE 2.0 (c-index 0.79, pGRACE1.0vsGRACE2.0 = 0.0008). The NCDR model performed best in discrimination of risk in ACS overall (c-index 0.89; pACTIONvsNCDR < 0.0001; pGRACEvsNCDR < 0.0001) and showed superior performance compared to GRACE in NSTEMI and STEMI subgroups (pGRACEvsNCDR both < 0.02). ACTION and GRACE risk models performed comparable to each other (both c-index 0.84, pGRACEvsACTION = 0.68), with advantages for ACTION in NSTEMI patients (c-index 0.87 vs. 0.84 (GRACE); pGRACEvsACTION = 0.02). ACTION and GRACE 2.0 showed the most accurate calibration of all models. CONCLUSIONS: In a contemporary German patient population with ACS, modern NCDR and ACTION risk models showed superior performance in prediction of in-hospital mortality compared to the gold-standard GRACE model.

Uninterrupted anticoagulation during catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation: no difference in major bleeding and stroke between direct oral anticoagulants and vitamin K antagonists in an updated meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Periprocedural uninterrupted anticoagulation for catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) became standard after positive results of vitamin K antagonist (VKA) trials. Previous studies of uninterrupted direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) vs. VKA have given controversial results. We thus aimed to elucidate the risk/benefit ratio of uninterrupted DOAC vs. VKA during catheter ablation of AF in an updated meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: Online databases were searched for RCTs comparing uninterrupted DOAC to VKA in patients undergoing catheter ablation of AF. Data from retrieved studies were analysed in a comprehensive meta-analysis. Primary safety outcome was major bleeding; primary efficacy outcome was stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TIA). Secondary outcomes included a composite of major bleeding and stroke or TIA, minor bleeding, acute cerebral lesions on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and mortality. RESULTS: Six eligible RCTs comprising 2,369 patients were included. There were no significant differences in DOAC vs. VKA concerning the rates of major bleeding (2.2% vs. 3.8%; odds ratio (OR) 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.30-1.56; p = .37) and stroke or TIA (0.2% vs. 0.2%; OR 0.97, CI 0.20-4.72; p = .97). Pooled meta-analysis of secondary outcomes revealed no significant differences (OR 0.73, p = .49 for composite of major bleeding and stroke or TIA; OR 1.08, p = .52 for minor bleeding; OR 1.12, p = .59 for acute cerebral lesions on MRI; and OR 0.60, p = .64 for all-cause mortality). CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis suggests that uninterrupted DOAC is not superior to VKA in patients undergoing catheter ablation of AF with comparable rates of major bleeding and stroke.

Kidney function stratified outcomes of percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion in patients with atrial fibrillation and high bleeding risk.

Background: Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and atrial fibrillation have increased risks for stroke and bleeding under oral anticoagulation (OAC). We investigated an alternative therapy of percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) in CKD patients in this study.Methods: Consecutive patients undergoing LAAO were included in a retrospective analysis and stratified for kidney function into CKD/Non-CKD groups (cutoff eGFR 60 ml/min). Procedural characteristics, in-hospital and follow-up events were analysed and compared between groups.Results: LAAO was performed in 146 patients (81 CKD; 65 Non-CKD), mean follow-up was 391 days. Groups differed in eGFR (40.1 (CKD) vs. 75.1 (Non-CKD) ml/min) and CHA2DS2VASc scores (4.65 ± 1.3 (CKD) vs. 4.06 ± 1.4 (Non-CKD)). Procedural success was 98.6%, contrast-induced acute kidney injury was significantly more frequent in CKD patients (11.1% vs. 0%; p = .004). Follow-up mortality was higher in CKD (10.5/100 PY vs. 4.2/100 PY; p = .156). Follow-up stroke rates were 2.3/100 (CKD) patient-years (PY) and 1.4/100 PY (Non-CKD) (p = 1.000), corresponding to a relative risk reduction (RRR) of 60% (all), 68% (CKD) and 71% (Non-CKD) compared to expected stroke rates. Follow-up major bleeding rates were 3.5/100 PY (CKD) and 4.2/100 PY (Non-CKD), corresponding to RRR of 57% (all), 61% (CKD) and 53% (Non-CKD) compared to OAC.Conclusions: Left atrial appendage occlusion shows comparable efficacy for stroke and bleeding prevention in CKD and Non-CKD patients. CKD patients experience more adverse events during follow-up and a significantly increased risk for periprocedural contrast-induced acute kidney injury.

Validation of National Cardiovascular Data Registry risk models for mortality, bleeding and acute kidney injury in interventional cardiology at a German Heart Center.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) risk scores for mortality, bleeding and acute kidney injury (AKI) are accurate outcome predictors of coronary catheterization procedures in North American populations. However, their application in German clinical practice remained elusive and we thus aimed to verify their use. METHODS: NCDR scores for mortality, bleeding and AKI and corresponding clinical outcomes were retrospectively assessed in patients undergoing catheterization for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) or for elective coronary procedures at a German Heart Center from 2014 to 2017. Risk model performance was assessed using receiver-operating-characteristic curves (discrimination) and graphical analysis/logistic regression (calibration). RESULTS: A total of 1637 patients were included, procedures were performed for STEMI (565 patients, 34.5%), NSTEMI (572 patients, 34.9%) and elective purposes (500 patients, 30.5%); 6% (13% of STEMI and 5% of NSTEMI patients) presented in cardiogenic shock and 3% with resuscitated cardiac arrest. Radial access was used in 38% of procedures and cross-over was necessary in 5%; PCI was performed in 60% of procedures. In-hospital mortality was 6.3% (STEMI 14.5%; NSTEMI 3.7%; elective 0%) and major bleedings occurred in 5.6% (STEMI 10.6%; NSTEMI 5.4%; elective 0.2%); AKI was detected in 18.1% of patients (STEMI 23.7%; NSTEMI 27.3%; elective 1.4%), amounting to KDIGO stage I/II/III in 11.5%/3.5%/3.2%. NCDR risk models discriminated very well for mortality [AUC 0.93 with 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91-0.95] and well for major bleeding (AUC 0.82, CI 0.78-0.86) and any AKI (AUC 0.83, CI 0.81-0.86). Discrimination in the subgroup of patients with PCI was comparable (mortality: AUC 0.90; major bleeding: AUC 0.78; any AKI: AUC 0.79). However, calibration showed considerable underestimation of mortality and AKI in high-risk patients, while major bleeding was consistently overestimated (Hosmer-Lemeshow p < 0.02 for all outcomes). CONCLUSIONS: The NCDR risk models showed excellent performance in discriminating high-risk from low-risk patients in contemporary German interventional cardiology. Model calibration for adverse event probability prediction, however, is limited and demands recalibration, especially in high-risk patients.