A Risk Model to Predict Statin Non-Adherence Following an Acute Coronary Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Patients at risk of statin non-adherence are often not identified during hospital admission with an acute coronary syndrome (ACS). METHODS: In 19,942 patients hospitalised for ACS, statin dispensing was determined from the national pharmaceutical dispensing database. A risk score for non-adherence was developed from a multivariable Poisson regression model of associations between risk factors and the statin Medication Possession Ratio (MPR) <0.8 6-18 months after hospital discharge. RESULTS: Statin MPR was <0.8 in 4,736 (24%) patients. MPR <0.8 was more likely in patients with a history of cardiovascular disease (CVD) (RR 3.79, CI 95% 3.42-4.20) and those without known CVD (RR 2.25, 95% CI 2.04-2.48) who were not taking a statin on ACS admission, compared to patients with low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol <2 mmol/L who were on a statin. For patients taking a statin on admission, higher LDL was associated with MPR <0.8 (≥3 versus <2 mmol/L, RR 1.96, 95%CI 1.72-2.24). Other independent risk factors for MPR <0.8 were age <45 years, female, disadvantaged ethnic groups, and no coronary revascularisation during the ACS admission. The risk score, which included nine variables, had a C-statistic of 0.67. MPR was <0.8 in 12% of 5,348 patients with a score ≤5 (lowest quartile) and 45% of 5,858 patients with a score ≥11 (highest quartile). CONCLUSION: A risk score generated from routinely collected data predicts statin non-adherence in patients hospitalised with ACS. This may be used to target inpatient and outpatient interventions to improve medication adherence.

Meta-Analysis of Mitral Valve Repair Versus Replacement for Rheumatic Mitral Valve Disease.

BACKGROUND: Rheumatic heart disease remains one of the leading causes of heart valve disease worldwide despite being a preventable condition. Mitral valve repair is superior to replacement in severe degenerative mitral valve disease, however its role in rheumatic valve disease remains controversial. This meta-analysis compared mitral valve repair and replacement in rheumatic heart disease. METHODS: Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane and Scopus were searched from January 1980 to June 2016 for original studies reporting outcomes of both mitral valve repair and replacement in rheumatic heart disease in adults, children or both. Two (2) authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, followed by data extraction and analysis. RESULTS: The search yielded 930 articles, with 98 full-texts reviewed after initial screening and 13 studies subsequently included for analysis, totalling 2,410 mitral valve repairs and 3,598 replacements. Pooled rates and odds ratio (95% confidence interval) for operative mortality of repair versus replacement was 3.2% versus 4.3%, 0.68 (0.50-0.92; p=0.01). Pooled odds ratios (95% confidence interval) were for long-term mortality 0.41 (0.30-0.56; p<0.001); reoperation 3.02 (1.72-5.31; p<0.001); and bleeding 0.26 (0.11-0.63; p=0.003). There was a trend towards lower thrombo-embolism 0.42 (0.17-1.03; p=0.06), and no significant difference in endocarditis (p=0.76), during follow-up. CONCLUSION: Mitral valve repair is associated with reduction in operative and long-term mortality and bleeding, so is recommended in rheumatic mitral valve disease where feasible, but it does entail a higher rate of reoperation during follow-up.

Catheter vs thoracoscopic ablation for atrial fibrillation: Meta-analysis of randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: We meta-analyzed the efficacy and safety of catheter (CA) vs thoracoscopic (TA) ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched until 31/12/2019 for relevant randomized trials and subsequent pooled analyses. RESULTS: In six trials totaling 465 patients (254 CA/211 TA), 1-year AF recurrences were higher for CA (46% vs 26%, odds ratio 2.90 [95% CI 1.32-6.38]), whereas total adverse events were lower (10% vs 25%, 0.35 [0.14-0.86], respectively). CONCLUSION: CA has lower efficacy but higher safety than TA. CA should remain the first-line AF ablation strategy, and TA reserved for selected CA-resistant patients where rhythm control is clinically necessary.

Meta-Analysis of Bleeding Scores Performance for Acute Coronary Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Bleeding is a common and frequently devastating complication in acute coronary syndrome (ACS). It is critical to evaluate in the current era of ACS management involving invasive strategies and potent anti-thrombotics. Risk models remain under-utilised in this setting but may guide the choice and duration of therapy. We compared their performances for predicting bleeding in ACS patients in this meta-analysis. METHODS: Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane and Scopus were searched for relevant articles from 1980 to 31 December 2017 assessing external validation of risk scores for bleeding after ACS. Two (2) authors independently reviewed the searched studies for eligibility, followed by pooled analyses using random effects models. RESULTS: Amongst 1,843 articles searched, 73 full-texts were reviewed and 17 studies totalling 18,155 patients were included for analysis. C-statistics (95% confidence interval) for predicting in-hospital major bleeding by risk model were Can Rapid risk stratification of Unstable angina patients Suppress ADverse outcomes with Early implementation of the ACC/AHA guidelines (CRUSADE) 0.714 (0.659-0.779), Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage strategY (ACUITY) 0.711 (0.626-0.797), Acute Coronary Treatment and Intervention Outcomes Network (ACTION) 0.767 (0.737-0.797), Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) 0.689 (0.473-0.905) and HAS-BLED 0.636 (0.460-0.812). CRUSADE also predicted bleeding during medium-term follow-up c=0.704 (0.644-0.765). It performed better for radial versus femoral access (c=0.826 and 0.734), invasive versus non-invasive strategy (c=0.752 and 0.625) and similarly for ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) (c=0.791 and 0.760). Heterogeneities of studies and paucity of studies assessing risk scores beyond CRUSADE were important limitations. CONCLUSIONS: Acute coronary syndrome-specific bleeding scores had moderate discrimination for bleeding, while the GRACE and HAS-BLED scores could not. The ACTION score had the highest pooled c-statistic, while the CRUSADE score was the most widely studied, and also performed better for invasive strategy and radial access subgroups.

The impact of a national COVID-19 lockdown on acute coronary syndrome hospitalisations in New Zealand (ANZACS-QI 55).

BACKGROUND: Countries with a high incidence of coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) reported reduced hospitalisations for acute coronary syndromes (ACS) during the pandemic. This study describes the impact of a nationwide lockdown on ACS hospitalisations in New Zealand (NZ), a country with a low incidence of COVID-19. METHODS: All patients admitted to a NZ Hospital with ACS who underwent coronary angiography in the All NZ ACS Quality Improvement registry during the lockdown (23 March - 26 April 2020) were compared with equivalent weeks in 2015-2019. Ambulance attendances and regional community troponin-I testing were compared for lockdown and non-lockdown (1 July 2019 to 16 February 2020) periods. FINDINGS: Hospitalisation for ACS was lower during the 5-week lockdown (105 vs. 146 per-week, rate ratio 0•72 [95% CI 0•61-0•83], p = 0.003). This was explained by fewer admissions for non-ST-segment elevation ACS (NSTE-ACS; p = 0•002) but not ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI; p = 0•31). Patient characteristics and in-hospital mortality were similar. For STEMI, door-to-balloon times were similar (70 vs. 72 min, p = 0•52). For NSTE-ACS, there was an increase in percutaneous revascularisation (59% vs. 49%, p<0•001) and reduction in surgical revascularisation (9% vs. 15%, p = 0•005). There were fewer ambulance attendances for cardiac arrests (98 vs. 110 per-week, p = 0•04) but no difference for suspected ACS (408 vs. 420 per-week, p = 0•44). Community troponin testing was lower throughout the lockdown (182 vs. 394 per-week, p<0•001). INTERPRETATION: Despite the low incidence of COVID-19, there was a nationwide decrease in ACS hospitalisations during the lockdown. These findings have important implications for future pandemic planning. FUNDING: The ANZACS-QI registry receives funding from the New Zealand Ministry of Health.

Antithrombotic regimen for patients with cardiac indication for dual antiplatelet therapy and anticoagulation: a meta-analysis of randomized trials.

OBJECTIVES: The optimal antithrombotic strategy for patients with a long-term indication for anticoagulation and acute coronary syndrome (ACS) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains controversial. This meta-analysis aims to compare randomised trials' outcomes of these patients, focussing on dual versus triple antithrombotic and non vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) versus vitamin K oral anticoagulants regimens. METHODS: Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched from January 1980 to March 2019 yielding 309 articles, and after careful screening, five randomized trials totalling 10 643 patients were included for analysis. RESULTS: Dual antithrombotic regimens were associated with significantly less thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) major and minor bleeding [odds ratio (OR) 0.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40-0.71], with no significant difference in major adverse cardiovascular events (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.72-1.22) or all-cause mortality (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.61-1.19). NOAC regimens had significantly lower TIMI major and minor bleeding (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.43-0.78) and intracranial bleeding (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.16-0.66), with similar rates of major adverse cardiovascular events (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.86-1.16) and all-cause mortality (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.81-1.26). CONCLUSION: Dual antithrombotic and NOAC regimens have reduced bleeding without compromising the risk of cardiovascular events or mortality, and should be preferred for patients with ACS or PCI also needing long-term anticoagulation.

Mitral valve surgery with or without coronary bypass grafting: eight-year cohort study.

AIMS: A significant minority of patients undergoing mitral valve surgery (MVR) have indication for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). The risks of combination surgeries are not well appreciated and maybe more than additive. We compared the characteristics and outcomes of MVR+/-CABG performed at our centre. METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing isolated MVR or with concurrent (MVR+)CABG at Auckland City Hospital during 2005-2012 were compared for baseline and operative characteristics and outcomes in univariable and multivariable analyses. RESULTS: A total of 178 MVR+CABG and 407 MVR patients were included. MVR+CABG patients had higher age, CCS and NYHA Class, cardiopulmonary bypass time, and higher prevalence of urgent surgery, hypertension, diabetes, renal impairment, myocardial infarction/coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure/impaired ejection fraction and peripheral vascular disease, although lower prevalence of active endocarditis and previous valve surgery (all P<0.05). MVR+CABG had higher mortality (operative 11.2% vs 2.5% P<0.001; one and five-year survival 85% vs 96% and 78% vs 87% P=0.041) and composite morbidity 53.4% vs 18.9% P<0.001, including acute renal failure, prolonged ventilation, return to theatre (all P<0.001) but not stroke. In multivariable analyses, MVR+CABG was independently associated with higher operative mortality odds ratio 2.07 95% confidence interval 1.09-3.93 and composite morbidity 2.38 (1.03-5.47), but not long-term mortality. CONCLUSION: MVR+CABG compared to MVR patients had more comorbidities and greater operative risk, and were independently associated with higher operative mortality and composite morbidity, but not independently associated with higher long-term mortality.