Neutrophil Extracellular Traps and Thrombolysis Resistance: New Insights for Targeting Therapies.

BACKGROUND: Thrombosis is linked to neutrophil release of neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs). NETs are proposed as a mechanism of resistance to thrombolysis. This study intends to analyze the composition of thrombi retrieved after mechanical thrombectomy, estimate the age and organization of thrombi, and evaluate associations with the use of thrombolysis, antiplatelets, and heparin. METHODS: This retrospective observational study involved 72 samples (44 from cerebral and 28 coronary arteries), which were stained with hematoxylin and eosin, anti-NE (neutrophil elastase) antibody, and anti-histone H2B (histone H2B) antibody, representing different components in NET formation, all detectable during the later stages of NETosis, for histochemical and digital quantification of NET content. The histological and morphological evaluations of the specimens were correlated, through univariate and mediation analyses, with clinical information and therapy administered before intervention. RESULTS: The results demonstrated that the composition of cerebral and coronary thrombi differs, and there were significantly more lytic cerebral thrombi than coronary thrombi (66% versus 14%; P=0.005). There was a considerably higher expression of NETs in the cerebral thrombi as testified by the higher expression of H2B (P=0.031). Thrombolysis was remarkably associated with higher NE positivity (average marginal effect, 6.461 [95% CI, 0.7901-12.13]; P=0.02555), regardless of the origin of thrombi. There was no notable association between the administration of antiaggregant therapy/heparin and H2B/NE amount when adjusted for the thrombus location. Importantly, the age of the thrombus was the only independent predictor of NET content without any mediation of the thrombolytic treatment (P=0.014). CONCLUSIONS: The age of the thrombus is the driving force for NET content, which correlates with impaired clinical outcomes. The therapy that is currently administered does not modify NET content. This study supports the need to investigate new pharmacological approaches added to thrombolysis to prevent NET formation or enhance their disruption, such as recombinant human DNase I (deoxyribonuclease I).

Total events and net clinical benefit of rivaroxaban and aspirin in patients with chronic coronary or peripheral artery disease: the COMPASS trial

BACKGROUND: Low dose rivaroxaban with aspirin reduced major cardiovascular events (MACE) compared to aspirin alone in patients with cardiovascular disease although effects on total events are unknown. METHODS: The COMPASS clinical trial randomized 27,395 participants with chronic coronary and/or peripheral artery disease to rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily plus aspirin 100 mg daily, rivaroxaban 5 mg twice daily alone, or aspirin 100 mg daily. We analyzed total (first and recurrent) MACE outcomes of cardiovascular death, stroke, or myocardial infarction, and the primary safety outcome of major bleeding. Exploratory analyses included on-treatment and net clinical benefit. Total MACE and safety events were modeled for each treatment. RESULTS: MACE events were lowest in rivaroxaban with aspirin (379 first MACE, 432 total MACE) compared with rivaroxaban (448 first, 508 total) or aspirin alone (496 first, 574 total). Rivaroxaban and aspirin reduced total MACE events compared with aspirin alone [HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.66-0.85, P < .0001, number needed to treat for 2 years (NNT2y) of 63]. Total major bleeding was higher for rivaroxaban with aspirin compared to aspirin, but severe bleeding was not increased. The net clinical benefit of rivaroxaban plus aspirin was 20% higher compared with aspirin alone [HR 0.80 (95% CI 16.3%-31.6%)]. Rivaroxaban alone had no benefit on MACE outcomes compared with aspirin alone. MACE outcomes were similar for those on and off randomized treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Low dose rivaroxaban with aspirin significantly reduces first and total cardiovascular events compared with aspirin alone with a NNT2y of 63 and a 20% net clinical benefit.

Risk factors and clinical outcomes in chronic coronary and peripheral artery disease: an analysis of the randomized, double-blind COMPASS trial

Abstract Aims: Secondary prevention in patients with coronary artery disease and peripheral artery disease involves antithrombotic therapy and optimal control of cardiovascular risk factors. In the Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) study, adding low-dose rivaroxaban on top of aspirin lowered cardiovascular events, but there is limited data about risk factor control in secondary prevention. We studied the association between risk factor status and outcomes, and the impact of risk factor status on the treatment effect of rivaroxaban, in a large contemporary population of patients with coronary artery disease or peripheral artery disease. Methods and results: We reported ischemic events (cardiovascular death, stroke, or myocardial infarction) in participants from the randomized, double-blind COMPASS study by individual risk factor (blood pressure, smoking status, cholesterol level, presence of diabetes, body mass index, and level of physical activity), and by number of risk factors. We compared rates and hazard ratios of patients treated with rivaroxaban plus aspirin vs aspirin alone within each risk factor category and tested for interaction between risk factor status and antithrombotic regimen. Complete baseline risk factor status was available in 27,117 (99%) patients. Status and number of risk factors were both associated with increased risk of ischemic events. Rates of ischemic events (hazard ratio 2.2; 95% confidence interval 1.8­2.6) and cardiovascular death (hazard ratio 2.0; 1.5­2.7) were more than twofold higher in patients with 4­6 compared with 0­1 risk factors (p<0.0001 for both). Rivaroxaban reduced event rates independently of the number of risk factors (p interaction 0.93), with the largest absolute benefit in patients with the highest number of risk factors. Conclusion: More favorable risk factor status and low-dose rivaroxaban were independently associated with lower risk of cardiovascular events. (AU)

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 x 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 (5mg 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. (AU)

Rivaroxaban plus aspirin versus aspirin in Rrelation to vascular risk in the COMPASS Trial

BACKGROUND: The COMPASS (Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies) trial showed that the combination of low-dose rivaroxaban and aspirin reduced major vascular events in patients with stable vascular disease. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to identify subsets of patients at higher risk of recurrent vascular events, which may help focus the use of rivaroxaban and aspirin therapy. METHODS: COMPASS patients with vascular disease were risk stratified using 2 methods: the REACH (reduction of Atherothrombosis for Continued Health) atherothrombosis risk score and CART (Classification and Regression Tree) analysis. The absolute risk differences for rivaroxaban with aspirin were compared to aspirin alone over 30 months for the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, acute limb ischemia, or vascular amputation; for severe bleeding; and for the net clinical benefit. RESULTS: High-risk patients using the REACH score were those with 2 or more vascular beds affected, history of heart failure (HF), or renal insufficiency, and by CART analysis were those with ≥2 vascular beds affected, history of HF, or diabetes. Rivaroxaban and aspirin combination reduced the serious vascular event incidence by 25% (4.48% vs. 5.95%, hazard ratio: 0.75; 95% confidence interval: 0.66 to 0.85), equivalent to 23 events prevented per 1,000 patients treated for 30 months, at the cost of a nonsignificant 34% increase in severe bleeding (1.34; 95% confidence interval: 0.95 to 1.88), or 2 events caused per 1,000 patients treated. Among patients with ≥1 high-risk feature identified from the CART analysis, rivaroxaban and aspirin prevented 33 serious vascular events, whereas in lower-risk patients, rivaroxaban and aspirin treatment led to the avoidance of 10 events per 1,000 patients treated for 30 months. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with vascular disease, further risk stratification can identify higher-risk patients (≥2 vascular beds affected, HF, renal insufficiency, or diabetes). The net clinical benefit remains favorable for most patients treated with rivaroxaban and aspirin compared with aspirin. (AU)

Rivaroxaban with or without aspirin in patients with stable coronary artery disease: an international, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Coronary artery disease is a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide, and is a consequence of acute thrombotic events involving activation of platelets and coagulation proteins. Factor Xa inhibitors and aspirin each reduce thrombotic events but have not yet been tested in combination or against each other in patients with stable coronary artery disease. METHODS: In this multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, outpatient trial, patients with stable coronary artery disease or peripheral artery disease were recruited at 602 hospitals, clinics, or community centres in 33 countries. This paper reports on patients with coronary artery disease. Eligible patients with coronary artery disease had to have had a myocardial infarction in the past 20 years, multi-vessel coronary artery disease, history of stable or unstable angina, previous multi-vessel percutaneous coronary intervention, or previous multi-vessel coronary artery bypass graft surgery. After a 30-day run in period, patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive rivaroxaban (2·5 mg orally twice a day) plus aspirin (100 mg once a day), rivaroxaban alone (5 mg orally twice a day), or aspirin alone (100 mg orally once a day). Randomisation was computer generated. Each treatment group was double dummy, and the patients, investigators, and central study staff were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome of the COMPASS trial was the occurrence of myocardial infarction, stroke, or cardiovascular death. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01776424, and is closed to new participants...

Rationale, design and baseline characteristics of participants in the cardiovascular outcomes for people using anticoagulation strategies (COMPASS) trial

BACKGROUND: Long-term aspirin prevents vascular events but is only modestly effective. Rivaroxaban alone or in combination with aspirin might be more effective than aspirin alone for vascular prevention in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) or peripheral artery disease (PAD). Rivaroxaban as well as aspirin increase upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding and this might be prevented by proton pump inhibitor therapy. METHODS: Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) is a double-blind superiority trial comparing rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily combined with aspirin 100 mg once daily or rivaroxaban 5 mg twice daily vs aspirin 100 mg once daily for prevention of myocardial infarction, stroke, or cardiovascular death in patients with stable CAD or PAD. Patients not taking a proton pump inhibitor were also randomized, using a partial factorial design, to pantoprazole 40 mg once daily or placebo. The trial was designed to have at least 90% power to detect a 20% reduction in each of the rivaroxaban treatment arms compared with aspirin and to detect a 50% reduction in upper GI complications with pantoprazole compared with placebo...

La iniciativa Stent for Life en Europa / The Stent-for-Life initiative in Europe

La iniciativa Stent for Life es un proyecto europeo de características únicas, en el que participan cardiólogos intervencionistas, representantes de la administración sanitaria de cada país, miembros de la industria farmacéutica y pacientes. Su objetivo es conseguir que la mayoría de las personas que sufren un infarto agudo de miocardio con elevación del segmento ST tengan un rápido acceso al mejor tratamiento de reperfusión coronaria, que es la intervención coronaria percutánea primaria (ICPp). La iniciativa Stent for Life fue puesta en marcha conjuntamente, en el año 2008, por la European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions y el EuroPCR (www.stentforlife.com). Tiene como misión mejorar la utilización y el acceso de los pacientes a la ICPp en las situaciones en que esta puede salvarles la vida y reducir con ello la morbilidad y la mortalidad de quienes padecen un síndrome coronario agudo. Las distintas estrategias adoptadas por los países integrantes de esta iniciativa pretenden facilitar el acceso de los pacientes a la ICPp. El ideal planteado por esta iniciativa es que se realicen al año 600 ICPp por millón de habitantes e intentar disponer de centros de ICPp con una densidad media de un centro por cada 750.000 habitantes; de esta forma se podría llegar a satisfacer las necesidades de todos sus pacientes con infarto agudo de miocardio con elevación del segmento ST. Los países en que casi todos los centros de ICPp existentes ofrecen servicios ininterrumpidos de ICPp parecen ser los que alcanzan mejores resultados. Sin embargo, en general, hay considerables diferencias en la práctica clínica de este tratamiento en toda Europa, y hay muchas posibilidades de mejorar la asistencia prestada. Una cooperación estrecha entre sociedades nacionales de cardiología, administraciones nacionales, organismos de financiación de la asistencia sanitaria (es decir, compañías de seguros y prestadores de la asistencia sanitaria pública), hospitales, servicios de emergencias médicas y otros organismos relacionados resulta muy eficaz para asegurar que los programas de ICPp se apliquen plenamente y para crear formalmente programas nacionales de ICPp. Hasta la fecha, se han adherido a esta iniciativa diez países europeos por medio de sus respectivas sociedades de cardiología. Las sociedades nacionales de cardiología de Bulgaria, Egipto, Francia, Grecia, Portugal, Serbia, España y Turquía han manifestado también su compromiso con dicha iniciativa. En 2011, 3 años después de la puesta en marcha de la iniciativa Stent for Life, la European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions llevará a cabo un estudio para evaluar y actualizar la situación de la ICPp en Europa (AU)

The Stent-for-Life (SFL) Initiative is a unique European venture that enables interventional cardiologists, government representatives, industry partners and patients to collaborate and ensure that, by shaping health-care systems and medical practices, the majority of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) will have equal access to the lifesaving treatment of primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The SFL Initiative was launched in 2008 by a coalition of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) and EuroPCR (www.stentforlife.com). The mission of the SFL Initiative is to improve the delivery of and access to the life-saving indication of PCI, thereby reducing mortality and morbidity in patients with acute coronary syndrome. National primary PCI strategies for STEMI will result in more patients being offered reperfusion therapy. Countries that perform 600 primary PCIs per million population annually and have a mean density of one primary PCI center for every 750,000 inhabitants are able to meet the needs of all their STEMI patients. Countries in which nearly all existing PCI centers offer primary PCI services on a 24-hour basis appear to achieve the best results. Overall, however, there is a substantial variation in practice throughout Europe and there are many opportunities for improving care. Close cooperation between national cardiology societies, national governments, health-care financing organizations (i.e. insurance companies and public health providers), hospitals, emergency medical services and other related bodies is very effective both for ensuring that primary PCI programs are fully implemented and in creating formalized National Cardiology Programs. To date, the SFL Initiative has been introduced into 10 European countries. The national cardiology societies of Bulgaria, Egypt, France, Greece, Portugal, Serbia, Spain and Turkey have all declared a commitment to the Initiative. In 2011, 3 years after the launch of the SFL Initiative, the EAPCI will carry out a survey to assess the use of reperfusion therapy throughout Europe (AU)

Radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography and intervention in patients with acute coronary syndromes (RIVAL): a randomised, parallel group, multicentre trial

Background Small trials have suggested that radial access for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) reducesvascular complications and bleeding compared with femoral access. We aimed to assess whether radial access was superior to femoral access in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) who were undergoing coronaryangiography with possible intervention.Methods The RadIal Vs femorAL access for coronary intervention (RIVAL) trial was a randomised, parallel group,multicentre trial. Patients with ACS were randomly assigned (1:1) by a 24 h computerised central automated voiceresponse system to radial or femoral artery access. The primary outcome was a composite of death, myocardialinfarction, stroke, or non-coronary artery bypass graft (non-CABG)-related major bleeding at 30 days. Key secondary outcomes were death, myocardial infarction, or stroke; and non-CABG-related major bleeding at 30 days. A masked central committee adjudicated the primary outcome, components of the primary outcome, and stent thrombosis. All other outcomes were as reported by the investigators. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment allocation. Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01014273. Findings Between June 6, 2006, and Nov 3, 2010, 7021 patients were enrolled from 158 hospitals in 32 countries.3507 patients were randomly assigned to radial access and 3514 to femoral access. The primary outcome occurred in128 (3·7%) of 3507 patients in the radial access group compared with 139 (4·0%) of 3514 in the femoral access group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·92, 95% CI 0·72–1·17; p=0·50). Of the six prespecifi ed subgroups, there was a signifi cant interaction for the primary outcome with benefi t for radial access in highest tertile volume radial centres (HR 0·49, 95% CI 0·28–0·87; p=0·015)...

Design and rationale of the radIal Vs. femorAL access for coronary intervention (RIVAL) trial: A randomized comparison of radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography or intervention in patients with acute coronary syndromes

Background Major bleeding in acute coronary syndromes (ACS) is associated with an increased risk of subsequentmortality and recurrent ischemic events. Observational data and small randomized trials suggest that radial instead of femoralaccess for coronary angiography/intervention results in fewer bleeding complications, with preserved and possibly improvedefficacy. Radial access versus femoral access has yet to be formally evaluated in a randomized trial adequately powered forthe comparison of clinically important outcomes.Objectives The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of radial versus femoral access for coronaryangiography/intervention in patients with ACS managed with an invasive strategy.Design This was a multicenter international randomized trial with blinded assessment of outcomes. 7021 patients withACS (with or without ST elevation) have been randomized to either radial or femoral access for coronary angiography/intervention. The primary outcome is the composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or non–coronary artery bypassgraft-related major bleeding up to day 30. The key secondary outcomes are (1) death, myocardial infarction, or stroke up today 30 and (2) non–coronary artery bypass graft-related major bleeding up to day 30. Percutaneous coronary intervention(PCI) success rates will also be compared between the two access sites.Conclusions The RIVAL trial will help define the optimal access site for coronary angiography/intervention in patientswith ACS.

Glucose levels compared with diabetes history in the risk assessment of patients with acute myocardial infarction

Background Both a history of diabetes mellitus and elevated inhospital glucose levels predict death after acute myocardial infarction (AMI). However, only diabetes history (and not glucose levels) is routinely considered in AMI risk assessment. Methods We conducted a post hoc analysis of 2 randomized controlled trials of AMI with ST-segment elevation to compare the prognostic value of inhospital glucose levels with diabetes history in 30,536 subjects. Average inhospital glucose (mean of glucose levels at admission, 6 hours, and 24 hours), diabetes history, and death at 30 days (occurring in 2,808subjects) were documented. Results Average glucose predicted 30-day death (OR 1.10 per 1-mmol/L [18-mg/dL] increase, 95% CI 1.09-1.11, P < .0001); this was unchanged after adjusting for diabetes history. In contrast, diabetes history alone predicted 30-day death (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.48-1.78, P < .0001), but not after adjusting for average glucose (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.88-1.09, P = .72). The C-indices (areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves) for 30-day death were 0.54 for diabetes history alone, 0.64 for average glucose alone, and 0.64 for glucose plus diabetes. Higher glucose levels predicted death in patients with and without diabetes history, but this relationship was more steep in nondiabetic subjects such that their rate of 30-day death (13.2%) matched that of diabetic patients (13.7%) when average glucose was ¡Ý144 mg/dL (8 mmol/L) (P = .55 after multivariable adjustment). Conclusions Although diabetes history is routinely considered in the risk stratification of AMI patients, inhospital glucose levels are a much stronger predictor of death and should be incorporated in their risk assessment. Patients with AMI with inhospitalglucose ¡Ý144 mg/dL have a very high risk of death regardless of diabetes history.