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.

Efficacy and safety of trimetazidine after percutaneous coronary intervention (ATPCI): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Angina might persist or reoccur despite successful revascularisation with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and antianginal therapy. Additionally, PCI in stable patients has not been shown to improve survival compared with optimal medical therapy. Trimetazidine is an antianginal agent that improves energy metabolism of the ischaemic myocardium and might improve outcomes and symptoms of patients who recently had a PCI. In this study, we aimed to assess the long-term potential benefits and safety of trimetazidine added to standard evidence-based medical treatment in patients who had a recent successful PCI. METHODS: We did a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, event-driven trial of trimetazidine added to standard background therapy in patients who had undergone successful PCI at 365 centres in 27 countries across Europe, South America, Asia, and north Africa. Eligible patients were aged 21-85 years and had had either elective PCI for stable angina or urgent PCI for unstable angina or non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction less than 30 days before randomisation. Patients were randomly assigned by an interactive web response system to oral trimetazidine 35 mg modified-release twice daily or matching placebo. Participants, study investigators, and all study staff were masked to treatment allocation. The primary efficacy endpoint was a composite of cardiac death; hospital admission for a cardiac event; recurrence or persistence of angina requiring an addition, switch, or increase of the dose of at least one antianginal drug; or recurrence or persistence of angina requiring a coronary angiography. Efficacy analyses were done according to the intention-to-treat principle. Safety was assessed in all patients who had at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with the EU Clinical Trials Register (EudraCT 2010-022134-89). FINDINGS: From Sept 17, 2014, to June 15, 2016, 6007 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive either trimetazidine (n=2998) or placebo (n=3009). After a median follow-up of 47·5 months (IQR 42·3-53·3), incidence of primary endpoint events was not significantly different between the trimetazidine group (700 [23·3%] patients) and the placebo group (714 [23·7%]; hazard ratio 0·98 [95% CI 0·88-1·09], p=0·73). When analysed individually, there were no significant differences in the incidence of the components of the primary endpoint between the treatment groups. Similar results were obtained when patients were categorised according to whether they had an elective or urgent PCI. 1219 (40·9%) of 2983 patients in the trimetazidine group and 1230 (41·1%) of 2990 patients in the placebo group had serious treatment-emergent adverse events. Frequencies of adverse events of interest were similar between the groups. INTERPRETATION: Our results show that the routine use of oral trimetazidine 35 mg twice daily over several years in patients receiving optimal medical therapy, after successful PCI, does not influence the recurrence of angina or the outcome; these findings should be taken into account when considering the place of trimetazidine in clinical practice. However, the long-term prescription of this treatment does not appear to be associated with any statistically significant safety concerns in the population studied. FUNDING: Servier.

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...

The influence of age on clinical outcomes in patients treated with the resolute zotarolimus-eluting stent.

AIMS: To evaluate the rate of clinical events and bleeding risk according to age in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with a new-generation drug-eluting stent (DES) enrolled in the RESOLUTE Global Clinical Program. METHODS: This study represents a pooled analysis of five trials included in the RESOLUTE program including 5,130 patients, of whom 1,675 (32.6%) were ≥70 years old (elderly patients). RESULTS: After adjusting for confounders, age ≥70 years was a significant predictor of high mortality at 30 days (0.6 vs. 0.1%, P = 0.017) and 2 years (7.2 vs. 2%, P < 0.001). No differences were seen with respect to acute myocardial infarction (MI) or target lesion and vessel revascularization rates between young and elderly patients. Bleeding rates were higher in the elderly throughout follow-up. In the elderly, 7 of the 27 (26%) patients with bleeding episodes died, with a median time between bleeding episode to death of 21 days. In the younger population, 1 patient of 17 with a bleeding episode died (400 days later). CONCLUSIONS: Elderly patients undergoing PCI with a new-generation DES have increased mortality and bleeding risk, with similar rates of acute MI and repeat revascularization. Bleeding risk was higher in the elderly and strongly related to death. Target lesion failure rates were not significantly different between the two age groups, suggesting that the Resolute zotarolimus-eluting stent (R-ZES) is effective for patients younger and older than 70 years of age. R-ZES may be recommended for elderly patients when PCI with a DES is identified as a suitable option.

One-Year Clinical and Computed Tomography Angiographic Outcomes After Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold Implantation During Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: The PRAGUE-19 Study.

BACKGROUND: Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) represent promising new technology, but data on their long-term outcomes in ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) setting are missing. The aim was to analyze 1-year clinical and computed tomographic angiographic outcomes after BVS implantation in STEMI. METHODS AND RESULTS: PRAGUE-19 is a prospective multicenter single-arm study enrolling consecutive STEMI patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) with intention-to-implant BVS. A total of 343 STEMI patients were screened during 15 months enrollment period, and 70 patients (mean age 58.6±10.3 and 74% males) fulfilled entry criteria and BVS was successfully implanted in 96% of them. All patients were invited for clinical and computed tomographic angiographic control 1 year after BVS implantation. Restenosis was defined as ≥75% area stenosis within the scaffolded segment. Three events were potentially related to BVS: 1 in-stent restenosis (treated 7 months after pPCI with drug-eluting balloon), 1 stent thrombosis (treated 2 weeks after pPCI by balloon dilatation-this patient stopped all medications after pPCI), and 1 sudden death at home 9 months after pPCI. Four other patients had events definitely unrelated to BVS. Overall, 1-year mortality was 2.9%. Computed tomographic angiography after 1 year was performed in 59 patients. All BVS were widely patent, and binary restenosis rate was 2% (the only restenosis mentioned above). Mean in-scaffold minimal luminal area was 7.8±2.6 mm(2), area stenosis was 20.1±16.3%, minimal luminal diameter was 3.0±0.6 mm, and diameter stenosis was 12.8±11.1%. CONCLUSIONS: BVS implantation in STEMI is feasible and safe and offers excellent 1-year clinical and angiographic outcomes.

Real-world safety and effectiveness outcomes of a zotarolimus-eluting stent: final 3-year report of the RESOLUTE International study.

OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the safety and effectiveness of the Resolute™ zotarolimus-eluting stent (R-ZES) in real-world clinical practice through 3 years. BACKGROUND: A randomized comparison of the R-ZES and the XIENCE V™ everolimus-eluting stent showed no difference in any outcomes through 3-year follow-up in high-volume academic centers. RESOLUTE International is a confirmatory trial designed to evaluate the R-ZES in real-world clinical practice. METHODS: RESOLUTE International is a single arm, observational trial that enrolled 2,349 patients from 88 centers with only a few inclusion and exclusion criteria. The primary end-point was the composite of cardiac death and target vessel myocardial infarction (TV-MI) at 1 year. Secondary end-points include target lesion failure (TLF), target vessel revascularization (TVR), and their components, and stent thrombosis (ST). RESULTS: At 3 years 97.2% of patients completed clinical follow-up. The mean age was 63.4 ± 11.2 years, 77.8% were male, and 30.4% had diabetes. The average number of stents per patient was 1.6 ± 1.0; and mean stent length was 30.9 ± 20.5 mm. Dual antiplatelet therapy was used in 91.1% of patients at 1 year, 43.0% at 2 years, and 34.6% at 3 years. Cardiac death and TV-MI occurred in 161 patients (7.0%). There were 6 (0.3%) very late ST events for a total ST rate of 1.1% through 3 years. The rates of clinically driven target lesion revascularization (TLR), TVR, and TLF were 5.7%, 7.4%, and 11.4%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The safety and effectiveness of the R-ZES through 3 years in this real-world all-comer study was consistent with previously reported all-comer trials.

One-year outcomes of patients with the zotarolimus-eluting coronary stent: RESOLUTE International Registry.

AIMS: To provide clinical outcome data from everyday practice for the new generation Resolute zotarolimus-eluting stent (R-ZES). METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients were eligible if placement of ≥1 R-ZES was intended. There were no restrictions on clinical indication, number of treated vessels, and lesion characteristics. The primary endpoint was the adjudicated cumulative 1-year incidence of cardiac death and target vessel myocardial infarction. Twenty-five per cent of the patients were randomly selected for monitoring. We recruited 2,349 patients with 3,147 lesions (1.6±1.0 stents per patient); 46.0% of patients had acute coronary syndrome, 30.5% were diabetic, and ≥1 complex criterion for stent placement was present in 67.5% of patients. One-year follow-up was complete in 97.9% of patients. The 1-year incidence of the primary endpoint was 4.3% (95% CI: 3.5% to 5.2%) and for ARC definite and probable stent thrombosis, 0.9% (0.5% to 1.3%). Clinically driven target lesion revascularisation and target lesion failure were 3.4% (2.7% to 4.3%) and 7.0% (6.0% to 8.2%), respectively. These findings were consistent across all lesion and patient subsets analysed. There were no significant differences in outcomes between monitored and unmonitored patients. CONCLUSIONS: In everyday practice, the R-ZES performed similarly well as in the RESOLUTE All Comers randomised trial.

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.