Association of Snoring and Daytime Sleepiness With Subsequent Incident Hypertension: A Population-Based Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: There is a strong association between obstructive sleep apnea and hypertension, but the effects of obstructive sleep apnea symptoms on the risk of incident hypertension are not well documented. The aim of this prospective study was to examine whether snoring and sleepiness are associated with incident hypertension. METHODS: Data from the French population-based CONSTANCES cohort were analyzed. Normotensive participants, aged 18 to 69 years, were included between 2012 and 2016 and screened for snoring, morning fatigue, and daytime sleepiness in 2017 using items of the Berlin Questionnaire. We used Cox models, adjusted for multiple potential confounders, including body mass index, baseline blood pressure, sleep duration, and depressive symptoms, to compute hazards ratios of incidentally treated hypertension. RESULTS: Among 34 727 subjects, the prevalence of self-reported habitual snoring, morning fatigue, and excessive daytime sleepiness (≥3× a week for each) was 23.6%, 16.6%, and 19.1%, respectively. During a median follow-up of 3.1 years (interquartile range, 3.0-3.5), the incidence of treated hypertension was 4.1%. The risk of de novo treated hypertension was higher in participants who reported habitual snoring (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.17 [95% CI, 1.03-1.32]) and excessive daytime sleepiness (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.42 [95% CI, 1.24-1.62]), and increased with the weekly frequency of symptoms, with a dose-dependent relationship (Ptrend≤0.02 for all symptoms). CONCLUSIONS: Self-reported snoring and excessive daytime sleepiness are associated with an increased risk of developing hypertension. Identification of snoring and daytime sleepiness may be a useful public health screening tool in primary care for hypertension prevention.

Chronic coronary syndromes without standard modifiable cardiovascular risk factors and outcomes: the CLARIFY registry.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: It has been reported that patients without standard modifiable cardiovascular (CV) risk factors (SMuRFs-diabetes, dyslipidaemia, hypertension, and smoking) presenting with first myocardial infarction (MI), especially women, have a higher in-hospital mortality than patients with risk factors, and possibly a lower long-term risk provided they survive the post-infarct period. This study aims to explore the long-term outcomes of SMuRF-less patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD). METHODS: CLARIFY is an observational cohort of 32 703 outpatients with stable CAD enrolled between 2009 and 2010 in 45 countries. The baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes of patients with and without SMuRFs were compared. The primary outcome was a composite of 5-year CV death or non-fatal MI. Secondary outcomes were 5-year all-cause mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE-CV death, non-fatal MI, or non-fatal stroke). RESULTS: Among 22 132 patients with complete risk factor and outcome information, 977 (4.4%) were SMuRF-less. Age, sex, and time since CAD diagnosis were similar across groups. SMuRF-less patients had a lower 5-year rate of CV death or non-fatal MI (5.43% [95% CI 4.08-7.19] vs. 7.68% [95% CI 7.30-8.08], P = 0.012), all-cause mortality, and MACE. Similar results were found after adjustments. Clinical event rates increased steadily with the number of SMuRFs. The benefit of SMuRF-less status was particularly pronounced in women. CONCLUSIONS: SMuRF-less patients with stable CAD have a substantial but significantly lower 5-year rate of CV death or non-fatal MI than patients with risk factors. The risk of CV outcomes increases steadily with the number of risk factors.

Rates of Sudden Death After Myocardial Infarction-Insights From the VALIANT and PARADISE-MI Trials.

Importance: Sudden death is a leading cause of death after acute myocardial infarction (AMI). The Prospective ARNi vs ACE Inhibitor Trial to Determine Superiority in Reducing Heart Failure Events After MI (PARADISE-MI) and Valsartan in Acute Myocardial Infarction (VALIANT) trials enrolled patients with pulmonary congestion and/or left ventricular dysfunction after AMI. Whether the prognosis in such patients has changed over time has not been examined. Objective: To compare the rate of sudden death/resuscitated cardiac arrest (RCA) after AMI in the PARADISE-MI and VALIANT trials. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a secondary analysis of multicenter randomized clinical trials enrolling patients after AMI. In the primary analysis, the VALIANT cohort was restricted to patients with "PARADISE-MI-like" characteristics (eg, at least 1 augmenting risk factor and no history of heart failure). The baseline characteristics of people in both trials were compared. The VALIANT trial enrolled from December 1998 to June 2001, and the PARADISE-MI trial enrolled between December 2016, and March 2020. The median follow-up in the VALIANT and PARADISE-MI trials was 24.7 and 22 months, respectively. People with AMI, complicated by pulmonary congestion and/or left ventricular dysfunction, were included in the analysis. Exposure: Sudden death after AMI. Results: A total of 5661 patients were included in the PARADISE-MI cohort (mean [SD] age, 63.7 [11.5] years; 4298 male [75.9%]), 9617 were included in the VALIANT (PARADISE-MI-like) cohort (mean [SD] age, 66.1 [11.5] years; 6504 male [67.6%]), and 14 703 patients were included in the VALIANT (total) cohort (mean [SD] age, 64.8 [11.8] years; 10 133 male [68.9%]). In the PARADISE-MI-like cohort of the VALIANT trial, 707 of 9617 participants (7.4%) experienced sudden death/RCA. A total of 148 of 5661 people (2.6%) in the PARADISE-MI trial experienced sudden death/RCA. Sudden death rates were highest in the first month after infarction in both trials: 19.3 (95% CI, 16.4-22.6) per 100 person-years in the VALIANT trial and 9.5 (95% CI, 7.0-12.7) per 100 person-years in the PARADISE-MI trial, and these rates declined steadily thereafter. Compared with the VALIANT cohort, people in the PARADISE-MI trial were more often treated with percutaneous coronary intervention for their qualifying AMI and received a ß-blocker, statin, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist more frequently. Conclusions and Relevance: After AMI, the risk of sudden death/RCA was highest in the first month, declining rapidly thereafter. Results revealed that compared with counterparts from 20 years ago, the rate of sudden death/RCA in patients with a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction and/or pulmonary congestion was 2- to 3-fold lower in people receiving contemporary management. Interventions to further protect people in the highest risk first month after infarction are needed. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02924727.

Myocardial Ischemic Syndromes: A New Nomenclature to Harmonize Evolving International Clinical Practice Guidelines.

Since the 1960s, cardiologists have adopted several binary classification systems for acute myocardial infarction (MI) that facilitated improved patient management. Conversely, for chronic stable manifestations of myocardial ischemia, various classifications have emerged over time, often with conflicting terminology-eg, "stable coronary artery disease" (CAD), "stable ischemic heart disease," and "chronic coronary syndromes" (CCS). While the 2019 European guidelines introduced CCS to impart symmetry with "acute coronary syndromes" (ACS), the 2023 American guidelines endorsed the alternative term "chronic coronary disease." An unintended consequence of these competing classifications is perpetuation of the restrictive terms "coronary" and 'disease', often connoting only a singular obstructive CAD mechanism. It is now important to advance a more broadly inclusive terminology for both obstructive and non-obstructive causes of angina and myocardial ischemia that fosters conceptual clarity and unifies dyssynchronous nomenclatures across guidelines. We, therefore, propose a new binary classification of "acute myocardial ischemic syndromes" and "non-acute myocardial ischemic syndromes," which comprises both obstructive epicardial and non-obstructive pathogenetic mechanisms, including microvascular dysfunction, vasospastic disorders, and non-coronary causes. We herein retain accepted categories of ACS, ST-segment elevation MI, and non-ST segment elevation MI, as important subsets for which revascularization is of proven clinical benefit, as well as new terms like ischemia and MI with non-obstructive coronary arteries. Overall, such a more encompassing nomenclature better aligns, unifies, and harmonizes different pathophysiologic causes of myocardial ischemia and should result in more refined diagnostic and therapeutic approaches targeted to the multiple pathobiological precipitants of angina pectoris, ischemia, and infarction.

Myocardial ischaemic syndromes: a new nomenclature to harmonize evolving international clinical practice guidelines.

Since the 1960s, cardiologists have adopted several binary classification systems for acute myocardial infarction (MI) that facilitated improved patient management. Conversely, for chronic stable manifestations of myocardial ischaemia, various classifications have emerged over time, often with conflicting terminology-e.g. 'stable coronary artery disease' (CAD), 'stable ischaemic heart disease', and 'chronic coronary syndromes' (CCS). While the 2019 European guidelines introduced CCS to impart symmetry with 'acute coronary syndromes' (ACS), the 2023 American guidelines endorsed the alternative term 'chronic coronary disease'. An unintended consequence of these competing classifications is perpetuation of the restrictive terms 'coronary' and 'disease', often connoting only a singular obstructive CAD mechanism. It is now important to advance a more broadly inclusive terminology for both obstructive and non-obstructive causes of angina and myocardial ischaemia that fosters conceptual clarity and unifies dyssynchronous nomenclatures across guidelines. We, therefore, propose a new binary classification of 'acute myocardial ischaemic syndromes' and 'non-acute myocardial ischaemic syndromes', which comprises both obstructive epicardial and non-obstructive pathogenetic mechanisms, including microvascular dysfunction, vasospastic disorders, and non-coronary causes. We herein retain accepted categories of ACS, ST-segment elevation MI, and non-ST-segment elevation MI, as important subsets for which revascularization is of proven clinical benefit, as well as new terms like ischaemia and MI with non-obstructive coronary arteries. Overall, such a more encompassing nomenclature better aligns, unifies, and harmonizes different pathophysiologic causes of myocardial ischaemia and should result in more refined diagnostic and therapeutic approaches targeted to the multiple pathobiological precipitants of angina pectoris, ischaemia and infarction.

Clonal hematopoiesis, cardiovascular events and treatment benefit in 63,700 individuals from five TIMI randomized trials.

Clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP) has been associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular (CV) disease in the general population. Currently, it is unclear whether this association is observed in large clinical trial cohorts with a high burden of existing CV disease or whether CV therapies can mitigate CHIP-associated CV risk. To address these questions, we studied 63,700 patients from five randomized trials that tested established therapies for CV disease, including treatments targeting the proteins PCSK9, SGLT2, P2Y12 and FXa. During a median follow-up of 2.5 years, 7,453 patients had at least one CV event (CV death, myocardial infarction (MI), ischemic stroke or coronary revascularization). The adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) for CV events for CHIP+ patients was 1.07 (95% CI: 0.99-1.16, P = 0.08), with consistent risk estimates across each component of CV risk. Significant heterogeneity in the risk of MI was observed, such that CHIP+ patients had a 30% increased risk of first MI (aHR = 1.31 (1.05-1.64), P = 0.02) but no increased risk of recurrent MI (aHR = 0.94 (0.79-1.13), Pint = 0.008), as compared to CHIP- patients. Moreover, no significant heterogeneity in treatment effect between individuals with and without CHIP was observed for any of the therapies studied in the five trials. These results indicate that in clinical trial populations, CHIP is associated with incident but not recurrent coronary events and that the presence of CHIP does not appear to identify patients who will derive greater benefit from commonly used CV therapies.

Effects of omega-3 fatty acids on coronary revascularization and cardiovascular events: a meta-analysis.

AIMS: Benefits of pharmacologic omega-3 fatty acid administration in cardiovascular prevention are controversial. Particularly, effects on coronary revascularization are unclear; also debated are specific benefits of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA). We investigated incident coronary revascularizations, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, heart failure (HF), unstable angina, and cardiovascular death, in subjects randomized to receive EPA or EPA + docosahexaenoic acid (EPA + DHA) vs. control. METHODS AND RESULTS: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted after MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library search. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis guidelines were followed for abstracting data and assessing data quality and validity. Data were pooled using a random effects model. Eighteen RCTs with 134 144 participants (primary and secondary cardiovascular prevention) receiving DHA + EPA (n = 52 498), EPA alone (n = 14 640), or control/placebo (n = 67 006) were included. Follow-up ranged from 4.5 months to 7.4 years. Overall, compared with controls, omega-3 supplementation reduced the risk of revascularization [0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84-0.98; P = 0.001; P-heterogeneity = 0.0002; I2 = 68%], MI (0.89, 95% CI 0.81-0.98; P = 0.02; P-heterogeneity = 0.06; I2 = 41%), and cardiovascular death (0.92, 95% CI 0.85-0.99; P = 0.02; P-heterogeneity = 0.13; I2 = 33%). Lower risk was still observed in trials where most participants (≥60%) were on statin therapy. Compared with DHA + EPA, EPA alone showed a further significant risk reduction of revascularizations (0.76, 95% CI 0.65-0.88; P = 0.0002; P-interaction = 0.005) and all outcomes except HF. CONCLUSION: Omega-3 fatty acid supplementation reduced the risk of cardiovascular events and coronary revascularization, regardless of background statin use. Eicosapentaenoic acid alone produced greater benefits. The role of specific omega-3 molecules in primary vs. secondary prevention and the potential benefits of reduced revascularizations on overall health status and cost savings warrant further research.

It is debated whether pharmacologic administration of omega-3 fatty acids reduces cardiac events. In particular, it is unclear whether benefits are actually restricted to the use of eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), or whether combined administration of EPA + docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) is needed; furthermore, little is known about possible benefits of omega-3 fatty acids in reducing incidence of coronary revascularization procedures. In this meta-analysis of all published evidence of clinical trials comparing EPA alone or EPA + DHA vs. control (134 144 participants), we demonstrate the following: In the overall analysis of all trials, omega-3 supplementation reduced the risk of myocardial infarction and cardiovascular death, to a modest extent. However, when trials administering EPA alone were separately analysed, a further significant risk reduction for cardiovascular outcomes was demonstrated. Importantly, these benefits were also observed in subjects who were already taking statins as part of their chronic therapy.Administration of omega-3 fatty acids, particularly EPA alone, was also associated with a substantial decrease in the risk for subsequent coronary revascularizations. Reduction of revascularization procedures may induce additional benefits on overall health status and associated cost savings.

Three-Year Outcomes With Fractional Flow Reserve-Guided or Angiography-Guided Multivessel Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: In patients with multivessel disease with successful primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction, the FLOWER-MI trial (Flow Evaluation to Guide Revascularization in Multivessel ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction) showed that a fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided strategy was not superior to an angiography-guided strategy for treatment of noninfarct-related artery lesions regarding the 1-year risk of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, or unplanned hospitalization leading to urgent revascularization. The extension phase of the trial was planned using the same primary outcome to determine whether a difference in outcomes would be observed with a longer follow-up. METHODS: In this multicenter trial, we randomly assigned patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease with successful percutaneous coronary intervention of the infarct-related artery to receive complete revascularization guided by either FFR (n=586) or angiography (n=577). RESULTS: After 3 years, a primary outcome event occurred in 52 of 498 patients (9.40%) in the FFR-guided group and in 44 of 502 patients (8.17%) in the angiography-guided group (hazard ratio, 1.19 [95% CI, 0.79-1.77]; P=0.4). Death occurred in 22 patients (4.00%) in the FFR-guided group and in 23 (4.32%) in the angiography-guided group (hazard ratio, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.53-1.71]); nonfatal myocardial infarction in 23 (4.13%) and 14 (2.56%), respectively (hazard ratio, 1.63 [95% CI, 0.84-3.16]); and unplanned hospitalization leading to urgent revascularization in 21 (3.83%) and 18 (3.36%; hazard ratio, 1.15 [95% CI, 0.61-2.16]), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Although event rates in the trial were lower than expected, in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing complete revascularization, an FFR-guided strategy did not have a significant benefit over an angiography-guided strategy with respect to the risk of death, myocardial infarction, or urgent revascularization up to 3 years. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02943954.

Rationale and design of the FRENch CoHort of myocardial Infarction Evaluation (FRENCHIE) study.

BACKGROUND: Despite major advances in prevention and treatment, cardiovascular diseases - particularly acute myocardial infarction - remain a leading cause of death worldwide and in France. Collecting contemporary data about the characteristics, management and outcomes of patients with acute myocardial infarction in France is important. AIMS: The main objectives are to describe baseline characteristics, contemporary management, in-hospital and long-term outcomes of patients with acute myocardial infarction hospitalized in tertiary care centres in France; secondary objectives are to investigate determinants of prognosis (including periodontal disease and sleep-disordered breathing), to identify gaps between evidence-based recommendations and management and to assess medical care costs for the index hospitalization and during the follow-up period. METHODS: FRENCHIE (FRENch CoHort of myocardial Infarction Evaluation) is an ongoing prospective multicentre observational study (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04050956) enrolling more than 19,000 patients hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction with onset of symptoms within 48hours in 35 participating centres in France since March 2019. Main exclusion criteria are age<18 years, lack of health coverage and procedure-related myocardial infarction (types 4a and 5). Detailed information was collected prospectively, starting at admission, including demographic data, risk factors, medical history and treatments, initial management, with prehospital care pathways and medication doses, and outcomes until hospital discharge. The follow-up period (up to 20 years for each patient) is ensured by linking with the French national health database (Système national des données de santé), and includes information on death, hospital admissions, major clinical events, healthcare consumption (including drug reimbursement) and total healthcare costs. FRENCHIE is also used as a platform for cohort-nested studies - currently three randomized trials and two observational studies. CONCLUSIONS: This nationwide large contemporary cohort with very long-term follow-up will improve knowledge about acute myocardial infarction management and outcomes in France, and provide a useful platform for nested studies and trials.

Comparison of Incidence and Prognostic Impact of Ischemic, Major Bleeding and Heart Failure Events in Patients With Chronic Coronary Syndrome: Insights From the CORONOR Registry.

BACKGROUND: Evaluation of the residual risk in patient with chronic coronary syndrome is challenging in daily practice. Several types of events (myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, bleeding, and heart failure [HF]) may occur, and their impact on subsequent mortality is unclear in the era of modern evidence-based pharmacotherapy. METHODS: CORONOR (Suivi d'une cohorte de patients Coronariens stables en région Nord-pas-de-Calais) is a prospective multicenter cohort that enrolled 4184 consecutive unselected outpatients with chronic coronary syndrome. We analyzed the incidence, correlates, and impact of ischemic events (a composite of myocardial infarction and ischemic stroke), major bleeding (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 3 or higher), and hospitalization for HF on subsequent patient mortality. RESULTS: During follow-up (median, 4.9 years), 677 patients (16.5%) died. The 5-year cumulative incidences (death as competing event) of ischemic events, major bleeding, and HF hospitalization were 6.3% (5.6%-7.1%), 3.1% (2.5%-3.6%), and 8.1% (7.3%-9%), respectively. Ischemic events, major bleeding, and HF hospitalization were each associated with all-cause mortality. Major bleeding and hospitalization for HF were associated with the highest mortality rates in the postevent period (42.4%/y and 34.7%/y, respectively) compared with incident ischemic events (13.1%/y). The age- and sex-adjusted hazard ratios for all-cause mortality were 3.57 (95% CI, 2.77-4.61), 9.88 (95% CI, 7.55-12.93), and 8.60 (95% CI, 7.15-10.35) for ischemic events, major bleeding, and hospitalization for HF, respectively (all P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Hospitalization for HF has become both the most frequent and one of the most ominous events among patients with chronic coronary syndrome. Although less frequent, major bleeding is strongly associated with worse patient survival. Secondary prevention should not be limited to preventing ischemic events. Minimizing bleeding and preventing HF may be at least as important.

Safety of the PCSK9 inhibitor alirocumab: insights from 47 296 patient-years of observation.

The ODYSSEY OUTCOMES trial, comprising over 47 000 patient-years of placebo-controlled observation, demonstrated important reductions in the risk of recurrent ischaemic cardiovascular events with the monoclonal antibody to proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 alirocumab, as well as lower all-cause death. These benefits were observed in the context of substantial and persistent lowering of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol with alirocumab compared with that achieved with placebo. The safety profile of alirocumab was indistinguishable from matching placebo except for a ∼1.7% absolute increase in local injection site reactions. Further, the safety of alirocumab compared with placebo was evident in vulnerable groups identified before randomization, such as the elderly and those with diabetes mellitus, previous ischaemic stroke, or chronic kidney disease. The frequency of adverse events and laboratory-based abnormalities was generally similar to that in placebo-treated patients. Thus, alirocumab appears to be a safe and effective lipid-modifying treatment over a duration of at least 5 years.

Left Ventricular Function, Congestion, and Effect of Empagliflozin on Heart Failure Risk After Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: Empagliflozin reduces the risk of heart failure (HF) hospitalizations but not all-cause mortality when started within 14 days of acute myocardial infarction (AMI). OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate the association of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), congestion, or both, with outcomes and the impact of empagliflozin in reducing HF risk post-AMI. METHODS: In the EMPACT-MI (Trial to Evaluate the Effect of Empagliflozin on Hospitalization for Heart Failure and Mortality in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction) trial, patients were randomized within 14 days of an AMI complicated by either newly reduced LVEF<45%, congestion, or both, to empagliflozin (10 mg daily) or placebo and were followed up for a median of 17.9 months. RESULTS: Among 6,522 patients, the mean baseline LVEF was 41 ± 9%; 2,648 patients (40.6%) presented with LVEF <45% alone, 1,483 (22.7%) presented with congestion alone, and 2,181 (33.4%) presented with both. Among patients in the placebo arm of the trial, multivariable adjusted risk for each 10-point reduction in LVEF included all-cause death or HF hospitalization (HR: 1.49; 95% CI: 1.31-1.69; P < 0.0001), first HF hospitalization (HR: 1.64; 95% CI: 1.37-1.96; P < 0.0001), and total HF hospitalizations (rate ratio [RR]: 1.89; 95% CI: 1.51-2.36; P < 0.0001). The presence of congestion was also associated with a significantly higher risk for each of these outcomes (HR: 1.52, 1.94, and RR: 2.03, respectively). Empagliflozin reduced the risk for first (HR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.60-0.98) and total (RR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.50-0.89) HF hospitalizations, irrespective of LVEF or congestion, or both. The safety profile of empagliflozin was consistent across baseline LVEF and irrespective of congestion status. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with AMI, the severity of left ventricular dysfunction and the presence of congestion was associated with worse outcomes. Empagliflozin reduced first and total HF hospitalizations across the range of LVEF with and without congestion. (Trial to Evaluate the Effect of Empagliflozin on Hospitalization for Heart Failure and Mortality in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction [EMPACT-MI]; NCT04509674).

Effect of Empagliflozin on Heart Failure Outcomes After Acute Myocardial Infarction: Insights From the EMPACT-MI Trial.

BACKGROUND: Empagliflozin reduces the risk of heart failure (HF) events in patients with type 2 diabetes at high cardiovascular risk, chronic kidney disease, or prevalent HF irrespective of ejection fraction. Whereas the EMPACT-MI trial (Effect of Empagliflozin on Hospitalization for Heart Failure and Mortality in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction) showed that empagliflozin does not reduce the risk of the composite of hospitalization for HF and all-cause death, the effect of empagliflozin on first and recurrent HF events after myocardial infarction is unknown. METHODS: EMPACT-MI was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, event-driven trial that randomized 6522 patients hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction at risk for HF on the basis of newly developed left ventricular ejection fraction of <45% or signs or symptoms of congestion to receive empagliflozin 10 mg daily or placebo within 14 days of admission. In prespecified secondary analyses, treatment groups were analyzed for HF outcomes. RESULTS: Over a median follow-up of 17.9 months, the risk for first HF hospitalization and total HF hospitalizations was significantly lower in the empagliflozin compared with the placebo group (118 [3.6%] versus 153 [4.7%] patients with events; hazard ratio, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.60, 0.98]; P=0.031, for first HF hospitalization; 148 versus 207 events; rate ratio, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.51, 0.89]; P=0.006, for total HF hospitalizations). Subgroup analysis showed consistency of empagliflozin benefit across clinically relevant patient subgroups for first and total HF hospitalizations. The need for new use of diuretics, renin-angiotensin modulators, or mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists after discharge was less in patients randomized to empagliflozin versus placebo (all P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Empagliflozin reduced the risk of HF in patients with left ventricular dysfunction or congestion after acute myocardial infarction. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04509674.

Prevalence of self-reported severe periodontitis: Data from the population-based CONSTANCES cohort.

AIM: To assess the prevalence of severe periodontitis based on the population-based CONSTANCES cohort using a validated self-reported questionnaire. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Individuals were selected from the adult population in France using a random sampling scheme. Analyses were restricted to those invited in 2013-2014 who completed the periodontal health questionnaire at the 2017 follow-up. The risk of severe periodontitis was assessed using the periodontal screening score (PESS) and weighting coefficients were applied to provide representative results in the general French population. RESULTS: The study included 19,859 participants (9204 men, mean age: 52.8 ± 12.6 years). Based on a PESS ≥ 5, 7106 participants were at risk of severe periodontitis, corresponding to a weighted prevalence of 31.6% (95% confidence interval: 30.6%-32.7%). This prevalence was higher among participants aged 55 and over, those with lower socio-economic status as well as current smokers, e-cigarette users and heavy drinkers. Among individuals at risk of severe periodontitis, only 18.8% (17.3%-20.4%) thought they had gum disease, although 50.5% (48.6%-52.5%) reported that their last dental visit was less than 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: The present survey indicates that (1) self-reported severe periodontitis is highly prevalent with marked disparities between groups in the general French adult population, and (2) periodontitis could frequently be under-diagnosed given the low awareness.

Ticagrelor with or without aspirin following percutaneous coronary intervention in high-risk patients with concomitant peripheral artery disease: A subgroup analysis of the TWILIGHT randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The optimal antiplatelet regimen after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) is still debated. This analysis aimed to compare the effect of ticagrelor monotherapy versus ticagrelor plus aspirin in patients with PAD undergoing PCI. METHODS: In the TWILIGHT trial, patients at high ischemic or bleeding risk that underwent PCI were randomized after 3 months of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) to aspirin or matching placebo in addition to open-label ticagrelor for 12 additional months. In this post-hoc analysis, patient cohorts were examined according to the presence or absence of PAD. The primary endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 2, 3, or 5 bleeding. The key secondary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke. Endpoints were assessed at 12 months after randomization. RESULTS: Among 7,119 patients, 489 (7%) had PAD and were older, more likely to have comorbidities, and multivessel disease. PAD patients had more bleeding or ischemic complications than no-PAD patients. Ticagrelor monotherapy compared to ticagrelor plus aspirin was associated with less BARC 2, 3, or 5 bleeding in PAD (4.6% vs 8.7%; HR 0.52; 95%CI 0.25-1.07) and no-PAD patients (4.0% vs 7.0%; HR 0.56; 95%CI 0.45-0.69; interaction P-value .830) and a similar risk of death, MI, or stroke in these 2 groups (interaction P-value .446). CONCLUSIONS: Despite their higher ischemic and bleeding risk, patients with PAD undergoing PCI derived a consistent benefit from ticagrelor monotherapy after 3 months of DAPT in terms of bleeding reduction without any relevant increase in ischemic events. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY INFORMATION:: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov/study/NCT02270242.

Restrictive vs Liberal Blood Transfusions for Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction and Anemia by Heart Failure Status: An RCT Subgroup Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Red blood cell transfusion can cause fluid overload. We evaluated the interaction between heart failure (HF) at baseline and transfusion strategy on outcomes in acute myocardial infarction (AMI). METHODS: We used data from the randomized REALITY trial. HF was defined as history of HF or Killip class > 1 at randomization. Primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE): composite of all-cause death, nonrecurrent AMI, stroke, or emergency revascularization prompted by ischemia at 30 days. RESULTS: Among 658 randomized patients, 311 (47.3%) had HF. Patients with HF had higher rates of MACE at 30 days and 1 year and higher rates of nonfatal new-onset HF. There was no interaction between HF and effect of randomized assignment on the primary outcome or nonfatal new-onset HF. A liberal transfusion strategy was associated with increased all-cause death at 30 days and at 1 year in patients with HF (Pinteraction = 0.009 and P = 0.049, respectively). The main numerical difference in cause of death between restrictive and liberal strategies was death by HF at 30 days (4 vs 11). CONCLUSIONS: HF is frequent in patients with AMI and anemia and is associated with higher risk of MACE (including all-cause death) and nonfatal new-onset HF. Although there was no interaction of HF with effect of transfusion strategy on MACE, a liberal transfusion strategy was associated with higher all-cause death that appears driven by a higher risk of early death caused by HF. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02648113.

Angiotensin Receptor-Neprilysin Inhibition in Patients With STEMI vs NSTEMI.

BACKGROUND: Patients who sustain an acute myocardial infarction (AMI), including ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), remain at high risk for heart failure (HF), coronary events, and death. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors have been shown to significantly decrease the risk for cardiovascular events in both STEMI and NSTEMI patients. OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to determine whether angiotensin-receptor blockade and neprilysin inhibition with sacubitril/valsartan, compared with ramipril, has impact on reducing cardiovascular events according to the type of AMI. METHODS: The PARADISE-MI (Prospective ARNI versus ACE inhibitor trial to DetermIne Superiority in reducing heart failure Events after Myocardial Infarction) trial enrolled patients with AMI complicated by left ventricular dysfunction and/or pulmonary congestion and at least 1 risk-enhancing factor. Patients were randomized to either sacubitril/valsartan or ramipril. The primary endpoint was death from cardiovascular causes or incident HF. In this prespecified analysis, we stratified patients according to AMI type. RESULTS: Of 5,661 enrolled patients, 4,291 (75.8%) had STEMI. These patients were younger and had fewer comorbidities and cardiovascular risk factors than NSTEMI patients. After adjustment for potential confounders, the risk for the primary outcome was marginally higher in NSTEMI vs STEMI patients (adjusted HR: 1.19; 95% CI: 1.00-1.41), with borderline statistical significance (P = 0.05). The primary composite outcome occurred at similar rates in patients randomized to sacubitril/valsartan vs ramipril in STEMI (10% vs 12%; HR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.73-1.04; P = 0.13) and NSTEMI patients (17% vs 17%; HR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.75-1.25; P = 0.80; P interaction = 0.53). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with ramipril, sacubitril/valsartan did not significantly decrease the risk for cardiovascular death and HF in patients with AMI complicated by left ventricular dysfunction, irrespective of the type of AMI. (Prospective ARNI vs ACE Inhibitor Trial to Determine Superiority in Reducing Heart Failure Events After MI; NCT02924727).

Impact of the 2021 European Society for Cardiology prevention guideline's stepwise approach for cardiovascular risk factor treatment in patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

AIMS: This study aimed to evaluate the stepwise approach for cardiovascular (CV) risk factor treatment as outlined by the European Society for Cardiology 2021 guidelines on CV disease (CVD) prevention in patients with established atherosclerotic CVD (ASCVD). METHODS AND RESULTS: In patients with ASCVD, included in UCC-SMART (n = 8730) and European parts of the REACH registry (n = 18 364), the 10-year CV risk was estimated using SMART2. Treatment effects were derived from meta-analyses and trials. Step 1 recommendations were LDL cholesterol (LDLc) < 1.8 mmol/L, systolic blood pressure (SBP) < 140 mmHg, using any antithrombotic medication, sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibition, and smoking cessation. Step 2 recommendations were LDLc < 1.4 mmol/L, SBP < 130 mmHg, dual-pathway inhibition (DPI, aspirin plus low-dose rivaroxaban), colchicine, glucagon-like peptide (GLP)-1 receptor agonists, and eicosapentaenoic acid. Step 2 was modelled accounting for Step 1 non-attainment. With current treatment, residual CV risk was 22%, 32%, and 60% in the low, moderate, and pooled (very) high European risk regions, respectively. Step 2 could prevent up to 198, 223 and 245 events per 1000 patients treated, respectively. Intensified LDLc reduction, colchicine, and DPI could be applied to most patients, preventing up to 57, 74, and 59 events per 1000 patients treated, respectively. Following Step 2, the number of patients with a CV risk of <10% could increase from 20%, 6.4%, and 0.5%, following Step 1, to 63%, 48%, and 12%, in the respective risk regions. CONCLUSION: With current treatment, residual CV risk in patients with ASCVD remains high across all European risk regions. The intensified Step 2 treatment options result in marked further reduction of residual CV risk in patients with established ASCVD. KEY FINDINGS: Guideline-recommended intensive treatment of patients with cardiovascular disease could prevent additional 198-245 new cardiovascular events for every 1000 patients treated.

Patients with established cardiovascular disease are at high risk for new cardiovascular events. The European Society of Cardiology guideline for the prevention of cardiovascular disease introduced a stepwise treatment approach. Step 1 in this approach are treatments that apply to all patients, and Step 2 are intensive treatments that can be prescribed to patients who are still at high risk of new events even with Step 1 treatments. The current study investigates the effect of Steps 1 and 2 on the risk of cardiovascular disease in 27 094 patients all across Europe. With the conventional treatments of Step 1 the risk of cardiovascular disease remains high, with a 10-year risk of new events higher than 10% in 80­99% of patients. The intensive treatment options from Step 2 could prevent additional 198­245 new cardiovascular events for every 1000 patients that are treated. With intensive treatment, up to 63% of patients could achieve a 10-year risk of new cardiovascular disease below 10%.