Amiodarone or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator in chagas cardiomyopathy: the CHAGASICS randomized clinical trial

IMPORTANCE: Over 10 000 people with Chagas disease experience sudden cardiac death (SCD) annually, mostly caused by ventricular fibrillation. Amiodarone hydrochloride and the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) have been empirically used to prevent SCD in patients with chronic Chagas cardiomyopathy. OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that ICD is more effective than amiodarone therapy for primary prevention of all-cause mortality in patients with chronic Chagas cardiomyopathy and moderate to high mortality risk, assessed by the Rassi score. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: CHAGASICS is an open-label, randomized clinical trial. The study enrolled patients from 13 centers in Brazil from May 30, 2014, to August 13, 2021, with the last follow-up November 8, 2021. Patients with serological findings positive for Chagas disease, a Rassi risk score of at least 10 points (intermediate to high risk), and at least 1 episode of nonsustained ventricular tachycardia were eligible to participate. Data were analyzed from May 3, 2022, to June 16, 2023. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive ICD or amiodarone (with a loading dose of 600 mg after randomization). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, and secondary outcomes included SCD, hospitalization for heart failure, and necessity of a pacemaker during the entire follow-up. RESULTS: The study was stopped prematurely for administrative reasons, with 323 patients randomized (166 in the amiodarone group and 157 in the ICD group), rather than the intended 1100 patients. Analysis was by intention to treat at a median follow-up of 3.6 (IQR, 1.8-4.4) years. Mean (SD) age was 57.4 (9.8) years, 185 patients (57.3%) were male, and the mean (SD) left ventricular ejection fraction was 37.0% (11.6%). There were 60 deaths (38.2%) in the ICD arm and 64 (38.6%) in the amiodarone group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.86 [95% CI, 0.60-1.22]; P = .40). The rates of SCD (6 [3.8%] vs 23 [13.9%]; HR, 0.25 [95% CI, 0.10-0.61]; P = .001), bradycardia requiring pacing (3 [1.9%] vs 27 [16.3%]; HR, 0.10 [95% CI, 0.03-0.34]; P < .001), and heart failure hospitalization (14 [8.9%] vs 28 [16.9%]; HR, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.24-0.87]; P = .01) were lower in the ICD group compared with the amiodarone arm. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In patients with chronic Chagas cardiomyopathy at moderate to high risk of mortality, ICD did not reduce the risk of all-cause mortality. However, ICD significantly reduced the risk of SCD, pacing need, and heart failure hospitalization compared with amiodarone therapy. Further studies are warranted to confirm the evidence generated by this trial.

Long-term outcomes among stable post-acute myocardial infarction patients living in rural versus urban areas: insights from the prospective, observational TIGRIS registry.

BACKGROUND: Insights on the differences in clinical outcomes, quality of life (QoL) and health resource utilisation (HRU) with different levels of care available to post-acute myocardial infarction (AMI) populations in rural and urban settings are limited. METHODS: The long-Term rIsk, clinical manaGement, and healthcare Resource utilisation of stable coronary artery dISease (TIGRIS), a prospective, observational registry, enrolled 8452 patients aged ≥50 years 1-3 years post-AMI from June 2013 to November 2014 from 24 countries in Asia Pacific/Australia, Europe, North America and South America. Differences in QoL (measured using the EuroQol Research Foundation instrument) and HRU between patients in rural and urban settings were evaluated in this post hoc analysis. The incidence of clinical endpoints (cardiovascular (CV) death, AMI, unstable angina with urgent revascularisation and stroke; bleeding; and all-cause mortality) was analysed. Data were collected at baseline and every 6 months for 24 months. RESULTS: There were fewer hospitalisations and visits to general practitioners (GPs) and cardiologists in the rural versus urban populations (adjusted event rate ratio (ERR)=0.90 (95% CI, 0.82 to 1.00, p=0.04); ERR=0.84 (95% CI, 0.78 to 0.92, p<0.001); ERR=0.86 (95% CI, 0.81 to 0.92, p<0.001), respectively). No statistically significant differences were observed between rural and urban populations in all-cause death, AMI, unstable angina with urgent revascularisation, CV death, stroke, major bleeding events and health-related QoL. The adjusted incidence rate ratio was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.74 to 1.15) for the composite of CV death, AMI and stroke. CONCLUSIONS: Living in rural areas was associated with fewer GP/cardiologist visits and hospitalisations; no significant differences in clinical outcomes and QoL were observed. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01866904.

Diabetes association with self-reported health, resource utilization, and prognosis post-myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes mellitus (DM) is associated with increased cardiovascular (CV) risk. We compared health-related quality of life (HRQoL), healthcare resource utilization (HRU), and clinical outcomes of stable post-myocardial infarction (MI) patients with and without DM. HYPOTHESIS: In post-MI patients, DM is associated with worse HRQoL, increased HRU, and worse clinical outcomes. METHODS: The prospective, observational long-term risk, clinical management, and healthcare Resource utilization of stable coronary artery disease study obtained data from 8968 patients aged ≥50 years 1 to 3 years post-MI (369 centers; 25 countries). Patients with ≥1 of the following risk factors were included: age ≥65 years, history of a second MI >1 year before enrollment, multivessel coronary artery disease, creatinine clearance ≥15 and <60 mL/min, and DM treated with medication. Self-reported health status was assessed at baseline, 1 and 2 years and converted to EQ-5D scores. The main outcome measures were baseline HRQoL and HRU during follow-up. RESULTS: DM at enrollment was 33% (2959 patients, 869 insulin treated). Mean baseline EQ-5D score (0.86 vs 0.82; P < .0001) was higher; mean number of hospitalizations (0.38 vs 0.50, P < .0001) and mean length of stay (LoS; 9.3 vs 11.5; P = .001) were lower in patients without vs with DM. All-cause death and the composite of CV death, MI, and stroke were significantly higher in DM patients, with adjusted 2-year rate ratios of 1.43 (P < .01) and 1.55 (P < .001), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Stable post-MI patients with DM (especially insulin treated) had poorer EQ-5D scores, higher hospitalization rates and LoS, and worse clinical outcomes vs those without DM. Strategies focusing specifically on this high-risk population should be developed to improve outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01866904 (https://clinicaltrials.gov).

Biolimus-A9 polymer-free coated stent in high bleeding risk patients with acute coronary syndrome: a Leaders Free ACS sub-study

Aims Although a true clinical challenge, high bleeding risk patients with an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing per cutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have never been specifically studied. Leaders Free ACS, a pre-specified Leaders Free sub-study, determined efficacy, and safety of a combination of 1-month dual anti-platelet therapy (DAPT) with im plantation of either a polymer-free Biolimus-A9-coated stent (BA9-DCS) or a bare-metal stent (BMS) in these patients. Methods and results Leaders Free included 2466 patients undergoing PCI who had at least 1 of 13 pre-defined factors for an increased bleed ing risk. Of these, 659 ACS patients were included in this analysis (BA9-DCS 330, BMS 329). At 12-month follow-up, treatment with the BA9-DCS was more effective (clinically driven target-lesion revascularization 3.9 vs. 9.0%, P » 0.009) and safer (cumulative incidence of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or definite or probable stent thrombosis 9.3 vs. 18.5%, P » 0.001), driven by significantly lower rates of cardiac mortality (3.4 vs. 6.9%, P » 0.049) and myocardial infarction (6.9 vs. 13.8%, P » 0.005). Conclusion We believe that the results of this sub-analysis from the Leaders Free trial are likely to significantly impact clinical practice for high bleeding risk patients presenting with an ACS: the use of a BMS can, in our view, no longer be recommended, and, given the paucity of available data for second-generation DES with shortened DAPT in these patients, the BA9- DCS should currently be considered as the device with the strongest evidence to support its use for this indication.

Two-year outcomes of high bleeding risk patients after polymer-free drug-coated stents

BACKGROUND: A 1-year follow-up, polymer-free metallic stent coated with biolimus-A9 followed by 1-month dual antiplatelet therapy is safer and more effective than a bare-metal stent (BMS) for patients with high risk of bleeding. OBJECTIVES: This study analyzed 2-year outcomes to determine whether these benefits are maintained. METHODS: In a prospective, multicenter, double-blind trial, we randomized 2,466 high bleeding risk patients to receive a drug-coated stent (DCS) or a BMS followed by 1-month dual antiplatelet therapy. The primary safety endpoint was a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis. The primary efficacy endpoint was clinically driven target lesion revascularization. RESULTS:At 2 years, the primary safety endpoint had occurred in 147 DCS and 180 BMS patients (15.3%) (hazard ratio: 0.80; 95% confidence interval: 0.64 to 0.99; p = 0.039). Clinically driven target lesion revascularization occurred for 77 DCS and 136 BMS patients (12.0%) (hazard ratio: 0.54; 95% confidence interval: 0.41 to 0.72; p < 0.0001). Major bleeding occurred in 8.9% of DCS and 9.2% of BMS patients (p = 0.95), and a coronary thrombotic event (myocardial infarction and/or stent thrombosis) occurred in 8.2% of DCS and 10.6% of BMS patients (p = 0.045)...

Polymer-free drug-coated coronary stents in patients at high beeding Risk

BACKGROUND:Patients at high risk for bleeding who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) often receive bare-metal stents followed by 1 month of dual antiplatelet therapy. We studied a polymer-free and carrier-free drug-coated stent that transfers umirolimus (also known as biolimus A9), a highly lipophilic sirolimus analogue, into the vessel wall over a period of 1 month.METHODS:In a randomized, double-blind trial, we compared the drug-coated stent with a very similar bare-metal stent in patients with a high risk of bleeding who underwent PCI. All patients received 1 month of dual antiplatelet therapy. The primary safety end point, tested for both noninferiority and superiority, was a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis. The primary efficacy end point was clinically driven target-lesion revascularization.RESULTS:We enrolled 2466 patients. At 390 days, the primary safety end point had occurred in 112 patients (9.4%) in the drug-coated-stent group and in 154 patients (12.9%) in the bare-metal-stent group (risk difference, -3.6 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -6.1 to -1.0; hazard ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.91; P<0.001 for noninferiority and P=0.005 for superiority). During the same time period, clinically driven target-lesion revascularization was needed in 59 patients (5.1%) in the drug-coated-stent group and in 113 patients (9.8%) in the bare-metal-stent group (risk difference, -4.8 percentage points; 95% CI, -6.9 to -2.6; hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.69; P<0.001)...

Reporting of noninferiority and equivalence randomized trials: extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement.

The CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) Statement, which includes a checklist and a flow diagram, is a guideline developed to help authors improve the reporting of the findings from randomized controlled trials. It was updated most recently in 2010. Its primary focus is on individually randomized trials with 2 parallel groups that assess the possible superiority of one treatment compared with another. The CONSORT Statement has been extended to other trial designs such as cluster randomization, and recommendations for noninferiority and equivalence trials were made in 2006. In this article, we present an updated extension of the CONSORT checklist for reporting noninferiority and equivalence trials, based on the 2010 version of the CONSORT Statement and the 2008 CONSORT Statement for the reporting of abstracts, and provide illustrative examples and explanations for those items that differ from the main 2010 CONSORT checklist. The intent is to improve reporting of noninferiority and equivalence trials, enabling readers to assess the reliability of their results and conclusions.

El fortalecimiento de la publicación de los estudios observacionales en epidemiología (STROBE, por su sigla en inglés): declaración: guías para publicar estudios observacionales / The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE): statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies

Una cantidad importante de la investigación biomédica es de naturaleza observacional. La comunicación de este tipo de investigación es, muchas veces, inadecuada, lo que perjudica la evaluación de sus fortalezas y debilidades así como también la posibilidad de generalizar los resultados de sus estudios. La iniciativa Fortalecimiento de la Publicación de los Estudios Observacionales en Epidemiología (STROBE, por su sigla en inglés) elaboró recomendaciones acerca de lo que debería incluirse en la presentación de un estudio observacional para que este fuese preciso y completo. Decidimos limitar el alcance de las recomendaciones a tres grandes modalidades de estudios: cohorte, caso y control y de corte transversal. Organizamos un taller de dos días en septiembre de 2004 con metodólogos, investigadores y editores de revistas para elaborar una lista de temas. Esta lista fue revisada posteriormente en varias reuniones del grupo de coordinación y en las conversaciones por correo electrónico con el grupo más grande de participantes de STROBE, teniendo en cuenta la evidencia empírica y consideraciones metodológicas. El taller y el posterior proceso iterativo de consulta y revisión desembocaron en una lista de 22 ítems (la Declaración STROBE) relacionados con el título, la introducción, el resumen, los métodos, los resultados y la discusión de los artículos. Dieciocho de los ítems son comunes a los tres diseños de estudio y cuatro de los 22 son específicos para los estudios de cohorte, caso y control o de corte transversal. El documento titulado Una Explicación Detallada y Elaborada (A detailed Explanation and Elaboration) se publica por separado y está disponible gratuitamente en los sitios web de PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine y Epidemiology. Esperamos que la Declaración de STROBE contribuya a mejorar la calidad de las publicaciones de los estudios observacionales.(AU)

El fortalecimiento de la publicación de los estudios observacionales en epidemiología (STROBE, por su sigla en inglés): declaración: guías para publicar estudios observacionales / The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE): statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies

Una cantidad importante de la investigación biomédica es de naturaleza observacional. La comunicación de este tipo de investigación es, muchas veces, inadecuada, lo que perjudica la evaluación de sus fortalezas y debilidades así como también la posibilidad de generalizar los resultados de sus estudios. La iniciativa Fortalecimiento de la Publicación de los Estudios Observacionales en Epidemiología (STROBE, por su sigla en inglés) elaboró recomendaciones acerca de lo que debería incluirse en la presentación de un estudio observacional para que este fuese preciso y completo. Decidimos limitar el alcance de las recomendaciones a tres grandes modalidades de estudios: cohorte, caso y control y de corte transversal. Organizamos un taller de dos días en septiembre de 2004 con metodólogos, investigadores y editores de revistas para elaborar una lista de temas. Esta lista fue revisada posteriormente en varias reuniones del grupo de coordinación y en las conversaciones por correo electrónico con el grupo más grande de participantes de STROBE, teniendo en cuenta la evidencia empírica y consideraciones metodológicas. El taller y el posterior proceso iterativo de consulta y revisión desembocaron en una lista de 22 ítems (la Declaración STROBE) relacionados con el título, la introducción, el resumen, los métodos, los resultados y la discusión de los artículos. Dieciocho de los ítems son comunes a los tres diseños de estudio y cuatro de los 22 son específicos para los estudios de cohorte, caso y control o de corte transversal. El documento titulado Una Explicación Detallada y Elaborada (A detailed Explanation and Elaboration) se publica por separado y está disponible gratuitamente en los sitios web de PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine y Epidemiology. Esperamos que la Declaración de STROBE contribuya a mejorar la calidad de las publicaciones de los estudios observacionales.