P2Y12 Inhibitor or Aspirin Monotherapy for Secondary Prevention of Coronary Events.

BACKGROUND: Aspirin is the only antiplatelet agent with a Class I recommendation for long-term prevention of cardiovascular events in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). There is inconsistent evidence on how it compares with alternative antiplatelet agents. OBJECTIVES: This study compared P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy vs aspirin in patients with CAD. METHODS: We conducted a patient-level meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy vs aspirin monotherapy for the prevention of cardiovascular events in patients with established CAD. The primary outcome was the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke. Prespecified key secondary outcomes were major bleeding and net adverse clinical events (the composite of the primary outcome and major bleeding). Data were pooled in a 1-step meta-analysis. RESULTS: Patient-level data were obtained from 7 trials. Overall, 24,325 participants were available for analysis, including 12,178 patients assigned to receive P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy (clopidogrel in 7,545 [62.0%], ticagrelor in 4,633 [38.0%]) and 12,147 assigned to receive aspirin. Risk of the primary outcome was lower with P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy compared with aspirin over 2 years (HR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.79-0.97; P = 0.012), mainly owing to less myocardial infarction (HR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.66-0.90; P < 0.001). Major bleeding was similar (HR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.70-1.09; P = 0.23) and net adverse clinical events were lower (HR: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.81-0.98; P = 0.020) with P2Y12 inhibitors. The treatment effect was consistent across prespecified subgroups and types of P2Y12 inhibitors. CONCLUSIONS: Given its superior efficacy and similar overall safety, P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy might be preferred over aspirin monotherapy for long-term secondary prevention in patients with established CAD. (P2Y12 Inhibitor or Aspirin Monotherapy as Secondary Prevention in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: An Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials [PANTHER collaborative initiative]; CRD42021290774).

Long-term outcomes in patients who received veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and renal replacement therapy: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a frequent complication in patients with severe respiratory failure receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). However, little is known of long-term kidney function in ECMO survivors. We aimed to assess the long-term mortality and kidney outcomes in adult patients treated with veno-venous ECMO (VV-ECMO). METHODS: This was a single-centre retrospective study of adult patients (≥ 18 years old) who were treated with VV-ECMO at a commissioned ECMO centre in the UK between 1st September 2010, and 30th November 2016. AKI was defined and staged using the serum creatinine and urine output criteria of the Kidney Diseases: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) classification. The primary outcome was 1-year mortality. Secondary outcomes were long-term mortality (up to March 2020), 1-year incidence of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) or chronic kidney disease (CKD) among AKI patients who received renal replacement therapy (AKI-RRT), AKI patients who did not receive RRT (AKI-no RRT) and patients without AKI (non-AKI). RESULTS: A total of 300 patients [57% male; median age 44.5; interquartile range (IQR) 34-54] were included in the final analysis. Past medical histories included diabetes (12%), hypertension (17%), and CKD (2.3%). The main cause of severe respiratory failure was pulmonary infection (72%). AKI occurred in 230 patients (76.7%) and 59.3% received renal replacement therapy (RRT). One-year mortality was 32% in AKI-RRT patients vs. 21.4% in non-AKI patients (p = 0.014). The median follow-up time was 4.35 years. Patients who received RRT had a higher risk of 1-year mortality than those who did not receive RRT (adjusted HR 1.80, 95% CI 1.06, 3.06; p = 0.029). ESKD occurred in 3 patients, all of whom were in the AKI-RRT group. At 1-year, 41.2% of survivors had serum creatinine results available. Among these, CKD was prevalent in 33.3% of AKI-RRT patients vs. 4.3% in non-AKI patients (p = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: VV-EMCO patients with AKI-RRT had high long-term mortality. Monitoring of kidney function after hospital discharge was poor. In patients with follow-up creatinine results available, the CKD prevalence was high at 1 year, especially in AKI-RRT patients. More awareness about this serious long-term complication and appropriate follow-up interventions are required.

Socioeconomic Deprivation: An Important, Largely Unrecognized Risk Factor in Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease.

BACKGROUND: Socioeconomic deprivation is associated with higher cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Whether deprivation status should be incorporated in more cardiovascular risk estimation scores remains unclear. This study evaluates how socioeconomic deprivation status affects the performance of 3 primary prevention cardiovascular risk scores. METHODS: The Generation Scotland Scottish Family Health Study was used to evaluate the performance of 3 cardiovascular risk scores with (ASSIGN [Assessing cardiovascular risk using SIGN (Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network) guidelines to ASSIGN preventive treatment]) and without (SCORE2 [Systematic Coronary Risk Evaluation 2 algorithm], Pooled Cohort Equations) socioeconomic deprivation as a covariate in the risk prediction model. Deprivation was defined by Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation score. The predicted 10-year risk was evaluated against the observed event rate for the cardiovascular outcome of each risk score. The comparison was made across 3 groups defined by the deprivation index score consisting of group 1 defined as most deprived, group 3 defined as least deprived, and group 2, which consisted of individuals in the middle deprivation categories. RESULTS: The study population consisted of 15 506 individuals (60.0% female, median age of 51). Across the population, 1808 (12%) individuals were assigned to group 1 (most deprived), 8119 (52%) to group 2, and 4708 (30%) to group 3 (least deprived), and 871 (6%) individuals had a missing deprivation score. Risk scores based on models that did not include deprivation status significantly under predicted risk in the most deprived (6.43% observed versus 4.63% predicted for SCORE2 [P=0.001] and 6.69% observed versus 4.66% predicted for Pooled Cohort Equations [P<0.001]). Both risk scores also significantly overpredicted the risk in the least deprived group (3.97% observed versus 4.72% predicted for SCORE2 [P=0.007] and 4.22% observed versus 4.85% predicted for Pooled Cohort Equations [P=0.028]). In contrast, no significant difference was demonstrated in the observed versus predicted risk when using the ASSIGN risk score, which included socioeconomic deprivation status in the risk model. CONCLUSIONS: Socioeconomic status is a largely unrecognized risk factor in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Risk scores that exclude socioeconomic deprivation as a covariate under- and overestimate the risk in the most and least deprived individuals, respectively. This study highlights the importance of incorporating socioeconomic deprivation status in risk estimation systems to ultimately reduce inequalities in health care provision for cardiovascular disease.

Covariate Adjustment in Cardiovascular Randomized Controlled Trials: Its Value, Current Practice, and Need for Improvement.

In randomized controlled trials, patient characteristics are expected to be well balanced between treatment groups; however, adjustment for characteristics that are prognostic can still be beneficial with a modest gain in statistical power. Nevertheless, previous reviews show that many trials use unadjusted analyses. In this article, we review current practice regarding covariate adjustment in cardiovascular trials among all 84 randomized controlled trials relating to cardiovascular disease published in the New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, and the Journal of the American Medical Association during 2019. We identify trials in which use of covariate adjustment led to a change in the trial conclusions. By using these trials as case studies, along with data from the CHARM trial and simulation studies, we demonstrate some of the potential benefits and pitfalls of covariate adjustment. We discuss some of the complexities of using covariate adjustment, including how many covariates to choose, how covariates should be modeled, how to handle missing data for baseline covariates, and how adjusted analyses are viewed by regulators. We conclude that contemporary cardiovascular trials do not make best use of covariate adjustment and that more frequent use could lead to improvements in the efficiency of future trials.

Acute kidney injury prevalence, progression and long-term outcomes in critically ill patients with COVID-19: a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data on acute kidney injury (AKI) progression and long-term outcomes in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19). We aimed to describe the prevalence and risk factors for development of AKI, its subsequent clinical course and AKI progression, as well as renal recovery or dialysis dependence and survival in this group of patients. METHODS: This was a retrospective observational study in an expanded tertiary care intensive care unit in London, United Kingdom. Critically ill patients admitted to ICU between 1st March 2020 and 31st July 2020 with confirmed SARS-COV2 infection were included. Analysis of baseline characteristics, organ support, COVID-19 associated therapies and their association with mortality and outcomes at 90 days was performed. RESULTS: Of 313 patients (70% male, mean age 54.5 ± 13.9 years), 240 (76.7%) developed AKI within 14 days after ICU admission: 63 (20.1%) stage 1, 41 (13.1%) stage 2, 136 (43.5%) stage 3. 113 (36.1%) patients presented with AKI on ICU admission. Progression to AKI stage 2/3 occurred in 36%. Risk factors for AKI progression were mechanical ventilation [HR (hazard ratio) 4.11; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.61-10.49] and positive fluid balance [HR 1.21 (95% CI 1.11-1.31)], while steroid therapy was associated with a reduction in AKI progression (HR 0.73 [95% CI 0.55-0.97]). Kidney replacement therapy (KRT) was initiated in 31.9%. AKI patients had a higher 90-day mortality than non-AKI patients (34% vs. 14%; p < 0.001). Dialysis dependence was 5% at hospital discharge and 4% at 90 days. Renal recovery was identified in 81.6% of survivors at discharge and in 90.9% at 90 days. At 3 months, 16% of all AKI survivors had chronic kidney disease (CKD); among those without renal recovery, the CKD incidence was 44%. CONCLUSIONS: During the first COVID-19 wave, AKI was highly prevalent among severely ill COVID-19 patients with a third progressing to severe AKI requiring KRT. The risk of developing CKD was high. This study identifies factors modifying AKI progression, including a potentially protective effect of steroid therapy. Recognition of risk factors and monitoring of renal function post-discharge might help guide future practice and follow-up management strategies. Trial registration NCT04445259.