Impacto de la anticoagulación en los pacientes con demencia y fibrilación auricular. Resultados del registro CardioCHUVI-FA / Impact of anticoagulation in patients with dementia and atrial fibrillation. Results of the CardioCHUVI-FA registry

INTRODUCCIÓN Y OBJETIVOS: El envejecimiento de la población se asocia con una prevalencia creciente de fibrilación auricular (FA) y demencia. Con este estudio se pretende analizar el impacto de la anticoagulación oral en pacientes ancianos con FA y demencia de grado moderado-grave. MÉTODOS: Estudio retrospectivo unicéntrico que analiza a pacientes de edad ≥ 85 años con diagnóstico de FA entre 2013 y 2018. El impacto de la anticoagulación en la mortalidad, las embolias y las hemorragias se evaluó mediante un análisis multivariado de Cox. En los pacientes con demencia, dicho análisis se complementó con un propensity score matching en función de que se les prescribiera tratamiento anticoagulante o no. RESULTADOS: De los 3.549 pacientes de 85 o más años con FA, 221 presentaban demencia de grado moderado-grave (6,1%), de los que 88 (60,2%) fueron anticoagulados. Durante un seguimiento de 2,8 ±1,7 años, la anticoagulación se asoció con menor riesgo embólico y mayor riesgo hemorrágico tanto en pacientes con demencia (HRembolias=0,36; IC95%, 0,15-0,84; HRhemorragias=2,44; IC95%, 1,04-5,71) como sin demencia (HRembolias=0,58; IC95%, 0,45-0,74; HRhemorragias=1,55; IC95%, 1,21-1,98). Sin embargo, la anticoagulación únicamente se asoció con menor mortalidad en los pacientes sin demencia (HR=0,63; IC95%, 0,53-0,75), no en pacientes con demencia (HR ajustada=1,04; IC95%, 0,63-1,72; p = 0,541; HR después de propensity score matching=0,91; IC95%, 0,45-1,83; p = 0,785). CONCLUSIONES: En pacientes de 85 o más años con demencia moderada-grave y FA, la anticoagulación oral se asoció de manera significativa con menor riesgo de embolias y mayor riesgo hemorrágico, sin encontrarse diferencias en cuanto a mortalidad total

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Population aging is associated with an increased prevalence of atrial fibrillation (AF) and dementia. This study aimed to analyze the impact of oral anticoagulation in elderly patients with AF and moderate-severe dementia. METHODS: We conducted a single-center retrospective study analyzing patients aged ≥ 85 years with a diagnosis of AF between 2013 and 2018. The impact of anticoagulation on mortality, embolisms, and bleeding events was assessed by multivariate Cox analysis. In patients with dementia, this analysis was complemented by propensity score matching, depending on whether the patients were prescribed anticoagulant treatment or not. RESULTS: Of the 3549 patients aged ≥ 85 years with AF, 221 had moderate-severe dementia (6.1%), of whom 88 (60.2%) were anticoagulated. During a follow-up of 2.8 ±1.7 years, anticoagulation was associated with lower embolic risk and higher bleeding risk both in patients with dementia (hazard ratio [HR]embolisms, 0.36; 95%CI, 0,15-0.84; HRbleeding, 2.44; 95%CI, 1.04-5.71) and in those without dementia (HRembolisms, 5.58; 95%CI, 0.45-0.74; HRbleeding, 1.55, 95%CI, 1.21-1.98). However, anticoagulation was associated with lower mortality only in patients without dementia (HR, 0.63; 95%CI, 0.53-0.75) and not in those with dementia (adjusted HR, 1.04; 95%CI, 0.63-1.72; P=.541; HR after propensity score matching 0.91, 95%CI, 0.45-1.83; P=.785). CONCLUSIONS: In patients aged ≥ 85 years with moderate-severe dementia and AF, oral anticoagulation was significantly associated with a lower embolic risk and a higher bleeding risk, with no differences in total mortality

Comparative external validation of the PRECISE-DAPT and PARIS risk scores in 4424 acute coronary syndrome patients treated with prasugrel or ticagrelor.

BACKGROUND: The PRECISE-DAPT and PARIS risk scores (RSs) were recently developed to help clinicians at individualizing the optimal dual antiplatelet therapy duration (DAPT) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Nevertheless, external validation of these RSs it has not yet been performed in ACS (acute coronary syndrome) patients treated with prasugrel or ticagrelor in a real- world scenario. METHODS: 4424 ACS patients who underwent PCI and survived to hospital discharge, from January 2012 to December 2016 at 12 European centers, were included. PRECISE-DAPT and PARIS bleeding RS, as well as PARIS ischemic RS, were computed, and their performance at predicting major bleeding (MB; BARC type 3 or 5) and ischemic events (MI and stent thrombosis) during follow up was compared. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 14 (interquartile range 12-20.9) months, 83 (1.88%) patients developed MB and 133 (3.0%) suffered an ischemic episode. PRECISE-DAPT performed better than PARIS bleeding RS (c-statistic = 0.653 vs. 0.593; p = .01 for comparison) in predicting MB. The RSs performance for MB prediction remained consistent in STEMI patients (c-statistic = 0.632 vs 0.575) or in those treated with prasugrel (c-statistic = 0.623 vs 0.586). PARIS ischemic RS exhibited superior discrimination in predicting ischemic complications compared to PRECISE-DAPT (c-statistic = 0.604 vs 0.568 p = .05 for comparison). CONCLUSION: Our data provide support to the use of PRECISE-DAPT in MB risk stratification for patients receiving DAPT in form of aspirin and prasugrel or ticagrelor whereas the PARIS ischemic RS has potential to complement the risk prediction with respect to ischemic events.

Prevención primaria de muerte súbita en pacientes con miocardiopatía valvular / Primary prevention of sudden death in patients with valvular cardiomyopathy

Introducción y objetivos: Existe escasa evidencia sobre la evolución de los pacientes con miocardiopatía valvular remitidos para implante de desfibrilador por prevención primaria. Se pretende describir la evolución de este subgrupo particular. Métodos: Estudio multicéntrico retrospectivo en 15 centros españoles que incluyó pacientes consecutivos remitidos para implante de desfibrilador en los años 2010 y 2011, y en tres centros desde el 1 enero de 2008. Resultados: De un total de 1.174 pacientes, 73 (6,2%) presentaron miocardiopatía valvular. Comparados con los pacientes con miocardiopatía isquémica (n = 659; 56,1%) o dilatada (n = 442; 37,6%), presentaron peor clase funcional, mayor anchura del QRS y antecedente de fibrilación auricular. Durante un seguimiento de 38,1 ± 21,3 meses, 197 (16,7%) pacientes fallecieron por cualquier causa, sin diferencias significativas entre grupos (19,2% en miocardiopatía valvular, 15,8% en isquémica y 17,9% en miocardiopatía dilatada; p = 0,2). De estos, 136 murieron por causa cardiovascular (11,6%), sin diferencias significativas (12,3%; 10,5% y 13,1%, respectivamente; p = 0,1). Tampoco hubo diferencias en la proporción de intervenciones apropiadas del desfibrilador (13,7%; 17,9% y 18,8%; p = 0,4), pero sí en el de inapropiadas (8,2%; 7,1% y 12,0%, respectivamente; p = 0,03). Conclusiones: Las tasas de mortalidad por cualquier causa y por causa cardiovascular en pacientes con miocardiopatía valvular fueron similares a las del resto de los pacientes remitidos para implante de desfibrilador. También presentaron similares tasas de intervenciones apropiadas. Estos datos parecen indicar que el implante de un desfibrilador en este grupo confiere un beneficio similar al que obtienen los pacientes con miocardiopatía isquémica y miocardiopatía dilatada (AU)

Introduction and objectives: Few data exist on the outcomes of valvular cardiomyopathy patients referred for defibrillator implantation for primary prevention. The aim of the present study was to describe the outcomes of this cardiomyopathy subgroup. Methods: This multicenter retrospective study included consecutive patients referred for defibrillator implantation to 15 Spanish centers in 2010 and 2011, and to 3 centers after 1 January 2008. Results: Of 1174 patients, 73 (6.2%) had valvular cardiomyopathy. These patients had worse functional class, wider QRS, and a history of atrial fibrillation vs patients with ischemic (n = 659; 56.1%) or dilated (n = 442; 37.6%) cardiomyopathy. During a follow-up of 38.1 ± 21.3 months, 197 patients (16.7%) died, without significant differences among the groups (19.2% in the valvular cardiomyopathy group, 15.8% in the ischemic cardiomyopathy group, and 17.9% in the dilated cardiomyopathy group; P = .2); 136 died of cardiovascular causes (11.6%), without significant differences among the groups (12.3%, 10.5%, and 13.1%, respectively; P = .1). Although there were no differences in the proportion of appropriate defibrillator interventions (13.7%, 17.9%, and 18.8%; P = .4), there was a difference in inappropriate interventions (8.2%, 7.1%, and 12.0%, respectively; P = .03). Conclusions: All-cause and cardiovascular mortality in patients with valvular cardiomyopathy were similar to those in other patients referred for defibrillator implantation. They also had similar rates of appropriate interventions. These data suggest that defibrillator implantation in this patient group confers a similar benefit to that obtained by patients with ischemic or dilated cardiomyopathy (AU)

Primary Prevention of Sudden Death in Patients With Valvular Cardiomyopathy.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Few data exist on the outcomes of valvular cardiomyopathy patients referred for defibrillator implantation for primary prevention. The aim of the present study was to describe the outcomes of this cardiomyopathy subgroup. METHODS: This multicenter retrospective study included consecutive patients referred for defibrillator implantation to 15 Spanish centers in 2010 and 2011, and to 3 centers after 1 January 2008. RESULTS: Of 1174 patients, 73 (6.2%) had valvular cardiomyopathy. These patients had worse functional class, wider QRS, and a history of atrial fibrillation vs patients with ischemic (n=659; 56.1%) or dilated (n=442; 37.6%) cardiomyopathy. During a follow-up of 38.1 ± 21.3 months, 197 patients (16.7%) died, without significant differences among the groups (19.2% in the valvular cardiomyopathy group, 15.8% in the ischemic cardiomyopathy group, and 17.9% in the dilated cardiomyopathy group; P=.2); 136 died of cardiovascular causes (11.6%), without significant differences among the groups (12.3%, 10.5%, and 13.1%, respectively; P=.1). Although there were no differences in the proportion of appropriate defibrillator interventions (13.7%, 17.9%, and 18.8%; P=.4), there was a difference in inappropriate interventions (8.2%, 7.1%, and 12.0%, respectively; P=.03). CONCLUSIONS: All-cause and cardiovascular mortality in patients with valvular cardiomyopathy were similar to those in other patients referred for defibrillator implantation. They also had similar rates of appropriate interventions. These data suggest that defibrillator implantation in this patient group confers a similar benefit to that obtained by patients with ischemic or dilated cardiomyopathy.