Invasive vs. conservative management of older patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome: individual patient data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Older patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTEACS) are less likely to receive guideline-recommended care including coronary angiography and revascularization. Evidence-based recommendations regarding interventional management strategies in this patient cohort are scarce. This meta-analysis aimed to assess the impact of routine invasive vs. conservative management of NSTEACS by using individual patient data (IPD) from all available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including older patients. METHODS: MEDLINE, Web of Science and Scopus were searched between 1 January 2010 and 11 September 2023. RCTs investigating routine invasive and conservative strategies in persons >70 years old with NSTEACS were included. Observational studies or trials involving populations outside the target range were excluded. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality and myocardial infarction (MI) at 1 year. One-stage IPD meta-analyses were adopted by use of random-effects and fixed-effect Cox models. This meta-analysis is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023379819). RESULTS: Six eligible studies were identified including 1479 participants. The primary endpoint occurred in 181 of 736 (24.5%) participants in the invasive management group compared with 215 of 743 (28.9%) participants in the conservative management group with a hazard ratio (HR) from random-effects model of 0.87 (95% CI 0.63-1.22; P = .43). The hazard for MI at 1 year was significantly lower in the invasive group compared with the conservative group (HR from random-effects model 0.62, 95% CI 0.44-0.87; P = .006). Similar results were seen for urgent revascularization (HR from random-effects model 0.41, 95% CI 0.18-0.95; P = .037). There was no significant difference in mortality. CONCLUSIONS: No evidence was found that routine invasive treatment for NSTEACS in older patients reduces the risk of a composite of all-cause mortality and MI within 1 year compared with conservative management. However, there is convincing evidence that invasive treatment significantly lowers the risk of repeat MI or urgent revascularisation. Further evidence is needed from ongoing larger clinical trials.

The Net Clinical Outcome of Dual-Pathway Inhibition in Clinical Practice: The "Xarelto plus Acetylsalicylic Acid: Treatment Patterns and Outcomes in Patients with Atherosclerosis" Registry.

Background: In the COMPASS trial, the combination of acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) plus 2.5 mg rivaroxaban twice daily (dual-pathway inhibition, DPI) has been shown to be superior to ASA monotherapy for the reduction in ischemic major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs, i.e., cardiovascular death, stroke, or myocardial infarction). Methods: The international XATOA registry (Xarelto plus Acetylsalicylic acid: Treatment patterns and Outcomes in patients with Atherosclerosis) is a prospective post-approval registry that investigates the cardiovascular outcomes of patients taking ASA plus 2.5 mg rivaroxaban. The aim of this pre-specified analysis was to determine the net clinical outcome (NCO), i.e., a combination of MACEs and bleeding events, of DPI in patients from daily clinical practice. Results: Among the 5615 patients, the presence of multiple risk factors resulted in an increase in the total risk of experiencing an NCO event, e.g., from 1.27% (one risk factor) to 2.18% (two risk factors) and 4.07% (three or more risk factors), respectively, with ischemic MACE representing the primary driver of bleeding complications. Conclusions: In the real-world XATOA registry, the annual rate of NCO events was low and numerically similar to those seen in the treatment group in the randomized COMPASS trial.

Anticoagulation with osocimab in patients with kidney failure undergoing hemodialysis: a randomized phase 2 trial.

Individuals with kidney failure undergoing hemodialysis are at elevated risk for thromboembolic events. Factor (F) XI, which is in the intrinsic pathway of coagulation, is emerging as an attractive target for new anticoagulants that may be safer than existing agents. Osocimab-an inhibitory FXIa antibody-is a potential treatment option for such patients. We conducted a phase 2b, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, in which 704 participants (448 male, 256 female) with kidney failure undergoing hemodialysis were randomized to receive lower- or higher-dose osocimab or placebo. In total, 686 participants (436 male, 250 female) received treatment for ≤18 months (planned minimal treatment period of 6 months). The co-primary outcomes were clinically relevant bleeding (a composite of major and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding) and a composite of the incidence of moderate, severe or serious adverse events. Clinically relevant bleeding occurred in 16/232 (6.9%) and 11/224 (4.9%) participants who received lower- and higher-dose osocimab, respectively, and in 18/230 participants (7.8%) who received a placebo. For the composite adverse event endpoint, incidences were 51%, 47% and 43% in the lower-dose osocimab, higher-dose osocimab and placebo groups, respectively. These results suggest that osocimab is associated with a low risk of bleeding and is generally well tolerated in this population; findings that require confirmation in larger trials. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT04523220 .

Identifying the highest risk vascular patients: Insights from the XATOA registry.

BACKGROUND: Patients with coronary and peripheral artery disease (PAD) have a residual risk of major adverse cardiovascular and limb events despite standards of care. Among patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and/or PAD selected for low dose rivaroxaban (2.5 mg BID) and aspirin, we sought to determine the highest risk vascular patients. METHODS: Xarelto pluc Acetylsalicylic acid: Treatment patterns and Outcomes in patients with Atherosclerosis (XATOA) is a single-arm registry of CAD and/or PAD patients. All participants were initiated on low dose rivaroxaban (2.5 mg BID) and aspirin. We report the incidence risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) or major adverse limb events (MALE) and major bleeding. A classification and regression tree analysis determined independent subgroups. RESULTS: Between November 2018 and May 2020, 5,808 participants were enrolled in XATOA; 5,532 were included in the full analysis. The median follow-up (interquartile range) was 462 (371-577) days. The incidence risk per 100 patient-years of MACE or MALE was highest among participants with polyvascular disease (2 or more vascular beds affected, n = 2,889). The incidence risk was 9.16 versus 2.48 per 100 patient-years in polyvascular and nonpolyvascular patients respectively. Other subgroups of high-risk patients included participants 75 years or older, with a history of diabetes, heart failure, or chronic renal insufficiency (CRI). Rates of major bleeding were low overall. A classification and regression tree analysis showed that polyvascular disease was the most dominant factor separating higher from lower risk participants, and this was heightened with CRI or diabetes. CONCLUSION: Patients with polyvascular disease represent a substantial subset of patients in clinical practice and should be prioritized to receive maximal medical therapy including low dose rivaroxaban (2.5 mg BID) and aspirin.

Antithrombotic therapy in patients with acute coronary syndrome: similarities and differences between a European expert consensus document and the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines.

Antithrombotic therapy represents the cornerstone of the pharmacological treatment in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). The optimal combination and duration of antithrombotic therapy is still matter of debate requiring a critical assessment of patient comorbidities, clinical presentation, revascularization modality, and/or optimization of medical treatment. The 2023 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines for the management of patients with ACS encompassing both patients with and without ST segment elevation ACS have been recently published. Shortly before, a European expert consensus task force produced guidance for clinicians on the management of antithrombotic therapy in patients with ACS as well as chronic coronary syndrome. The scope of this manuscript is to provide a critical appraisal of differences and similarities between the European consensus paper and the latest ESC recommendations on oral antithrombotic regimens in ACS patients.

Country and health expenditure are major predictors of withholding anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation patients at high risk of stroke.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) at high thromboembolic risk recommend oral anticoagulants (OACs) for preventing stroke and systemic embolism (SE). The reasons for guideline non-adherence are still unclear. AIM: The aim is to identify clinical, demographic and non-patient characteristics associated with withholding OAC in patients with AF at high stroke risk. METHODS: Patients in the Global Anticoagulant Registry in the FIELD-AF, newly diagnosed with AF between March 2010 and August 2016, and with CHA2DS2-VASc Score≥2 (excluding sex), were grouped by OAC treatment at enrolment. Factors associated with OAC non-use were analysed by multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 40 416 eligible patients, 12 126 (30.0%) did not receive OACs at baseline. Globally, OAC prescription increased over time, from 60.4% in 2010-2011 to 74.7% in 2015-2016. Country of enrolment was the major predictor for OAC withholding (χ2-df=2576). Clinical predictors of OAC non-use included type of AF (χ2-df=404), history of bleeding (χ2-df=263) and vascular disease (χ2-df=99). OACs were used most frequently around the age of 75 years and decreasingly with younger as well as older age beyond 75 years (χ2-df=148). Non-cardiologists (χ2-df=201) and emergency room physicians (χ2-df=14) were less likely to prescribe OACs. OAC prescription correlated positively with country health expenditure. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately one out of three AF patients did not receive OAC, while eligible according to the guidelines. Country of enrolment was the major determinant of anticoagulation strategy, while higher country health expenditure was associated with lower likelihood of withholding anticoagulation.

Outcomes of Oral Anticoagulation in Atrial Fibrillation Patients With or Without Comorbid Vascular Disease: Insights From the GARFIELD-AF Registry.

BACKGROUND: Many patients with atrial fibrillation suffer from comorbid vascular disease. The comparative efficacy and safety of different types of oral anticoagulation (OAC) in this patient group have not been widely studied. METHODS: Adults with newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation were recruited into the prospective observational registry, GARFIELD-AF, and followed for 24 months. Associations of vascular disease with clinical outcomes were analyzed using adjusted hazard ratios (HR) obtained via Cox proportional-hazard modeling. Outcomes of OAC vs no OAC, and of non-vitamin K antagonist OAC (NOAC) vs vitamin K antagonist (VKA) treatment, were compared by overlap propensity-weighted Cox proportional-hazard models. RESULTS: Of 51,574 atrial fibrillation patients, 25.9% had vascular disease. Among eligible atrial fibrillation patients, those with vascular disease received OAC less frequently than those without (63% vs 73%). Over 2-year follow-up, patients with vascular disease showed a higher risk of all-cause mortality (HR 1.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16-1.47) and cardiovascular mortality (HR 1.59; 95% CI, 1.28-1.97). OAC was associated with a significant decrease in all-cause mortality and non-hemorrhagic stroke, and increased risk of major bleeding in non-vascular disease. In vascular disease, similar but non-significant trends existed for stroke and major bleeding. A significantly lower risk of all-cause mortality (HR 0.74; 95% CI, 0.61-0.90) and major bleeding (HR 0.45; 95% CI, 0.29-0.70) was observed in vascular disease patients treated with NOACs, compared with VKAs. CONCLUSIONS: Atrial fibrillation patients with a history of vascular disease have worse long-term outcomes than those without. The association of NOACs vs VKA with clinical outcomes was more evident in atrial fibrillation patients with vascular disease.

Predictors of intracranial hemorrhage in patients with atrial fibrillation treated with oral anticoagulants: Insights from the GARFIELD-AF and ORBIT-AF registries.

BACKGROUND: An unmet need exists to reliably predict the risk of intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) treated with oral anticoagulants (OACs). HYPOTHESIS: An externally validated model improves ICH risk stratification. METHODS: Independent factors associated with ICH were identified by Cox proportional hazard modeling, using pooled data from the GARFIELD-AF (Global Anticoagulant Registry in the FIELD-Atrial Fibrillation) and ORBIT-AF (Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation) registries. A predictive model was developed and validated by bootstrap sampling and by independent data from the Danish National Patient Register. RESULTS: In the combined training data set, 284 of 53 878 anticoagulated patients had ICH over a 2-year period (0.31 per 100 person-years; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.28-0.35). Independent predictors of ICH included: older age, prior stroke or transient ischemic attack, concomitant antiplatelet (AP) use, and moderate-to-severe chronic kidney disease (CKD). Vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) were associated with a significantly higher risk of ICH compared with non-VKA oral anticoagulants (NOACs) (adjusted hazard ratio: 1.61; 95% CI: 1.25-2.08; p = .0002). The ability of the model to discriminate individuals in the training set with and without ICH was fair (optimism-corrected C-statistic: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.65-0.71) and outperformed three previously published methods. Calibration between predicted and observed ICH probabilities was good in both training and validation data sets. CONCLUSIONS: Age, prior ischemic events, concomitant AP therapy, and CKD were important risk factors for ICH in anticoagulated AF patients. Moreover, ICH was more frequent in patients receiving VKA compared to NOAC. The new validated model is a step toward mitigating this potentially lethal complication.

Oral anticoagulation across diabetic subtypes in patients with newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation: A report from the GARFIELD-AF registry.

AIMS: This study aims to describe both management and prognosis of patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) and newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation (AF), overall as well as by antidiabetic treatment, and to assess the influence of oral anticoagulation (OAC) on outcomes by DM status. METHODS: The study population comprised 52 010 newly diagnosed patients with AF, 11 542 DM and 40 468 non-DM, enrolled in the GARFIELD-AF registry. Follow-up was truncated at 2 years after enrolment. Comparative effectiveness of OAC versus no OAC was assessed by DM status using a propensity score overlap weighting scheme and weights were applied to Cox models. RESULTS: Patients with DM [39.3% oral antidiabetic drug (OAD), 13.4% insulin ± OAD, 47.2% on no antidiabetic drug] had higher risk profile, OAC use, and rates of clinical outcomes compared with patients without DM. OAC use was associated in patients without DM and patients with DM with lower risk of all-cause mortality [hazard ratio 0.75 (0.69-0.83), 0.74 (0.64-0.86), respectively] and stroke/systemic embolism (SE) [0.69 (0.58-0.83), 0.70 (0.53-0.93), respectively]. The risk of major bleeding with OAC was similarly increased in patients without DM and those with DM [1.40 (1.14-1.71), 1.37 (0.99-1.89), respectively]. Patients with insulin-requiring DM had a higher risk of all-cause mortality and stroke/SE [1.91 (1.63-2.24)], [1.57 (1.06-2.35), respectively] compared with patients without DM, and experienced significant risk reductions of all-cause mortality and stroke/SE with OAC [0.73 (0.53-0.99); 0.50 (0.26-0.97), respectively]. CONCLUSIONS: In both patients with DM and patients without DM with AF, OAC was associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality and stroke/SE. Patients with insulin-requiring DM derived significant benefit from OAC.

Guideline-directed medical therapies for comorbidities among patients with atrial fibrillation: results from GARFIELD-AF.

Aims: This study aimed to identify relationships in recently diagnosed atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with respect to anticoagulation status, use of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) for comorbid cardiovascular conditions (co-GDMT), and clinical outcomes. The Global Anticoagulant Registry in the FIELD (GARFIELD)-AF is a prospective, international registry of patients with recently diagnosed non-valvular AF at risk of stroke (NCT01090362). Methods and results: Guideline-directed medical therapy was defined according to the European Society of Cardiology guidelines. This study explored co-GDMT use in patients enrolled in GARFIELD-AF (March 2013-August 2016) with CHA2DS2-VASc ≥ 2 (excluding sex) and ≥1 of five comorbidities-coronary artery disease, diabetes mellitus, heart failure, hypertension, and peripheral vascular disease (n = 23 165). Association between co-GDMT and outcome events was evaluated with Cox proportional hazards models, with stratification by all possible combinations of the five comorbidities. Most patients (73.8%) received oral anticoagulants (OACs) as recommended; 15.0% received no recommended co-GDMT, 40.4% received some, and 44.5% received all co-GDMT. At 2 years, comprehensive co-GDMT was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality [hazard ratio (HR) 0.89 (0.81-0.99)] and non-cardiovascular mortality [HR 0.85 (0.73-0.99)] compared with inadequate/no GDMT, but cardiovascular mortality was not significantly reduced. Treatment with OACs was beneficial for all-cause mortality and non-cardiovascular mortality, irrespective of co-GDMT use; only in patients receiving all co-GDMT was OAC associated with a lower risk of non-haemorrhagic stroke/systemic embolism. Conclusion: In this large prospective, international registry on AF, comprehensive co-GDMT was associated with a lower risk of mortality in patients with AF and CHA2DS2-VASc ≥ 2 (excluding sex); OAC therapy was associated with reduced all-cause mortality and non-cardiovascular mortality, irrespective of co-GDMT use. Clinical Trial Registration: Clinical Trial Registration-URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01090362.

Determinants and clinical outcomes of patients who refused anticoagulation: findings from the global GARFIELD-AF registry.

OBJECTIVE: There is a substantial incidence of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) not receiving anticoagulation. The reasons for not receiving anticoagulation are generally attributed to clinician's choice, however, a proportion of AF patients refuse anticoagulation. The aim of our study was to investigate factors associated with patient refusal of anticoagulation and the clinical outcomes in these patients. METHODS: Our study population comprised patients in the Global Anticoagulant Registry in the FIELD (GARFIELD-AF) registry with CHA2DS2-VASc≥2. A logistic regression was developed with predictors of patient anticoagulation refusal identified by least absolute shrinkage and selection operator methodology. Patient demographics, medical and cardiovascular history, lifestyle factors, vital signs (body mass index, pulse, systolic and diastolic blood pressure), type of AF and care setting at diagnosis were considered as potential predictors. We also investigated 2-year outcomes of non-haemorrhagic stroke/systemic embolism (SE), major bleeding and all-cause mortality in patients who refused versus patients who received and patients who did not receive anticoagulation for other reasons. RESULTS: Out of 43 154 AF patients, who were at high risk of stroke, 13 283 (30.8%) did not receive anticoagulation at baseline. The reason for not receiving anticoagulation was unavailable for 38.7% (5146/13 283); of the patients with a known reason for not receiving anticoagulation, 12.5% (1014/8137) refused anticoagulation. Diagnosis in primary care/general practitioner, Asian ethnicity and presence of vascular disease were strongly associated with a higher risk of patient refusal of anticoagulation. Patient refusal of anticoagulation was associated with a higher risk of non-haemorrhagic stroke/SE (adjusted HR (aHR) 1.16 (95% CI 0.77 to 1.76)) but lower all-cause mortality (aHR 0.59 (95% CI 0.43 to 0.80)) compared with patients who received anticoagulation. The GARFIELD-AF mortality score corroborated this result. CONCLUSION: The data suggest patient refusal of anticoagulation is a missed opportunity to prevent AF-related stroke. Further research is required to understand the patient profile and mortality outcome of patients who refuse anticoagulation.

Direct Oral Anticoagulants Versus Warfarin Across the Spectrum of Kidney Function: Patient-Level Network Meta-Analyses From COMBINE AF.

BACKGROUND: There is uncertainty surrounding the use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in patients with kidney dysfunction. METHODS: Using the COMBINE AF (A Collaboration Between Multiple Institutions to Better Investigate Non-Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulant Use in Atrial Fibrillation) database (data from RE-LY [Randomized Evaluation of Long-term Anticoagulation Therapy], ROCKET AF [Rivaroxaban Once Daily Oral Direct Factor Xa Inhibition Compared With Vitamin K Antagonism for Prevention of Stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fibrillation], ARISTOTLE [Apixaban for Reduction in Stroke and Other Thromboembolic Events in Atrial Fibrillation], and ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 [Effective Anticoagulation With Factor Xa Next Generation in Atrial Fibrillation-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 48]), we performed an individual patient-level network meta-analysis to evaluate the safety and efficacy of DOACs versus warfarin across continuous creatinine clearance (CrCl). A multivariable Cox model including treatment-by-CrCl interaction with random effects was fitted to estimate hazard ratios for paired treatment strategies (standard-dose DOAC, lower-dose DOAC, and warfarin). Outcomes included stroke and systemic embolism (S/SE), major bleeding, intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), and death. RESULTS: Among 71 683 patients (mean age, 70.6±9.4 years; 37.3% female; median follow-up, 23.1 months), the mean CrCl was 75.5±30.5 mL/min. The incidence of S/SE, major bleeding, ICH, and death increased significantly with worsening kidney function. Across continuous CrCl values down to 25 mL/min, the hazard of major bleeding did not change for patients randomized to standard-dose DOACs compared with those randomized to warfarin (Pinteraction=0.61). Compared with warfarin, standard-dose DOAC use resulted in a significantly lower hazard of ICH at CrCl values <122 mL/min, with a trend for increased safety with DOAC as CrCl decreased (6.2% decrease in hazard ratio per 10-mL/min decrease in CrCl; Pinteraction=0.08). Compared with warfarin, standard-dose DOAC use resulted in a significantly lower hazard of S/SE with CrCl <87 mL/min, with a significant treatment-by-CrCl effect (4.8% decrease in hazard ratio per 10-mL/min decrease in CrCl; Pinteraction=0.01). The hazard of death was significantly lower with standard-dose DOACs for patients with CrCl <77 mL/min, with a trend toward increasing benefit with lower CrCl (2.1% decrease in hazard ratio per 10-mL/min decrease in CrCl; Pinteraction=0.08). Use of lower-dose rather than standard-dose DOACs was not associated with a significant difference in incident bleeding or ICH in patients with reduced kidney function but was associated with a higher incidence4 of death and S/SE. CONCLUSIONS: Standard-dose DOACs are safer and more effective than warfarin down to a CrCl of at least 25 mL/min. Lower-dose DOACs do not significantly lower the incidence of bleeding or ICH compared with standard-dose DOACs but are associated with a higher incidence of S/SE and death. These findings support the use of standard-dose DOACs over warfarin in patients with kidney dysfunction.

Antithrombotic treatment strategies in patients with established coronary atherosclerotic disease.

Multiple guidelines and consensus papers have addressed the role of antithrombotic strategies in patients with established coronary artery disease (CAD). Since evidence and terminology continue to evolve, the authors undertook a consensus initiative to guide clinicians to select the optimal antithrombotic regimen for each patient. The aim of this document is to provide an update for clinicians on best antithrombotic strategies in patients with established CAD, classifying each treatment option in relation to the number of antithrombotic drugs irrespective of whether the traditional mechanism of action is expected to mainly inhibit platelets or coagulation cascade. With the aim to reach comprehensiveness of available evidence, we systematically reviewed and performed meta-analyses by means of both direct and indirect comparisons to inform the present consensus document.

Healthcare Resource Utilization in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Atrial Fibrillation: A Global Analysis from the GARFIELD-AF Registry.

The management of atrial fibrillation (AF), the most common sustained arrhythmia, impacts healthcare resource utilization (HCRU). This study aims to estimate global resource use in AF patients, using the GARFIELD-AF registry. A prospective cohort study was conducted to characterize HCRU in AF patients enrolled in sequential cohorts from 2012 to 2016 in 35 countries. Components of HCRU studied were hospital admissions, outpatient care visits, and diagnostic and interventional procedures occurring during follow-up. AF-related HCRU was reported as the percentage of patients demonstrating at least one event and was quantified as rate-per-patient-per-year (PPPY) over time. A total of 49,574 patients was analyzed, having an overall median follow-up of 719 days. Almost all patients (99.5%) had at least one outpatient care visit, while hospital admissions were the second most frequent medical contact, with similar proportions in North America (37.5%) and Europe (37.2%), and slightly higher in the other GARFIELD-AF countries (42.0%; namely Australia, Egypt, and South Africa). Asia and Latin America showed lower percentages of hospitalizations, outpatient care visits, and diagnostic and interventional procedures. Analyses of GARFIELD-AF highlighted the vast AF-related HCRU, underlying significant geographical differences in the type, quantity, and frequency of AF-related HCRU. These differences were likely attributable to health service availability and differing models of care.

Within and beyond 12-month efficacy and safety of antithrombotic strategies in patients with established coronary artery disease: two companion network meta-analyses of the 2022 joint clinical consensus statement of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI), European Association for Acute CardioVascular Care (ACVC), and European Association of Preventive Cardiology (EAPC).

AIMS: To appraise all available antithrombotic treatments within or after 12 months following coronary revascularization and/or acute coronary syndrome in two network meta-analyses. METHODS AND RESULTS: Forty-three (N = 189 261 patients) trials within 12 months and 19 (N = 139 086 patients) trials beyond 12 months were included for efficacy/safety endpoints appraisal. Within 12 months, ticagrelor 90 mg bis in die (b.i.d.) [hazard ratio (HR), 0.66; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.49-0.88], aspirin and ticagrelor 90 mg (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.76-0.95), or aspirin, clopidogrel and rivaroxaban 2.5 mg b.i.d. (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.51-0.86) were the only treatments associated with lower cardiovascular mortality, compared with aspirin and clopidogrel, without or with greater bleeding risk for the first and the other treatment options, respectively. Beyond 12 months, no strategy lowered mortality; compared with aspirin; the greatest reductions of myocardial infarction (MI) were found with aspirin and clopidogrel (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.55-0.85) or P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy (HR, 0.76; 95% CI: 0.61-0.95), especially ticagrelor 90 mg (HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.32-0.92), and of stroke with VKA (HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.44-0.76) or aspirin and rivaroxaban 2.5 mg (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.44-0.76). All treatments increased bleeding except P2Y12 monotherapy, compared with aspirin. CONCLUSION: Within 12 months, ticagrelor 90 mg monotherapy was the only treatment associated with lower mortality, without bleeding risk trade-off compared with aspirin and clopidogrel. Beyond 12 months, P2Y12 monotherapy, especially ticagrelor 90 mg, was associated with lower MI without bleeding trade-off; aspirin and rivaroxaban 2.5 mg most effectively reduced stroke, with a more acceptable bleeding risk than VKA, compared with aspirin.Registration URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/; Unique identifiers: CRD42021243985 and CRD42021252398.

Comparison of Investigator-Reported vs Centrally Adjudicated Major Adverse Cardiac Events: A Secondary Analysis of the COMPASS Trial.

Importance: In the Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) trial, there was a significant reduction in the adjudicated primary outcome among patients with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease randomized to dual pathway inhibition (rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily plus aspirin 100 mg daily) vs aspirin monotherapy, but not with rivaroxaban 5 mg twice daily vs aspirin monotherapy. Whether the results are similar without adjudication is unknown. Objective: To examine the impact of dual pathway inhibition (with rivaroxaban plus aspirin) or rivaroxaban monotherapy compared with aspirin monotherapy on investigator-reported CV events and to understand the extent of concordance between investigator-reported and centrally adjudicated clinical events. Design, Setting, and Participants: This is a secondary analysis of the COMPASS trial, an international, double-blind, double-dummy, randomized clinical trial with a 3-by-2 partial factorial design that evaluated participants with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease receiving rivaroxaban plus aspirin, rivaroxaban monotherapy, or aspirin monotherapy. End points were collected by blinded site investigators and adjudicated by a blinded clinical end point committee. Data were analyzed from March 2013 through February 2017. Interventions: Participants received dual inhibition pathway (2.5 mg rivaroxaban twice daily plus 100 mg aspirin once daily), rivaroxaban monotherapy (5 mg twice daily), or aspirin monotherapy (100 mg once daily). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death, stroke, or myocardial infarction (MI). Adjudicated and investigator-reported end points were compared. Results: A total of 27 395 patients (mean [SD] age, 68.2 [7.9] years; 78.0% men) were assessed, including 9152 patients randomized to dual pathway inhibition, 9117 patients randomized to rivaroxaban monotherapy, and 9126 patients randomized to aspirin monotherapy. Adjudication reduced the number of events by 10% to 15% for most end points. Among investigator-reported end points, dual pathway inhibition significantly reduced the rate of the primary efficacy outcome compared with aspirin alone (411 patients [4.5%] vs 542 patients [5.9%]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.75 [95% CI, 0.66-0.85]; P < .001), with similar reduction in adjudicated end points, (379 patients [4.1%] vs 496 patients [5.4%]; HR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.66-0.86]; P < .001). Likewise, effects on ischemic end points were highly concordant (κ statistic = 0.94 [95% CI, 0.93-0.95] for the primary composite end point). Unlike with adjudicated outcomes, there was a significant reduction in the primary end point with rivaroxaban monotherapy vs aspirin monotherapy using investigator-reported events (477 patients [5.2%] vs 542 patients [5.9%]; HR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.78-0.99]; P = .04) compared with adjudicated events (448 patients [4.9%] vs 496 patients [5.4%]; HR, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.79-1.03]; P = .12). Conclusions and Relevance: This secondary analysis of the COMPASS trial found that whether assessed by blinded site investigators or adjudicators, dual pathway inhibition significantly reduced CV events among patients with stable atherosclerotic disease compared with aspirin plus placebo. These findings suggest that using investigator-reported events in blinded clinical trials may be a more efficient alternative to adjudication. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01776424.

Sex-specific evaluation and redevelopment of the GRACE score in non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes in populations from the UK and Switzerland: a multinational analysis with external cohort validation.

BACKGROUND: The Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) 2.0 score was developed and validated in predominantly male patient populations. We aimed to assess its sex-specific performance in non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACS) and to develop an improved score (GRACE 3.0) that accounts for sex differences in disease characteristics. METHODS: We evaluated the GRACE 2.0 score in 420 781 consecutive patients with NSTE-ACS in contemporary nationwide cohorts from the UK and Switzerland. Machine learning models to predict in-hospital mortality were informed by the GRACE variables and developed in sex-disaggregated data from 386 591 patients from England, Wales, and Northern Ireland (split into a training cohort of 309 083 [80·0%] patients and a validation cohort of 77 508 [20·0%] patients). External validation of the GRACE 3.0 score was done in 20 727 patients from Switzerland. FINDINGS: Between Jan 1, 2005, and Aug 27, 2020, 400 054 patients with NSTE-ACS in the UK and 20 727 patients with NSTE-ACS in Switzerland were included in the study. Discrimination of in-hospital death by the GRACE 2.0 score was good in male patients (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC] 0·86, 95% CI 0·86-0·86) and notably lower in female patients (0·82, 95% CI 0·81-0·82; p<0·0001). The GRACE 2.0 score underestimated in-hospital mortality risk in female patients, favouring their incorrect stratification to the low-to-intermediate risk group, for which the score does not indicate early invasive treatment. Accounting for sex differences, GRACE 3.0 showed superior discrimination and good calibration with an AUC of 0·91 (95% CI 0·89-0·92) in male patients and 0·87 (95% CI 0·84-0·89) in female patients in an external cohort validation. GRACE 3·0 led to a clinically relevant reclassification of female patients to the high-risk group. INTERPRETATION: The GRACE 2.0 score has limited discriminatory performance and underestimates in-hospital mortality in female patients with NSTE-ACS. The GRACE 3.0 score performs better in men and women and reduces sex inequalities in risk stratification. FUNDING: Swiss National Science Foundation, Swiss Heart Foundation, Lindenhof Foundation, Foundation for Cardiovascular Research, and Theodor-Ida-Herzog-Egli Foundation.

Comparison of the modified Singapore myocardial infarction registry risk score with GRACE 2.0 in predicting 1-year acute myocardial infarction outcomes.

Risk stratification plays a key role in identifying acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients at higher risk of mortality. However, current AMI risk scores such as the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) score were derived from predominantly Caucasian populations and may not be applicable to Asian populations. We previously developed an AMI risk score from the national-level Singapore Myocardial Infarction Registry (SMIR) confined to ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients and did not include non-STEMI (NSTEMI) patients. Here, we derived a modified SMIR risk score for both STEMI and NSTEMI patients and compared its performance to the GRACE 2.0 score for predicting 1-year all-cause mortality in our multi-ethnic population. The most significant predictor of 1-year all-cause mortality in our population using the GRACE 2.0 score was cardiopulmonary resuscitation on admission (adjusted hazards ratio [HR] 6.50), while the most significant predictor using the SMIR score was age 80-89 years (adjusted HR 7.78). Although the variables used in the GRACE 2.0 score and SMIR score were not exactly the same, the c-statistics for 1-year all-cause mortality were similar between the two scores (GRACE 2.0 0.841 and SMIR 0.865). In conclusion, we have shown that in a multi-ethnic Asian AMI population undergoing PCI, the SMIR score performed as well as the GRACE 2.0 score.

Rivaroxaban and aspirin vs. aspirin alone in Asian compared with non-Asian patients with chronic coronary artery disease or peripheral arterial disease: the COMPASS trial.

AIMS: It is unknown whether Asian and non-Asian patients with atherosclerotic vascular disease derive similar benefits from long-term antithrombotic therapy. METHODS AND RESULTS: In patients with chronic coronary artery disease (CAD) and/or peripheral artery disease (PAD) enrolled in The Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies trial, the effects of rivaroxaban 2.5 mg b.i.d. plus aspirin 100 mg o.d. were compared with those of aspirin 100 mg o.d. in Asian vs. non-Asian patients (race was self-identified). Asians (n = 4269) vs. non-Asians (n = 23 126) had similar rates of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) (4.85% vs. 4.83%, P = 0.30) and modified International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH) major bleeding (2.72% vs. 2.58%, P = 0.22), but higher rates of intracranial haemorrhage (ICH) (0.63% vs. 0.29%, P = 0.01) and minor bleeding (13.61% vs. 6.49%, P < 0.001). In Asians vs. non-Asians, the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin compared with aspirin alone produced consistent reductions in MACE [Asians: hazard ratio (HR): 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.45-0.90; non-Asians: HR: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.67-0.90; P(heterogeneity) = 0.29], increases in modified ISTH major bleeding (Asians: HR 2.24, 95% CI: 1.40-3.58; non-Asians: HR: 1.60, 95% CI: 1.30-1.97; P = 0.20), and net clinical outcome (Asians: HR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.56-1.05; non-Asians: HR: 0.81, 95% CI: 0.70-0.93, P = 0.78), but borderline higher rates of ICH (Asians: HR: 3.50, 95% CI: 0.98-12.56; non-Asians: HR: 0.81, 95% CI: 0.43, 1.53; P = 0.04). CONCLUSION: Asian compared with non-Asian patients with chronic CAD and/or PAD have higher rates of ICH and minor bleeding. The combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin vs. aspirin alone produces similar effects for MACE, modified ISTH major bleeding, and net clinical outcome but may be associated with higher rates of ICH in Asian patients.