Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 554
Filtrar
1.
Am Heart J ; 2022 May 12.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35569564

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) often coexist. We investigated the prognostic impact of biomarkers on the development of HF and death in patients with AF and different left ventricular systolic function considering the influence of competing events. METHODS: The study included 11,818 patients with AF from the ARISTOTLE trial who at entry had information on history of HF, an estimate of left ventricular function and plasma samples for determination of biomarkers representing cardiorenal dysfunction (NT-proBNP, troponin T, cystatin C) and inflammation (GDF-15, IL-6, CRP). Patients were categorized into: (I) HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF, n=2,048), (II) HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF, n=2,520), and (III) No HF (n=7,250). Biomarker associations with HF hospitalization and death were analyzed using a multi-state model accounting also for repeated events. RESULTS: Baseline levels of NT-proBNP, troponin T, cystatin C, GDF-15, IL-6, and CRP were highest in HFrEF and lowest in No HF. During median 1.9 years follow-up, 546 patients were hospitalized at least once for HF and 819 died. Higher levels of all investigated biomarkers were associated with both outcomes (all p<0.0001), with highest event rates in HFrEF and lowest in No HF. The associations remained after adjustments and were more pronounced for first than for recurrent events. CONCLUSIONS: In anticoagulated patients with AF, biomarkers indicating cardiorenal dysfunction and inflammation improve the identification of patients at risk of developing HF or worsening of already existing HF. These biomarkers might be useful for targeting novel HF therapies in patients with AF.

3.
Am Heart J ; 2022 May 06.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35533724

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Morphine is commonly used to relieve pain, anxiety and dyspnea in STEMI but it lowers blood pressure and delays the activity of oral antiplatelet agents. The impact of morphine on clinical outcomes remains unknown. This analysis was performed to determine if morphine use was associated with increased risk of adverse clinical events among STEMI patients treated with fibrinolytic therapy and clopidogrel or ticagrelor. METHODS: In the Ticagrelor in Patients With ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction Treated With Pharmacological Thrombolysis (TREAT) study, 3,799 STEMI patients treated with fibrinolysis were randomized to receive clopidogrel or ticagrelor. Morphine use was left to the discretion of the treating physicians. In this pre-specified analysis, we evaluated clinical outcomes based on the use and timing of morphine administration. Outcomes were stratified by randomized treatment group. Multivariable analysis was performed using Inverse Probability Treatment Weighting (IPTW) weighting. RESULTS: Morphine was used in 53% of patients. After adjustment using IPTW weighting, morphine use was associated with higher hazard of reinfarction at 7 days (HR 4.9, p=0.0006) and 30 days (HR 1.7, p=0.04), and lower hazard of major bleeding (HR 0.37, p=0.006). There was no significant difference in mortality at any time point. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with STEMI treated with fibrinolytic therapy, morphine use was associated with a higher risk of early reinfarction and a lower risk of major bleeding but no difference in mortality. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02298088.

4.
Curr Probl Cardiol ; : 101199, 2022 Apr 08.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35405161

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Recent studies focusing on the prevalence, characteristics, and outcomes of primary heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) in non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) are sparse. We sought to assess these using a nationally-representative population. METHODS: We used the 2016-2018 National Inpatient Sample database to study the prevalence, characteristics, clinical risk profiles, morbidity, mortality, cost, and resource utilization among primary HFpEF and HFrEF hospitalizations with and without NAFLD. RESULTS: In the period from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2018, there were 3,522,459 admissions of patients aged ≥18 years with a diagnosis of primary HF. Of these, 82,585 (2.3%) hospitalizations had secondary diagnosis of NAFLD. Admissions with NAFLD and HFrEF were associated with higher rates of in-hospital mortality (aOR 1.84, CI 1.66-2.04, p<0.001) compared to admissions of HFrEF without NAFLD. Similarly, hospitalizations with HFpEF-NAFLD were associated with higher rates of in hospital mortality (aOR 1.65 CI 1.43-1.9, p<0.001) compared to HFpEF admissions without NAFLD. Pressors use, cardiogenic shock, AKI with or without dialysis use, cardiac arrest, LOS and hospitalization cost were higher in admissions of HFrEF and HFpEF with NAFLD compared to those without NAFLD. CONCLUSIONS: In-hospital mortality, was higher in primary HFrEF and HFpEF admissions with NAFLD compared to without NAFLD. Physicians must be aware of the worse clinical outcomes of HFrEF and HFpEF in patients with NAFLD. Further clinical research is needed to address the knowledge gap and treatment options available for the patients with HF and NAFLD.

5.
Am Heart J ; 2022 Apr 08.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35405099

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: We explored the effect of discontinuing versus continuing angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) on clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19 according to baseline disease severity. METHODS: We randomized 659 patients with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 and classified them as having mild or moderate COVID-19 disease severity at hospital presentation using blood oxygen saturation and lung imaging. The primary outcome was the mean ratio of number of days alive and out of the hospital at 30 days according to disease severity. RESULTS: At presentation, 376 patients (57.1%) had mild and 283 (42.9%) had moderate COVID-19. In patients with mild disease, there was no significant difference in the number of days alive and out of the hospital between ACEI/ARB discontinuation (mean 23.5 [SD 6.3] days) and continuation (mean 23.8 [SD 6.5] days), with a mean ratio of 0.98 (95% CI 0.92-1.04). However, in patients with moderate disease, there were fewer days alive and out of the hospital with ACEI/ARB discontinuation (mean 19.6 [SD 9.5] days) than continuation (mean 21.6 [SD 7.6] days), with a mean ratio of 0.90 (95% CI 0.81-1.00; p-interaction=0.01). The impact of discontinuing versus continuing ACEIs/ARBs on days alive and out of hospital through 30 days differed according to baseline COVID-19 disease severity. CONCLUSIONS: Unlike patients with mild disease, patients with moderate disease who continued ACEIs/ARBs had more days alive and out of hospital through 30 days than those who discontinued ACEIs/ARBs. This suggests that ACEIs/ARBs should be continued for patients with moderate COVID-19 disease severity. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04364893).

6.
JAMA Intern Med ; 2022 Apr 04.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35377393

RESUMO

Importance: Daprodustat, a hypoxia-inducible factor prolyl hydroxylase inhibitor, is being evaluated as an oral alternative to conventional erythropoiesis-stimulating agent (ESA) therapy. Few studies of anemia treatment in an incident dialysis (ID) population have been reported. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of daprodustat vs darbepoetin alfa in treating anemia of chronic kidney disease in ID patients. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective, randomized, open-label clinical trial was conducted from May 11, 2017, through September 24, 2020, in 90 centers across 14 countries. Patients with advanced CKD were eligible if they planned to start dialysis within 6 weeks from screening or had started and received hemodialysis (HD) or peritoneal dialysis (PD) within 90 days before randomization, had a screening hemoglobin (Hb) concentration of 8.0 to 10.5 g/dL (to convert to grams per liter, multiply by 10) and a randomization Hb of 8.0 to 11.0 g/dL, were ESA-naive or had received limited ESA treatment, and were iron-replete. Interventions: Randomized 1:1 to daprodustat or darbepoetin alfa. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary analysis in the intent-to-treat population evaluated the mean change in Hb concentration from baseline to evaluation period (weeks 28-52) to assess noninferiority of daprodustat vs darbepoetin alfa (noninferiority margin, -0.75 g/dL). The mean monthly intravenous (IV) iron dose from baseline to week 52 was the principal secondary end point. Rates of treatment-emergent and serious adverse events (AEs) were also compared between treatment groups to assess safety and tolerability. Results: A total of 312 patients (median [IQR] age, 55 [45-65] years; 194 [62%] male) were randomized to either daprodustat (157 patients; median [IQR] age, 52.0 [45-63] years; 96 [61%] male) or darbepoetin alfa (155 patients; median [IQR] age, 56.0 [45-67] years; 98 [63%] male); 306 patients (98%) completed the trial. The mean (SD) Hb concentration during the evaluation period was 10.5 (1.0) g/dL for the daprodustat and 10.6 (0.9) g/dL for the darbepoetin alfa group, with an adjusted mean treatment difference of -0.10 g/dL (95% CI, -0.34 to 0.14 g/dL), indicating noninferiority. There was a reduction in mean monthly IV iron use from baseline to week 52 in both treatment groups; however, daprodustat was not superior compared with darbepoetin alfa in reducing monthly IV iron use (adjusted mean treatment difference, 19.4 mg [95% CI, -11.0 to 49.9 mg]). Adverse event rates were 76% for daprodustat vs 72% for darbepoetin alfa. Conclusions and Relevance: This randomized clinical trial found that daprodustat was noninferior to darbepoetin alfa in treating anemia of CKD and may represent a potential oral alternative to a conventional ESA in the ID population. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03029208.

7.
Lancet Reg Health Am ; 11: 100243, 2022 Jul.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35378952

RESUMO

Background: Previous Randomised controlled trials (RCT) evaluating chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine in non-hospitalised COVID-19 patients have found no significant difference in hospitalisation rates. However, low statistical power precluded definitive answers. Methods: We conducted a multicenter, double-blind, RCT in 56 Brazilian sites. Adults with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 presenting with mild or moderate symptoms with ≤ 07 days prior to enrollment and at least one risk factor for clinical deterioration were randomised (1:1) to receive hydroxychloroquine 400 mg twice a day (BID) in the first day, 400 mg once daily (OD) thereafter for a total of seven days, or matching placebo. The primary outcome was hospitalisation due to COVID-19 at 30 days, which was assessed by an adjudication committee masked to treatment allocation and following the intention-to-treat (ITT) principle. An additional analysis was performed only in participants with SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed by molecular or serology testing (modified ITT [mITT] analysis). This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04466540. Findings: From May 12, 2020 to July 07, 2021, 1372 patients were randomly allocated to hydroxychloroquine or placebo. There was no significant difference in the risk of hospitalisation between hydroxychloroquine and placebo groups (44/689 [6·4%] and 57/683 [8·3%], RR 0·77 [95% CI 0·52-1·12], respectively, p=0·16), and similar results were found in the mITT analysis with 43/478 [9·0%] and 55/471 [11·7%] events, RR 0·77 [95% CI 0·53-1·12)], respectively, p=0·17. To further complement our data, we conducted a meta-analysis which suggested no significant benefit of hydroxychloroquine in reducing hospitalisation among patients with positive testing (69/1222 [5·6%], and 88/1186 [7·4%]; RR 0·77 [95% CI 0·57-1·04]). Interpretation: In outpatients with mild or moderate forms of COVID-19, the use of hydroxychloroquine did not reduce the risk of hospitalisation compared to the placebo control. Our findings do not support the routine use of hydroxychloroquine for treatment of COVID-19 in the outpatient setting. Funding: COALITION COVID-19 Brazil and EMS.

8.
Am Heart J ; 2022 Apr 23.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35472303

RESUMO

Screening for atrial fibrillation (AF) is attractive because AF independently raises the risk of ischemic stroke, this risk is largely reversible by long-term oral anticoagulant therapy (OAC), and many patients with AF remain undiagnosed and untreated. Recent trials of one-time brief screening for AF have not produced a significant increase in the proportion of patients diagnosed with AF. Trials of longer-term screening have demonstrated an increase in AF diagnoses, primarily paroxysmal AF. To date, however, no trials have demonstrated that screening for AF results in lower rates of stroke. Clinical practice guidelines conflict in their level of support for screening for AF. The GUARD-AF individually randomized trial is designed to test whether screening for AF in individuals age 70 years or greater using a 2-week single-lead electrocardiographic (ECG) patch monitor can identify patients with undiagnosed AF and lead to treatment with OAC, resulting in a reduced rate of stroke in the screened population. The trial's efficacy endpoint is hospitalization for stroke (either ischemic or hemorrhagic) and the trial's safety endpoint is hospitalization for a bleeding event. Endpoints will be ascertained via Medicare claims or electronic health records at 2.5 years after study start. Enrollment is based in primary care practices and the OAC decision for screen-detected cases is left to the patient and their physician. The initial planned target sample size was 52,000, with 26,000 allocated to either screening or to usual care. Trial enrollment was severely hampered by the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and stopped at a total enrollment of 11,931 participants. Of 5,965 randomized to the screening arm, 5,713 patients (96%) returned monitors with analyzable results. Incidence of screen-detected and clinically detected AF and associated stroke and bleeding outcomes will be ascertained. GUARD-AF is the largest AF screening randomized trial using a longer-term patch-based continuous ECG monitor. The results will contribute important information on the yield of patch-based AF screening, the "burden" of AF detected (percent time in AF, longest episode), and physicians' OAC decisions as a function of AF burden. GUARD-AF's stroke and bleed results will contribute to pooled trial analyses of AF screening, thereby informing future studies and guidelines.

9.
Arq Bras Cardiol ; 118(2): 378-387, 2022 02.
Artigo em Inglês, Português | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35262569

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Despite the need for targeting specific therapeutic options for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), there has been no evidence of effectiveness of any specific treatment for the outpatient clinical setting. There are few randomized studies evaluating hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in non-hospitalized patients. These studies indicate no benefit from the use of HCQ, but they assessed different primary outcomes and presented important biases for outcome evaluation. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate if HCQ may prevent hospitalization due to COVID-19 compared to a matching placebo. METHODS: The COVID-19 Outpatient Prevention Evaluation (COPE) study is a pragmatic, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial evaluating the use of HCQ (800 mg on day 1 and 400 mg from day 2 to day 7) or matching placebo for the prevention of hospitalization due to COVID-19 in early non-hospitalized confirmed or suspected cases. Inclusion criteria are adults (≥ 18 years) seeking medical care with mild symptoms of COVID-19, with randomization ≤ 7 days after symptom onset, without indication of hospitalization at study screening, and with at least one risk factor for complication (> 65 years; hypertension; diabetes mellitus; asthma; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or other chronic lung diseases; smoking; immunosuppression; or obesity). All hypothesis tests will be two-sided. A p-value < 0.05 will be considered statistically significant in all analyses. Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT04466540. RESULTS: Clinical outcomes will be centrally adjudicated by an independent clinical event committee blinded to the assigned treatment groups. The primary efficacy endpoint will be assessed following the intention-to-treat principle. CONCLUSION: This study has the potential to reliably answer the scientific question of HCQ use in outpatients with COVID-19. To our knowledge, this is the largest trial evaluating HCQ in non-hospitalized individuals with COVID-19.


FUNDAMENTO: Apesar da necessidade de opções terapêuticas específicas para a doença do coronavírus 2019 (covid-19), ainda não há evidências da eficácia de tratamentos específicos no contexto ambulatorial. Há poucos estudos randomizados que avaliam a hidroxicloroquina (HCQ) em pacientes não hospitalizados. Esses estudos não indicaram benefício com o uso da HCQ; no entanto, avaliaram desfechos primários diferentes e apresentaram vieses importantes na avaliação dos desfechos. OBJETIVO: Investigar se a HCQ possui o potencial de prevenir hospitalizações por covid-19 quando comparada ao placebo correspondente. MÉTODOS: O estudo COVID-19 Outpatient Prevention Evaluation (COPE) é um ensaio clínico randomizado, pragmático, duplo-cego, multicêntrico e controlado por placebo que avalia o uso da HCQ (800 mg no dia 1 e 400 mg do dia 2 ao dia 7) ou placebo correspondente na prevenção de hospitalizações por covid-19 em casos precoces confirmados ou suspeitos de pacientes não hospitalizados. Os critérios de inclusão são adultos (≥ 18 anos) que procuraram atendimento médico com sintomas leves de covid-19, com randomização ≤ 7 dias após o início dos sintomas, sem indicação de hospitalização na triagem do estudo e com pelo menos um fator de risco para complicações (> 65 anos, hipertensão, diabetes melito, asma, doença pulmonar obstrutiva crônica ou outras doenças pulmonares crônicas, tabagismo, imunossupressão ou obesidade). Todos os testes de hipótese serão bilaterais. Um valor de p < 0,05 será considerado estatisticamente significativo em todas as análises. Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT04466540. RESULTADOS: Os desfechos clínicos serão avaliados centralmente por um comitê de eventos clínicos independente cegado para a alocação dos grupos de tratamento. O desfecho primário de eficácia será avaliado de acordo com o princípio da intenção de tratar. CONCLUSÃO: Este estudo apresenta o potencial de responder de forma confiável a questão científica do uso da HCQ em pacientes ambulatoriais com covid-19. Do nosso conhecimento, este é o maior estudo avaliando o uso de HCQ em indivíduos com covid-19 não hospitalizados.


Assuntos
COVID-19 , Hidroxicloroquina , Adulto , COVID-19/tratamento farmacológico , Humanos , Hidroxicloroquina/efeitos adversos , Hidroxicloroquina/uso terapêutico , Pacientes Ambulatoriais , SARS-CoV-2 , Resultado do Tratamento
10.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35290593

RESUMO

Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors have evident cardiovascular benefits in patients with type 2 diabetes with or at high risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (only empagliflozin and dapagliflozin have been investigated in this group so far), and chronic kidney disease. Prevention and reversal of adverse cardiac remodeling is one of the mechanisms by which SGLT2 inhibitors may exert cardiovascular benefits, especially heart failure-related outcomes. Cardiac remodeling encompasses molecular, cellular, and interstitial changes that result in favorable changes in the mass, geometry, size, and function of the heart. The pathophysiological mechanisms of adverse cardiac remodeling are related to increased apoptosis and necrosis, decreased autophagy, impairments of myocardial oxygen supply and demand, and altered energy metabolism. Herein, the accumulating evidence from animal and human studies is reviewed investigating the effects of SGLT2 inhibitors on these mechanisms of cardiac remodeling.

11.
CJC Open ; 2022 Mar 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35252829

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Effective treatments for COVID-19 are urgently needed but conducting randomized trials during the pandemic has been challenging. METHODS: The Anti-Coronavirus Therapy (ACT) trials are parallel factorial international trials that aimed to enroll 3,500 outpatients and 2,500 inpatients with symptomatic COVID-19. The outpatient trial is evaluating colchicine versus usual care, and aspirin versus usual care. The primary outcome for the colchicine randomization is hospitalization or death, and for the aspirin randomization is major thrombosis, hospitalization, or death. The inpatient trial is evaluating colchicine versus usual care, and the combination of rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily and aspirin 100 mg once daily versus usual care. The primary outcome for the colchicine randomization is need for high flow oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or death, and for the rivaroxaban plus aspirin randomization is major thrombotic events, need for high flow oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or death. RESULTS: At the completion of enrolment on February 10, 2022, the outpatient trial had enrolled 3,917 patients and the inpatient trial 2,754 patients. Challenges encountered included lack of preliminary data about the interventions under evaluation, uncertainties related to the expected event rates, delays in regulatory and ethics approvals and in obtaining study interventions, as well as the changing pattern of the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: The ACT trials will determine the efficacy of anti-inflammatory therapy with colchicine and antithrombotic therapy with aspirin given alone or in combination with rivaroxaban across the spectrum of mild, moderate, and severe COVID-19. Lessons learned from the conduct of these trials will inform planning of future trials.

12.
Am Heart J ; 248: 35-41, 2022 Jun.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35263653

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: We describe variables and outcomes associated with peri-operative mechanical circulatory support (MCS) utilization among patients enrolled in the Levosimendan in patients with Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction Undergoing Cardiac Surgery Requiring Cardiopulmonary Bypass (LEVO-CTS) trial. METHODS: In the LEVO-CTS trial, MCS utilization (defined as intra-aortic balloon pump, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, or surgical ventricular assist device) within 5 days of surgery was examined. The association between MCS use and outcomes including 90-day mortality, 30-day renal-replacement therapy, and hospital and critical stay length of stay were determined. RESULTS: Among the 849 patients from 70 centers randomized to levosimendan or placebo, 85 (10.0%) patients were treated with MCS (71 intra-aortic balloon pump, 7 extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, 7 ventricular assist device); with 89.4% started on post-operative day 0. Inter-institutional use ranged from 0% to 100%. Variables independently associated with MCS utilization included combined coronary artery bypass grafting and valve surgery (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 2.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.70-4.37, P < .001), history of lung disease (OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.06-2.70, P = .029), and history of heart failure (OR 2.44, 95% CI 1.10-5.45, P = .027). Adjusted 90-day mortality (22.4% vs 4.1%, hazard ratio 6.11, 95% CI 3.95-9.44, P < .001) was higher, and median critical care length of stay (8.0 vs 4.0 days, P < .001) was longer in patients managed with MCS. CONCLUSIONS: In a randomized controlled trial of high-risk cardiac surgical patients in North America, we observed patient, and surgical variables associated with MCS utilization. MCS use was associated with a higher risk of post-operative mortality.


Assuntos
Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Cardíacos , Oxigenação por Membrana Extracorpórea , Coração Auxiliar , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Cardíacos/efeitos adversos , Humanos , Balão Intra-Aórtico , Fatores de Risco , Simendana/efeitos adversos
15.
Am Heart J ; 248: 120-129, 2022 Jun.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35296411

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Randomized clinical trials are the gold standard to assess the causal relationship between an intervention and subsequent outcomes, also known as clinical endpoints. In order to limit bias, central clinical events committees (CEC) are established to ensure consistent event reporting across participating centers, as well as complete and accurate ascertainment of endpoints. However, defining independence is challenging. METHODS: This consensus statement was generated by teleconferences and electronic communications among clinical research organizations from the United States, Europe and Australia. This document does not constitute regulatory guidance. RESULTS: An independent CEC is defined when the adjudicators are not primarily involved in designing, funding, sponsoring, organizing, conducting, analyzing or regulating the clinical trial for which they serve as an adjudicator, beyond their role as CEC member. Moreover, independence requires absence of conflicts of interest with the steering committee, sponsor, grant giver, manufacturer, coordinating center, other independent committees, core laboratories, medical monitor, safety physician, participating clinical sites, statistician or data manager, regulatory agencies or authorities, which could influence (or be perceived to influence) a member's objectivity in evaluating trial data. Such conflicts of interest include financial benefits, directing or advisory role (paid or unpaid), decision-making position, as well as being a direct relative. An independent adjudicator has no other role within a clinical trial. CONCLUSIONS: This consensus statement presents a standardized definition of an independent CEC to be considered by clinical research organizations, manufacturers, and investigators. In addition, it provides recommendations on best practices for implementation of an independent CEC.


Assuntos
Consenso , Austrália , Viés , Europa (Continente) , Humanos , Estados Unidos
16.
Am J Med ; 2022 Mar 14.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35296402

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Using data from the ODYSSEY OUTCOMES trial (NCT01663402), we sought to identify factors associated with the development of incident atrial fibrillation in patients with recent acute coronary syndrome without prior atrial fibrillation and to determine whether alirocumab treatment influenced risk of incident atrial fibrillation. METHODS: ODYSSEY OUTCOMES compared alirocumab treatment with placebo in 18,924 patients with recent acute coronary syndrome and dyslipidemia despite high-intensity or maximum-tolerated statin therapy. The primary outcome of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) comprised death from coronary heart disease, non-fatal myocardial infarction, fatal or non-fatal ischemic stroke, or unstable angina requiring hospitalization. Patients were classified as having previous atrial fibrillation (present prior to or at randomization) or no previous atrial fibrillation. A multivariable model was used to determine factors associated with incident atrial fibrillation. RESULTS: Among 18,262 participants without prior atrial fibrillation at baseline, 499 (2.7%) had incident atrial fibrillation during follow-up. Older age, history of heart failure or myocardial infarction, and higher body mass index were significantly associated with incident atrial fibrillation. Treatment with alirocumab or placebo did not influence the cumulative incidence of atrial fibrillation (hazard ratio 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.77-1.09). Patients with vs without a history of atrial fibrillation had a higher incidence of MACE (8.8 vs 3.7 events per 100 patient-years), without significant interaction between atrial fibrillation and randomized treatment on risk of MACE (Pinteraction = .78). CONCLUSIONS: While alirocumab did not modify risk of incident atrial fibrillation after acute coronary syndrome, it did reduce the risk of MACE, regardless of prior atrial fibrillation history. History of atrial fibrillation is an independent predictor of recurrent cardiovascular events after acute coronary syndrome.

17.
Am Heart J ; 247: 76-89, 2022 May.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35143744

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Renin-angiotensin aldosterone system inhibitors (RAASi) are commonly used among patients hospitalized with a severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We evaluated whether continuation versus discontinuation of RAASi were associated with short term clinical or biochemical outcomes. METHODS: The RAAS-COVID-19 trial was a randomized, open label study in adult patients previously treated with RAASi who are hospitalized with COVID-19 (NCT04508985). Participants were randomized 1:1 to discontinue or continue RAASi. The primary outcome was a global rank score calculated from baseline to day 7 (or discharge) incorporating clinical events and biomarker changes. Global rank scores were compared between groups using the Wilcoxon test statistic and the negative binomial test (using incident rate ratio [IRR]) and the intention-to-treat principle. RESULTS: Overall, 46 participants were enrolled; 21 participants were randomized to discontinue RAASi and 25 to continue. Patients' mean age was 71.5 years and 43.5% were female. Discontinuation of RAASi, versus continuation, resulted in a non-statistically different mean global rank score (discontinuation 6 [standard deviation [SD] 6.3] vs continuation 3.8 (SD 2.5); P = .60). The negative binomial analysis identified that discontinuation increased the risk of adverse outcomes (IRR 1.67 [95% CI 1.06-2.62]; P = .027); RAASi discontinuation increased brain natriuretic peptide levels (% change from baseline: +16.7% vs -27.5%; P = .024) and the incidence of acute heart failure (33% vs 4.2%, P = .016). CONCLUSION: RAASi continuation in participants hospitalized with COVID-19 appears safe; discontinuation increased brain natriuretic peptide levels and may increase risk of acute heart failure; where possible, RAASi should be continued.


Assuntos
COVID-19 , Insuficiência Cardíaca , Adulto , Idoso , Aldosterona , Antagonistas de Receptores de Angiotensina/efeitos adversos , Inibidores da Enzima Conversora de Angiotensina/efeitos adversos , Anti-Hipertensivos/uso terapêutico , Feminino , Insuficiência Cardíaca/tratamento farmacológico , Hospitais , Humanos , Peptídeo Natriurético Encefálico , Sistema Renina-Angiotensina
18.
Am Heart J ; 248: 72-83, 2022 Jun.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35149037

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches trial demonstrated no overall difference in the composite primary endpoint and the secondary endpoints of cardiovascular (CV) death/myocardial infarction or all-cause mortality between an initial invasive or conservative strategy among participants with chronic coronary disease and moderate or severe myocardial ischemia. Detailed cause-specific death analyses have not been reported. METHODS: We compared overall and cause-specific death rates by treatment group using Cox models with adjustment for pre-specified baseline covariates. Cause of death was adjudicated by an independent Clinical Events Committee as CV, non-CV, and undetermined. We evaluated the association of risk factors and treatment strategy with cause of death. RESULTS: Four-year cumulative incidence rates for CV death were similar between invasive and conservative strategies (2.6% vs 3.0%; hazard ratio [HR] 0.98; 95% CI [0.70-1.38]), but non-CV death rates were higher in the invasive strategy (3.3% vs 2.1%; HR 1.45 [1.00-2.09]). Overall, 13% of deaths were attributed to undetermined causes (38/289). Fewer undetermined deaths (0.6% vs 1.3%; HR 0.48 [0.24-0.95]) and more malignancy deaths (2.0% vs 0.8%; HR 2.11 [1.23-3.60]) occurred in the invasive strategy than in the conservative strategy. CONCLUSIONS: In International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches, all-cause and CV death rates were similar between treatment strategies. The observation of fewer undetermined deaths and more malignancy deaths in the invasive strategy remains unexplained. These findings should be interpreted with caution in the context of prior studies and the overall trial results.


Assuntos
Doença da Artéria Coronariana , Infarto do Miocárdio , Isquemia Miocárdica , Humanos , Isquemia , Infarto do Miocárdio/terapia , Isquemia Miocárdica/terapia , Fatores de Risco
19.
Circ Cardiovasc Interv ; 15(3): e011069, 2022 Mar.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35196863

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: In randomized trials, cangrelor reduced periprocedural ischemic events related to percutaneous coronary intervention without increasing GUSTO severe bleeding. However, some antiplatelet agents have shown a differential treatment effect by body mass index (BMI). METHODS: Patients from the 3 CHAMPION trials (Cangrelor Versus Standard Therapy to Achieve Optimal Management of Platelet Inhibition) who were randomized to cangrelor versus clopidogrel during percutaneous coronary intervention were stratified by BMI. The primary efficacy end point was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, ischemia-driven revascularization, or stent thrombosis within 48 hours. The principal safety outcome was GUSTO moderate or severe bleeding at 48 hours, although more sensitive bleeding measures such as Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction major bleeding were also assessed. We examined obese patients (defined as BMI≥30) versus nonobese patients. RESULTS: There were 24 893 patients, with 8979 (36.1%) having BMI of ≥30. There was no significant difference in the primary efficacy end point among obese versus nonobese patients (4.3% versus 4.2%; rate ratio, 1.01 [95% CI, 0.89-1.15]; P=0.82). There was a consistent benefit in the primary efficacy end point in patients who received cangrelor versus placebo who were obese (3.9% versus 4.7%, rate ratio, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.68-1.02]; P=0.07) and not obese (3.8% versus 4.7%; rate ratio, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.69-0.94]; P=0.0053); interaction P=0.77. There was no difference in GUSTO moderate or severe bleeding among patients who received cangrelor versus placebo who were obese (0.6% versus 0.6%; rate ratio, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.58-1.67]; P=0.96). CONCLUSIONS: Cangrelor at the time of percutaneous coronary intervention is effective and safe in obese and nonobese patients. There was no difference in short-term efficacy between obese and nonobese patients. Periprocedural cangrelor is an effective and safe antiplatelet agent, irrespective of BMI. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT01156571, NCT00385138, NCT00305162.


Assuntos
Infarto do Miocárdio , Intervenção Coronária Percutânea , Monofosfato de Adenosina/efeitos adversos , Monofosfato de Adenosina/análogos & derivados , Hemorragia/induzido quimicamente , Humanos , Infarto do Miocárdio/etiologia , Obesidade/complicações , Obesidade/diagnóstico , Obesidade/terapia , Intervenção Coronária Percutânea/efeitos adversos , Inibidores da Agregação Plaquetária , Antagonistas do Receptor Purinérgico P2Y/efeitos adversos , Stents , Resultado do Tratamento
20.
JAMA Netw Open ; 5(2): e2148030, 2022 02 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35175345

RESUMO

Importance: Based on contemporary estimates in the US, evidence-based therapies for cardiovascular risk reduction are generally underused among patients with type 2 diabetes and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). Objective: To determine the use of evidence-based cardiovascular preventive therapies in a broad US population with diabetes and ASCVD. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter cohort study used health system-level aggregated data within the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network, including 12 health systems. Participants included patients with diabetes and established ASCVD (ie, coronary artery disease, cerebrovascular disease, and peripheral artery disease) between January 1 and December 31, 2018. Data were analyzed from September 2020 until January 2021. Exposures: One or more health care encounters in 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures: Patient characteristics by prescription of any of the following key evidence-based therapies: high-intensity statin, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) or angiotensin-receptor blocker (ARB) and sodium glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2I) or glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA). Results: The overall cohort included 324 706 patients, with a mean (SD) age of 68.1 (12.2) years and 144 169 (44.4%) women and 180 537 (55.6%) men. A total of 59 124 patients (18.2% ) were Black, and 41 470 patients (12.8%) were Latinx. Among 205 885 patients with specialized visit data from the prior year, 17 971 patients (8.7%) visited an endocrinologist, 54 330 patients (26.4%) visited a cardiologist, and 154 078 patients (74.8%) visited a primary care physician. Overall, 190 277 patients (58.6%) were prescribed a statin, but only 88 426 patients (26.8%) were prescribed a high-intensity statin; 147 762 patients (45.5%) were prescribed an ACEI or ARB, 12 724 patients (3.9%) were prescribed a GLP-1RA, and 8989 patients (2.8%) were prescribed an SGLT2I. Overall, 14 918 patients (4.6%) were prescribed all 3 classes of therapies, and 138 173 patients (42.6%) were prescribed none. Patients who were prescribed a high-intensity statin were more likely to be men (59.9% [95% CI, 59.6%-60.3%] of patients vs 55.6% [95% CI, 55.4%-55.8%] of patients), have coronary atherosclerotic disease (79.9% [95% CI, 79.7%-80.2%] of patients vs 73.0% [95% CI, 72.8%-73.3%] of patients) and more likely to have seen a cardiologist (40.0% [95% CI, 39.6%-40.4%] of patients vs 26.4% [95% CI, 26.2%-26.6%] of patients). Conclusions and Relevance: In this large cohort of US patients with diabetes and ASCVD, fewer than 1 in 20 patients were prescribed all 3 evidence-based therapies, defined as a high-intensity statin, either an ACEI or ARB, and either an SGLT2I and/or a GLP-1RA. These findings suggest that multifaceted interventions are needed to overcome barriers to the implementation of evidence-based therapies and facilitate their optimal use.


Assuntos
Anti-Hipertensivos/uso terapêutico , Aterosclerose , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2 , Hipoglicemiantes/uso terapêutico , Hipolipemiantes/uso terapêutico , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Aterosclerose/complicações , Aterosclerose/tratamento farmacológico , Aterosclerose/epidemiologia , Estudos de Coortes , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/complicações , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/tratamento farmacológico , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/epidemiologia , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Estados Unidos
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...