An evidence based clinical aid for cardiovascular disease

Copyright to Australian Family Physician. Reproduced with permission. Permission to reproduce must be sought from the publisher, The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners.Cardiovascular disease is the commonest cause of mortality in Australia, accounting for more than 30% of deaths. Hypertension, diabetes and lipid disorders account for 15.6% of the total problems encountered in general practice. Therefore all doctors should be familiar with well known risk factors for cardiovascular disease, as well as the benefits of interventions with them.Brian R McAvoy; Greg R Fulcher; John V Amerena; Greg W Conner; John F Beltrame; Graeme J Hankey; Anthony C Keech; Brian L Lloyd; Michael L Neale; Carol A Pollock; Krishna Sudhir; Robert D Waltham; Malcolm J Wes

Consensus statement on the current pharmacological prevention and management of heart failure

Introduction: This consensus statement of Australian clinicians provides new recommendations for the pharmacological management of heart failure based on studies reported since the publication of the 2018 Australian heart failure guidelines.Main recommendations:▪ Use of sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors to prevent hospitalisation for heart failure in type 2 diabetes mellitus can be extended to patients with multiple cardiovascular risk factors, albuminuric chronic kidney disease, or atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.▪ New evidence supports the use of a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (finerenone) to prevent heart failure in type 2 diabetes mellitus associated with albuminuric chronic kidney disease.▪In addition to renin angiotensin system inhibitors (angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor preferred), beta blockers and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, an SGLT2 inhibitor (dapagliflozin or empagliflozin) is recommended in all patients with heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF ≤ 40%) (HFrEF). Lower quality evidence supports these therapies in patients with heart failure with mildly reduced LVEF (41- 49%) (HFmrEF).▪A soluble guanylate cyclase stimulator (vericiguat), selective cardiac myosin activator (omecamtiv mecarbil) and, if iron deficient, intravenous iron (ferric carboxymaltose) provide additional benefits in persistent HFrEF.▪ An SGLT2 inhibitor (empagliflozin) should be considered in patients with heart failure with preserved LVEF (≥ 50%) (HFpEF).Key changes in management from this statement: This document broadens the scope of angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor use in patients with HFrEF and HFmrEF. SGLT2 inhibitor use expands to become a cornerstone therapy in HFrEF, with increasing evidence to support its use in HFmrEF and HFpEF.Andrew P Sindone, Carmine De Pasquale, John Amerena, Christine Burdeniuk, Alicia Chan, Andrew Coats, David L Hare, Peter Macdonald, Aaron Sverdlov, John J Atherto

Left ventricular systolic dysfunction, heart failure, and the risk of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with atrial fibrillation : insights from the ARISTOTLE trial

We examined the risk of stroke or systemic embolism (SSE) conferred by heart failure (HF) and left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) in the Apixaban for Reduction in Stroke and Other Thromboembolic Events in Atrial Fibrillation Trial (ARISTOTLE), as well as the effect of apixaban versus warfarin

Varespladib and cardiovascular events in patients with an acute coronary syndrome: the VISTA-16 randomized clinical trial

IMPORTANCE: Secretory phospholipase A2(sPLA2) generates bioactive phospholipid products implicated in atherosclerosis. The sPLA2inhibitor varespladib has favorable effects on lipid and inflammatory markers; however, its effect on cardiovascular outcomes is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of sPLA2inhibition with varespladib on cardiovascular outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A double-blind, randomized, multicenter trial at 362 academic and community hospitals in Europe, Australia, New Zealand, India, and North America of 5145 patients randomized within 96 hours of presentation of an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) to either varespladib (n = 2572) or placebo (n = 2573) with enrollment between June 1, 2010, and March 7, 2012 (study termination on March 9, 2012). INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomized to receive varespladib (500 mg) or placebo daily for 16 weeks, in addition to atorvastatin and other established therapies. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary efficacy measurewas a composite of cardiovascular mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), nonfatal stroke, or unstable angina with evidence of ischemia requiring hospitalization at 16 weeks. Six-month survival status was also evaluated. RESULTS: At a prespecified interim analysis, including 212 primary end point events, the independent data and safety monitoring board recommended termination of the trial for futility and possible harm. The primary end point occurred in 136 patients (6.1%) treated with varespladib compared with 109 patients (5.1%) treated with placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 1.25; 95%CI, 0.97-1.61; log-rank P = .08). Varespladib was associated with a greater risk of MI (78 [3.4%] vs 47 [2.2%]; HR, 1.66; 95%CI, 1.16-2.39; log-rank P = .005). The composite secondary end point of cardiovascular mortality, MI, and stroke was observed in 107 patients (4.6%) in the varespladib group and 79 patients (3.8%) in the placebo group (HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.02-1.82; P = .04). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In patients with recent ACS, varespladib did not reduce the risk of recurrent cardiovascular events and significantly increased the risk of MI. The sPLA2inhibition with varespladib may be harmful and is not a useful strategy to reduce adverse cardiovascular outcomes after ACS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01130246. Copyright 2014 American Medical Association. All rights reserved

Dronedarone in high-risk permanent atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND: Dronedarone restores sinus rhythm and reduces hospitalization or death in intermittent atrial fibrillation. It also lowers heart rate and blood pressure and has antiadrenergic and potential ventricular antiarrhythmic effects. We hypothesized that dronedarone would reduce major vascular events in high-risk permanent atrial fibrillation. METHODS: We assigned patients who were at least 65 years of age with at least a 6-month history of permanent atrial fibrillation and risk factors for major vascular events to receive dronedarone or placebo. The first coprimary outcome was stroke, myocardial infarction, systemic embolism, or death from cardiovascular causes. The second coprimary outcome was unplanned hospitalization for a cardiovascular cause or death. RESULTS: After the enrollment of 3236 patients, the study was stopped for safety reasons. The first coprimary outcome occurred in 43 patients receiving dronedarone and 19 receiving placebo (hazard ratio, 2.29; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.34 to 3.94; P = 0.002). There were 21 deaths from cardiovascular causes in the dronedarone group and 10 in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.00 to 4.49; P = 0.046), including death from arrhythmia in 13 patients and 4 patients, respectively (hazard ratio, 3.26; 95% CI, 1.06 to 10.00; P = 0.03). Stroke occurred in 23 patients in the dronedarone group and 10 in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.11 to 4.88; P = 0.02). Hospitalization for heart failure occurred in 43 patients in the dronedarone group and 24 in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.10 to 2.99; P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Dronedarone increased rates of heart failure, stroke, and death from cardiovascular causes in patients with permanent atrial fibrillation who were at risk for major vascular events. Our data show that this drug should not be used in such patients. (Funded by Sanofi-Aventis; PALLAS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01151137.) Copyright © 2011 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.published_or_final_versio

Effect of intensive structured care on individual blood pressure targets in primary care: Multicentre randomised controlled trial

Extent: 16p.Objective: To determine the effectiveness of intensive structured care to optimise blood pressure control based on individual absolute risk targets in primary care. Design: Pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial. Setting: General practices throughout Australia, except Northern Territory, 2009-11. Participants: Of 2185 patients from 119 general practices who were eligible for drug treatment for hypertension according to national guidelines 416 (19.0%) achieved their individual blood pressure target during a 28 day run-in period of monotherapy. After exclusions, 1562 participants not at target blood pressure (systolic 150 (SD 17) mm Hg, diastolic 88 (SD 11) mm Hg) were randomised (1:2 ratio) to usual care (n=524) or the intervention (n=1038). Intervention: Computer assisted clinical profiling and risk target setting (all participants) with intensified follow-up and stepwise drug titration (initial angiotensin receptor blocker monotherapy or two forms of combination therapy using angiotensin receptor blockers) for those randomised to the intervention. The control group received usual care. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was individual blood pressure target achieved at 26 weeks. Secondary outcomes were change in mean sitting systolic and diastolic blood pressure, absolute risk for cardiovascular disease within five years based on the Framingham risk score, and proportion and rate of adverse events. Results: On an intention to treat basis, there was an 8.8% absolute difference in individual blood pressure target achieved at 26 weeks in favour of the intervention group compared with usual care group (358/988 (36.2%) v 138/504 (27.4%)): adjusted relative risk 1.28 (95% confidence interval 1.10 to 1.49, P=0.0013). There was also a 9.5% absolute difference in favour of the intervention group for achieving the classic blood pressure target of ≤140/90 mm Hg (627/988 (63.5%) v 272/504 (54.0%)): adjusted relative risk 1.18 (1.07 to 1.29, P<0.001). The intervention group achieved a mean adjusted reduction in systolic blood pressure of 13.2 mm Hg (95% confidence interval −12.3 to −14.2 mm Hg) and diastolic blood pressure of 7.7 mm Hg (−7.1 to −8.3 mm Hg) v 10.1 mm Hg (−8.8 to 11.3 mm Hg) and 5.5 mm Hg (−4.7 to −6.2 mm Hg) in the usual care group (P<0.001). Among 1141 participants in whom five year absolute cardiovascular risk scores were calculated from baseline to the 26 week follow-up, the reduction in risk scores was greater in the intervention group than usual care group (14.7% (SD 9.3%) to 10.9% (SD 8.0%); difference −3.7% (SD 4.5%) and 15.0% (SD 10.1%) to 12.4% (SD 9.4%); −2.6% (SD 4.5%): adjusted mean difference −1.13% (95% confidence interval −0.69% to −1.63%; P<0.001). Owing to adverse events 82 (7.9%) participants in the intervention group and 10 (1.9%) in the usual care group had their drug treatment modified. Conclusions: In a primary care setting intensive structured care resulted in higher levels of blood pressure control, with clinically lower blood pressure and absolute risk of future cardiovascular events overall and with more people achieving their target blood pressure. An important gap in treatment remains though and applying intensive management and achieving currently advocated risk based blood pressure targets is challenging.Simon Stewart, Melinda J Carrington, Carla H Swemmer, Craig Anderson, Nicol P Kurstjens, John Amerena, Alex Brown, Louise M Burrell, Ferdinandus J de Looze, Mark Harris, Joseph Hung, Henry Krum, Mark Nelson, Markus Schlaich, Nigel P Stocks, Garry L Jennings, on behalf of the VIPER-BP study investigator

Comparison of the efficacy and safety of rosuvastatin 10 mg and atorvastatin 20 mg in high-risk patients with hypercholesterolemia – Prospective study to evaluate the Use of Low doses of the Statins Atorvastatin and Rosuvastatin (PULSAR)

BACKGROUND: Many patients at high risk of cardiovascular disease do not achieve recommended low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goals. This study compared the efficacy and safety of low doses of rosuvastatin (10 mg) and atorvastatin (20 mg) in high-risk patients with hypercholesterolemia. METHODS: A total of 996 patients with hypercholesterolemia (LDL-C ≥ 3.4 and < 5.7 mmol/L [130 and 220 mg/dL]) and coronary heart disease (CHD), atherosclerosis, or a CHD-risk equivalent were randomized to once-daily rosuvastatin 10 mg or atorvastatin 20 mg. The primary endpoint was the percentage change from baseline in LDL-C levels at 6 weeks. Secondary endpoints included LDL-C goal achievement (National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III [NCEP ATP III] goal < 100 mg/dL; 2003 European goal < 2.5 mmol/L for patients with atherosclerotic disease, type 2 diabetes, or at high risk of cardiovascular events, as assessed by a Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE) risk ≥ 5% or 3.0 mmol/L for all other patients), changes in other lipids and lipoproteins, cost-effectiveness, and safety. RESULTS: Rosuvastatin 10 mg reduced LDL-C levels significantly more than atorvastatin 20 mg at week 6 (44.6% vs. 42.7%, p < 0.05). Significantly more patients achieved NCEP ATP III and 2003 European LDL-C goals with rosuvastatin 10 mg compared with atorvastatin 20 mg (68.8% vs. 62.5%, p < 0.05; 68.0% vs. 63.3%, p < 0.05, respectively). High-density lipoprotein cholesterol was increased significantly with rosuvastatin 10 mg versus atorvastatin 20 mg (6.4% vs. 3.1%, p < 0.001). Lipid ratios and levels of apolipoprotein A-I also improved more with rosuvastatin 10 mg than with atorvastatin 20 mg. The use of rosuvastatin 10 mg was also cost-effective compared with atorvastatin 20 mg in both a US and a UK setting. Both treatments were well tolerated, with a similar incidence of adverse events (rosuvastatin 10 mg, 27.5%; atorvastatin 20 mg, 26.1%). No cases of rhabdomyolysis, liver, or renal insufficiency were recorded. CONCLUSION: In high-risk patients with hypercholesterolemia, rosuvastatin 10 mg was more efficacious than atorvastatin 20 mg at reducing LDL-C, enabling LDL-C goal achievement and improving other lipid parameters. Both treatments were well tolerated

SMARTphone-based, early cardiac REHABilitation in patients with acute coronary syndromes [SMART-REHAB Trial]: A randomized controlled trial protocol

© 2016 The Author(s). Background: There are well-documented treatment gaps in secondary prevention of coronary heart disease and no clear guidelines to assist early physical activity after acute coronary syndromes (ACS). Smartphone technology may provide an innovative platform to close these gaps. This paper describes the study design of a randomized controlled trial assessing whether a smartphone-based secondary prevention program can facilitate early physical activity and improve cardiovascular health in patients with ACS. Methods: We have developed a multi-faceted, patient-centred smartphone-based secondary prevention program emphasizing early physical activity with a graduated walking program initiated on discharge from ACS admission. The program incorporates; physical activity tracking through the smartphone's accelerometer with interactive feedback and goal setting; a dynamic dashboard to review and optimize cardiovascular risk factors; educational messages delivered twice weekly; a photographic food diary; pharmacotherapy review; and support through a short message service. The primary endpoint of the trial is change in exercise capacity, as measured by the change in six-minute walk test distance at 8-weeks when compared to baseline. Secondary endpoints include improvements in cardiovascular risk factor status, psychological well-being and quality of life, medication adherence, uptake of cardiac rehabilitation and re-hospitalizations. Discussion: This randomized controlled trial will use a smartphone-phone based secondary prevention program to emphasize early physical activity post-ACS. It will provide evidence regarding the feasibility and utility of this innovative platform in closing the treatment gaps in secondary prevention. Trial registration: The trial was retrospectively registered in the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) on April 4, 2016. The registration number is ACTRN12616000426482

Semaglutide and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with obesity and prevalent heart failure: a prespecified analysis of the SELECT trial

Background: Semaglutide, a GLP-1 receptor agonist, reduces the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in people with overweight or obesity, but the effects of this drug on outcomes in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and heart failure are unknown. We report a prespecified analysis of the effect of once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide 2·4 mg on ischaemic and heart failure cardiovascular outcomes. We aimed to investigate if semaglutide was beneficial in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease with a history of heart failure compared with placebo; if there was a difference in outcome in patients designated as having heart failure with preserved ejection fraction compared with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction; and if the efficacy and safety of semaglutide in patients with heart failure was related to baseline characteristics or subtype of heart failure. Methods: The SELECT trial was a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, placebo-controlled, event-driven phase 3 trial in 41 countries. Adults aged 45 years and older, with a BMI of 27 kg/m2 or greater and established cardiovascular disease were eligible for the study. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) with a block size of four using an interactive web response system in a double-blind manner to escalating doses of once-weekly subcutaneous semaglutide over 16 weeks to a target dose of 2·4 mg, or placebo. In a prespecified analysis, we examined the effect of semaglutide compared with placebo in patients with and without a history of heart failure at enrolment, subclassified as heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, or unclassified heart failure. Endpoints comprised MACE (a composite of non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, and cardiovascular death); a composite heart failure outcome (cardiovascular death or hospitalisation or urgent hospital visit for heart failure); cardiovascular death; and all-cause death. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03574597. Findings: Between Oct 31, 2018, and March 31, 2021, 17 604 patients with a mean age of 61·6 years (SD 8·9) and a mean BMI of 33·4 kg/m2 (5·0) were randomly assigned to receive semaglutide (8803 [50·0%] patients) or placebo (8801 [50·0%] patients). 4286 (24·3%) of 17 604 patients had a history of investigator-defined heart failure at enrolment: 2273 (53·0%) of 4286 patients had heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, 1347 (31·4%) had heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, and 666 (15·5%) had unclassified heart failure. Baseline characteristics were similar between patients with and without heart failure. Patients with heart failure had a higher incidence of clinical events. Semaglutide improved all outcome measures in patients with heart failure at random assignment compared with those without heart failure (hazard ratio [HR] 0·72, 95% CI 0·60-0·87 for MACE; 0·79, 0·64-0·98 for the heart failure composite endpoint; 0·76, 0·59-0·97 for cardiovascular death; and 0·81, 0·66-1·00 for all-cause death; all pinteraction&gt;0·19). Treatment with semaglutide resulted in improved outcomes in both the heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HR 0·65, 95% CI 0·49-0·87 for MACE; 0·79, 0·58-1·08 for the composite heart failure endpoint) and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction groups (0·69, 0·51-0·91 for MACE; 0·75, 0·52-1·07 for the composite heart failure endpoint), although patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction had higher absolute event rates than those with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. For MACE and the heart failure composite, there were no significant differences in benefits across baseline age, sex, BMI, New York Heart Association status, and diuretic use. Serious adverse events were less frequent with semaglutide versus placebo, regardless of heart failure subtype. Interpretation: In patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular diease and overweight or obesity, treatment with semaglutide 2·4 mg reduced MACE and composite heart failure endpoints compared with placebo in those with and without clinical heart failure, regardless of heart failure subtype. Our findings could facilitate prescribing and result in improved clinical outcomes for this patient group. Funding: Novo Nordisk

Cause of Death and Predictors of All-Cause Mortality in Anticoagulated Patients With Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation : Data From ROCKET AF

M. Kaste on työryhmän ROCKET AF Steering Comm jäsen.Background-Atrial fibrillation is associated with higher mortality. Identification of causes of death and contemporary risk factors for all-cause mortality may guide interventions. Methods and Results-In the Rivaroxaban Once Daily Oral Direct Factor Xa Inhibition Compared with Vitamin K Antagonism for Prevention of Stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fibrillation (ROCKET AF) study, patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation were randomized to rivaroxaban or dose-adjusted warfarin. Cox proportional hazards regression with backward elimination identified factors at randomization that were independently associated with all-cause mortality in the 14 171 participants in the intention-to-treat population. The median age was 73 years, and the mean CHADS(2) score was 3.5. Over 1.9 years of median follow-up, 1214 (8.6%) patients died. Kaplan-Meier mortality rates were 4.2% at 1 year and 8.9% at 2 years. The majority of classified deaths (1081) were cardiovascular (72%), whereas only 6% were nonhemorrhagic stroke or systemic embolism. No significant difference in all-cause mortality was observed between the rivaroxaban and warfarin arms (P=0.15). Heart failure (hazard ratio 1.51, 95% CI 1.33-1.70, P= 75 years (hazard ratio 1.69, 95% CI 1.51-1.90, P Conclusions-In a large population of patients anticoagulated for nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, approximate to 7 in 10 deaths were cardiovascular, whereasPeer reviewe