Valvular Heart Disease Patients on Edoxaban or Warfarin in the ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 Trial

The use of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) instead of vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and coexisting valvular heart disease (VHD) is of substantial interest.This study explored outcomes in patients with AF with and without VHD in the ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 (Effective Anticoagulation with factor Xa Next Generation in Atrial Fibrillation-Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction 48) trial, comparing edoxaban with warfarin.Valvular heart disease was defined as history or baseline echocardiography evidence of at least moderate aortic/mitral regurgitation, aortic stenosis, or prior valve surgery (bioprosthesis replacement, valve repair, valvuloplasty). Patients with moderate to severe mitral stenosis or mechanical heart valves were excluded from the trial. Comparisons were made of rates of stroke/systemic embolic event (SSEE), major bleeding, additional efficacy and safety outcomes, as well as net clinical outcomes, in patients with or without VHD treated with edoxaban or warfarin, using adjusted Cox proportional hazards.After adjustment for multiple baseline characteristics, compared with no-VHD patients (n = 18,222), VHD patients (n = 2,824) had a similar rate of SSEE but higher rates of death (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.40; 95% confidence interval [CI]:1.26 to 1.56; p 0.001), major adverse cardiovascular events (HR: 1.29; 95% CI: 1.16 to 1.43; p 0.001), and major bleeding (HR: 1.21; 95% CI: 1.03 to 1.42; p = 0.02). Higher-dose edoxaban regimen had efficacy similar to warfarin in the presence of VHD (for SSEE, HR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.44 to 1.07, in patients with VHD, and HR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.77 to 1.07, in patients without VHD; p interaction [pThe presence of VHD increased the risk of death, major adverse cardiovascular events, and major bleeding but did not affect the relative efficacy or safety of higher-dose edoxaban versus warfarin in AF. (Global Study to Assess the Safety and Effectiveness of Edoxaban (DU-176b) vs. Standard Practice of Dosing With Warfarin in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation [ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48]; NCT00781391)

The management of heart failure cardiogenic shock:an international RAND appropriateness panel

Background: Observational data suggest that the subset of patients with heart failure related CS (HF-CS) now predominate critical care admissions for CS. There are no dedicated HF-CS randomised control trials completed to date which reliably inform clinical practice or clinical guidelines. We sought to identify aspects of HF-CS care where both consensus and uncertainty may exist to guide clinical practice and future clinical trial design, with a specific focus on HF-CS due to acute decompensated chronic HF. Methods: A 16-person multi-disciplinary panel comprising of international experts was assembled. A modified RAND/University of California, Los Angeles, appropriateness methodology was used. A survey comprising of 34 statements was completed. Participants anonymously rated the appropriateness of each statement on a scale of 1 to 9 (1–3 as inappropriate, 4–6 as uncertain and as 7–9 appropriate). Results: Of the 34 statements, 20 were rated as appropriate and 14 were rated as inappropriate. Uncertainty existed across all three domains: the initial assessment and management of HF-CS; escalation to temporary Mechanical Circulatory Support (tMCS); and weaning from tMCS in HF-CS. Significant disagreement between experts (deemed present when the disagreement index exceeded 1) was only identified when deliberating the utility of thoracic ultrasound in the immediate management of HF-CS. Conclusion: This study has highlighted several areas of practice where large-scale prospective registries and clinical trials in the HF-CS population are urgently needed to reliably inform clinical practice and the synthesis of future societal HF-CS guidelines

Valvular Heart Disease Patients on Edoxaban or Warfarin in the ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 Trial

Background The use of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) instead of vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and coexisting valvular heart disease (VHD) is of substantial interest. Objectives This study explored outcomes in patients with AF with and without VHD in the ENGAGE AF–TIMI 48 (Effective Anticoagulation with factor Xa Next Generation in Atrial Fibrillation-Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction 48) trial, comparing edoxaban with warfarin. Methods Valvular heart disease was defined as history or baseline echocardiography evidence of at least moderate aortic/mitral regurgitation, aortic stenosis, or prior valve surgery (bioprosthesis replacement, valve repair, valvuloplasty). Patients with moderate to severe mitral stenosis or mechanical heart valves were excluded from the trial. Comparisons were made of rates of stroke/systemic embolic event (SSEE), major bleeding, additional efficacy and safety outcomes, as well as net clinical outcomes, in patients with or without VHD treated with edoxaban or warfarin, using adjusted Cox proportional hazards. Results After adjustment for multiple baseline characteristics, compared with no-VHD patients (n = 18,222), VHD patients (n = 2,824) had a similar rate of SSEE but higher rates of death (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.40; 95% confidence interval [CI]:1.26 to 1.56; p <0.001), major adverse cardiovascular events (HR: 1.29; 95% CI: 1.16 to 1.43; p <0.001), and major bleeding (HR: 1.21; 95% CI: 1.03 to 1.42; p = 0.02). Higher-dose edoxaban regimen had efficacy similar to warfarin in the presence of VHD (for SSEE, HR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.44 to 1.07, in patients with VHD, and HR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.77 to 1.07, in patients without VHD; p interaction [pint] = 0.26; and for less major bleeding, HR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.53 to 1.02 in patients with VHD, and HR: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.71 to 0.94, in patients with no VHD; pint = 0.57). Conclusions The presence of VHD increased the risk of death, major adverse cardiovascular events, and major bleeding but did not affect the relative efficacy or safety of higher-dose edoxaban versus warfarin in AF

Outcomes of patients with atrial fibrillation and ischemic stroke while on oral anticoagulation.

AIMS The prognosis of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and ischemic stroke while taking oral anticoagulation is poorly understood. This study aimed to characterize the outcomes of patients following a stroke event while on oral anticoagulation. METHODS AND RESULTS Individual participant data from five pivotal randomized trials of antithrombotic therapy in AF were used to assess the outcomes of patients with a post-randomization ischemic stroke while on study medication (warfarin, standard-, or lower-dose direct oral anticoagulant regimen) during trial follow-up. The primary outcome was recurrent ischemic stroke after the first post-randomization ischemic stroke. The primary analysis included 1163 patients with a first post-randomization ischemic stroke while on study medication (median age 73 years, 39.3% female, 35.4% history of stroke before trial enrollment). During a median continued follow-up of 337 days, 74 patients had a recurrent ischemic stroke [cumulative incidence at 1 year: 7.0%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 5.2%-8.7%]. The cumulative incidence of mortality at 3 months after stroke was 12.4% (95% CI 10.5%-14.4%). Consistent results for the incidence of recurrent ischemic stroke at 1 year were obtained in an analysis accounting for the competing risk of death (6.2%, 95% CI 4.8%-7.9%) and in a landmark analysis excluding the first 2 weeks after the index stroke and only including patients without permanent study drug discontinuation since then (6.8%, 95% CI 4.6%-8.9%). CONCLUSION Patients with AF and ischemic stroke while on oral anticoagulation are at increased risk of recurrent ischemic stroke and death. These patients currently have an unmet medical need

Atrial fibrillation and clinical outcomes 1 to 3 years after myocardial infarction

OBJECTIVE: Atrial fibrillation (AF) and myocardial infarction (MI) are commonly comorbid and associated with adverse outcomes. Little is known about the impact of AF on quality of life and outcomes post-MI. We compared characteristics, quality of life and clinical outcomes in stable patients post-MI with/without AF. METHODS/RESULTS: The prospective, international, observational TIGRIS (long Term rIsk, clinical manaGement and healthcare Resource utilization of stable coronary artery dISease) registry included 8406 patients aged ≥50 years with ≥1 atherothrombotic risk factor who were 1-3 years post-MI. Patient characteristics were summarised by history of AF. Quality of life was assessed at baseline using EQ-5D. Clinical outcomes over 2 years of follow-up were compared. History of AF was present in 702/8277 (8.5%) registry patients and incident AF was diagnosed in 244/7575 (3.2%) over 2 years. Those with AF were older and had more comorbidities than those without AF. After multivariable adjustment, patients with AF had lower self-reported quality-of-life scores (EQ-5D UK-weighted index, visual analogue scale, usual activities and pain/discomfort) than those without AF. CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥2 was present in 686/702 (97.7%) patients with AF, although only 348/702 (49.6%) were on oral anticoagulants at enrolment. Patients with AF had higher rates of all-cause hospitalisation (adjusted rate ratio 1.25 [1.06-1.46], p=0.008) over 2 years than those without AF, but similar rates of mortality. CONCLUSIONS: In stable patients post-MI, those with AF were commonly undertreated with oral anticoagulants, had poorer quality of life and had increased risk of clinical outcomes than those without AF. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials: NCT01866904

Valvular Heart Disease Patients on Edoxaban or Warfarin in the ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 Trial

The use of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) instead of vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and coexisting valvular heart disease (VHD) is of substantial interest.This study explored outcomes in patients with AF with and without VHD in the ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 (Effective Anticoagulation with factor Xa Next Generation in Atrial Fibrillation-Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction 48) trial, comparing edoxaban with warfarin.Valvular heart disease was defined as history or baseline echocardiography evidence of at least moderate aortic/mitral regurgitation, aortic stenosis, or prior valve surgery (bioprosthesis replacement, valve repair, valvuloplasty). Patients with moderate to severe mitral stenosis or mechanical heart valves were excluded from the trial. Comparisons were made of rates of stroke/systemic embolic event (SSEE), major bleeding, additional efficacy and safety outcomes, as well as net clinical outcomes, in patients with or without VHD treated with edoxaban or warfarin, using adjusted Cox proportional hazards.After adjustment for multiple baseline characteristics, compared with no-VHD patients (n = 18,222), VHD patients (n = 2,824) had a similar rate of SSEE but higher rates of death (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.40; 95% confidence interval [CI]:1.26 to 1.56; p 0.001), major adverse cardiovascular events (HR: 1.29; 95% CI: 1.16 to 1.43; p 0.001), and major bleeding (HR: 1.21; 95% CI: 1.03 to 1.42; p = 0.02). Higher-dose edoxaban regimen had efficacy similar to warfarin in the presence of VHD (for SSEE, HR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.44 to 1.07, in patients with VHD, and HR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.77 to 1.07, in patients without VHD; p interaction [pThe presence of VHD increased the risk of death, major adverse cardiovascular events, and major bleeding but did not affect the relative efficacy or safety of higher-dose edoxaban versus warfarin in AF. (Global Study to Assess the Safety and Effectiveness of Edoxaban (DU-176b) vs. Standard Practice of Dosing With Warfarin in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation [ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48]; NCT00781391)

De Novo vs Acute-on-Chronic Presentations of Heart Failure-Related Cardiogenic Shock: Insights from the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network Registry

BACKGROUND: Heart failure-related cardiogenic shock (HF-CS) accounts for an increasing proportion of cases of CS in contemporary cardiac intensive care units. Whether the chronicity of HF identifies distinct clinical profiles of HF-CS is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: We evaluated admissions to cardiac intensive care units for HF-CS in 28 centers using data from the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network registry (2017-2020). HF-CS was defined as CS due to ventricular failure in the absence of acute myocardial infarction and was classified as de novo vs acute-on-chronic based on the absence or presence of a prior diagnosis of HF, respectively. Clinical features, resource use, and outcomes were compared among groups. Of 1405 admissions with HF-CS, 370 had de novo HF-CS (26.3%), and 1035 had acute-on-chronic HF-CS (73.7%). Patients with de novo HF-CS had a lower prevalence of hypertension, diabetes, coronary artery disease, atrial fibrillation, and chronic kidney disease (all P \u3c 0.01). Median Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores were higher in those with de novo HF-CS (8; 25th-75th: 5-11) vs acute-on-chronic HF-CS (6; 25th-75th: 4-9, P \u3c 0.01), as was the proportion of Society of Cardiovascular Angiography and Intervention (SCAI) shock stage E (46.1% vs 26.1%, P \u3c 0.01). After adjustment for clinical covariates and preceding cardiac arrest, the risk of in-hospital mortality was higher in patients with de novo HF-CS than in those with acute-on-chronic HF-CS (adjusted hazard ratio 1.36, 95% confidence interval 1.05-1.75, P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Despite having fewer comorbidities, patients with de novo HF-CS had more severe shock presentations and worse in-hospital outcomes. Whether HF disease chronicity is associated with time-dependent compensatory adaptations, unique pathobiological features and responses to treatment in patients presenting with HF-CS warrants further investigation

Management and Outcomes of Cardiogenic Shock in Cardiac ICUs With Versus Without Shock Teams.

BACKGROUND: Single-center studies suggest that implementation of multidisciplinary cardiogenic shock (CS) teams is associated with improved CS survival. OBJECTIVES: The aim was to characterize practice patterns and outcomes in the management of CS across multiple centers with versus without shock teams. METHODS: The Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network is a multicenter network of cardiac intensive care units (CICUs) in North America. All consecutive medical admissions to each CICU (n = 24) were captured during annual 2-month collection periods (2017-2019; n = 6,872). Shock management and CICU mortality among centers with versus without shock teams were compared using inverse probability weighting. RESULTS: Ten of the 24 centers had shock teams. Among 1,242 CS admissions, 44% were at shock team centers. The groups were well-balanced with respect to demographics, shock etiology, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, biochemical markers of end organ dysfunction, and invasive hemodynamics. Centers with shock teams used more pulmonary artery catheters (60% vs 49%; adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 1.86; 95% CI: 1.47-2.35; P \u3c 0.001), less overall mechanical circulatory support (MCS) (35% vs 43%; adjusted OR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.59-0.95; P = 0.016), and more advanced types of MCS (53% vs 43% of all MCS; adjusted OR: 1.73; 95% CI: 1.19-2.51; P = 0.005) rather than intra-aortic balloon pumps. The presence of a shock team was independently associated with lower CICU mortality (23% vs 29%; adjusted OR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.55-0.94; P = 0.016). CONCLUSIONS: In this multicenter observational study, centers with shock teams were more likely to obtain invasive hemodynamics, use advanced types of MCS, and have lower risk-adjusted mortality. A standardized multidisciplinary shock team approach may improve outcomes in CS

Characteristics, Therapies, and Outcomes of In-Hospital vs Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest in Patients Presenting to Cardiac Intensive Care Units: From the Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network (CCCTN).

BACKGROUND: Cardiac arrest (CA) is a common reason for admission to the cardiac intensive care unit (CICU), though the relative burden of morbidity, mortality, and resource use between admissions with in-hospital (IH) and out-of-hospital (OH) CA is unknown. We compared characteristics, care patterns, and outcomes of admissions to contemporary CICUs after IHCA or OHCA. METHODS: The Critical Care Cardiology Trials Network is a multicenter network of tertiary CICUs in the US and Canada. Participating centers contributed data from consecutive admissions during 2-month annual snapshots from 2017 to 2021. We analyzed characteristics and outcomes of admissions by IHCA vs OHCA. RESULTS: We analyzed 2,075 admissions across 29 centers (50.3% IHCA, 49.7% OHCA). Admissions with IHCA were older (median 66 vs 62 years), more commonly had coronary disease (38.3% vs 29.7%), atrial fibrillation (26.7% vs 15.6%), and heart failure (36.3% vs 22.1%), and were less commonly comatose on CICU arrival (34.2% vs 71.7%), p CONCLUSION: Despite a greater burden of comorbidities, CICU admissions after IHCA have lower lactate, greater invasive therapy utilization, and lower crude mortality than admissions after OHCA