Comparison of the efficacy and safety outcomes of edoxaban in 8040 women versus 13 065 men with atrial fibrillation in the ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 trial.

BACKGROUND: Female sex is an independent risk factor for stroke and systemic embolic events in patients with atrial fibrillation. This study aimed to examine the efficacy and safety profile of edoxaban in women versus men. METHODS: The ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 trial (Effective Anticoagulation with Factor Xa Next Generation in Atrial Fibrillation-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 48) randomly assigned 21 105 patients (8040 women) with atrial fibrillation and CHADS2 score ≥2 either to a higher-dose edoxaban regimen, a lower-dose edoxaban regimen, or warfarin. The primary end points of the trial were the composite of stroke or systemic embolic events (efficacy), and International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis-defined major bleeding (safety). RESULTS: In comparison with men, women were older, had lower body weight, were more likely to have hypertension and renal dysfunction, but less likely to smoke, drink alcohol, or have diabetes or coronary artery disease. Pretreatment endogenous factor Xa activity was significantly higher in women than in men (92.5% versus 86.1%, P<0.001). Treatment with edoxaban in women resulted in greater peak edoxaban concentration and inhibition of endogenous factor Xa in comparison with men, resulting in similar endogenous factor Xa activity between the sexes 2 to 4 hours after dose. Treatment with higher-dose edoxaban regimen (versus warfarin) resulted in similar reduction in the risk of stroke/systemic embolic events (women: hazard ratio [HR], 0.87 [0.69-1.11], men: HR, 0.87 [0.71-1.06]; P-interaction=0.97) and major bleeding (women: HR, 0.74 [0.59-0.92], men: HR, 0.84 [0.72-0.99]; P-interaction=0.34) in women and men. However, women assigned to higher-dose edoxaban regimen experienced greater reductions in hemorrhagic stroke (HR, 0.30 [95% CI, 0.15-0.59] versus HR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.46-1.06]), intracranial bleeding (HR, 0.20 [95% CI, 0.10-0.39] versus HR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.44-0.89]), and life-threatening or fatal bleeding (HR, 0.25 [95% CI, 0.15-0.42] versus HR, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.54-0.96]) than men (each P-interaction<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Despite many differences in baseline characteristics between women and men and higher baseline endogenous factor Xa levels in women, the intensity of anticoagulation achieved with edoxaban between the sexes was similar. Treatment with higher-dose edoxaban regimen resulted in an even greater reduction in hemorrhagic stroke and several serious bleeding outcomes in women than in men, whereas the efficacy profile was similar between sexes

Changes in treatment and mortality of acute myocardial infarction in Estonian tertiary and secondary care hospitals in 2001 and 2007

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>High quality care for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) improves patient outcomes. Still, AMI patients are treated in hospitals with unequal access to percutaneous coronary intervention. The study compares changes in treatment and 30-day and 3-year mortality of AMI patients hospitalized into tertiary and secondary care hospitals in Estonia in 2001 and 2007.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Final analysis included 423 cases in 2001 (210 from tertiary and 213 from secondary care hospitals) and 687 cases in 2007 (327 from tertiary and 360 from secondary care hospitals). The study sample in 2007 was older and had twice more often diabetes mellitus. The patients in the tertiary care hospitals underwent reperfusion for ST-elevation myocardial infarction, cardiac catheterization and revascularisation up to twice as often in 2007 as in 2001. In the secondary care, patient transfer for further invasive treatment into tertiary care hospitals increased (<it>P </it>< 0.001). Prescription rates of evidence-based medications for in-hospital and for outpatient use were higher in 2007 in both types of hospitals. However, better treatment did not improve significantly the short- and long-term mortality within a hospital type in crude and baseline-adjusted analysis. Still, in 2007 a mortality gap between the two hospital types was observed (<it>P </it>< 0.010).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>AMI treatment improved in both types of hospitals, while the improvement was more pronounced in tertiary care. Still, better treatment did not result in a significantly lower mortality. Higher age and cardiovascular risk are posing a challenge for AMI treatment.</p

Acute ischemic heart disease and interventional cardiology: a time for pause

BACKGROUND: A major change has occurred in the last few years in the therapeutic approach to patients presenting with all forms of acute coronary syndromes. Whether or not these patients present initially to tertiary cardiac care centers, they are now routinely referred for early coronary angiography and increasingly undergo percutaneous revascularization. This practice is driven primarily by the angiographic image and technical feasibility. Concomitantly, there has been a decline in expectant or ischemia-guided medical management based on specific clinical presentation, response to initial treatment, and results of noninvasive stratification. This 'tertiarization' of acute coronary care has been fuelled by the increasing sophistication of the cardiac armamentarium, the peer-reviewed publication of clinical studies purporting to show the superiority of invasive cardiac interventions, and predominantly supporting (non-peer-reviewed) editorials, newsletters, and opinion pieces. DISCUSSION: This review presents another perspective, based on a critical reexamination of the evidence. The topics addressed are: reperfusion treatment of ST-elevation myocardial infarction; the indications for invasive intervention following thrombolysis; the role of invasive management in non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction and unstable angina; and cost-effectiveness and real world considerations. A few cases encountered in recent practice in community and tertiary hospitals are presented for illustrative purposes The numerous and far-reaching scientific, economic, and philosophical implications that are a consequence of this marked change in clinical practice as well as healthcare, decisional and conflict of interest issues are explored. SUMMARY: The weight of evidence does not support the contemporary unfocused broad use of invasive interventional procedures across the spectrum of acute coronary clinical presentations. Excessive and unselective recourse to these procedures has deleterious implications for the organization of cardiac health care and undesirable economic, scientific and intellectual consequences. It is suggested that there is need for a new equilibrium based on more refined clinical risk stratification in the treatment of patients who present with acute coronary syndromes