142 research outputs found

    Validating the predictive ability of the 2MACE score for major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with atrial fibrillation: results from phase II/III of the GLORIA-AF registry

    Get PDF
    The 2MACE score was specifically developed as a risk-stratification tool in atrial fibrillation (AF) to predict cardiovascular outcomes. We evaluated the predictive ability of the 2MACE score in the GLORIA-AF registry. All eligible patients from phase II/III of the prospective global GLORIA-AF registry were included. Major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) were defined as the composite outcome of stroke, myocardial infarction and cardiovascular death. Cox proportional hazards were used to examine the relationship between the 2MACE score and study outcomes. Predictive capability of the 2MACE score was investigated using receiver-operating characteristic curves. A total of 25,696 patients were included (mean age 71 years, female 44.9%). Over 3 years, 1583 MACEs were recorded. Patients who had MACE were older, with more cardiovascular risk factors and were less likely to be managed using a rhythm-control strategy. The median 2MACE score in the MACE and non-MACE groups were 2 (IQR 1-3) and 1 (IQR 0-2), respectively (p < 0.001). The 2MACE score was positively associated with an increase in the risk of MACE, with a score of & GE; 2 providing the best combination of sensitivity (69.6%) and specificity (51.6%), HR 2.47 (95% CI, 2.21-2.77). The 2MACE score had modest predictive performance for MACE in patients with AF (AUC 0.655 (95% CI, 0.641-0.669)). Our analysis in this prospective global registry demonstrates that the 2MACE score can adequately predict the risk of MACE (defined as myocardial infarction, CV death and stroke) in patients with AF. Clinical trial registration:. Unique identifiers: NCT01468701, NCT01671007 and NCT0193737

    Comparative effectiveness and safety of non-vitamin K antagonists for atrial fibrillation in clinical practice: GLORIA-AF Registry

    Get PDF
    Background and purpose: Prospectively collected data comparing the safety and effectiveness of individual non-vitamin K antagonists (NOACs) are lacking. Our objective was to directly compare the effectiveness and safety of NOACs in patients with newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation (AF). Methods: In GLORIA-AF, a large, prospective, global registry program, consecutive patients with newly diagnosed AF were followed for 3 years. The comparative analyses for (1) dabigatran vs rivaroxaban or apixaban and (2) rivaroxaban vs apixaban were performed on propensity score (PS)-matched patient sets. Proportional hazards regression was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for outcomes of interest. Results: The GLORIA-AF Phase III registry enrolled 21,300 patients between January 2014 and December 2016. Of these, 3839 were prescribed dabigatran, 4015 rivaroxaban and 4505 apixaban, with median ages of 71.0, 71.0, and 73.0 years, respectively. In the PS-matched set, the adjusted HRs and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dabigatran vs rivaroxaban were, for stroke: 1.27 (0.79–2.03), major bleeding 0.59 (0.40–0.88), myocardial infarction 0.68 (0.40–1.16), and all-cause death 0.86 (0.67–1.10). For the comparison of dabigatran vs apixaban, in the PS-matched set, the adjusted HRs were, for stroke 1.16 (0.76–1.78), myocardial infarction 0.84 (0.48–1.46), major bleeding 0.98 (0.63–1.52) and all-cause death 1.01 (0.79–1.29). For the comparison of rivaroxaban vs apixaban, in the PS-matched set, the adjusted HRs were, for stroke 0.78 (0.52–1.19), myocardial infarction 0.96 (0.63–1.45), major bleeding 1.54 (1.14–2.08), and all-cause death 0.97 (0.80–1.19). Conclusions: Patients treated with dabigatran had a 41% lower risk of major bleeding compared with rivaroxaban, but similar risks of stroke, MI, and death. Relative to apixaban, patients treated with dabigatran had similar risks of stroke, major bleeding, MI, and death. Rivaroxaban relative to apixaban had increased risk for major bleeding, but similar risks for stroke, MI, and death. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifiers: NCT01468701, NCT01671007. Date of registration: September 2013

    Comparative effectiveness and safety of non-vitamin K antagonists for atrial fibrillation in clinical practice: GLORIA-AF Registry

    Get PDF

    Anticoagulant selection in relation to the SAMe-TT2R2 score in patients with atrial fibrillation. the GLORIA-AF registry

    Get PDF
    Aim: The SAMe-TT2R2 score helps identify patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) likely to have poor anticoagulation control during anticoagulation with vitamin K antagonists (VKA) and those with scores >2 might be better managed with a target-specific oral anticoagulant (NOAC). We hypothesized that in clinical practice, VKAs may be prescribed less frequently to patients with AF and SAMe-TT2R2 scores >2 than to patients with lower scores. Methods and results: We analyzed the Phase III dataset of the Global Registry on Long-Term Oral Antithrombotic Treatment in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation (GLORIA-AF), a large, global, prospective global registry of patients with newly diagnosed AF and ≥1 stroke risk factor. We compared baseline clinical characteristics and antithrombotic prescriptions to determine the probability of the VKA prescription among anticoagulated patients with the baseline SAMe-TT2R2 score >2 and ≤ 2. Among 17,465 anticoagulated patients with AF, 4,828 (27.6%) patients were prescribed VKA and 12,637 (72.4%) patients an NOAC: 11,884 (68.0%) patients had SAMe-TT2R2 scores 0-2 and 5,581 (32.0%) patients had scores >2. The proportion of patients prescribed VKA was 28.0% among patients with SAMe-TT2R2 scores >2 and 27.5% in those with scores ≤2. Conclusions: The lack of a clear association between the SAMe-TT2R2 score and anticoagulant selection may be attributed to the relative efficacy and safety profiles between NOACs and VKAs as well as to the absence of trial evidence that an SAMe-TT2R2-guided strategy for the selection of the type of anticoagulation in NVAF patients has an impact on clinical outcomes of efficacy and safety. The latter hypothesis is currently being tested in a randomized controlled trial. Clinical trial registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov//Unique identifier: NCT01937377, NCT01468701, and NCT01671007

    NSTEMI treatment:should we always follow the guidelines?

    No full text

    Milk fat fractionation today: A review

    No full text

    Use, timing and outcome of coronary angiography in patients with high-risk non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome in daily clinical practice: insights from a 'real world' prospective registry

    Get PDF
    Contains fulltext : 202710.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: An early invasive strategy (EIS) is recommended in high-risk patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS), defined as coronary angiography (CAG), within 24h of admission. The aim of the present study is to investigate guideline adherence, patient characteristics associated with timing of the intervention and clinical outcome. METHODS: In a prospective registry, the use and timing of CAG and the characteristics and clinical outcome associated with timing were evaluated in high-risk ACS patients. The outcome of early versus delayed invasive strategy (DIS) was compared. RESULTS: Between 2006 and 2014, 2,299 high-risk NSTE-ACS patients were included. The use of CAG increased from 77% in 2006 to 90% in 2014 (p trend <0.001) together with a decrease of median time to CAG from 23.3 to 14.5h (p trend <0.001) and an increase of patients undergoing EIS from 50 to 60% (p trend= 0.002). Patient factors independently related to DIS were higher GRACE risk score, higher age and the presence of comorbidities. No difference was found in incidence of mortality, reinfarction or bleeding at 30-day follow-up. All-cause mortality at 1year follow-up was 4.1% vs 7.0% in EIS and DIS respectively (hazard ratio 1.67, 95% confidence interval 1.12-2.49) but was comparable after adjustment for confounding factors. CONCLUSION: The percentage of high-risk NSTE-ACS patients undergoing CAG and EIS has increased in the last decade. In contrast to the guidelines, patients with a higher risk profile are less likely to undergo EIS. However, no difference in outcome after 30 days and 1 year was found after multivariate adjustment for this higher risk
    corecore