Health-related qualify of life, angina type and coronary artery disease in patients with stable chest pain

Background: Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is impaired in patients with stable angina but patients often present with other forms of chest pain. The aim of this study was to compare the pre-diagnostic HRQoL in patients with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) according to angina type, gender, and presence of obstructive CAD. Methods: From the pilot study for the European DISCHARGE trial, we analysed data from 24 sites including 1263 patients (45.9% women, 61.1 ± 11.3 years) who were clinically referred for invasive coronary angiography (ICA; 617 patients) or coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA; 646 patients). Prior to the procedures, patients completed HRQoL questionnaires: the Short Form (SF)-12v2, the EuroQoL (EQ-5D-3 L) and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Results: Fifty-five percent of ICA and 35% of CTA patients had typical angina, 23 and 33% had atypical angina, 18 and 28% had non-anginal chest discomfort and 5 and 5% had other chest discomfort, respectively. Patients with typical angina had the poorest physical functioning compared to the other angina groups (SF-12 physical component score; 41.2 ± 8.8, 43.3 ± 9.1, 46.2 ± 9.0, 46.4 ± 11.4, respectively, all age and gender-adjusted p < 0.01), and highest anxiety levels (8.3 ± 4.1, 7.5 ± 4.1, 6.5 ± 4.0, 4.7 ± 4.5, respectively, all adjusted p < 0.01). On all other measures, patients with typical or atypical angina had lower HRQoL compared to the two other groups (all adjusted p < 0.05). HRQoL did not differ between patients with and without obstructive CAD while women had worse HRQoL compared with men, irrespective of age and angina type. Conclusions: Prior to a diagnostic procedure for stable chest pain, HRQoL is associated with chest pain characteristics, but not with obstructive CAD, and is significantly lower in women. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02400229

Baseline Characteristics and Risk Profiles of Participants in the ISCHEMIA Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance: It is unknown whether coronary revascularization, when added to optimal medical therapy, improves prognosis in patients with stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD) at increased risk of cardiovascular events owing to moderate or severe ischemia. Objective: To describe baseline characteristics of participants enrolled and randomized in the International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches (ISCHEMIA) trial and to evaluate whether qualification by stress imaging or nonimaging exercise tolerance test (ETT) influenced risk profiles. Design, Setting, and Participants: The ISCHEMIA trial recruited patients with SIHD with moderate or severe ischemia on stress testing. Blinded coronary computed tomography angiography was performed in most participants and reviewed by a core laboratory to exclude left main stenosis of at least 50% or no obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) (<50% for imaging stress test and <70% for ETT). The study included 341 enrolling sites (320 randomizing) in 38 countries and patients with SIHD and moderate or severe ischemia on stress testing. Data presented were extracted on December 17, 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures: Enrolled, excluded, and randomized participants' baseline characteristics. No clinical outcomes are reported. Results: A total of 8518 patients were enrolled, and 5179 were randomized. Common reasons for exclusion were core laboratory determination of insufficient ischemia, unprotected left main stenosis of at least 50%, or no stenosis that met study obstructive CAD criteria on study coronary computed tomography angiography. Randomized participants had a median age of 64 years, with 1168 women (22.6%), 1726 nonwhite participants (33.7%), 748 Hispanic participants (15.5%), 2122 with diabetes (41.0%), and 4643 with a history of angina (89.7%). Among the 3909 participants randomized after stress imaging, core laboratory assessment of ischemia severity (in 3901 participants) was severe in 1748 (44.8%), moderate in 1600 (41.0%), mild in 317 (8.1%) and none or uninterpretable in 236 (6.0%), Among the 1270 participants who were randomized after nonimaging ETT, core laboratory determination of ischemia severity (in 1266 participants) was severe (an eligibility criterion) in 1051 (83.0%), moderate in 101 (8.0%), mild in 34 (2.7%) and none or uninterpretable in 80 (6.3%). Among the 3912 of 5179 randomized participants who underwent coronary computed tomography angiography, 79.0% had multivessel CAD (n = 2679 of 3390) and 86.8% had left anterior descending (LAD) stenosis (n = 3190 of 3677) (proximal in 46.8% [n = 1749 of 3739]). Participants undergoing ETT had greater frequency of 3-vessel CAD, LAD, and proximal LAD stenosis than participants undergoing stress imaging. Conclusions and Relevance: The ISCHEMIA trial randomized an SIHD population with moderate or severe ischemia on stress testing, of whom most had multivessel CAD

Baseline characteristics and risk profiles of participants in the ISCHEMIA randomized clinical trial

Importance It is unknown whether coronary revascularization, when added to optimal medical therapy, improves prognosis in patients with stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD) at increased risk of cardiovascular events owing to moderate or severe ischemia. Objective To describe baseline characteristics of participants enrolled and randomized in the International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches (ISCHEMIA) trial and to evaluate whether qualification by stress imaging or nonimaging exercise tolerance test (ETT) influenced risk profiles. Design, Setting, and Participants The ISCHEMIA trial recruited patients with SIHD with moderate or severe ischemia on stress testing. Blinded coronary computed tomography angiography was performed in most participants and reviewed by a core laboratory to exclude left main stenosis of at least 50% or no obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) (<50% for imaging stress test and <70% for ETT). The study included 341 enrolling sites (320 randomizing) in 38 countries and patients with SIHD and moderate or severe ischemia on stress testing. Data presented were extracted on December 17, 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures Enrolled, excluded, and randomized participants’ baseline characteristics. No clinical outcomes are reported. Results A total of 8518 patients were enrolled, and 5179 were randomized. Common reasons for exclusion were core laboratory determination of insufficient ischemia, unprotected left main stenosis of at least 50%, or no stenosis that met study obstructive CAD criteria on study coronary computed tomography angiography. Randomized participants had a median age of 64 years, with 1168 women (22.6%), 1726 nonwhite participants (33.7%), 748 Hispanic participants (15.5%), 2122 with diabetes (41.0%), and 4643 with a history of angina (89.7%). Among the 3909 participants randomized after stress imaging, core laboratory assessment of ischemia severity (in 3901 participants) was severe in 1748 (44.8%), moderate in 1600 (41.0%), mild in 317 (8.1%) and none or uninterpretable in 236 (6.0%), Among the 1270 participants who were randomized after nonimaging ETT, core laboratory determination of ischemia severity (in 1266 participants) was severe (an eligibility criterion) in 1051 (83.0%), moderate in 101 (8.0%), mild in 34 (2.7%) and none or uninterpretable in 80 (6.3%). Among the 3912 of 5179 randomized participants who underwent coronary computed tomography angiography, 79.0% had multivessel CAD (n = 2679 of 3390) and 86.8% had left anterior descending (LAD) stenosis (n = 3190 of 3677) (proximal in 46.8% [n = 1749 of 3739]). Participants undergoing ETT had greater frequency of 3-vessel CAD, LAD, and proximal LAD stenosis than participants undergoing stress imaging. Conclusions and Relevance The ISCHEMIA trial randomized an SIHD population with moderate or severe ischemia on stress testing, of whom most had multivessel CAD. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0147152

Stress neuropeptide levels in adults with chest pain due to coronary artery disease: potential implications for clinical assessment

: Substance P (SP) and neuropeptide Y (NPY) are neuropeptides involved in nociception. The study of biochemical markers of pain in communicating critically ill coronary patients may provide insight for pain assessment and management in critical care. Purpose of the study was to to explore potential associations between plasma neuropeptide levels and reported pain intensity in coronary critical care adults, in order to test the reliability of SP measurements for objective pain assessment in critical care

Edoxaban versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation

Contains fulltext : 125374.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Edoxaban is a direct oral factor Xa inhibitor with proven antithrombotic effects. The long-term efficacy and safety of edoxaban as compared with warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation is not known. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy trial comparing two once-daily regimens of edoxaban with warfarin in 21,105 patients with moderate-to-high-risk atrial fibrillation (median follow-up, 2.8 years). The primary efficacy end point was stroke or systemic embolism. Each edoxaban regimen was tested for noninferiority to warfarin during the treatment period. The principal safety end point was major bleeding. RESULTS: The annualized rate of the primary end point during treatment was 1.50% with warfarin (median time in the therapeutic range, 68.4%), as compared with 1.18% with high-dose edoxaban (hazard ratio, 0.79; 97.5% confidence interval [CI], 0.63 to 0.99; P<0.001 for noninferiority) and 1.61% with low-dose edoxaban (hazard ratio, 1.07; 97.5% CI, 0.87 to 1.31; P=0.005 for noninferiority). In the intention-to-treat analysis, there was a trend favoring high-dose edoxaban versus warfarin (hazard ratio, 0.87; 97.5% CI, 0.73 to 1.04; P=0.08) and an unfavorable trend with low-dose edoxaban versus warfarin (hazard ratio, 1.13; 97.5% CI, 0.96 to 1.34; P=0.10). The annualized rate of major bleeding was 3.43% with warfarin versus 2.75% with high-dose edoxaban (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.91; P<0.001) and 1.61% with low-dose edoxaban (hazard ratio, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.55; P<0.001). The corresponding annualized rates of death from cardiovascular causes were 3.17% versus 2.74% (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.77 to 0.97; P=0.01), and 2.71% (hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.76 to 0.96; P=0.008), and the corresponding rates of the key secondary end point (a composite of stroke, systemic embolism, or death from cardiovascular causes) were 4.43% versus 3.85% (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.78 to 0.96; P=0.005), and 4.23% (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.05; P=0.32). CONCLUSIONS: Both once-daily regimens of edoxaban were noninferior to warfarin with respect to the prevention of stroke or systemic embolism and were associated with significantly lower rates of bleeding and death from cardiovascular causes. (Funded by Daiichi Sankyo Pharma Development; ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00781391.)

Initial invasive or conservative strategy for stable coronary disease

BACKGROUND Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain. METHODS We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction. RESULTS Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, 121.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 124.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used

Health-status outcomes with invasive or conservative care in coronary disease

BACKGROUND In the ISCHEMIA trial, an invasive strategy with angiographic assessment and revascularization did not reduce clinical events among patients with stable ischemic heart disease and moderate or severe ischemia. A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status among these patients. METHODS We assessed angina-related symptoms, function, and quality of life with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) at randomization, at months 1.5, 3, and 6, and every 6 months thereafter in participants who had been randomly assigned to an invasive treatment strategy (2295 participants) or a conservative strategy (2322). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate differences between the treatment groups. The primary outcome of this health-status analysis was the SAQ summary score (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health status). All analyses were performed in the overall population and according to baseline angina frequency. RESULTS At baseline, 35% of patients reported having no angina in the previous month. SAQ summary scores increased in both treatment groups, with increases at 3, 12, and 36 months that were 4.1 points (95% credible interval, 3.2 to 5.0), 4.2 points (95% credible interval, 3.3 to 5.1), and 2.9 points (95% credible interval, 2.2 to 3.7) higher with the invasive strategy than with the conservative strategy. Differences were larger among participants who had more frequent angina at baseline (8.5 vs. 0.1 points at 3 months and 5.3 vs. 1.2 points at 36 months among participants with daily or weekly angina as compared with no angina). CONCLUSIONS In the overall trial population with moderate or severe ischemia, which included 35% of participants without angina at baseline, patients randomly assigned to the invasive strategy had greater improvement in angina-related health status than those assigned to the conservative strategy. The modest mean differences favoring the invasive strategy in the overall group reflected minimal differences among asymptomatic patients and larger differences among patients who had had angina at baseline