Does prior coronary angioplasty affect outcomes of surgical coronary revascularization? Insights from the STICH trial

Background: The STICH trial showed superiority of coronary artery bypass plus medical treatment (CABG) over medical treatment alone (MED) in patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤35%. In previous publications, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) prior to CABG was associated with worse prognosis. Objectives: The main purpose of this study was to analyse if prior PCI influenced outcomes in STICH. Methods and results: Patients in the STICH trial (n = 1212), followed for a median time of 9.8 years, were included in the present analyses. In the total population, 156 had a prior PCI (74 and 82, respectively, in the MED and CABG groups). In those with vs. without prior PCI, the adjusted hazard-ratios (aHRs) were 0.92 (95% CI = 0.74–1.15) for all-cause mortality, 0.85 (95% CI = 0.64–1.11) for CV mortality, and 1.43 (95% CI = 1.15–1.77) for CV hospitalization. In the group randomized to CABG without prior PCI, the aHRs were 0.82 (95% CI = 0.70–0.95) for all-cause mortality, 0.75 (95% CI = 0.62–0.90) for CV mortality and 0.67 (95% CI = 0.56–0.80) for CV hospitalization. In the group randomized to CABG with prior PCI, the aHRs were 0.76 (95% CI = 0.50–1.15) for all-cause mortality, 0.81 (95% CI = 0.49–1.36) for CV mortality and 0.61 (95% CI = 0.41–0.90) for CV hospitalization. There was no evidence of interaction between randomized treatment and prior PCI for any endpoint (all adjusted p > 0.05). Conclusion: In the STICH trial, prior PCI did not affect the outcomes of patients whether they were treated medically or surgically, and the superiority of CABG over MED remained unchanged regardless of prior PCI. Clinical trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov; Identifier: NCT0002359

Dapagliflozin and Kidney Outcomes in Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19 Infection:An Analysis of the DARE-19 Randomized Controlled Trial

Background and objectives: Patients who were hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection are at high risk of AKI and KRT, especially in the presence of CKD. The Dapagliflozin in Respiratory Failure in Patients with COVID-19 (DARE-19) trial showed that in patients hospitalized with COVID-19, treatment with dapagliflozin versus placebo resulted in numerically fewer participants who experienced organ failure or death, although these differences were not statistically significant. We performed a secondary analysis of the DARE-19 trial to determine the efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin on kidney outcomes in the overall population and in prespecified subgroups of participants defined by baseline eGFR. Design, setting, participants, & measurements: The DARE-19 trial randomized 1250 patients who were hospitalized (231 [18%] had eGFR <60 ml/min per 1.73 m2) with COVID-19 and cardiometabolic risk factors to dapagliflozin or placebo. Dual primary outcomes (time to new or worsened organ dysfunction or death, and a hierarchical composite end point of recovery [change in clinical status by day 30]), and the key secondary kidney outcome (composite of AKI, KRT, or death), and safety were assessed in participants with baseline eGFR <60 and ≥60 ml/min per 1.73 m2. Results: The effect of dapagliflozin versus placebo on the primary prevention outcome (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% confidence interval, 0.58 to 1.10), primary recovery outcome (win ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 0.97 to 1.22), and the composite kidney outcome (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval, 0.50 to 1.07) were consistent across eGFR subgroups (P for interaction: 0.98, 0.67, and 0.44, respectively). The effects of dapagliflozin on AKI were also similar in participants with eGFR <60 ml/min per 1.73 m2 (hazard ratio, 0.71; 95% confidence interval, 0.29 to 1.77) and ≥60 ml/min per 1.73 m2 (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.37 to 1.29). Dapagliflozin was well tolerated in participants with eGFR <60 and ≥60 ml/min per 1.73 m2. Conclusions: The effects of dapagliflozin on primary and secondary outcomes in hospitalized participants with COVID-19 were consistent in those with eGFR below/above 60 ml/min per 1.73 m2. Dapagliflozin was well tolerated and did not increase the risk of AKI in participants with eGFR below or above 60 ml/min per 1.73 m2

Factors associated with actively working in the very long-term following acute coronary syndrome

OBJECTIVES: Returning to work after an episode of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is challenging for many patients, and has both personal and social impacts. There are limited data regarding the working status in the very long-term after ACS. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 1,632 patients who were working prior to hospitalization for ACS in a quaternary hospital and were followed-up for up to 17 years. Adjusted models were developed to analyze the variables independently associated with actively working at the last contact, and a prognostic predictive index for not working at follow-up was developed. RESULTS: The following variables were significantly and independently associated with actively working at the last contact: age4median (hazard-ratio [HR], 0.76, po0.001); male sex (HR, 1.52, po0.001); government health insurance (HR, 1.36, po0.001); history of angina (HR, 0.69, po0.001) or myocardial infarction (MI) (HR, 0.76, p=0.005); smoking (HR, 0.81, p=0.015); ST-elevation MI (HR, 0.81, p=0.021); anterior-wall MI (HR, 0.75, p=0.001); non-primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (HR, 0.77, p=0.002); fibrinolysis (HR, 0.61, po0.001); cardiogenic shock (HR, 0.60, p=0.023); statin (HR, 3.01, po0.001), beta-blocker (HR, 1.26, p=0.020), angiotensinconverting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor/angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB) (HR, 1.37, p=0.001) at hospital discharge; and MI at follow-up (HR, 0.72, p=0.001). The probability of not working at the last contact ranged from 24.2% for patients with no variables, up to 80% for patients with six or more variables. CONCLUSIONS: In patients discharged after ACS, prior and in-hospital clinical variables, as well as the quality of care at discharge, have a great impact on the long-term probability of actively working

Dapagliflozin and Kidney Outcomes in Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19 Infection: An Analysis of the DARE-19 Randomized Controlled Trial

Background and objectives: Patients who were hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection are at high risk of AKI and KRT, especially in the presence of CKD. The Dapagliflozin in Respiratory Failure in Patients with COVID-19 (DARE-19) trial showed that in patients hospitalized with COVID-19, treatment with dapagliflozin versus placebo resulted in numerically fewer participants who experienced organ failure or death, although these differences were not statistically significant. We performed a secondary analysis of the DARE-19 trial to determine the efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin on kidney outcomes in the overall population and in prespecified subgroups of participants defined by baseline eGFR. Design, setting, participants, & measurements: The DARE-19 trial randomized 1250 patients who were hospitalized (231 [18%] had eGFR <60 ml/min per 1.73 m2) with COVID-19 and cardiometabolic risk factors to dapagliflozin or placebo. Dual primary outcomes (time to new or worsened organ dysfunction or death, and a hierarchical composite end point of recovery [change in clinical status by day 30]), and the key secondary kidney outcome (composite of AKI, KRT, or death), and safety were assessed in participants with baseline eGFR <60 and ≥60 ml/min per 1.73 m2. Results: The effect of dapagliflozin versus placebo on the primary prevention outcome (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% confidence interval, 0.58 to 1.10), primary recovery outcome (win ratio, 1.09; 95% confidence interval, 0.97 to 1.22), and the composite kidney outcome (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval, 0.50 to 1.07) were consistent across eGFR subgroups (P for interaction: 0.98, 0.67, and 0.44, respectively). The effects of dapagliflozin on AKI were also similar in participants with eGFR <60 ml/min per 1.73 m2 (hazard ratio, 0.71; 95% confidence interval, 0.29 to 1.77) and ≥60 ml/min per 1.73 m2 (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.37 to 1.29). Dapagliflozin was well tolerated in participants with eGFR <60 and ≥60 ml/min per 1.73 m2. Conclusions: The effects of dapagliflozin on primary and secondary outcomes in hospitalized participants with COVID-19 were consistent in those with eGFR below/above 60 ml/min per 1.73 m2. Dapagliflozin was well tolerated and did not increase the risk of AKI in participants with eGFR below or above 60 ml/min per 1.73 m2

Azithromycin in addition to standard of care versus standard of care alone in the treatment of patients admitted to the hospital with severe COVID-19 in Brazil (COALITION II):a randomised clinical trial

Background: The efficacy and safety of azithromycin in the treatment of COVID-19 remain uncertain. We assessed whether adding azithromycin to standard of care, which included hydroxychloroquine, would improve clinical outcomes of patients admitted to the hospital with severe COVID-19. Methods: We did an open-label, randomised clinical trial at 57 centres in Brazil. We enrolled patients admitted to hospital with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 and at least one additional severity criteria as follows: use of oxygen supplementation of more than 4 L/min flow; use of high-flow nasal cannula; use of non-invasive mechanical ventilation; or use of invasive mechanical ventilation. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to azithromycin (500 mg via oral, nasogastric, or intravenous administration once daily for 10 days) plus standard of care or to standard of care without macrolides. All patients received hydroxychloroquine (400 mg twice daily for 10 days) because that was part of standard of care treatment in Brazil for patients with severe COVID-19. The primary outcome, assessed by an independent adjudication committee masked to treatment allocation, was clinical status at day 15 after randomisation, assessed by a six-point ordinal scale, with levels ranging from 1 to 6 and higher scores indicating a worse condition (with odds ratio [OR] greater than 1·00 favouring the control group). The primary outcome was assessed in all patients in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population who had severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection confirmed by molecular or serological testing before randomisation (ie, modified ITT [mITT] population). Safety was assessed in all patients according to which treatment they received, regardless of original group assignment. This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04321278. Findings: 447 patients were enrolled from March 28 to May 19, 2020. COVID-19 was confirmed in 397 patients who constituted the mITT population, of whom 214 were assigned to the azithromycin group and 183 to the control group. In the mITT population, the primary endpoint was not significantly different between the azithromycin and control groups (OR 1·36 [95% CI 0·94–1·97], p=0·11). Rates of adverse events, including clinically relevant ventricular arrhythmias, resuscitated cardiac arrest, acute kidney failure, and corrected QT interval prolongation, were not significantly different between groups. Interpretation: In patients with severe COVID-19, adding azithromycin to standard of care treatment (which included hydroxychloroquine) did not improve clinical outcomes. Our findings do not support the routine use of azithromycin in combination with hydroxychloroquine in patients with severe COVID-19. Funding: COALITION COVID-19 Brazil and EMS