Inadequate heart rate control despite widespread use of beta-blockers in outpatients with stable CAD: findings from the international prospective CLARIFY registry

Background: To use CLARIFY, a prospective registry of patients with stable CAD (45 countries), to explore heart rate (HR) control and beta-blocker use.<p></p> Methods: We analyzed the CLARIFY population according to beta-blocker use via descriptive statistics with Pearson's χ2 test for comparisons, as well as a multivariable stepwise model.<p></p> Results: Data on beta-blocker use was available for 32,914 patients, in whom HR was 68 ± 11 bpm; patients with angina, previous myocardial infarction, and heart failure had HRs of 69 ± 12, 68 ± 11, and 70 ± 12 bpm, respectively. 75% of these patients were receiving beta-blockers. Bisoprolol (34%), metoprolol tartrate (16%) or succinate (13%), atenolol (15%), and carvedilol (12%) were mostly used; mean dosages were 49%, 76%, 35%, 53%, and 45% of maximum doses, respectively. Patients aged < 65 years were more likely to receive beta-blockers than patients ≥ 75 years (P < 0.0001). Gender had no effect. Subjects with HR ≤ 60 bpm were more likely to be on beta-blockers than patients with HR ≥ 70 bpm (P < 0.0001). Patients with angina, previous myocardial infarction, heart failure, and hypertension were more frequently receiving beta-blockers (all P < 0.0001), and those with PAD and asthma/COPD less frequently (both P < 0.0001). Beta-blocker use varied according to geographical region (from 87% to 67%).<p></p> Conclusions: Three-quarters of patients with stable CAD receive beta-blockers. Even so, HR is insufficiently controlled in many patients, despite recent guidelines for the management of CAD. There is still much room for improvement in HR control in the management of stable CAD

Relationships between components of blood pressure and cardiovascular events in patients with stable coronary artery disease and hypertension

Observational studies have shown a J-shaped relationship between diastolic blood pressure (BP) and cardiovascular events in hypertensive patients with coronary artery disease. We investigated whether the increased risk associated with low diastolic BP reflects elevated pulse pressure (PP). In 22 672 hypertensive patients with coronary artery disease from the CLARIFY registry (Prospective Observational Longitudinal Registry of Patients With Stable Coronary Artery Disease), followed for a median of 5.0 years, BP was measured annually and averaged. The relationships between PP and diastolic BP, alone or combined, and the primary composite outcome (cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction) were analyzed using multivariable Cox proportional hazards models. Adjusted hazard ratios for the primary outcome were 1.62 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.40–1.87), 1.00 (ref), 1.07 (95% CI, 0.94–1.21), 1.54 (95% CI, 1.32–1.79), and 2.34 (95% CI, 1.95–2.81) for PP<45, 45 to 54 (reference), 55 to 64, 65 to 74, and ≥75 mm Hg, respectively, and 1.50 (95% CI, 1.31–1.72), 1.00 (reference), and 1.58 (95% CI, 1.42–1.77) for diastolic BPs of <70, 70 to 79 (ref), and ≥80 mm Hg, respectively. In a cross-classification analysis between diastolic BP and PP, the relationship between diastolic BP and the primary outcome remained J-shaped when the analysis was restricted to patients with the lowest-risk PP (45–64 mm Hg), with adjusted hazard ratios of 1.53 (95% CI, 1.27–1.83), 1.00 (ref), and 1.54 (95% CI, 1.34–1.75) in the <70, 70 to 79 (reference), and ≥80 mm Hg subgroups, respectively. The J-shaped relationship between diastolic BP and cardiovascular events in hypertensive patients with coronary artery disease persists in patients within the lowest-risk PP range and is therefore unlikely to be solely the consequence of an increased PP reflecting advanced vascular disease

Impact of smoking on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with stable coronary artery disease

Aims: Smoking is a major preventable risk factor for cardiovascular disease and mortality. However, the ‘smoker’s paradox’ suggests that it is associated with better survival after acute myocardial infarction. We aimed to investigate the impact of smoking on mortality and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with stable coronary artery disease. Methods: The international CLARIFY registry included 32,703 patients with stable coronary artery disease between 2009 and 2010. Among the 32,378 patients included in the present analysis, Cox proportional hazards models (adjusted for age, sex, geographic region, prior myocardial infarction, and revascularization status) were used to estimate associations between smoking status and outcomes. Patients were stratified as follows: 41.3% of patients never smoked, 12.5% were current smokers and 46.2% were former smokers. Results: Current smokers were younger than never-smokers and former smokers (59 vs. 66 and 64 years old, respectively, p < 0.0001). There were more men among current or former smokers compared with never-smokers. Compared with never-smokers, both current and former smokers were at higher risk of all-cause death (hazard ratio = 1.96 and 1.37) and cardiovascular death (hazard ratio = 1.92 and 1.38) within five years (all p < 0.05). Similarly graded and increased risks were present for myocardial infarction and the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction and stroke (all p < 0.05). Conclusion: In contrast to the ‘smoker’s paradox’, current smokers with stable coronary artery disease have a greatly increased risk of future cardiovascular events, including mortality, compared with never-smokers. In former smokers, cardiovascular risk remains elevated albeit at an intermediate level between that of current and never-smokers, reinforcing the importance of smoking cessation. (ISRCTN43070564)

Dabigatran dual therapy versus warfarin triple therapy post-PCI in patients with atrial fibrillation and diabetes

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate dabigatran dual therapy versus warfarin triple therapy in patients with or without diabetes mellitus in the RE-DUAL PCI (Randomized Evaluation of Dual Antithrombotic Therapy With Dabigatran Versus Triple Therapy With Warfarin in Patients With Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) trial.BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether dual therapy is as safe and efficacious as triple therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation with diabetes following percutaneous coronary intervention.METHODS: In RE-DUAL PCI, 2,725 patients with atrial fibrillation (993 with diabetes) who had undergone PCI were assigned to warfarin triple therapy (warfarin, clopidogrel or ticagrelor, and aspirin) or dabigatran dual therapy (dabigatran 110 mg or 150 mg twice daily and clopidogrel or ticagrelor). Median follow-up was 13 months. The primary outcome was the composite of major bleeding or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding, and the main efficacy outcome was the composite of death, thromboembolic events, or unplanned revascularization.RESULTS: Among patients with diabetes, the incidence of major bleeding or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding was 15.2% in the dabigatran 110 mg dual therapy group versus 27.5% in the warfarin triple therapy group (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.48; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.35 to 0.67) and 23.8% in the dabigatran 150 mg dual therapy group versus 25.1% in the warfarin triple therapy group (HR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.62 to 1.22). Risk for major bleeding or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding was also reduced with both dabigatran doses among patients without diabetes (dabigatran 110 mg dual therapy: HR: 0.54; 95% CI: 0.42 to 0.70; dabigatran 150 mg dual therapy: HR: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.48 to 0.83). Risk for the efficacy endpoint was comparable between treatment groups for both patients with and those without diabetes. No interaction between treatment and diabetes subgroup could be observed, either for bleeding or for composite efficacy endpoints.CONCLUSIONS: In this subgroup analysis, dabigatran dual therapy had a lower risk for bleeding and a comparable rate of the efficacy endpoint compared with warfarin triple therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation with or without diabetes following percutaneous coronary intervention.</p

Ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes intended for non-invasive management: substudy from prospective randomised PLATelet inhibition and patient Outcomes (PLATO) trial

Objective To evaluate efficacy and safety outcomes in patients in the PLATelet inhibition and patient Outcomes (PLATO) trial who at randomisation were planned for a non-invasive treatment strategy

Double-Dose Versus Standard-Dose Clopidogrel According to Smoking Status Among Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Background: Prior Studies have suggested better outcomes in smokers compared with nonsmokers receiving clopidogrel (“smoker's paradox”). The impact of a more intensive clopidogrel regimen on ischemic and bleeding risks in smokers with acute coronary syndromes requiring percutaneous coronary interventions remains unclear. Methods and Results: We analyzed 17 263 acute coronary syndrome patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention from the CURRENT‐OASIS 7 (Clopidogrel and Aspirin Optimal Dose Usage to Reduce Recurrent Events—Seventh Organization to Assess Strategies in Ischemic Symptoms) trial, which compared double‐dose (600 mg day 1;150 mg days 2–7; then 75 mg daily) versus standard‐dose (300 mg day 1; then 75 mg daily) clopidogrel in acute coronary syndrome patients. The primary outcome was cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 30 days. Interactions between treatment allocation and smoking status (current smokers versus nonsmokers) were evaluated. Overall, 6394 patients (37.0%) were current smokers. For the comparison of double‐ versus standard‐dose clopidogrel, there were significant interactions in smokers and nonsmokers for the primary outcome (P=0.031) and major bleeding (P=0.002). Double‐ versus standard‐dose clopidogrel reduced the primary outcome among smokers by 34% (hazard ratio [HR] 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.50–0.87, P=0.003), whereas in nonsmokers, there was no apparent benefit (HR 0.96, 95% CI, 0.80–1.14, P=0.61). For major bleeding, there was no difference between the groups in smokers (HR 0.77, 95% CI, 0.48–1.24, P=0.28), whereas in nonsmokers, the double‐dose clopidogrel regimen increased bleeding (HR 1.89, 95% CI, 1.37–2.60, P<0.0001). Double‐dose clopidogrel reduced the incidence of definite stent thrombosis in smokers (HR 0.41, 95% CI, 0.24–0.71) and nonsmokers (HR 0.63, 95% CI, 0.42–0.93; P for interaction=0.19). Conclusions: In smokers, a double‐dose clopidogrel regimen reduced major cardiovascular events and stent thrombosis after percutaneous coronary intervention, with no increase in major bleeding. This suggests that clopidogrel dosing in patients with acute coronary syndromes should be personalized, taking into consideration both ischemic and bleeding risk. Clinical Trial Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00335452