957-108 Does Reperfusion Induced by Angioplasty Confer the Same Benefit as Thrombolysis in Terms of Late Potentials?

Angioplasty or thrombolysis (T) during acute myocardial infarction (MI) are two effective methods for achieving reperfusion, but whether reperfusion induced by angioplasty confers the same protection against the presence of late potentials on signal-averaged electrocardiography (SAE) as that induced by T remains debated. We studied retrospectively 102 consecutive Pts with successful reperfusion (TIMI grade 3 patency in acute phase), obtained by T, primary angioplasty (P), or rescue angioplasty (R) during the first 6 hours of MI. T Pts all had angiography at 90min to prove reperfusion. All had SAE >6 days later. Late potentials were defined as, ≥2 of the following criteria: QRS >120msec, RMS40 <20μV, LAS> 38msec. Results are (mean±SD):TPRPnumber of Pts354027Age (years)59.9±1160.5±1453±13<0.04% males868593NS% anterior545846NSTime to treatment (min)169±72212±79171±76NSTime to reperfusion (min)285±75*261±90280±98NSEjection fraction°(%)53±845±1546±14NS% Late potentials431011<0.001*time to 90min angiography with proven reperfusion°radionuclide left ventricular ejection fraction at dischargeThus, after MI, the prevalence of late potentials appears lower when acute reperfusion is obtained by angioplasty rather than by thrombolysis. This difference does not appear related to differences in time to treatment, time to reperfusion, left ventricular function or other patient characteristics

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)

REDUCE-IT USA: Results From the 3146 Patients Randomized in the United States.

BackgroundSome trials have found that patients from the United States derive less benefit than patients enrolled outside the United States. This prespecified REDUCE-IT (Reduction of Cardiovascular Events with Icosapent Ethyl - Intervention Trial) subgroup analysis was conducted to determine the degree of benefit of icosapent ethyl in the United States.MethodsREDUCE-IT randomized 8179 statin-treated patients with qualifying triglycerides ≥135 and <500 mg/dL and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol >40 and ≤100 mg/dL and a history of atherosclerosis or diabetes mellitus to icosapent ethyl 4 g/d or placebo. The primary composite end point was cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, coronary revascularization, or hospitalization for unstable angina. The key secondary composite end point was cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. A hierarchy was prespecified for examination of individual and composite end points.ResultsA total of 3146 US patients (38.5% of the trial) were randomized and followed for a median of 4.9 years; 32.3% were women and 9.7% were Hispanic. The primary composite end point occurred in 24.7% of placebo-treated patients versus 18.2% of icosapent ethyl-treated patients (hazard ratio [HR], 0.69 [95% CI, 0.59-0.80]; P=0.000001); the key secondary composite end point occurred in 16.6% versus 12.1% (HR, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.57-0.83]; P=0.00008). All prespecified hierarchical end points were meaningfully and significantly reduced, including cardiovascular death (6.7% to 4.7%; HR, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.49-0.90]; P=0.007), myocardial infarction (8.8% to 6.7%; HR, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.56-0.93]; P=0.01), stroke (4.1% to 2.6%; HR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.43-0.93]; P=0.02), and all-cause mortality (9.8% to 7.2%; HR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.55-0.90]; P=0.004); for all-cause mortality in the US versus non-US patients, Pinteraction=0.02. Safety and tolerability findings were consistent with the full study cohort.ConclusionsWhereas the non-US subgroup showed significant reductions in the primary and key secondary end points, the US subgroup demonstrated particularly robust risk reductions across a variety of individual and composite end points, including all-cause mortality.Clinical trial registrationURL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01492361

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

Statin therapy and long-term adverse limb outcomes in patients with peripheral artery disease: insights from the REACH registry

Aims Due to a high burden of systemic cardiovascular events, current guidelines recommend the use of statins in all patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD). We sought to study the impact of statin use on limb prognosis in patients with symptomatic PAD enrolled in the international REACH registry. Methods Statin use was assessed at study enrolment, as well as a time-varying covariate. Rates of the primary adverse limb outcome (worsening claudication/new episode of critical limb ischaemia, new percutaneous/surgical revascularization, or amputation) at 4 years and the composite of cardiovascular death/myocardial infarction/stroke were compared among statin users vs. non-users. Results A total of 5861 patients with symptomatic PAD were included. Statin use at baseline was 62.2%. Patients who were on statins had a significantly lower risk of the primary adverse limb outcome at 4 years when compared with those who were not taking statins [22.0 vs. 26.2%; hazard ratio (HR), 0.82; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.72-0.92; P = 0.0013]. Results were similar when statin use was considered as a time-dependent variable (P = 0.018) and on propensity analysis (P < 0.0001). The composite of cardiovascular death/myocardial infarction/stroke was similarly reduced (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.73-0.96; P = 0.01). Conclusion Among patients with PAD in the REACH registry, statin use was associated with an ∼18% lower rate of adverse limb outcomes, including worsening symptoms, peripheral revascularization, and ischaemic amputations. These findings suggest that statin therapy not only reduces the risk of adverse cardiovascular events, but also favourably affects limb prognosis in patients with PA

Cardiovascular risk profile and management of atrial fibrillation in India: Real world data from RealiseAF survey

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained arrhythmia with high risk for many cardiovascular (CV) complications. Adherence to recommended management guidelines is important to avoid complications. In India, there is little knowledge on how AF is managed in real world. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study of patients in India enrolled in RealiseAF survey between February 2010 and March 2010 with a diagnosis of AF within the last 12 months. RESULTS: From 15 centers, 301 patients {mean age 59.9 years (14.4); 52.5% males} were recruited. AF was controlled in 50% of patients with 77 (26.7%) in sinus rhythm and 67 (23.3%) with heart rate <80beats/min. Hypertension (50.8%), valvular heart disease (40.7%), heart failure (25.9%), and diabetes (20.4%) were the most common underlying CV diseases. Increased risk for stroke (CHADS2 score≥2) was present in 36.6%. Most of the patients (85%) were symptomatic. AF was paroxysmal, persistent, and permanent in 28.7%, 22.7%, and 34.3% respectively. In 14%, AF was diagnosed as first episode. Forty-six percent of patients had rate control, 35.2% rhythm control, 0.3% both strategies, and 18.4% received no therapy for AF before the visit. At the end of the visit, adoption to rate control strategy increased to 52.3% and patients with no therapy decreased to 7%. CONCLUSION: AF in India is not adequately controlled. Concomitant CV risk factors and risk of stroke are high. The study underscores the need for improved adoption of guideline-directed management for optimal control of AF and reducing the risk of stroke