Pulmonary thromboendarterectomy in chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension: the Spanish experience

Background: Chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) can be cured by pulmonary endarterectomy (PEA). It is considered the best and only curable treatment option for patients with accessible lesions evaluated as optimal candidates. We describe the experience of the two reference centers in Spain, in order to reinforce the need for referring CTEPH patients to a specialized center to be assessed by a Multidisciplinary Expert Team. Methods: We included a population of 338 patients who met the definition for CTEPH and underwent PEA between January 2007 and December 2019. The surgery was indicated in almost 60% of patients assessed. Demographic, anthropometric, hemodynamic and echocardiographic features are listed for PEA patients. Immediate and one-year postoperative outcomes as well as overall mortality were analyzed. Results: Mean age was 53.5±15.0 years, 53.8% were men; a total of 68.5% were in WHO functional class III-IV; and most of them were in a preoperative hemodynamic condition: mean pulmonary arterial pressure (mPAP) was 46.5±13.1 mmHg and mean pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) was 764.5±392.8 dyn·s·cm-5. PEA surgery was performed with cardiopulmonary bypass (CBP) and circulatory arrest, with very few complications [including neurological, postoperative reperfusion edema, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) implant and cardiac failure] and optimal postoperative results, where exercise capacity increased and mPAP and PVR values decreased significantly. Presence of persistent pulmonary hypertension (PH) at the six-month right heart catheterization was evaluated. A 3.3% perioperative mortality was achieved. Overall, one-, three- and five-year survival rates were analyzed by Kaplan-Meier's method (94.8%, 93.3% and 90.5% respectively), as well as for residual PH patients. Mortality risk factors were assessed. Conclusions: Outstanding PEA results were seen in the immediate, one-year and long-term outcomes. The incidence of complications, including in-hospital mortality and long-term mortality were also below European rates

Restrictive vs liberal red blood cell transfusion strategies in patients with acute myocardial infarction and anemia: Rationale and design of the REALITY trial

Background: Anemia is common in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI), and is an independent predictor of mortality. The optimal transfusion strategy in these patients is unclear. Hypothesis: We hypothesized that a "restrictive" transfusion strategy (triggered by hemoglobin ≤8 g/dL) is clinically noninferior to a "liberal" transfusion strategy (triggered by hemoglobin ≤10 g/dL), but is less costly. Methods: REALITY is an international, randomized, multicenter, open-label trial comparing a restrictive vs a liberal transfusion strategy in patients with AMI and anemia. The primary outcome is the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) at 30 days, using the primary composite clinical outcome of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; comprising all-cause death, nonfatal stroke, nonfatal recurrent myocardial infarction, or emergency revascularization prompted by ischemia) as the effectiveness criterion. Secondary outcomes include the ICER at 1 year, and MACE (and its components) at 30 days and at 1 year. Results: The trial aimed to enroll 630 patients. Based on estimated event rates of 11% in the restrictive group and 15% in the liberal group, this number will provide 80% power to demonstrate clinical noninferiority of the restrictive group, with a noninferiority margin corresponding to a relative risk equal to 1.25. The sample size will also provide 80% power to show the cost-effectiveness of the restrictive strategy at a threshold of €50 000 per quality-adjusted life year. Conclusions: REALITY will provide important guidance on the management of patients with AMI and anemia.Sin financiación2.882 JCR (2020) Q3, 78/142 Cardiac & Cardiovascular Systems1.263 SJR (2020) Q1, 69/349 Cardiology and Cardiovascular MedicineNo data IDR 2020UE

Effect of a Restrictive vs Liberal Blood Transfusion Strategy on Major Cardiovascular Events among Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction and Anemia: The REALITY Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance: The optimal transfusion strategy in patients with acute myocardial infarction and anemia is unclear. Objective: To determine whether a restrictive transfusion strategy would be clinically noninferior to a liberal strategy. Design, Setting, and Participants: Open-label, noninferiority, randomized trial conducted in 35 hospitals in France and Spain including 668 patients with myocardial infarction and hemoglobin level between 7 and 10 g/dL. Enrollment could be considered at any time during the index admission for myocardial infarction. The first participant was enrolled in March 2016 and the last was enrolled in September 2019. The final 30-day follow-up was accrued in November 2019. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to undergo a restrictive (transfusion triggered by hemoglobin ≤8; n = 342) or a liberal (transfusion triggered by hemoglobin ≤10 g/dL; n = 324) transfusion strategy. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary clinical outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; composite of all-cause death, stroke, recurrent myocardial infarction, or emergency revascularization prompted by ischemia) at 30 days. Noninferiority required that the upper bound of the 1-sided 97.5% CI for the relative risk of the primary outcome be less than 1.25. The secondary outcomes included the individual components of the primary outcome. Results: Among 668 patients who were randomized, 666 patients (median [interquartile range] age, 77 [69-84] years; 281 [42.2%] women) completed the 30-day follow-up, including 342 in the restrictive transfusion group (122 [35.7%] received transfusion; 342 total units of packed red blood cells transfused) and 324 in the liberal transfusion group (323 [99.7%] received transfusion; 758 total units transfused). At 30 days, MACE occurred in 36 patients (11.0% [95% CI, 7.5%-14.6%]) in the restrictive group and in 45 patients (14.0% [95% CI, 10.0%-17.9%]) in the liberal group (difference, -3.0% [95% CI, -8.4% to 2.4%]). The relative risk of the primary outcome was 0.79 (1-sided 97.5% CI, 0.00-1.19), meeting the prespecified noninferiority criterion. In the restrictive vs liberal group, all-cause death occurred in 5.6% vs 7.7% of patients, recurrent myocardial infarction occurred in 2.1% vs 3.1%, emergency revascularization prompted by ischemia occurred in 1.5% vs 1.9%, and nonfatal ischemic stroke occurred in 0.6% of patients in both groups. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with acute myocardial infarction and anemia, a restrictive compared with a liberal transfusion strategy resulted in a noninferior rate of MACE after 30 days. However, the CI included what may be a clinically important harm.Sin financiación56.274 JCR (2020) Q1, 3/167 Medicine, General & Internal4.688 SJR (2020) Q1, 37/2447 Medicine (miscellaneous)No data IDR 2020UE

A polypill strategy to improve adherence: results from the FOCUS project.

BACKGROUND: Adherence to evidence-based cardiovascular (CV) medications after an acute myocardial infarction (MI) is low after the first 6 months. The use of fixed-dose combinations (FDC) has been shown to improve treatment adherence and risk factor control. However, no previous randomized trial has analyzed the impact of a polypill strategy on adherence in post-MI patients. OBJECTIVES: The cross-sectional FOCUS (Fixed-Dose Combination Drug for Secondary Cardiovascular Prevention) study (Phase 1) aimed to elucidate factors that interfere with appropriate adherence to CV medications for secondary prevention after an acute MI. Additionally, 695 patients from Phase 1 were randomized into a controlled trial (Phase 2) to test the effect of a polypill (containing aspirin 100 mg, simvastatin 40 mg, and ramipril 2.5, 5, or 10 mg) compared with the 3 drugs given separately on adherence, blood pressure, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, as well as safety and tolerability over a period of 9 months of follow-up. METHODS: In Phase 1, a 5-country cohort of 2,118 patients was analyzed. Patients were randomized to either the polypill or 3 drugs separately for Phase 2. Primary endpoint was adherence to the treatment measured at the final visit by the self-reported Morisky-Green questionnaire (MAQ) and pill count (patients had to meet both criteria for adherence at the in-person visit to be considered adherent). RESULTS: In Phase 1, overall CV medication adherence, defined as an MAQ score of 20, was 45.5%. In a multivariable regression model, the risk of being nonadherent (MAQ <20) was associated with younger age, depression, being on a complex medication regimen, poorer health insurance coverage, and a lower level of social support, with consistent findings across countries. In Phase 2, the polypill group showed improved adherence compared with the group receiving separate medications after 9 months of follow-up: 50.8% versus 41% (p = 0.019; intention-to-treat population) and 65.7% versus 55.7% (p = 0.012; per protocol population) when using the primary endpoint, attending the final visit with MAQ = 20 and high pill count (80% to 110%) combined, to assess adherence. Adherence also was higher in the FDC group when measured by MAQ alone (68% vs. 59%, p = 0.049). No treatment difference was found at follow-up in mean systolic blood pressure (129.6 mm Hg vs. 128.6 mm Hg), mean low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels (89.9 mg/dl vs. 91.7 mg/dl), serious adverse events (23 vs. 21), or death (1, 0.3% in each group). CONCLUSIONS: For secondary prevention following acute MI, younger age, depression, and a complex drug treatment plan are associated with lower medication adherence. Meanwhile, adherence is increased in patients with higher insurance coverage levels and social support. Compared with the 3 drugs given separately, the use of a polypill strategy met the primary endpoint for adherence for secondary prevention following an acute MI. (Fixed Dose Combination Drug [Polypill] for Secondary Cardiovascular Prevention [FOCUS]; NCT01321255)