Geographic variations in the PARADIGM-HF heart failure trial

Aims: The globalization of clinical trials has highlighted geographic variations in patient characteristics, event rates, and treatment effects. We investigated these further in PARADIGM-HF, the largest and most globally representative trial in heart failure (HF) to date. Methods and results: We looked at five regions: North America (NA) 622 (8%), Western Europe (WE) 1680 (20%), Central/Eastern Europe/Russia (CEER) 2762 (33%), Latin America (LA) 1413 (17%), and Asia-Pacific (AP) 1487 (18%). Notable differences included: WE patients (mean age 68 years) and NA (65 years) were older than AP (58 years) and LA (63 years) and had more coronary disease; NA and CEER patients had the worst signs, symptoms, and functional status. North American patients were the most likely to have a defibrillating-device (53 vs. 2% AP) and least likely prescribed a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (36 vs. 61% LA). Other evidence-based therapies were used most frequently in NA and WE. Rates of the primary composite outcome of cardiovascular (CV) death or HF hospitalization (per 100 patient-years) varied among regions: NA 13.5 (95% CI 11.7–15.6), WE 9.6 (8.6–10.6), CEER 12.3 (11.4–13.2), LA 11.2 (10.0–12.5), and AP 12.5 (11.3–13.8). After adjustment for prognostic variables, relative to NA, the risk of CV death was higher in LA and AP and the risk of HF hospitalization lower in WE. The benefit of sacubitril/valsartan was consistent across regions. Conclusion: There were many regional differences in PARADIGM-HF, including in age, symptoms, comorbidity, background therapy, and event-rates, although these did not modify the benefit of sacubitril/valsartan

A clinical evaluation of the XIENCE V everolimus eluting stent in the treatment of patients with coronary artery disease: Result from Thailand Registry – XIENCE V performance evaluation (THRIVE study)

Objective: To evaluate the 2-year clinical outcomes of XIENCETM V everolimus eluting stent (EES) for the treatment of coronary artery disease. Background: Percutaneous coronary intervention with a drug eluting stent has become the preferred treatment in patients with coronary artery disease. Everolimus eluting stent had proven efficacy in randomized control trials but those trials may not represent daily practice of interventional cardiology. Methods: The THRIVE study was a prospective, multicenter, real-world, single-arm registry. Included in the registry were 400 patients in Thailand with coronary artery disease suitable for treatment with the XIENCETM V. Results: At 30 days, 1 year, and 2 years, the respective rate of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), and target lesion revascularization (TLR) was 0.7, 1.0, and 0.5 %. 2.1, 2.1, and 1.0 %, and 2.2, 3.0, and 2.1 %. The cumulative rate for stent thrombosis was 1.6 % at 2 years. Conclusions: The THRIVE study demonstrated that use of EES yielded a rate for 2 years of major adverse cardiac events comparable to the randomized controlled trial of EES in the SPIRIT trials. This result supports the efficacy and safety of XIENCETM V everolimus eluting for daily interventional cardiology practice

Blood Transfusion After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and Risk of Subsequent Adverse Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

AbstractObjectivesThis study sought to define the prevalence and prognostic impact of blood transfusions in contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) practice.BackgroundAlthough the presence of anemia is associated with adverse outcomes in patients undergoing PCI, the optimal use of blood products in patients undergoing PCI remains controversial.MethodsA search of EMBASE and MEDLINE was conducted to identify PCI studies that evaluated blood transfusions and their association with major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and mortality. Two independent reviewers screened the studies for inclusion, and data were extracted from relevant studies. Random effects meta-analysis was used to estimate the risk of adverse outcomes with blood transfusions. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed by considering the I2 statistic.ResultsNineteen studies that included 2,258,711 patients with more than 54,000 transfusion events were identified (prevalence of blood transfusion 2.3%). Crude mortality rate was 6,435 of 50,979 (12.6%, 8 studies) in patients who received a blood transfusion and 27,061 of 2,266,111 (1.2%, 8 studies) in the remaining patients. Crude MACE rates were 17.4% (8,439 of 48,518) in patients who had a blood transfusion and 3.1% (68,062 of 2,212,730) in the remaining cohort. Meta-analysis demonstrated that blood transfusion was independently associated with an increase in mortality (odds ratio: 3.02, 95% confidence interval: 2.16 to 4.21, I2 = 91%) and MACE (odds ratio: 3.15, 95% confidence interval: 2.59 to 3.82, I2 = 81%). Similar observations were recorded in studies that adjusted for baseline hematocrit, anemia, and bleeding.ConclusionsBlood transfusion is independently associated with increased risk of mortality and MACE events. Clinicians should minimize the risk for periprocedural transfusion by using available bleeding-avoidance strategies and avoiding liberal transfusion practices

Hot particle laundry monitoring at a nuclear power facility

Due to the character of the original source materials and the nature of batch digitization, quality control issues may be present in this document. Please report any quality issues you encounter to [email protected], referencing the URI of the item.Includes bibliographical references.Not availabl

Geographic variations in the PARADIGM-HF heart failure trial

AIMS: The globalization of clinical trials has highlighted geographic variations in patient characteristics, event rates, and treatment effects. We investigated these further in PARADIGM-HF, the largest and most globally representative trial in heart failure (HF) to date. METHODS AND RESULTS: We looked at five regions: North America (NA) 622 (8%), Western Europe (WE) 1680 (20%), Central/Eastern Europe/Russia (CEER) 2762 (33%), Latin America (LA) 1413 (17%), and Asia-Pacific (AP) 1487 (18%). Notable differences included: WE patients (mean age 68 years) and NA (65 years) were older than AP (58 years) and LA (63 years) and had more coronary disease; NA and CEER patients had the worst signs, symptoms, and functional status. North American patients were the most likely to have a defibrillating-device (53 vs. 2% AP) and least likely prescribed a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (36 vs. 61% LA). Other evidence-based therapies were used most frequently in NA and WE. Rates of the primary composite outcome of cardiovascular (CV) death or HF hospitalization (per 100 patient-years) varied among regions: NA 13.5 (95% CI 11.7-15.6), WE 9.6 (8.6-10.6), CEER 12.3 (11.4-13.2), LA 11.2 (10.0-12.5), and AP 12.5 (11.3-13.8). After adjustment for prognostic variables, relative to NA, the risk of CV death was higher in LA and AP and the risk of HF hospitalization lower in WE. The benefit of sacubitril/valsartan was consistent across regions. CONCLUSION: There were many regional differences in PARADIGM-HF, including in age, symptoms, comorbidity, background therapy, and event-rates, although these did not modify the benefit of sacubitril/valsartan. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01035255

Angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibition compared with enalapril on the risk of clinical progression in surviving patients with heart failure

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials in heart failure have focused on the improvement in symptoms or decreases in the risk of death and other cardiovascular events. Little is known about the effect of drugs on the risk of clinical deterioration in surviving patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: We compared the angiotensin-neprilysin inhibitor LCZ696 (400 mg daily) with the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor enalapril (20 mg daily) in 8399 patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction in a double-blind trial. The analyses focused on prespecified measures of nonfatal clinical deterioration. In comparison with the enalapril group, fewer LCZ696-treated patients required intensification of medical treatment for heart failure (520 versus 604; hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-0.94; P=0.003) or an emergency department visit for worsening heart failure (hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.52-0.85; P=0.001). The patients in the LCZ696 group had 23% fewer hospitalizations for worsening heart failure (851 versus 1079; P<0.001) and were less likely to require intensive care (768 versus 879; 18% rate reduction, P=0.005), to receive intravenous positive inotropic agents (31% risk reduction, P<0.001), and to have implantation of a heart failure device or cardiac transplantation (22% risk reduction, P=0.07). The reduction in heart failure hospitalization with LCZ696 was evident within the first 30 days after randomization. Worsening of symptom scores in surviving patients was consistently more common in the enalapril group. LCZ696 led to an early and sustained reduction in biomarkers of myocardial wall stress and injury (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide and troponin) versus enalapril. CONCLUSIONS: Angiotensin-neprilysin inhibition prevents the clinical progression of surviving patients with heart failure more effectively than angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01035255

Angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibition compared with enalapril on the risk of clinical progression in surviving patients with heart failure.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials in heart failure have focused on the improvement in symptoms or decreases in the risk of death and other cardiovascular events. Little is known about the effect of drugs on the risk of clinical deterioration in surviving patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: We compared the angiotensin-neprilysin inhibitor LCZ696 (400 mg daily) with the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor enalapril (20 mg daily) in 8399 patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction in a double-blind trial. The analyses focused on prespecified measures of nonfatal clinical deterioration. In comparison with the enalapril group, fewer LCZ696-treated patients required intensification of medical treatment for heart failure (520 versus 604; hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-0.94; P=0.003) or an emergency department visit for worsening heart failure (hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.52-0.85; P=0.001). The patients in the LCZ696 group had 23% fewer hospitalizations for worsening heart failure (851 versus 1079; P<0.001) and were less likely to require intensive care (768 versus 879; 18% rate reduction, P=0.005), to receive intravenous positive inotropic agents (31% risk reduction, P<0.001), and to have implantation of a heart failure device or cardiac transplantation (22% risk reduction, P=0.07). The reduction in heart failure hospitalization with LCZ696 was evident within the first 30 days after randomization. Worsening of symptom scores in surviving patients was consistently more common in the enalapril group. LCZ696 led to an early and sustained reduction in biomarkers of myocardial wall stress and injury (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide and troponin) versus enalapril. CONCLUSIONS: Angiotensin-neprilysin inhibition prevents the clinical progression of surviving patients with heart failure more effectively than angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01035255