Baroreflex Activation Therapy for Resistant Hypertension and Heart Failure

Hypertension and heart failure are important contributors to global morbidity and mortality. Despite therapeutic lifestyle and pharmacological measures, a significant proportion of people with hypertension do not reach treatment targets. Patients with resistant or poorly controlled hypertension are at significantly increased risk of cardiovascular events, including heart failure. Since dysfunction of the sympathetic nervous system appears to play a key role in the development and progression of both hypertension and heart failure, these patients may benefit from treatment modalities aimed at reducing sympathetic function. The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of baroreflex activation therapy as a potential treatment strategy in patients with resistant hypertension or heart failure

Unstable Angina as a Component of Primary Composite Endpoints in Clinical Cardiovascular Trials:Pros and Cons

BACKGROUND: Unstable angina (UA) is a component of acute coronary syndrome that is only occasionally included in primary composite endpoints in clinical cardiovascular trials. The aim of this paper is to elucidate the potential benefits and disadvantages of including UA in such contexts. SUMMARY: UA comprises <10% of patients with acute coronary syndromes in contemporary settings. Based on the pathophysiological similarities, it is ideal as a part of a composite endpoint along with myocardial infarction (MI). By adding UA as a component of a primary composite endpoint, the number of events and feasibility of the trial should increase, thus decreasing its size and cost. Furthermore, UA has both economic and quality of life implications on a societal and an individual level. However, there are important challenges associated with the use of UA as an endpoint. With the introduction of high-sensitivity troponins, the number of individuals diagnosed with UA has decreased to rather low levels, with a reciprocal increase in the number of MI. In addition, UA is particularly challenging to define given the subjective assessment of the index symptoms, rendering a high risk of bias. To minimize bias, strict criteria are warranted, and events should be adjudicated by a blinded endpoint adjudication committee. KEY MESSAGES: UA should only be chosen as a component of a primary composite endpoint in cardiovascular trials after thoroughly evaluating the pros and cons. If it is chosen to include UA, appropriate precautions should be taken to minimize possible bias

Ticagrelor or prasugrel vs. clopidogrel in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for myocardial infarction

AIMS: The efficacy and safety of ticagrelor or prasugrel vs. clopidogrel in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) on oral anticoagulation (OAC) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for myocardial infarction (MI) have not been established.METHODS AND RESULTS: This was a nationwide cohort study of patients on OAC for AF who underwent PCI for MI from 2011 through 2019 and were prescribed a P2Y12 inhibitor at discharge. The primary efficacy outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as a composite of death from any cause, stroke, recurrent MI, or repeat revascularization. The primary safety outcome was cerebral, gastrointestinal, or urogenital bleeding requiring hospitalization. Absolute and relative risks for outcomes at 1 year were calculated through multivariable logistic regression with average treatment effect modelling. Outcomes were standardized for the individual components of the CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED scores as well as type of OAC, aspirin, and proton pump inhibitor use. We included 2259 patients of whom 1918 (84.9%) were prescribed clopidogrel and 341 (15.1%) ticagrelor or prasugrel. The standardized risk of MACE was significantly lower in the ticagrelor or prasugrel group compared with the clopidogrel group (standardized absolute risk, 16.3% vs. 19.4%; relative risk, 0.84, 95% confidence interval, 0.70-0.98; P = 0.02), while the risk of bleeding did not differ (standardized absolute risk, 5.5% vs. 5.1%; relative risk, 1.07, 95% confidence interval, 0.73-1.41; P = 0.69).CONCLUSION: In patients with AF on OAC who underwent PCI for MI, treatment with ticagrelor or prasugrel vs. clopidogrel was associated with reduced ischaemic risk, without a concomitantly increased bleeding risk.</p

Prognostic implications of left ventricular hypertrophy diagnosed on electrocardiogram vs echocardiography

It is unclear whether 12-lead ECG employing standard criteria for left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) provides similar information with respect to long-term cardiovascular risk as echocardiography. The authors performed a retrospective cohort study of 1376 individuals without cardiovascular disease, who underwent ECG (LVH defined using the Sokolow-Lyon voltage combination (>35 mm) or the Cornell voltage-duration product (>2440 mm × ms)) and echocardiography (LVH defined as LV mass index (LVMI) >95 g/m2 for women and >115 g/m2 for men). The prognostic ability of LVH was assessed in Cox regression models adjusted for age, sex, smoking, systolic blood pressure, total cholesterol, antihypertensive medication, and fasting glucose. The primary end point was the composite of coronary events, heart failure, stroke, or death. The main secondary end point was heart failure or cardiovascular death. Median age was 67 (range 56-79) years, 68% were male. Eleven percent had ECG-defined LVH, 17% had echocardiographic LVH. Over median 8.5 years, 29% experienced a primary event. Event rates were 29%/35% for persons without/with ECG-defined LVH and 27%/39% for those without/with echocardiographic LVH. The Sokolow-Lyon combination, Cornell product, and ECG-defined LVH did not significantly predict the primary end point (P ≥.05), but ECG-defined LVH predicted heart failure or cardiovascular death (adjusted hazard ratio (HR), 1.86, 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.13-3.08); P =.02). Conversely, LVMI was a significant, independent predictor of the primary end point (adjusted HR, 1.87, 95% CI, 1.13-3.10; P =.01), as was echocardiographic LVH (adjusted HR, 1.27, 95% CI, 1.01-1.61; P =.04). Echocardiographic LVH may be a better predictor of long-term cardiovascular risk than ECG-defined LVH in middle-aged and older individuals

Design and rationale of the Danish trial of beta-blocker treatment after myocardial infarction without reduced ejection fraction: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

Treatment with beta-blockers is currently recommended after myocardial infarction (MI). The evidence relies on trials conducted decades ago before implementation of revascularization and contemporary medical therapy or in trials enrolling patients with heart failure or reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF ≤ 40%). Accordingly, the impact of beta-blockers on mortality and morbidity following acute MI in patients without reduced LVEF or heart failure is unclear. The Danish trial of beta-blocker treatment after myocardial infarction without reduced ejection fraction (DANBLOCK) is a prospective, randomized, controlled, open-label, non-blinded endpoint clinical trial designed to evaluate the efficacy of beta-blocker treatment in post-MI patients in the absence of reduced LVEF or heart failure. We will randomize 3570 patients will be randomized within 14 days of index MI to beta-blocker or control for a minimum of 2 years. The primary endpoint is a composite of all-cause mortality, recurrent MI, acute decompensated heart failure, unstable angina pectoris, or stroke. The primary composite endpoint will be assessed through locally reported and adjudicated endpoints supplemented by linkage to the Danish national registers. A number of secondary endpoints will be investigated including patient reported outcomes and cardiovascular mortality. Data from similar ongoing trials in Norway and Sweden will be pooled to perform an individual patient data meta-analysis. DANBLOCK is a randomized clinical trial investigating the effect of long-term beta-blocker therapy after myocardial infarction in patients without heart failure and reduced LVEF. Results from the trial will add important scientific evidence to inform future clinical guidelines. Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03778554. Registered on 19 December 2018. European Clinical Trials Database, 2018-002699-42, registered on 28 September 2018.The trial has received grants from the Novo Nordisk Foundation and the Danish Heart Foundation. The Novo Nordisk Foundation and the Danish Heart Foundation are not otherwise involved in the trial.S

Prognostic implications of left ventricular hypertrophy diagnosed on electrocardiogram vs echocardiography

It is unclear whether 12-lead ECG employing standard criteria for left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) provides similar information with respect to long-term cardiovascular risk as echocardiography. The authors performed a retrospective cohort study of 1376 individuals without cardiovascular disease, who underwent ECG (LVH defined using the Sokolow-Lyon voltage combination (>35 mm) or the Cornell voltage-duration product (>2440 mm × ms)) and echocardiography (LVH defined as LV mass index (LVMI) >95 g/m2 for women and >115 g/m2 for men). The prognostic ability of LVH was assessed in Cox regression models adjusted for age, sex, smoking, systolic blood pressure, total cholesterol, antihypertensive medication, and fasting glucose. The primary end point was the composite of coronary events, heart failure, stroke, or death. The main secondary end point was heart failure or cardiovascular death. Median age was 67 (range 56-79) years, 68% were male. Eleven percent had ECG-defined LVH, 17% had echocardiographic LVH. Over median 8.5 years, 29% experienced a primary event. Event rates were 29%/35% for persons without/with ECG-defined LVH and 27%/39% for those without/with echocardiographic LVH. The Sokolow-Lyon combination, Cornell product, and ECG-defined LVH did not significantly predict the primary end point (P ≥.05), but ECG-defined LVH predicted heart failure or cardiovascular death (adjusted hazard ratio (HR), 1.86, 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.13-3.08); P =.02). Conversely, LVMI was a significant, independent predictor of the primary end point (adjusted HR, 1.87, 95% CI, 1.13-3.10; P =.01), as was echocardiographic LVH (adjusted HR, 1.27, 95% CI, 1.01-1.61; P =.04). Echocardiographic LVH may be a better predictor of long-term cardiovascular risk than ECG-defined LVH in middle-aged and older individuals