Comparison between three different equations for the estimation of glomerular filtration rate in predicting mortality after coronary artery bypass

Background This study was undertaken to compare the accuracy of chronic kidney disease-epidemiology collaboration (eGFRCKD-EPI) to modification of diet in renal disease (eGFRMDRD) and the Cockcroft-Gault formulas of Creatinine clearance (CCG) equations in predicting post coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) mortality. Methods Data from 4408 patients who underwent isolated CABG over a 11-year period were retrieved from one institutional database. Discriminatory power was assessed using the c-index and comparison between the scores’ performance was performed with DeLong, bootstrap, and Venkatraman methods. Calibration was evaluated with calibration curves and associated statistics. Results The discriminatory power was higher in eGFRCKD-EPI than eGFRMDRD and CCG (Area under Curve [AUC]:0.77, 0.55 and 0.52, respectively). Furthermore, eGFRCKD-EPI performed worse in patients with an eGFR ≤29 ml/min/1.73m2 (AUC: 0.53) while it was not influenced by higher eGFRs, age, and body size. In contrast, the MDRD equation was accurate only in women (calibration statistics p = 0.72), elderly patients (p = 0.53) and subjects with severe impairment of renal function (p = 0.06) whereas CCG was not significantly biased only in patients between 40 and 59 years (p = 0.6) and with eGFR 45–59 ml/min/1.73m2 (p = 0.32) or ≥ 60 ml/min/1.73m2 (p = 0.48). Conclusions In general, CKD-EPI gives the best prediction of death after CABG with unsatisfactory accuracy and calibration only in patients with severe kidney disease. In contrast, the CG and MDRD equations were inaccurate in a clinically significant proportion of patients

Prevalence and Predictors of Out-of-Target LDL Cholesterol 1 to 3 Years After Myocardial Infarction. A Subanalysis From the EYESHOT Post-MI Registry

Background: There is an incomplete understanding of the prevalence and predictors of attainment of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goal after myocardial infarction (MI). Aim: To evaluate the prevalence of achievement of LDL-C goal of 70 mg/dL, to identify the baseline features associated with suboptimal lipid control, and to assess the use of LDL-C-lowering drug therapies (LLT) beyond the first year after MI. Methods: The EYESHOT Post-MI was a prospective, cross-sectional, Italian registry, which enrolled patients presenting to cardiologist 1 to 3 years after MI. In this retrospective post-hoc analysis, patients were categorized in 2 groups according to the achievement or not of the LDL-C goal of 70 mg/dL. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to identify the baseline features associate with LDL-C >= 70 mg/dL. Results: The study population included 903 patients (mean age 65.5 +/- 11.5 years). Among them, LDL-C was >= 70 mg/dL in 474 (52.5%). Male sex (p = 0.031), hypertension (p = 0.024), prior percutaneous coronary intervention (p = 0.016) and high education level (p = 0.008) were higher in the LDL-C < 70 group. At multivariable analysis, low education level was an independent predictor of LDL-C >= 70 mg/dL (OR:1.582; 95%CI, 1.156-2.165; p = 0.004). Conversely, hypertension increased the probability to achieve the LDL-C goal (OR:0.650; 95%CI, 0.443-0.954; p = 0.028). Among off-target patients, LLT was not modified in the majority of cases (67.3%), intensified in 85 (18.6%), and actually reduced in 63 patients (13.8%). Conclusions: In patients presenting to cardiologists 1 to 3 years from the last MI event, LDL-C is not under control in a large proportion of patients, particularly in those with a low education level or without hypertension. LLT is underused in this very-high-risk setting

2019 ESC/EAS guidelines for the management of dyslipidaemias : Lipid modification to reduce cardiovascular risk

Correction: Volume: 292 Pages: 160-162 DOI: 10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2019.11.020 Published: JAN 2020Peer reviewe

The Changing Landscape for Stroke\ua0Prevention in AF: Findings From the GLORIA-AF Registry Phase 2

Background GLORIA-AF (Global Registry on Long-Term Oral Antithrombotic Treatment in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation) is a prospective, global registry program describing antithrombotic treatment patterns in patients with newly diagnosed nonvalvular atrial fibrillation at risk of stroke. Phase 2 began when dabigatran, the first non\u2013vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (NOAC), became available. Objectives This study sought to describe phase 2 baseline data and compare these with the pre-NOAC era collected during phase 1. Methods During phase 2, 15,641 consenting patients were enrolled (November 2011 to December 2014); 15,092 were eligible. This pre-specified cross-sectional analysis describes eligible patients\u2019 baseline characteristics. Atrial fibrillation disease characteristics, medical outcomes, and concomitant diseases and medications were collected. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results Of the total patients, 45.5% were female; median age was 71 (interquartile range: 64, 78) years. Patients were from Europe (47.1%), North America (22.5%), Asia (20.3%), Latin America (6.0%), and the Middle East/Africa (4.0%). Most had high stroke risk (CHA2DS2-VASc [Congestive heart failure, Hypertension, Age  6575 years, Diabetes mellitus, previous Stroke, Vascular disease, Age 65 to 74 years, Sex category] score  652; 86.1%); 13.9% had moderate risk (CHA2DS2-VASc = 1). Overall, 79.9% received oral anticoagulants, of whom 47.6% received NOAC and 32.3% vitamin K antagonists (VKA); 12.1% received antiplatelet agents; 7.8% received no antithrombotic treatment. For comparison, the proportion of phase 1 patients (of N = 1,063 all eligible) prescribed VKA was 32.8%, acetylsalicylic acid 41.7%, and no therapy 20.2%. In Europe in phase 2, treatment with NOAC was more common than VKA (52.3% and 37.8%, respectively); 6.0% of patients received antiplatelet treatment; and 3.8% received no antithrombotic treatment. In North America, 52.1%, 26.2%, and 14.0% of patients received NOAC, VKA, and antiplatelet drugs, respectively; 7.5% received no antithrombotic treatment. NOAC use was less common in Asia (27.7%), where 27.5% of patients received VKA, 25.0% antiplatelet drugs, and 19.8% no antithrombotic treatment. Conclusions The baseline data from GLORIA-AF phase 2 demonstrate that in newly diagnosed nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients, NOAC have been highly adopted into practice, becoming more frequently prescribed than VKA in Europe and North America. Worldwide, however, a large proportion of patients remain undertreated, particularly in Asia and North America. (Global Registry on Long-Term Oral Antithrombotic Treatment in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation [GLORIA-AF]; NCT01468701

Improving the appropriateness of sudden arrhythmic death primary prevention by implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy in patients with low left ventricular ejection fraction. Point of view

10noneIt is generally accepted that the current guidelines for the primary prevention of sudden arrhythmic death, which are based on ejection fraction, do not allow the optimal selection of patients with low left ventricular ejection fraction of ischemic and nonischemic etiology for implantation of a cardioverter-defibrillator. Ejection fraction alone is limited in both sensitivity and specificity. An analysis of the risk of sudden arrhythmic death with a combination of multiple tests (ejection fraction associated with one or more arrhythmic risk markers) could partially compensate for these limitations. We propose a polyparametric approach for defining the risk of sudden arrhythmic death using ejection fraction in combination with other clinical and arrhythmic risk markers (i.e. late gadolinium enhancement cardiac magnetic resonance, T-wave alternans, programmed ventricular stimulation, autonomic tone, and genetic testing) that have been validated in nonrandomized trials. In this article, we examine these approaches to identify three subsets of patients who cannot be comprehensively assessed by the current guidelines: patients with ejection fraction of 35% or less and a relatively low risk of sudden arrhythmic death despite the ejection fraction value; patients with ejection fraction of 35% or less and high competitive risk of death due to evolution of heart failure or noncardiac causes; and patients with ejection fraction between 35 and 45% with relatively high risk of sudden arrhythmic death despite the ejection fraction value.Disertori, Marcello; Gulizia, Michele M.; Casolo, Giancarlo; Delise, Pietro; Di Lenarda, Andrea; Di Tano, Giuseppe; Lunati, Maurizio; Mestroni, Luisa; Salerno-Uriarte, Jorge; Tavazzi, LuigiDisertori, Marcello; Gulizia, Michele M.; Casolo, Giancarlo; Delise, Pietro; Di Lenarda, Andrea; Di Tano, Giuseppe; Lunati, Maurizio; Mestroni, Luisa; SALERNO URIARTE, JORGE ANTONIO; Tavazzi, Luig