Ivabradine for patients with stable coronary artery disease and left-ventricular systolic dysfunction (BEAUTIFUL): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

<p><b>Background</b> Ivabradine specifically inhibits the I-f current in the sinoatrial node to lower heart rate, without affecting other aspects of cardiac function. We aimed to test whether lowering the heart rate with ivabradine reduces cardiovascular death and morbidity in patients with coronary artery disease and left-ventricular systolic dysfunction.</p> <p><b>Methods</b> Between December, 2004, and December, 2006, we screened 12473 patients at 781 centres in 33 countries. We enrolled 10 917 eligible patients who had coronary artery disease and a left-ventricular ejection fraction of less than 40% in a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial. 5479 patients received 5 mg ivabradine, with the intention of increasing to the target dose of 7.5 mg twice a day, and 5438 received matched placebo in addition to appropriate cardiovascular medication. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular death admission to hospital for acute myocardial infarction, and admission to hospital for new onset or worsening heart failure. We analysed patients by intention to treat. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00143507.</p> <p><b>Findings</b> Mean heart rate at baseline was 71.6 (SD 9.9) beats per minute (bpm). Median follow-tip was 19 months (IQR 16-24). Ivabradine reduced heart rate by 6 bpm (S E 0.2) at 12 months, corrected for placebo. Most (87%) patients were receiving beta blockers in addition to study drugs, and no safety concerns were identified. Ivabradine did not affect the primary composite endpoint (hazard ratio 1. 00, 95% CI 0 . 91-1. 1, p=0 . 94). 1233 (22 . 5%) patients in the ivabradine group had serious adverse events, compared with 1239 (22.8%) controls (p=0.70). In a prespecified subgroup of patients with heart rate of 70 bpm or greater, ivabradine treatment did not affect the primary composite outcome (hazard ratio 0 . 91, 95% CI 0 . 81-1.04, p=0.17), cardiovascular death, or admission to hospital for new-onset or worsening heart failure. However, it did reduce secondary endpoints: admission to hospital for fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction (0 . 64, 95% CI 0 . 49-0 . 84, p=0 . 001) and coronary revascularisation (0. 70, 95% CI 0 . 52-0.93, p=0 .016).</p> <p><b>Interpretation</b> Reduction in heart rate with ivabradine does not improve cardiac outcomes in all patients with stable coronary artery disease and left-ventricular systolic dysfunction, but could be used to reduce the incidence of coronary artery disease outcomes in a subgroup of patients who have heart rates of 70 bprn or greater.</p&gt

Effects of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition with perindopril on left ventricular remodeling and clinical outcome - Results of the randomized Perindopril and Remodeling in Elderly with Acute Myocardial Infarction (PREAMI) study

Background: Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors reduce mortality and remodeling after myocardial infarction in patients with left ventricular dysfunction. Methods: Perindopril and Remodeling in Elderly With Acute Myocardial Infarction (PREAMI), a doubleblind, randomized, parallel-group, multicenter, placebocontrolled study, determined whether similar benefits occur in elderly postinfarction patients with preserved left ventricular function. A total of 1252 patients 65 years or older with a left ventricular ejection fraction of 40% or higher and recent acute myocardial infarction were randomized to receive perindopril erbumine or placebo (8 mg/d) for 12 months. The combined primary end point was death, hospitalization for heart failure, or left ventricular remodeling. Secondary end points included cardiovascular death, hospitalization for reinfarction or angina, and revascularization. Results: The primary end point occurred in 181 patients (35%) taking perindopril and 290 patients (57%) taking placebo, with a significant absolute risk reduction of 0.22 (95% confidence interval, 0.16 to 0.28; P.001). A total of 126 patients (28%) and 226 patients (51%) in the perindopril and placebo groups, respectively, experienced remodeling. The mean increase in left ventricle end-diastolic volume was 0.7 mL with perindopril compared with 4.0 mL with placebo (P.001). In the perindopril group, 40 deaths (6%) and 22 hospitalizations (4%) for heart failure occurred, whereas 37 deaths (6%) and 30 hospitalizations (5%) occurred in the placebo group. Treatment did not affect death, whereas the hospitalization rate for heart failure was slightly reduced (absolute risk reduction, 0.01; 95% confidence interval, −0.01 to 0.02). No treatment effect on other secondary end points was detected. Conclusion:Wefound that 1-year treatment with 8mg/d of perindopril reduces progressive left ventricular remodeling that can occur even in the presence of small infarct size, but it was not associated with better clinical outcomes

EURObservational Research Programme: Regional differences and 1-year follow-up results of the Heart Failure Pilot Survey (ESC-HF Pilot)

AimsThe ESC-HF Pilot survey was aimed to describe clinical epidemiology and 1-year outcomes of outpatients and inpatients with heart failure (HF). The pilot phase was also specifically aimed at validating structure, performance, and quality of the data set for continuing the survey into a permanent Registry.MethodsThe ESC-HF Pilot study is a prospective, multicentre, observational survey conducted in 136 Cardiology Centres in 12 European countries selected to represent the different health systems across Europe. All outpatients with HF and patients admitted for acute HF on 1 day per week for eight consecutive months were included. From October 2009 to May 2010, 5118 patients were included: 1892 (37%) admitted for acute HF and 3226 (63%) patients with chronic HF. The all-cause mortality rate at 1 year was 17.4% in acute HF and 7.2% in chronic stable HF. One-year hospitalization rates were 43.9% and 31.9%, respectively, in hospitalized acute and chronic HF patients. Major regional differences in 1-year mortality were observed that could be explained by differences in characteristics and treatment of the patients.ConclusionThe ESC-HF Pilot survey confirmed that acute HF is still associated with a very poor medium-term prognosis, while the widespread adoption of evidence-based treatments in patients with chronic HF seems to have improved their outcome profile. Differences across countries may be due to different local medical practice as well to differences in healthcare systems. This pilot study also offered the opportunity to refine the organizational structure for a long-term extended European network

EURObservational Research Programme: Regional differences and 1-year follow-up results of the Heart Failure Pilot Survey (ESC-HF Pilot)

AimsThe ESC-HF Pilot survey was aimed to describe clinical epidemiology and 1-year outcomes of outpatients and inpatients with heart failure (HF). The pilot phase was also specifically aimed at validating structure, performance, and quality of the data set for continuing the survey into a permanent Registry.MethodsThe ESC-HF Pilot study is a prospective, multicentre, observational survey conducted in 136 Cardiology Centres in 12 European countries selected to represent the different health systems across Europe. All outpatients with HF and patients admitted for acute HF on 1 day per week for eight consecutive months were included. From October 2009 to May 2010, 5118 patients were included: 1892 (37%) admitted for acute HF and 3226 (63%) patients with chronic HF. The all-cause mortality rate at 1 year was 17.4% in acute HF and 7.2% in chronic stable HF. One-year hospitalization rates were 43.9% and 31.9%, respectively, in hospitalized acute and chronic HF patients. Major regional differences in 1-year mortality were observed that could be explained by differences in characteristics and treatment of the patients.ConclusionThe ESC-HF Pilot survey confirmed that acute HF is still associated with a very poor medium-term prognosis, while the widespread adoption of evidence-based treatments in patients with chronic HF seems to have improved their outcome profile. Differences across countries may be due to different local medical practice as well to differences in healthcare systems. This pilot study also offered the opportunity to refine the organizational structure for a long-term extended European network. © 2013 The Author

Intravenous NPA for the treatment of infarcting myocardium early: InTIME-II, a double-blind comparison on of single-bolus lanoteplase vs accelerated alteplase for the treatment of patients with acute myocardial infarction

Aims to compare the efficacy and safety of lanoteplase, a single-bolus thrombolytic drug derived from alteplase tissue plasminogen activator, with the established accelerated alteplase regimen in patients presenting within 6 h of onset of ST elevation acute myocardial infarction. Methods and Results 15 078 patients were recruited from 855 hospitals worldwide and randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive either lanoteplase 120 KU. kg-1 as a single intravenous bolus, or up to 100 mg accelerated alteplase given over 90 min. The primary end-point was all-cause mortality at 30 days and the hypothesis was that the two treatments would be equivalent. By 30 days, 6.61% of alteplase-treated patients and 6.75% lanoteplase-treated patients had died (relative risk 1.02). Total stroke occurred in 1.53% alteplase- and 1.87% lanoteplase-treated patients (ns); haemorrhagic stroke rates were 0.64% alteplase and 1.12% lanoteplase (P=0.004). The net clinical deficit of 30-day death or non-fatal disabling stroke was 7.0% and 7.2%, respectively. By 6 months, 8.8% of alteplase-treated patients and 8.7% of lanoteplase-treated patients had died. Conclusion Single-bolus weight-adjusted lanoteplase is an effective thrombolytic agent, equivalent to alteplase in terms of its impact on survival and with a comparable risk-benefit profile. The single-bolus regimen should shorten symptoms to treatment times and be especially convenient for emergency department or out-of-hospital administration. (C) 2000 The European Society of Cardiology

Apixaban versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND: Vitamin K antagonists are highly effective in preventing stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation but have several limitations. Apixaban is a novel oral direct factor Xa inhibitor that has been shown to reduce the risk of stroke in a similar population in comparison with aspirin. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind trial, we compared apixaban (at a dose of 5 mg twice daily) with warfarin (target international normalized ratio, 2.0 to 3.0) in 18,201 patients with atrial fibrillation and at least one additional risk factor for stroke. The primary outcome was ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke or systemic embolism. The trial was designed to test for noninferiority, with key secondary objectives of testing for superiority with respect to the primary outcome and to the rates of major bleeding and death from any cause. RESULTS: The median duration of follow-up was 1.8 years. The rate of the primary outcome was 1.27% per year in the apixaban group, as compared with 1.60% per year in the warfarin group (hazard ratio with apixaban, 0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66 to 0.95; P<0.001 for noninferiority; P = 0.01 for superiority). The rate of major bleeding was 2.13% per year in the apixaban group, as compared with 3.09% per year in the warfarin group (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.80; P<0.001), and the rates of death from any cause were 3.52% and 3.94%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.80 to 0.99; P = 0.047). The rate of hemorrhagic stroke was 0.24% per year in the apixaban group, as compared with 0.47% per year in the warfarin group (hazard ratio, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.75; P<0.001), and the rate of ischemic or uncertain type of stroke was 0.97% per year in the apixaban group and 1.05% per year in the warfarin group (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.13; P = 0.42). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with atrial fibrillation, apixaban was superior to warfarin in preventing stroke or systemic embolism, caused less bleeding, and resulted in lower mortality. Copyright © 2011 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved

Apixaban compared with warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation and previous stroke or transient ischaemic attack: A subgroup analysis of the ARISTOTLE trial

Background: In the ARISTOTLE trial, the rate of stroke or systemic embolism was reduced by apixaban compared with warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Patients with AF and previous stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TIA) have a high risk of stroke. We therefore aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of apixaban compared with warfarin in prespecified subgroups of patients with and without previous stroke or TIA. Methods: Between Dec 19, 2006, and April 2, 2010, patients were enrolled in the ARISTOTLE trial at 1034 clinical sites in 39 countries. 18 201 patients with AF or atrial flutter were randomly assigned to receive apixaban 5 mg twice daily or warfarin (target international normalised ratio 2·0-3·0). The median duration of follow-up was 1·8 years (IQR 1·4-2·3). The primary efficacy outcome was stroke or systemic embolism, analysed by intention to treat. The primary safety outcome was major bleeding in the on-treatment population. All participants, investigators, and sponsors were masked to treatment assignments. In this subgroup analysis, we estimated event rates and used Cox models to compare outcomes in patients with and without previous stroke or TIA. The ARISTOTLE trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NTC00412984. Findings: Of the trial population, 3436 (19%) had a previous stroke or TIA. In the subgroup of patients with previous stroke or TIA, the rate of stroke or systemic embolism was 2·46 per 100 patient-years of follow-up in the apixaban group and 3·24 in the warfarin group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·76, 95% CI 0·56 to 1·03); in the subgroup of patients without previous stroke or TIA, the rate of stroke or systemic embolism was 1·01 per 100 patient-years of follow-up with apixaban and 1·23 with warfarin (HR 0·82, 95% CI 0·65 to 1·03; p for interaction=0·71). The absolute reduction in the rate of stroke and systemic embolism with apixaban versus warfarin was 0·77 per 100 patient-years of follow-up (95% CI -0·08 to 1·63) in patients with and 0·22 (-0·03 to 0·47) in those without previous stroke or TIA. The difference in major bleeding with apixaban compared with warfarin was 1·07 per 100 patient-years (95% CI 0·09-2·04) in patients with and 0·93 (0·54-1·32) in those without previous stroke or TIA. Interpretation: The effects of apixaban versus warfarin were consistent in patients with AF with and without previous stroke or TIA. Owing to the higher risk of these outcomes in patients with previous stroke or TIA, the absolute benefits of apixaban might be greater in this population. Funding: Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer. © 2012 Elsevier Ltd