Cardiovascular risk in patients with and without diabetes presenting with chronic coronary syndrome in 2004-2016

BACKGROUND: It was recently shown that new-onset diabetes patients without previous cardiovascular disease have experienced a markedly reduced risk of adverse cardiovascular events from 1996 to 2011. However, it remains unknown if similar improvements are present following the diagnosis of chronic coronary syndrome. The purpose of this study was to examine the change in cardiovascular risk among diabetes patients with chronic coronary syndrome from 2004 to 2016. METHODS: We included patients with documentation of coronary artery disease by coronary angiography between 2004 and 2016 in Western Denmark. Patients were stratified by year of index coronary angiography (2004–2006, 2007–2009, 2010–2012, and 2013–2016) and followed for two years. The main outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) defined as myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, or death. Analyses were performed separately in patients with and without diabetes. We estimated two-year risk of each outcome and adjusted incidence rate ratios (aIRR) using patients examined in 2004-2006 as reference. RESULTS: Among 5931 patients with diabetes, two-year MACE risks were 8.4% in 2004–2006, 8.5% in 2007–2009, and then decreased to 6.2% in 2010–2012 and 6.7% in 2013–2016 (2013–2016 vs 2004–2006: aIRR 0.70, 95% CI 0.53–0.93). In comparison, 23,540 patients without diabetes had event rates of 6.3%, 5.2%, 4.2%, and 3.9% for the study intervals (2013–2016 vs 2004–2006: aIRR 0.57, 95% CI 0.48–0.68). CONCLUSIONS: Between 2004 and 2016, the two-year relative risk of MACE decreased by 30% in patients with diabetes and chronic coronary syndrome, but slightly larger absolute and relative reductions were observed in patients without diabetes. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12872-021-02312-y

Effectiveness and Safety of Ticagrelor Implementation in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention:A Cohort Study in Western Denmark

BACKGROUND: Ticagrelor was introduced in Denmark in 2011 after randomised data showed its superiority over clopidogrel for patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). We assessed the effectiveness and safety of ticagrelor implementation in ACS patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS: We identified PCI-treated ACS patients in Western Denmark who redeemed a P2Y12 inhibitor prescription within 14 days. Using Danish health registries, 1-year outcomes were compared before (2007-2010) and after (2012-2015) introduction of ticagrelor. Outcomes were MACE (death, myocardial infarction, and ischaemic stroke) and hospitalisation for bleeding. Inverse probability of treatment weights were used to estimate weighted incidence rate ratios (wIRRs). FINDINGS: We included 14,450 patients; 7,102 were treated in the earlier time period (99·9% clopidogrel) and 7,348 in the later time period (87·8% ticagrelor). Ticagrelor implementation was not associated with a clinically relevant difference in 1-year risk of MACE with 413 events in the ticagrelor period vs. 424 events in the clopidogrel period (cumulative incidence percentage [CIP] 5·6% vs. 6·0%; wIRR 1·06, 95% CI 0·92-1·22). The 1-year risk of bleeding was also similar between groups with 335 bleedings requiring hospitalisation in the ticagrelor period vs. 309 events in the clopidogrel period (CIP 4·6% vs. 4·4%; wIRR 1·05, 95% CI 0·89-1·23). Results were robust in patients above and below 70 years of age. INTERPRETATION: Implementation of ticagrelor was not associated with changes in risks of ischaemic or bleeding events in Danish PCI-treated ACS patients

Unreported exclusion and sampling bias in interpretation of randomized controlled trials in patients with STEMI

Aims: To assess the impact of sampling bias due to reported as well as unreported exclusion of the target population in a multi-center randomized controlled trial (RCT)of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Methods and Results: We compared clinical characteristics and mortality between participants in the DANAMI-3 trial to contemporary non-participants with STEMI using unselected registries. A total of 179 DANAMI-3 participants (8%)and 617 contemporary non-participants (22%)had died (Log-Rank: P < 0.001)after a median follow-up of 1333 days (range: 1–2021 days). In an unadjusted Cox regression model all groups of non-participants had a higher hazard ratio to predict mortality compared to participants: eligible excluded (n = 144)(hazard ratio: 3.41 (95% CI: (2.69–4.32)), ineligible excluded (n = 472)(hazard ratio: 3.42 (95% CI: (2.44–4.80), eligible non-screened (n = 154)(hazard ratio: 3.37 (95% CI: (2.36–4.82)), ineligible non-screened (n = 154)(hazard ratio: 6.48 (95% CI: (4.77–8.80). Conclusion: Sampling bias had occurred due to both reported and unreported exclusion of eligible patients and the difference in mortality between participants and non-participants could not be explained only by the trial exclusion criteria. Thus, screening logs may not be suited to address the risks of sampling bias