Differences in outcomes in patients with stable coronary artery disease managed by cardiologists versus noncardiologists Results from the international prospective CLARIFY registry

INTRODUCTION Clinical outcomes of patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) may differ between those primarily managed by cardiologists versus noncardiologists. OBJECTIVES Our main objective was to analyze the clinical outcomes of outpatients with stable CAD in relation to the specialty of the managing physicians. PATIENTS AND METHODS We studied 32 468 outpatients with stable CAD included in the CLARIFY registry, with up to 4 years of follow-up data. Cardiologists provided medical care in 84.1% and noncardiologists in 15.9% of the patients. Primary outcome was the composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke. RESULTS Important differences in management as well as demographic and clinical characteristics were observed between the groups at baseline. Patients treated by cardiologists were younger and more of them had dyslipidemia, hypertension, and diabetes. The use of beta-blockers and thienopyridines, as well as history of percutaneous coronary intervention were more frequent in this group. More patients treated by noncardiologists had a history of MI as well as concomitant peripheral artery disease and asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. They also had lower left ventricular ejection fraction and more often received lipid-lowering drugs. After adjustment for baseline differences, patients treated by cardiologists had a lower risk of the primary outcome (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.80;95% confidence interval, 0.68-0.94;P = 0.0067) and of most secondary outcomes, but greater risk of bleeding. CONCLUSIONS Outpatients with stable CAD managed by cardiologists had a lower rate of cardiovascular outcomes than those managed by noncardiologists. We did not find clear evidence that cardiologists provided superior guideline -based treatment, so the differences in outcome were most likely due to unquantifiable differences in patient characteristics

Improving the management of non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes: systematic evaluation of a quality improvement programme European QUality Improvement Programme for Acute Coronary Syndrome: The EQUIP-ACS project protocol and design

Acute coronary syndromes, including myocardial infarction and unstable angina, are important causes of premature mortality, morbidity and hospital admissions. Acute coronary syndromes consume large amounts of health care resources, and have a major negative economic and social impact through days lost at work, support for disability, and coping with the psychological consequences of illness. Several registries have shown that evidence based treatments are under-utilised in this patient population, particularly in high-risk patients. There is evidence that systematic educational programmes can lead to improvement in the management of these patients. Since application of the results of important clinical trials and expert clinical guidelines into clinical practice leads to improved patient care and outcomes, we propose to test a quality improvement programme in a general group of hospitals in Europe

One-Year Risk of Stroke after Transient Ischemic Attack or Minor Stroke

BACKGROUND Previous studies conducted between 1997 and 2003 estimated that the risk of stroke or an acute coronary syndrome was 12 to 20% during the first 3 months after a transient ischemic attack (TIA) or minor stroke. The TIAregistry.org project was designed to describe the contemporary profile, etiologic factors, and outcomes in patients with a TIA or minor ischemic stroke who receive care in health systems that now offer urgent evaluation by stroke specialists. METHODS We recruited patients who had had a TIA or minor stroke within the previous 7 days. Sites were selected if they had systems dedicated to urgent evaluation of patients with TIA. We estimated the 1-year risk of stroke and of the composite outcome of stroke, an acute coronary syndrome, or death from cardiovascular causes. We also examined the association of the ABCD2 score for the risk of stroke (range, 0 [lowest risk] to 7 [highest risk]), findings on brain imaging, and cause of TIA or minor stroke with the risk of recurrent stroke over a period of 1 year. RESULTS From 2009 through 2011, we enrolled 4789 patients at 61 sites in 21 countries. A total of 78.4% of the patients were evaluated by stroke specialists within 24 hours after symptom onset. A total of 33.4% of the patients had an acute brain infarction, 23.2% had at least one extracranial or intracranial stenosis of 50% or more, and 10.4% had atrial fibrillation. The Kaplan–Meier estimate of the 1-year event rate of the composite cardiovascular outcome was 6.2% (95% confidence interval, 5.5 to 7.0). Kaplan–Meier estimates of the stroke rate at days 2, 7, 30, 90, and 365 were 1.5%, 2.1%, 2.8%, 3.7%, and 5.1%, respectively. In multivariable analyses, multiple infarctions on brain imaging, large-artery atherosclerosis, and an ABCD2 score of 6 or 7 were each associated with more than a doubling of the risk of stroke. CONCLUSIONS We observed a lower risk of cardiovascular events after TIA than previously reported. The ABCD2 score, findings on brain imaging, and status with respect to large-artery atherosclerosis helped stratify the risk of recurrent stroke within 1 year after a TIA or minor stroke. (Funded by Sanofi and Bristol-Myers Squibb.)Supported by an unrestricted grant from Sanofi and Bristol-Myers Squibb

Excess risk attributable to traditional cardiovascular risk factors in clinical practice settings across Europe - The EURIKA Study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Physicians involved in primary prevention are key players in CVD risk control strategies, but the expected reduction in CVD risk that would be obtained if all patients attending primary care had their risk factors controlled according to current guidelines is unknown. The objective of this study was to estimate the excess risk attributable, firstly, to the presence of CVD risk factors and, secondly, to the lack of control of these risk factors in primary prevention care across Europe.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Cross-sectional study using data from the European Study on Cardiovascular Risk Prevention and Management in Daily Practice (EURIKA), which involved primary care and outpatient clinics involved in primary prevention from 12 European countries between May 2009 and January 2010. We enrolled 7,434 patients over 50 years old with at least one cardiovascular risk factor but without CVD and calculated their 10-year risk of CVD death according to the SCORE equation, modified to take diabetes risk into account.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The average 10-year risk of CVD death in study participants (N = 7,434) was 8.2%. Hypertension, hyperlipidemia, smoking, and diabetes were responsible for 32.7 (95% confidence interval 32.0-33.4), 15.1 (14.8-15.4), 10.4 (9.9-11.0), and 16.4% (15.6-17.2) of CVD risk, respectively. The four risk factors accounted for 57.7% (57.0-58.4) of CVD risk, representing a 10-year excess risk of CVD death of 5.66% (5.47-5.85). Lack of control of hypertension, hyperlipidemia, smoking, and diabetes were responsible for 8.8 (8.3-9.3), 10.6 (10.3-10.9), 10.4 (9.9-11.0), and 3.1% (2.8-3.4) of CVD risk, respectively. Lack of control of the four risk factors accounted for 29.2% (28.5-29.8) of CVD risk, representing a 10-year excess risk of CVD death of 3.12% (2.97-3.27).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Lack of control of CVD risk factors was responsible for almost 30% of the risk of CVD death among patients participating in the EURIKA Study.</p

Delphi-Consensus Weights for Ischemic and Bleeding Events to Be Included in a Composite Outcome for RCTs in Thrombosis Prevention

To weight ischemic and bleeding events according to their severity to be used in a composite outcome in RCTs in the field of thrombosis prevention.Using a Delphi consensus method, a panel of anaesthesiology and cardiology experts rated the severity of thrombotic and bleeding clinical events. The ratings were expressed on a 10-point scale. The median and quartiles of the ratings of each item were returned to the experts. Then, the panel members evaluated the events a second time with knowledge of the group responses from the first round. Cronbach's a was used as a measure of homogeneity for the ratings. The final rating for each event corresponded to the median rating obtained at the last Delphi round.Of 70 experts invited, 32 (46%) accepted to participate. Consensus was reached at the second round as indicated by Cronbach's a value (0.99 (95% CI 0.98-1.00)) so the Delphi was stopped. Severity ranged from under-popliteal venous thrombosis (median = 3, Q1 = 2; Q3 = 3) to ischemic stroke or intracerebral hemorrhage with severe disability at 7 days and massive pulmonary embolism (median = 9, Q1 = 9; Q3 = 9). Ratings did not differ according to the medical specialty of experts.These ratings could be used to weight ischemic and bleeding events of various severity comprising a composite outcome in the field of thrombosis prevention

Effect of Alirocumab on Lipoprotein(a) and Cardiovascular Risk After Acute Coronary Syndrome

Lipoprotein(a) concentration is associated with cardiovascular events. Alirocumab, a proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitor, lowers lipoprotein(a) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). A pre-specified analysis of the placebo-controlled ODYSSEY Outcomes trial in patients with recent acute coronary syndrome (ACS) determined whether alirocumab-induced changes in lipoprotein(a) and LDL-C independently predicted major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). One to 12 months after ACS, 18,924 patients on high-intensity statin therapy were randomized to alirocumab or placebo and followed for 2.8 years (median). Lipoprotein(a) was measured at randomization and 4 and 12 months thereafter. The primary MACE outcome was coronary heart disease death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, or hospitalization for unstable angina. Baseline lipoprotein(a) levels (median: 21.2 mg/dl; interquartile range [IQR]: 6.7 to 59.6 mg/dl) and LDL-C [corrected for cholesterol content in lipoprotein(a)] predicted MACE. Alirocumab reduced lipoprotein(a) by 5.0 mg/dl (IQR: 0 to 13.5 mg/dl), corrected LDL-C by 51.1 mg/dl (IQR: 33.7 to 67.2 mg/dl), and reduced the risk of MACE (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.78 to 0.93). Alirocumab-induced reductions of lipoprotein(a) and corrected LDL-C independently predicted lower risk of MACE, after adjustment for baseline concentrations of both lipoproteins and demographic and clinical characteristics. A 1-mg/dl reduction in lipoprotein(a) with alirocumab was associated with a HR of 0.994 (95% CI: 0.990 to 0.999; p = 0.0081). Baseline lipoprotein(a) and corrected LDL-C levels and their reductions by alirocumab predicted the risk of MACE after recent ACS. Lipoprotein(a) lowering by alirocumab is an independent contributor to MACE reduction, which suggests that lipoprotein(a) should be an independent treatment target after ACS. (ODYSSEY Outcomes: Evaluation of Cardiovascular Outcomes After an Acute Coronary Syndrome During Treatment With Alirocumab; NCT01663402

2015 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation: Task Force for the Management of Acute Coronary Syndromes in Patients Presenting without Persistent ST-Segment Elevation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC).

peer reviewe

Safety of the PCSK9 inhibitor alirocumab: insights from 47 296 patient-years of observation

The ODYSSEY OUTCOMES trial, comprising over 47&nbsp;000 patient-years of placebo-controlled observation, demonstrated important reductions in the risk of recurrent ischaemic cardiovascular events with the monoclonal antibody to proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 alirocumab, as well as lower all-cause death. These benefits were observed in the context of substantial and persistent lowering of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol with alirocumab compared with that achieved with placebo. The safety profile of alirocumab was indistinguishable from matching placebo except for a ∼1.7% absolute increase in local injection site reactions. Further, the safety of alirocumab compared with placebo was evident in vulnerable groups identified before randomization, such as the elderly and those with diabetes mellitus, previous ischaemic stroke, or chronic kidney disease. The frequency of adverse events and laboratory-based abnormalities was generally similar to that in placebo-treated patients. Thus, alirocumab appears to be a safe and effective lipid-modifying treatment over a duration of at least 5 years