Diagnosis and treatment of acute pulmonary embolism

AbstractNovelties include the introduction of sPESI, a simplified index of pulmonary embolism severity, and hs-cTnT as a new biomarker, already in use in clinical practice.Another novelty is the term unstable pulmonary embolism characterized by either the presence of cardiogenic shock or the need for ventilatory support.The main new information is the evidence of a large US study of treatment of unstable pulmonary embolism reporting a 67% reduction in overall mortality of unstable patients when treated with thrombolytic treatment when compared with the anticoagulation in the same unstable patients.The reduction was obtained across all age groups as well as in comorbid patients.Results of the above study clearly show that, in the absence of absolute contraindications, all unstable APE patients, including the elderly and comorbid patients, should be treated with thrombolysis.By contrast, the comparison of thrombolytic and anticoagulation therapy in the treatment of submassive pulmonary embolism in the PEITHO trial provided unconvincing results, perhaps because of the low mortality rates of the whole group of 1004 patients.Also reported are data from a US study of embolectomies. Caval filter insertion reduced the mortality rates in all analyzed groups. Based on the facts, it is believed another appropriate indication is that of temporary caval filter insertion in patients with severe massive APE, in whom recurrence of pulmonary embolism from pelvic veins has not been ruled out by CT venography.Hemodynamically stable patients should be treated with LMWH or unfractionated heparins, or rivaroxaban or apixaban.At the end of hospitalization a control echocardiography and calculation of residual pulmonary vascular obstruction on a perfusion scan should be performed

Real-World Safety and Effectiveness Outcomes of a Zotarolimus-Eluting Stent: Final 3-Year Report of the RESOLUTE International Study

Objectives: We evaluated the safety and effectiveness of the Resolute™ zotarolimus-eluting stent (R-ZES) in real-world clinical practice through 3 years. Background: A randomized comparison of the R-ZES and the XIENCE V™ everolimus-eluting stent showed no difference in any outcomes through 3-year follow-up in high-volume academic centers. RESOLUTE International is a confirmatory trial designed to evaluate the R-ZES in real-world clinical practice. Methods: RESOLUTE International is a single arm, observational trial that enrolled 2,349 patients from 88 centers with only a few inclusion and exclusion criteria. The primary end-point was the composite of cardiac death and target vessel myocardial infarction (TV-MI) at 1 year. Secondary end-points include target lesion failure (TLF), target vessel revascularization (TVR), and their components, and stent thrombosis (ST). Results: At 3 years 97.2% of patients completed clinical follow-up. The mean age was 63.4 ± 11.2 years, 77.8% were male, and 30.4% had diabetes. The average number of stents per patient was 1.6 ± 1.0; and mean stent length was 30.9 ± 20.5 mm. Dual antiplatelet therapy was used in 91.1% of patients at 1 year, 43.0% at 2 years, and 34.6% at 3 years. Cardiac death and TV-MI occurred in 161 patients (7.0%). There were 6 (0.3%) very late ST events for a total ST rate of 1.1% through 3 years. The rates of clinically driven target lesion revascularization (TLR), TVR, and TLF were 5.7%, 7.4%, and 11.4%, respectively. Conclusions: The safety and effectiveness of the R-ZES through 3 years in this real-world all-comer study was consistent with previously reported all-comer trials. (J Interven Cardiol 2013;26:515-523

Quality of life in patients with chronic heart failure

Our goal was to establish the level of life quality in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF), and to find out whether there was a connection between their gender, socio-demographic status, BMI, number of comorbidities, NYHA class, treatment regime, time of treatment, age, and quality of life. Methods: This research was conducted in 2018 at cardiology outpatient wards in patients with CHF using the standardized Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ). In order to perform complex monitoring of the relations among the variables within the study we conducted regression analysis, however, in exploratory regime as a descriptive technique, and so regardless of the value of statistical significance, and without an attempt to generalize. The model was realized using the ENTER method. Our goal was to include all of the above variables in it. We then estimated the relative power of influence using a standardized beta coefficient. Results: Based on the values of this coefficient we can say that an increasing NYHA class, and being a male disabled retiree has the most significant influence on life quality. Adherence to the treatment regime does not have a significant impact on life quality; in fact, strict adherence to it may even result in its worsening. Conclusions: For patients with a different NYHA class, treatment goals may differ. It is important for them to be aware of the fact that even if adherence to the treatment regime interferes with their quality of life, adherence to it is necessary in order to slow down the progress of this serious disease. © 2019 The Authors

A putative placebo analysis of the effects of sacubitril/valsartan in heart failure across the full range of ejection fraction

Abstract Aims The PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF trials tested sacubitril/valsartan against active controls given renin–angiotensin system inhibitors (RASi) are ethically mandated in heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction and are used in the vast majority of patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction. To estimate the effects of sacubitril/valsartan had it been tested against a placebo control, we made indirect comparisons of the effects of sacubitril/valsartan with putative placebos in HF across the full range of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Methods and results We analysed patient-level data from the PARADIGM-HF and PARAGON-HF trials (n = 13 194) and the CHARM-Alternative and CHARM-Preserved trials (n = 5050, candesartan vs. placebo). The rate ratio (RR) of sacubitril/valsartan vs. putative placebo was estimated by the product of the RR for sacubitril/valsartan vs. RASi and the RR for RASi vs. placebo. Total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular death were analysed using the negative binomial method. Treatment effects were estimated using cubic spline methods by ejection fraction as a continuous measure. Across the range of LVEF, sacubitril/valsartan was associated with a RR 0.54 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45–0.65] for the recurrent primary endpoint compared with putative placebo (P < 0.001). Treatment benefits of sacubitril/valsartan vs. putative placebo varied non-linearly with LVEF with attenuation of effects observed at LVEF above 60%. When analyzing data from PARADIGM-HF and CHARM-Alternative, the estimated risk reduction of sacubitril/valsartan vs. putative placebo was 48% (95% CI 35–58%); P < 0.001. When analyzing data from PARAGON-HF and CHARM-Preserved (with LVEF ≥ 45%), the estimated risk reduction of sacubitril/valsartan vs. putative placebo was 29% (95% CI 7–46%); P = 0.013. Across the full range of LVEF, consistent effects were observed for time-to-first endpoints: first primary endpoint (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.64–0.82), first HF hospitalization (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.58–0.78), cardiovascular death (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.64–0.89), and all-cause death (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.71–0.96); all P < 0.02. Conclusion This putative placebo analysis reinforces the treatment benefits of sacubitril/valsartan on risk of adverse cardiovascular events across the full range of LVEF, with most pronounced effects observed at a LVEF up to 60%

Blood pressure changes after renal denervation at 10 European expert centers

We did a subject-level meta-analysis of the changes (Δ) in blood pressure (BP) observed 3 and 6 months after renal denervation (RDN) at 10 European centers. Recruited patients (n=109; 46.8% women; mean age 58.2 years) had essential hypertension confirmed by ambulatory BP. From baseline to 6 months, treatment score declined slightly from 4.7 to 4.4 drugs per day. Systolic/diastolic BP fell by 17.6/7.1 mm Hg for office BP, and by 5.9/3.5, 6.2/3.4, and 4.4/2.5 mm Hg for 24-h, daytime and nighttime BP (P0.03 for all). In 47 patients with 3- and 6-month ambulatory measurements, systolic BP did not change between these two time points (P0.08). Normalization was a systolic BP of <140 mm Hg on office measurement or <130 mm Hg on 24-h monitoring and improvement was a fall of 10 mm Hg, irrespective of measurement technique. For office BP, at 6 months, normalization, improvement or no decrease occurred in 22.9, 59.6 and 22.9% of patients, respectively; for 24-h BP, these proportions were 14.7, 31.2 and 34.9%, respectively. Higher baseline BP predicted greater BP fall at follow-up; higher baseline serum creatinine was associated with lower probability of improvement of 24-h BP (odds ratio for 20-μmol l(-1) increase, 0.60; P=0.05) and higher probability of experiencing no BP decrease (OR, 1.66; P=0.01). In conclusion, BP responses to RDN include regression-to-the-mean and remain to be consolidated in randomized trials based on ambulatory BP monitoring. For now, RDN should remain the last resort in patients in whom all other ways to control BP failed, and it must be cautiously used in patients with renal impairment

Blood pressure response to renal denervation is correlated with baseline blood pressure variability: a patient-level meta-analysis

Background: Sympathetic tone is one of the main determinants of blood pressure (BP) variability and treatment-resistant hypertension. The aim of our study was to assess changes in BP variability after renal denervation (RDN). In addition, on an exploratory basis, we investigated whether baseline BP variability predicted the BP changes after RDN. Methods: We analyzed 24-h BP recordings obtained at baseline and 6 months after RDN in 167 treatmentresistant hypertension patients (40% women; age, 56.7 years; mean 24-h BP, 152/90 mmHg) recruited at 11 expert centers. BP variability was assessed by weighted SD [SD over time weighted for the time interval between consecutive readings (SDiw)], average real variability (ARV), coefficient of variation, and variability independent of the mean (VIM). Results: Mean office and 24-h BP fell by 15.4/6.6 and 5.5/ 3.7 mmHg, respectively (P < 0.001). In multivariable-adjusted analyses, systolic/diastolic SDiw and VIM for 24-h SBP/DBP decreased by 1.18/0.63 mmHg (P 0.01) and 0.86/0.42 mmHg (P 0.05), respectively, whereas no significant changes in ARV or coefficient of variation occurred. Furthermore, baseline SDiw (P ¼ 0.0006), ARV (P ¼ 0.01), and VIM (P ¼ 0.04) predicted the decrease in 24-h DBP but not 24-h SBP after RDN. Conclusion: RDN was associated with a decrease in BP variability independent of the BP level, suggesting that responders may derive benefits from the reduction in BP variability as well. Furthermore, baseline DBP variability estimates significantly correlated with mean DBP decrease after RDN. If confirmed in younger patients with less arterial damage, in the absence of the confounding effect of drugs and drug adherence, baseline BP variability may prove a good predictor of BP response to RDN

Practical use of dabigatran etexilate for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with an increased risk of thromboembolism, and is the most prevalent factor for cardioembolic stroke. Vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) have been the standard of care for stroke prevention in patients with AF since the early 1990s. They are very effective for the prevention of cardioembolic stroke, but are limited by factors such as drug-drug interactions, food interactions, slow onset and offset of action, haemorrhage and need for routine anticoagulation monitoring to maintain a therapeutic international normalised ratio (INR). Multiple new oral anticoagulants have been developed as potential replacements for VKAs for stroke prevention in AF. Most are small synthetic molecules that target thrombin (e.g. dabigatran etexilate) or factor Xa (e.g. rivaroxaban, apixaban, edoxaban, betrixaban, YM150). These drugs have predictable pharmacokinetics that allow fixed dosing without routine laboratory monitoring. Dabigatran etexilate, the first of these new oral anticoagulants to be approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency for stroke prevention in patients with non-valvular AF, represents an effective and safe alternative to VKAs. Under the auspices of the Regional Anticoagulation Working Group, a multidisciplinary group of experts in thrombosis and haemostasis from Central and Eastern Europe, an expert panel with expertise in AF convened to discuss practical, clinically important issues related to the long-term use of dabigatran for stroke prevention in non-valvular AF. The practical information reviewed in this article will help clinicians make appropriate use of this new therapeutic option in daily clinical practice

Baseline characteristics of patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction in the PARAGON-HF trial

Background: To describe the baseline characteristics of patients with heart failure and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction enrolled in the PARAGON-HF trial (Prospective Comparison of Angiotensin Receptor Neprilysin Inhibitor With Angiotensin Receptor Blocker Global Outcomes in HFpEF) comparing sacubitril/valsartan to valsartan in reducing morbidity and mortality. Methods and Results: We report key demographic, clinical, and laboratory findings, and baseline therapies, of 4822 patients randomized in PARAGON-HF, grouped by factors that influence criteria for study inclusion. We further compared baseline characteristics of patients enrolled in PARAGON-HF with those patients enrolled in other recent trials of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Among patients enrolled from various regions (16% Asia-Pacific, 37% Central Europe, 7% Latin America, 12% North America, 28% Western Europe), the mean age of patients enrolled in PARAGON-HF was 72.7±8.4 years, 52% of patients were female, and mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 57.5%, similar to other trials of HFpEF. Most patients were in New York Heart Association class II, and 38% had ≥1 hospitalizations for heart failure within the previous 9 months. Diabetes mellitus (43%) and chronic kidney disease (47%) were more prevalent than in previous trials of HFpEF. Many patients were prescribed angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (85%), β-blockers (80%), calcium channel blockers (36%), and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (24%). As specified in the protocol, virtually all patients were on diuretics, had elevated plasma concentrations of N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (median, 911 pg/mL; interquartile range, 464–1610), and structural heart disease. Conclusions: PARAGON-HF represents a contemporary group of patients with HFpEF with similar age and sex distribution compared with prior HFpEF trials but higher prevalence of comorbidities. These findings provide insights into the impact of inclusion criteria on, and regional variation in, HFpEF patient characteristics. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01920711