Impact of Spontaneous Extracranial Bleeding Events on Health State Utility in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation: Results from the ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 Trial.

BACKGROUND: The impact of different types of extracranial bleeding events on health-related quality of life and health-state utility among patients with atrial fibrillation is not well understood. METHODS AND RESULTS: The ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 (Effective Anticoagulation With Factor Xa Next Generation in Atrial Fibrillation-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 48) Trial compared edoxaban with warfarin with respect to the prevention of stroke or systemic embolism in atrial fibrillation. Data from the EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D-3L) questionnaire, prospectively collected at 3-month intervals for up to 48 months, were used to estimate the impact of different categories of bleeding events on health-state utility over 12 months following the event. Longitudinal mixed-effect models revealed that major gastrointestinal bleeds and major nongastrointestinal bleeds were associated with significant immediate decreases in utility scores (-0.029 [-0.044 to -0.014; P<0.001] and -0.029 [-0.046 to -0.012; P=0.001], respectively). These effects decreased in magnitude over time, and were no longer significant for major nongastrointestinal bleeds at 9 months, but remained borderline significant for major gastrointestinal bleeds at 12 months. Clinically relevant nonmajor and minor bleeds were associated with smaller but measurable immediate impacts on utility (-0.010 [-0.016 to -0.005] and -0.016 [-0.024 to -0.008]; P<0.001 for both), which remained relatively constant and statistically significant over the 12 months following the bleeding event. CONCLUSIONS: All categories of bleeding events were associated with negative impacts on health-state utility in patients with atrial fibrillation. Major bleeds were associated with relatively large immediate decreases in utility scores that gradually diminished over 12 months; clinically relevant nonmajor and minor bleeds were associated with smaller immediate decreases in utility that persisted over 12 months. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/. Unique identifier: NCT00781391

Comparison of the efficacy and safety outcomes of edoxaban in 8040 women versus 13 065 men with atrial fibrillation in the ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 trial.

BACKGROUND: Female sex is an independent risk factor for stroke and systemic embolic events in patients with atrial fibrillation. This study aimed to examine the efficacy and safety profile of edoxaban in women versus men. METHODS: The ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 trial (Effective Anticoagulation with Factor Xa Next Generation in Atrial Fibrillation-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 48) randomly assigned 21 105 patients (8040 women) with atrial fibrillation and CHADS2 score ≥2 either to a higher-dose edoxaban regimen, a lower-dose edoxaban regimen, or warfarin. The primary end points of the trial were the composite of stroke or systemic embolic events (efficacy), and International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis-defined major bleeding (safety). RESULTS: In comparison with men, women were older, had lower body weight, were more likely to have hypertension and renal dysfunction, but less likely to smoke, drink alcohol, or have diabetes or coronary artery disease. Pretreatment endogenous factor Xa activity was significantly higher in women than in men (92.5% versus 86.1%, P<0.001). Treatment with edoxaban in women resulted in greater peak edoxaban concentration and inhibition of endogenous factor Xa in comparison with men, resulting in similar endogenous factor Xa activity between the sexes 2 to 4 hours after dose. Treatment with higher-dose edoxaban regimen (versus warfarin) resulted in similar reduction in the risk of stroke/systemic embolic events (women: hazard ratio [HR], 0.87 [0.69-1.11], men: HR, 0.87 [0.71-1.06]; P-interaction=0.97) and major bleeding (women: HR, 0.74 [0.59-0.92], men: HR, 0.84 [0.72-0.99]; P-interaction=0.34) in women and men. However, women assigned to higher-dose edoxaban regimen experienced greater reductions in hemorrhagic stroke (HR, 0.30 [95% CI, 0.15-0.59] versus HR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.46-1.06]), intracranial bleeding (HR, 0.20 [95% CI, 0.10-0.39] versus HR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.44-0.89]), and life-threatening or fatal bleeding (HR, 0.25 [95% CI, 0.15-0.42] versus HR, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.54-0.96]) than men (each P-interaction<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Despite many differences in baseline characteristics between women and men and higher baseline endogenous factor Xa levels in women, the intensity of anticoagulation achieved with edoxaban between the sexes was similar. Treatment with higher-dose edoxaban regimen resulted in an even greater reduction in hemorrhagic stroke and several serious bleeding outcomes in women than in men, whereas the efficacy profile was similar between sexes

ASCORE: an up-to-date cardiovascular risk score for hypertensive patients reflecting contemporary clinical practice developed using the (ASCOT-BPLA) trial data.

A number of risk scores already exist to predict cardiovascular (CV) events. However, scores developed with data collected some time ago might not accurately predict the CV risk of contemporary hypertensive patients that benefit from more modern treatments and management. Using data from the randomised clinical trial Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial-BPLA, with 15 955 hypertensive patients without previous CV disease receiving contemporary preventive CV management, we developed a new risk score predicting the 5-year risk of a first CV event (CV death, myocardial infarction or stroke). Cox proportional hazard models were used to develop a risk equation from baseline predictors. The final risk model (ASCORE) included age, sex, smoking, diabetes, previous blood pressure (BP) treatment, systolic BP, total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol, fasting glucose and creatinine baseline variables. A simplified model (ASCORE-S) excluding laboratory variables was also derived. Both models showed very good internal validity. User-friendly integer score tables are reported for both models. Applying the latest Framingham risk score to our data significantly overpredicted the observed 5-year risk of the composite CV outcome. We conclude that risk scores derived using older databases (such as Framingham) may overestimate the CV risk of patients receiving current BP treatments; therefore, 'updated' risk scores are needed for current patients

Thrombosis Is Reduced by Inhibition of COX-1, but Unaffected by Inhibition of COX-2, in an Acute Model of Platelet Activation in the Mouse

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited

Unusual towering elevation of troponin I after ST-elevation myocardial infarction and intensive monitoring with echocardiography post-percutaneous coronary intervention: a case report

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Introduction</p> <p>The elevation of troponin levels directly corresponds to the extent of myocardial injury. Here we present a case of a robust rise in cardiac biomarkers that correspond to extensive damage to the myocardium but did not spell doom for our patient. It is important to note that, to the best of our knowledge, this is the highest level of troponin I ever reported in the literature after a myocardial injury in an acute setting.</p> <p>Case presentation</p> <p>A 53-year-old African American man with an unknown medical history presented to the emergency room of our hospital with chest pain associated with diaphoresis and altered mental status. He required emergency intubation due to acute respiratory failure and circulatory collapse within 10 minutes of his arrival. He was started on heparin and eptifibatide (Integrilin) drips but he was taken immediately for cardiac catheterization, which showed a total occlusion of his proximal left anterior descending, diffuse left circumflex disease and severe left ventricular dysfunction with segmental wall motion abnormality. He remained hypotensive throughout the procedure and an intra-aortic balloon pump was inserted for circulatory support. His urinary toxicology examination result was positive for cocaine metabolites. Serial echocardiograms showed an akinetic apex, a severely hypokinetic septum, and severe systolic dysfunction of his left ventricle. Our patient stayed at the Coronary Care Unit for a total of 15 days before he was finally discharged.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Studies demonstrate that an increase of 1 ng/ml in the cardiac troponin I level is associated with a significant increase in the risk ratio for death. The elevation of troponin I to 515 ng/ml in our patient is an unusual robust presentation which may reflect a composite of myocyte necrosis and reperfusion but without short-term mortality. Nevertheless, prolonged close monitoring is required for better outcome. We also emphasize the need for the troponin assays to be standardized and have universal cutoffs for comparisons across available data.</p

Systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study of location and citation counts

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews summarize all pertinent evidence on a defined health question. They help clinical scientists to direct their research and clinicians to keep updated. Our objective was to determine the extent to which systematic reviews are clustered in a large collection of clinical journals and whether review type (narrative or systematic) affects citation counts. METHODS: We used hand searches of 170 clinical journals in the fields of general internal medicine, primary medical care, nursing, and mental health to identify review articles (year 2000). We defined 'review' as any full text article that was bannered as a review, overview, or meta-analysis in the title or in a section heading, or that indicated in the text that the intention of the authors was to review or summarize the literature on a particular topic. We obtained citation counts for review articles in the five journals that published the most systematic reviews. RESULTS: 11% of the journals concentrated 80% of all systematic reviews. Impact factors were weakly correlated with the publication of systematic reviews (R(2 )= 0.075, P = 0.0035). There were more citations for systematic reviews (median 26.5, IQR 12 – 56.5) than for narrative reviews (8, 20, P <.0001 for the difference). Systematic reviews had twice as many citations as narrative reviews published in the same journal (95% confidence interval 1.5 – 2.7). CONCLUSIONS: A few clinical journals published most systematic reviews. Authors cited systematic reviews more often than narrative reviews, an indirect endorsement of the 'hierarchy of evidence'