1. Home
  2. acute coronary syndrome

acute coronary syndrome

Invasive Versus Conservative Treatment Strategy in Older Patients With Non-ST Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndromes: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Author/s: 
Mushood Ahmed, Areeba Ahsan, Aimen Shafiq, Tallal Mushtaq Hashmi

Background
Non-ST segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACS) are a common cause of hospital admission in older patients. Our study aims to synthesize the available evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare clinical outcomes with invasive versus conservative medical management in this population.

Methods
A literature search of online databases including PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library was conducted from inception to September 1, 2024. The search aimed to identify RCTs that reported clinical outcomes with invasive versus conservative strategies in older patients (≥ 70 years) with NSTE-ACS. The risk ratios (RRs) were used as summary estimates.

Results
Seven RCTs with 2998 patients were included; 1490 patients in the invasive group and 1508 patients in the conservatively managed group. The pooled analysis demonstrated no statistically significant difference between the two strategies for the risk of all-cause death (RR: 1.03, 95% CI: 0.92–1.15), cardiovascular death (RR: 1.04, 95% CI: 0.82–1.33), stroke (RR: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.53–1.15), and major bleeding (RR: 1.23, 95% CI: 0.90–1.69). However, the invasive strategy was associated with a significantly reduced risk of myocardial infarction (RR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.57–0.96) and unplanned revascularization (RR: 0.29, 95% CI: 0.21–0.40) compared to the conservative strategy.

Conclusion
In older patients with NSTE-ACS, an invasive strategy reduces the risk of repeat myocardial infarction and unplanned revascularization without a significant increase in stroke or major bleeding. There was no associated reduction in all-cause or cardiovascular mortality with the invasive strategy compared to conservative management.

Keywords 
NSTEMI Conservative treatment invasive treatment revascularization unstable angina pectoris

Association of Influenza Vaccination With Cardiovascular Risk: A Meta-analysis

Author/s: 
Behrouzi, B., Bhatt, D. L., Cannon, C. P., Vardeny, O., Lee, D. S., Solomon, S. D., Udell, J. A.

Importance: Influenza infection is associated with increased cardiovascular hospitalization and mortality. Our prior systematic review and meta-analysis hypothesized that influenza vaccination was associated with a lower risk of cardiovascular events.

Objective: To evaluate, via an updated meta-analysis, if seasonal influenza vaccination is associated with a lower risk of fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular events and assess whether the newest cardiovascular outcome trial results are consistent with prior findings.

Data sources: A previously published meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and a large 2021 cardiovascular outcome trial.

Study selection: Studies with RCTs published between 2000 and 2021 that randomized participants to either influenza vaccine or placebo/control. Eligible participants were inpatients and outpatients recruited for international multicenter RCTs and randomized to receive either influenza vaccine or placebo/control.

Data extraction and synthesis: PRISMA guidelines were followed in the extraction of study details, and risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. Trial quality was evaluated using Cochrane criteria. Data were analyzed January 2020 and December 2021.

Main outcomes and measures: Random-effects Mantel-Haenszel risk ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs were derived for a composite of major adverse cardiovascular events and cardiovascular mortality within 12 months of follow-up. Where available, analyses were stratified by patients with and without recent acute coronary syndrome (ACS) within 1 year of randomization.

Results: Six published RCTs comprising a total of 9001 patients were included (mean age, 65.5 years; 42.5% women; 52.3% with a cardiac history). Overall, influenza vaccine was associated with a lower risk of composite cardiovascular events (3.6% vs 5.4%; RR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.53-0.83; P < .001). A treatment interaction was detected between patients with recent ACS (RR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.41-0.75) and without recent ACS (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.68-1.47) (P for interaction = .02). For cardiovascular mortality, a treatment interaction was also detected between patients with recent ACS (RR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.23-0.85) and without recent ACS (RR, 1.45; 95% CI, 0.84-2.50) (P for interaction = .006), while 1.7% of vaccine recipients died of cardiovascular causes compared with 2.5% of placebo or control recipients (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.42-1.30; P = .29).

Conclusions and relevance: In this study, receipt of influenza vaccination was associated with a 34% lower risk of major adverse cardiovascular events, and individuals with recent ACS had a 45% lower risk. Given influenza poses a threat to population health during the COVID-19 pandemic, it is integral to counsel high-risk patients on the cardiovascular benefits of influenza vaccination.

Keywords 
influenza vaccination Cardiovascular Risk meta-analysis

Final Report of a Trial of Intensive versus Standard Blood-Pressure Control

Author/s: 
Lewis, C. E., Fine, L. J., Beddhu, S., Cheung, A. K., Cushman, W. C., Cutler, J. A., Evans, G. W., Johnson, K. C., Kitzman, D. W., Oparil, S., Rahman, M., Reboussin, D. M., Rocco, M. V., Sink, K, M., Snyder, J. K., Whelton, P. K., Williamson, J. D., Wright Jr., J. T., Ambrosius, W. T.

Background: In a previously reported randomized trial of standard and intensive systolic blood-pressure control, data on some outcome events had yet to be adjudicated and post-trial follow-up data had not yet been collected.

Methods: We randomly assigned 9361 participants who were at increased risk for cardiovascular disease but did not have diabetes or previous stroke to adhere to an intensive treatment target (systolic blood pressure, <120 mm Hg) or a standard treatment target (systolic blood pressure, <140 mm Hg). The primary outcome was a composite of myocardial infarction, other acute coronary syndromes, stroke, acute decompensated heart failure, or death from cardiovascular causes. Additional primary outcome events occurring through the end of the intervention period (August 20, 2015) were adjudicated after data lock for the primary analysis. We also analyzed post-trial observational follow-up data through July 29, 2016.

Results: At a median of 3.33 years of follow-up, the rate of the primary outcome and all-cause mortality during the trial were significantly lower in the intensive-treatment group than in the standard-treatment group (rate of the primary outcome, 1.77% per year vs. 2.40% per year; hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63 to 0.86; all-cause mortality, 1.06% per year vs. 1.41% per year; hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.92). Serious adverse events of hypotension, electrolyte abnormalities, acute kidney injury or failure, and syncope were significantly more frequent in the intensive-treatment group. When trial and post-trial follow-up data were combined (3.88 years in total), similar patterns were found for treatment benefit and adverse events; however, rates of heart failure no longer differed between the groups.

Conclusions: Among patients who were at increased cardiovascular risk, targeting a systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg resulted in lower rates of major adverse cardiovascular events and lower all-cause mortality than targeting a systolic blood pressure of less than 140 mm Hg, both during receipt of the randomly assigned therapy and after the trial. Rates of some adverse events were higher in the intensive-treatment group. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health; SPRINT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01206062.).

Keywords 
blood-pressure trial cardiovascular hypotension stroke

Outcomes Associated With Oral Anticoagulants Plus Antiplatelets in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Atrial Fibrillation

Author/s: 
Fox, KAA, Velentgas, P, Camm, AJ, Bassand, JP, Fitzmaurice, DA, Gersh, BJ, Goldhaber, SZ, Goto, S, Haas, S, Misselwitz, F, Pieper, KS, Turpie, AGG, Verhegut, FWA, Dabrowski, E, Luo, K, Gibbs, L, Kakkar, AK, GARFIELD-AF Investigators

IMPORTANCE:

Patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation at risk of stroke should receive oral anticoagulants (OAC). However, approximately 1 in 8 patients in the Global Anticoagulant Registry in the Field (GARFIELD-AF) registry are treated with antiplatelet (AP) drugs in addition to OAC, with or without documented vascular disease or other indications for AP therapy.

OBJECTIVE:

To investigate baseline characteristics and outcomes of patients who were prescribed OAC plus AP therapy vs OAC alone.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:

Prospective cohort study of the GARFIELD-AF registry, an international, multicenter, observational study of adults aged 18 years and older with recently diagnosed nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and at least 1 risk factor for stroke enrolled between March 2010 and August 2016. Data were extracted for analysis in October 2017 and analyzed from April 2018 to June 2019.

EXPOSURE:

Participants received either OAC plus AP or OAC alone.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:

Clinical outcomes were measured over 3 and 12 months. Outcomes were adjusted for 40 covariates, including baseline conditions and medications.

RESULTS:

A total of 24 436 patients (13 438 [55.0%] male; median [interquartile range] age, 71 [64-78] years) were analyzed. Among eligible patients, those receiving OAC plus AP therapy had a greater prevalence of cardiovascular indications for AP, including acute coronary syndromes (22.0% vs 4.3%), coronary artery disease (39.1% vs 9.8%), and carotid occlusive disease (4.8% vs 2.0%). Over 1 year, patients treated with OAC plus AP had significantly higher incidence rates of stroke (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.49; 95% CI, 1.01-2.20) and any bleeding event (aHR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.17-1.70) than those treated with OAC alone. These patients did not show evidence of reduced all-cause mortality (aHR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.98-1.51). Risk of acute coronary syndrome was not reduced in patients taking OAC plus AP compared with OAC alone (aHR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.70-1.94). Patients treated with OAC plus AP also had higher rates of all clinical outcomes than those treated with OAC alone over the short term (3 months).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:

This study challenges the practice of coprescribing OAC plus AP unless there is a clear indication for adding AP to OAC therapy in newly diagnosed atrial fibrillation.

Keywords 
anticoagulants atrial fibrillation stroke antiplatelet

Preoperative Cardiac Risk Assessment

Author/s: 
Raslau, D, Bierle, DM, Stephenson, CR, Mikhail, MA, Kebede, EB, Mauck, KF

Major adverse cardiac events are common causes of perioperative mortality and major morbidity. Preventing these complications requires thorough preoperative risk assessment and postoperative monitoring of at-risk patients. Major guidelines recommend assessment based on a validated risk calculator that incorporates patient- and procedure-specific factors. American and European guidelines define when stress testing is needed on the basis of functional capacity assessment. Favoring cost-effectiveness, Canadian guidelines instead recommend obtaining brain natriuretic peptide or N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide levels to guide postoperative screening for myocardial injury or infarction. When conditions such as acute coronary syndrome, severe pulmonary hypertension, and decompensated heart failure are identified, nonemergent surgery should be postponed until the condition is appropriately managed. There is an evolving role of biomarkers and myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery to enhance risk stratification, but the effect of interventions guided by these strategies is unclear.

Keywords 
cardiac preoperative assessment risk factors heart failure

Coronary Microvascular Dysfunction Causing Cardiac Ischemia in Women

Author/s: 
Wei, J, Cheng, S, Merz, CNB

Two-thirds of women who present with persistent symptoms and clinical signs of ischemia have no evidence of obstructive coronary artery disease (INOCA) on angiography. Cardiac ischemia can be manifested by chest discomfort, shortness of breath, decreased exercise tolerance, and ST-segment or imaging abnormalities at rest or with stress. Although women with a clinical presentation suggesting ischemic heart disease are often reassured after having a “normal” angiogram that their symptoms are not likely cardiac in etiology, 1 in 13 of these women die from a cardiac cause within 10 years of the angiographic evaluation, and the most frequent adverse cardiac event is hospitalization for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction with an observed 10-fold higher rate compared with asymptomatic women (3.3% vs 0.3%). For these women with INOCA, clinicians should consider the important, yet often overlooked, diagnosis of coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD)—a small vessel disorder that confers an adverse prognosis in women for which there are available and continuously evolving diagnostic and treatment strategies.

Keywords 
coronary microvascular dysfunction CMD obstructive coronary artery disease cardiac ischemia females angina

A Randomized Trial of Intensive versus Standard Blood-Pressure Control

Author/s: 
The SPRINT Research Group

BACKGROUND

The most appropriate targets for systolic blood pressure to reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality among persons without diabetes remain uncertain.

METHODS

We randomly assigned 9361 persons with a systolic blood pressure of 130 mm Hg or higher and an increased cardiovascular risk, but without diabetes, to a systolic blood-pressure target of less than 120 mm Hg (intensive treatment) or a target of less than 140 mm Hg (standard treatment). The primary composite outcome was myocardial infarction, other acute coronary syndromes, stroke, heart failure, or death from cardiovascular causes.

RESULTS

At 1 year, the mean systolic blood pressure was 121.4 mm Hg in the intensive-treatment group and 136.2 mm Hg in the standard-treatment group. The intervention was stopped early after a median follow-up of 3.26 years owing to a significantly lower rate of the primary composite outcome in the intensive-treatment group than in the standard-treatment group (1.65% per year vs. 2.19% per year; hazard ratio with intensive treatment, 0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64 to 0.89; P<0.001). All-cause mortality was also significantly lower in the intensive-treatment group (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.90; P=0.003). Rates of serious adverse events of hypotension, syncope, electrolyte abnormalities, and acute kidney injury or failure, but not of injurious falls, were higher in the intensive-treatment group than in the standard-treatment group.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients at high risk for cardiovascular events but without diabetes, targeting a systolic blood pressure of less than 120 mm Hg, as compared with less than 140 mm Hg, resulted in lower rates of fatal and nonfatal major cardiovascular events and death from any cause, although significantly higher rates of some adverse events were observed in the intensive-treatment group. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01206062.)

Keywords 
blood pressure diabetes cardiovascular disease risk factors
Subscribe to acute coronary syndrome