Rethinking coronary artery disease: a call to action
- Read more about Rethinking coronary artery disease: a call to action
- Log in or register to post comments
No abstract available.
Keywords
coronary artery disease
Anticoagulation and Antiplatelet Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation and Stable Coronary Disease: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials
- Read more about Anticoagulation and Antiplatelet Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation and Stable Coronary Disease: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials
- Log in or register to post comments
Background: The optimal long-term antithrombotic strategy in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and stable coronary artery disease (CAD) remains uncertain. Individual randomized controlled trials (RCTs) had variations in their reported results and were not powered for effectiveness outcomes.
Objectives: This study aimed to pool the results of RCTs comparing the effectiveness and safety of oral anticoagulation (OAC) monotherapy vs OAC plus single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) in patients with AF and stable CAD.
Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov until September 09, 2024. The primary effectiveness outcome was a composite of myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, systemic embolism, or death. The primary safety outcome was major bleeding. We obtained unpublished results from principal investigators of the included RCTs, as needed, to calculate pooled HRs and 95% CIs and to perform prespecified subgroup analyses.
Results: Among 690 screened records, 4 RCTs with 4,092 randomized patients were included (2 using edoxaban, 1 using rivaroxaban, and 1 using any oral anticoagulant; mean age 73.9 years, 20.1% women). The median follow-up durations ranged from 12 to 30 months (overall estimated weighted mean follow-up of 21.9 months). There were no statistically significant differences between OAC monotherapy vs OAC plus SAPT in the primary effectiveness outcome (7.3% vs 8.2%; HR: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.72-1.12), myocardial infarction (1.0% vs 0.7%; HR: 1.51; 95% CI: 0.75-3.04), ischemic stroke (1.9% vs 2.1%; HR: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.57-1.37), all-cause death (4.2% vs 5.3%; HR: 0.94; 95% CI: 0.49-1.80), or cardiovascular death (2.4% vs 3.0%; HR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.54-1.15). OAC monotherapy was associated with a lower risk of major bleeding than OAC plus SAPT (3.3% vs 5.7%; HR: 0.59; 95% CI: 0.44-0.79). Subgroup analyses did not show significant interactions for effectiveness but suggested that the magnitude of bleeding reduction may be greater among men (Pinteraction = 0.03) and among patients with diabetes mellitus (Pinteraction = 0.04).
Conclusions: In patients with AF and stable CAD, OAC monotherapy, compared with OAC plus SAPT, was not associated with a statistically significant increased risk of ischemic events but resulted in a significantly reduced risk of bleeding.
Management of Atrial Fibrillation
- Read more about Management of Atrial Fibrillation
- Log in or register to post comments
Atrial fibrillation has a lifetime prevalence of 15% to 40% and predisposes patients to stroke and cardiac dysfunction. This JAMA Clinical Guidelines Synopsis focuses on recommendations for long-term management of AF, including new paradigms for rhythm control and stroke risk reduction.
Colchicine in Patients with Chronic Coronary Disease
- Read more about Colchicine in Patients with Chronic Coronary Disease
- Log in or register to post comments
Abstract
Background: Evidence from a recent trial has shown that the antiinflammatory effects of colchicine reduce the risk of cardiovascular events in patients with recent myocardial infarction, but evidence of such a risk reduction in patients with chronic coronary disease is limited.
Methods: In a randomized, controlled, double-blind trial, we assigned patients with chronic coronary disease to receive 0.5 mg of colchicine once daily or matching placebo. The primary end point was a composite of cardiovascular death, spontaneous (nonprocedural) myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, or ischemia-driven coronary revascularization. The key secondary end point was a composite of cardiovascular death, spontaneous myocardial infarction, or ischemic stroke.
Results: A total of 5522 patients underwent randomization; 2762 were assigned to the colchicine group and 2760 to the placebo group. The median duration of follow-up was 28.6 months. A primary end-point event occurred in 187 patients (6.8%) in the colchicine group and in 264 patients (9.6%) in the placebo group (incidence, 2.5 vs. 3.6 events per 100 person-years; hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.57 to 0.83; P<0.001). A key secondary end-point event occurred in 115 patients (4.2%) in the colchicine group and in 157 patients (5.7%) in the placebo group (incidence, 1.5 vs. 2.1 events per 100 person-years; hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.92; P = 0.007). The incidence rates of spontaneous myocardial infarction or ischemia-driven coronary revascularization (composite end point), cardiovascular death or spontaneous myocardial infarction (composite end point), ischemia-driven coronary revascularization, and spontaneous myocardial infarction were also significantly lower with colchicine than with placebo. The incidence of death from noncardiovascular causes was higher in the colchicine group than in the placebo group (incidence, 0.7 vs. 0.5 events per 100 person-years; hazard ratio, 1.51; 95% CI, 0.99 to 2.31).
Conclusions: In a randomized trial involving patients with chronic coronary disease, the risk of cardiovascular events was significantly lower among those who received 0.5 mg of colchicine once daily than among those who received placebo. (Funded by the National Health Medical Research Council of Australia and others; LoDoCo2 Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry number, ACTRN12614000093684.).
Copyright © 2020 Massachusetts Medical Society.
Initial Invasive or Conservative Strategy for Stable Coronary Disease
- Read more about Initial Invasive or Conservative Strategy for Stable Coronary Disease
- Log in or register to post comments
Background: Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain.
Methods: We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction.
Results: Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, -1.8 percentage points; 95% CI, -4.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32).
Conclusions: Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; ISCHEMIA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01471522.).
Outcomes Associated With Oral Anticoagulants Plus Antiplatelets in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Atrial Fibrillation
- Read more about Outcomes Associated With Oral Anticoagulants Plus Antiplatelets in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Atrial Fibrillation
- Log in or register to post comments
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.
Coronary Microvascular Dysfunction Causing Cardiac Ischemia in Women
- Read more about Coronary Microvascular Dysfunction Causing Cardiac Ischemia in Women
- Log in or register to post comments
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.
Meta-Analysis of Oral Anticoagulant Monotherapy as an Antithrombotic Strategy in Patients With Stable Coronary Artery Disease and Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation
- Read more about Meta-Analysis of Oral Anticoagulant Monotherapy as an Antithrombotic Strategy in Patients With Stable Coronary Artery Disease and Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation
- Log in or register to post comments
Guidelines recommend oral anticoagulant (OAC) monotherapy without antiplatelet therapy (APT) in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF) with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) of >1 year after myocardial infarction or percutaneous coronary intervention. More evidences are required for the safety and efficacy of OAC monotherapy compared with OAC plus APT. PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were systematically searched up to February 2019. Nonrandomized studies and randomized clinical trials comparing OAC monotherapy with OAC plus single APT (SAPT) for patients with stable CAD and nonvalvular AF. The primary end point was major adverse cardiovascular events (composite of ischemic or thrombotic events) and secondary outcomes included major bleeding, stroke, all-cause death, and net adverse events (composite of ischemic, thrombotic, or bleeding events). From 6 trials, 8,855 patients were included. There was no significant difference in major adverse cardiovascular event in patients with AF treated using OAC plus SAPT compared with those treated with OAC monotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.92 to 1.29). OAC plus SAPT was associated with a significantly higher risk of major bleeding compared with OAC monotherapy (HR 1.61; 95% CI 1.38 to 1.87), as well as in terms of net adverse event (HR 1.21; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.43). There were no significant differences in rates of stroke and all-cause death. In conclusion, in this meta-analysis, OAC monotherapy and OAC plus SAPT treatment showed similar effectiveness, but OAC monotherapy was significantly associated with a lower risk of bleeding compared with OAC plus SAPT in patients with nonvalvular AF and stable CAD.
