myocardial infarction

Background and aims: The question of when and how to treat truly asymptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) and normal left ventricular (LV) systolic function is still subject to debate and ongoing research. Here, the results of extended follow-up of the AVATAR trial are reported (NCT02436655, clinical trials.gov).

Methods: The AVATAR trial randomly assigned patients with severe, asymptomatic AS and LV ejection fraction ≥50% to undergo either early surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) or conservative treatment with watchful waiting strategy. All patients had negative exercise stress testing. The primary hypothesis was that early AVR will reduce a primary composite endpoint comprising all-cause death, acute myocardial infarction, stroke or unplanned hospitalization for heart failure (HF), as compared to conservative treatment strategy.

Results: A total of 157 low-risk patients (mean age 67 years, 57% men, mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons score 1.7%) were randomly allocated to either early AVR group (n=78) or conservative treatment group (n=79). In an intention-to-treat analysis, after a median follow-up of 63 months, the primary composite endpoint outcome event occurred in 18/78 patients (23.1%) in the early surgery group and in 37/79 patients (46.8%) in the conservative treatment group (hazard ratio [HR] early surgery vs. conservative treatment 0.42; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.24-0.73, p=0.002). The Kaplan-Meier estimates for individual endpoints of all-cause death and HF hospitalization were significantly lower in the early surgery compared with the conservative group (HR 0.44; 95% CI 0.23-0.85, p=0.012 for all-cause death, and HR 0.21; 95% CI 0.06-0.73, p=0.007 for HF hospitalizations).

Conclusions: The extended follow-up of the AVATAR trial demonstrates better clinical outcomes with early surgical AVR in truly asymptomatic patients with severe AS and normal LV ejection fraction compared with patients treated with conservative management on watchful waiting.

Importance The association between statin-induced reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels and the absolute risk reduction of individual, rather than composite, outcomes, such as all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, or stroke, is unclear.

Objective To assess the association between absolute reductions in LDL-C levels with treatment with statin therapy and all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke to facilitate shared decision-making between clinicians and patients and inform clinical guidelines and policy.

Data Sources PubMed and Embase were searched to identify eligible trials from January 1987 to June 2021.

Study Selection Large randomized clinical trials that examined the effectiveness of statins in reducing total mortality and cardiovascular outcomes with a planned duration of 2 or more years and that reported absolute changes in LDL-C levels. Interventions were treatment with statins (3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors) vs placebo or usual care. Participants were men and women older than 18 years.

Data Extraction and Synthesis Three independent reviewers extracted data and/or assessed the methodological quality and certainty of the evidence using the risk of bias 2 tool and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation. Any differences in opinion were resolved by consensus. Meta-analyses and a meta-regression were undertaken.

Main Outcomes and Measures Primary outcome: all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes: myocardial infarction, stroke.

Findings Twenty-one trials were included in the analysis. Meta-analyses showed reductions in the absolute risk of 0.8% (95% CI, 0.4%-1.2%) for all-cause mortality, 1.3% (95% CI, 0.9%-1.7%) for myocardial infarction, and 0.4% (95% CI, 0.2%-0.6%) for stroke in those randomized to treatment with statins, with associated relative risk reductions of 9% (95% CI, 5%-14%), 29% (95% CI, 22%-34%), and 14% (95% CI, 5%-22%) respectively. A meta-regression exploring the potential mediating association of the magnitude of statin-induced LDL-C reduction with outcomes was inconclusive.

Conclusions and Relevance The results of this meta-analysis suggest that the absolute risk reductions of treatment with statins in terms of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke are modest compared with the relative risk reductions, and the presence of significant heterogeneity reduces the certainty of the evidence. A conclusive association between absolute reductions in LDL-C levels and individual clinical outcomes was not established, and these findings underscore the importance of discussing absolute risk reductions when making informed clinical decisions with individual patients.

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.).

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.