Rivaroxaban Plus Aspirin in Obese and Overweight Patients With Vascular Disease in the COMPASS Trial

BackgroundDirect oral anticoagulants are administered in fixed doses irrespective of body weight, but guidelines recommend against their use in patients with extremes of body weight.ObjectivesThis study determined the effects of dual-pathway inhibition antithrombotic regimen (rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily plus aspirin 100 mg/day) compared with aspirin Halone across a range of patient body mass indexes (BMIs) and body weights.MethodsThis was a secondary analysis of the COMPASS (Cardiovascular OutcoMes for People using Anticoagulation StrategieS) trial, which included patients with chronic coronary artery disease or peripheral artery disease. Efficacy and safety outcomes were studied in relation to BMI: (normal 18.5 ≤BMI <25 kg/m², overweight 25 ≤BMI <30 kg/m², obese ≥30 kg/m²) and body weight (≤70 kg, 70 < weight ≤90 kg, and >90 kg; as well as ≤120 kg vs. >120 kg).ResultsAmong 27,395 randomized patients, 6,459 (24%) had normal BMI, 12,047 (44%) were overweight, and 8,701 (32%) were obese. The combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin compared with aspirin produced a consistent reduction in the primary outcome of cardiovascular death, stroke, or myocardial infarction, irrespective of BMI or body weight. For 18.5 ≤BMI <25 kg/m²: 3.5% vs. 5.0%; hazard ratio (HR): 0.73 (95% credible interval [CrI]: 0.58 to 0.90); 25 ≤ BMI <30 kg/m²: 4.3% vs. 5.1%; HR: 0.80 (95% CrI: 0.66 to 0.96); BMI ≥30 kg/m²: 4.2% vs. 6.1%; HR: 0.71 (95% CrI: 0.57 to 0.86). For body weight ≤70 kg: 4.1% vs. 5.3%; HR: 0.75 (95% CrI: 0.62 to 0.91); 70 < weight ≤90 kg: 4.1% vs. 5.3%; HR: 0.76 (95% CrI: 0.65 to 0.89); >90 kg: 4.2% vs. 5.7%; HR: 0.74 (95% CrI: 0.61 to 0.90). Effects on bleeding, mortality, and net clinical benefit were consistent irrespective of BMI or bodyweight.ConclusionsThe effects of dual-pathway antithrombotic therapy are consistent irrespective of BMI or body weight, suggesting no need for dose adjustments in the ranges of weights and BMI of patients enrolled in the COMPASS trial. Further studies need to address this problem in relation to greater extremes of body weight. (Rivaroxaban for the Prevention of Major Cardiovascular Events in Coronary or Peripheral Artery Disease [COMPASS]; NCT01776424)     

Association of Multiple Enrichment Criteria With Ischemic and Bleeding Risks Among COMPASS-Eligible Patients

BackgroundThe COMPASS (Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies) trial found clinical benefit of low-dose rivaroxaban plus aspirin, but at the expense of increased bleeding risk in patients with stable vascular disease.ObjectivesThis study evaluated the balance of ischemic and bleeding risks according to the presence of ≥1 enrichment criteria in “COMPASS-eligible” patients.MethodsKey COMPASS selection criteria were applied to identify a COMPASS-eligible population (n = 16,875) from the REACH (REduction of Atherothrombosis for Continued Health) Registry of stable atherothrombotic patients. Ischemic outcome was the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. Bleeding outcome was serious bleeding (hemorrhagic stroke, hospitalization for bleeding, transfusion).ResultsPatients were categorized according to the enrichment criteria: age >65 years (81.5%), diabetes (41.0%), moderate renal failure (40.2%), peripheral artery disease (33.7%), current smoker (13.8%), heart failure (13.3%), ischemic stroke (11.1%), and asymptomatic carotid stenosis (8.7%). Each criterion was associated with a consistent increase in ischemic and bleeding events, but no individual subgroup derived a more favorable trade-off. Patients with multiple criteria had a dramatic increase in ischemic risk (7.0% [95% confidence interval (CI): 5.6% to 8.7%], 12.5% [95% CI: 11.1% to 14.1%], 16.6% [95% CI: 14.7% to 18.6%], and 21.8% [95% CI: 19.9% to 23.9%] with 1, 2, 3, and ≥4 enrichment criteria, respectively), but a more modest absolute increase in bleeding risk (1.5% [95% CI: 0.9% to 2.1%], 1.8% [95% CI: 1.3% to 2.2%], 2.0% [95% CI: 1.5% to 2.6%], 3.2% [95% CI: 2.6% to 3.9%]).ConclusionsIn a population of stable vascular patients at high risk of atherothrombotic events, the subset with multiple enrichment criteria had a greater absolute increase in ischemic than in bleeding risk and may be good candidates for low-dose rivaroxaban in addition to aspirin.     

Oral Anticoagulation for Patients With Atrial Fibrillation on Long-Term Dialysis

BackgroundPatients on long-term dialysis are at increased risk of bleeding. Although oral anticoagulants (OACs) are recommended for atrial fibrillation (AF) to reduce the risk of stroke, randomized trials have excluded these populations. As such, the net clinical benefit of OACs among patients on dialysis is unknown.ObjectivesThis study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of OACs in patients with AF on long-term dialysis.MethodsMEDLINE and EMBASE were searched through June 10, 2019, for studies that investigated the efficacy and safety of different OAC strategies in patients with AF on long-term dialysis. The efficacy outcomes were ischemic stroke and/or systemic thromboembolism, all-cause mortality, and the safety outcome was major bleeding.ResultsThis study identified 16 eligible observational studies (N = 71,877) regarding patients on long-term dialysis who had AF. Only 2 of 16 studies investigated direct OACs. Outcomes for dabigatran and rivaroxaban were limited to major bleeding events. Compared with no anticoagulants, apixaban and warfarin were not associated with a significant decrease in stroke and/or systemic thromboembolism (apixaban 5 mg, hazard ratio [HR]: 0.59; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.30 to 1.17; apixaban 2.5 mg, HR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.52 to 1.93; warfarin, HR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.72 to 1.16). Apixaban 5 mg was associated with a significantly lower risk of mortality (vs. warfarin, HR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.45 to 0.93; vs. apixaban 2.5 mg, HR: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.42 to 0.90; vs. no anticoagulant, HR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.41 to 0.90). Warfarin was associated with a significantly higher risk of major bleeding than apixaban 5 min/2.5 mg and no anticoagulant (vs. apixaban 5 mg, HR: 1.41; 95% CI: 1.07 to 1.88; vs. apixaban 2.5 mg, HR: 1.40; 95% CI: 1.07 to 1.82; vs. no anticoagulant, HR: 1.31; 95% CI: 1.15 to 1.50). Dabigatran and rivaroxaban were also associated with significantly higher risk of major bleeding than apixaban and no anticoagulant.ConclusionsThis meta-analysis showed that OACs were not associated with a reduced risk of thromboembolism in patients with AF on long-term dialysis. Warfarin, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban were associated with significantly higher bleeding risk compared with apixaban and no anticoagulant. The benefit-to-risk ratio of OACs in patients with AF on long-term dialysis warrants validation in randomized clinical trials.     

Ticagrelor With or Without Aspirin After Complex PCI

BackgroundWhether a regimen of ticagrelor monotherapy attenuates bleeding complications without increasing ischemic risk in patients undergoing complex percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is unknown.ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of ticagrelor monotherapy versus ticagrelor plus aspirin in patients undergoing complex PCI from the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled TWILIGHT (Ticagrelor with Aspirin or Alone in High-Risk Patients after Coronary Intervention) trial.MethodsIn the TWILIGHT trial, after 3 months of ticagrelor plus aspirin, event-free and adherent patients remained on ticagrelor and were randomly assigned to receive aspirin or placebo for 1 year. Complex PCI was defined as any of the following: 3 vessels treated, ≥3 lesions treated, total stent length >60 mm, bifurcation with 2 stents implanted, atherectomy device use, left main PCI, surgical bypass graft or chronic total occlusion as target lesions. Bleeding and ischemic endpoints were evaluated at 1 year after randomization.ResultsAmong 7,119 patients randomized in the main trial, complex PCI was performed in 2,342 patients. Compared to ticagrelor plus aspirin, ticagrelor plus placebo resulted in significantly lower rates of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding (4.2% vs. 7.7%; hazard ratio [HR]: 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.38 to 0.76). BARC type 3 or 5 bleeding was also significantly reduced (1.1% vs. 2.6%; HR: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.80). There were no significant between-group differences in death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (3.8% vs. 4.9%; HR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.52 to 1.15), nor in stent thrombosis.ConclusionsAmong patients undergoing complex PCI who initially completed 3 months of ticagrelor plus aspirin, continuation of ticagrelor monotherapy was associated with lower incidence of bleeding without increasing the risk of ischemic events compared to continuing ticagrelor plus aspirin. (Ticagrelor With Aspirin or Alone in High-Risk Patients After Coronary Intervention [TWILIGHT]; NCT02270242)     

Evaluation of Dual Versus Triple Therapy by Landmark Analysis in the RE-DUAL PCI Trial

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to explore the early versus late benefits and risks of dabigatran dual therapy versus warfarin triple therapy in the RE-DUAL PCI (Randomized Evaluation of Dual Antithrombotic Therapy With Dabigatran Versus Triple Therapy With Warfarin in Patients With Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) trial.BackgroundPatients with atrial fibrillation who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention are at increased risk for both bleeding and thrombotic events.MethodsA total of 2,725 patients with atrial fibrillation underwent percutaneous coronary intervention and were randomized to receive dabigatran 110 mg, or dabigatran 150 mg plus a P2Y₁₂ inhibitor (and no aspirin), or warfarin plus a P2Y₁₂ inhibitor plus aspirin. Landmark analysis was performed at 30 and 90 days.ResultsThere was a consistent and large reduction in major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding in patients randomized to dual therapy during the first 30 days (110 mg: hazard ratio [HR]: 0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.31 to 0.66; p < 0.0001; 150 mg: HR: 0.46; 95% CI: 0.30 to 0.72; p = 0.0006) compared with warfarin triple therapy. There was early net clinical benefit in both dabigatran groups versus warfarin (110 mg: HR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.47 to 0.88; p = 0.0062; 150 mg: HR: 0.54; 95% CI: 0.37 to 0.79; p = 0.0015), due to larger reductions in bleeding than increased thrombotic events for dabigatran 110 mg and bleeding reduction without increased thrombotic risk for dabigatran 150 mg dual therapy versus warfarin triple therapy. After the removal of aspirin in the warfarin group, bleeding remained lower with dabigatran 110 mg and was similar with dabigatran 150 mg versus warfarin.ConclusionsIn RE-DUAL PCI, in which patients in the dual-therapy arms were treated with aspirin for an average of only 1.6 days, there was early net clinical benefit with both doses of dabigatran dual therapy, without an increase in thrombotic events with dabigatran 150 mg. This could be helpful in the subset of patients with elevated risk for both bleeding and thrombotic events.     

Bleeding and Ischemic Outcomes With Ticagrelor Monotherapy According to Body Mass Index

BackgroundThere is a paucity of data regarding the safety and efficacy of different antiplatelet regimens according to standardized body mass index (BMI) categories.ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to investigate bleeding and ischemic outcomes according to BMI in the TWILIGHT (Ticagrelor With Aspirin or Alone in High-Risk Patients After Coronary Intervention) trial.MethodsThe TWILIGHT trial randomized high-risk patients to ticagrelor plus aspirin or ticagrelor plus placebo at 3 months after percutaneous coronary intervention. In this secondary analysis, patients were stratified by standard BMI categories, as recommended by the European Society of Cardiology Working Group on Thrombosis (normal weight [BMI 18.5-24.99 kg/m²], overweight [BMI 25-29.99 kg/m²], and obese [BMI ≥30 kg/m²]) and by median BMI, as prespecified in the protocol.ResultsAmong 7,038 patients randomized and with available BMI, 1,807 (25.7%) were normal weight, 2,927 (41.6%) were overweight, and 2,304 (32.7%) were obese. In normal-weight, overweight, and obese patients, ticagrelor monotherapy, compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin, reduced the primary endpoint of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding (normal weight: HR: 0.48 [95% CI: 0.32-0.73]; overweight: HR: 0.57 [95% CI: 0.41-0.78]; obese: HR: 0.63 [95% CI: 0.44-0.91]; P for interaction = 0.627), without any increase in the composite ischemic endpoint of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (normal weight: HR: 1.36 [95% CI: 0.84-2.19]; overweight: HR: 0.92 [95% CI: 0.63-1.35]; obese: HR: 0.84 [95% CI: 0.56-1.25]; P for interaction = 0.290). These findings were consistent with the prespecified analysis by median BMI.ConclusionsAmong high-risk patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, ticagrelor monotherapy, compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin, reduced bleeding events without any increase in ischemic risk across different BMI categories.     

Long-Term Clinical Impact of Contrast-Associated Acute Kidney Injury Following PCI: An ADAPT-DES Substudy

ObjectivesThis study sought to determine correlates and consequences of contrast-associated acute kidney injury (CA-AKI) on clinical outcomes in patients with or without pre-existing chronic kidney disease (CKD).BackgroundThe incidence and impact of CA-AKI on clinical outcomes during contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are not fully defined.MethodsThe ADAPT-DES (Assessment of Dual AntiPlatelet Therapy With Drug Eluting Stents) study was a prospective, multicenter registry of 8,582 patients treated with ≥1 drug-eluting stent(s). CA-AKI was defined as a post-PCI increase in serum creatinine of >0.5 mg/dL or a relative increase of ≥25% compared with pre-PCI. CKD was defined as estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/1.73 m². The primary endpoint was the 2-year rate of net adverse clinical events (NACE): All-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), definite or probable stent thrombosis, or major bleeding.ResultsOf 7287 (85%) patients with evaluable data, 476 (6.5%) developed CA-AKI. In a multivariable model, older age, female sex, Caucasian race, congestive heart failure, diabetes, hypertension, CKD, presentation with ST-segment elevation MI, Killip class II to IV, radial access, intra-aortic balloon pump use, hypotension, and number of stents were independent predictors of CA-AKI. The 2-year NACE rate was higher in patients with CA-AKI (adjusted HR: 1.88; 95% CI: 1.42-2.49), as was each component of NACE (all-cause mortality, HR: 1.77; 95% CI: 1.22-2.55; MI, HR: 1.67; 95% CI: 1.18-2.36; definite/probable stent thrombosis, HR: 1.71; 95% CI: 1.10-2.65; and major bleeding, HR: 1.38; 95% CI: 1.06-1.80). Compared with the CA-AKI–/CKD– group, the CA-AKI+/CKD– (HR: 1.83; 95% CI: 1.33-2.52), CA-AKI–/CKD+ (HR: 1.56; 95% CI: 1.15-2.13), CA-AKI+/CKD+ (HR: 3.29; 95% CI: 1.92-5.67), and maintenance dialysis (HR: 2.67; 95% CI: 1.65-4.31) groups were at higher risk of NACE.ConclusionsCA-AKI was relatively common after contemporary PCI and was associated with increased 2-year rates of NACE. Patients with pre-existing CKD were at particularly high risk for NACE after CA-AKI.     

Post-Discharge Prophylaxis With Rivaroxaban Reduces Fatal and Major Thromboembolic Events in Medically Ill Patients

BackgroundHospitalized acutely ill medical patients are at risk for fatal and major thromboembolic events. Whether use of extended-duration primary thromboprophylaxis can prevent such events is unknown.ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to evaluate whether extended-duration rivaroxaban reduces the risk of venous and arterial fatal and major thromboembolic events without significantly increasing major bleeding in acutely ill medical patients after discharge.MethodsMARINER (A Study of Rivaroxaban [JNJ-39039039] on the Venous Thromboembolic Risk in Post-Hospital Discharge Patients) studied acutely ill medical patients with additional risk factors for venous thromboembolism (VTE). Medically ill patients with a baseline creatinine clearance ≥50 ml/min were randomized in a double-blind fashion to rivaroxaban 10 mg or placebo daily at hospital discharge for 45 days. Exploratory efficacy analyses were performed with the intent-to-treat population including all data through day 45. Time-to-event curves were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. A blinded independent committee adjudicated all clinical events.ResultsIn total, 4,909 patients were assigned to rivaroxaban and 4,913 patients to placebo. The mean age was 67.8 years, 55.5% were men, mean baseline creatinine clearance was 87.8 ml/min, and mean duration of hospitalization was 6.7 days. The pre-specified composite efficacy endpoint (symptomatic VTE, myocardial infarction, nonhemorrhagic stroke, and cardiovascular death) occurred in 1.28% and 1.77% of patients in the rivaroxaban and placebo groups, respectively (hazard ratio: 0.72; 95% confidence interval: 0.52 to 1.00; p = 0.049), whereas major bleeding occurred in 0.27% and 0.18% of patients in the rivaroxaban and placebo groups, respectively (hazard ratio: 1.44; 95% confidence interval: 0.62 to 3.37; p = 0.398).ConclusionsExtended-duration rivaroxaban in hospitalized medically ill patients resulted in a 28% reduction in fatal and major thromboembolic events without a significant increase in major bleeding. (A Study of Rivaroxaban [JNJ-39039039] on the Venous Thromboembolic Risk in Post-Hospital Discharge Patients [MARINER]; NCT02111564)     

Prophylactic Rivaroxaban Therapy for Left Ventricular Thrombus After Anterior ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to investigate the effects of rivaroxaban on left ventricle thromboprophylaxis in patients with anterior ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).BackgroundAnterior STEMI is associated with an increased risk of left ventricular thrombus (LVT) formation. The contemporary role of prophylactic rivaroxaban therapy remains unclear.MethodsWe randomly assigned 279 patients with anterior STEMI who had undergone primary percutaneous coronary intervention to receive, in a 1:1 ratio, low-dose rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily for 30 days) and dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) or only DAPT. The primary efficacy outcome was the LVT formation within 30 days. Net clinical adverse events were assessed at 30 days and 180 days, including all-cause mortality, LVT, systemic embolism, rehospitalization for cardiovascular events, and bleeding.ResultsThe addition of low-dose rivaroxaban to DAPT reduced LVT formation within 30 days compared with only DAPT (0.7% vs 8.6%; HR: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.01-0.62; P = 0.015; P < 0.001 for superiority). Net clinical adverse events were lower within 30 days in the rivaroxaban group versus those in the only DAPT group and remained relatively low throughout the follow-up period. There were no significant differences in bleeding events between the 2 groups in 30 days and 180 days. However, 1 case of intracranial hemorrhage (major bleeding) occurred in the rivaroxaban group within 30 days.ConclusionsOur results supported that the short-duration addition of low-dose rivaroxaban to DAPT could prevent LVT formation in patients with anterior STEMI following primary percutaneous coronary intervention. A larger multiple-institution study is necessary to determine the generalizability.     

Cardiac Resynchronization Defibrillator Therapy for Nonspecific Intraventricular Conduction Delay Versus Right Bundle Branch Block

BackgroundThe benefits of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in patients with non-left bundle branch block (LBBB) conduction abnormality have not been fully explored.ObjectivesThis study sought to evaluate clinical outcomes among Medicare-aged patients with nonspecific intraventricular conduction delay (NICD) versus right bundle branch block (RBBB) in patients eligible for implantation with a CRT with defibrillator (CRT-D).MethodsUsing the National Cardiovascular Data Registry implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) registry data between 2010 and 2013, the authors compared outcomes in CRT-eligible patients implanted with CRT-D versus ICD-only therapy among patients with NICD and RBBB. Also, among all CRT-D–implanted patients, the authors compared outcomes in those with NICD versus RBBB. Survival curves and multivariable adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) were used to assess outcomes including hospitalization and death.ResultsIn 11,505 non-LBBB CRT-eligible patients, after multivariable adjustment, among patients with RBBB, CRT-D was not associated with better outcomes, compared with ICD alone, regardless of QRS duration. Among patients with NICD and a QRS ≥150 ms, CRT-D was associated with decreased mortality at 3 years compared with ICD alone (HR: 0.602; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.416 to 0.871; p = 0.0071). Among 5,954 CRT-D–implanted patients, after multivariable adjustment NICD compared with RBBB was associated with lower mortality at 3 years in those with a QRS duration of ≥150 ms (HR: 0.757; 95% CI: 0.625 to 0.917; p = 0.0044).ConclusionsAmong non-LBBB CRT-D–eligible patients, CRT-D implantation was associated with better outcomes compared with ICD alone specifically in NICD patients with a QRS duration of ≥150 ms. Careful patient selection should be considered for CRT-D implantation in patients with non-LBBB conduction.     

Efficacy and Safety of Evolocumab in Chronic Kidney Disease in the FOURIER Trial

BackgroundData on PCSK9 inhibition in chronic kidney disease (CKD) is limited.ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to compare outcomes with evolocumab and placebo according to kidney function.MethodsThe FOURIER (Further Cardiovascular Outcomes Research with PCSK9 Inhibition in Subjects with Elevated Risk) trial randomized individuals with clinically evident atherosclerosis and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) ≥70 mg/dl or non–high-density lipoprotein cholesterol ≥100 mg/dl to evolocumab or placebo. The primary endpoint (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, hospitalization for unstable angina, or coronary revascularization), key secondary endpoint (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke), and safety were analyzed according to chronic kidney disease (CKD) stage estimated from CKD-epidemiology estimated glomerular filtration rate.ResultsThere were 8,077 patients with preserved kidney function, 15,034 with stage 2 CKD, and 4,443 with ≥stage 3 CKD. LDL-C reduction with evolocumab compared with placebo at 48 weeks was similar across CKD groups at 59%, 59%, and 58%, respectively. Relative risk reduction for the primary endpoint was similar for preserved function (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.71 to 0.94), stage 2 (HR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.77 to 0.94), and stage ≥3 CKD (HR: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.76 to 1.05); p_int = 0.77. Relative risk reduction for the secondary endpoint was similar across CKD stages (p_int = 0.75)—preserved function (HR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.62 to 0.90), stage 2 (HR: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.72 to 0.93), stage ≥3 (HR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.65 to 0.95). Absolute RRs at 30 months for the secondary endpoint were −2.5% (95% CI: -4.7% to -0.4%) for stage ≥3 CKD compared with −1.7% (95% CI: -2.8% to 0.5%) with preserved kidney function. Adverse events, including estimated glomerular filtration rate decline, were infrequent and similar regardless of CKD stage.ConclusionsLDL-C lowering and relative clinical efficacy and safety of evolocumab versus placebo were consistent across CKD groups. Absolute reduction in the composite of cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke with evolocumab was numerically greater with more advanced CKD. (Further Cardiovascular Outcomes Research With PCSK9 Inhibition in Subjects With Elevated Risk [FOURIER]; NCT01764633)     

Aspirin for Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Events

BackgroundThe efficacy and safety of aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) remain debatable.ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to examine the clinical outcomes with aspirin for primary prevention of CVD after the recent publication of large trials adding >45,000 individuals to the published data.MethodsRandomized controlled trials comparing clinical outcomes with aspirin versus control for primary prevention with follow-up duration of ≥1 year were included. Efficacy outcomes included all-cause death, cardiovascular (CV) death, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), and major adverse cardiovascular events. Safety outcomes included major bleeding, intracranial bleeding, fatal bleeding, and major gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. Random effects DerSimonian-Laird risk ratios (RRs) for outcomes were calculated.ResultsA total of 15 randomized controlled trials including 165,502 participants (aspirin n = 83,529, control n = 81,973) were available for analysis. Compared with control, aspirin was associated with similar all-cause death (RR: 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.93 to 1.01), CV death (RR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.86 to 1.00), and non-CV death (RR: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.92 to 1.05), but a lower risk of nonfatal MI (RR: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.72 to 0.94), TIA (RR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.71 to 0.89), and ischemic stroke (RR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.79 to 0.95). Aspirin was associated with a higher risk of major bleeding (RR: 1.5; 95% CI: 1.33 to 1.69), intracranial bleeding (RR: 1.32; 95% CI: 1.12 to 1.55), and major GI bleeding (RR: 1.52; 95% CI: 1.34 to 1.73), with similar rates of fatal bleeding (RR: 1.09; 95% CI: 0.78 to 1.55) compared with the control subjects. Total cancer and cancer-related deaths were similar in both groups within the follow-up period of the study.ConclusionsAspirin for primary prevention reduces nonfatal ischemic events but significantly increases nonfatal bleeding events.     

Ticagrelor Monotherapy After PCI in High-Risk Patients With Prior MI: A Prespecified TWILIGHT Substudy

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to evaluate if patients with prior myocardial infarction (MI) could benefit from ticagrelor monotherapy in terms of bleeding reduction without any compromise in ischemic event prevention.BackgroundPatients with history of MI who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remain at risk for recurrent ischemic events. The optimal antithrombotic strategy for this cohort remains debated.MethodsIn this prespecified analysis of the randomized TWILIGHT (Ticagrelor With Aspirin or Alone in High-Risk Patients after Coronary Intervention) trial, the authors evaluated the impact of history of MI on treatment effect of ticagrelor monotherapy versus ticagrelor plus aspirin in patients undergoing PCI with drug-eluting stent with at least 1 clinical and 1 angiographic high-risk feature and free from adverse events at 3 months after index PCI. The primary endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding, and the key secondary endpoint was the composite of all-cause death, MI, or stroke, both at 12 months after randomization.ResultsA total of 1,937 patients (29.7%) with and 4,595 patients (70.3%) without prior MI were randomized to ticagrelor and placebo or ticagrelor and aspirin. At 1 year after randomization, patients with prior MI experienced higher rates of death, MI, or stroke (5.7% vs 3.2%; P < 0.001) but similar BARC types 2 to 5 bleeding (5.0% vs 5.5%; P = 0.677) compared with patients without prior MI. Ticagrelor monotherapy consistently reduced the risk for the primary bleeding outcome in patients with (3.4% vs 6.7%; HR: 0.50; 95% CI: 0.33-0.76) and without (4.2% vs 7.0%; HR: 0.58; 95% CI: 0.45-0.76; P_interaction = 0.54) prior MI. Rates of the key secondary ischemic outcome were not significantly different between treatment groups irrespective of history of MI (prior MI, 6.0% vs 5.5% [HR: 1.09; 95% CI: 0.75-1.58]; no prior MI, 3.1% vs 3.3% [HR: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.67-1.28]; P_interaction = 0.52).ConclusionsTicagrelor monotherapy is associated with significantly lower risk for bleeding events compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin, without any compromise in ischemic prevention, among high-risk patients with history of MI undergoing PCI. (Ticagrelor With Aspirin or Alone in High-Risk Patients After Coronary Intervention [TWILIGHT]; NCT02270242)     

Outcomes of Simultaneous Heart and Kidney Transplantation

BackgroundSimultaneous heart-kidney transplantation has been increasingly performed in end-stage heart failure patients with concurrent kidney dysfunction despite limited evidence supporting its indications and utility.ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to investigate the effects and utility of simultaneously implanted kidney allografts with various degrees of kidney dysfunction during heart transplantation.MethodsUsing the United Network for Organ Sharing registry, long-term mortality was compared in recipients with kidney dysfunction who underwent heart-kidney transplantation (n = 1,124) vs isolated heart transplantation (n = 12,415) in the United States between 2005 and 2018. In heart-kidney recipients, contralateral kidney recipients were compared for allograft loss. Multivariable Cox regression was used for risk adjustment.ResultsLong-term mortality was lower among heart-kidney recipients than among heart-alone recipients when recipients were on dialysis (26.7% vs 38.6% at 5 years; HR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.58-0.89) or had a glomerular filtration rate (GFR) of <30 mL/min/1.73 m² (19.3% vs 32.4%; HR: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.46-0.82) and GFR of 30 to 45 mL/min/1.73 m² (16.2% vs 24.3%; HR: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.48-0.97) but not in GFR of 45 to 60 mL/min/1.73 m². Interaction analysis showed that the mortality benefit of heart-kidney transplantation continued up to GFR 40 mL/min/1.73 m². The incidence of kidney allograft loss was higher among heart-kidney recipients than among contralateral kidney recipients (14.7% vs 4.5% at 1 year; HR: 1.7; 95% CI: 1.4-2.1).ConclusionsHeart-kidney transplantation relative to heart transplantation alone provided superior survival for dialysis-dependent recipients and non–dialysis-dependent recipients up to a GFR of approximately 40 mL/min/1.73 m² but at the cost of almost twice the risk of kidney allograft loss than contralateral kidney allograft recipients.     

Ticagrelor or Prasugrel in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome in Relation to Estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of ticagrelor versus prasugrel for patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) according to their estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFRs).BackgroundThe outcomes of ticagrelor versus prasugrel in patients with ACS according to eGFR have not been defined.MethodsPatients (n = 4,012) were categorized into 3 groups: low eGFR (<60 mL/min/1.73 m²), intermediate eGFR (≥60 and <90 mL/min/1.73 m²), and high eGFR (≥90 mL/min/1.73 m²). The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, and stroke; the secondary safety endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium types 3 to 5 bleeding, both at 1 year.ResultsPatients with low eGFRs had a higher risk for the primary endpoint compared with patients with intermediate eGFRs (adjusted HR: 1.89; 95% CI: 1.46-2.46]) and those with high eGFRs (adjusted HR: 2.33; 95% CI: 1.57-3.46). A risk excess for low eGFR was also observed for bleeding (adjusted HR: 1.55 [95% CI: 1.12-2.13] vs intermediate eGFR; adjusted HR: 1.59 [95% CI: 1.01-2.50] vs high eGFR). However, eGFR did not affect the relative efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel. In patients with low eGFR, the primary endpoint occurred in 20.5% with ticagrelor and in 14.7% with prasugrel (HR: 1.47; 95% CI: 1.04-2.08; P = 0.029); there was no significant difference in bleeding.ConclusionsThese results show that among patients with ACS, reduction of eGFR is associated with increased risk for ischemic and bleeding events but has no significant impact on the relative efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel. (Prospective, Randomized Trial of Ticagrelor Versus Prasugrel in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome [ISAR-REACT 5]; NCT01944800)     

Direct Oral Anticoagulants in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Liver Disease

BackgroundAdvanced liver disease is known to increase the risk for bleeding and affects the hepatic clearance and metabolism of drugs. Subjects with active liver disease were excluded from pivotal clinical trials of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), so the evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of DOACs in patients with liver disease is lacking.ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to compare DOACs with warfarin in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and liver disease.MethodsUsing the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, subjects with atrial fibrillation and active liver disease treated with oral anticoagulation were included (12,778 with warfarin and 24,575 with DOACs), and analyzed ischemic stroke, intracranial hemorrhage, gastrointestinal bleeding, major bleeding, all-cause death, and the composite outcome. Propensity score weighting was used to balance covariates between the 2 groups.ResultsDOACs were associated with lower risks for ischemic stroke (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.548; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.485 to 0.618), intracranial hemorrhage (HR: 0.479; 95% CI 0.394 to 0.581), gastrointestinal bleeding (HR: 0.819; 95% CI: 0.619 to 0.949), major bleeding (HR: 0.650; 95% CI: 0.575 to 0.736), all-cause death (HR: 0.698; 95% CI: 0.636 to 0.765), and the composite outcome (HR: 0.610; 95% CI: 0.567 to 0.656) than warfarin. Among the total study population, 13% of patients (n = 4,942) were identified as having significant active liver disease. A consistent benefit was observed in patients with significant active liver disease (HR for the composite outcome: 0.691; 95% CI: 0.577 to 0.827).ConclusionsIn this large Asian population with atrial fibrillation and liver disease, DOACs showed better effectiveness and safety than warfarin, which was consistent in those with significant active liver disease.     

Rivaroxaban Monotherapy in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation After Coronary Stenting: Insights From the AFIRE Trial

ObjectivesThe aim of this AFIRE (Atrial Fibrillation and Ischemic Events With Rivaroxaban in Patients With Stable Coronary Artery Disease) trial subgroup analysis was to examine rivaroxaban monotherapy benefits and their relation to the time between stenting and enrollment among patients after coronary stenting.BackgroundOf 2,215 patients with atrial fibrillation and stable coronary artery disease in the AFIRE trial, rivaroxaban monotherapy was noninferior to rivaroxaban plus antiplatelet therapy (combination therapy) in terms of efficacy and superior for safety endpoints. However, thrombotic risk after antiplatelet therapy cessation remained a concern among 1,444 patients who had undergone coronary stenting >1 year before enrollment.MethodsThe benefits of rivaroxaban monotherapy in coronary stenting subgroups were assessed for efficacy (a composite of stroke, systemic embolism, myocardial infarction, unstable angina requiring revascularization, or death of any cause), safety (major bleeding defined according to International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis criteria), ischemic endpoints, net adverse clinical event, and time between stenting and enrollment.ResultsEfficacy and safety endpoints for monotherapy were superior to combination therapy, with HRs of 0.70 for efficacy (95% CI: 0.50-0.98; P = 0.036) and 0.55 for safety (95% CI: 0.33-0.92; P = 0.019). For ischemic endpoints, the HR was 0.82 (95% CI: 0.58-1.15; P = 0.240). The HR became smaller with longer time between stenting and enrollment (efficacy, P for interaction = 0.158; safety, P = 0.097).ConclusionsIn patients with atrial fibrillation after coronary stenting, the benefits of rivaroxaban monotherapy for efficacy and safety endpoints were consistent with those in the whole AFIRE trial population. The benefits became apparent with longer time between stenting and enrollment. (Atrial Fibrillation and Ischemic Events With Rivaroxaban in Patients With Stable Coronary Artery Disease Study [AFIRE]; UMIN000016612, NCT02642419)     

Burden and Outcomes of Heart Failure Hospitalizations in Adults With Chronic Kidney Disease

BackgroundData on rates of heart failure (HF) hospitalizations, recurrent hospitalizations, and outcomes related to HF hospitalizations in chronic kidney disease (CKD) are limited.ObjectivesThis study examined rates of HF hospitalizations and re-hospitalizations within a large CKD population and evaluated the burden of HF hospitalizations with the risk of subsequent CKD progression and death.MethodsThe prospective CRIC (Chronic Renal Insufficiency Cohort) study measured the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio (ACR) at baseline. The crude rates and rate ratios of HF hospitalizations and 30-day HF re-hospitalizations were calculated using Poisson regression models. Cox regression was used to assess the association of the frequency of HF hospitalizations within the first 2 years of follow-up with risk of subsequent CKD progression and death.ResultsAmong 3,791 participants, the crude rate of HF admissions was 5.8 per 100 person-years (with higher rates of HF with preserved ejection fraction vs. HF with reduced ejection fraction). The adjusted rate of HF was higher with a lower eGFR (vs. eGFR >45 ml/min/1.73 m²); the rate ratios were 1.7 and 2.2 for eGFR 30 to 44 and <30 ml/min/1.73 m² (vs. >45 ml/min/1.73 m²), respectively. Similarly, the adjusted rates of HF hospitalization were significantly higher in those with higher urine ACR (vs. urine ACR <30 mg/g); the rate ratios were 1.9 and 2.6 for urine ACR 30 to 299 and ≥300 mg/g, respectively. Overall, 20.6% of participants had a subsequent HF re-admission within 30 days. HF hospitalization within 2 years of study entry was associated with greater adjusted risks for CKD progression (1 hospitalization: hazard ratio [HR]: 1.93; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.40 to 2.67; 2+ hospitalizations: HR: 2.14; 95% CI: 1.30 to 3.54) and all-cause death (1 hospitalization: HR: 2.20; 95% CI: 1.71 to 2.84; 2+ hospitalizations: HR: 3.06; 95% CI: 2.23 to 4.18).ConclusionsWithin a large U.S. CKD population, the rates of HF hospitalizations and re-hospitalization were high, with even higher rates across categories of lower eGFR and higher urine ACR. Patients with CKD hospitalized with HF had greater risks of CKD progression and death. HF prevention and treatment should be a public health priority to improve CKD outcomes.     

Antithrombotic Therapy for Patients With Left Ventricular Mural Thrombus

BackgroundContemporary data are lacking regarding the prognosis and management of left ventricular thrombus (LVT).ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to quantify the effect of anticoagulation therapy on LVT evolution using sequential imaging and to determine the impact of LVT regression on the incidence of thromboembolism, bleeding, and mortality.MethodsFrom January 2011 to January 2018, a comprehensive computerized search of LVT was conducted using 90,065 consecutive echocardiogram reports. Only patients with a confirmed LVT were included after imaging review by 2 independent experts. Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), which included death, stroke, myocardial infarction, or acute peripheral artery emboli, were determined as well as major bleeding events (BARC ≥3) and all-cause mortality rates.ResultsThere were 159 patients with a confirmed LVT. Patients were treated with vitamin K antagonists (48.4%), parenteral heparins (27.7%), and direct oral anticoagulants (22.6%). Antiplatelet therapy was used in 67.9% of the population. A reduction of the LVT area from baseline was observed in 121 patients (76.1%), and total LVT regression occurred in 99 patients (62.3%) within a median time of 103 days (interquartile range: 32 to 392 days). The independent correlates of LVT regression were a nonischemic cardiomyopathy (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.74; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.43 to 5.26; p = 0.002) and a smaller baseline thrombus area (HR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.45 to 0.96; p = 0.031). The frequency of MACE was 37.1%; mortality 18.9%; stroke 13.3%; and major bleeding 13.2% during a median follow-up of 632 days (interquartile range: 187 to 1,126 days). MACE occurred in 35.4% and 40.0% of patients with total LVT regression and those with persistent LVT (p = 0.203). A reduced risk of mortality was observed among patients with total LVT regression (HR: 0.48; 95% CI: 0.23 to 0.98; p = 0.039), whereas an increased major bleeding risk was observed among patients with persistent LVT (9.1% vs. 12%; HR 0.34; 95% CI: 0.14 to 0.82; p = 0.011). A left ventricular ejection fraction ≥35% (HR: 0.46; 95% CI: 0.23 to 0.93; p = 0.029) and anticoagulation therapy >3 months (HR: 0.42; 95% CI: 0.20 to 0.88; p = 0.021) were independently associated with less MACE.ConclusionsThe presence of LVT was associated with a very high risk of MACE and mortality. Total LVT regression, obtained with different anticoagulant regimens, was associated with reduced mortality.     

Interplay of Coronary Artery Calcium and Risk Factors for Predicting CVD/CHD Mortality: The CAC Consortium

ObjectivesThis study sought to evaluate the association and burden of coronary artery calcium (CAC) with long-term, cause-specific mortality across the spectrum of baseline risk.BackgroundAlthough CAC is a known predictor of short-term, all-cause mortality, data on long-term and cause-specific mortality are inadequate.MethodsThe CAC Consortium cohort is a multicenter cohort of 66,636 participants without coronary heart disease (CHD) who underwent CAC testing. The following risk factors (RFs) were considered: 1) current cigarette smoking; 2) dyslipidemia; 3) diabetes mellitus; 4) hypertension; and 5) family history of CHD.ResultsDuring the 12.5-years median follow-up, 3,158 (4.7%) deaths occurred; 32% were cardiovascular disease (CVD) deaths. Participants with CAC scores ≥400 had a significantly increased risk for CHD and CVD mortality (hazard ratio [HR]: 5.44; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.88 to 7.62; and HR: 4.15; 95% CI: 3.29 to 5.22, respectively) compared with CAC of 0. Participants with ≥3 RFs had a smaller increased risk for CHD and CVD mortality (HR: 2.09; 95% CI: 1.52 to 2.85; and HR: 1.84; 95% CI: 1.46 to 2.31, respectively) compared with those without RFs. Across RF strata, CAC added prognostic information. For example, participants without RFs but with CAC ≥400 had significantly higher all-cause, non-CVD, CVD, and CHD mortality rates compared with participants with ≥3 RFs and CAC of 0.ConclusionsAcross the spectrum of RF burden, a higher CAC score was strongly associated with long-term, all-cause mortality and a greater proportion of deaths due to CVD and CHD. Absence of CAC identified people with a low risk over 12 years of follow-up, with most deaths being non-CVD in nature, regardless of RF burden.