Archive

Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Physical Principles of Ultrasound

The following is a useful presentation:

Advertisements
Categories: Uncategorized

Radial versus Femoral Access in Acute Coronary Syndrome

Valgimigli et al report the 1 year final outcome of the MATRIX trial (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31714-8).

Abstract

Background

The Minimizing Adverse Haemorrhagic Events by Transradial Access Site and Systemic Implementation of Angiox (MATRIX) programme was designed to assess the comparative safety and effectiveness of radial versus femoral access and of bivalirudin versus unfractionated heparin with optional glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors in patients with the whole spectrum of acute coronary syndrome undergoing invasive management. Here we describe the prespecified final 1-year outcomes of the entire programme.

Methods

MATRIX was a programme of three nested, randomised, multicentre, open-label, superiority trials in patients with acute coronary syndrome in 78 hospitals in Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, and Sweden. Patients with ST-elevation
myocardial infarction were simultaneously randomly assigned (1:1) before coronary angiography to radial or femoral access and to bivalirudin, with or without post-percutaneous coronary intervention infusion or unfractionated heparin (one-step inclusion). Patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome were randomly assigned (1:1) before coronary angiography to radial or femoral access and, only if deemed eligible to percutaneous coronary intervention after angiography (two-step inclusion), entered the antithrombin type and treatment duration programmes.Randomisation sequences were computer generated, blocked, and stratified by intended new or current use of P2Y12
inhibitor (clopidogrel vs ticagrelor or prasugrel), and acute coronary syndrome type (ST-elevation myocardial infarction, troponin-positive, or troponin-negative non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome). Bivalirudin was given as a bolus of 0·75 mg/kg, followed immediately by an infusion of 1·75 mg/kg per h until completion of percutaneous coronary intervention. Heparin was given at 70–100 units per kg in patients not receiving glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, and at 50–70 units per kg in patients receiving glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors. Clinical follow-up was done at 30 days and 1 year. Co-primary outcomes for MATRIX access and MATRIX antithrombin type were major adverse cardiovascular
events, defined as the composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, or stroke up to 30 days; and net adverse clinical events, defined as the composite of non-coronary artery bypass graft-related major bleeding, or major adverse cardiovascular events up to 30 days. The primary outcome for MATRIX treatment duration was the composite of urgent target vessel revascularisation, definite stent thrombosis, or net adverse clinical events up to 30 days.

Analyses

were done according to the intention-to-treat principle. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01433627. Findings Between Oct 11, 2011, and Nov 7, 2014, we randomly assigned 8404 patients to receive radial (4197 patients) or femoral (4207 patients) access. Of these 8404 patients, 7213 were included in the MATRIX antithrombin type study and were randomly assigned to bivalirudin (3610 patients) or heparin (3603 patients). Patients assigned to bivalirudin were included in the MATRIX treatment duration study, and were randomly assigned to post-procedure infusion (1799 patients) or no post-procedure infusion (1811 patients). At 1 year, major adverse cardiovascular events did not differ between patients assigned to radial access compared with those assigned to femoral access (14·2% vs 15·7%; rate ratio 0·89, 95% CI 0·80–1·00; p=0·0526), but net adverse clinical events were fewer with radial than with femoral access (15·2% vs 17·2%; 0·87, 0·78–0·97; p=0·0128). Compared with heparin, bivalirudin was not associated with fewer major adverse cardiovascular (15·8% vs 16·8%; 0·94, 0·83–1·05; p=0·28) or net adverse clinical events
(17·0% vs 18·4%; 0·91, 0·81–1·02; p=0·10). The composite of urgent target vessel revascularisation, stent thrombosis, or net adverse clinical events did not differ with or without post-procedure bivalirudin infusion (17·4% vs 17·4%;
0·99, 0·84–1·16; p=0·90).

Interpretation

In patients with acute coronary syndrome, radial access was associated with lower rates of net adverse clinical events compared with femoral access, but not major adverse cardiovascular events at 1 year. Bivalirudin with or without post-procedure infusion was not associated with lower rates of major adverse cardiovascular events or net adverse clinical events. Radial access should become the default approach in acute coronary syndrome patients undergoing invasive management

Aspirin Primary Prevention

ARRIVE and ASCEND were presented at the European Society of Cardiology meeting.
In ARRIVE, patients with estimated moderate risk of cardiovascular events were randomized to aspirin versus placebo.

Abstract

Background

The use of aspirin in the primary prevention of cardiovascular events remains controversial. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of aspirin versus placebo in patients with a moderate estimated risk of a first cardiovascular event.

Methods

ARRIVE is a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre study done in seven countries. Eligible patients were aged 55 years (men) or 60 years (women) and older and had an average cardiovascular risk, deemed to be moderate on the basis of the number of specific risk factors. We excluded patients at high risk of gastrointestinal bleeding or other bleeding, or diabetes. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) with a computergenerated randomisation code to receive enteric-coated aspirin tablets (100 mg) or placebo tablets, once daily. Patients,investigators, and others involved in treatment or data analysis were masked to treatment allocation. The primary efficacy endpoint was a composite outcome of time to first occurrence of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, unstable angina, stroke, or transient ischaemic attack. Safety endpoints were haemorrhagic events and incidence of other adverse events, and were analysed in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00501059.

Findings

Between July 5, 2007, and Nov 15, 2016, 12 546 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive aspirin (n=6270) or placebo (n=6276) at 501 study sites. Median follow-up was 60 months. In the intention-to-treat
analysis, the primary endpoint occurred in 269 (4·29%) patients in the aspirin group versus 281 (4·48%) patients in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·96; 95% CI 0·81–1·13; p=0·6038). Gastrointestinal bleeding events (mostly
mild) occurred in 61 (0·97%) patients in the aspirin group versus 29 (0·46%) in the placebo group (HR 2·11; 95% CI 1·36–3·28; p=0·0007). The overall incidence rate of serious adverse events was similar in both treatment groups
(n=1266 [20·19%] in the aspirin group vs n=1311 [20·89%] in the placebo group. The overall incidence of adverse events was similar in both treatment groups (n=5142 [82·01%] vs n=5129 [81·72%] in the placebo group). The overall
incidence of treatment-related adverse events was low (n=1050 [16·75%] vs n=850 [13·54%] in the placebo group; p<0·0001). There were 321 documented deaths in the intention-to-treat population (n=160 [2·55%] vs n=161 [2·57%]
of 6276 patients in the placebo group).

Interpretation

The event rate was much lower than expected, which is probably reflective of contemporary risk management strategies, making the study more representative of a low-risk population. The role of aspirin in primary prevention among patients at moderate risk could therefore not be addressed. Nonetheless, the findings with respect to aspirin’s effects are consistent with those observed in the previously published low-risk primary prevention studies.

arrive-01arrive-02arrive-03arrive-04

In ASCEND the effect of aspirin in type II diaebetics is assessed.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Diabetes mellitus is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events.
Aspirin use reduces the risk of occlusive vascular events but increases the risk of bleeding; the balance of benefits and hazards for the prevention of first cardiovascular events in patients with diabetes is unclear.

METHODS

We randomly assigned adults who had diabetes but no evident cardiovascular disease to receive aspirin at a dose of 100 mg daily or matching placebo. The primary efficacy outcome was the first serious vascular event (i.e., myocardial infarction, stroke or transient ischemic attack, or death from any vascular cause, excluding any confirmed intracranial hemorrhage). The primary safety outcome was the first major bleeding event (i.e., intracranial hemorrhage, sight-threatening bleeding event in the eye, gastrointestinal bleeding, or other serious bleeding). Secondary outcomes included gastrointestinal tract cancer.

RESULTS

A total of 15,480 participants underwent randomization. During a mean follow-up
of 7.4 years, serious vascular events occurred in a significantly lower percentage of participants in the aspirin group than in the placebo group (658 participants [8.5%] vs. 743 [9.6%]; rate ratio, 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79 to 0.97;P = 0.01). In contrast, major bleeding events occurred in 314 participants (4.1%) in the aspirin group, as compared with 245 (3.2%) in the placebo group (rate ratio, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.09 to 1.52; P = 0.003), with most of the excess being gastrointestinal bleeding and other extracranial bleeding. There was no significant difference between the aspirin group and the placebo group in the incidence of gastrointestinal tract cancer (157 participants [2.0%] and 158 [2.0%], respectively) or all cancers (897 [11.6%] and 887 [11.5%]); long-term follow-up for these outcomes is planned.

CONCLUSIONS

Aspirin use prevented serious vascular events in persons who had diabetes and no
evident cardiovascular disease at trial entry, but it also caused major bleeding
events. The absolute benefits were largely counterbalanced by the bleeding hazard.

ascend-01ascend-02

SCOT-HEART

SCOT-HEART investigators report the results of CTA versus standard of care strategy for patients with chronic stable chest pain (DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1805971).

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Although coronary computed tomographic angiography (CTA) improves diagnostic
certainty in the assessment of patients with stable chest pain, its effect on
5-year clinical outcomes is unknown.

METHODS

In an open-label, multicenter, parallel-group trial, we randomly assigned 4146
patients with stable chest pain who had been referred to a cardiology clinic for
evaluation to standard care plus CTA (2073 patients) or to standard care alone
(2073 patients). Investigations, treatments, and clinical outcomes were assessed
over 3 to 7 years of follow-up. The primary end point was death from coronary
heart disease or nonfatal myocardial infarction at 5 years.

RESULTS

The median duration of follow-up was 4.8 years, which yielded 20,254 patientyears of follow-up. The 5-year rate of the primary end point was lower in the CTA group than in the standard-care group (2.3% [48 patients] vs. 3.9% [81 patients]; hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41 to 0.84; P = 0.004). Although the rates of invasive coronary angiography and coronary revascularization were higher in the CTA group than in the standard-care group in the first few months of follow-up, overall rates were similar at 5 years: invasive coronary angiography was performed in 491 patients in the CTA group and in 502 patients in the standard-care group (hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.88 to 1.13), and coronary revascularization was performed in 279 patients in the CTA group and in 267 in the standard-care group (hazard ratio, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.91 to 1.27). However, more preventive therapies were initiated in patients in the CTA group (odds ratio, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.19 to 1.65), as were more antianginal therapies (odds ratio, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.54). There were no significant between-group differences in the rates of cardiovascular or noncardiovascular deaths or deaths from any cause.

CONCLUSIONS

In this trial, the use of CTA in addition to standard care in patients with stable chest pain resulted in a significantly lower rate of death from coronary heart disease or nonfatal myocardial infarction at 5 years than standard care alone, without resulting in a significantly higher rate of coronary angiography or coronary revascularization.

scot-01scot-02scot-03

Radiation-induced Coronary Artery Disease

Cuomo provide a useful paper on prevention and management of radiation-induced coronary artery disease (Cuomo JR, et al. Heart 2018;0:1–7. doi:10.1136/heartjnl-2017-312123).

rad-01rad-02rad-03rad-04

Sports Participation and Coronary Artery Disease

Borjesson et al provide current opinion for participation in competitive and leisure sports for patients with coronary artery disease (European Heart Journal (2018) 0, 1–8  doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehy408).

sport-01sport-02

NHF of Australia and CSANZ Guidelines for Diagnosis and Management of Atrial Fibrillation