Clinical characteristics and outcomes of COMPASS eligible patients in France. An analysis from the REACH Registry

Applicability and impact of the COMPASS trial in a Canadian population of patients with atherosclerotic disease

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

In the COMPASS trial, low-dose rivaroxaban with aspirin improved cardiovascular outcomes in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD). We aimed to assess the potential clinical implications of this therapy in a generalizable population.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A retrospective cohort of adults with ASVCD was formed using healthcare administrative databases in Alberta, Canada (population 4.4 million). Patients with a new diagnosis between 2008 and 2019 formed the epidemiological cohort (n = 224,600) and those with long-term follow-up (>5 years) formed the outcomes cohort (n = 232,460). The primary outcome of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) was assessed and categorized based on the COMPASS trial eligibility. In the outcomes cohort, 77% had only coronary artery disease, 15% had only peripheral artery disease, and 8% had both. Of those, 37% met the COMPASS trial eligibility criteria, 36% met exclusion criteria and 27% did not meet inclusion criteria. Over a median of 7.8 years, the COMPASS exclusion group demonstrated the highest rate of MACE (5.9 per 100 person-years), following by the eligible group and the group that did not meet COMPASS inclusion criteria (3.1 and 1.4 per 100 person-years respectively). The expected net clinical benefit of antithrombotic therapy in the eligible group was 5.6 fewer events per 1000 person-years.

CONCLUSIONS

In a real-world population of 4.4 million adults, there are roughly 20,000 new cases of ASVCD diagnosed yearly, with ∼40% being eligible for the addition of low-dose rivaroxaban therapy to antiplatelet therapy. The theoretical implementation of dual antithrombotic treatment in this population could result in a substantial reduction in cardiovascular morbidity and mortality.

Polyvascular disease is common in patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy and lower extremity bypass and is associated with worse outcomes

BACKGROUND

Polyvascular disease is strongly associated with increased risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. However, its prevalence in patients undergoing carotid and lower extremity surgical revascularization and its impact on outcomes are unknown.

METHODS

The Vascular Quality Initiative was queried for carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or infrainguinal lower extremity bypass (LEB), 2013-2019. Polyvascular disease was defined as presence of atherosclerotic occlusive disease in more than one arterial bed: carotid, coronary, and infrainguinal. Primary outcomes were (1) composite perioperative myocardial infarction (MI) or death and (2) 5-year survival. Patient characteristics and perioperative outcomes were evaluated using the χ2 test and multivariable logistic regression. Survival was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards multivariable models.

RESULTS

Polyvascular disease was identified in 47% of CEA (39.0% in 2 arterial beds, 7.6% in 3 arterial beds; n = 93,736) and 47% of LEB (41.0% in 2 arterial beds, 5.7% in 3 arterial beds; n = 25,223). For both CEA and LEB, patients with polyvascular disease had more comorbidities including hypertension, congestive heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, smoking, diabetes mellitus, and end-stage renal disease (P < .0001). Perioperative MI/death rates increased with increasing number of vascular beds affected following CEA (0.9% in 1 bed vs 1.5% in 2 beds vs 2.7% in 3 beds; P < .001) and LEB (2.2% in 1 bed vs 5.3% in 2 beds vs 6.6% in 3 beds; P < .001). Polyvascular disease was associated independently with perioperative MI/death after CEA (odds ratio, 1.59; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.40-1.81;P < .0001) and LEB (odds ratio, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.52-2.08; P < .0001). Five-year survival was decreased in patients with polyvascular disease after CEA (82% in 3 beds vs 88% in 2 beds vs 92% in 1 bed; P < .01) and LEB (72% in 3 beds vs 75% in 2 beds vs 84% in 1 bed; P < .01) in a dose-dependent manner, with the lowest 5-year survival observed in those with three arterial beds involved. Polyvascular disease was independently associated with 5-year mortality after CEA (hazard ratio, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.24-1.40; P = .0001) and LEB (hazard ratio, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.20-1.41; P = .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Polyvascular disease is common in patients undergoing CEA and LEB and is associated with a higher risk of perioperative MI/death and decreased long-term survival. After revascularization, patients with polyvascular disease should be considered for more aggressive cardioprotective medications and closer follow-up.

Impact of Multisite artery disease on Clinical Outcomes After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: An Analysis from the e-Ultimaster Registry

BACKGROUND

multisite artery disease is considered a 'malignant' type of atherosclerotic disease associated with an increased cardiovascular risk, but the impact of multisite artery disease on clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is unknown.

METHODS

Patients enrolled in the large, prospective e-Ultimaster study were grouped into 1) those without known prior vascular disease; 2) those with known single-territory vascular disease 3) those with known 2-3 territories (i.e, coronary, cerebrovascular, or peripheral) vascular disease (multisite artery disease). The primary outcome was coronary target lesion failure (TLF) defined as the composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, and clinically driven target lesion revascularization at 1-year. Inverse propensity score weighted (IPSW) analysis was performed to address differences in baseline patient and lesion characteristics.

RESULTS

Of the 37,198 patients included in the study, 62.3% had no prior known vascular disease, 32.6% had single-territory vascular disease, and 5.1% multisite artery disease. Patients with known vascular disease were older and were more likely to be men and to have more co-morbidities. After IPSW, the TLF rate incrementally increased with the number of diseased vascular beds (3.16%, 4.44% and 6.42% for no, single- and multisite artery disease, p<0.01 for all comparisons). This was also true for all cause death (2.22%, 3.28% and 5.29%, p<0.01 for all comparisons) and cardiac mortality (1.26%, 1.91% and 3.62%, p≤0.01 for all comparisons).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with previously known vascular disease experienced an increased risk for adverse cardiovascular events and mortality post percutaneous coronary intervention. This risk is highest among patients with multisite artery disease.Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02188355.

Clinical Profile and Management of Patient Patients with Ischemic Heart Disease and/or Peripheral Artery Disease in Clinical Practice: The APALUSA Study

This study was aimed to ascertain the clinical profile and management of patients with ischemic heart disease (IHD) and/or peripheral artery disease (PAD). In this observational and cross-sectional study developed in 80 hospitals throughout Spain, consecutive adults with stable IHD and/or PAD were included. A total of 1089 patients were analyzed, of whom 65.3% had only IHD, 17.8% PAD and 16.9% both. A total of 80.6% were taking only one antiplatelet agent, and 18.2% were on dual antiplatelet therapy (mainly aspirin/clopidogrel). Almost all patients were taking ≥1 lipid lowering drug, mainly moderate-to-high intensity statins. IHD patients took ezetimibe more commonly than PAD (43.9% vs. 12.9%; p < 0.001). There were more patients with IHD that achieved blood pressure targets compared to PAD (<140/90 mmHg: 67.9% vs. 43.0%; p < 0.001; <130/80 mmHg: 34.1% vs. 15.7%; p < 0.001), LDL-cholesterol (<70 mg/dL: 53.1% vs. 41.5%; p = 0.033; <55 mg/dL: 26.5% vs. 16.0%; p = 0.025), and diabetes (HbA1c < 7%, with SGLT2i/GLP1-RA: 21.7% vs. 8.8%; p = 0.032). Modifications of antihypertensive agents and lipid-lowering therapy were performed in 69.0% and 82.3% of patients, respectively, without significant differences between groups. The use of SGLT2i/GLP1-RA was low. In conclusion, cardiovascular risk factors control remains poor among patients with IHD, PAD, or both. A higher use of combined therapy is warranted.