Relationship Between β-Blocker Therapy at Discharge and Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

The Long-Term Prognostic Role of Nighttime Resting Heart Rate in Obstructive Sleep Apnea in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome

AIM

A close relationship exists between resting heart rate (RHR) and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). Still, the prognostic importance of nighttime RHR in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) with or without OSA remains unclear.

METHODS

In this prospective cohort study, OSA was defined as an apnea-hypopnea index of ≥ 15 events/h, and the high nighttime RHR (HNRHR) was defined as a heart rate of ≥ 70 bpm. The primary endpoint was a major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular event (MACCE), including cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, ischemia-driven revascularization, or hospitalization for heart failure.

RESULTS

Among the 1875 enrolled patients, the mean patient age was 56.3±10.5 years, 978 (52.2%) had OSA, and 425 (22.7%) were in HNRHR. The proportion of patients with HNRHR is higher in the OSA population than in the non-OSA population (26.5% vs. 18.5%; P＜0.001). During 2.9 (1.5, 3.5) years of follow-up, HNRHR was associated with an increased risk of MACCE in patients with OSA (adjusted HR: 1.56, 95% CI: 1.09-2.23, P=0.014), but not in patients without OSA (adjust HR: 1.13, 95% CI: 0.69-1.84, P=0.63).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with ACS, a nighttime RHR of ≥ 70 bpm was associated with a higher risk of MACCE in those with OSA but not in those without it. This identifies a potential high-risk subgroup where heart rate may interact with the prognosis of OSA. Further research is needed to determine causative relationships and confirm whether heart rate control impacts cardiovascular outcomes in patients with ACS-OSA.

Long-Term Follow-Up After Acute Myocardial Infarction According to Beta-Blocker Dose

OBJECTIVE

Our purpose was to examine the association between beta-blocker dose and mortality following acute myocardial infarction.

METHODS

This nationwide cohort study enrolled all patients admitted for first-time acute myocardial infarction in Denmark between July 1, 2004 and December 31, 2014, using the Danish National Patient Registry. Patients alive 15 days after admission were followed until death, emigration, or December 31, 2014. Patients were categorized according to daily beta-blocker consumption (0%, >0%-12.5%, >12.5%-25%, >25%-50%, >50%-100%, or >100% of the currently recommended target dose) based on prescriptions registered in the Danish National Database of Reimbursed Prescriptions. Doses were continuously updated during follow-up. Mortality rate ratios (MRRs) were computed and adjusted for confounders using Cox proportional hazard regression.

RESULTS

Among 65,125 patients followed, any beta-blocker dose was associated with significant mortality reduction compared with no treatment (adjusted MRR ≤ 0.92 [95% confidence interval {CI}: 0.86-0.98]). The largest reduction was observed within the first year for beta-blocker doses >25%-50% (adjusted MRR = 0.55 [95% CI: 0.50-0.60]). After 1 year, doses >50%-100% were associated with the largest mortality reduction (adjusted MRR = 0.58 [95% CI: 0.50-0.67]), but it did not differ significantly from that associated with doses >25%-50% (adjusted MRR = 0.68 [95% CI: 0.61-0.77]).

CONCLUSIONS

Any beta-blocker dose was associated with significant mortality reduction following acute myocardial infarction compared with no treatment. Doses >25%-50% of the currently recommended target dose were associated with maximal mortality reduction within the first year after acute myocardial infarction, suggesting that higher doses are unnecessary.

Comparison of Metoprolol Versus Carvedilol After Acute Myocardial Infarction

Beta-blockers are typically prescribed following myocardial infarction (MI), but no specific beta-blocker is recommended. Of 7,057 patients enrolled in the OBTAIN multi-center registry of patients with acute MI, 4142 were discharged on metoprolol and 1487 on carvedilol. Beta-blocker dose was indexed to the target daily dose used in randomized clinical trials (metoprolol-200 mg; carvedilol-50 mg), reported as %. Beta-blocker dosage groups were >0% to12.5% (n = 1,428), >12.5% to 25% (n = 2113), >25% to 50% (n = 1,392), and >50% (n = 696). The Kaplan-Meier method was used to calculate 3-year survival. Correction for baseline differences was achieved by multivariable adjustment. Patients treated with carvedilol were older (64.4 vs 63.3 years) and had more comorbidities: hypertension, diabetes, prior MI, congestive heart failure, reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, and a longer length of stay. Mean doses for metoprolol and carvedilol did not significantly differ (37.2 ± 27.8% and 35.8 ± 31.0%, respectively). The 3-year survival estimates were 88.2% and 83.5% for metoprolol and carvedilol, respectively, with an unadjusted HR = 0.72 (p <0.0001), but after multivariable adjustment HR = 1.073 (p = 0.43). Patients in the >12.5% to 25% dose category had improved survival compared with other dose categories. Subgroup analysis of patients with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40%, showed worse survival with metoprolol versus carvedilol (adjusted HR = 1.281; 95% CI: 1.024 to 1.602, p = 0.03). In patients with left ventricular ejection fraction >40%, there were no differences in survival with carvedilol versus metoprolol. In conclusion, overall survival after acute MI was similar for patients treated with metoprolol or carvedilol, but may be superior for carvedilol in patients with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40%.

Role of beta blockers following percutaneous coronary intervention for acute coronary syndrome

AIMS

There is a paucity of evidence supporting routine beta blocker (BB) use in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute coronary syndrome (ACS). The aim of this study was to evaluate BB use post PCI and its association with mortality. Furthermore, the study aimed to evaluate the association between BB and mortality in the subgroups of patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <35%, LVEF 35%-50% and LVEF >50%.

METHODS

Using a large PCI registry, data from patients with ACS between January 2005 and June 2017 who were alive at 30 days were analysed. Those patients taking BB at 30 days were compared with those who were not taking BB. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. The mean follow-up was 5.3±3.5 years.

RESULTS

Of the 17 562 patients, 83.3% were on BB. Mortality was lower in the BB group (13.1% vs 19.5%, p=0.0001). Multivariable Cox proportional hazards model showed that BB use was associated with lower overall mortality (adjusted HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.97, p=0.014). In the subgroup analysis, BB use was associated with reduced mortality in LVEF <35% (adjusted HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.91, p=0.013), LVEF 35%-50% (adjusted HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.95, p=0.01), but not LVEF >50% (adjusted HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.21, p=0.74).

CONCLUSION

BB use remains high and is associated with reduced mortality. This reduction in mortality is primarily seen in those with reduced ejection fraction, but not in those with preserved ejection fraction.

Contemporary use and trends in percutaneous coronary intervention in Japan: an outline of the J-PCI registry

Cardiovascular interventions have achieved a level of excellence, with many outstanding advanced techniques and results. The mission of the Japanese Association of Cardiovascular Intervention and Therapeutics (CVIT) is to further our understanding of cardiovascular intervention and establish its procedural safety. [1] The Japanese Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (J-PCI) registry was established and sponsored by CVIT, and aims to provide basic statistics on the performance of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) in Japan. Today, the database has grown to become one of the largest healthcare procedural database with more than 200,000 cases registered annually from approximately 900 institutions in Japan representing over 90% of all PCI hospitals in the nation. Importantly, case registrations in the J-PCI registry are essential for coronary interventionalist and educating hospital certification. The present manuscript aimed to summarize the history of the J-PCI registry and outline the definitions of various items.

Association of β-Blocker Therapy at Discharge with Clinical Outcomes after Acute Coronary Syndrome in Patients without Heart Failure

Aim

To evaluate the clinical impact of β-blocker in patients with adequate left ventricular ejection function (LVEF) who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute coronary syndrome (ACS).

Methods

A total of 10,724 consecutive patients who underwent PCI throughout 2013 were prospectively enrolled in the study. Among these, we analyzed 5,631 ACS patients who were discharged with LVEF ≥ 40%. Patients were then compared according to the β-blocker prescription at discharge.

Results

During a 2-year follow-up, no significant association was observed of β-blocker use with all-cause mortality (with β-blockers 47/5,043 (0.9%) vs. without β-blocker use 8/588 (1.4%); hazard ratio (HR) 0.762, 95% confidence interval 0.36 to 1.64; P = 0.485), cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), or major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events. Subgroup analysis demonstrated that the β-blocker use at discharge reduced the 2-year mortality in patients with unstable angina (UA) (HR 0.42, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.94, P = 0.034). Landmark analysis at 1 year showed that patients with UA who were discharged with β-blockers had lower mortality (HR 0.17, 95% CI 0.04-0.65, P = 0.010) and cardiac death (HR 0.12, 95% CI 0.01-0.99, P = 0.049) than those discharged without β-blockers. However, the benefit was lost beyond 1 year. No differences in outcomes were recorded in the AMI or overall population.

Conclusions

We present that β-blocker significantly lowers the rate of all-cause death up to 1 year, in UA patients who have undergone PCI and have adequate LVEF. Its role in patients with AMI also deserves further exploration.

Identifying functional non-coding variants in APOA5/A4/C3/A1 gene cluster associated with coronary heart disease

Recent genome-wide association studies identified several polymorphisms in the APOA5/A4/C3/A1 gene cluster influencing lipids level and risk of coronary heart disease (CHD). However, few studies explored the molecular mechanism. The purposes of this study were to fine-map noncoding region between APOA1 and APOC3 and then explore the clinical relevance in CHD and potential underlying mechanisms. In this study, a 2.7-kb length of the non-coding region between APOA1 and APOC3 was screened and five polymorphisms were investigated in the case-control study. The molecular mechanism was explored. Our data confirmed the association between rs7123454, rs12721030, rs10750098, and rs12721028 with CHD in 828 patients and 828 controls and replicated it in an independent population of 405 patients and 405 controls. In addition, the rs10750098 and rs12721030 are significantly associated with decreased serum APOA1 levels (P = 4.2 × 10^-4 and P = 3.2 × 10^-5, combined analysis), while a significant association was observed between serum APOA1 level and CHD (OR: 0.43, 95% CI: 0.28-0.64, P < .01) with adjustment for clinical covariates and different population sets. In vitro evaluation of potential function of non-coding variants between APOA1 and APOC3 demonstrated that rs10750098 as being the most sufficient to confer the haplotype-specific effect on the regulation of APOs gene transcription. Our results strongly implicate the involvement of common noncoding DNA variants in APOA5/A4/C3/A1 gene cluster in the pathogenesis of dyslipidemia and the risk of CHD.

Comparison of Apolipoprotein B/A1 ratio, Framingham risk score and TC/HDL-c for predicting clinical outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention

Background

Apolipoproteins (Apo) are known atherogenic factors that play important roles in many mechanisms related to coronary heart disease (CHD). However, it is unclear whether the apoB/apoA1 ratio is an equal or a better predictor than the Framingham Risk Score or TC/HDL-c for predicting clinical outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

Methods

We investigated the association between Apolipoprotein B/A1 ratio and cardiovascular risk factors as well as the severity of CHD in 2256 Han Chinese patients. The potential of Apolipoprotein B/A1 ratio, Framingham Risk Score and TC/HDL-c were assessed as a marker to predict cardiovascular adverse events in a prospective subgroup of 1639 CHD patients during a 5-year follow-up.

Results

In the multivariate model, adjusted odds ratios (ORs) were significant for 3-VD vs. 1-VD (OR = 2.36; 95% CI: 1.65–3.38, for the fourth vs. first quartile; P_trend < 0.001). The subgroup analysis showed that patients with a higher ApoB/ApoA1 ratio had an increased risk of developing multi-branch lesions and potentially suffer more cardiovascular adverse events (anginas, myocardial infarctions, heart failures, strokes, and cardiac deaths) in the future (adjusted HR =1.92; 95% CI: 1.10–3.13, for the fourth vs. first quartile). In the ROC analysis, the AUC for ApoB/A1 ratio was larger than that of Framingham Risk Score (0.604 vs. 0.543, p = 0.01) and TC/HDL-c (0.604 vs. 0.525, p < 0.01).

Conclusion

Our results suggest a significant association between ApoB/ApoA1 ratio and CHD severity and cardiovascular outcomes among patients with existing CHD and ApoB/A1 ratio demonstrated a better predictive accuracy for clinical outcomes compared with Framingham Risk Score and TC/HDL-c.

Preoperative Management of Medications

Increasingly complex medication regimens for many comorbidities in patients for planned surgical and procedural interventions necessitate detailed preoperative evaluation of the pharmacologic therapy, including the indications, the specific drugs, and dosing amount and interval. The implications of continuing or withholding these agents in the perioperative period need to be elucidated, as well as the risks of interactions and side effects. A comprehensive plan of the management of the therapeutic agents should be devised during the preoperative visit, with input from all relevant specialists, and clearly communicated to the patients in a format that ensures their comprehension and consistent compliance.