In patients with type 2 diabetes and recent MI, colchicine reduced a composite CV outcome at 23 mo

SOURCE CITATION

Roubille F, Bouabdallaoui N, Kouz S, et al. Low-dose colchicine in patients with type 2 diabetes and recent myocardial infarction in the COLchicine Cardiovascular Outcomes Trial (COLCOT). Diabetes Care. 2024;47:467-470. 38181203.

Outcomes According to Coronary Revascularization Modality in the ISCHEMIA Trial

BACKGROUND

In the ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches) trial, the risk of ischemic events was similar in patients with stable coronary artery disease treated with an invasive (INV) strategy of angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or surgical (coronary artery bypass grafting [CABG]) coronary revascularization and a conservative (CON) strategy of initial medical therapy.

OBJECTIVES

The authors analyzed separately the outcomes of INV patients treated with PCI or CABG.

METHODS

Patients without preceding primary outcome events were categorized as INV-PCI or INV-CABG from the time of revascularization. The ISCHEMIA primary outcome (composite of cardiovascular death, protocol-defined myocardial infarction or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest) was used.

RESULTS

Among INV-CABG patients, primary outcome events occurred in 84 of 512 (16.4%) at a median follow-up of 2.85 years; 48 events (57.1%) occurred within 30 days after CABG, including 40 procedural MIs. Among INV-PCI patients, primary outcome events occurred in 147 of 1,500 (9.8%) at median follow-up of 2.94 years; 31 of which (21.1%) occurred within 30 days after PCI, including 24 procedural MIs. In comparison, 352 of 2,591 CON patients (13.6%) had primary outcome events at a median follow-up of 3.2 years, 22 of which (6.3%) occurred within 30 days of randomization. The adjusted primary outcome risks were higher after both CABG and PCI within 30 days (HR: 16.25 [95% CI: 11.44-23.07] and HR: 2.99 [95% CI: 1.97-4.53]) and lower thereafter (0.63 [95% CI: 0.44-0.89] and 0.66 [95% CI: 0.53-0.82]).

CONCLUSIONS

In ISCHEMIA, early revascularization by PCI and CABG was associated with higher early risks and lower long-term risks of cardiovascular events compared with CON. The early risk was greatest after CABG, owing to protocol-defined procedural MIs.

Management of Adults With Anomalous Aortic Origin of the Coronary Arteries: State-of-the-Art Review

As a result of increasing adoption of imaging screening, the number of adult patients with a diagnosis of anomalous aortic origin of the coronary arteries (AAOCA) has grown in recent years. Existing guidelines provide a framework for management and treatment, but patients with AAOCA present with a wide range of anomalies and symptoms that make general recommendations of limited applicability. In particular, a large spectrum of interventions can be used for treatment, and there is no consensus on the optimal approach to be used. In this paper, a multidisciplinary group of clinical and interventional cardiologists and cardiac surgeons performed a systematic review and critical evaluation of the available evidence on the interventional treatment of AAOCA in adult patients. Using a structured Delphi process, the group agreed on expert recommendations that are intended to complement existing clinical practice guidelines.

Management of Adults With Anomalous Aortic Origin of the Coronary Arteries: State-of-the-Art Review

As a result of increasing adoption of imaging screening, the number of adult patients with a diagnosis of anomalous aortic origin of the coronary arteries (AAOCA) has grown in recent years. Existing guidelines provide a framework for management and treatment, but patients with AAOCA present with a wide range of anomalies and symptoms that make general recommendations of limited applicability. In particular, a large spectrum of interventions can be used for treatment, and there is no consensus on the optimal approach to be used. In this paper, a multidisciplinary group of clinical and interventional cardiologists and cardiac surgeons performed a systematic review and critical evaluation of the available evidence on the interventional treatment of AAOCA in adult patients. Using a structured Delphi process, the group agreed on expert recommendations that are intended to complement existing clinical practice guidelines.

Dual Antiplatelet Therapy: A Concise Review for Clinicians

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) combines two antiplatelet agents to decrease the risk of thrombotic complications associated with atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases. Emerging data about the duration of DAPT is being published continuously. New approaches are trying to balance the time, benefits, and risks for patients taking DAPT for established cardiovascular diseases. Short-term dual DAPT of 3-6 months, or even 1 month in high-bleeding risk patients, is equivalent in terms of efficacy and effectiveness compared to long-term DAPT for patients who experienced percutaneous coronary intervention in an acute coronary syndrome setting. Prolonged DAPT beyond 12 months reduces stent thrombosis, major adverse cardiovascular events, and myocardial infarction rates but increases bleeding risk. Extended DAPT does not significantly benefit stable coronary artery disease patients in reducing stroke, myocardial infarction, or cardiovascular death. Ticagrelor and aspirin reduce cardiovascular events in stable coronary artery disease with diabetes but carry a higher bleeding risk. Antiplatelet therapy duration in atrial fibrillation patients after percutaneous coronary intervention depends on individual characteristics and bleeding risk. Antiplatelet therapy is crucial for post-coronary artery bypass graft and transcatheter aortic valve implantation; Aspirin (ASA) monotherapy is preferred. Antiplatelet therapy duration in peripheral artery disease depends on the scenario. Adding vorapaxar and cilostazol may benefit secondary prevention and claudication, respectively. Carotid artery disease patients with transient ischemic attack or stroke benefit from antiplatelet therapy and combining ASA and clopidogrel is more effective than ASA alone. The optimal duration of DAPT after carotid artery stenting is uncertain. Resistance to ASA and clopidogrel poses an incremental risk of deleterious cardiovascular events and stroke. The selection and duration of antiplatelet therapy in patients with cardiovascular disease requires careful consideration of both efficacy and safety outcomes. The use of combination therapies may provide added benefits but should be weighed against the risk of bleeding. Further research and clinical trials are needed to optimize antiplatelet treatment in different patient populations and clinical scenarios.

P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy 1 to 3 mo after PCI did not differ from standard DAPT for fatal or ischemic events

SOURCE CITATION

Gragnano F, Mehran R, Branca M; Single Versus Dual Antiplatelet Therapy (Sidney-2) Collaboration. P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy or dual antiplatelet therapy after complex percutaneous coronary interventions. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2023;81:537-552. 36754514.

Left main coronary disease: evolving management concepts

Remarkable advances in the management of coronary artery disease have enhanced our approach to left main coronary artery (LMCA) disease. The traditional role of coronary artery bypass graft surgery has been challenged by the less invasive percutaneous coronary interventional approach. Additionally, major strides in optimal medical therapy now provide a rich menu of treatment choices in selected circumstances. Although a LMCA stenosis >70% is an acceptable threshold for revascularization, those patients with a LMCA narrowing between 40 and 69% present a more complex scenario. This review examines the relative merits of the different treatment options, addresses key diagnostic and therapeutic unknowns, and identifies future work likely to advance progress.

In HFpEF, adding empagliflozin to usual care reduced a composite of CV death or HF hospitalization at a median 26 mo

Anker SD, Butler J, Filippatos G, et al. Empagliflozin in heart failure with a preserved ejection fraction. N Engl J Med. 2021;385:1451-61. 34449189.

2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Coronary Artery Revascularization: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The guideline for coronary artery revascularization replaces the 2011 coronary artery bypass graft surgery and the 2011 and 2015 percutaneous coronary intervention guidelines, providing a patient-centric approach to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with significant coronary artery disease undergoing coronary revascularization as well as the supporting documentation to encourage their use.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2019 to September 2019, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, CINHL Complete, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2021, were also considered. Structure: Coronary artery disease remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. Coronary revascularization is an important therapeutic option when managing patients with coronary artery disease. The 2021 coronary artery revascularization guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with coronary artery disease who are being considered for coronary revascularization, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests.

2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Coronary Artery Revascularization: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The executive summary of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions coronary artery revascularization guideline provides the top 10 items readers should know about the guideline. In the full guideline, the recommendations replace the 2011 coronary artery bypass graft surgery guideline and the 2011 and 2015 percutaneous coronary intervention guidelines. This summary offers a patient-centric approach to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with significant coronary artery disease undergoing coronary revascularization, as well as the supporting documentation to encourage their use.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2019 to September 2019, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, CINHL Complete, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2021, were also considered. Structure: Recommendations from the earlier percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass graft surgery guidelines have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians in caring for patients undergoing coronary revascularization. This summary includes recommendations, tables, and figures from the full guideline that relate to the top 10 take-home messages. The reader is referred to the full guideline for graphical flow charts, supportive text, and tables with additional details about the rationale for and implementation of each recommendation, and the evidence tables detailing the data considered in the development of this guideline.

2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Coronary Artery Revascularization: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The guideline for coronary artery revascularization replaces the 2011 coronary artery bypass graft surgery and the 2011 and 2015 percutaneous coronary intervention guidelines, providing a patient-centric approach to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with significant coronary artery disease undergoing coronary revascularization as well as the supporting documentation to encourage their use.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2019 to September 2019, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, CINHL Complete, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2021, were also considered.

STRUCTURE

Coronary artery disease remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. Coronary revascularization is an important therapeutic option when managing patients with coronary artery disease. The 2021 coronary artery revascularization guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with coronary artery disease who are being considered for coronary revascularization, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests.

In patients with CAD, adding colchicine to evidence-based therapies reduces MACE without increasing adverse outcomes

Xia M, Yang X, Qian C. Meta-analysis evaluating the utility of colchicine in secondary prevention of coronary artery disease. Am J Cardiol. 2021;140:33-8. 33137319.

Risk Prediction Tool for Assessing the Probability of Death or Myocardial Infarction in Patients With Stable Coronary Artery Disease

Several risk scores in acute coronary syndromes are available, but few models exist for stable coronary artery disease to guide decision-making and prognosis. A multivariate model was developed using 23 baseline candidate variables from the Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Therapy EvaluationTrial (n = 2,287 patients). Discrimination of the model was evaluated by the concordance c-index. The procedure was validated using 100 random half samples. We identified 9 independent predictors of death or myocardial infarction (MI) during a 5-year follow-up. The following predictors and points contributing to the risk score were: heart failure (3), number of diseased coronary arteries (1 for each vessel), diabetes (1), age (1 for each 15 years ≥ age 45), previous revascularization (1), current smoking (1), female (1), previous MI (1), and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (1: 31 to 40 mg/dL; 2: <30 mg/dL). The risk tool had a potential range from 0 to 15, corresponding to 5-year event rates of 5.8% to 56%. C-indices ranged from 0.67 for the full data set to 0.62 for the validating subsamples. Respective observed versus predicted 5-year event rates for 3 predefined risk strata revealed: 30% had a low-risk score of 0 to 3 (9.3% vs 9.3%, or 1.9%/year); 59% had an intermediate-risk score of 4-6 (18.0% vs 18.1%, or 3.6%/year); and 11% had a high-risk score of 7-11 (36% vs 36.5%, or 7.2%/year). This stable coronary artery disease risk score permitted a prognostic assessment of 5-year probability of death or MI with an approximate 4-fold range in event rates from the lowest (9.3%) to the highest (36%) terciles, thus enabling better clinical practice decisions that allow physicians to tailor the intensity of treatment to the level of risk.

In stable coronary disease with moderate or severe ischemia, initial invasive therapy plus medical therapy did not improve CV outcomes at 3 years

Maron DJ, Hochman JS, Reynolds HR, et al. Initial invasive or conservative strategy for stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:1395-1407. 32227755.

Invasive therapy improved angina health status in patients with high-risk stable coronary disease and more frequent angina

Spertus JA, Jones PG, Maron DJ, et al. Health-status outcomes with invasive or conservative care in coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:1408-19. 32227753.

Improving Care of STEMI in the United States 2008 to 2012

Background

We aimed to determine the change in treatment strategies and times to treatment over the first 5 years of the Mission: Lifeline program.

Methods and Results

We assessed pre‐ and in‐hospital care and outcomes from 2008 to 2012 for patients with ST‐segment–elevation myocardial infarction at US hospitals, using data from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry Acute Coronary Treatment and Intervention Outcomes Network Registry—Get With The Guidelines Registry. In‐hospital adjusted mortality was calculated including and excluding cardiac arrest as a reason for primary percutaneous coronary intervention delay. A total of 147 466 patients from 485 hospitals were analyzed. There was a decrease in the proportion of eligible patients not treated with reperfusion (6.2% versus 3.3%) and treated with fibrinolytic therapy (13.4% versus 7.0%). Median time from symptom onset to first medical contact was unchanged (≈50 minutes). Use of prehospital ECGs increased (45% versus 71%). All major reperfusion times improved: median first medical contact‐to‐device for emergency medical systems transport to percutaneous coronary intervention–capable hospitals (93 to 84 minutes), first door‐to‐device for transfers for primary percutaneous coronary intervention (130 to 112 minutes), and door‐in–door‐out at non–percutaneous coronary intervention–capable hospitals (76 to 62 minutes) (all P<0.001 over 5 years). Rates of cardiogenic shock and cardiac arrest, and overall in‐hospital mortality increased (5.7% to 6.3%). Adjusted mortality excluding patients with known cardiac arrest decreased by 14% at 3 years and 25% at 5 years (P<0.001).

Conclusions

Quality of care for patients with ST‐segment–elevation myocardial infarction improved over time in Mission: Lifeline, including increased use of reperfusion therapy and faster times‐to‐treatment. In‐hospital mortality improved for patients without cardiac arrest but did not appear to improve overall as the number of these high‐risk patients increased.

P885Cardiovascular events in patients with suspected ST-elevation myocardial infarction and no obstructive coronary artery disease

Background

Patients with suspected ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and no obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) comprise a heterogeneous group with varying prognoses.

Purpose

To evaluate the prognostic value of cardiac troponin T (cTnT) in patients with suspected STEMI and no obstructive CAD.

Methods

Patients with suspected STEMI and no obstructive (<50% diameter stenosis) CAD were consecutively included from 2009–2014. Patients were classified as having normal cTnT, dynamic cTnT elevation, or stationary cTnT elevation. All patients were followed with respect to major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), cardiovascular readmission, and repeat coronary procedures, until 1 year after discharge.

Results

The study included 502 patients with suspected STEMI and no obstructive CAD: 165 (33%) had normal cTnT, 293 (58%) had dynamic cTnT elevation and 44 (9%) had stationary cTnT elevation. Within one year after admission, 40 (8%) had MACE, 81 (16%) had cardiovascular readmission, and 8 (2%) underwent repeat coronary procedures. The risk of MACE was elevated in patients with stationary cTnT elevation compared with normal cTnT (OR 13.6, 95% CI 2.3–80.2, p=0.004). There was no statistically significant difference between those with dynamic cTnT elevation and normal cTnT (OR 2.9, 95% CI 0.6–14.0, p=0.189). Adding cTnT pattern to a conventional risk model, area under the receiver operating curve for predicting the 1-year risk of MACE improved significantly (80% vs. 85%, p=0.004, Figure 1).

Figure 1

Conclusion

In patients with suspected STEMI and no obstructive CAD, cTnT pattern during acute hospitalization is associated with the 1-year risk of MACE and improves risk prediction for the individual patient.

Acknowledgement/Funding

The Danish Heart Foundation, the A.P. Møller Foundation, the Foundation of Reinholdt W. Jorck and Wife, Rigshospitalet's Research Foundation

Taking the Reins on Systems of Care for ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Patients: A Report From the American Heart Association Mission: Lifeline Program

BACKGROUND

Early success with regionalization of ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) care has led many states to adopt statewide prehospital STEMI hospital destination policies, allowing emergency medical services to bypass non-percutaneous coronary intervention-capable hospitals. The association between adoption of these policies and patterns of care among STEMI patients is unknown.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Using data from January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2014, from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry and Acute Coronary Treatment and Intervention Outcomes Network Registry, 6 states with bypass policies (cases included Delaware, Iowa, Maryland, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts) were matched to 6 states without bypass policies (controls included South Carolina, Minnesota, Virginia, Texas, New York, and Connecticut) a priori on region, hospital density, and percent state participation in the registry. Using the matched sample, logistic regression models were adjusted for patient- and state-level characteristics. Outcomes were receipt of reperfusion and receipt of timely percutaneous coronary intervention. Our study cohort included 19 287 patients at 379 sites across 12 states. Patients from states with hospital destination policies were similar in age, sex, and comorbidities to patients from states without such policies. After adjustment for patient- and state-level characteristics, 57.9% (95% confidence intervals, 53.2%-62.5%) of patients living in states with hospital destination policies when compared with 47.5% (95% confidence intervals, 43.4%-51.7%) living in states without hospital destination policies received primary percutaneous coronary intervention within their relevant guideline-recommended time from first medical contact.

CONCLUSIONS

Statewide adoption of STEMI hospital destination policies allowing emergency medical services to bypass non-percutaneous coronary intervention-capable facilities is associated with significantly faster treatment times for patients with STEMI.

Phase 2 study of TAK-442, an oral factor Xa inhibitor, in patients following acute coronary syndrome

TAK-442 is an oral direct factor Xa inhibitor. We sought to determine the dose-dependent effect of TAK-442 on major bleeding when added to standard treatment in stabilised patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). In this phase II double-blind study, 2,753 ACS patients were randomised to TAK-442 or placebo in addition to usual care using a three-stage adaptive design. Patients were randomised to placebo in all stages, but doses of TAK-442 escalated from 10 mg BID, 20 mg twice-daily (BID), or 40 mg once-daily (QD) in stage 1; to 40 mg BID, 80 mg QD, or 80 mg BID in stage 2; and to 160 mg QD or 120 mg BID in stage 3. Study drug was started 36 hours after emergent treatment of ACS and within seven days of admission, and continued for 24 weeks. The primary endpoint was incidence of TIMI (thrombolysis in myocardial infarction) major bleeding. TIMI major bleeding incidence was low, but higher with the pooled TAK-442 doses than with placebo (17 [0.9%] vs 4 [0.5%]; p=0.47), although the difference was neither significant nor dose-dependent. However, a dose response was evident when using the modified ISTH scale. The incidence of cardiovascular events was similar among TAK-442 dose groups and placebo. When administered over a wide range of doses after an ACS event, TAK-442 treatment did not result in a dose-dependent increase in TIMI major bleeding, but increased bleeding was observed when a more sensitive bleeding scale was used. There was no evidence for efficacy.