Myocardial infarction and peripheral arterial disease: Treatment patterns and long-term outcome in men and women results from a Swedish nationwide study

Background

Differences in comorbidity, pharmacotherapy, cardiovascular (CV) outcome, and mortality between myocardial infarction (MI) patients and peripheral arterial disease (PAD) patients are not well documented.

Aim

The aim of this study was to compare comorbidity, treatment patterns, CV outcome, and mortality in MI and PAD patients, focusing on sex differences.

Methods

This observational, population-based study used data retrieved from mandatory Swedish national registries. The risks of MI and death were assessed by Kaplan–Meier analysis. Secondary preventive drug use was characterized. Cox proportional risk hazard modelling was used to determine the risk of specific events.

Results

Overall, 91,808 incident MI patients and 52,408 PAD patients were included. CV mortality for MI patients at 12, 24, and 36 months after index was 12.3%, 19.3%, and 25.4%, and for PAD patients it was 15.5%, 23.4%, and 31.0%. At index, 89% of MI patients and 65% of PAD patients used aspirin and 74% and 53%, respectively, used statins. Unlike MI women, women with PAD had a lower rate of other CV-related comorbidities and a lower risk of CV events (age-adjusted hazard ratio 0.81, 95% confidence interval 0.79‒0.84), CV death (0.78, 0.75‒0.82), and all-cause death (0.78, 0.76‒0.80) than their PAD male counterparts.

Conclusion

PAD patients were less intensively treated and had a higher CV mortality than MI patients. Women with PAD were less likely than men to present with established polyvascular disease, whereas the opposite was true of women with MI. This result indicates that the lower-limb vasculature may more often be the index site for atherosclerosis in women.

Non-cardioembolic TIA and ischemic stroke: Implications of severity

OBJECTIVES

Our purpose was to explore major vascular and bleeding outcomes in relation to risk and severity scores (ABCD2 or NIHSS) in patients with transient ischemic attack (TIA) or acute ischemic stroke (AIS).

METHODS

This nationwide observational study was based on data from 4 national registries. Outcomes were assessed by Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses.

RESULTS

The total cohort comprised 21 268 patients (median age 73 years, 47.6% females). Based on ABCD2-score, the TIA-population (n = 10 174) was divided into low-risk (0-3 p, n = 3463) and high-risk (4-7 p, n = 6711). Based on NIHSS-score, the AIS-population (n = 11 454) was divided into minor (0-5 p, n = 8596), moderate (6-10 p, n = 1630) and severe (≥11 p, n = 1228). During follow-up (mean 1.7 years), the composite endpoint of stroke, myocardial infarction or death occurred in 3572 (16.5%) of all the patients, and major bleeding in 668 (3.1%) patients. Using low-risk TIA as reference, the adjusted hazard ratios (HR, 95% CI) of the composite endpoint were 1.41 (1.23-1.62) for high-risk TIA, 1.94 (1.70-2.22) for minor, 2.86 (2.45-3.34) for moderate and 4.18 (3.57-4.90) for severe stroke. When analyzed separately, the association with increased risk remained significant for stroke and death, but not for myocardial infarction. The HR of major bleeding were 1.31 (0.99-1.73) for high-risk TIA, 1.49 (1.13-1.95) for minor, 1.54 (1.08-2.21) for moderate and 2.10 (1.44-3.05) for severe stroke.

CONCLUSIONS

This study confirms the association between severity of the index ischemic stroke and risk of future major vascular and bleeding events, and highlights the increased risk also for patients with high-risk TIA.

Hyperkalaemia in people with diabetes: occurrence, risk factors and outcomes in a Danish population-based cohort study

AIMS

To examine the incidence, risk factors and clinical outcomes of hyperkalaemia in people with diabetes in a real-world setting.

METHODS

Using Danish health registries, we identified a population-based cohort of people with first-time drug-treated diabetes, in the period 2000-2012. First, the cumulative incidence of hyperkalaemia, defined as first blood test with potassium level >5.0 mmol/l after diabetes treatment initiation, was ascertained. Second, in a case-control analysis, risk factors were compared in people with vs without hyperkalaemia. Third, clinical outcomes were assessed among individuals with hyperkalaemia in a before-after analysis, and among people with and without hyperkalaemia in a matched cohort analysis.

RESULTS

Of 68 601 individuals with diabetes (median age 62 years, 47% women), 16% experienced hyperkalaemia (incidence rate 40 per 1000 person-years) during a mean follow-up of 4.1 years. People who developed hyperkalaemia had a higher prevalence of chronic kidney disease [prevalence ratio 1.74 (95% CI 1.68-1.81)], heart failure [prevalence ratio 2.35 (95% CI 2.18-2.54)], use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors [prevalence ratio 1.24 (95% CI 1.20-1.28)], use of spironolactone [prevalence ratio 2.68 (95% CI 2.48-2.88)] and potassium supplements [prevalence ratio 1.59 (95% CI 1.52-1.67)]. In people with diabetes who developed hyperkalaemia, 31% were acutely hospitalized within 6 months before hyperkalaemia, increasing to 50% 6 months after hyperkalaemia [before-after risk ratio 1.67 (95% CI 1.61-1.72)]. The 6-month mortality rate after hyperkalaemia was 20%. Compared with matched individuals without hyperkalaemia, the hazard ratio for death was 6.47 (95% CI 5.81-7.21).

CONCLUSIONS

One in six newly diagnosed people with diabetes experienced a hyperkalaemic event, which was associated with severe clinical outcomes and death.

Health-care costs of losartan and candesartan in the primary treatment of hypertension

A recent study of two widely used angiotensin receptor blockers reported a reduced risk of cardiovascular events (−14.4%) when using candesartan compared with losartan in the primary treatment of hypertension. In addition to clinical benefits, costs associated with treatment strategies must be considered when allocating scarce health-care resources. The aim of this study was to assess resource use and costs of losartan and candesartan in hypertensive patients. Resource use (drugs, outpatient contacts, hospitalizations and laboratory tests) associated with losartan and candesartan treatment was estimated in 14 100 patients in a real-life clinical setting. We electronically extracted patient data from primary care records and mandatory Swedish national registers for death and hospitalization. Patients treated with losartan had more outpatient contacts (+15.6%), laboratory tests (+13.8%) and hospitalizations (+13.8%) compared with the candesartan group. During a maximum observation time of 9 years, the mean total costs per patient were 10 369 Swedish kronor (95% confidence interval: 3109–17 629) higher in the losartan group. In conclusion, prescribing candesartan for the primary treatment of hypertension results in lower long-term health-care costs compared with losartan.

Effects of losartan vs candesartan in reducing cardiovascular events in the primary treatment of hypertension

Although angiotensin receptor blockers have different receptor binding properties no comparative studies with cardiovascular disease (CVD) end points have been performed within this class of drugs. The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that there are blood pressure independent CVD-risk differences between losartan and candesartan treatment in patients with hypertension without known CVD. Seventy-two primary care centres in Sweden were screened for patients who had been prescribed losartan or candesartan between the years 1999 and 2007. Among the 24 943 eligible patients, 14 100 patients were diagnosed with hypertension and prescribed losartan (n=6771) or candesartan (n=7329). Patients were linked to Swedish national hospitalizations and death cause register. There was no difference in blood pressure reduction when comparing the losartan and candesartan groups during follow-up. Compared with the losartan group, the candesartan group had a lower adjusted hazard ratio for total CVD (0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77–0.96, P=0.0062), heart failure (0.64, 95% CI 0.50–0.82, P=0.0004), cardiac arrhythmias (0.80, 95% CI 0.65–0.92, P=0.0330), and peripheral artery disease (0.61, 95% CI 0.41–0.91, P=0.0140). No difference in blood pressure reduction was observed suggesting that other mechanisms related to different pharmacological properties of the drugs may explain the divergent clinical outcomes.

Heart murmurs recorded by a sensor based electronic stethoscope and e-mailed for remote assessment

BACKGROUND

Heart murmurs are common in children, and they are often referred to a specialist for examination. A clinically innocent murmur does not need further investigation. The referral area of the University Hospital is large and sparsely populated. A new service for remote auscultation (telemedicine) of heart murmurs in children was established where heart sounds and short texts were sent as an attachment to e-mails.

AIM

To assess the clinical quality of this method.

METHODS

Heart sounds from 47 patients with no murmur (n = 7), with innocent murmurs (n = 20), or with pathological murmurs (n = 20) were recorded using a sensor based stethoscope and e-mailed to a remote computer. The sounds were repeated, giving 100 cases that were randomly distributed on a compact disc. Four cardiologists assessed and categorised the cases as having "no murmur", "innocent murmur", or "pathological murmur", recorded the assessment time per case, their degree of certainty, and whether they recommended referral.

RESULTS

On average, 2.1 minutes were spent on each case. The mean sensitivity and specificity were 89.7% and 98.2% respectively, and the inter-observer and intra-observer variabilities were low (kappa 0.81 and 0.87), respectively. A total of 93.4% of cases with a pathological murmur and 12.6% of cases with an innocent murmur were recommended for referral.

CONCLUSION

Telemedical referral of patients with heart murmurs for remote assessment by a cardiologist is safe and saves time. Skilled auscultation is adequate to detect patients with innocent murmurs.