7 research outputs found
Sex Differences in Revascularization, Treatment Goals, and Outcomes of Patients With Chronic Coronary Disease: Insights From the ISCHEMIA Trial
No full textBackground: Women with chronic coronary disease are generally older than men and have more comorbidities but less atherosclerosis. We explored sex differences in revascularization, guideline-directed medical therapy, and outcomes among patients with chronic coronary disease with ischemia on stress testing, with and without invasive management. Methods and results: The ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches) trial randomized patients with moderate or severe ischemia to invasive management with angiography, revascularization, and guideline-directed medical therapy, or initial conservative management with guideline-directed medical therapy alone. We evaluated the primary outcome (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest) and other end points, by sex, in 1168 (22.6%) women and 4011 (77.4%) men. Invasive group catheterization rates were similar, with less revascularization among women (73.4% of invasive-assigned women revascularized versus 81.2% of invasive-assigned men; P<0.001). Women had less coronary artery disease: multivessel in 60.0% of invasive-assigned women and 74.8% of invasive-assigned men, and no ≥50% stenosis in 12.3% versus 4.5% (P<0.001). In the conservative group, 4-year catheterization rates were 26.3% of women versus 25.6% of men (P=0.72). Guideline-directed medical therapy use was lower among women with fewer risk factor goals attained. There were no sex differences in the primary outcome (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] for women versus men, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.77-1.13]; P=0.47) or the major secondary outcome of cardiovascular death/myocardial infarction (adjusted HR, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.76-1.14]; P=0.49), with no significant sex-by-treatment-group interactions. Conclusions: Women had less extensive coronary artery disease and, therefore, lower revascularization rates in the invasive group. Despite lower risk factor goal attainment, women with chronic coronary disease experienced similar risk-adjusted outcomes to men in the ISCHEMIA trial. Registration: URL: http://wwwclinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01471522
Evaluating the Appropriate Use Criteria for Coronary Revascularization in Stable Ischemic Heart Disease Using Randomized Data From the ISCHEMIA Trial
No full textBACKGROUND: The appropriate use criteria for revascularization of stable ischemic heart disease have not been evaluated using randomized data. Using data from the randomized ISCHEMIA trial (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches; July 2012 to January 2018, 37 countries), the health status benefits of an invasive strategy over a conservative one were examined within appropriate use criteria scenarios. METHODS: Among 1833 participants mapped to 36 appropriate use criteria scenarios, symptom status was assessed using the Seattle Angina Questionnaire-7 at 1 year for each scenario and for each of the 6 patient characteristics used to define the scenarios. Coronary anatomy and SYNTAX(Synergy between percutaneous coronary intervention with Taxus and cardiac surgery) scores were measured using coronary computed tomography angiography. Treatment effects are expressed as an odds ratio for a better health status outcome with an invasive versus conservative treatment strategy using Bayesian hierarchical proportional odds models. Differences in the primary clinical outcome were similarly examined. RESULTS: The mean age was 63 years, 81% were male, and 71% were White. Diabetes was present in 28% and multivessel disease in 51%. Most clinical scenarios favored invasive for better 1-year health status. The benefit of an invasive strategy on Seattle Angina Questionnaire angina frequency scores was reduced for asymptomatic patients (odds ratio [95% credible interval], 1.16 [0.66-1.71] versus 2.26 [1.75-2.80]), as well as for those on no antianginal medications. Diabetes, number of diseased vessels, proximal left anterior descending coronary artery location, and SYNTAX score did not effectively identify patients with better health status after invasive treatment, and minimal differences in clinical events were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Applying the randomization scheme from the ISCHEMIA trial to appropriate clinical scenarios revealed baseline symptoms and antianginal therapy to be the primary drivers of health status benefits from invasive management. Consideration should be given to reducing the patient characteristics collected to generate appropriateness ratings to improve the feasibility of future data collection
Baseline characteristics and risk profiles of participants in the ISCHEMIA randomized clinical trial
No full textImportance It is unknown whether coronary revascularization, when added to optimal medical therapy, improves prognosis in patients with stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD) at increased risk of cardiovascular events owing to moderate or severe ischemia.
Objective To describe baseline characteristics of participants enrolled and randomized in the International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches (ISCHEMIA) trial and to evaluate whether qualification by stress imaging or nonimaging exercise tolerance test (ETT) influenced risk profiles.
Design, Setting, and Participants The ISCHEMIA trial recruited patients with SIHD with moderate or severe ischemia on stress testing. Blinded coronary computed tomography angiography was performed in most participants and reviewed by a core laboratory to exclude left main stenosis of at least 50% or no obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) (<50% for imaging stress test and <70% for ETT). The study included 341 enrolling sites (320 randomizing) in 38 countries and patients with SIHD and moderate or severe ischemia on stress testing. Data presented were extracted on December 17, 2018.
Main Outcomes and Measures Enrolled, excluded, and randomized participants’ baseline characteristics. No clinical outcomes are reported.
Results A total of 8518 patients were enrolled, and 5179 were randomized. Common reasons for exclusion were core laboratory determination of insufficient ischemia, unprotected left main stenosis of at least 50%, or no stenosis that met study obstructive CAD criteria on study coronary computed tomography angiography. Randomized participants had a median age of 64 years, with 1168 women (22.6%), 1726 nonwhite participants (33.7%), 748 Hispanic participants (15.5%), 2122 with diabetes (41.0%), and 4643 with a history of angina (89.7%). Among the 3909 participants randomized after stress imaging, core laboratory assessment of ischemia severity (in 3901 participants) was severe in 1748 (44.8%), moderate in 1600 (41.0%), mild in 317 (8.1%) and none or uninterpretable in 236 (6.0%), Among the 1270 participants who were randomized after nonimaging ETT, core laboratory determination of ischemia severity (in 1266 participants) was severe (an eligibility criterion) in 1051 (83.0%), moderate in 101 (8.0%), mild in 34 (2.7%) and none or uninterpretable in 80 (6.3%). Among the 3912 of 5179 randomized participants who underwent coronary computed tomography angiography, 79.0% had multivessel CAD (n = 2679 of 3390) and 86.8% had left anterior descending (LAD) stenosis (n = 3190 of 3677) (proximal in 46.8% [n = 1749 of 3739]). Participants undergoing ETT had greater frequency of 3-vessel CAD, LAD, and proximal LAD stenosis than participants undergoing stress imaging.
Conclusions and Relevance The ISCHEMIA trial randomized an SIHD population with moderate or severe ischemia on stress testing, of whom most had multivessel CAD.
Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0147152
Cardiac myosin activation with omecamtiv mecarbil in systolic heart failure
No full textBACKGROUND The selective cardiac myosin activator omecamtiv mecarbil has been shown to improve cardiac function in patients with heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction. Its effect on cardiovascular outcomes is unknown. METHODS We randomly assigned 8256 patients (inpatients and outpatients) with symptomatic chronic heart failure and an ejection fraction of 35% or less to receive omecamtiv mecarbil (using pharmacokinetic-guided doses of 25 mg, 37.5 mg, or 50 mg twice daily) or placebo, in addition to standard heart-failure therapy. The primary outcome was a composite of a first heart-failure event (hospitalization or urgent visit for heart failure) or death from cardiovascular causes. RESULTS During a median of 21.8 months, a primary-outcome event occurred in 1523 of 4120 patients (37.0%) in the omecamtiv mecarbil group and in 1607 of 4112 patients (39.1%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.86 to 0.99; P = 0.03). A total of 808 patients (19.6%) and 798 patients (19.4%), respectively, died from cardiovascular causes (hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.11). There was no significant difference between groups in the change from baseline on the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire total symptom score. At week 24, the change from baseline for the median N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide level was 10% lower in the omecamtiv mecarbil group than in the placebo group; the median cardiac troponin I level was 4 ng per liter higher. The frequency of cardiac ischemic and ventricular arrhythmia events was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS Among patients with heart failure and a reduced ejection, those who received omecamtiv mecarbil had a lower incidence of a composite of a heart-failure event or death from cardiovascular causes than those who received placebo. (Funded by Amgen and others; GALACTIC-HF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02929329; EudraCT number, 2016 -002299-28.)
Cardiac myosin activation with omecamtiv mecarbil in systolic heart failure
No full textBackground:
The selective cardiac myosin activator omecamtiv mecarbil has been shown to improve cardiac function in patients with heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction. Its effect on cardiovascular outcomes is unknown.
Methods:
We randomly assigned 8256 patients (inpatients and outpatients) with symptomatic chronic heart failure and an ejection fraction of 35% or less to receive omecamtiv mecarbil (using pharmacokinetic-guided doses of 25 mg, 37.5 mg, or 50 mg twice daily) or placebo, in addition to standard heart-failure therapy. The primary outcome was a composite of a first heart-failure event (hospitalization or urgent visit for heart failure) or death from cardiovascular causes.
Results:
During a median of 21.8 months, a primary-outcome event occurred in 1523 of 4120 patients (37.0%) in the omecamtiv mecarbil group and in 1607 of 4112 patients (39.1%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.86 to 0.99; P=0.03). A total of 808 patients (19.6%) and 798 patients (19.4%), respectively, died from cardiovascular causes (hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.11). There was no significant difference between groups in the change from baseline on the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire total symptom score. At week 24, the change from baseline for the median N-terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide level was 10% lower in the omecamtiv mecarbil group than in the placebo group; the median cardiac troponin I level was 4 ng per liter higher. The frequency of cardiac ischemic and ventricular arrhythmia events was similar in the two groups.
Conclusions:
Among patients with heart failure and a reduced ejection, those who received omecamtiv mecarbil had a lower incidence of a composite of a heart-failure event or death from cardiovascular causes than those who received placebo. (Funded by Amgen and others; GALACTIC-HF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02929329. opens in new tab; EudraCT number, 2016-002299-28. opens in new tab.
Rivaroxaban with or without aspirin in patients with stable coronary artery disease: an international, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial
No full textRivaroxaban with or without aspirin in patients with stable peripheral or carotid artery disease: an international, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial
No full textInternational audienceBACKGROUND:Patients with peripheral artery disease have an increased risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Antiplatelet agents are widely used to reduce these complications.METHODS:This was a multicentre, double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial for which patients were recruited at 602 hospitals, clinics, or community practices from 33 countries across six continents. Eligible patients had a history of peripheral artery disease of the lower extremities (previous peripheral bypass surgery or angioplasty, limb or foot amputation, intermittent claudication with objective evidence of peripheral artery disease), of the carotid arteries (previous carotid artery revascularisation or asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis of at least 50%), or coronary artery disease with an ankle-brachial index of less than 0·90. After a 30-day run-in period, patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive oral rivaroxaban (2·5 mg twice a day) plus aspirin (100 mg once a day), rivaroxaban twice a day (5 mg with aspirin placebo once a day), or to aspirin once a day (100 mg and rivaroxaban placebo twice a day). Randomisation was computer generated. Each treatment group was double dummy, and the patient, investigators, and central study staff were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction or stroke; the primary peripheral artery disease outcome was major adverse limb events including major amputation. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01776424, and is closed to new participants.FINDINGS:Between March 12, 2013, and May 10, 2016, we enrolled 7470 patients with peripheral artery disease from 558 centres. The combination of rivaroxaban plus aspirin compared with aspirin alone reduced the composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (126 [5%] of 2492 vs 174 [7%] of 2504; hazard ratio [HR] 0·72, 95% CI 0·57-0·90, p=0·0047), and major adverse limb events including major amputation (32 [1%] vs 60 [2%]; HR 0·54 95% CI 0·35-0·82, p=0·0037). Rivaroxaban 5 mg twice a day compared with aspirin alone did not significantly reduce the composite endpoint (149 [6%] of 2474 vs 174 [7%] of 2504; HR 0·86, 95% CI 0·69-1·08, p=0·19), but reduced major adverse limb events including major amputation (40 [2%] vs 60 [2%]; HR 0·67, 95% CI 0·45-1·00, p=0·05). The median duration of treatment was 21 months. The use of the rivaroxaban plus aspirin combination increased major bleeding compared with the aspirin alone group (77 [3%] of 2492 vs 48 [2%] of 2504; HR 1·61, 95% CI 1·12-2·31, p=0·0089), which was mainly gastrointestinal. Similarly, major bleeding occurred in 79 (3%) of 2474 patients with rivaroxaban 5 mg, and in 48 (2%) of 2504 in the aspirin alone group (HR 1·68, 95% CI 1·17-2·40; p=0·0043).INTERPRETATION:Low-dose rivaroxaban taken twice a day plus aspirin once a day reduced major adverse cardiovascular and limb events when compared with aspirin alone. Although major bleeding was increased, fatal or critical organ bleeding was not. This combination therapy represents an important advance in the management of patients with peripheral artery disease. Rivaroxaban alone did not significantly reduce major adverse cardiovascular events compared with asprin alone, but reduced major adverse limb events and increased major bleeding
