Acquired Cardiovascular Disease

ROME – Measuring platelet function in order to tailor antiplatelet therapy in elderly patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for acute coronary syndromes did not improve their clinical outcomes in the randomized ANTARCTIC trial, Gilles Montalescot, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

“We found absolutely no benefit for this strategy of adjustment of antiplatelet therapy based upon platelet function testing. The study was completely neutral on all types of endpoints, ischemic as well as bleeding,” said Dr. Montalescot, professor of cardiology at the University of Paris VI and director of the cardiac care unit at Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital.

This was a disappointing result in what was the largest-ever randomized clinical trial involving PCI in elderly patients, he said. This was a high-risk population, not only by virtue of everyone being over age 75 years, but because they all presented with ACS. Indeed, one-third of ANTARCTIC participants underwent primary PCI for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.

ANTARCTIC (Assessment of a Normal Versus Tailored Dose of Prasugrel After Stenting in Patients Aged Over 75 Years to Reduce the Composite of Bleeding, Stent Thrombosis, and Ischemic Complications) was carried out as a follow-up to the earlier ARCTIC randomized trial, also conducted by Dr. Montalescot and his coinvestigators. Like ANTARCTIC, ARCTIC, too, showed no clinical benefit for platelet function testing in order to adjust antiplatelet therapy (N Engl J Med. 2012;367:2100-9). At the time, ARCTIC’s critics argued that this individualized strategy didn’t achieve the expected improved outcomes because the trial was conducted in low-risk, stable patients undergoing elective scheduled PCI. In contrast, if there was ever a high-risk population in which platelet function testing and tailored antiplatelet therapy should work, it was in the very high-risk ANTARCTIC population, he said.

ANTARCTIC included 877 elderly patients undergoing urgent PCI for ACS who were placed on low-dose aspirin and randomized to standard antiplatelet therapy with prasugrel (Effient) at 5 mg/day, the European approved dose for long-term maintenance therapy in elderly patients, or to tailored antiplatelet therapy.

Patients in the tailored therapy arm received prasugrel at 5 mg/day for the first 14 days, then underwent platelet function testing with the VerifyNow P2Y12 system. If they demonstrated high on-drug platelet activity, defined as at least 208 P2Y12 reaction units (PRU), their prasugrel was bumped up to 10 mg/day. If their PRU measurement was in what is considered the optimal range for quelling ischemia without promoting bleeding – that is, less than 208 but more than 85 PRU – they remained on prasugrel at 5 mg/day. And if they scored less than 85 PRU, exposing them to excess bleeding risk due to high suppression of platelets, they were switched to clopidogrel (Plavix) at 75 mg/day, a less potent antiplatelet regimen.

Two weeks after their first platelet function measurement, participants in the tailored therapy arm returned for a second round of platelet activity testing, with their antiplatelet regimen once again being adjusted on the basis of the results.

The primary study endpoint was net clinical benefit over a 12-month follow-up period. This was defined as the composite of cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, urgent revascularization, stent thrombosis, and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) types 2, 3, or 5. This composite endpoint occurred in 27.6% of the platelet monitoring group and a near-identical 27.8% of conventionally managed patients.

Of note, 42% of patients in the actively monitored group were within the target platelet inhibition range when tested 14 days into the study. At study’s end, 55% of patients remained on prasugrel at 5 mg/day, 39% were on clopidogrel at 75 mg/day, and less than 4% were on prasugrel at 10 mg/day. Thus, most patients who underwent a dose adjustment on the basis of their VerifyNow results were downgraded to a less-potent antiplatelet regimen. Very few required enhanced platelet suppression in the form of 10 mg/day of prasugrel.

“Platelet function monitoring is difficult to use. Patients have to come back twice to be monitored. It’s costly. It’s time consuming. And platelet function monitoring clearly does not help,” the cardiologist said.

The ANTARCTIC results will likely lead to a revision of the American and European guidelines, which currently give a class IIb/level of evidence C recommendation for platelet function testing in high-risk situations.

“There is a huge literature showing that platelet reactivity affects clinical outcomes,” Dr. Montalescot continued. “One hypothesis now is that platelet reactivity may be only a marker of risk; you can modify it, but that has no impact on patient outcomes. We may be in the same situation here as with HDL cholesterol, for example.”

Discussant Steen Dalby Kristensen, MD, noted that ANTARCTIC is just the latest in a slew of negative randomized clinical trials of individualized antiplatelet therapy for coronary artery disease. In addition to ARCTIC, others include GRAVITAS, TRIGGER PCI, and ASCET. One study, the German/Austrian TROPICAL ACS trial, remains ongoing.

“It really is an intriguing concept that many of us have been fascinated by for years: to identify the sweet spot where, by measuring platelet aggregation and maybe changing the therapy, we can find just the right balance between bleeding and ischemia. The ANTARCTIC results are quite disappointing for platelet-monitoring enthusiasts. Is the whole concept wrong?” said Dr. Kristensen, professor of cardiology and head of the cardiovascular research center at Aarhus (Denmark) University Hospital.

“I think even more disappointing for me than the lack of impact on ischemic events was the bleeding. I would have anticipated that maybe bleeding could be avoided by adjusting the dose, but this was not the case,” he added.

But Stephan Gielen, MD, saw a silver lining in the negative results for ANTARCTIC.

“From my perspective as a clinical interventionalist, I’m happy that you ended up in the way you did. Putting things positively, this study confirms the safety of dual-platelet inhibition with prasugrel at the reduced dose of 5 mg in an elderly population. There is no need to go to the trouble of monitoring platelet function even in this elderly population, which I think for clinical practice is a good message,” said Dr. Gielen of Detmold (Germany) Hospital, who cochaired a press conference where Dr. Montalescot presented the ANTARCTIC results.

Simultaneously with Dr. Montalescot’s presentation at ESC 2016 in Rome, the ANTARCTIC results were published online (Lancet. 2016 Aug 26. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31323-X).

ANTARCTIC was funded by Eli Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, Stentys, Accriva Diagnostics, Medtronic, and the French Foundation for Heart Research. The presenter reported receiving research grants from and/or serving as a consultant to those organizations and numerous others.

bjancin@frontlinemedcom.com

ROME – Measuring platelet function in order to tailor antiplatelet therapy in elderly patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for acute coronary syndromes did not improve their clinical outcomes in the randomized ANTARCTIC trial, Gilles Montalescot, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

“We found absolutely no benefit for this strategy of adjustment of antiplatelet therapy based upon platelet function testing. The study was completely neutral on all types of endpoints, ischemic as well as bleeding,” said Dr. Montalescot, professor of cardiology at the University of Paris VI and director of the cardiac care unit at Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital.

This was a disappointing result in what was the largest-ever randomized clinical trial involving PCI in elderly patients, he said. This was a high-risk population, not only by virtue of everyone being over age 75 years, but because they all presented with ACS. Indeed, one-third of ANTARCTIC participants underwent primary PCI for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.

ANTARCTIC (Assessment of a Normal Versus Tailored Dose of Prasugrel After Stenting in Patients Aged Over 75 Years to Reduce the Composite of Bleeding, Stent Thrombosis, and Ischemic Complications) was carried out as a follow-up to the earlier ARCTIC randomized trial, also conducted by Dr. Montalescot and his coinvestigators. Like ANTARCTIC, ARCTIC, too, showed no clinical benefit for platelet function testing in order to adjust antiplatelet therapy (N Engl J Med. 2012;367:2100-9). At the time, ARCTIC’s critics argued that this individualized strategy didn’t achieve the expected improved outcomes because the trial was conducted in low-risk, stable patients undergoing elective scheduled PCI. In contrast, if there was ever a high-risk population in which platelet function testing and tailored antiplatelet therapy should work, it was in the very high-risk ANTARCTIC population, he said.

ANTARCTIC included 877 elderly patients undergoing urgent PCI for ACS who were placed on low-dose aspirin and randomized to standard antiplatelet therapy with prasugrel (Effient) at 5 mg/day, the European approved dose for long-term maintenance therapy in elderly patients, or to tailored antiplatelet therapy.

Patients in the tailored therapy arm received prasugrel at 5 mg/day for the first 14 days, then underwent platelet function testing with the VerifyNow P2Y12 system. If they demonstrated high on-drug platelet activity, defined as at least 208 P2Y12 reaction units (PRU), their prasugrel was bumped up to 10 mg/day. If their PRU measurement was in what is considered the optimal range for quelling ischemia without promoting bleeding – that is, less than 208 but more than 85 PRU – they remained on prasugrel at 5 mg/day. And if they scored less than 85 PRU, exposing them to excess bleeding risk due to high suppression of platelets, they were switched to clopidogrel (Plavix) at 75 mg/day, a less potent antiplatelet regimen.

Two weeks after their first platelet function measurement, participants in the tailored therapy arm returned for a second round of platelet activity testing, with their antiplatelet regimen once again being adjusted on the basis of the results.

The primary study endpoint was net clinical benefit over a 12-month follow-up period. This was defined as the composite of cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, urgent revascularization, stent thrombosis, and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) types 2, 3, or 5. This composite endpoint occurred in 27.6% of the platelet monitoring group and a near-identical 27.8% of conventionally managed patients.

Of note, 42% of patients in the actively monitored group were within the target platelet inhibition range when tested 14 days into the study. At study’s end, 55% of patients remained on prasugrel at 5 mg/day, 39% were on clopidogrel at 75 mg/day, and less than 4% were on prasugrel at 10 mg/day. Thus, most patients who underwent a dose adjustment on the basis of their VerifyNow results were downgraded to a less-potent antiplatelet regimen. Very few required enhanced platelet suppression in the form of 10 mg/day of prasugrel.

“Platelet function monitoring is difficult to use. Patients have to come back twice to be monitored. It’s costly. It’s time consuming. And platelet function monitoring clearly does not help,” the cardiologist said.

The ANTARCTIC results will likely lead to a revision of the American and European guidelines, which currently give a class IIb/level of evidence C recommendation for platelet function testing in high-risk situations.

“There is a huge literature showing that platelet reactivity affects clinical outcomes,” Dr. Montalescot continued. “One hypothesis now is that platelet reactivity may be only a marker of risk; you can modify it, but that has no impact on patient outcomes. We may be in the same situation here as with HDL cholesterol, for example.”

Discussant Steen Dalby Kristensen, MD, noted that ANTARCTIC is just the latest in a slew of negative randomized clinical trials of individualized antiplatelet therapy for coronary artery disease. In addition to ARCTIC, others include GRAVITAS, TRIGGER PCI, and ASCET. One study, the German/Austrian TROPICAL ACS trial, remains ongoing.

“It really is an intriguing concept that many of us have been fascinated by for years: to identify the sweet spot where, by measuring platelet aggregation and maybe changing the therapy, we can find just the right balance between bleeding and ischemia. The ANTARCTIC results are quite disappointing for platelet-monitoring enthusiasts. Is the whole concept wrong?” said Dr. Kristensen, professor of cardiology and head of the cardiovascular research center at Aarhus (Denmark) University Hospital.

“I think even more disappointing for me than the lack of impact on ischemic events was the bleeding. I would have anticipated that maybe bleeding could be avoided by adjusting the dose, but this was not the case,” he added.

But Stephan Gielen, MD, saw a silver lining in the negative results for ANTARCTIC.

“From my perspective as a clinical interventionalist, I’m happy that you ended up in the way you did. Putting things positively, this study confirms the safety of dual-platelet inhibition with prasugrel at the reduced dose of 5 mg in an elderly population. There is no need to go to the trouble of monitoring platelet function even in this elderly population, which I think for clinical practice is a good message,” said Dr. Gielen of Detmold (Germany) Hospital, who cochaired a press conference where Dr. Montalescot presented the ANTARCTIC results.

Simultaneously with Dr. Montalescot’s presentation at ESC 2016 in Rome, the ANTARCTIC results were published online (Lancet. 2016 Aug 26. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31323-X).

ANTARCTIC was funded by Eli Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, Stentys, Accriva Diagnostics, Medtronic, and the French Foundation for Heart Research. The presenter reported receiving research grants from and/or serving as a consultant to those organizations and numerous others.

bjancin@frontlinemedcom.com

ROME – Measuring platelet function in order to tailor antiplatelet therapy in elderly patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for acute coronary syndromes did not improve their clinical outcomes in the randomized ANTARCTIC trial, Gilles Montalescot, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

“We found absolutely no benefit for this strategy of adjustment of antiplatelet therapy based upon platelet function testing. The study was completely neutral on all types of endpoints, ischemic as well as bleeding,” said Dr. Montalescot, professor of cardiology at the University of Paris VI and director of the cardiac care unit at Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital.

This was a disappointing result in what was the largest-ever randomized clinical trial involving PCI in elderly patients, he said. This was a high-risk population, not only by virtue of everyone being over age 75 years, but because they all presented with ACS. Indeed, one-third of ANTARCTIC participants underwent primary PCI for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.

ANTARCTIC (Assessment of a Normal Versus Tailored Dose of Prasugrel After Stenting in Patients Aged Over 75 Years to Reduce the Composite of Bleeding, Stent Thrombosis, and Ischemic Complications) was carried out as a follow-up to the earlier ARCTIC randomized trial, also conducted by Dr. Montalescot and his coinvestigators. Like ANTARCTIC, ARCTIC, too, showed no clinical benefit for platelet function testing in order to adjust antiplatelet therapy (N Engl J Med. 2012;367:2100-9). At the time, ARCTIC’s critics argued that this individualized strategy didn’t achieve the expected improved outcomes because the trial was conducted in low-risk, stable patients undergoing elective scheduled PCI. In contrast, if there was ever a high-risk population in which platelet function testing and tailored antiplatelet therapy should work, it was in the very high-risk ANTARCTIC population, he said.

ANTARCTIC included 877 elderly patients undergoing urgent PCI for ACS who were placed on low-dose aspirin and randomized to standard antiplatelet therapy with prasugrel (Effient) at 5 mg/day, the European approved dose for long-term maintenance therapy in elderly patients, or to tailored antiplatelet therapy.

Patients in the tailored therapy arm received prasugrel at 5 mg/day for the first 14 days, then underwent platelet function testing with the VerifyNow P2Y12 system. If they demonstrated high on-drug platelet activity, defined as at least 208 P2Y12 reaction units (PRU), their prasugrel was bumped up to 10 mg/day. If their PRU measurement was in what is considered the optimal range for quelling ischemia without promoting bleeding – that is, less than 208 but more than 85 PRU – they remained on prasugrel at 5 mg/day. And if they scored less than 85 PRU, exposing them to excess bleeding risk due to high suppression of platelets, they were switched to clopidogrel (Plavix) at 75 mg/day, a less potent antiplatelet regimen.

Two weeks after their first platelet function measurement, participants in the tailored therapy arm returned for a second round of platelet activity testing, with their antiplatelet regimen once again being adjusted on the basis of the results.

The primary study endpoint was net clinical benefit over a 12-month follow-up period. This was defined as the composite of cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, urgent revascularization, stent thrombosis, and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) types 2, 3, or 5. This composite endpoint occurred in 27.6% of the platelet monitoring group and a near-identical 27.8% of conventionally managed patients.

Of note, 42% of patients in the actively monitored group were within the target platelet inhibition range when tested 14 days into the study. At study’s end, 55% of patients remained on prasugrel at 5 mg/day, 39% were on clopidogrel at 75 mg/day, and less than 4% were on prasugrel at 10 mg/day. Thus, most patients who underwent a dose adjustment on the basis of their VerifyNow results were downgraded to a less-potent antiplatelet regimen. Very few required enhanced platelet suppression in the form of 10 mg/day of prasugrel.

“Platelet function monitoring is difficult to use. Patients have to come back twice to be monitored. It’s costly. It’s time consuming. And platelet function monitoring clearly does not help,” the cardiologist said.

The ANTARCTIC results will likely lead to a revision of the American and European guidelines, which currently give a class IIb/level of evidence C recommendation for platelet function testing in high-risk situations.

“There is a huge literature showing that platelet reactivity affects clinical outcomes,” Dr. Montalescot continued. “One hypothesis now is that platelet reactivity may be only a marker of risk; you can modify it, but that has no impact on patient outcomes. We may be in the same situation here as with HDL cholesterol, for example.”

Discussant Steen Dalby Kristensen, MD, noted that ANTARCTIC is just the latest in a slew of negative randomized clinical trials of individualized antiplatelet therapy for coronary artery disease. In addition to ARCTIC, others include GRAVITAS, TRIGGER PCI, and ASCET. One study, the German/Austrian TROPICAL ACS trial, remains ongoing.

“It really is an intriguing concept that many of us have been fascinated by for years: to identify the sweet spot where, by measuring platelet aggregation and maybe changing the therapy, we can find just the right balance between bleeding and ischemia. The ANTARCTIC results are quite disappointing for platelet-monitoring enthusiasts. Is the whole concept wrong?” said Dr. Kristensen, professor of cardiology and head of the cardiovascular research center at Aarhus (Denmark) University Hospital.

“I think even more disappointing for me than the lack of impact on ischemic events was the bleeding. I would have anticipated that maybe bleeding could be avoided by adjusting the dose, but this was not the case,” he added.

But Stephan Gielen, MD, saw a silver lining in the negative results for ANTARCTIC.

“From my perspective as a clinical interventionalist, I’m happy that you ended up in the way you did. Putting things positively, this study confirms the safety of dual-platelet inhibition with prasugrel at the reduced dose of 5 mg in an elderly population. There is no need to go to the trouble of monitoring platelet function even in this elderly population, which I think for clinical practice is a good message,” said Dr. Gielen of Detmold (Germany) Hospital, who cochaired a press conference where Dr. Montalescot presented the ANTARCTIC results.

Simultaneously with Dr. Montalescot’s presentation at ESC 2016 in Rome, the ANTARCTIC results were published online (Lancet. 2016 Aug 26. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31323-X).

ANTARCTIC was funded by Eli Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, Stentys, Accriva Diagnostics, Medtronic, and the French Foundation for Heart Research. The presenter reported receiving research grants from and/or serving as a consultant to those organizations and numerous others.

bjancin@frontlinemedcom.com

ROME – Adding ticagrelor at 60 mg twice daily in patients on low-dose aspirin due to a prior MI reduced their risk of a first stroke by 25% in a secondary analysis of the landmark PEGASUS-TIMI 54 trial, Marc P. Bonaca, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

PEGASUS-TIMI 54 was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial conducted in more than 21,000 stable patients on low-dose aspirin with a history of an acute MI 1-3 years earlier. The significant reduction in secondary cardiovascular events seen in this study during a median 33 months of follow-up (N Engl J Med. 2015 May 7;372[19]:1791-800) led to approval of ticagrelor (Brilinta) at 60 mg twice daily for long-term secondary prevention.

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

But while PEGASUS-TIMI 54 was a secondary prevention study in terms of cardiovascular events, it was actually a primary prevention study in terms of stroke, since patients with a history of stroke weren’t eligible for enrollment. And in this trial, recipients of ticagrelor at 50 mg twice daily experienced a 25% reduction in the risk of stroke relative to placebo, from 1.94% at 3 years to 1.47%. This benefit was driven by fewer ischemic strokes, with no increase in hemorrhagic strokes seen with ticagrelor. And therein lies a clinical take home point: “When evaluating the overall benefits and risks of long-term ticagrelor in patients with prior MI, stroke reduction should also be considered,” according to Dr. Bonaca of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

All strokes were adjudicated and subclassified by a blinded central committee. A total of 213 stroke events occurred during follow-up: 81% ischemic, 7% hemorrhagic, 4% ischemic with hemorrhagic conversion, and 8% unknown; 18% of the strokes were fatal. Another 15% resulted in moderate or severe disability at 30 days. All PEGASUS-TIMI 54 participants were on aspirin and more than 90% were on statin therapy.

The strokes that occurred in patients on ticagrelor were generally less severe than in controls. The risk of having a modified Rankin score of 3-6, which encompasses outcomes ranging from moderate disability to death, was reduced by 43% in stroke patients on ticagrelor relative to those on placebo, the cardiologist continued.

To ensure that the stroke benefit with ticagrelor seen in PEGASUS-TIMI 54 wasn’t a fluke, Dr. Bonaca and his coinvestigators performed a meta-analysis of four placebo-controlled randomized trials of more intensive versus less intensive antiplatelet therapy in nearly 45,000 participants with coronary disease in the CHARISMA, DAPT, PEGASUS-TIMI 54, and TRA 2*P-TIMI 50 trials. A total of 532 strokes occurred in this enlarged analysis. More intensive antiplatelet therapy – typically adding a second drug to low-dose aspirin – resulted in a 34% reduction in ischemic stroke, compared with low-dose aspirin and placebo.

Excluding from the meta-analysis the large subgroup of patients in TRA 2*P-TIMI 50 who were on triple-drug antiplatelet therapy, investigators were left with 32,348 participants in the four trials who were randomized to dual-antiplatelet therapy or monotherapy with aspirin. In this population, there was no increase in the risk of hemorrhagic stroke associated with more intensive antiplatelet therapy, according to Dr. Bonaca.

Session co-chair Keith A.A. Fox, MD, of the University of Edinburgh, noted that various studies have shown monotherapy with aspirin or another antiplatelet agent reduces stroke risk by about 15%, and now PEGASUS-TIMI 54 shows that ticagrelor plus aspirin decreases stroke risk by 25%. He posed a direct question: “How much is too much?”

“More and more antiplatelet therapy begets more bleeding, so I think that more than two agents may be approaching too much, although it really depends on what agents you’re using and in what dosages,” Dr. Bonaca replied.

He reported serving as a consultant to AstraZeneca, Merck, and Bayer.

Simultaneous with Dr. Bonaca’s presentation at ESC 2016 in Rome, the new report from PEGASUS-TIMI 54 including the four-trial meta-analysis was published online (Circulation. 2016 Aug 30. doi: circulationaha.116.024637).

bjancin@frontlinemedcom.com

ROME – Adding ticagrelor at 60 mg twice daily in patients on low-dose aspirin due to a prior MI reduced their risk of a first stroke by 25% in a secondary analysis of the landmark PEGASUS-TIMI 54 trial, Marc P. Bonaca, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

PEGASUS-TIMI 54 was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial conducted in more than 21,000 stable patients on low-dose aspirin with a history of an acute MI 1-3 years earlier. The significant reduction in secondary cardiovascular events seen in this study during a median 33 months of follow-up (N Engl J Med. 2015 May 7;372[19]:1791-800) led to approval of ticagrelor (Brilinta) at 60 mg twice daily for long-term secondary prevention.

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

But while PEGASUS-TIMI 54 was a secondary prevention study in terms of cardiovascular events, it was actually a primary prevention study in terms of stroke, since patients with a history of stroke weren’t eligible for enrollment. And in this trial, recipients of ticagrelor at 50 mg twice daily experienced a 25% reduction in the risk of stroke relative to placebo, from 1.94% at 3 years to 1.47%. This benefit was driven by fewer ischemic strokes, with no increase in hemorrhagic strokes seen with ticagrelor. And therein lies a clinical take home point: “When evaluating the overall benefits and risks of long-term ticagrelor in patients with prior MI, stroke reduction should also be considered,” according to Dr. Bonaca of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

All strokes were adjudicated and subclassified by a blinded central committee. A total of 213 stroke events occurred during follow-up: 81% ischemic, 7% hemorrhagic, 4% ischemic with hemorrhagic conversion, and 8% unknown; 18% of the strokes were fatal. Another 15% resulted in moderate or severe disability at 30 days. All PEGASUS-TIMI 54 participants were on aspirin and more than 90% were on statin therapy.

The strokes that occurred in patients on ticagrelor were generally less severe than in controls. The risk of having a modified Rankin score of 3-6, which encompasses outcomes ranging from moderate disability to death, was reduced by 43% in stroke patients on ticagrelor relative to those on placebo, the cardiologist continued.

To ensure that the stroke benefit with ticagrelor seen in PEGASUS-TIMI 54 wasn’t a fluke, Dr. Bonaca and his coinvestigators performed a meta-analysis of four placebo-controlled randomized trials of more intensive versus less intensive antiplatelet therapy in nearly 45,000 participants with coronary disease in the CHARISMA, DAPT, PEGASUS-TIMI 54, and TRA 2*P-TIMI 50 trials. A total of 532 strokes occurred in this enlarged analysis. More intensive antiplatelet therapy – typically adding a second drug to low-dose aspirin – resulted in a 34% reduction in ischemic stroke, compared with low-dose aspirin and placebo.

Excluding from the meta-analysis the large subgroup of patients in TRA 2*P-TIMI 50 who were on triple-drug antiplatelet therapy, investigators were left with 32,348 participants in the four trials who were randomized to dual-antiplatelet therapy or monotherapy with aspirin. In this population, there was no increase in the risk of hemorrhagic stroke associated with more intensive antiplatelet therapy, according to Dr. Bonaca.

Session co-chair Keith A.A. Fox, MD, of the University of Edinburgh, noted that various studies have shown monotherapy with aspirin or another antiplatelet agent reduces stroke risk by about 15%, and now PEGASUS-TIMI 54 shows that ticagrelor plus aspirin decreases stroke risk by 25%. He posed a direct question: “How much is too much?”

“More and more antiplatelet therapy begets more bleeding, so I think that more than two agents may be approaching too much, although it really depends on what agents you’re using and in what dosages,” Dr. Bonaca replied.

He reported serving as a consultant to AstraZeneca, Merck, and Bayer.

Simultaneous with Dr. Bonaca’s presentation at ESC 2016 in Rome, the new report from PEGASUS-TIMI 54 including the four-trial meta-analysis was published online (Circulation. 2016 Aug 30. doi: circulationaha.116.024637).

bjancin@frontlinemedcom.com

ROME – Adding ticagrelor at 60 mg twice daily in patients on low-dose aspirin due to a prior MI reduced their risk of a first stroke by 25% in a secondary analysis of the landmark PEGASUS-TIMI 54 trial, Marc P. Bonaca, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

PEGASUS-TIMI 54 was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial conducted in more than 21,000 stable patients on low-dose aspirin with a history of an acute MI 1-3 years earlier. The significant reduction in secondary cardiovascular events seen in this study during a median 33 months of follow-up (N Engl J Med. 2015 May 7;372[19]:1791-800) led to approval of ticagrelor (Brilinta) at 60 mg twice daily for long-term secondary prevention.

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

But while PEGASUS-TIMI 54 was a secondary prevention study in terms of cardiovascular events, it was actually a primary prevention study in terms of stroke, since patients with a history of stroke weren’t eligible for enrollment. And in this trial, recipients of ticagrelor at 50 mg twice daily experienced a 25% reduction in the risk of stroke relative to placebo, from 1.94% at 3 years to 1.47%. This benefit was driven by fewer ischemic strokes, with no increase in hemorrhagic strokes seen with ticagrelor. And therein lies a clinical take home point: “When evaluating the overall benefits and risks of long-term ticagrelor in patients with prior MI, stroke reduction should also be considered,” according to Dr. Bonaca of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston.

All strokes were adjudicated and subclassified by a blinded central committee. A total of 213 stroke events occurred during follow-up: 81% ischemic, 7% hemorrhagic, 4% ischemic with hemorrhagic conversion, and 8% unknown; 18% of the strokes were fatal. Another 15% resulted in moderate or severe disability at 30 days. All PEGASUS-TIMI 54 participants were on aspirin and more than 90% were on statin therapy.

The strokes that occurred in patients on ticagrelor were generally less severe than in controls. The risk of having a modified Rankin score of 3-6, which encompasses outcomes ranging from moderate disability to death, was reduced by 43% in stroke patients on ticagrelor relative to those on placebo, the cardiologist continued.

To ensure that the stroke benefit with ticagrelor seen in PEGASUS-TIMI 54 wasn’t a fluke, Dr. Bonaca and his coinvestigators performed a meta-analysis of four placebo-controlled randomized trials of more intensive versus less intensive antiplatelet therapy in nearly 45,000 participants with coronary disease in the CHARISMA, DAPT, PEGASUS-TIMI 54, and TRA 2*P-TIMI 50 trials. A total of 532 strokes occurred in this enlarged analysis. More intensive antiplatelet therapy – typically adding a second drug to low-dose aspirin – resulted in a 34% reduction in ischemic stroke, compared with low-dose aspirin and placebo.

Excluding from the meta-analysis the large subgroup of patients in TRA 2*P-TIMI 50 who were on triple-drug antiplatelet therapy, investigators were left with 32,348 participants in the four trials who were randomized to dual-antiplatelet therapy or monotherapy with aspirin. In this population, there was no increase in the risk of hemorrhagic stroke associated with more intensive antiplatelet therapy, according to Dr. Bonaca.

Session co-chair Keith A.A. Fox, MD, of the University of Edinburgh, noted that various studies have shown monotherapy with aspirin or another antiplatelet agent reduces stroke risk by about 15%, and now PEGASUS-TIMI 54 shows that ticagrelor plus aspirin decreases stroke risk by 25%. He posed a direct question: “How much is too much?”

“More and more antiplatelet therapy begets more bleeding, so I think that more than two agents may be approaching too much, although it really depends on what agents you’re using and in what dosages,” Dr. Bonaca replied.

He reported serving as a consultant to AstraZeneca, Merck, and Bayer.

Simultaneous with Dr. Bonaca’s presentation at ESC 2016 in Rome, the new report from PEGASUS-TIMI 54 including the four-trial meta-analysis was published online (Circulation. 2016 Aug 30. doi: circulationaha.116.024637).

bjancin@frontlinemedcom.com

New NOACs have largely replaced the need for vitamin K antagonists

The discovery of oral anticoagulants began in 1924, when Schofield linked the death of grazing cattle from internal hemorrhage to the consumption of spoiled sweet clover hay.¹ It was not until 1941, however, while trying to understand this observation that Campbell and Link were able to identify the dicoumarol anticoagulant, which formed as a result of the spoiling process.² Ultimately, after noting that vitamin K led to reversal of the dicoumarol effect, synthesis of the first class of oral anticoagulants, known as vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) began. Despite the numerous challenges associated with managing patients using this class of anticoagulants, VKAs have become the mainstay of oral anticoagulation therapy for the past 70 years. Over the past 5 years, however, new oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have emerged and are changing clinical practice. Mechanistically, these medications are targeted therapies and work as either direct thrombin inhibitors (dabigatran etexilate) or direct factor Xa inhibitors (rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban). Given their favorable pharmacologic design, NOACs have the potential to replace VKAs as they not only have an encouraging safety profile, but also are therapeutically equivalent or even superior to VKAs when used in certain patient populations.

Pharmacologic design

The targeted drug design of NOACs provides many pharmacologic advantages. Compared with VKAs, NOACs have a notably more predictable pharmacologic profile and relatively wide therapeutic window, which allows for fixed dosing, a rapid onset and offset, and fewer drug interactions.³ These characteristics eliminate the need for the routine dose monitoring and serial dose adjustments frequently associated with VKAs. Additionally, NOACs less commonly require bridging therapy with parenteral unfractionated heparin or low molecular weight heparins (LMWH) while awaiting therapeutic drug levels, as these levels are reached sooner and more predictably than with VKAs.⁴ As with any medication, however, appropriate consideration should to be given to specific patient populations such as those who are older or have significant comorbidities which may influence drug effect and clearance.

Lastly, it should be mentioned that the pharmacologic benefits of NOACs are not only beneficial from a patient perspective, but also from a health care systems standpoint as their use may provide an opportunity to deliver more cost-effective care. Specifically, economic models using available clinical trial data for stroke prevention in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation have shown that NOACs (apixaban, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban) are cost-effective alternatives when compared with warfarin.⁵ Although the results from such economic analyses are limited by the modeling assumptions they rely upon, these findings suggest that, at least initially, cost should not be used as a prohibitive reason for adopting these new therapeutics.

Patient selection

The decision to institute oral anticoagulation therapy depends on each patient’s individualized bleeding risk to benefit of ischemia prevention ratio. A major determinant of this ratio is the clinical indication for which anticoagulation is begun. Numerous phase III clinical trials have been conducted comparing the use of NOACs versus VKAs or placebos for the management of nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF), venous thromboembolism (VTE), and as adjunctive therapy for patients with acute coronary syndrome.⁶ Meta-analyses of randomized trials have shown the most significant benefit to be in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation where NOACs have significant reductions in stroke, intracranial hemorrhage, and all-cause mortality, compared with warfarin while displaying variable effects with regards to gastrointestinal bleeding.^6,7

In patients with VTE, NOACs have been found to have similar efficacy, compared with VKAs, with regard to the prevention of VTE or VTE-related death, and have been noted to have a better safety profile.⁶ Lastly, when studied as an adjunctive agent to dual antiplatelet therapy in patients with acute coronary syndrome, it should be noted that NOACs have been associated with an increased bleeding risk without a significant decrease in thrombosis risk.⁶ Taken together, these data suggest that the primary indication for instituting NOAC therapy should be considered strongly when deciding upon the class of anticoagulant to use.

Overcoming challenges

Since the introduction of NOACs, there has been concern over the lack of specific antidotes to therapy, especially when administered in patients with impaired clearance, a high likelihood of need for an urgent or emergent procedure, or those presenting with life-threatening bleeding complications. Most recently, however, interim analysis from clinical trial data has shown complete reversal of the direct thrombin inhibitor dabigatran with the humanized monocolonal antibody idarucizumab within minutes of administration in greater than 88% of patients studied.⁸ Similarly, agents such as a PER977 are currently in phase II clinical trials as they have been shown to form noncovalent hydrogen bonds and charge-charge interactions with oral factor Xa inhibitors as well as oral thrombin inhibitors leading to their reversal.⁹ Given these promising findings, it likely will not be long until reversal agents for NOACs become clinically available. Until that time, it is encouraging that the bleeding profile of these drugs has been found to be favorable, compared with VKAs, and their short half-life allows for a relatively expeditious natural reversal of their anticoagulant effect as the drug is eliminated.

Conclusions

Unlike the serendipitous path leading to the discovery of the first class of oral anticoagulants (VKAs), NOACs have been specifically designed to provide targeted anticoagulation and to address the shortcomings of VKAs. To this end, NOACs are becoming increasingly important in the management of patients with specific clinical conditions such as nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and venous thromboembolism where they have been shown to provide a larger net clinical benefit relative to the available alternatives. Furthermore, with economic analyses providing evidence that NOACs are cost-effective for the health care system and clinical trial results suggesting progress in the development of antidotes for reversal, it is likely that with growing experience, these agents will replace VKAs as the mainstay for prophylactic and therapeutic oral anticoagulation in targeted patient populations.

Madhukar S. Patel, MD, and Elliot L. Chaikof, MD, are from the department of surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston. They reported having no conflicts of interest.

References

1. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1924;64:553-575

2. J Biol Chem 1941;138:21-33

3. Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program 2013;2013:464-470

4. Eur Heart J 2013;34:2094-2106

5. Stroke 2013;44:1676-1681

6. Nat Rev Cardiol 2014;11:693-703

7. Lancet 2014;383:955-962

8. N Engl J Med 2015;373:511-520

9. N Engl J Med 2014;371:2141-2142

What the doctor didn’t order: unintended consequences and pitfalls of NOACs

Recently, several new oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have gained FDA approval to replace warfarin, capturing the attention of popular media. These include dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban. Dabigatran targets activated factor II (factor IIa), while rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban target activated factor X (factor Xa). Easy to take with a once or twice daily pill, with no cumbersome monitoring, they represent a seemingly ideal treatment for the chronically anticoagulated patient. All agents are currently FDA approved in the United States for treatment of acute VTE and AF.

Dabigatran and edoxaban

Similar to warfarin, dabigatran and edoxaban require the use of a LMWH or UFH “bridge” when therapy is beginning, while rivaroxaban and apixaban are instituted as monotherapy without such a bridge. Dabigatran etexilate (PradaxaR, Boehringer Ingelheim) has the longest half-life of all of the NOACs at 12-17 hours, and this half-life is prolonged with increasing age and decreasing renal function.¹ It is the only new agent which can be at least partially reversed with dialysis.² Edoxaban (SavaysaR, Daiichi Sankyo) carries a boxed warning stating that this agent is less effective in AF patients with a creatinine clearance greater than 95 mL/min, and that kidney function should be assessed prior to starting treatment: Such patients have a greater risk of stroke, compared with similar patients treated with warfarin. Edoxaban is the only agent specifically tested at a lower dose in patients at significantly increased risk of bleeding complications (low body weight and/or decreased creatinine clearance).³

Rivaroxaban and apixaban

Rivaroxaban (XareltoR, Bayer and Janssen), and apixaban (EliquisR, Bristol Myers-Squibb), unique amongst the NOACs, have been tested for extended therapy of acute deep vein thrombosis after treatment of 6-12 months. They were found to result in a significant decrease in recurrent VTE without an increase in major bleeding, compared with placebo.^4,5 Rivaroxaban has once-daily dosing and apixaban has twice-daily dosing; both are immediate monotherapy, making them quite convenient for patients. Apixaban is the only agent among the NOACs to have a slight decrease in gastrointestinal bleeding, compared with warfarin.⁶

Consequences and pitfalls with NOACs

Problems with these new drugs, which may diminish our current level of enthusiasm for these agents to totally replace warfarin, include the inability to reliably follow their levels or reverse their anticoagulant effects, the lack of data available on bridging when other procedures need to be performed, their short half-lives, and the lack of data on their anti-inflammatory effects. With regard to monitoring of anticoagulation, the International Society of Thrombosis and Hemostasis (ISTH) has published the times when it might be useful to obtain levels. These times include:

• When a patient is bleeding.

• Before surgery or an invasive procedure when the patient has taken the drug in the previous 24 hours, or longer if creatinine clearance (CrCl) is less than 50 mL min.

• Identification of subtherapeutic or supratherapeutic levels in patients taking other drugs that are known to affect pharmacokinetics.

• Identification of subtherapeutic or supratherapeutic levels in patients at body weight extremes.

• Patients with deteriorating renal function.

• During perioperative management.

• During reversal of anticoagulation.

• When there is suspicion of overdose.

• Assessment of compliance in patients suffering thrombotic events while on treatment.⁷

Currently, there exists no commercially available reversal agent for any of the NOACs, and existing reversal agents for traditional anticoagulants are of limited, if any, use. Drugs under development include agents for the factor Xa inhibitors and for the thrombin inhibitor. Until the time that specific reversal agents exist, supportive care is the mainstay of therapy. In cases of trauma or severe or life-threatening bleeding, administration of concentrated clotting factors (prothrombin complex concentrate) or dialysis (dabigatran only) may be utilized. However, data from large clinical trials are lacking. A recent study of 90 patients receiving an antibody directed against dabigatran has revealed that the anticoagulant effects of dabigatran were reversed safely within minutes of administration; however drug levels were not consistently suppressed at 24 hours in 20% of the cohort.⁸

Currently there are no national guidelines or large scale studies to guide bridging NOACs for procedures.

The relatively short half-life for these agents makes it likely that traditional bridging as is practiced for warfarin is not necessary.9 However, this represents a double-edged sword; withholding anticoagulation for two doses (such as if a patient becomes ill or a clinician is overly cautious around the time of a procedure) may leave the patient unprotected.

The final question with the new agents is their anti-inflammatory effects. We know that heparin and LMWH have significant pleiotropic effects that are not necessarily related to their anticoagulant effects. These effects are important in order to decrease the inflammatory nature of the thrombus and its effect on the vein wall. We do not know if the new oral agents have similar effects, as this has never fully been tested. In view of the fact that two of the agents are being used as monotherapy agents without any heparin/LMWH bridge, the anti-inflammatory properties of these new agents should be defined to make sure that such a bridge is not necessary.

So, in summary, although these agents have much to offer, there are many questions that remain to be addressed and answered before they totally replace traditional approaches to anticoagulation, in the realm of VTE. It must not be overlooked that despite all the benefits, they also each carry a risk of bleeding as they all target portions of the coagulation mechanism. We caution that, as with any “gift horse,” physicians should perhaps examine the data more closely and proceed with caution.

Thomas Wakefield, MD, is the Stanley Professor of Vascular Surgery; head, section of vascular surgery; and director, Samuel and Jean Frankel Cardiovascular Center. Andrea Obi, MD, is a vascular surgery fellow and Dawn Coleman MD, is the program director, section of vascular surgery, all at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. They reported having no conflicts of interest.

References

1. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:2342-2352

2. J Vasc Surg: Venous and Lymphatic Disorders. 2013;1:418-426

3. N Engl J Med 2013;369:1406-1415

4. N Engl J Med 2010;363:2499-2510

5. N Engl J Med 2013;368:699-708

6. Arteriosclerosis, thrombosis, and vascular biology 2015;35:1056-1065

7. J Thrombosis and Haemostasis 2013;11:756-760

8. N Engl J Med 2015; 373: 511-520

9. Current Opinion in Anaesthesiology. 2014;27:409-19

New NOACs have largely replaced the need for vitamin K antagonists

The discovery of oral anticoagulants began in 1924, when Schofield linked the death of grazing cattle from internal hemorrhage to the consumption of spoiled sweet clover hay.¹ It was not until 1941, however, while trying to understand this observation that Campbell and Link were able to identify the dicoumarol anticoagulant, which formed as a result of the spoiling process.² Ultimately, after noting that vitamin K led to reversal of the dicoumarol effect, synthesis of the first class of oral anticoagulants, known as vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) began. Despite the numerous challenges associated with managing patients using this class of anticoagulants, VKAs have become the mainstay of oral anticoagulation therapy for the past 70 years. Over the past 5 years, however, new oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have emerged and are changing clinical practice. Mechanistically, these medications are targeted therapies and work as either direct thrombin inhibitors (dabigatran etexilate) or direct factor Xa inhibitors (rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban). Given their favorable pharmacologic design, NOACs have the potential to replace VKAs as they not only have an encouraging safety profile, but also are therapeutically equivalent or even superior to VKAs when used in certain patient populations.

Pharmacologic design

The targeted drug design of NOACs provides many pharmacologic advantages. Compared with VKAs, NOACs have a notably more predictable pharmacologic profile and relatively wide therapeutic window, which allows for fixed dosing, a rapid onset and offset, and fewer drug interactions.³ These characteristics eliminate the need for the routine dose monitoring and serial dose adjustments frequently associated with VKAs. Additionally, NOACs less commonly require bridging therapy with parenteral unfractionated heparin or low molecular weight heparins (LMWH) while awaiting therapeutic drug levels, as these levels are reached sooner and more predictably than with VKAs.⁴ As with any medication, however, appropriate consideration should to be given to specific patient populations such as those who are older or have significant comorbidities which may influence drug effect and clearance.

Lastly, it should be mentioned that the pharmacologic benefits of NOACs are not only beneficial from a patient perspective, but also from a health care systems standpoint as their use may provide an opportunity to deliver more cost-effective care. Specifically, economic models using available clinical trial data for stroke prevention in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation have shown that NOACs (apixaban, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban) are cost-effective alternatives when compared with warfarin.⁵ Although the results from such economic analyses are limited by the modeling assumptions they rely upon, these findings suggest that, at least initially, cost should not be used as a prohibitive reason for adopting these new therapeutics.

Patient selection

The decision to institute oral anticoagulation therapy depends on each patient’s individualized bleeding risk to benefit of ischemia prevention ratio. A major determinant of this ratio is the clinical indication for which anticoagulation is begun. Numerous phase III clinical trials have been conducted comparing the use of NOACs versus VKAs or placebos for the management of nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF), venous thromboembolism (VTE), and as adjunctive therapy for patients with acute coronary syndrome.⁶ Meta-analyses of randomized trials have shown the most significant benefit to be in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation where NOACs have significant reductions in stroke, intracranial hemorrhage, and all-cause mortality, compared with warfarin while displaying variable effects with regards to gastrointestinal bleeding.^6,7

In patients with VTE, NOACs have been found to have similar efficacy, compared with VKAs, with regard to the prevention of VTE or VTE-related death, and have been noted to have a better safety profile.⁶ Lastly, when studied as an adjunctive agent to dual antiplatelet therapy in patients with acute coronary syndrome, it should be noted that NOACs have been associated with an increased bleeding risk without a significant decrease in thrombosis risk.⁶ Taken together, these data suggest that the primary indication for instituting NOAC therapy should be considered strongly when deciding upon the class of anticoagulant to use.

Overcoming challenges

Since the introduction of NOACs, there has been concern over the lack of specific antidotes to therapy, especially when administered in patients with impaired clearance, a high likelihood of need for an urgent or emergent procedure, or those presenting with life-threatening bleeding complications. Most recently, however, interim analysis from clinical trial data has shown complete reversal of the direct thrombin inhibitor dabigatran with the humanized monocolonal antibody idarucizumab within minutes of administration in greater than 88% of patients studied.⁸ Similarly, agents such as a PER977 are currently in phase II clinical trials as they have been shown to form noncovalent hydrogen bonds and charge-charge interactions with oral factor Xa inhibitors as well as oral thrombin inhibitors leading to their reversal.⁹ Given these promising findings, it likely will not be long until reversal agents for NOACs become clinically available. Until that time, it is encouraging that the bleeding profile of these drugs has been found to be favorable, compared with VKAs, and their short half-life allows for a relatively expeditious natural reversal of their anticoagulant effect as the drug is eliminated.

Conclusions

Unlike the serendipitous path leading to the discovery of the first class of oral anticoagulants (VKAs), NOACs have been specifically designed to provide targeted anticoagulation and to address the shortcomings of VKAs. To this end, NOACs are becoming increasingly important in the management of patients with specific clinical conditions such as nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and venous thromboembolism where they have been shown to provide a larger net clinical benefit relative to the available alternatives. Furthermore, with economic analyses providing evidence that NOACs are cost-effective for the health care system and clinical trial results suggesting progress in the development of antidotes for reversal, it is likely that with growing experience, these agents will replace VKAs as the mainstay for prophylactic and therapeutic oral anticoagulation in targeted patient populations.

Madhukar S. Patel, MD, and Elliot L. Chaikof, MD, are from the department of surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston. They reported having no conflicts of interest.

References

1. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1924;64:553-575

2. J Biol Chem 1941;138:21-33

3. Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program 2013;2013:464-470

4. Eur Heart J 2013;34:2094-2106

5. Stroke 2013;44:1676-1681

6. Nat Rev Cardiol 2014;11:693-703

7. Lancet 2014;383:955-962

8. N Engl J Med 2015;373:511-520

9. N Engl J Med 2014;371:2141-2142

What the doctor didn’t order: unintended consequences and pitfalls of NOACs

Recently, several new oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have gained FDA approval to replace warfarin, capturing the attention of popular media. These include dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban. Dabigatran targets activated factor II (factor IIa), while rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban target activated factor X (factor Xa). Easy to take with a once or twice daily pill, with no cumbersome monitoring, they represent a seemingly ideal treatment for the chronically anticoagulated patient. All agents are currently FDA approved in the United States for treatment of acute VTE and AF.

Dabigatran and edoxaban

Similar to warfarin, dabigatran and edoxaban require the use of a LMWH or UFH “bridge” when therapy is beginning, while rivaroxaban and apixaban are instituted as monotherapy without such a bridge. Dabigatran etexilate (PradaxaR, Boehringer Ingelheim) has the longest half-life of all of the NOACs at 12-17 hours, and this half-life is prolonged with increasing age and decreasing renal function.¹ It is the only new agent which can be at least partially reversed with dialysis.² Edoxaban (SavaysaR, Daiichi Sankyo) carries a boxed warning stating that this agent is less effective in AF patients with a creatinine clearance greater than 95 mL/min, and that kidney function should be assessed prior to starting treatment: Such patients have a greater risk of stroke, compared with similar patients treated with warfarin. Edoxaban is the only agent specifically tested at a lower dose in patients at significantly increased risk of bleeding complications (low body weight and/or decreased creatinine clearance).³

Rivaroxaban and apixaban

Rivaroxaban (XareltoR, Bayer and Janssen), and apixaban (EliquisR, Bristol Myers-Squibb), unique amongst the NOACs, have been tested for extended therapy of acute deep vein thrombosis after treatment of 6-12 months. They were found to result in a significant decrease in recurrent VTE without an increase in major bleeding, compared with placebo.^4,5 Rivaroxaban has once-daily dosing and apixaban has twice-daily dosing; both are immediate monotherapy, making them quite convenient for patients. Apixaban is the only agent among the NOACs to have a slight decrease in gastrointestinal bleeding, compared with warfarin.⁶

Consequences and pitfalls with NOACs

Problems with these new drugs, which may diminish our current level of enthusiasm for these agents to totally replace warfarin, include the inability to reliably follow their levels or reverse their anticoagulant effects, the lack of data available on bridging when other procedures need to be performed, their short half-lives, and the lack of data on their anti-inflammatory effects. With regard to monitoring of anticoagulation, the International Society of Thrombosis and Hemostasis (ISTH) has published the times when it might be useful to obtain levels. These times include:

• When a patient is bleeding.

• Before surgery or an invasive procedure when the patient has taken the drug in the previous 24 hours, or longer if creatinine clearance (CrCl) is less than 50 mL min.

• Identification of subtherapeutic or supratherapeutic levels in patients taking other drugs that are known to affect pharmacokinetics.

• Identification of subtherapeutic or supratherapeutic levels in patients at body weight extremes.

• Patients with deteriorating renal function.

• During perioperative management.

• During reversal of anticoagulation.

• When there is suspicion of overdose.

• Assessment of compliance in patients suffering thrombotic events while on treatment.⁷

Currently, there exists no commercially available reversal agent for any of the NOACs, and existing reversal agents for traditional anticoagulants are of limited, if any, use. Drugs under development include agents for the factor Xa inhibitors and for the thrombin inhibitor. Until the time that specific reversal agents exist, supportive care is the mainstay of therapy. In cases of trauma or severe or life-threatening bleeding, administration of concentrated clotting factors (prothrombin complex concentrate) or dialysis (dabigatran only) may be utilized. However, data from large clinical trials are lacking. A recent study of 90 patients receiving an antibody directed against dabigatran has revealed that the anticoagulant effects of dabigatran were reversed safely within minutes of administration; however drug levels were not consistently suppressed at 24 hours in 20% of the cohort.⁸

Currently there are no national guidelines or large scale studies to guide bridging NOACs for procedures.

The relatively short half-life for these agents makes it likely that traditional bridging as is practiced for warfarin is not necessary.9 However, this represents a double-edged sword; withholding anticoagulation for two doses (such as if a patient becomes ill or a clinician is overly cautious around the time of a procedure) may leave the patient unprotected.

The final question with the new agents is their anti-inflammatory effects. We know that heparin and LMWH have significant pleiotropic effects that are not necessarily related to their anticoagulant effects. These effects are important in order to decrease the inflammatory nature of the thrombus and its effect on the vein wall. We do not know if the new oral agents have similar effects, as this has never fully been tested. In view of the fact that two of the agents are being used as monotherapy agents without any heparin/LMWH bridge, the anti-inflammatory properties of these new agents should be defined to make sure that such a bridge is not necessary.

So, in summary, although these agents have much to offer, there are many questions that remain to be addressed and answered before they totally replace traditional approaches to anticoagulation, in the realm of VTE. It must not be overlooked that despite all the benefits, they also each carry a risk of bleeding as they all target portions of the coagulation mechanism. We caution that, as with any “gift horse,” physicians should perhaps examine the data more closely and proceed with caution.

Thomas Wakefield, MD, is the Stanley Professor of Vascular Surgery; head, section of vascular surgery; and director, Samuel and Jean Frankel Cardiovascular Center. Andrea Obi, MD, is a vascular surgery fellow and Dawn Coleman MD, is the program director, section of vascular surgery, all at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. They reported having no conflicts of interest.

References

1. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:2342-2352

2. J Vasc Surg: Venous and Lymphatic Disorders. 2013;1:418-426

3. N Engl J Med 2013;369:1406-1415

4. N Engl J Med 2010;363:2499-2510

5. N Engl J Med 2013;368:699-708

6. Arteriosclerosis, thrombosis, and vascular biology 2015;35:1056-1065

7. J Thrombosis and Haemostasis 2013;11:756-760

8. N Engl J Med 2015; 373: 511-520

9. Current Opinion in Anaesthesiology. 2014;27:409-19

New NOACs have largely replaced the need for vitamin K antagonists

The discovery of oral anticoagulants began in 1924, when Schofield linked the death of grazing cattle from internal hemorrhage to the consumption of spoiled sweet clover hay.¹ It was not until 1941, however, while trying to understand this observation that Campbell and Link were able to identify the dicoumarol anticoagulant, which formed as a result of the spoiling process.² Ultimately, after noting that vitamin K led to reversal of the dicoumarol effect, synthesis of the first class of oral anticoagulants, known as vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) began. Despite the numerous challenges associated with managing patients using this class of anticoagulants, VKAs have become the mainstay of oral anticoagulation therapy for the past 70 years. Over the past 5 years, however, new oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have emerged and are changing clinical practice. Mechanistically, these medications are targeted therapies and work as either direct thrombin inhibitors (dabigatran etexilate) or direct factor Xa inhibitors (rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban). Given their favorable pharmacologic design, NOACs have the potential to replace VKAs as they not only have an encouraging safety profile, but also are therapeutically equivalent or even superior to VKAs when used in certain patient populations.

Pharmacologic design

The targeted drug design of NOACs provides many pharmacologic advantages. Compared with VKAs, NOACs have a notably more predictable pharmacologic profile and relatively wide therapeutic window, which allows for fixed dosing, a rapid onset and offset, and fewer drug interactions.³ These characteristics eliminate the need for the routine dose monitoring and serial dose adjustments frequently associated with VKAs. Additionally, NOACs less commonly require bridging therapy with parenteral unfractionated heparin or low molecular weight heparins (LMWH) while awaiting therapeutic drug levels, as these levels are reached sooner and more predictably than with VKAs.⁴ As with any medication, however, appropriate consideration should to be given to specific patient populations such as those who are older or have significant comorbidities which may influence drug effect and clearance.

Lastly, it should be mentioned that the pharmacologic benefits of NOACs are not only beneficial from a patient perspective, but also from a health care systems standpoint as their use may provide an opportunity to deliver more cost-effective care. Specifically, economic models using available clinical trial data for stroke prevention in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation have shown that NOACs (apixaban, dabigatran, and rivaroxaban) are cost-effective alternatives when compared with warfarin.⁵ Although the results from such economic analyses are limited by the modeling assumptions they rely upon, these findings suggest that, at least initially, cost should not be used as a prohibitive reason for adopting these new therapeutics.

Patient selection

The decision to institute oral anticoagulation therapy depends on each patient’s individualized bleeding risk to benefit of ischemia prevention ratio. A major determinant of this ratio is the clinical indication for which anticoagulation is begun. Numerous phase III clinical trials have been conducted comparing the use of NOACs versus VKAs or placebos for the management of nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF), venous thromboembolism (VTE), and as adjunctive therapy for patients with acute coronary syndrome.⁶ Meta-analyses of randomized trials have shown the most significant benefit to be in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation where NOACs have significant reductions in stroke, intracranial hemorrhage, and all-cause mortality, compared with warfarin while displaying variable effects with regards to gastrointestinal bleeding.^6,7

In patients with VTE, NOACs have been found to have similar efficacy, compared with VKAs, with regard to the prevention of VTE or VTE-related death, and have been noted to have a better safety profile.⁶ Lastly, when studied as an adjunctive agent to dual antiplatelet therapy in patients with acute coronary syndrome, it should be noted that NOACs have been associated with an increased bleeding risk without a significant decrease in thrombosis risk.⁶ Taken together, these data suggest that the primary indication for instituting NOAC therapy should be considered strongly when deciding upon the class of anticoagulant to use.

Overcoming challenges

Since the introduction of NOACs, there has been concern over the lack of specific antidotes to therapy, especially when administered in patients with impaired clearance, a high likelihood of need for an urgent or emergent procedure, or those presenting with life-threatening bleeding complications. Most recently, however, interim analysis from clinical trial data has shown complete reversal of the direct thrombin inhibitor dabigatran with the humanized monocolonal antibody idarucizumab within minutes of administration in greater than 88% of patients studied.⁸ Similarly, agents such as a PER977 are currently in phase II clinical trials as they have been shown to form noncovalent hydrogen bonds and charge-charge interactions with oral factor Xa inhibitors as well as oral thrombin inhibitors leading to their reversal.⁹ Given these promising findings, it likely will not be long until reversal agents for NOACs become clinically available. Until that time, it is encouraging that the bleeding profile of these drugs has been found to be favorable, compared with VKAs, and their short half-life allows for a relatively expeditious natural reversal of their anticoagulant effect as the drug is eliminated.

Conclusions

Unlike the serendipitous path leading to the discovery of the first class of oral anticoagulants (VKAs), NOACs have been specifically designed to provide targeted anticoagulation and to address the shortcomings of VKAs. To this end, NOACs are becoming increasingly important in the management of patients with specific clinical conditions such as nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and venous thromboembolism where they have been shown to provide a larger net clinical benefit relative to the available alternatives. Furthermore, with economic analyses providing evidence that NOACs are cost-effective for the health care system and clinical trial results suggesting progress in the development of antidotes for reversal, it is likely that with growing experience, these agents will replace VKAs as the mainstay for prophylactic and therapeutic oral anticoagulation in targeted patient populations.

Madhukar S. Patel, MD, and Elliot L. Chaikof, MD, are from the department of surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston. They reported having no conflicts of interest.

References

1. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1924;64:553-575

2. J Biol Chem 1941;138:21-33

3. Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program 2013;2013:464-470

4. Eur Heart J 2013;34:2094-2106

5. Stroke 2013;44:1676-1681

6. Nat Rev Cardiol 2014;11:693-703

7. Lancet 2014;383:955-962

8. N Engl J Med 2015;373:511-520

9. N Engl J Med 2014;371:2141-2142

What the doctor didn’t order: unintended consequences and pitfalls of NOACs

Recently, several new oral anticoagulants (NOACs) have gained FDA approval to replace warfarin, capturing the attention of popular media. These include dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban. Dabigatran targets activated factor II (factor IIa), while rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban target activated factor X (factor Xa). Easy to take with a once or twice daily pill, with no cumbersome monitoring, they represent a seemingly ideal treatment for the chronically anticoagulated patient. All agents are currently FDA approved in the United States for treatment of acute VTE and AF.

Dabigatran and edoxaban

Similar to warfarin, dabigatran and edoxaban require the use of a LMWH or UFH “bridge” when therapy is beginning, while rivaroxaban and apixaban are instituted as monotherapy without such a bridge. Dabigatran etexilate (PradaxaR, Boehringer Ingelheim) has the longest half-life of all of the NOACs at 12-17 hours, and this half-life is prolonged with increasing age and decreasing renal function.¹ It is the only new agent which can be at least partially reversed with dialysis.² Edoxaban (SavaysaR, Daiichi Sankyo) carries a boxed warning stating that this agent is less effective in AF patients with a creatinine clearance greater than 95 mL/min, and that kidney function should be assessed prior to starting treatment: Such patients have a greater risk of stroke, compared with similar patients treated with warfarin. Edoxaban is the only agent specifically tested at a lower dose in patients at significantly increased risk of bleeding complications (low body weight and/or decreased creatinine clearance).³

Rivaroxaban and apixaban

Rivaroxaban (XareltoR, Bayer and Janssen), and apixaban (EliquisR, Bristol Myers-Squibb), unique amongst the NOACs, have been tested for extended therapy of acute deep vein thrombosis after treatment of 6-12 months. They were found to result in a significant decrease in recurrent VTE without an increase in major bleeding, compared with placebo.^4,5 Rivaroxaban has once-daily dosing and apixaban has twice-daily dosing; both are immediate monotherapy, making them quite convenient for patients. Apixaban is the only agent among the NOACs to have a slight decrease in gastrointestinal bleeding, compared with warfarin.⁶

Consequences and pitfalls with NOACs

Problems with these new drugs, which may diminish our current level of enthusiasm for these agents to totally replace warfarin, include the inability to reliably follow their levels or reverse their anticoagulant effects, the lack of data available on bridging when other procedures need to be performed, their short half-lives, and the lack of data on their anti-inflammatory effects. With regard to monitoring of anticoagulation, the International Society of Thrombosis and Hemostasis (ISTH) has published the times when it might be useful to obtain levels. These times include:

• When a patient is bleeding.

• Before surgery or an invasive procedure when the patient has taken the drug in the previous 24 hours, or longer if creatinine clearance (CrCl) is less than 50 mL min.

• Identification of subtherapeutic or supratherapeutic levels in patients taking other drugs that are known to affect pharmacokinetics.

• Identification of subtherapeutic or supratherapeutic levels in patients at body weight extremes.

• Patients with deteriorating renal function.

• During perioperative management.

• During reversal of anticoagulation.

• When there is suspicion of overdose.

• Assessment of compliance in patients suffering thrombotic events while on treatment.⁷

Currently, there exists no commercially available reversal agent for any of the NOACs, and existing reversal agents for traditional anticoagulants are of limited, if any, use. Drugs under development include agents for the factor Xa inhibitors and for the thrombin inhibitor. Until the time that specific reversal agents exist, supportive care is the mainstay of therapy. In cases of trauma or severe or life-threatening bleeding, administration of concentrated clotting factors (prothrombin complex concentrate) or dialysis (dabigatran only) may be utilized. However, data from large clinical trials are lacking. A recent study of 90 patients receiving an antibody directed against dabigatran has revealed that the anticoagulant effects of dabigatran were reversed safely within minutes of administration; however drug levels were not consistently suppressed at 24 hours in 20% of the cohort.⁸

Currently there are no national guidelines or large scale studies to guide bridging NOACs for procedures.

The relatively short half-life for these agents makes it likely that traditional bridging as is practiced for warfarin is not necessary.9 However, this represents a double-edged sword; withholding anticoagulation for two doses (such as if a patient becomes ill or a clinician is overly cautious around the time of a procedure) may leave the patient unprotected.

The final question with the new agents is their anti-inflammatory effects. We know that heparin and LMWH have significant pleiotropic effects that are not necessarily related to their anticoagulant effects. These effects are important in order to decrease the inflammatory nature of the thrombus and its effect on the vein wall. We do not know if the new oral agents have similar effects, as this has never fully been tested. In view of the fact that two of the agents are being used as monotherapy agents without any heparin/LMWH bridge, the anti-inflammatory properties of these new agents should be defined to make sure that such a bridge is not necessary.

So, in summary, although these agents have much to offer, there are many questions that remain to be addressed and answered before they totally replace traditional approaches to anticoagulation, in the realm of VTE. It must not be overlooked that despite all the benefits, they also each carry a risk of bleeding as they all target portions of the coagulation mechanism. We caution that, as with any “gift horse,” physicians should perhaps examine the data more closely and proceed with caution.

Thomas Wakefield, MD, is the Stanley Professor of Vascular Surgery; head, section of vascular surgery; and director, Samuel and Jean Frankel Cardiovascular Center. Andrea Obi, MD, is a vascular surgery fellow and Dawn Coleman MD, is the program director, section of vascular surgery, all at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. They reported having no conflicts of interest.

References

1. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:2342-2352

2. J Vasc Surg: Venous and Lymphatic Disorders. 2013;1:418-426

3. N Engl J Med 2013;369:1406-1415

4. N Engl J Med 2010;363:2499-2510

5. N Engl J Med 2013;368:699-708

6. Arteriosclerosis, thrombosis, and vascular biology 2015;35:1056-1065

7. J Thrombosis and Haemostasis 2013;11:756-760

8. N Engl J Med 2015; 373: 511-520

9. Current Opinion in Anaesthesiology. 2014;27:409-19

ROME – The difference between contemporary drug-eluting coronary stents and bare-metal stents is not very great, a large Norwegian coronary stent trial showed.

Today’s drug-eluting stents (DES), often called second-generation DES, largely do only what they were designed to do, compared with bare-metal stents (BMS): reduce the rate of stent restenosis and the need for target-lesion revascularization.

“The long-term benefit of contemporary DES over BMS was less that expected,” Kaare H. Bønaa, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

Results from the Norwegian Coronary Stent Trial (NORSTENT), run with 9,013 patients, showed that patients who received one or more drug-eluting stents had, during nearly 5 years of follow-up, a 5% absolute drop in target-lesion revascularizations (a 53% relative risk reduction), and a 3.3% reduction in all revascularizations (a 24% relative risk reduction), compared with patients who received bare-metal stents, said Dr. Bønaa.

The results also showed that patients who received DES had a 0.4% reduced rate of stent thrombosis (a 36% relative risk reduction), compared with patients treated with BMS during nearly 5 years of follow-up. All three differences were statistically significant.

But the NORSTENT findings also documented that the patients who received either DES or BMS had virtually identical rates of all-cause deaths and nonfatal myocardial infarctions. And, on average, the two different types of coronary stents produced identical improvements in patients’ quality of life, reported Dr. Bønaa, a professor and researcher in the Clinic for Heart Disease at St. Olav’s University Hospital in Trondheim, Norway.

The study’s primary endpoint was the combined rate of death or nonfatal MI, and so the nonsignificant difference in that outcome between the two study arms meant that, formally, the NORSTENT trial produced a neutral result. Concurrently with his report, the results appeared in an article online (New Engl J Med. 2016 Aug 30. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1607991).

“The difference between the two stent types is not as great as we thought. Patients who get DES do not live longer or better” than those who receive BMS, Dr. Bønaa said. “We suggest that both contemporary DES and BMS can be recommended for contemporary revascularization. The results open up use of BMS for certain patients,” such as those scheduled for surgery or patients who cannot tolerate or afford the drugs used for dual antiplatelet therapy following coronary stent placement.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

But the designated discussant for the study, Stefan James, MD, insisted that recent-generation DES “should remain recommended over BMS,” particularly the specific DES that underwent testing in randomized trials that used hard clinical endpoints. The 2014 revascularization guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology recommend new-generation DES over BMS, he noted.

In addition, “BMS should not be specifically recommended for patients at high risk of stent thrombosis or for patients who do not tolerate dual-antiplatelet therapy,” said Dr. James, professor of cardiology at Uppsala University in Sweden.

NORSTENT ran at eight centers in Norway during 2008-2011, and enrolled patients either had acute coronary syndrome (71% of those in the study) or stable coronary disease. Patients averaged 63 years old. The trial excluded patients with prior stents or bifurcated coronary lesions. Enrolled patients received, on average, 1.7 stents. The specific stent in each class that patients received was left to the discretion of each operator, and 95% of patients in the DES arm received a second-generation device. All patients in both arms of the study received dual-antiplatelet therapy for 9 months.

The finding that DES cut the rate of revascularization procedures by 3.3%, compared with patients treated with BMS, means that, on average, clinicians would need to treat 30 patients with DES to avoid the need for one additional repeat revascularization procedure that would occur if BMS were used instead.

That number needed to treat of 30 to avoid one repeat revascularization may seem high, but the money saved that way would still counterbalance the incremental cost of a DES over a BMS, which today in Europe would be about 50-100 euros, noted one cardiologist.

If you multiply 30 procedures by 100 extra euros per stent and by an average of 1.7 stents per patient, you may spend 5,100 euros, less than the cost of a repeat revascularization procedure, commented Carlo Di Mario, MD, a professor of cardiology and an interventional cardiologist at Royal Brompton & Harefield Hospitals in London.

In a video interview, Steen D. Kristensen, MD, of Aarhus University, Denmark, discussed the NORSTENT findings and their implications.

NORSTENT received no commercial support. Dr. Bønaa and Dr. Di Mario had no disclosures. Dr. James has been a consultant to Boston Scientific and has received research support from Boston Scientific and Abbott Vascular.

mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

ROME – The difference between contemporary drug-eluting coronary stents and bare-metal stents is not very great, a large Norwegian coronary stent trial showed.

Today’s drug-eluting stents (DES), often called second-generation DES, largely do only what they were designed to do, compared with bare-metal stents (BMS): reduce the rate of stent restenosis and the need for target-lesion revascularization.

“The long-term benefit of contemporary DES over BMS was less that expected,” Kaare H. Bønaa, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

Results from the Norwegian Coronary Stent Trial (NORSTENT), run with 9,013 patients, showed that patients who received one or more drug-eluting stents had, during nearly 5 years of follow-up, a 5% absolute drop in target-lesion revascularizations (a 53% relative risk reduction), and a 3.3% reduction in all revascularizations (a 24% relative risk reduction), compared with patients who received bare-metal stents, said Dr. Bønaa.

The results also showed that patients who received DES had a 0.4% reduced rate of stent thrombosis (a 36% relative risk reduction), compared with patients treated with BMS during nearly 5 years of follow-up. All three differences were statistically significant.

But the NORSTENT findings also documented that the patients who received either DES or BMS had virtually identical rates of all-cause deaths and nonfatal myocardial infarctions. And, on average, the two different types of coronary stents produced identical improvements in patients’ quality of life, reported Dr. Bønaa, a professor and researcher in the Clinic for Heart Disease at St. Olav’s University Hospital in Trondheim, Norway.

The study’s primary endpoint was the combined rate of death or nonfatal MI, and so the nonsignificant difference in that outcome between the two study arms meant that, formally, the NORSTENT trial produced a neutral result. Concurrently with his report, the results appeared in an article online (New Engl J Med. 2016 Aug 30. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1607991).

“The difference between the two stent types is not as great as we thought. Patients who get DES do not live longer or better” than those who receive BMS, Dr. Bønaa said. “We suggest that both contemporary DES and BMS can be recommended for contemporary revascularization. The results open up use of BMS for certain patients,” such as those scheduled for surgery or patients who cannot tolerate or afford the drugs used for dual antiplatelet therapy following coronary stent placement.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

But the designated discussant for the study, Stefan James, MD, insisted that recent-generation DES “should remain recommended over BMS,” particularly the specific DES that underwent testing in randomized trials that used hard clinical endpoints. The 2014 revascularization guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology recommend new-generation DES over BMS, he noted.

In addition, “BMS should not be specifically recommended for patients at high risk of stent thrombosis or for patients who do not tolerate dual-antiplatelet therapy,” said Dr. James, professor of cardiology at Uppsala University in Sweden.

NORSTENT ran at eight centers in Norway during 2008-2011, and enrolled patients either had acute coronary syndrome (71% of those in the study) or stable coronary disease. Patients averaged 63 years old. The trial excluded patients with prior stents or bifurcated coronary lesions. Enrolled patients received, on average, 1.7 stents. The specific stent in each class that patients received was left to the discretion of each operator, and 95% of patients in the DES arm received a second-generation device. All patients in both arms of the study received dual-antiplatelet therapy for 9 months.

The finding that DES cut the rate of revascularization procedures by 3.3%, compared with patients treated with BMS, means that, on average, clinicians would need to treat 30 patients with DES to avoid the need for one additional repeat revascularization procedure that would occur if BMS were used instead.

That number needed to treat of 30 to avoid one repeat revascularization may seem high, but the money saved that way would still counterbalance the incremental cost of a DES over a BMS, which today in Europe would be about 50-100 euros, noted one cardiologist.

If you multiply 30 procedures by 100 extra euros per stent and by an average of 1.7 stents per patient, you may spend 5,100 euros, less than the cost of a repeat revascularization procedure, commented Carlo Di Mario, MD, a professor of cardiology and an interventional cardiologist at Royal Brompton & Harefield Hospitals in London.

In a video interview, Steen D. Kristensen, MD, of Aarhus University, Denmark, discussed the NORSTENT findings and their implications.

NORSTENT received no commercial support. Dr. Bønaa and Dr. Di Mario had no disclosures. Dr. James has been a consultant to Boston Scientific and has received research support from Boston Scientific and Abbott Vascular.

mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

ROME – The difference between contemporary drug-eluting coronary stents and bare-metal stents is not very great, a large Norwegian coronary stent trial showed.

Today’s drug-eluting stents (DES), often called second-generation DES, largely do only what they were designed to do, compared with bare-metal stents (BMS): reduce the rate of stent restenosis and the need for target-lesion revascularization.

“The long-term benefit of contemporary DES over BMS was less that expected,” Kaare H. Bønaa, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

Results from the Norwegian Coronary Stent Trial (NORSTENT), run with 9,013 patients, showed that patients who received one or more drug-eluting stents had, during nearly 5 years of follow-up, a 5% absolute drop in target-lesion revascularizations (a 53% relative risk reduction), and a 3.3% reduction in all revascularizations (a 24% relative risk reduction), compared with patients who received bare-metal stents, said Dr. Bønaa.

The results also showed that patients who received DES had a 0.4% reduced rate of stent thrombosis (a 36% relative risk reduction), compared with patients treated with BMS during nearly 5 years of follow-up. All three differences were statistically significant.

But the NORSTENT findings also documented that the patients who received either DES or BMS had virtually identical rates of all-cause deaths and nonfatal myocardial infarctions. And, on average, the two different types of coronary stents produced identical improvements in patients’ quality of life, reported Dr. Bønaa, a professor and researcher in the Clinic for Heart Disease at St. Olav’s University Hospital in Trondheim, Norway.

The study’s primary endpoint was the combined rate of death or nonfatal MI, and so the nonsignificant difference in that outcome between the two study arms meant that, formally, the NORSTENT trial produced a neutral result. Concurrently with his report, the results appeared in an article online (New Engl J Med. 2016 Aug 30. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1607991).

“The difference between the two stent types is not as great as we thought. Patients who get DES do not live longer or better” than those who receive BMS, Dr. Bønaa said. “We suggest that both contemporary DES and BMS can be recommended for contemporary revascularization. The results open up use of BMS for certain patients,” such as those scheduled for surgery or patients who cannot tolerate or afford the drugs used for dual antiplatelet therapy following coronary stent placement.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

But the designated discussant for the study, Stefan James, MD, insisted that recent-generation DES “should remain recommended over BMS,” particularly the specific DES that underwent testing in randomized trials that used hard clinical endpoints. The 2014 revascularization guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology recommend new-generation DES over BMS, he noted.

In addition, “BMS should not be specifically recommended for patients at high risk of stent thrombosis or for patients who do not tolerate dual-antiplatelet therapy,” said Dr. James, professor of cardiology at Uppsala University in Sweden.

NORSTENT ran at eight centers in Norway during 2008-2011, and enrolled patients either had acute coronary syndrome (71% of those in the study) or stable coronary disease. Patients averaged 63 years old. The trial excluded patients with prior stents or bifurcated coronary lesions. Enrolled patients received, on average, 1.7 stents. The specific stent in each class that patients received was left to the discretion of each operator, and 95% of patients in the DES arm received a second-generation device. All patients in both arms of the study received dual-antiplatelet therapy for 9 months.

The finding that DES cut the rate of revascularization procedures by 3.3%, compared with patients treated with BMS, means that, on average, clinicians would need to treat 30 patients with DES to avoid the need for one additional repeat revascularization procedure that would occur if BMS were used instead.

That number needed to treat of 30 to avoid one repeat revascularization may seem high, but the money saved that way would still counterbalance the incremental cost of a DES over a BMS, which today in Europe would be about 50-100 euros, noted one cardiologist.

If you multiply 30 procedures by 100 extra euros per stent and by an average of 1.7 stents per patient, you may spend 5,100 euros, less than the cost of a repeat revascularization procedure, commented Carlo Di Mario, MD, a professor of cardiology and an interventional cardiologist at Royal Brompton & Harefield Hospitals in London.

In a video interview, Steen D. Kristensen, MD, of Aarhus University, Denmark, discussed the NORSTENT findings and their implications.

NORSTENT received no commercial support. Dr. Bønaa and Dr. Di Mario had no disclosures. Dr. James has been a consultant to Boston Scientific and has received research support from Boston Scientific and Abbott Vascular.

mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

ROME – Results of the largest-ever randomized clinical trial of anticoagulation for electrical cardioversion of patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation demonstrate that edoxaban is a safe, effective, and convenient alternative to the standard strategy of enoxaparin as a bridge to warfarin.

The ENSURE-AF trial was a phase IIIb study involving 2,199 patients with atrial fibrillation who underwent electrical cardioversion at 239 sites in the United States and 19 European countries. The key finding: The edoxaban-treated group had rates of thromboembolism and major bleeding at 28-30 days follow-up similar to those of the enoxaparin/warfarin-treated controls.

And edoxaban offered a major practical advantage: Because “edoxaban kicks in within 2 hours, you can do the procedure just 2 hours after initiation of therapy in a patient with a reassuring transesophageal echocardiographic exam, which is definitely not possible with warfarin,” Andreas Goette, MD, observed at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

Roughly half of participants were treated at centers that don’t routinely use a transesophageal echo-guided management strategy and therefore delayed cardioversion until patients were anticoagulated for at least 3 weeks. The safety and efficacy outcomes were similar regardless of whether or not transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) guidance was used, according to Dr. Goette of St. Vincenz Hospital in Paderborn, Germany.

Edoxaban (Savaysa) was prescribed at 60 mg once daily except in patients weighing 60 kg or less or having a creatinine clearance rate of 15-50 mL/min, in which case they received 30 mg once daily. In the control arm, enoxaparin (Lovenox) was used until warfarin achieved an International Normalized Ratio of 2.0-3.0. Patients in the enoxaparin/warfarin arm spent a mean of 71% of their treatment time within the target INR range.

The primary efficacy outcome was the 28-day composite of stroke or other systemic embolic events, MI, or cardiovascular mortality. The rate was 0.5% in the edoxaban arm and 1.0% in the enoxaparin/warfarin group. In patients whose management strategy was TEE-guided, the rate was 0.3% in the edoxaban group and 0.8% with enoxaparin/warfarin. In non-TEE-guided patients, the rates were 0.6% and 1.2% with edoxaban and warfarin, respectively.

Although rates were consistently numerically lower in the edoxaban group, the differences did not reach statistical significance, Dr. Goette explained.

The combined rate of major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding through 30 days was 1.5% with edoxaban and similar at 1.0% with enoxaparin plus warfarin. Three patients in the edoxaban group experienced a major bleeding event, as did five in the comparator arm.

Because anticoagulation with edoxaban is so convenient and allows cardioversion to safely be performed in short order, the ENSURE-AF investigators are in the process of calculating the potential savings in health care costs obtainable through this strategy, the cardiologist said.

ENSURE-AF provides the first prospective randomized data on the use of edoxaban as an alternative to warfarin for pericardioversion anticoagulation. There has been one other randomized trial of a novel oral anticoagulant (NOAC) in this setting, the 1,504-patient X-VeRT trial (Eur Heart J. 2014 Dec 14;35[47]:3346-55), involving rivaroxaban (Xarelto).

Riccardo Cappato, MD, first author of the X-VeRT publication, served as the designated discussant for ENSURE-AF. He noted that the results of the two trials are “completely superimposable.” Rates of the composite efficacy endpoint were identical at 0.5% for both NOACs versus 1.0% for the vitamin K antagonist arms of X-VeRT and ENSURE-AF. The major bleeding rates also were identical for edoxaban and rivaroxaban in the two studies. Moreover, the major bleeding rates associated with warfarin or other vitamin K antagonists were spot-on the same in the two trials.

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

“It’s a rather unusual situation for such large numbers of patients,” observed Dr. Cappato of Humanitas Research Institute in Milan.

“These data go very clearly in the same direction. I think a good take-home message here for us today is that both of these novel oral anticoagulants can be safely and efficaciously applied to patients undergoing elective cardioversion of nonvalvular atrial fibrillation,” he added.

In an interview, Mark A. Creager, MD, immediate past president of the American Heart Association, said that many U.S. physicians are switching to NOACs for this purpose.

“We are already using the novel oral anticoagulants to facilitate anticoagulation for patients undergoing cardioversion, so ENSURE-AF provides objective evidence that edoxaban is a reasonable drug,” said Dr. Creager, director of the Dartmouth-Hitchcock Heart and Vascular Center in New Hampshire.

The ENSURE-AF trial was funded by Daiichi Sankyo. Dr. Goette and Dr. Cappato reported receiving research grants from and serving as consultants to that company and other pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers.

Simultaneously with Dr. Goette’s presentation in Rome, the ENSURE-AF results were published online Aug. 30 in The Lancet.

bjancin@frontlinemedcom.com

ROME – Results of the largest-ever randomized clinical trial of anticoagulation for electrical cardioversion of patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation demonstrate that edoxaban is a safe, effective, and convenient alternative to the standard strategy of enoxaparin as a bridge to warfarin.

The ENSURE-AF trial was a phase IIIb study involving 2,199 patients with atrial fibrillation who underwent electrical cardioversion at 239 sites in the United States and 19 European countries. The key finding: The edoxaban-treated group had rates of thromboembolism and major bleeding at 28-30 days follow-up similar to those of the enoxaparin/warfarin-treated controls.

And edoxaban offered a major practical advantage: Because “edoxaban kicks in within 2 hours, you can do the procedure just 2 hours after initiation of therapy in a patient with a reassuring transesophageal echocardiographic exam, which is definitely not possible with warfarin,” Andreas Goette, MD, observed at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

Roughly half of participants were treated at centers that don’t routinely use a transesophageal echo-guided management strategy and therefore delayed cardioversion until patients were anticoagulated for at least 3 weeks. The safety and efficacy outcomes were similar regardless of whether or not transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) guidance was used, according to Dr. Goette of St. Vincenz Hospital in Paderborn, Germany.

Edoxaban (Savaysa) was prescribed at 60 mg once daily except in patients weighing 60 kg or less or having a creatinine clearance rate of 15-50 mL/min, in which case they received 30 mg once daily. In the control arm, enoxaparin (Lovenox) was used until warfarin achieved an International Normalized Ratio of 2.0-3.0. Patients in the enoxaparin/warfarin arm spent a mean of 71% of their treatment time within the target INR range.

The primary efficacy outcome was the 28-day composite of stroke or other systemic embolic events, MI, or cardiovascular mortality. The rate was 0.5% in the edoxaban arm and 1.0% in the enoxaparin/warfarin group. In patients whose management strategy was TEE-guided, the rate was 0.3% in the edoxaban group and 0.8% with enoxaparin/warfarin. In non-TEE-guided patients, the rates were 0.6% and 1.2% with edoxaban and warfarin, respectively.

Although rates were consistently numerically lower in the edoxaban group, the differences did not reach statistical significance, Dr. Goette explained.

The combined rate of major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding through 30 days was 1.5% with edoxaban and similar at 1.0% with enoxaparin plus warfarin. Three patients in the edoxaban group experienced a major bleeding event, as did five in the comparator arm.

Because anticoagulation with edoxaban is so convenient and allows cardioversion to safely be performed in short order, the ENSURE-AF investigators are in the process of calculating the potential savings in health care costs obtainable through this strategy, the cardiologist said.

ENSURE-AF provides the first prospective randomized data on the use of edoxaban as an alternative to warfarin for pericardioversion anticoagulation. There has been one other randomized trial of a novel oral anticoagulant (NOAC) in this setting, the 1,504-patient X-VeRT trial (Eur Heart J. 2014 Dec 14;35[47]:3346-55), involving rivaroxaban (Xarelto).

Riccardo Cappato, MD, first author of the X-VeRT publication, served as the designated discussant for ENSURE-AF. He noted that the results of the two trials are “completely superimposable.” Rates of the composite efficacy endpoint were identical at 0.5% for both NOACs versus 1.0% for the vitamin K antagonist arms of X-VeRT and ENSURE-AF. The major bleeding rates also were identical for edoxaban and rivaroxaban in the two studies. Moreover, the major bleeding rates associated with warfarin or other vitamin K antagonists were spot-on the same in the two trials.

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

“It’s a rather unusual situation for such large numbers of patients,” observed Dr. Cappato of Humanitas Research Institute in Milan.

“These data go very clearly in the same direction. I think a good take-home message here for us today is that both of these novel oral anticoagulants can be safely and efficaciously applied to patients undergoing elective cardioversion of nonvalvular atrial fibrillation,” he added.

In an interview, Mark A. Creager, MD, immediate past president of the American Heart Association, said that many U.S. physicians are switching to NOACs for this purpose.

“We are already using the novel oral anticoagulants to facilitate anticoagulation for patients undergoing cardioversion, so ENSURE-AF provides objective evidence that edoxaban is a reasonable drug,” said Dr. Creager, director of the Dartmouth-Hitchcock Heart and Vascular Center in New Hampshire.

The ENSURE-AF trial was funded by Daiichi Sankyo. Dr. Goette and Dr. Cappato reported receiving research grants from and serving as consultants to that company and other pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers.

Simultaneously with Dr. Goette’s presentation in Rome, the ENSURE-AF results were published online Aug. 30 in The Lancet.

bjancin@frontlinemedcom.com

ROME – Results of the largest-ever randomized clinical trial of anticoagulation for electrical cardioversion of patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation demonstrate that edoxaban is a safe, effective, and convenient alternative to the standard strategy of enoxaparin as a bridge to warfarin.

The ENSURE-AF trial was a phase IIIb study involving 2,199 patients with atrial fibrillation who underwent electrical cardioversion at 239 sites in the United States and 19 European countries. The key finding: The edoxaban-treated group had rates of thromboembolism and major bleeding at 28-30 days follow-up similar to those of the enoxaparin/warfarin-treated controls.

And edoxaban offered a major practical advantage: Because “edoxaban kicks in within 2 hours, you can do the procedure just 2 hours after initiation of therapy in a patient with a reassuring transesophageal echocardiographic exam, which is definitely not possible with warfarin,” Andreas Goette, MD, observed at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

Roughly half of participants were treated at centers that don’t routinely use a transesophageal echo-guided management strategy and therefore delayed cardioversion until patients were anticoagulated for at least 3 weeks. The safety and efficacy outcomes were similar regardless of whether or not transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) guidance was used, according to Dr. Goette of St. Vincenz Hospital in Paderborn, Germany.

Edoxaban (Savaysa) was prescribed at 60 mg once daily except in patients weighing 60 kg or less or having a creatinine clearance rate of 15-50 mL/min, in which case they received 30 mg once daily. In the control arm, enoxaparin (Lovenox) was used until warfarin achieved an International Normalized Ratio of 2.0-3.0. Patients in the enoxaparin/warfarin arm spent a mean of 71% of their treatment time within the target INR range.

The primary efficacy outcome was the 28-day composite of stroke or other systemic embolic events, MI, or cardiovascular mortality. The rate was 0.5% in the edoxaban arm and 1.0% in the enoxaparin/warfarin group. In patients whose management strategy was TEE-guided, the rate was 0.3% in the edoxaban group and 0.8% with enoxaparin/warfarin. In non-TEE-guided patients, the rates were 0.6% and 1.2% with edoxaban and warfarin, respectively.

Although rates were consistently numerically lower in the edoxaban group, the differences did not reach statistical significance, Dr. Goette explained.

The combined rate of major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding through 30 days was 1.5% with edoxaban and similar at 1.0% with enoxaparin plus warfarin. Three patients in the edoxaban group experienced a major bleeding event, as did five in the comparator arm.

Because anticoagulation with edoxaban is so convenient and allows cardioversion to safely be performed in short order, the ENSURE-AF investigators are in the process of calculating the potential savings in health care costs obtainable through this strategy, the cardiologist said.

ENSURE-AF provides the first prospective randomized data on the use of edoxaban as an alternative to warfarin for pericardioversion anticoagulation. There has been one other randomized trial of a novel oral anticoagulant (NOAC) in this setting, the 1,504-patient X-VeRT trial (Eur Heart J. 2014 Dec 14;35[47]:3346-55), involving rivaroxaban (Xarelto).

Riccardo Cappato, MD, first author of the X-VeRT publication, served as the designated discussant for ENSURE-AF. He noted that the results of the two trials are “completely superimposable.” Rates of the composite efficacy endpoint were identical at 0.5% for both NOACs versus 1.0% for the vitamin K antagonist arms of X-VeRT and ENSURE-AF. The major bleeding rates also were identical for edoxaban and rivaroxaban in the two studies. Moreover, the major bleeding rates associated with warfarin or other vitamin K antagonists were spot-on the same in the two trials.

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

“It’s a rather unusual situation for such large numbers of patients,” observed Dr. Cappato of Humanitas Research Institute in Milan.

“These data go very clearly in the same direction. I think a good take-home message here for us today is that both of these novel oral anticoagulants can be safely and efficaciously applied to patients undergoing elective cardioversion of nonvalvular atrial fibrillation,” he added.

In an interview, Mark A. Creager, MD, immediate past president of the American Heart Association, said that many U.S. physicians are switching to NOACs for this purpose.

“We are already using the novel oral anticoagulants to facilitate anticoagulation for patients undergoing cardioversion, so ENSURE-AF provides objective evidence that edoxaban is a reasonable drug,” said Dr. Creager, director of the Dartmouth-Hitchcock Heart and Vascular Center in New Hampshire.

The ENSURE-AF trial was funded by Daiichi Sankyo. Dr. Goette and Dr. Cappato reported receiving research grants from and serving as consultants to that company and other pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers.

Simultaneously with Dr. Goette’s presentation in Rome, the ENSURE-AF results were published online Aug. 30 in The Lancet.

bjancin@frontlinemedcom.com

ROME – Functional, noninvasive cardiac imaging using cardiovascular MR or myocardial perfusion scintigraphy was significantly better than was a current and well regarded guideline-based approach to identifying patients with chest pain and suspected coronary artery disease who could safely avoid angiography, thereby cutting the rate of unnecessary angiography by about 75%.

Following the guideline formula adopted by the British National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) resulted in a 29% rate of unnecessary angiography compared with rates of 7.5% using cardiovascular MR (CMR) and 7.1% using myocardial perfusion scintigraphy (MPS) in a multicenter randomized trial with 1,202 patients, John P. Greenwood, MBChB, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

This universal use of a functional, noninvasive imaging strategy to guide angiography resulted in no significant penalty of missed coronary disease or subsequent coronary events. The rate of positive angiography findings was 12% among the 240 patients managed according to the NICE guidelines, 10% among 481 patients screened by CMR, and 9% among the 481 patients screened using MPS, reported Dr. Greenwood, professor of cardiology at the University of Leeds (England). The rate of major adverse coronary events after 12 months of follow-up were 3% following the NICE protocol and 4% when screening by CMR or with MPS.

Concurrently with Dr. Greenwood’s report, the findings from the Clinical Evaluation of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Coronary Heart Disease 2 (CE-MARC2) study appeared in an article online (JAMA. 2016 Aug 29. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.12680).

“We showed that a functional test with CMR or MPS can reduce the rate of unnecessary coronary angiography. Cutting unnecessary angiography is really important to patients, and it may also cost effective,” he said, but cautioned that a formal cost analysis of the options tested in this study is still being run.

The NICE guidelines manage patients with chest pain that could be angina by their pretest probability of having coronary artery disease (CAD), and at the time the study was designed the NICE guidelines, issued in 2010, provided the most up-to-date expert guidance on how to triage these patients. The study enrolled patients with a pretest probability for CAD of 10%-90%; collectively their average probability was 50%. The patients participated in the study at one of six U.K. centers during November 2012 to March 2015. The average age was 56 years.

MPS is “probably the noninvasive imaging approach most commonly used worldwide to detect coronary ischemia,” Dr. Greenwood said. But he led an earlier study that showed that CMR, using a gadolinium-based tracing agent, works even better than MPS (in this study single photon emission CT) to predict a patient’s risk for major cardiac events. He said this superiority is probably because of the greater spatial resolution with CMR.

“The higher spatial resolution of CMR, about 5- to 10-fold greater that MPS, is less likely to produce false negative results,” he said in an interview. “We showed that CMR has higher diagnostic accuracy, is a better prognosticator, and is more cost effective” than MPS. Dr. Greenwood attributed the similar performance of CMR and MPS in CE-MARC2 to the study’s design, which led to fewer patients undergoing each of the two imaging methods and made CE-MARC2 underpowered to discern a difference in specificity. In his earlier study, which included 752 patients who underwent examination with both CMR and MPS, the negative predictive value of CMR was 91% compared with 79% with MPS.

CMR uses conventional MR machines, is now widely available, and is being widely used today as a first-line test in the United Kingdom and Europe, he added.

Dr. Greenwood believes that in his new study functional imaging outperformed the NICE guidelines because the pretest models used in the guidelines “tend to overestimate risk,” the factor that produces angiography overuse.

His report included two additional analyses that assessed the impact of CMR and MPS in the subgroup of patients with a high pretest probability for CAD, 61%-90%, and in the subgroup with a low pretest probability, 10%-29%. Among the patients with a high likelihood for CAD the two functional imaging methods cut the rate of unnecessary angiography by 95%, a statistically significant difference. Among those with a low likelihood functional imaging cut the rate 56%, a difference that did not reach statistical significance.

mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

ROME – Functional, noninvasive cardiac imaging using cardiovascular MR or myocardial perfusion scintigraphy was significantly better than was a current and well regarded guideline-based approach to identifying patients with chest pain and suspected coronary artery disease who could safely avoid angiography, thereby cutting the rate of unnecessary angiography by about 75%.

Following the guideline formula adopted by the British National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) resulted in a 29% rate of unnecessary angiography compared with rates of 7.5% using cardiovascular MR (CMR) and 7.1% using myocardial perfusion scintigraphy (MPS) in a multicenter randomized trial with 1,202 patients, John P. Greenwood, MBChB, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

This universal use of a functional, noninvasive imaging strategy to guide angiography resulted in no significant penalty of missed coronary disease or subsequent coronary events. The rate of positive angiography findings was 12% among the 240 patients managed according to the NICE guidelines, 10% among 481 patients screened by CMR, and 9% among the 481 patients screened using MPS, reported Dr. Greenwood, professor of cardiology at the University of Leeds (England). The rate of major adverse coronary events after 12 months of follow-up were 3% following the NICE protocol and 4% when screening by CMR or with MPS.

Concurrently with Dr. Greenwood’s report, the findings from the Clinical Evaluation of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Coronary Heart Disease 2 (CE-MARC2) study appeared in an article online (JAMA. 2016 Aug 29. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.12680).

“We showed that a functional test with CMR or MPS can reduce the rate of unnecessary coronary angiography. Cutting unnecessary angiography is really important to patients, and it may also cost effective,” he said, but cautioned that a formal cost analysis of the options tested in this study is still being run.

The NICE guidelines manage patients with chest pain that could be angina by their pretest probability of having coronary artery disease (CAD), and at the time the study was designed the NICE guidelines, issued in 2010, provided the most up-to-date expert guidance on how to triage these patients. The study enrolled patients with a pretest probability for CAD of 10%-90%; collectively their average probability was 50%. The patients participated in the study at one of six U.K. centers during November 2012 to March 2015. The average age was 56 years.

MPS is “probably the noninvasive imaging approach most commonly used worldwide to detect coronary ischemia,” Dr. Greenwood said. But he led an earlier study that showed that CMR, using a gadolinium-based tracing agent, works even better than MPS (in this study single photon emission CT) to predict a patient’s risk for major cardiac events. He said this superiority is probably because of the greater spatial resolution with CMR.

“The higher spatial resolution of CMR, about 5- to 10-fold greater that MPS, is less likely to produce false negative results,” he said in an interview. “We showed that CMR has higher diagnostic accuracy, is a better prognosticator, and is more cost effective” than MPS. Dr. Greenwood attributed the similar performance of CMR and MPS in CE-MARC2 to the study’s design, which led to fewer patients undergoing each of the two imaging methods and made CE-MARC2 underpowered to discern a difference in specificity. In his earlier study, which included 752 patients who underwent examination with both CMR and MPS, the negative predictive value of CMR was 91% compared with 79% with MPS.

CMR uses conventional MR machines, is now widely available, and is being widely used today as a first-line test in the United Kingdom and Europe, he added.

Dr. Greenwood believes that in his new study functional imaging outperformed the NICE guidelines because the pretest models used in the guidelines “tend to overestimate risk,” the factor that produces angiography overuse.

His report included two additional analyses that assessed the impact of CMR and MPS in the subgroup of patients with a high pretest probability for CAD, 61%-90%, and in the subgroup with a low pretest probability, 10%-29%. Among the patients with a high likelihood for CAD the two functional imaging methods cut the rate of unnecessary angiography by 95%, a statistically significant difference. Among those with a low likelihood functional imaging cut the rate 56%, a difference that did not reach statistical significance.

mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

ROME – Functional, noninvasive cardiac imaging using cardiovascular MR or myocardial perfusion scintigraphy was significantly better than was a current and well regarded guideline-based approach to identifying patients with chest pain and suspected coronary artery disease who could safely avoid angiography, thereby cutting the rate of unnecessary angiography by about 75%.

Following the guideline formula adopted by the British National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) resulted in a 29% rate of unnecessary angiography compared with rates of 7.5% using cardiovascular MR (CMR) and 7.1% using myocardial perfusion scintigraphy (MPS) in a multicenter randomized trial with 1,202 patients, John P. Greenwood, MBChB, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

This universal use of a functional, noninvasive imaging strategy to guide angiography resulted in no significant penalty of missed coronary disease or subsequent coronary events. The rate of positive angiography findings was 12% among the 240 patients managed according to the NICE guidelines, 10% among 481 patients screened by CMR, and 9% among the 481 patients screened using MPS, reported Dr. Greenwood, professor of cardiology at the University of Leeds (England). The rate of major adverse coronary events after 12 months of follow-up were 3% following the NICE protocol and 4% when screening by CMR or with MPS.

Concurrently with Dr. Greenwood’s report, the findings from the Clinical Evaluation of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Coronary Heart Disease 2 (CE-MARC2) study appeared in an article online (JAMA. 2016 Aug 29. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.12680).

“We showed that a functional test with CMR or MPS can reduce the rate of unnecessary coronary angiography. Cutting unnecessary angiography is really important to patients, and it may also cost effective,” he said, but cautioned that a formal cost analysis of the options tested in this study is still being run.

The NICE guidelines manage patients with chest pain that could be angina by their pretest probability of having coronary artery disease (CAD), and at the time the study was designed the NICE guidelines, issued in 2010, provided the most up-to-date expert guidance on how to triage these patients. The study enrolled patients with a pretest probability for CAD of 10%-90%; collectively their average probability was 50%. The patients participated in the study at one of six U.K. centers during November 2012 to March 2015. The average age was 56 years.

MPS is “probably the noninvasive imaging approach most commonly used worldwide to detect coronary ischemia,” Dr. Greenwood said. But he led an earlier study that showed that CMR, using a gadolinium-based tracing agent, works even better than MPS (in this study single photon emission CT) to predict a patient’s risk for major cardiac events. He said this superiority is probably because of the greater spatial resolution with CMR.

“The higher spatial resolution of CMR, about 5- to 10-fold greater that MPS, is less likely to produce false negative results,” he said in an interview. “We showed that CMR has higher diagnostic accuracy, is a better prognosticator, and is more cost effective” than MPS. Dr. Greenwood attributed the similar performance of CMR and MPS in CE-MARC2 to the study’s design, which led to fewer patients undergoing each of the two imaging methods and made CE-MARC2 underpowered to discern a difference in specificity. In his earlier study, which included 752 patients who underwent examination with both CMR and MPS, the negative predictive value of CMR was 91% compared with 79% with MPS.

CMR uses conventional MR machines, is now widely available, and is being widely used today as a first-line test in the United Kingdom and Europe, he added.

Dr. Greenwood believes that in his new study functional imaging outperformed the NICE guidelines because the pretest models used in the guidelines “tend to overestimate risk,” the factor that produces angiography overuse.

His report included two additional analyses that assessed the impact of CMR and MPS in the subgroup of patients with a high pretest probability for CAD, 61%-90%, and in the subgroup with a low pretest probability, 10%-29%. Among the patients with a high likelihood for CAD the two functional imaging methods cut the rate of unnecessary angiography by 95%, a statistically significant difference. Among those with a low likelihood functional imaging cut the rate 56%, a difference that did not reach statistical significance.

mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

ROME – Combined exposure to low LDL cholesterol and systolic blood pressure is associated with multiplicative and cumulative effects over time, Brian A. Ference, MD, said in a video interview at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

Indeed, long-term exposure to a combined 1-mmol/L lower LDL cholesterol and 10-mm Hg lower systolic BP was associated with up to a 90% lower risk of major cardiovascular events in the “naturally randomized” study he presented. The investigators used the 102,000 participants’ genetic LDL and BP scores in a Mendelian design.

If these lower LDL and blood pressure levels are sustained over decades, “those cumulative effects multiply, resulting in potentially dramatic reductions in the lifetime risk of cardiovascular events from even modestly lower levels of LDL and systolic blood pressure,” Dr. Ference of Wayne State University, Detroit, told reporter Bruce Jancin.

chackett@frontlinemedcom.com

ROME – Combined exposure to low LDL cholesterol and systolic blood pressure is associated with multiplicative and cumulative effects over time, Brian A. Ference, MD, said in a video interview at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

Indeed, long-term exposure to a combined 1-mmol/L lower LDL cholesterol and 10-mm Hg lower systolic BP was associated with up to a 90% lower risk of major cardiovascular events in the “naturally randomized” study he presented. The investigators used the 102,000 participants’ genetic LDL and BP scores in a Mendelian design.

If these lower LDL and blood pressure levels are sustained over decades, “those cumulative effects multiply, resulting in potentially dramatic reductions in the lifetime risk of cardiovascular events from even modestly lower levels of LDL and systolic blood pressure,” Dr. Ference of Wayne State University, Detroit, told reporter Bruce Jancin.

chackett@frontlinemedcom.com

ROME – Combined exposure to low LDL cholesterol and systolic blood pressure is associated with multiplicative and cumulative effects over time, Brian A. Ference, MD, said in a video interview at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

Indeed, long-term exposure to a combined 1-mmol/L lower LDL cholesterol and 10-mm Hg lower systolic BP was associated with up to a 90% lower risk of major cardiovascular events in the “naturally randomized” study he presented. The investigators used the 102,000 participants’ genetic LDL and BP scores in a Mendelian design.

If these lower LDL and blood pressure levels are sustained over decades, “those cumulative effects multiply, resulting in potentially dramatic reductions in the lifetime risk of cardiovascular events from even modestly lower levels of LDL and systolic blood pressure,” Dr. Ference of Wayne State University, Detroit, told reporter Bruce Jancin.

chackett@frontlinemedcom.com

A large, 16-year single-center study of patients with multivessel disease has determined that multivessel coronary artery bypass grafting achieved longer survival than not only percutaneous coronary interventions, but also conventional coronary artery bypass grafting, researchers from the Mayo Clinic reported in the August issue of the Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery (J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2016;152:369-79).

Lead author Chaim Locker, MD, and his colleagues said the use of what they called MultiArt, for multivessel arterial grafting, also known as MAG, “must increase.”

The evolution of bare-metal and then drug-eluting stents may have favored percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) over coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), but, Dr. Locker and his coauthors said, “Evidence is accumulating that late outcome of surgical revascularization is improved when at least two arterial grafts are used.”

The study analyzed results of 12,615 patients who had either isolated primary CABG (6,667) or PCI (5,948) from 1993 to 2009. Among the CABG patients, 5,712 had the more conventional approach involving arterial grafts into the left internal thoracic artery/saphenous vein (ITA/SV) and 955 had MAG. Patients in the PCI group had three different procedures: balloon angioplasty (1,020), drug-eluting stent (1,686), or bare-metal stent (3,242). The study excluded patients who had revascularization procedures after a heart attack.

While the overall 15-year survival for patients with CABG was lower than it was for those who had PCI (36% vs. 46%), the survival for those who had MAG was significantly higher: 65% vs. 31% for those who had left ITA/SV revascularization. 8-year survival for the MAG subgroup was also significantly higher than all other subgroups: 87% vs. 69% for left ITA/SV, 75% for bare-metal stent, 73% for balloon angioplasty, and 70% for drug-eluting stent.

Propensity matching found similar survivability for balloon angioplasty and left ITA/SV when compared with MAG: 66% for MAG vs. 57% for the former; and 64% for MAG vs. 56% for the latter. The researchers also estimated the hazard ratio during the first 5 years of follow-up and found that those who had bare-metal stents had “significantly worse” survival, compared with MAG, but that survival evened out after that. Survival in the bare-metal stent group was similar to that of the left ITA/SV group, but “significantly worse” during the first 5 years for those who had balloon angioplasty.

Dr. Locker and his colleagues acknowledged that multiple randomized studies have compared CABG and PCI over the years, but they said that in most of those studies “the enrolled patients were highly selected and likely did not represent the broader population of patients with MVD [multivessel disease] undergoing revascularization.” With the exception of the SYNTAX trial (Synergy Between PCI With Taxus and Cardiac Surgery) (N Engl J Med. 2009;360:961-72; Lancet. 2013;381:629-38), those studies did not report on the frequency of MAG within the study population. The Mayo study, on the other hand, included all treated patients, excluding those who had a previous heart attack.

However, MAG is used infrequently, Dr. Locker and his colleagues said. The average annual rate of MAG in their Mayo practice was 15.2%, higher than the 5% annual rate the Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Cardiac Surgery Database (J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2012;143:273-81) reported, and higher than the 12% rate in Europe (Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2006;29: 486-91). The SYNTAX trial reported an annual MAG rate of 27.6% for all CABG cases.

“It seems clear that use of MultiArt should be more frequent in patients with MVD undergoing CABG,” Dr. Locker and his coauthors said. “MultiArt can be used in most patients with MVD, including diabetic patients and elderly patients, and this strategy will improve outcomes of surgical revascularization.”

Dr. Locker and his coauthors had no financial relationships to disclose.

A large, 16-year single-center study of patients with multivessel disease has determined that multivessel coronary artery bypass grafting achieved longer survival than not only percutaneous coronary interventions, but also conventional coronary artery bypass grafting, researchers from the Mayo Clinic reported in the August issue of the Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery (J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2016;152:369-79).

Lead author Chaim Locker, MD, and his colleagues said the use of what they called MultiArt, for multivessel arterial grafting, also known as MAG, “must increase.”

The evolution of bare-metal and then drug-eluting stents may have favored percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) over coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), but, Dr. Locker and his coauthors said, “Evidence is accumulating that late outcome of surgical revascularization is improved when at least two arterial grafts are used.”

The study analyzed results of 12,615 patients who had either isolated primary CABG (6,667) or PCI (5,948) from 1993 to 2009. Among the CABG patients, 5,712 had the more conventional approach involving arterial grafts into the left internal thoracic artery/saphenous vein (ITA/SV) and 955 had MAG. Patients in the PCI group had three different procedures: balloon angioplasty (1,020), drug-eluting stent (1,686), or bare-metal stent (3,242). The study excluded patients who had revascularization procedures after a heart attack.

While the overall 15-year survival for patients with CABG was lower than it was for those who had PCI (36% vs. 46%), the survival for those who had MAG was significantly higher: 65% vs. 31% for those who had left ITA/SV revascularization. 8-year survival for the MAG subgroup was also significantly higher than all other subgroups: 87% vs. 69% for left ITA/SV, 75% for bare-metal stent, 73% for balloon angioplasty, and 70% for drug-eluting stent.

Propensity matching found similar survivability for balloon angioplasty and left ITA/SV when compared with MAG: 66% for MAG vs. 57% for the former; and 64% for MAG vs. 56% for the latter. The researchers also estimated the hazard ratio during the first 5 years of follow-up and found that those who had bare-metal stents had “significantly worse” survival, compared with MAG, but that survival evened out after that. Survival in the bare-metal stent group was similar to that of the left ITA/SV group, but “significantly worse” during the first 5 years for those who had balloon angioplasty.

Dr. Locker and his colleagues acknowledged that multiple randomized studies have compared CABG and PCI over the years, but they said that in most of those studies “the enrolled patients were highly selected and likely did not represent the broader population of patients with MVD [multivessel disease] undergoing revascularization.” With the exception of the SYNTAX trial (Synergy Between PCI With Taxus and Cardiac Surgery) (N Engl J Med. 2009;360:961-72; Lancet. 2013;381:629-38), those studies did not report on the frequency of MAG within the study population. The Mayo study, on the other hand, included all treated patients, excluding those who had a previous heart attack.

However, MAG is used infrequently, Dr. Locker and his colleagues said. The average annual rate of MAG in their Mayo practice was 15.2%, higher than the 5% annual rate the Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Cardiac Surgery Database (J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2012;143:273-81) reported, and higher than the 12% rate in Europe (Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2006;29: 486-91). The SYNTAX trial reported an annual MAG rate of 27.6% for all CABG cases.

“It seems clear that use of MultiArt should be more frequent in patients with MVD undergoing CABG,” Dr. Locker and his coauthors said. “MultiArt can be used in most patients with MVD, including diabetic patients and elderly patients, and this strategy will improve outcomes of surgical revascularization.”

Dr. Locker and his coauthors had no financial relationships to disclose.

A large, 16-year single-center study of patients with multivessel disease has determined that multivessel coronary artery bypass grafting achieved longer survival than not only percutaneous coronary interventions, but also conventional coronary artery bypass grafting, researchers from the Mayo Clinic reported in the August issue of the Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery (J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2016;152:369-79).

Lead author Chaim Locker, MD, and his colleagues said the use of what they called MultiArt, for multivessel arterial grafting, also known as MAG, “must increase.”

The evolution of bare-metal and then drug-eluting stents may have favored percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) over coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), but, Dr. Locker and his coauthors said, “Evidence is accumulating that late outcome of surgical revascularization is improved when at least two arterial grafts are used.”

The study analyzed results of 12,615 patients who had either isolated primary CABG (6,667) or PCI (5,948) from 1993 to 2009. Among the CABG patients, 5,712 had the more conventional approach involving arterial grafts into the left internal thoracic artery/saphenous vein (ITA/SV) and 955 had MAG. Patients in the PCI group had three different procedures: balloon angioplasty (1,020), drug-eluting stent (1,686), or bare-metal stent (3,242). The study excluded patients who had revascularization procedures after a heart attack.

While the overall 15-year survival for patients with CABG was lower than it was for those who had PCI (36% vs. 46%), the survival for those who had MAG was significantly higher: 65% vs. 31% for those who had left ITA/SV revascularization. 8-year survival for the MAG subgroup was also significantly higher than all other subgroups: 87% vs. 69% for left ITA/SV, 75% for bare-metal stent, 73% for balloon angioplasty, and 70% for drug-eluting stent.

Propensity matching found similar survivability for balloon angioplasty and left ITA/SV when compared with MAG: 66% for MAG vs. 57% for the former; and 64% for MAG vs. 56% for the latter. The researchers also estimated the hazard ratio during the first 5 years of follow-up and found that those who had bare-metal stents had “significantly worse” survival, compared with MAG, but that survival evened out after that. Survival in the bare-metal stent group was similar to that of the left ITA/SV group, but “significantly worse” during the first 5 years for those who had balloon angioplasty.

Dr. Locker and his colleagues acknowledged that multiple randomized studies have compared CABG and PCI over the years, but they said that in most of those studies “the enrolled patients were highly selected and likely did not represent the broader population of patients with MVD [multivessel disease] undergoing revascularization.” With the exception of the SYNTAX trial (Synergy Between PCI With Taxus and Cardiac Surgery) (N Engl J Med. 2009;360:961-72; Lancet. 2013;381:629-38), those studies did not report on the frequency of MAG within the study population. The Mayo study, on the other hand, included all treated patients, excluding those who had a previous heart attack.

However, MAG is used infrequently, Dr. Locker and his colleagues said. The average annual rate of MAG in their Mayo practice was 15.2%, higher than the 5% annual rate the Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Cardiac Surgery Database (J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2012;143:273-81) reported, and higher than the 12% rate in Europe (Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2006;29: 486-91). The SYNTAX trial reported an annual MAG rate of 27.6% for all CABG cases.

“It seems clear that use of MultiArt should be more frequent in patients with MVD undergoing CABG,” Dr. Locker and his coauthors said. “MultiArt can be used in most patients with MVD, including diabetic patients and elderly patients, and this strategy will improve outcomes of surgical revascularization.”

Dr. Locker and his coauthors had no financial relationships to disclose.

Gallstone disease is associated with a 23% higher risk of developing coronary heart disease, according to an analysis published Aug. 18 in Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology.

“Our results suggest that patients with gallstone disease should be monitored closely based on a careful assessment of both gallstone and heart disease risk factors,” senior author Lu Qi, MD, PhD, said in a statement.

James Heilman, MD/Wikimedia Commons/Creative Commons BY-SA 3.0

Dr. Qi, professor of epidemiology at Tulane University in New Orleans, and his coinvestigators conducted a meta-analysis of seven distinct studies, which involved a total of 842,553 patients and 51,123 cases of coronary heart disease. Patients with coronary heart disease were investigated further to determine if there was any history of gallstone disease.

Results showed that there was a 23% higher likelihood of coronary heart disease in patients who had gallstone disease, compared with those who did not, with a range of 15%-33% across the studies; the adjusted hazard ratio was 1.23 (95% confidence interval, 1.15-1.33).

Additionally, a separate prospective analysis of three of the included studies was conducted to determine individual risk factors that may contribute to the association between gallstone disease and coronary heart disease. These studies were the Nurses’ Health Study, conducted from 1980 to 2010, the Nurses’ Health Study II, which took place during 1989-2011, and the Health Professionals Follow-up Study, from 1986 through 2010, involving 112,520 women, 112,919 women, and 43,703 men, respectively.

This analysis revealed a 17% increase in coronary heart disease risk (aHR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.09-1.26). Furthermore, the investigators noted that individuals with a history of gallstone disease who were otherwise healthy – in other words, had no history of obesity, high blood pressure, diabetes, or other disorders commonly associated with coronary heart disease – still stood a higher chance of developing coronary heart disease than individuals with no history of gallstone disease (Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2016 Aug 18. doi: 10.1161/atvbaha.116.307507).

“Preventing gallstone disease may also benefit heart health,” Dr. Qi said.

“The potential mechanisms for the association of gallstone diseases with [coronary heart disease] may, at least, include the primary metabolic pathway and the bacterial pathway,” Dr. Qi and his coinvestigators posited, explaining that “among patients with gallstones, especially those with cholesterol gallstones, their bile acid and lecithin secretion rates tend to be depressed and cholesterol secretion rates elevated, which could indicate enhanced cholesterol synthesis and therefore increase cardiovascular disease risk.”

This study was supported by funding from the National Institutes of Health, the Boston Obesity Nutrition Research Center, and the United States–Israel Binational Science Foundation. The authors had no relevant financial disclosures.

dchitnis@frontlinemedcom.com

Gallstone disease is associated with a 23% higher risk of developing coronary heart disease, according to an analysis published Aug. 18 in Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology.

“Our results suggest that patients with gallstone disease should be monitored closely based on a careful assessment of both gallstone and heart disease risk factors,” senior author Lu Qi, MD, PhD, said in a statement.

James Heilman, MD/Wikimedia Commons/Creative Commons BY-SA 3.0

Dr. Qi, professor of epidemiology at Tulane University in New Orleans, and his coinvestigators conducted a meta-analysis of seven distinct studies, which involved a total of 842,553 patients and 51,123 cases of coronary heart disease. Patients with coronary heart disease were investigated further to determine if there was any history of gallstone disease.

Results showed that there was a 23% higher likelihood of coronary heart disease in patients who had gallstone disease, compared with those who did not, with a range of 15%-33% across the studies; the adjusted hazard ratio was 1.23 (95% confidence interval, 1.15-1.33).

Additionally, a separate prospective analysis of three of the included studies was conducted to determine individual risk factors that may contribute to the association between gallstone disease and coronary heart disease. These studies were the Nurses’ Health Study, conducted from 1980 to 2010, the Nurses’ Health Study II, which took place during 1989-2011, and the Health Professionals Follow-up Study, from 1986 through 2010, involving 112,520 women, 112,919 women, and 43,703 men, respectively.

This analysis revealed a 17% increase in coronary heart disease risk (aHR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.09-1.26). Furthermore, the investigators noted that individuals with a history of gallstone disease who were otherwise healthy – in other words, had no history of obesity, high blood pressure, diabetes, or other disorders commonly associated with coronary heart disease – still stood a higher chance of developing coronary heart disease than individuals with no history of gallstone disease (Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2016 Aug 18. doi: 10.1161/atvbaha.116.307507).

“Preventing gallstone disease may also benefit heart health,” Dr. Qi said.

“The potential mechanisms for the association of gallstone diseases with [coronary heart disease] may, at least, include the primary metabolic pathway and the bacterial pathway,” Dr. Qi and his coinvestigators posited, explaining that “among patients with gallstones, especially those with cholesterol gallstones, their bile acid and lecithin secretion rates tend to be depressed and cholesterol secretion rates elevated, which could indicate enhanced cholesterol synthesis and therefore increase cardiovascular disease risk.”

This study was supported by funding from the National Institutes of Health, the Boston Obesity Nutrition Research Center, and the United States–Israel Binational Science Foundation. The authors had no relevant financial disclosures.

dchitnis@frontlinemedcom.com

Gallstone disease is associated with a 23% higher risk of developing coronary heart disease, according to an analysis published Aug. 18 in Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology.

“Our results suggest that patients with gallstone disease should be monitored closely based on a careful assessment of both gallstone and heart disease risk factors,” senior author Lu Qi, MD, PhD, said in a statement.

James Heilman, MD/Wikimedia Commons/Creative Commons BY-SA 3.0

Dr. Qi, professor of epidemiology at Tulane University in New Orleans, and his coinvestigators conducted a meta-analysis of seven distinct studies, which involved a total of 842,553 patients and 51,123 cases of coronary heart disease. Patients with coronary heart disease were investigated further to determine if there was any history of gallstone disease.

Results showed that there was a 23% higher likelihood of coronary heart disease in patients who had gallstone disease, compared with those who did not, with a range of 15%-33% across the studies; the adjusted hazard ratio was 1.23 (95% confidence interval, 1.15-1.33).

Additionally, a separate prospective analysis of three of the included studies was conducted to determine individual risk factors that may contribute to the association between gallstone disease and coronary heart disease. These studies were the Nurses’ Health Study, conducted from 1980 to 2010, the Nurses’ Health Study II, which took place during 1989-2011, and the Health Professionals Follow-up Study, from 1986 through 2010, involving 112,520 women, 112,919 women, and 43,703 men, respectively.

This analysis revealed a 17% increase in coronary heart disease risk (aHR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.09-1.26). Furthermore, the investigators noted that individuals with a history of gallstone disease who were otherwise healthy – in other words, had no history of obesity, high blood pressure, diabetes, or other disorders commonly associated with coronary heart disease – still stood a higher chance of developing coronary heart disease than individuals with no history of gallstone disease (Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2016 Aug 18. doi: 10.1161/atvbaha.116.307507).

“Preventing gallstone disease may also benefit heart health,” Dr. Qi said.

“The potential mechanisms for the association of gallstone diseases with [coronary heart disease] may, at least, include the primary metabolic pathway and the bacterial pathway,” Dr. Qi and his coinvestigators posited, explaining that “among patients with gallstones, especially those with cholesterol gallstones, their bile acid and lecithin secretion rates tend to be depressed and cholesterol secretion rates elevated, which could indicate enhanced cholesterol synthesis and therefore increase cardiovascular disease risk.”

This study was supported by funding from the National Institutes of Health, the Boston Obesity Nutrition Research Center, and the United States–Israel Binational Science Foundation. The authors had no relevant financial disclosures.

dchitnis@frontlinemedcom.com

A model incorporating 17 easily obtainable preoperative variables may help clinicians estimate patients’ risk of developing pneumonia after undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery, according to a report published in Annals of Thoracic Surgery.

“This model may be used to inform clinician-patient decision making and to identify opportunities for mitigating a patient’s risk,” said Raymond J. Strobel, a medical student at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and his associates.

American Heart Association

Postoperative pneumonia is the most common hospital-acquired infection following CABG, and it raises mortality risk fourfold and increases length of stay threefold. But reliable estimation of patient risk of post-CABG pneumonia has been difficult because of its low relative incidence – roughly 3% – and because most studies of the disorder are nearly a decade out of date.

To devise a predictive model using current data, Mr. Strobel and his associates assessed numerous potential risk factors and outcomes for 16,084 consecutive patients undergoing CABG at all 33 cardiac centers across Michigan during a 3-year period. They identified 531 cases of post-CABG pneumonia (3.3%) in this cohort.

The investigators performed a univariate analysis to test the associations between pneumonia and numerous factors related to patient demographics, medical history, comorbid diseases, laboratory values, cardiac anatomy, cardiac function, pulmonary function, the CABG procedure, and the institution where the procedure was performed. Variables that were found to be significantly associated with pneumonia (though usually with small absolute magnitudes) were then assessed in a multivariate analysis, which was further refined to create the final model.

The final model includes 17 factors that clearly raise the risk of post-CABG pneumonia. These include an elevated leukocyte count; a decreased hematocrit; older patient age; comorbidities such as peripheral vascular disease, diabetes, and liver disease; markers of pulmonary impairment such as cigarette smoking, the need for home oxygen therapy, and chronic lung disease; markers of cardiac dysfunction such as a recent history of arrhythmia and decreased ejection fraction; and emergency or urgent rather than elective operative status.

“This model performs well and demonstrates robustness across important clinical subgroups and centers,” the investigators said (Ann Thorac Surg. 2016 Jun 1; doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2016.03.074).

In particular, this study identified preoperative leukocytosis to be a significant predictor of post-CABG pneumonia across several subgroups of patients. “We speculate that patients presenting with an elevated white blood cell count before surgery may be mounting an immune response against a pathogen and that the insult of CABG significantly increases their odds of postoperative pneumonia. ... It may be prudent to delay surgery until the source of leukocytosis is satisfactorily investigated, if not identified and treated, or the leukocytosis has otherwise resolved,” Mr. Strobel and his associates noted.

A model incorporating 17 easily obtainable preoperative variables may help clinicians estimate patients’ risk of developing pneumonia after undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery, according to a report published in Annals of Thoracic Surgery.

“This model may be used to inform clinician-patient decision making and to identify opportunities for mitigating a patient’s risk,” said Raymond J. Strobel, a medical student at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and his associates.

American Heart Association

Postoperative pneumonia is the most common hospital-acquired infection following CABG, and it raises mortality risk fourfold and increases length of stay threefold. But reliable estimation of patient risk of post-CABG pneumonia has been difficult because of its low relative incidence – roughly 3% – and because most studies of the disorder are nearly a decade out of date.

To devise a predictive model using current data, Mr. Strobel and his associates assessed numerous potential risk factors and outcomes for 16,084 consecutive patients undergoing CABG at all 33 cardiac centers across Michigan during a 3-year period. They identified 531 cases of post-CABG pneumonia (3.3%) in this cohort.

The investigators performed a univariate analysis to test the associations between pneumonia and numerous factors related to patient demographics, medical history, comorbid diseases, laboratory values, cardiac anatomy, cardiac function, pulmonary function, the CABG procedure, and the institution where the procedure was performed. Variables that were found to be significantly associated with pneumonia (though usually with small absolute magnitudes) were then assessed in a multivariate analysis, which was further refined to create the final model.

The final model includes 17 factors that clearly raise the risk of post-CABG pneumonia. These include an elevated leukocyte count; a decreased hematocrit; older patient age; comorbidities such as peripheral vascular disease, diabetes, and liver disease; markers of pulmonary impairment such as cigarette smoking, the need for home oxygen therapy, and chronic lung disease; markers of cardiac dysfunction such as a recent history of arrhythmia and decreased ejection fraction; and emergency or urgent rather than elective operative status.

“This model performs well and demonstrates robustness across important clinical subgroups and centers,” the investigators said (Ann Thorac Surg. 2016 Jun 1; doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2016.03.074).

In particular, this study identified preoperative leukocytosis to be a significant predictor of post-CABG pneumonia across several subgroups of patients. “We speculate that patients presenting with an elevated white blood cell count before surgery may be mounting an immune response against a pathogen and that the insult of CABG significantly increases their odds of postoperative pneumonia. ... It may be prudent to delay surgery until the source of leukocytosis is satisfactorily investigated, if not identified and treated, or the leukocytosis has otherwise resolved,” Mr. Strobel and his associates noted.

A model incorporating 17 easily obtainable preoperative variables may help clinicians estimate patients’ risk of developing pneumonia after undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery, according to a report published in Annals of Thoracic Surgery.

“This model may be used to inform clinician-patient decision making and to identify opportunities for mitigating a patient’s risk,” said Raymond J. Strobel, a medical student at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and his associates.

American Heart Association

Postoperative pneumonia is the most common hospital-acquired infection following CABG, and it raises mortality risk fourfold and increases length of stay threefold. But reliable estimation of patient risk of post-CABG pneumonia has been difficult because of its low relative incidence – roughly 3% – and because most studies of the disorder are nearly a decade out of date.

To devise a predictive model using current data, Mr. Strobel and his associates assessed numerous potential risk factors and outcomes for 16,084 consecutive patients undergoing CABG at all 33 cardiac centers across Michigan during a 3-year period. They identified 531 cases of post-CABG pneumonia (3.3%) in this cohort.

The investigators performed a univariate analysis to test the associations between pneumonia and numerous factors related to patient demographics, medical history, comorbid diseases, laboratory values, cardiac anatomy, cardiac function, pulmonary function, the CABG procedure, and the institution where the procedure was performed. Variables that were found to be significantly associated with pneumonia (though usually with small absolute magnitudes) were then assessed in a multivariate analysis, which was further refined to create the final model.

The final model includes 17 factors that clearly raise the risk of post-CABG pneumonia. These include an elevated leukocyte count; a decreased hematocrit; older patient age; comorbidities such as peripheral vascular disease, diabetes, and liver disease; markers of pulmonary impairment such as cigarette smoking, the need for home oxygen therapy, and chronic lung disease; markers of cardiac dysfunction such as a recent history of arrhythmia and decreased ejection fraction; and emergency or urgent rather than elective operative status.

“This model performs well and demonstrates robustness across important clinical subgroups and centers,” the investigators said (Ann Thorac Surg. 2016 Jun 1; doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2016.03.074).

In particular, this study identified preoperative leukocytosis to be a significant predictor of post-CABG pneumonia across several subgroups of patients. “We speculate that patients presenting with an elevated white blood cell count before surgery may be mounting an immune response against a pathogen and that the insult of CABG significantly increases their odds of postoperative pneumonia. ... It may be prudent to delay surgery until the source of leukocytosis is satisfactorily investigated, if not identified and treated, or the leukocytosis has otherwise resolved,” Mr. Strobel and his associates noted.