User login
Cardiogenic shock rate soars in COVID-positive ACS
COVID-19–positive patients undergoing an invasive strategy for acute coronary syndrome presented hours later than uninfected historical controls, had a far higher incidence of cardiogenic shock, and their in-hospital mortality rate was four- to fivefold greater, according to data from the Global Multicenter Prospective COVID–ACS Registry. These phenomena are probably interrelated, according to Anthony Gershlick, MBBS, who presented the registry results at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics virtual annual meeting.
“We know that increasing ischemic time leads to bigger infarcts. And we know that bigger infarcts lead to cardiogenic shock, with its known higher mortality,” said Dr. Gershlick, professor of interventional cardiology at the University of Leicester (England).
“These data suggest that patients may have presented late, likely due to COVID concerns, and they had worse outcomes. If these data are borne out, future public information strategies need to be reassuring, proactive, simple, and more effective because we think patients stayed away,” the cardiologist added. “There are important public information messages to be taken from these data about getting patients to come to hospital during such pandemics.”
He presented prospectively collected registry data on 144 patients with confirmed ST-elevation MI (STEMI) and 122 with non-ST–elevation MI (NSTEMI), all COVID-19 positive on presentation at 85 hospitals in the United Kingdom, Europe, and North America during March through August of 2020. Since the initial message to the public early in the pandemic in many places was to try to avoid the hospital, the investigators selected for their no-COVID comparison group the data on more than 22,000 STEMI and NSTEMI patients included in two British national databases covering 2018-2019.
The COVID-positive STEMI patients were significantly younger, had more comorbidities, and had a higher mean heart rate and lower systolic blood pressure at admission than the non-COVID STEMI control group. Their median time from symptom onset to admission was 339 minutes, compared with 178 minutes in controls. Their door-to-balloon time averaged 83 minutes, versus 37 minutes in the era before the pandemic.
“I suspect that’s got something to do with the donning and doffing of personal protective equipment,” he said at the meeting sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.
The in-hospital mortality rates were strikingly different: 27.1% in COVID-positive STEMI patients versus 5.7% in controls. Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3-5 bleeding was increased as well, by a margin of 2.8% to 0.3%. So was stroke, with a 2.1% in-hospital incidence in COVID-positive STEMI patients and a 0.1% rate in the comparator arm.
“But the biggest headline here for me was that the cardiogenic shock rate was 20.1% in the COVID-positive patients versus 8.7% in the non-COVID STEMI patients,” the cardiologist continued.
The same pattern held true among the COVID-positive NSTEMI patients: They were younger, sicker, and slower to present to the hospital than the non-COVID group. The in-hospital mortality rate was 6.6% in the COVID-positive NSTEMI patients, compared with 1.2% in the reference group. The COVID-positive patients had a 2.5% bleeding rate versus 0.1% in the controls. And the incidence of cardiogenic shock was 5%, compared with 1.4% in the controls from before the pandemic.
“Even though NSTEMI is traditionally regarded as lower risk, this is really quite dramatic. These are sick patients,” Dr. Gershlick observed.
Nearly two-thirds of in-hospital deaths in COVID-positive ACS patients were cardiovascular, and three-quarters of those cardiovascular deaths occurred in patients with cardiogenic shock. Thirty-two percent of deaths in COVID-positive ACS patients were of respiratory causes, and 4.9% were neurologic.
Notably, the ischemic time of patients with cardiogenic shock who died – that is, the time from symptom onset to balloon deployment – averaged 1,271 minutes, compared with 441 minutes in those who died without being in cardiogenic shock.
Session comoderator Sahil A. Parikh, MD, director of endovascular services at Columbia University Medical Center in New York, commented, “One of the striking things that is resonating with me is the high incidence of cardiogenic shock and the mortality. It’s akin to what we’ve seen in New York.”
Discussant Valentin Fuster, MD, PhD, said he doubts that the increased in-hospital mortality in the COVID–ACS registry is related to the prolonged time to presentation at the hospital. More likely, it’s related to the greater thrombotic burden various studies have shown accompanies COVID-positive ACS. It might even be caused by a direct effect of the virus on the myocardium, added Dr. Fuster, director of the Zena and Michael A. Wiener Cardiovascular Institute and professor of medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York.
“I have to say I absolutely disagree,” responded Dr. Gershlick. “I think it’s important that we try to understand all the mechanisms, but we know that patients with COVID are anxious, and I think one of the messages from this registry is patients took longer to come to hospital, they were sicker, they had more cardiogenic shock, and they died. And I don’t think it’s anything more complicated than that.”
Another discussant, Mamas Mamas, MD, is involved with a 500-patient U.K. pandemic ACS registry nearing publication. The findings, he said, are similar to what Dr. Gershlick reported in terms of the high rate of presentation with cardiogenic shock and elevated in-hospital mortality. The COVID-positive ACS patients were also more likely to present with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. But like Dr. Fuster, he is skeptical that their worse outcomes can be explained by a delay in seeking care.
“I don’t think the delay in presentation is really associated with the high mortality rate that we see. The delay in our U.K. registry is maybe half an hour for STEMIs and maybe 2-3 hours for NSTEMIs. And I don’t think that can produce a 30%-40% increase in mortality,” asserted Dr. Mamas, professor of cardiology at Keele University in Staffordshire, England.
Dr. Gershlick reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.
COVID-19–positive patients undergoing an invasive strategy for acute coronary syndrome presented hours later than uninfected historical controls, had a far higher incidence of cardiogenic shock, and their in-hospital mortality rate was four- to fivefold greater, according to data from the Global Multicenter Prospective COVID–ACS Registry. These phenomena are probably interrelated, according to Anthony Gershlick, MBBS, who presented the registry results at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics virtual annual meeting.
“We know that increasing ischemic time leads to bigger infarcts. And we know that bigger infarcts lead to cardiogenic shock, with its known higher mortality,” said Dr. Gershlick, professor of interventional cardiology at the University of Leicester (England).
“These data suggest that patients may have presented late, likely due to COVID concerns, and they had worse outcomes. If these data are borne out, future public information strategies need to be reassuring, proactive, simple, and more effective because we think patients stayed away,” the cardiologist added. “There are important public information messages to be taken from these data about getting patients to come to hospital during such pandemics.”
He presented prospectively collected registry data on 144 patients with confirmed ST-elevation MI (STEMI) and 122 with non-ST–elevation MI (NSTEMI), all COVID-19 positive on presentation at 85 hospitals in the United Kingdom, Europe, and North America during March through August of 2020. Since the initial message to the public early in the pandemic in many places was to try to avoid the hospital, the investigators selected for their no-COVID comparison group the data on more than 22,000 STEMI and NSTEMI patients included in two British national databases covering 2018-2019.
The COVID-positive STEMI patients were significantly younger, had more comorbidities, and had a higher mean heart rate and lower systolic blood pressure at admission than the non-COVID STEMI control group. Their median time from symptom onset to admission was 339 minutes, compared with 178 minutes in controls. Their door-to-balloon time averaged 83 minutes, versus 37 minutes in the era before the pandemic.
“I suspect that’s got something to do with the donning and doffing of personal protective equipment,” he said at the meeting sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.
The in-hospital mortality rates were strikingly different: 27.1% in COVID-positive STEMI patients versus 5.7% in controls. Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3-5 bleeding was increased as well, by a margin of 2.8% to 0.3%. So was stroke, with a 2.1% in-hospital incidence in COVID-positive STEMI patients and a 0.1% rate in the comparator arm.
“But the biggest headline here for me was that the cardiogenic shock rate was 20.1% in the COVID-positive patients versus 8.7% in the non-COVID STEMI patients,” the cardiologist continued.
The same pattern held true among the COVID-positive NSTEMI patients: They were younger, sicker, and slower to present to the hospital than the non-COVID group. The in-hospital mortality rate was 6.6% in the COVID-positive NSTEMI patients, compared with 1.2% in the reference group. The COVID-positive patients had a 2.5% bleeding rate versus 0.1% in the controls. And the incidence of cardiogenic shock was 5%, compared with 1.4% in the controls from before the pandemic.
“Even though NSTEMI is traditionally regarded as lower risk, this is really quite dramatic. These are sick patients,” Dr. Gershlick observed.
Nearly two-thirds of in-hospital deaths in COVID-positive ACS patients were cardiovascular, and three-quarters of those cardiovascular deaths occurred in patients with cardiogenic shock. Thirty-two percent of deaths in COVID-positive ACS patients were of respiratory causes, and 4.9% were neurologic.
Notably, the ischemic time of patients with cardiogenic shock who died – that is, the time from symptom onset to balloon deployment – averaged 1,271 minutes, compared with 441 minutes in those who died without being in cardiogenic shock.
Session comoderator Sahil A. Parikh, MD, director of endovascular services at Columbia University Medical Center in New York, commented, “One of the striking things that is resonating with me is the high incidence of cardiogenic shock and the mortality. It’s akin to what we’ve seen in New York.”
Discussant Valentin Fuster, MD, PhD, said he doubts that the increased in-hospital mortality in the COVID–ACS registry is related to the prolonged time to presentation at the hospital. More likely, it’s related to the greater thrombotic burden various studies have shown accompanies COVID-positive ACS. It might even be caused by a direct effect of the virus on the myocardium, added Dr. Fuster, director of the Zena and Michael A. Wiener Cardiovascular Institute and professor of medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York.
“I have to say I absolutely disagree,” responded Dr. Gershlick. “I think it’s important that we try to understand all the mechanisms, but we know that patients with COVID are anxious, and I think one of the messages from this registry is patients took longer to come to hospital, they were sicker, they had more cardiogenic shock, and they died. And I don’t think it’s anything more complicated than that.”
Another discussant, Mamas Mamas, MD, is involved with a 500-patient U.K. pandemic ACS registry nearing publication. The findings, he said, are similar to what Dr. Gershlick reported in terms of the high rate of presentation with cardiogenic shock and elevated in-hospital mortality. The COVID-positive ACS patients were also more likely to present with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. But like Dr. Fuster, he is skeptical that their worse outcomes can be explained by a delay in seeking care.
“I don’t think the delay in presentation is really associated with the high mortality rate that we see. The delay in our U.K. registry is maybe half an hour for STEMIs and maybe 2-3 hours for NSTEMIs. And I don’t think that can produce a 30%-40% increase in mortality,” asserted Dr. Mamas, professor of cardiology at Keele University in Staffordshire, England.
Dr. Gershlick reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.
COVID-19–positive patients undergoing an invasive strategy for acute coronary syndrome presented hours later than uninfected historical controls, had a far higher incidence of cardiogenic shock, and their in-hospital mortality rate was four- to fivefold greater, according to data from the Global Multicenter Prospective COVID–ACS Registry. These phenomena are probably interrelated, according to Anthony Gershlick, MBBS, who presented the registry results at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics virtual annual meeting.
“We know that increasing ischemic time leads to bigger infarcts. And we know that bigger infarcts lead to cardiogenic shock, with its known higher mortality,” said Dr. Gershlick, professor of interventional cardiology at the University of Leicester (England).
“These data suggest that patients may have presented late, likely due to COVID concerns, and they had worse outcomes. If these data are borne out, future public information strategies need to be reassuring, proactive, simple, and more effective because we think patients stayed away,” the cardiologist added. “There are important public information messages to be taken from these data about getting patients to come to hospital during such pandemics.”
He presented prospectively collected registry data on 144 patients with confirmed ST-elevation MI (STEMI) and 122 with non-ST–elevation MI (NSTEMI), all COVID-19 positive on presentation at 85 hospitals in the United Kingdom, Europe, and North America during March through August of 2020. Since the initial message to the public early in the pandemic in many places was to try to avoid the hospital, the investigators selected for their no-COVID comparison group the data on more than 22,000 STEMI and NSTEMI patients included in two British national databases covering 2018-2019.
The COVID-positive STEMI patients were significantly younger, had more comorbidities, and had a higher mean heart rate and lower systolic blood pressure at admission than the non-COVID STEMI control group. Their median time from symptom onset to admission was 339 minutes, compared with 178 minutes in controls. Their door-to-balloon time averaged 83 minutes, versus 37 minutes in the era before the pandemic.
“I suspect that’s got something to do with the donning and doffing of personal protective equipment,” he said at the meeting sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.
The in-hospital mortality rates were strikingly different: 27.1% in COVID-positive STEMI patients versus 5.7% in controls. Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3-5 bleeding was increased as well, by a margin of 2.8% to 0.3%. So was stroke, with a 2.1% in-hospital incidence in COVID-positive STEMI patients and a 0.1% rate in the comparator arm.
“But the biggest headline here for me was that the cardiogenic shock rate was 20.1% in the COVID-positive patients versus 8.7% in the non-COVID STEMI patients,” the cardiologist continued.
The same pattern held true among the COVID-positive NSTEMI patients: They were younger, sicker, and slower to present to the hospital than the non-COVID group. The in-hospital mortality rate was 6.6% in the COVID-positive NSTEMI patients, compared with 1.2% in the reference group. The COVID-positive patients had a 2.5% bleeding rate versus 0.1% in the controls. And the incidence of cardiogenic shock was 5%, compared with 1.4% in the controls from before the pandemic.
“Even though NSTEMI is traditionally regarded as lower risk, this is really quite dramatic. These are sick patients,” Dr. Gershlick observed.
Nearly two-thirds of in-hospital deaths in COVID-positive ACS patients were cardiovascular, and three-quarters of those cardiovascular deaths occurred in patients with cardiogenic shock. Thirty-two percent of deaths in COVID-positive ACS patients were of respiratory causes, and 4.9% were neurologic.
Notably, the ischemic time of patients with cardiogenic shock who died – that is, the time from symptom onset to balloon deployment – averaged 1,271 minutes, compared with 441 minutes in those who died without being in cardiogenic shock.
Session comoderator Sahil A. Parikh, MD, director of endovascular services at Columbia University Medical Center in New York, commented, “One of the striking things that is resonating with me is the high incidence of cardiogenic shock and the mortality. It’s akin to what we’ve seen in New York.”
Discussant Valentin Fuster, MD, PhD, said he doubts that the increased in-hospital mortality in the COVID–ACS registry is related to the prolonged time to presentation at the hospital. More likely, it’s related to the greater thrombotic burden various studies have shown accompanies COVID-positive ACS. It might even be caused by a direct effect of the virus on the myocardium, added Dr. Fuster, director of the Zena and Michael A. Wiener Cardiovascular Institute and professor of medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York.
“I have to say I absolutely disagree,” responded Dr. Gershlick. “I think it’s important that we try to understand all the mechanisms, but we know that patients with COVID are anxious, and I think one of the messages from this registry is patients took longer to come to hospital, they were sicker, they had more cardiogenic shock, and they died. And I don’t think it’s anything more complicated than that.”
Another discussant, Mamas Mamas, MD, is involved with a 500-patient U.K. pandemic ACS registry nearing publication. The findings, he said, are similar to what Dr. Gershlick reported in terms of the high rate of presentation with cardiogenic shock and elevated in-hospital mortality. The COVID-positive ACS patients were also more likely to present with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. But like Dr. Fuster, he is skeptical that their worse outcomes can be explained by a delay in seeking care.
“I don’t think the delay in presentation is really associated with the high mortality rate that we see. The delay in our U.K. registry is maybe half an hour for STEMIs and maybe 2-3 hours for NSTEMIs. And I don’t think that can produce a 30%-40% increase in mortality,” asserted Dr. Mamas, professor of cardiology at Keele University in Staffordshire, England.
Dr. Gershlick reported having no financial conflicts regarding his presentation.
FROM TCT 2020
Experts tout immediate quadruple therapy for HFrEF patients
Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, recommended.
Less than 2 months before Dr. Fonarow made that striking statement during the virtual annual meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America, investigators first reported results from the EMPEROR-Reduced trial at the European Society of Cardiology’s virtual annual meeting, showing that the sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance) successfully cut events in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). That report, a year after results from a similar trial (DAPA-HF) showed the same outcome using a different drug from the same class, dapagliflozin (Farxiga), cemented the SGLT2 inhibitor drug class as the fourth pillar for treating HFrEF, joining the angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) class (sacubitril valsartan), beta-blockers (like carvedilol), and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (like spironolactone).
This rejiggering of the consensus expert approach for treating HFrEF left cardiologists wondering what sequence to use when starting this quadruple therapy. Within weeks, the answer from heart failure opinion leaders was clear:
“Start all four pillars simultaneously. Most patients can tolerate, and will benefit from, a simultaneous start,” declared Dr. Fonarow, professor and chief of cardiology at the University of California, Los Angeles.
His rationale? Patients get benefits from each of these drug classes “surprisingly early,” with improved outcomes in clinical trials appearing within a few weeks, compared with patients in control arms. The consequence is that any delay in starting treatment denies patients time with improved health status, function, and survival.
Study results documented that the four foundational drug classes can produce rapid improvements in health status, left ventricular size and shape, and make clinically meaningful cuts in both first and recurrent hospitalizations for heart failure and in mortality, Dr. Fonarow said. After 30 days on quadruple treatment, a patient’s relative risk for death drops by more than three-quarters, compared with patients not on these medications.
The benefits from each of the four classes involve distinct physiologic pathways and hence are not diminished by concurrent treatment. And immediate initiation avoids the risk of clinical inertia and a negligence to prescribe one or more of the four important drug classes. Introducing the four classes in a sequential manner could mean spending as long as a year to get all four on board and up-titrated to optimal therapeutic levels, he noted.
“Overcome inertia by prescribing [all four drug classes] at the time of diagnosis,” Dr. Fonarow admonished his audience.
The challenge of prescribing inertia
The risk for inertia in prescribing heart failure medications is real. Data collected in the CHAMP-HF (Change the Management of Patients with Heart Failure) registry from more than 3,500 HFrEF patients managed at any of 150 U.S. primary care and cardiology practices starting in late 2015 and continuing through 2017 showed that, among patients eligible for treatment with renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibition (with either ARNI or a single RAS inhibiting drug), a beta-blocker, and a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA), 22% received all three drug classes. A scant 1% were on target dosages of all three drug classes, noted Stephen J. Greene, MD, in a separate talk at the meeting when he cited his published findings.
The sole formulation currently in the ARNI class, sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) has in recent years been the poster child for prescribing inertia in HFrEF patients after coming onto the U.S. market for routine use in 2015. A review run by Dr. Greene of more than 9,000 HFrEF patients who were at least 65 years old and discharged from a hospital participating in the Get With the Guidelines–Heart Failure registry during October 2015–September 2017 showed that 8% of eligible patients actually received a sacubitril/valsartan prescription. Separate assessment of outpatients with HFrEF from the same era showed 13% uptake, said D. Greene, a cardiologist at Duke University, Durham, N.C.
Substantial gaps in prescribing evidence-based treatments to HFrEF patients have existed for the past couple of decades, said Dr. Greene. “Even a blockbuster drug like sacubitril/valsartan has been slow to implement.”
Quadruple therapy adds an average of 6 years of life
One of the most strongest arguments favoring the start-four-at-once approach was detailed in what’s quickly become a widely cited analysis published in July 2020 by a team of researchers led by Muthiah Vaduganathan, MD. Using data from three key pivotal trials they estimated that timely treatment with all four drug classes would on average produce an extra 6 years of overall survival in a 55-year old HFrEF patient, and an added 8 years free from cardiovascular death or first hospitalization for heart failure, compared with less comprehensive treatment. The analysis also showed a significant 3-year average boost in overall survival among HFrEF patients who were 80 years old when using quadruple therapy compared with the “conventional medical therapy” used on control patients in the three trials examined.
Dr. Greene called these findings “remarkable.”
“Four drugs use five mechanistic pathways to produce 6 added years of survival,” summed up Dr. Vaduganathan during a separate talk at the virtual meeting.
In addition to this substantial potential for a meaningful impact on patents’ lives, he cited other factors that add to the case for early prescription of the pharmaceutical gauntlet: avoiding missed treatment opportunities that occur with slower, step-wise drug introduction; simplifying, streamlining, and standardizing the care pathway, which helps avoid care inequities and disrupts the potential for inertia; magnifying benefit when comprehensive treatment starts sooner; and providing additive benefits without drug-drug interactions.
“Upfront treatment at the time of [HFrEF] diagnosis or hospitalization is an approach that disrupts treatment inertia,” emphasized Dr. Vaduganathan, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.
New approaches needed to encourage quick uptake
“Efficacy alone has not been enough for efficient uptake in U.S. practice” of sacubitril/valsartan, other RAS inhibitors, beta-blockers, and MRAs, noted Dr. Greene.
He was more optimistic about prospects for relatively quick uptake of early SGLT2 inhibitor treatment as part of routine HFrEF management given all the positives that this new HFrEF treatment offers, including some “unique features” among HFrEF drugs. These include the simplicity of the regimen, which involves a single dosage for everyone that’s taken once daily; minimal blood pressure effects and no adverse renal effects while also producing substantial renal protection; and two SGLT2 inhibitors with proven HFrEF benefit (dapagliflozin and empagliflozin), which bodes well for an eventual price drop.
The SGLT2 inhibitors stack up as an “ideal” HFrEF treatment, concluded Dr. Greene, which should facilitate quick uptake. As far as getting clinicians to also add early on the other three members of the core four treatment classes in routine treatment, he conceded that “innovative and evidence-based approaches to improving real-world uptake of guideline-directed medical therapy are urgently needed.”
EMPEROR-Reduced was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly, the companies that market empagliflozin (Jardiance). CHAMP-HF was funded by Novartis, the company that markets sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto). Dr. Fonarow has been a consultant or adviser to Novartis, as well as to Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, CHF Solutions, Edwards, Janssen, Medtronic, and Merck. Dr. Greene has received research funding from Novartis, has been a consultant to Amgen and Merck, an adviser to Amgen and Cytokinetics, and has received research funding from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Merck. Dr. Vaduganathan has had financial relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim and Novartis, as well as with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Baxter Healthcare, Bayer, Cytokinetics, and Relypsa.
Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, recommended.
Less than 2 months before Dr. Fonarow made that striking statement during the virtual annual meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America, investigators first reported results from the EMPEROR-Reduced trial at the European Society of Cardiology’s virtual annual meeting, showing that the sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance) successfully cut events in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). That report, a year after results from a similar trial (DAPA-HF) showed the same outcome using a different drug from the same class, dapagliflozin (Farxiga), cemented the SGLT2 inhibitor drug class as the fourth pillar for treating HFrEF, joining the angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) class (sacubitril valsartan), beta-blockers (like carvedilol), and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (like spironolactone).
This rejiggering of the consensus expert approach for treating HFrEF left cardiologists wondering what sequence to use when starting this quadruple therapy. Within weeks, the answer from heart failure opinion leaders was clear:
“Start all four pillars simultaneously. Most patients can tolerate, and will benefit from, a simultaneous start,” declared Dr. Fonarow, professor and chief of cardiology at the University of California, Los Angeles.
His rationale? Patients get benefits from each of these drug classes “surprisingly early,” with improved outcomes in clinical trials appearing within a few weeks, compared with patients in control arms. The consequence is that any delay in starting treatment denies patients time with improved health status, function, and survival.
Study results documented that the four foundational drug classes can produce rapid improvements in health status, left ventricular size and shape, and make clinically meaningful cuts in both first and recurrent hospitalizations for heart failure and in mortality, Dr. Fonarow said. After 30 days on quadruple treatment, a patient’s relative risk for death drops by more than three-quarters, compared with patients not on these medications.
The benefits from each of the four classes involve distinct physiologic pathways and hence are not diminished by concurrent treatment. And immediate initiation avoids the risk of clinical inertia and a negligence to prescribe one or more of the four important drug classes. Introducing the four classes in a sequential manner could mean spending as long as a year to get all four on board and up-titrated to optimal therapeutic levels, he noted.
“Overcome inertia by prescribing [all four drug classes] at the time of diagnosis,” Dr. Fonarow admonished his audience.
The challenge of prescribing inertia
The risk for inertia in prescribing heart failure medications is real. Data collected in the CHAMP-HF (Change the Management of Patients with Heart Failure) registry from more than 3,500 HFrEF patients managed at any of 150 U.S. primary care and cardiology practices starting in late 2015 and continuing through 2017 showed that, among patients eligible for treatment with renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibition (with either ARNI or a single RAS inhibiting drug), a beta-blocker, and a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA), 22% received all three drug classes. A scant 1% were on target dosages of all three drug classes, noted Stephen J. Greene, MD, in a separate talk at the meeting when he cited his published findings.
The sole formulation currently in the ARNI class, sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) has in recent years been the poster child for prescribing inertia in HFrEF patients after coming onto the U.S. market for routine use in 2015. A review run by Dr. Greene of more than 9,000 HFrEF patients who were at least 65 years old and discharged from a hospital participating in the Get With the Guidelines–Heart Failure registry during October 2015–September 2017 showed that 8% of eligible patients actually received a sacubitril/valsartan prescription. Separate assessment of outpatients with HFrEF from the same era showed 13% uptake, said D. Greene, a cardiologist at Duke University, Durham, N.C.
Substantial gaps in prescribing evidence-based treatments to HFrEF patients have existed for the past couple of decades, said Dr. Greene. “Even a blockbuster drug like sacubitril/valsartan has been slow to implement.”
Quadruple therapy adds an average of 6 years of life
One of the most strongest arguments favoring the start-four-at-once approach was detailed in what’s quickly become a widely cited analysis published in July 2020 by a team of researchers led by Muthiah Vaduganathan, MD. Using data from three key pivotal trials they estimated that timely treatment with all four drug classes would on average produce an extra 6 years of overall survival in a 55-year old HFrEF patient, and an added 8 years free from cardiovascular death or first hospitalization for heart failure, compared with less comprehensive treatment. The analysis also showed a significant 3-year average boost in overall survival among HFrEF patients who were 80 years old when using quadruple therapy compared with the “conventional medical therapy” used on control patients in the three trials examined.
Dr. Greene called these findings “remarkable.”
“Four drugs use five mechanistic pathways to produce 6 added years of survival,” summed up Dr. Vaduganathan during a separate talk at the virtual meeting.
In addition to this substantial potential for a meaningful impact on patents’ lives, he cited other factors that add to the case for early prescription of the pharmaceutical gauntlet: avoiding missed treatment opportunities that occur with slower, step-wise drug introduction; simplifying, streamlining, and standardizing the care pathway, which helps avoid care inequities and disrupts the potential for inertia; magnifying benefit when comprehensive treatment starts sooner; and providing additive benefits without drug-drug interactions.
“Upfront treatment at the time of [HFrEF] diagnosis or hospitalization is an approach that disrupts treatment inertia,” emphasized Dr. Vaduganathan, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.
New approaches needed to encourage quick uptake
“Efficacy alone has not been enough for efficient uptake in U.S. practice” of sacubitril/valsartan, other RAS inhibitors, beta-blockers, and MRAs, noted Dr. Greene.
He was more optimistic about prospects for relatively quick uptake of early SGLT2 inhibitor treatment as part of routine HFrEF management given all the positives that this new HFrEF treatment offers, including some “unique features” among HFrEF drugs. These include the simplicity of the regimen, which involves a single dosage for everyone that’s taken once daily; minimal blood pressure effects and no adverse renal effects while also producing substantial renal protection; and two SGLT2 inhibitors with proven HFrEF benefit (dapagliflozin and empagliflozin), which bodes well for an eventual price drop.
The SGLT2 inhibitors stack up as an “ideal” HFrEF treatment, concluded Dr. Greene, which should facilitate quick uptake. As far as getting clinicians to also add early on the other three members of the core four treatment classes in routine treatment, he conceded that “innovative and evidence-based approaches to improving real-world uptake of guideline-directed medical therapy are urgently needed.”
EMPEROR-Reduced was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly, the companies that market empagliflozin (Jardiance). CHAMP-HF was funded by Novartis, the company that markets sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto). Dr. Fonarow has been a consultant or adviser to Novartis, as well as to Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, CHF Solutions, Edwards, Janssen, Medtronic, and Merck. Dr. Greene has received research funding from Novartis, has been a consultant to Amgen and Merck, an adviser to Amgen and Cytokinetics, and has received research funding from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Merck. Dr. Vaduganathan has had financial relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim and Novartis, as well as with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Baxter Healthcare, Bayer, Cytokinetics, and Relypsa.
Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, recommended.
Less than 2 months before Dr. Fonarow made that striking statement during the virtual annual meeting of the Heart Failure Society of America, investigators first reported results from the EMPEROR-Reduced trial at the European Society of Cardiology’s virtual annual meeting, showing that the sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance) successfully cut events in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). That report, a year after results from a similar trial (DAPA-HF) showed the same outcome using a different drug from the same class, dapagliflozin (Farxiga), cemented the SGLT2 inhibitor drug class as the fourth pillar for treating HFrEF, joining the angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) class (sacubitril valsartan), beta-blockers (like carvedilol), and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (like spironolactone).
This rejiggering of the consensus expert approach for treating HFrEF left cardiologists wondering what sequence to use when starting this quadruple therapy. Within weeks, the answer from heart failure opinion leaders was clear:
“Start all four pillars simultaneously. Most patients can tolerate, and will benefit from, a simultaneous start,” declared Dr. Fonarow, professor and chief of cardiology at the University of California, Los Angeles.
His rationale? Patients get benefits from each of these drug classes “surprisingly early,” with improved outcomes in clinical trials appearing within a few weeks, compared with patients in control arms. The consequence is that any delay in starting treatment denies patients time with improved health status, function, and survival.
Study results documented that the four foundational drug classes can produce rapid improvements in health status, left ventricular size and shape, and make clinically meaningful cuts in both first and recurrent hospitalizations for heart failure and in mortality, Dr. Fonarow said. After 30 days on quadruple treatment, a patient’s relative risk for death drops by more than three-quarters, compared with patients not on these medications.
The benefits from each of the four classes involve distinct physiologic pathways and hence are not diminished by concurrent treatment. And immediate initiation avoids the risk of clinical inertia and a negligence to prescribe one or more of the four important drug classes. Introducing the four classes in a sequential manner could mean spending as long as a year to get all four on board and up-titrated to optimal therapeutic levels, he noted.
“Overcome inertia by prescribing [all four drug classes] at the time of diagnosis,” Dr. Fonarow admonished his audience.
The challenge of prescribing inertia
The risk for inertia in prescribing heart failure medications is real. Data collected in the CHAMP-HF (Change the Management of Patients with Heart Failure) registry from more than 3,500 HFrEF patients managed at any of 150 U.S. primary care and cardiology practices starting in late 2015 and continuing through 2017 showed that, among patients eligible for treatment with renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibition (with either ARNI or a single RAS inhibiting drug), a beta-blocker, and a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA), 22% received all three drug classes. A scant 1% were on target dosages of all three drug classes, noted Stephen J. Greene, MD, in a separate talk at the meeting when he cited his published findings.
The sole formulation currently in the ARNI class, sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) has in recent years been the poster child for prescribing inertia in HFrEF patients after coming onto the U.S. market for routine use in 2015. A review run by Dr. Greene of more than 9,000 HFrEF patients who were at least 65 years old and discharged from a hospital participating in the Get With the Guidelines–Heart Failure registry during October 2015–September 2017 showed that 8% of eligible patients actually received a sacubitril/valsartan prescription. Separate assessment of outpatients with HFrEF from the same era showed 13% uptake, said D. Greene, a cardiologist at Duke University, Durham, N.C.
Substantial gaps in prescribing evidence-based treatments to HFrEF patients have existed for the past couple of decades, said Dr. Greene. “Even a blockbuster drug like sacubitril/valsartan has been slow to implement.”
Quadruple therapy adds an average of 6 years of life
One of the most strongest arguments favoring the start-four-at-once approach was detailed in what’s quickly become a widely cited analysis published in July 2020 by a team of researchers led by Muthiah Vaduganathan, MD. Using data from three key pivotal trials they estimated that timely treatment with all four drug classes would on average produce an extra 6 years of overall survival in a 55-year old HFrEF patient, and an added 8 years free from cardiovascular death or first hospitalization for heart failure, compared with less comprehensive treatment. The analysis also showed a significant 3-year average boost in overall survival among HFrEF patients who were 80 years old when using quadruple therapy compared with the “conventional medical therapy” used on control patients in the three trials examined.
Dr. Greene called these findings “remarkable.”
“Four drugs use five mechanistic pathways to produce 6 added years of survival,” summed up Dr. Vaduganathan during a separate talk at the virtual meeting.
In addition to this substantial potential for a meaningful impact on patents’ lives, he cited other factors that add to the case for early prescription of the pharmaceutical gauntlet: avoiding missed treatment opportunities that occur with slower, step-wise drug introduction; simplifying, streamlining, and standardizing the care pathway, which helps avoid care inequities and disrupts the potential for inertia; magnifying benefit when comprehensive treatment starts sooner; and providing additive benefits without drug-drug interactions.
“Upfront treatment at the time of [HFrEF] diagnosis or hospitalization is an approach that disrupts treatment inertia,” emphasized Dr. Vaduganathan, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.
New approaches needed to encourage quick uptake
“Efficacy alone has not been enough for efficient uptake in U.S. practice” of sacubitril/valsartan, other RAS inhibitors, beta-blockers, and MRAs, noted Dr. Greene.
He was more optimistic about prospects for relatively quick uptake of early SGLT2 inhibitor treatment as part of routine HFrEF management given all the positives that this new HFrEF treatment offers, including some “unique features” among HFrEF drugs. These include the simplicity of the regimen, which involves a single dosage for everyone that’s taken once daily; minimal blood pressure effects and no adverse renal effects while also producing substantial renal protection; and two SGLT2 inhibitors with proven HFrEF benefit (dapagliflozin and empagliflozin), which bodes well for an eventual price drop.
The SGLT2 inhibitors stack up as an “ideal” HFrEF treatment, concluded Dr. Greene, which should facilitate quick uptake. As far as getting clinicians to also add early on the other three members of the core four treatment classes in routine treatment, he conceded that “innovative and evidence-based approaches to improving real-world uptake of guideline-directed medical therapy are urgently needed.”
EMPEROR-Reduced was funded by Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly, the companies that market empagliflozin (Jardiance). CHAMP-HF was funded by Novartis, the company that markets sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto). Dr. Fonarow has been a consultant or adviser to Novartis, as well as to Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, CHF Solutions, Edwards, Janssen, Medtronic, and Merck. Dr. Greene has received research funding from Novartis, has been a consultant to Amgen and Merck, an adviser to Amgen and Cytokinetics, and has received research funding from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Merck. Dr. Vaduganathan has had financial relationships with Boehringer Ingelheim and Novartis, as well as with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Baxter Healthcare, Bayer, Cytokinetics, and Relypsa.
FROM HFSA 2020
‘Modest’ benefit for post-MI T2D glucose monitoring
Following a heart attack, there appears to be a “modest” benefit of using flash glucose monitoring over fingerstick testing to monitor blood glucose levels in patients with type 2 diabetes being treated with insulin or a sulfonylurea, according to investigators of the LIBERATES trial.
The results showed a nonsignificant increase in the time that subjects’ blood glucose was spent in the target range of 3.9-10.00 mmol/L (70-180 mg/dL) 3 months after experiencing an acute coronary syndrome (ACS).
At best, flash monitoring using Abbott’s Freestyle Libre system was associated with an increase in time spent in range (TIR) of 17-28 or 48 minutes per day over self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG), depending on the type of statistical analysis used. There was no difference in glycated hemoglobin A1c levels between the two groups, but there was a trend for less time spent in hypoglycemia in the flash monitoring arm.
Viewers underwhelmed
“My overall impression is that the effects were less pronounced than anticipated,” Kare Birkeland, MD, PhD, a specialist in internal medicine and endocrinology at Oslo University Hospital, Rikshospitalet, Norway, observed after the findings were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
Others who had watched the live session seemed similarly underwhelmed by the findings, with one viewer questioning the value of devoting an hour-and-a-half session to the phase 2 trial.
However, the session chair Simon Heller, BA, MB, BChir, DM, professor of clinical diabetes at the University of Sheffield, and trial coinvestigator, defended the detailed look at the trial’s findings, noting that it was worthwhile to present the data from the trial as it “really helps explain why we do phase 2 and phase 3 trials.”
Strong rationale for monitoring post-MI
There is a strong rationale for ensuring that blood glucose is well controlled in type 2 diabetes patients who have experienced a myocardial infarction, observed Robert Storey, BSc, BM, DM, professor of cardiology at the University of Sheffield. One way to do that potentially is through improved glucose monitoring.
“There’s clearly a close link between diabetes and the risk of MI: Both high and low HbA1c are associated with adverse outcome, and high and low glucose levels following MI are also associated with adverse outcome,” he observed, noting also that hypoglycemia was not given enough attention in post-ACS patients.
“The hypothesis of the LIBERATES study was that a modern glycemic monitoring strategy can optimize blood glucose levels in type 2 diabetes patients following MI with the potential to reduce mortality and morbidity and improve quality of life,” Dr. Storey said. “The main research question of LIBERATES says, ‘Do new approaches in glucose monitoring increase the time in range and reduce hypoglycemia?’ ”
Pragmatic trial design
LIBERATES was a prospective, multicenter, parallel group, randomized controlled trial, explained the study’s statistician Deborah Stocken, PhD, professor of clinical trials research at the University of Leeds. There was “limited ability to blind the interventions,” so it was an open-label design.
“The patient population in LIBERATES was kept as inclusive and as pragmatic as possible to ensure that the results at the end of the trial are generalizable,” said Dr. Stocken. Patients with type 2 diabetes were recruited within 5 days of hospital admission for ACS, which could include both ST- and non-ST elevation MI. In all, 141 of a calculated 150 patients that would be needed were recruited and randomized to the flash monitoring (69) or SMBG (72) arm.
Dr. Stocken noted that early in the recruitment phase, the trials oversight committee recommended that Bayesian methodology should be used as the most robust analytical approach.
“Essentially, a Bayesian approach would avoid a hypothesis test, and instead would provide a probability of there being a treatment benefit for continuous monitoring. And if this probability was high enough, this would warrant further research in the phase 3 setting,” Dr. Stocken said.
What else was shown?
“We had a number of prespecified secondary endpoints, which to me are equally important,” said Ramzi Ajjan, MD, MMed.Sci, PhD, associate professor and consultant in diabetes and endocrinology at Leeds University and Leeds Teaching Hospitals Trust.
Among these was the TIR at days 16-30, which showed a 90-minute increase per day in favor of flash monitoring over SMBG. This “seems to be driven by those who are an insulin,” Dr. Ajjan said, adding that “you get almost a 3-hour increase in time in range in people who are on insulin at baseline, and you don’t see that in people who are on sulfonylurea.”
Conversely, sulfonylurea treatment seemed to drive the reduction in the time spent in hypoglycemia defined as 3.9 mmol/L (70 g/dL) at 3 months. For the whole group, there was a 1.3-hour reduction in hypoglycemia per day with flash monitoring versus SMBG, which increased to 2 hours for those on sulfonylureas.
There also was a “pattern of reduction” in time spent in hypoglycemia defined as less than 3.0 mmol/L (54 g/dL) both early on and becoming more pronounced with time.
“Flash glucose monitoring is associated with higher treatment satisfaction score, compared with SMBG,” Dr. Ajjan said.
Although A1c dropped in both groups to a similar extent, he noted that the reduction seen in the flash monitoring group was associated with a decrease in hypoglycemia.
There was a huge amount of data collected during the trial and there are many more analyses that could be done, Dr. Ajjan said. The outcome of those may determine whether a phase 3 trial is likely, assuming sponsorship can be secured.
The LIBERATES Trial was funded by grants from the UK National Institute for Health Research and Abbott Diabetes Care. None of the investigators were additionally compensated for their work within the trial. Dr. Stocken had no disclosures in relation to this trial. Dr. Ajjan has received research funding and other financial support from Abbott, Bayer, Eli Lilly, Johnson & Johnson, and Novo Nordisk.
SOURCE: Ajjan R et al. EASD 2020. S11 – The LIBERATES Trial.
Following a heart attack, there appears to be a “modest” benefit of using flash glucose monitoring over fingerstick testing to monitor blood glucose levels in patients with type 2 diabetes being treated with insulin or a sulfonylurea, according to investigators of the LIBERATES trial.
The results showed a nonsignificant increase in the time that subjects’ blood glucose was spent in the target range of 3.9-10.00 mmol/L (70-180 mg/dL) 3 months after experiencing an acute coronary syndrome (ACS).
At best, flash monitoring using Abbott’s Freestyle Libre system was associated with an increase in time spent in range (TIR) of 17-28 or 48 minutes per day over self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG), depending on the type of statistical analysis used. There was no difference in glycated hemoglobin A1c levels between the two groups, but there was a trend for less time spent in hypoglycemia in the flash monitoring arm.
Viewers underwhelmed
“My overall impression is that the effects were less pronounced than anticipated,” Kare Birkeland, MD, PhD, a specialist in internal medicine and endocrinology at Oslo University Hospital, Rikshospitalet, Norway, observed after the findings were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
Others who had watched the live session seemed similarly underwhelmed by the findings, with one viewer questioning the value of devoting an hour-and-a-half session to the phase 2 trial.
However, the session chair Simon Heller, BA, MB, BChir, DM, professor of clinical diabetes at the University of Sheffield, and trial coinvestigator, defended the detailed look at the trial’s findings, noting that it was worthwhile to present the data from the trial as it “really helps explain why we do phase 2 and phase 3 trials.”
Strong rationale for monitoring post-MI
There is a strong rationale for ensuring that blood glucose is well controlled in type 2 diabetes patients who have experienced a myocardial infarction, observed Robert Storey, BSc, BM, DM, professor of cardiology at the University of Sheffield. One way to do that potentially is through improved glucose monitoring.
“There’s clearly a close link between diabetes and the risk of MI: Both high and low HbA1c are associated with adverse outcome, and high and low glucose levels following MI are also associated with adverse outcome,” he observed, noting also that hypoglycemia was not given enough attention in post-ACS patients.
“The hypothesis of the LIBERATES study was that a modern glycemic monitoring strategy can optimize blood glucose levels in type 2 diabetes patients following MI with the potential to reduce mortality and morbidity and improve quality of life,” Dr. Storey said. “The main research question of LIBERATES says, ‘Do new approaches in glucose monitoring increase the time in range and reduce hypoglycemia?’ ”
Pragmatic trial design
LIBERATES was a prospective, multicenter, parallel group, randomized controlled trial, explained the study’s statistician Deborah Stocken, PhD, professor of clinical trials research at the University of Leeds. There was “limited ability to blind the interventions,” so it was an open-label design.
“The patient population in LIBERATES was kept as inclusive and as pragmatic as possible to ensure that the results at the end of the trial are generalizable,” said Dr. Stocken. Patients with type 2 diabetes were recruited within 5 days of hospital admission for ACS, which could include both ST- and non-ST elevation MI. In all, 141 of a calculated 150 patients that would be needed were recruited and randomized to the flash monitoring (69) or SMBG (72) arm.
Dr. Stocken noted that early in the recruitment phase, the trials oversight committee recommended that Bayesian methodology should be used as the most robust analytical approach.
“Essentially, a Bayesian approach would avoid a hypothesis test, and instead would provide a probability of there being a treatment benefit for continuous monitoring. And if this probability was high enough, this would warrant further research in the phase 3 setting,” Dr. Stocken said.
What else was shown?
“We had a number of prespecified secondary endpoints, which to me are equally important,” said Ramzi Ajjan, MD, MMed.Sci, PhD, associate professor and consultant in diabetes and endocrinology at Leeds University and Leeds Teaching Hospitals Trust.
Among these was the TIR at days 16-30, which showed a 90-minute increase per day in favor of flash monitoring over SMBG. This “seems to be driven by those who are an insulin,” Dr. Ajjan said, adding that “you get almost a 3-hour increase in time in range in people who are on insulin at baseline, and you don’t see that in people who are on sulfonylurea.”
Conversely, sulfonylurea treatment seemed to drive the reduction in the time spent in hypoglycemia defined as 3.9 mmol/L (70 g/dL) at 3 months. For the whole group, there was a 1.3-hour reduction in hypoglycemia per day with flash monitoring versus SMBG, which increased to 2 hours for those on sulfonylureas.
There also was a “pattern of reduction” in time spent in hypoglycemia defined as less than 3.0 mmol/L (54 g/dL) both early on and becoming more pronounced with time.
“Flash glucose monitoring is associated with higher treatment satisfaction score, compared with SMBG,” Dr. Ajjan said.
Although A1c dropped in both groups to a similar extent, he noted that the reduction seen in the flash monitoring group was associated with a decrease in hypoglycemia.
There was a huge amount of data collected during the trial and there are many more analyses that could be done, Dr. Ajjan said. The outcome of those may determine whether a phase 3 trial is likely, assuming sponsorship can be secured.
The LIBERATES Trial was funded by grants from the UK National Institute for Health Research and Abbott Diabetes Care. None of the investigators were additionally compensated for their work within the trial. Dr. Stocken had no disclosures in relation to this trial. Dr. Ajjan has received research funding and other financial support from Abbott, Bayer, Eli Lilly, Johnson & Johnson, and Novo Nordisk.
SOURCE: Ajjan R et al. EASD 2020. S11 – The LIBERATES Trial.
Following a heart attack, there appears to be a “modest” benefit of using flash glucose monitoring over fingerstick testing to monitor blood glucose levels in patients with type 2 diabetes being treated with insulin or a sulfonylurea, according to investigators of the LIBERATES trial.
The results showed a nonsignificant increase in the time that subjects’ blood glucose was spent in the target range of 3.9-10.00 mmol/L (70-180 mg/dL) 3 months after experiencing an acute coronary syndrome (ACS).
At best, flash monitoring using Abbott’s Freestyle Libre system was associated with an increase in time spent in range (TIR) of 17-28 or 48 minutes per day over self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG), depending on the type of statistical analysis used. There was no difference in glycated hemoglobin A1c levels between the two groups, but there was a trend for less time spent in hypoglycemia in the flash monitoring arm.
Viewers underwhelmed
“My overall impression is that the effects were less pronounced than anticipated,” Kare Birkeland, MD, PhD, a specialist in internal medicine and endocrinology at Oslo University Hospital, Rikshospitalet, Norway, observed after the findings were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes.
Others who had watched the live session seemed similarly underwhelmed by the findings, with one viewer questioning the value of devoting an hour-and-a-half session to the phase 2 trial.
However, the session chair Simon Heller, BA, MB, BChir, DM, professor of clinical diabetes at the University of Sheffield, and trial coinvestigator, defended the detailed look at the trial’s findings, noting that it was worthwhile to present the data from the trial as it “really helps explain why we do phase 2 and phase 3 trials.”
Strong rationale for monitoring post-MI
There is a strong rationale for ensuring that blood glucose is well controlled in type 2 diabetes patients who have experienced a myocardial infarction, observed Robert Storey, BSc, BM, DM, professor of cardiology at the University of Sheffield. One way to do that potentially is through improved glucose monitoring.
“There’s clearly a close link between diabetes and the risk of MI: Both high and low HbA1c are associated with adverse outcome, and high and low glucose levels following MI are also associated with adverse outcome,” he observed, noting also that hypoglycemia was not given enough attention in post-ACS patients.
“The hypothesis of the LIBERATES study was that a modern glycemic monitoring strategy can optimize blood glucose levels in type 2 diabetes patients following MI with the potential to reduce mortality and morbidity and improve quality of life,” Dr. Storey said. “The main research question of LIBERATES says, ‘Do new approaches in glucose monitoring increase the time in range and reduce hypoglycemia?’ ”
Pragmatic trial design
LIBERATES was a prospective, multicenter, parallel group, randomized controlled trial, explained the study’s statistician Deborah Stocken, PhD, professor of clinical trials research at the University of Leeds. There was “limited ability to blind the interventions,” so it was an open-label design.
“The patient population in LIBERATES was kept as inclusive and as pragmatic as possible to ensure that the results at the end of the trial are generalizable,” said Dr. Stocken. Patients with type 2 diabetes were recruited within 5 days of hospital admission for ACS, which could include both ST- and non-ST elevation MI. In all, 141 of a calculated 150 patients that would be needed were recruited and randomized to the flash monitoring (69) or SMBG (72) arm.
Dr. Stocken noted that early in the recruitment phase, the trials oversight committee recommended that Bayesian methodology should be used as the most robust analytical approach.
“Essentially, a Bayesian approach would avoid a hypothesis test, and instead would provide a probability of there being a treatment benefit for continuous monitoring. And if this probability was high enough, this would warrant further research in the phase 3 setting,” Dr. Stocken said.
What else was shown?
“We had a number of prespecified secondary endpoints, which to me are equally important,” said Ramzi Ajjan, MD, MMed.Sci, PhD, associate professor and consultant in diabetes and endocrinology at Leeds University and Leeds Teaching Hospitals Trust.
Among these was the TIR at days 16-30, which showed a 90-minute increase per day in favor of flash monitoring over SMBG. This “seems to be driven by those who are an insulin,” Dr. Ajjan said, adding that “you get almost a 3-hour increase in time in range in people who are on insulin at baseline, and you don’t see that in people who are on sulfonylurea.”
Conversely, sulfonylurea treatment seemed to drive the reduction in the time spent in hypoglycemia defined as 3.9 mmol/L (70 g/dL) at 3 months. For the whole group, there was a 1.3-hour reduction in hypoglycemia per day with flash monitoring versus SMBG, which increased to 2 hours for those on sulfonylureas.
There also was a “pattern of reduction” in time spent in hypoglycemia defined as less than 3.0 mmol/L (54 g/dL) both early on and becoming more pronounced with time.
“Flash glucose monitoring is associated with higher treatment satisfaction score, compared with SMBG,” Dr. Ajjan said.
Although A1c dropped in both groups to a similar extent, he noted that the reduction seen in the flash monitoring group was associated with a decrease in hypoglycemia.
There was a huge amount of data collected during the trial and there are many more analyses that could be done, Dr. Ajjan said. The outcome of those may determine whether a phase 3 trial is likely, assuming sponsorship can be secured.
The LIBERATES Trial was funded by grants from the UK National Institute for Health Research and Abbott Diabetes Care. None of the investigators were additionally compensated for their work within the trial. Dr. Stocken had no disclosures in relation to this trial. Dr. Ajjan has received research funding and other financial support from Abbott, Bayer, Eli Lilly, Johnson & Johnson, and Novo Nordisk.
SOURCE: Ajjan R et al. EASD 2020. S11 – The LIBERATES Trial.
FROM EASD 2020
MitraClip effective for post-MI acute mitral regurgitation with cardiogenic shock
Percutaneous mitral valve repair with the MitraClip appears to be a safe, effective, and life-saving new treatment for severe acute mitral regurgitation (MR) secondary to MI in surgical noncandidates, even when accompanied by cardiogenic shock, according to data from the international IREMMI registry.
“Cardiogenic shock, when adequately supported, does not seem to influence short- and mid-term outcomes, so the development of cardiogenic shock should not preclude percutaneous mitral valve repair in this scenario,” Rodrigo Estevez-Loureiro, MD, PhD, said in presenting the IREMMI (International Registry of MitraClip in Acute Myocardial Infarction) findings reported at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Research Therapeutics virtual annual meeting.
Commentators hailed the prospective IREMMI data as potentially practice changing in light of the dire prognosis of such patients when surgery is deemed unacceptably high risk because medical management, the traditionally the only alternative, has a 30-day mortality of up to 50%.
Severe acute MR occurs in an estimated 3% of acute MIs, and in roughly 10% of patients who present with acute MI complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS). The impact of intervening with the MitraClip in an effort to correct the acute MR arising from MI with CS has previously been addressed only in sparse case reports. The new IREMMI study is easily the largest dataset to date detailing clinical and echocardiographic outcomes, Dr. Estevez-Loureiro of Alvaro Cunqueiro Hospital in Vigo, Spain, said at the meeting, sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.
He reported on 93 consecutive patients who underwent MitraClip implantation for acute MR arising in the setting of MI, including 50 patients in CS at the time of the procedure. All 93 patients had been turned down by their surgical team because of extreme surgical risk. Three-quarters of the MIs showed ST-segment elevation. Only six patients had a papillary muscle rupture; in the rest, the mechanism of acute MR involved left ventricular global remodeling associated with mitral valve leaflet tethering. Percutaneous valve repair was performed at 18 expert valvular heart centers in the United States, Canada, Israel, and five European countries.
Procedural success
Time from MI to MitraClip implantation averaged 24 days in the CS patients and 33 days in the comparator arm without CS.
“These patients had been turned down for surgery, so the attending physicians generally followed a strategy of trying to cool them down with mechanical circulatory support and vasopressors. MitraClip wasn’t an option at the beginning, but after two or three failed weanings from all the possible therapies, then MitraClip becomes an option. This is one of the reasons why the time lapse between MI and the clip is so large,” the cardiologist explained.
Procedural success rates were similar in the two groups: 90% in those with CS and 93% in those without. However, average procedure time was significantly longer in the CS patients: 143 minutes versus 83 minutes in the patients without CS.
At baseline, 86% of the CS group had grade 4+ MR, similar to the 79% rate in the non-CS patients. Postprocedurally, 60% of the CS group were MR grade 0/1 and 34% were grade 2, comparable to the rates of 65% and 23% in the non-CS group.
At 3 months’ follow-up, 83.4% of the CS group had MR grade 2 or less, again not significantly different from the 90.5% rate in non-CS patients. Systolic pulmonary artery pressure was also similar: 39.6 mm Hg in the CS patients, 44 mm Hg in those without. While everyone was New York Heart Association functional class IV preprocedurally, 79.5% of the CS group were NYHA class I or II at 3 months, not significantly different from the 86.5% prevalence in the comparator arm.
Longer-term clinical outcomes
At a median follow-up of 7 months, the composite primary clinical outcome composed of all-cause mortality or heart failure rehospitalization did not differ between the two groups: a 28% rate in the CS group and 25.6% in non-CS patients. All-cause mortality occurred in 16% with CS and 9.3% without, again not a significant difference.
In a Cox regression analysis, neither surgical risk score, patient age, left ventricular geometry, nor CS was independently associated with the primary composite endpoint. Indeed, the only independent predictor of freedom from mortality or heart failure readmission at follow-up was procedural success, which is very much a function of the experience of the heart team, Dr. Estevez-Loureiro continued.
Michael A. Borger, MD, PhD, who comoderated the late-breaking clinical science session, was wowed by the IREMMI results.
“The mortality rates, I can tell you, compared to traditional surgical series of acute MR in the face of ACS [acute cardiogenic shock] are very, very respectable,” commented Dr. Borger, director of the cardiac surgery clinic at the Leipzig (Ger.) University Heart Center.
“Extremely impressive,” agreed discussant Vinayak N. Bapat, MD, a cardiothoracic surgeon and valve scientist at the Minneapolis Heart Institute Foundation. He posed a practical question: “Should we take from this presentation that patients should be stabilized with something like ECMO [extracorporeal membrane oxygenation] or Impella [left ventricular assist device], then transferred to an expert center for the procedure?”
“I think that the stabilization is essential in the patients with cardiogenic shock,” Dr. Estevez-Loureiro replied. “Unlike with surgery, it’s very difficult to establish a MitraClip procedure in a couple of hours in the middle of the night. You have to stabilize them and then treat for shock with ECMO, Impella, or both. I think they should be transferred to a center than can deliver the best treatment. In centers with less experience, patients can be put on mechanical support and transferred to an expert valve center, not only for MitraClip implantation, but for discussion of all the treatment possibilities, including surgery.”
At a press conference in which Dr. Estevez-Loureiro presented highlights of the IREMMI study, discussant Dee Dee Wang, MD, said the international coinvestigators “need to be applauded” for this study.
“Having these outcomes is incredible,” declared Dr. Wang, a structural heart disease specialist at the Henry Ford Health System, Detroit.
While this is an observational study, it’s a high-quality dataset with excellent methodology. And conducting a randomized trial in patients with such high surgical risk scores – the CS group had an average EuroSCORE II of 21 – would be extremely difficult, according to the cardiologist.
Dr. Estevez-Loureiro reported receiving research grants from Abbott and serving as a consultant to that company as well as Boston Scientific.
SOURCE: Estevez-Loureiro, R. TCT 2020, LBCS session IV.
Percutaneous mitral valve repair with the MitraClip appears to be a safe, effective, and life-saving new treatment for severe acute mitral regurgitation (MR) secondary to MI in surgical noncandidates, even when accompanied by cardiogenic shock, according to data from the international IREMMI registry.
“Cardiogenic shock, when adequately supported, does not seem to influence short- and mid-term outcomes, so the development of cardiogenic shock should not preclude percutaneous mitral valve repair in this scenario,” Rodrigo Estevez-Loureiro, MD, PhD, said in presenting the IREMMI (International Registry of MitraClip in Acute Myocardial Infarction) findings reported at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Research Therapeutics virtual annual meeting.
Commentators hailed the prospective IREMMI data as potentially practice changing in light of the dire prognosis of such patients when surgery is deemed unacceptably high risk because medical management, the traditionally the only alternative, has a 30-day mortality of up to 50%.
Severe acute MR occurs in an estimated 3% of acute MIs, and in roughly 10% of patients who present with acute MI complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS). The impact of intervening with the MitraClip in an effort to correct the acute MR arising from MI with CS has previously been addressed only in sparse case reports. The new IREMMI study is easily the largest dataset to date detailing clinical and echocardiographic outcomes, Dr. Estevez-Loureiro of Alvaro Cunqueiro Hospital in Vigo, Spain, said at the meeting, sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.
He reported on 93 consecutive patients who underwent MitraClip implantation for acute MR arising in the setting of MI, including 50 patients in CS at the time of the procedure. All 93 patients had been turned down by their surgical team because of extreme surgical risk. Three-quarters of the MIs showed ST-segment elevation. Only six patients had a papillary muscle rupture; in the rest, the mechanism of acute MR involved left ventricular global remodeling associated with mitral valve leaflet tethering. Percutaneous valve repair was performed at 18 expert valvular heart centers in the United States, Canada, Israel, and five European countries.
Procedural success
Time from MI to MitraClip implantation averaged 24 days in the CS patients and 33 days in the comparator arm without CS.
“These patients had been turned down for surgery, so the attending physicians generally followed a strategy of trying to cool them down with mechanical circulatory support and vasopressors. MitraClip wasn’t an option at the beginning, but after two or three failed weanings from all the possible therapies, then MitraClip becomes an option. This is one of the reasons why the time lapse between MI and the clip is so large,” the cardiologist explained.
Procedural success rates were similar in the two groups: 90% in those with CS and 93% in those without. However, average procedure time was significantly longer in the CS patients: 143 minutes versus 83 minutes in the patients without CS.
At baseline, 86% of the CS group had grade 4+ MR, similar to the 79% rate in the non-CS patients. Postprocedurally, 60% of the CS group were MR grade 0/1 and 34% were grade 2, comparable to the rates of 65% and 23% in the non-CS group.
At 3 months’ follow-up, 83.4% of the CS group had MR grade 2 or less, again not significantly different from the 90.5% rate in non-CS patients. Systolic pulmonary artery pressure was also similar: 39.6 mm Hg in the CS patients, 44 mm Hg in those without. While everyone was New York Heart Association functional class IV preprocedurally, 79.5% of the CS group were NYHA class I or II at 3 months, not significantly different from the 86.5% prevalence in the comparator arm.
Longer-term clinical outcomes
At a median follow-up of 7 months, the composite primary clinical outcome composed of all-cause mortality or heart failure rehospitalization did not differ between the two groups: a 28% rate in the CS group and 25.6% in non-CS patients. All-cause mortality occurred in 16% with CS and 9.3% without, again not a significant difference.
In a Cox regression analysis, neither surgical risk score, patient age, left ventricular geometry, nor CS was independently associated with the primary composite endpoint. Indeed, the only independent predictor of freedom from mortality or heart failure readmission at follow-up was procedural success, which is very much a function of the experience of the heart team, Dr. Estevez-Loureiro continued.
Michael A. Borger, MD, PhD, who comoderated the late-breaking clinical science session, was wowed by the IREMMI results.
“The mortality rates, I can tell you, compared to traditional surgical series of acute MR in the face of ACS [acute cardiogenic shock] are very, very respectable,” commented Dr. Borger, director of the cardiac surgery clinic at the Leipzig (Ger.) University Heart Center.
“Extremely impressive,” agreed discussant Vinayak N. Bapat, MD, a cardiothoracic surgeon and valve scientist at the Minneapolis Heart Institute Foundation. He posed a practical question: “Should we take from this presentation that patients should be stabilized with something like ECMO [extracorporeal membrane oxygenation] or Impella [left ventricular assist device], then transferred to an expert center for the procedure?”
“I think that the stabilization is essential in the patients with cardiogenic shock,” Dr. Estevez-Loureiro replied. “Unlike with surgery, it’s very difficult to establish a MitraClip procedure in a couple of hours in the middle of the night. You have to stabilize them and then treat for shock with ECMO, Impella, or both. I think they should be transferred to a center than can deliver the best treatment. In centers with less experience, patients can be put on mechanical support and transferred to an expert valve center, not only for MitraClip implantation, but for discussion of all the treatment possibilities, including surgery.”
At a press conference in which Dr. Estevez-Loureiro presented highlights of the IREMMI study, discussant Dee Dee Wang, MD, said the international coinvestigators “need to be applauded” for this study.
“Having these outcomes is incredible,” declared Dr. Wang, a structural heart disease specialist at the Henry Ford Health System, Detroit.
While this is an observational study, it’s a high-quality dataset with excellent methodology. And conducting a randomized trial in patients with such high surgical risk scores – the CS group had an average EuroSCORE II of 21 – would be extremely difficult, according to the cardiologist.
Dr. Estevez-Loureiro reported receiving research grants from Abbott and serving as a consultant to that company as well as Boston Scientific.
SOURCE: Estevez-Loureiro, R. TCT 2020, LBCS session IV.
Percutaneous mitral valve repair with the MitraClip appears to be a safe, effective, and life-saving new treatment for severe acute mitral regurgitation (MR) secondary to MI in surgical noncandidates, even when accompanied by cardiogenic shock, according to data from the international IREMMI registry.
“Cardiogenic shock, when adequately supported, does not seem to influence short- and mid-term outcomes, so the development of cardiogenic shock should not preclude percutaneous mitral valve repair in this scenario,” Rodrigo Estevez-Loureiro, MD, PhD, said in presenting the IREMMI (International Registry of MitraClip in Acute Myocardial Infarction) findings reported at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Research Therapeutics virtual annual meeting.
Commentators hailed the prospective IREMMI data as potentially practice changing in light of the dire prognosis of such patients when surgery is deemed unacceptably high risk because medical management, the traditionally the only alternative, has a 30-day mortality of up to 50%.
Severe acute MR occurs in an estimated 3% of acute MIs, and in roughly 10% of patients who present with acute MI complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS). The impact of intervening with the MitraClip in an effort to correct the acute MR arising from MI with CS has previously been addressed only in sparse case reports. The new IREMMI study is easily the largest dataset to date detailing clinical and echocardiographic outcomes, Dr. Estevez-Loureiro of Alvaro Cunqueiro Hospital in Vigo, Spain, said at the meeting, sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.
He reported on 93 consecutive patients who underwent MitraClip implantation for acute MR arising in the setting of MI, including 50 patients in CS at the time of the procedure. All 93 patients had been turned down by their surgical team because of extreme surgical risk. Three-quarters of the MIs showed ST-segment elevation. Only six patients had a papillary muscle rupture; in the rest, the mechanism of acute MR involved left ventricular global remodeling associated with mitral valve leaflet tethering. Percutaneous valve repair was performed at 18 expert valvular heart centers in the United States, Canada, Israel, and five European countries.
Procedural success
Time from MI to MitraClip implantation averaged 24 days in the CS patients and 33 days in the comparator arm without CS.
“These patients had been turned down for surgery, so the attending physicians generally followed a strategy of trying to cool them down with mechanical circulatory support and vasopressors. MitraClip wasn’t an option at the beginning, but after two or three failed weanings from all the possible therapies, then MitraClip becomes an option. This is one of the reasons why the time lapse between MI and the clip is so large,” the cardiologist explained.
Procedural success rates were similar in the two groups: 90% in those with CS and 93% in those without. However, average procedure time was significantly longer in the CS patients: 143 minutes versus 83 minutes in the patients without CS.
At baseline, 86% of the CS group had grade 4+ MR, similar to the 79% rate in the non-CS patients. Postprocedurally, 60% of the CS group were MR grade 0/1 and 34% were grade 2, comparable to the rates of 65% and 23% in the non-CS group.
At 3 months’ follow-up, 83.4% of the CS group had MR grade 2 or less, again not significantly different from the 90.5% rate in non-CS patients. Systolic pulmonary artery pressure was also similar: 39.6 mm Hg in the CS patients, 44 mm Hg in those without. While everyone was New York Heart Association functional class IV preprocedurally, 79.5% of the CS group were NYHA class I or II at 3 months, not significantly different from the 86.5% prevalence in the comparator arm.
Longer-term clinical outcomes
At a median follow-up of 7 months, the composite primary clinical outcome composed of all-cause mortality or heart failure rehospitalization did not differ between the two groups: a 28% rate in the CS group and 25.6% in non-CS patients. All-cause mortality occurred in 16% with CS and 9.3% without, again not a significant difference.
In a Cox regression analysis, neither surgical risk score, patient age, left ventricular geometry, nor CS was independently associated with the primary composite endpoint. Indeed, the only independent predictor of freedom from mortality or heart failure readmission at follow-up was procedural success, which is very much a function of the experience of the heart team, Dr. Estevez-Loureiro continued.
Michael A. Borger, MD, PhD, who comoderated the late-breaking clinical science session, was wowed by the IREMMI results.
“The mortality rates, I can tell you, compared to traditional surgical series of acute MR in the face of ACS [acute cardiogenic shock] are very, very respectable,” commented Dr. Borger, director of the cardiac surgery clinic at the Leipzig (Ger.) University Heart Center.
“Extremely impressive,” agreed discussant Vinayak N. Bapat, MD, a cardiothoracic surgeon and valve scientist at the Minneapolis Heart Institute Foundation. He posed a practical question: “Should we take from this presentation that patients should be stabilized with something like ECMO [extracorporeal membrane oxygenation] or Impella [left ventricular assist device], then transferred to an expert center for the procedure?”
“I think that the stabilization is essential in the patients with cardiogenic shock,” Dr. Estevez-Loureiro replied. “Unlike with surgery, it’s very difficult to establish a MitraClip procedure in a couple of hours in the middle of the night. You have to stabilize them and then treat for shock with ECMO, Impella, or both. I think they should be transferred to a center than can deliver the best treatment. In centers with less experience, patients can be put on mechanical support and transferred to an expert valve center, not only for MitraClip implantation, but for discussion of all the treatment possibilities, including surgery.”
At a press conference in which Dr. Estevez-Loureiro presented highlights of the IREMMI study, discussant Dee Dee Wang, MD, said the international coinvestigators “need to be applauded” for this study.
“Having these outcomes is incredible,” declared Dr. Wang, a structural heart disease specialist at the Henry Ford Health System, Detroit.
While this is an observational study, it’s a high-quality dataset with excellent methodology. And conducting a randomized trial in patients with such high surgical risk scores – the CS group had an average EuroSCORE II of 21 – would be extremely difficult, according to the cardiologist.
Dr. Estevez-Loureiro reported receiving research grants from Abbott and serving as a consultant to that company as well as Boston Scientific.
SOURCE: Estevez-Loureiro, R. TCT 2020, LBCS session IV.
FROM TCT 2020
Intravascular lithotripsy hailed as ‘game changer’ for coronary calcification
aimed at gaining U.S. regulatory approval.
The technology is basically the same as in extracorporeal lithotripsy, used for the treatment of kidney stones for more than 30 years: namely, transmission of pulsed acoustic pressure waves in order to fracture calcium. For interventional cardiology purposes, however, the transmitter is located within a balloon angioplasty catheter, Dean J. Kereiakes, MD, explained in presenting the study results at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Research Therapeutics virtual annual meeting.
In Disrupt CAD III, intravascular lithotripsy far exceeded the procedural success and 30-day freedom from major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) performance targets set in conjunction with the Food and Drug Administration. In so doing, the intravascular lithotripsy device developed by Shockwave Medical successfully addressed one of the banes of contemporary interventional cardiology: heavily calcified coronary lesions.
Currently available technologies targeting such lesions, including noncompliant high-pressure balloons, intravascular lasers, cutting balloons, and orbital and rotational atherectomy, often yield suboptimal results, noted Dr. Kereiakes, medical director of the Christ Hospital Heart and Cardiovascular Center in Cincinnati.
Severe vascular calcifications are becoming more common, due in part to an aging population and the growing prevalence of hypertension, diabetes, and renal insufficiency. Severely calcified coronary lesions complicate percutaneous coronary intervention. They’re associated with increased risks of dissection, perforation, and periprocedural MI. Moreover, heavily calcified lesions impede stent delivery and expansion – and stent underexpansion is the leading predictor of restenosis and stent thrombosis, he observed at the meeting, sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation. Disrupt CAD III was a prospective single-arm study of 384 patients at 47 sites in the United States and several European countries. All participants had de novo coronary calcifications graded as severe by core laboratory assessment, with a mean calcified length of 47.9 mm by quantitative coronary angiography and a mean calcium angle and thickness of 292.5 degrees and 0.96 mm by optical coherence tomography.
“It’s staggering, the level of calcification these patients had. It’s jaw dropping,” Dr. Kereiakes observed.
Intravascular lithotripsy was used to prepare these severely calcified lesions for stenting. The intervention entailed transmission of acoustic waves circumferentially and transmurally at 1 pulse per second through tissue at an effective pressure of about 50 atm. Patients received an average of 69 pulses.
This was not a randomized trial; there was no sham-treated control arm. Instead, the comparator group selected under regulatory guidance was comprised of patients who had received orbital atherectomy for severe coronary calcifications in the earlier, similarly designed ORBIT II trial, which led to FDA marketing approval of that technology.
Key outcomes
The procedural success rate, defined as successful stent delivery with less than a 50% residual stenosis and no in-hospital MACE, was 92.4% in Disrupt CAD III, compared to 83.4% for orbital atherectomy in ORBIT II. The primary safety endpoint of freedom from cardiac death, MI, or target vessel revascularization at 30 days was achieved in 92.2% of patients in the intravascular lithotripsy trial, versus 84.4% in ORBIT II.
The 30-day MACE rate of 7.8% in Disrupt CAD III was primarily driven by periprocedural MIs, which occurred in 6.8% of participants. Only one-third of the MIs were clinically relevant by the Society for Coronary Angiography and Intervention definition. There were two cardiac deaths and three cases of stent thrombosis, all of which were associated with known predictors of the complication. There was 1 case each of dissection, abrupt closure, and perforation, but no instances of slow flow or no reflow at the procedure’s end. Transient lithotripsy-induced left ventricular capture occurred in 41% of patients, but they were benign events with no lasting consequences.
The device was able to cross and deliver acoustic pressure wave therapy to 98.2% of lesions. The mean diameter stenosis preprocedure was 65.1%, dropping to 37.2% post lithotripsy, with a final in-stent residual stenosis diameter of 11.9%, with a 1.7-mm acute gain. The average stent expansion at the site of maximum calcification was 102%, with a minimum stent area of 6.5 mm2.
Optical coherence imaging revealed that 67% of treated lesions had circumferential and transmural fractures of both deep and superficial calcium post lithotripsy. Yet outcomes were the same regardless of whether fractures were evident on imaging.
At 30-day follow-up, 72.9% of patients had no angina, up from just 12.6% of participants pre-PCI. Follow-up will continue for 2 years.
Outcomes were similar for the first case done at each participating center and all cases thereafter.
“The ease of use was remarkable,” Dr. Kereiakes recalled. “The learning curve is virtually nonexistent.”
The reaction
At a press conference where Dr. Kereiakes presented the Disrupt CAD III results, discussant Allen Jeremias, MD, said he found the results compelling.
“The success rate is high, I think it’s relatively easy to use, as demonstrated, and I think the results are spectacular,” said Dr. Jeremias, director of interventional cardiology research and associate director of the cardiac catheterization laboratory at St. Francis Hospital in Roslyn, N.Y.
Cardiologists “really don’t do a good job most of the time” with severely calcified coronary lesions, added Dr. Jeremias, who wasn’t involved in the trial.
“A lot of times these patients have inadequate stent outcomes when we do intravascular imaging. So to do something to try to basically crack the calcium and expand the stent is, I think, critically important in these patients, and this is an amazing technology that accomplishes that,” the cardiologist said.
Juan F. Granada, MD, of Columbia University, New York, who moderated the press conference, said, “Some of the debulking techniques used for calcified stenoses actually require a lot of training, knowledge, experience, and hospital infrastructure.
I really think having a technology that is easy to use and familiar to all interventional cardiologists, such as a balloon, could potentially be a disruptive change in our field.”
“It’s an absolute game changer,” agreed Dr. Jeremias.
Dr. Kereiakes reported serving as a consultant to a handful of medical device companies, including Shockwave Medical, which sponsored Disrupt CAD III.
SOURCE: Kereiakes DJ. TCT 2020. Late Breaking Clinical Science session 2.
aimed at gaining U.S. regulatory approval.
The technology is basically the same as in extracorporeal lithotripsy, used for the treatment of kidney stones for more than 30 years: namely, transmission of pulsed acoustic pressure waves in order to fracture calcium. For interventional cardiology purposes, however, the transmitter is located within a balloon angioplasty catheter, Dean J. Kereiakes, MD, explained in presenting the study results at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Research Therapeutics virtual annual meeting.
In Disrupt CAD III, intravascular lithotripsy far exceeded the procedural success and 30-day freedom from major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) performance targets set in conjunction with the Food and Drug Administration. In so doing, the intravascular lithotripsy device developed by Shockwave Medical successfully addressed one of the banes of contemporary interventional cardiology: heavily calcified coronary lesions.
Currently available technologies targeting such lesions, including noncompliant high-pressure balloons, intravascular lasers, cutting balloons, and orbital and rotational atherectomy, often yield suboptimal results, noted Dr. Kereiakes, medical director of the Christ Hospital Heart and Cardiovascular Center in Cincinnati.
Severe vascular calcifications are becoming more common, due in part to an aging population and the growing prevalence of hypertension, diabetes, and renal insufficiency. Severely calcified coronary lesions complicate percutaneous coronary intervention. They’re associated with increased risks of dissection, perforation, and periprocedural MI. Moreover, heavily calcified lesions impede stent delivery and expansion – and stent underexpansion is the leading predictor of restenosis and stent thrombosis, he observed at the meeting, sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation. Disrupt CAD III was a prospective single-arm study of 384 patients at 47 sites in the United States and several European countries. All participants had de novo coronary calcifications graded as severe by core laboratory assessment, with a mean calcified length of 47.9 mm by quantitative coronary angiography and a mean calcium angle and thickness of 292.5 degrees and 0.96 mm by optical coherence tomography.
“It’s staggering, the level of calcification these patients had. It’s jaw dropping,” Dr. Kereiakes observed.
Intravascular lithotripsy was used to prepare these severely calcified lesions for stenting. The intervention entailed transmission of acoustic waves circumferentially and transmurally at 1 pulse per second through tissue at an effective pressure of about 50 atm. Patients received an average of 69 pulses.
This was not a randomized trial; there was no sham-treated control arm. Instead, the comparator group selected under regulatory guidance was comprised of patients who had received orbital atherectomy for severe coronary calcifications in the earlier, similarly designed ORBIT II trial, which led to FDA marketing approval of that technology.
Key outcomes
The procedural success rate, defined as successful stent delivery with less than a 50% residual stenosis and no in-hospital MACE, was 92.4% in Disrupt CAD III, compared to 83.4% for orbital atherectomy in ORBIT II. The primary safety endpoint of freedom from cardiac death, MI, or target vessel revascularization at 30 days was achieved in 92.2% of patients in the intravascular lithotripsy trial, versus 84.4% in ORBIT II.
The 30-day MACE rate of 7.8% in Disrupt CAD III was primarily driven by periprocedural MIs, which occurred in 6.8% of participants. Only one-third of the MIs were clinically relevant by the Society for Coronary Angiography and Intervention definition. There were two cardiac deaths and three cases of stent thrombosis, all of which were associated with known predictors of the complication. There was 1 case each of dissection, abrupt closure, and perforation, but no instances of slow flow or no reflow at the procedure’s end. Transient lithotripsy-induced left ventricular capture occurred in 41% of patients, but they were benign events with no lasting consequences.
The device was able to cross and deliver acoustic pressure wave therapy to 98.2% of lesions. The mean diameter stenosis preprocedure was 65.1%, dropping to 37.2% post lithotripsy, with a final in-stent residual stenosis diameter of 11.9%, with a 1.7-mm acute gain. The average stent expansion at the site of maximum calcification was 102%, with a minimum stent area of 6.5 mm2.
Optical coherence imaging revealed that 67% of treated lesions had circumferential and transmural fractures of both deep and superficial calcium post lithotripsy. Yet outcomes were the same regardless of whether fractures were evident on imaging.
At 30-day follow-up, 72.9% of patients had no angina, up from just 12.6% of participants pre-PCI. Follow-up will continue for 2 years.
Outcomes were similar for the first case done at each participating center and all cases thereafter.
“The ease of use was remarkable,” Dr. Kereiakes recalled. “The learning curve is virtually nonexistent.”
The reaction
At a press conference where Dr. Kereiakes presented the Disrupt CAD III results, discussant Allen Jeremias, MD, said he found the results compelling.
“The success rate is high, I think it’s relatively easy to use, as demonstrated, and I think the results are spectacular,” said Dr. Jeremias, director of interventional cardiology research and associate director of the cardiac catheterization laboratory at St. Francis Hospital in Roslyn, N.Y.
Cardiologists “really don’t do a good job most of the time” with severely calcified coronary lesions, added Dr. Jeremias, who wasn’t involved in the trial.
“A lot of times these patients have inadequate stent outcomes when we do intravascular imaging. So to do something to try to basically crack the calcium and expand the stent is, I think, critically important in these patients, and this is an amazing technology that accomplishes that,” the cardiologist said.
Juan F. Granada, MD, of Columbia University, New York, who moderated the press conference, said, “Some of the debulking techniques used for calcified stenoses actually require a lot of training, knowledge, experience, and hospital infrastructure.
I really think having a technology that is easy to use and familiar to all interventional cardiologists, such as a balloon, could potentially be a disruptive change in our field.”
“It’s an absolute game changer,” agreed Dr. Jeremias.
Dr. Kereiakes reported serving as a consultant to a handful of medical device companies, including Shockwave Medical, which sponsored Disrupt CAD III.
SOURCE: Kereiakes DJ. TCT 2020. Late Breaking Clinical Science session 2.
aimed at gaining U.S. regulatory approval.
The technology is basically the same as in extracorporeal lithotripsy, used for the treatment of kidney stones for more than 30 years: namely, transmission of pulsed acoustic pressure waves in order to fracture calcium. For interventional cardiology purposes, however, the transmitter is located within a balloon angioplasty catheter, Dean J. Kereiakes, MD, explained in presenting the study results at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Research Therapeutics virtual annual meeting.
In Disrupt CAD III, intravascular lithotripsy far exceeded the procedural success and 30-day freedom from major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) performance targets set in conjunction with the Food and Drug Administration. In so doing, the intravascular lithotripsy device developed by Shockwave Medical successfully addressed one of the banes of contemporary interventional cardiology: heavily calcified coronary lesions.
Currently available technologies targeting such lesions, including noncompliant high-pressure balloons, intravascular lasers, cutting balloons, and orbital and rotational atherectomy, often yield suboptimal results, noted Dr. Kereiakes, medical director of the Christ Hospital Heart and Cardiovascular Center in Cincinnati.
Severe vascular calcifications are becoming more common, due in part to an aging population and the growing prevalence of hypertension, diabetes, and renal insufficiency. Severely calcified coronary lesions complicate percutaneous coronary intervention. They’re associated with increased risks of dissection, perforation, and periprocedural MI. Moreover, heavily calcified lesions impede stent delivery and expansion – and stent underexpansion is the leading predictor of restenosis and stent thrombosis, he observed at the meeting, sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation. Disrupt CAD III was a prospective single-arm study of 384 patients at 47 sites in the United States and several European countries. All participants had de novo coronary calcifications graded as severe by core laboratory assessment, with a mean calcified length of 47.9 mm by quantitative coronary angiography and a mean calcium angle and thickness of 292.5 degrees and 0.96 mm by optical coherence tomography.
“It’s staggering, the level of calcification these patients had. It’s jaw dropping,” Dr. Kereiakes observed.
Intravascular lithotripsy was used to prepare these severely calcified lesions for stenting. The intervention entailed transmission of acoustic waves circumferentially and transmurally at 1 pulse per second through tissue at an effective pressure of about 50 atm. Patients received an average of 69 pulses.
This was not a randomized trial; there was no sham-treated control arm. Instead, the comparator group selected under regulatory guidance was comprised of patients who had received orbital atherectomy for severe coronary calcifications in the earlier, similarly designed ORBIT II trial, which led to FDA marketing approval of that technology.
Key outcomes
The procedural success rate, defined as successful stent delivery with less than a 50% residual stenosis and no in-hospital MACE, was 92.4% in Disrupt CAD III, compared to 83.4% for orbital atherectomy in ORBIT II. The primary safety endpoint of freedom from cardiac death, MI, or target vessel revascularization at 30 days was achieved in 92.2% of patients in the intravascular lithotripsy trial, versus 84.4% in ORBIT II.
The 30-day MACE rate of 7.8% in Disrupt CAD III was primarily driven by periprocedural MIs, which occurred in 6.8% of participants. Only one-third of the MIs were clinically relevant by the Society for Coronary Angiography and Intervention definition. There were two cardiac deaths and three cases of stent thrombosis, all of which were associated with known predictors of the complication. There was 1 case each of dissection, abrupt closure, and perforation, but no instances of slow flow or no reflow at the procedure’s end. Transient lithotripsy-induced left ventricular capture occurred in 41% of patients, but they were benign events with no lasting consequences.
The device was able to cross and deliver acoustic pressure wave therapy to 98.2% of lesions. The mean diameter stenosis preprocedure was 65.1%, dropping to 37.2% post lithotripsy, with a final in-stent residual stenosis diameter of 11.9%, with a 1.7-mm acute gain. The average stent expansion at the site of maximum calcification was 102%, with a minimum stent area of 6.5 mm2.
Optical coherence imaging revealed that 67% of treated lesions had circumferential and transmural fractures of both deep and superficial calcium post lithotripsy. Yet outcomes were the same regardless of whether fractures were evident on imaging.
At 30-day follow-up, 72.9% of patients had no angina, up from just 12.6% of participants pre-PCI. Follow-up will continue for 2 years.
Outcomes were similar for the first case done at each participating center and all cases thereafter.
“The ease of use was remarkable,” Dr. Kereiakes recalled. “The learning curve is virtually nonexistent.”
The reaction
At a press conference where Dr. Kereiakes presented the Disrupt CAD III results, discussant Allen Jeremias, MD, said he found the results compelling.
“The success rate is high, I think it’s relatively easy to use, as demonstrated, and I think the results are spectacular,” said Dr. Jeremias, director of interventional cardiology research and associate director of the cardiac catheterization laboratory at St. Francis Hospital in Roslyn, N.Y.
Cardiologists “really don’t do a good job most of the time” with severely calcified coronary lesions, added Dr. Jeremias, who wasn’t involved in the trial.
“A lot of times these patients have inadequate stent outcomes when we do intravascular imaging. So to do something to try to basically crack the calcium and expand the stent is, I think, critically important in these patients, and this is an amazing technology that accomplishes that,” the cardiologist said.
Juan F. Granada, MD, of Columbia University, New York, who moderated the press conference, said, “Some of the debulking techniques used for calcified stenoses actually require a lot of training, knowledge, experience, and hospital infrastructure.
I really think having a technology that is easy to use and familiar to all interventional cardiologists, such as a balloon, could potentially be a disruptive change in our field.”
“It’s an absolute game changer,” agreed Dr. Jeremias.
Dr. Kereiakes reported serving as a consultant to a handful of medical device companies, including Shockwave Medical, which sponsored Disrupt CAD III.
SOURCE: Kereiakes DJ. TCT 2020. Late Breaking Clinical Science session 2.
FROM TCT 2020
Key clinical point: Intravascular lithotripsy was safe and effective for treatment of severely calcified coronary stenoses in a pivotal trial.
Major finding: The 30-day rate of freedom from major adverse cardiovascular events was 92.2%, well above the prespecified performance goal of 84.4%.
Study details: Disrupt CAD III study is a multicenter, single-arm, prospective study of intravascular lithotripsy in 384 patients with severe coronary calcification.
Disclosures: The presenter reported serving as a consultant to Shockwave Medical Inc., the study sponsor, as well as several other medical device companies.
Source: Kereiakes DJ. TCT 2020. Late Breaking Clinical Science session 2.
NACMI: Clear benefit with PCI in STEMI COVID-19 patients
Patients with COVID-19 who present with ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) represent a unique, high-risk population with greater risks for in-hospital death and stroke, according to initial results from the North American COVID-19 ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Registry (NACMI).
Although COVID-19–confirmed patients were less likely to undergo angiography than patients under investigation (PUI) for COVID-19 or historical STEMI activation controls, 71% underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).
“Primary PCI is preferable and feasible in COVID-19–positive patients, with door-to-balloon times similar to PUI or COVID-negative patients, and that supports the updated COVID-specific STEMI guidelines,” study cochair Timothy D. Henry, MD, said in a late-breaking clinical science session at TCT 2020, the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics virtual annual meeting.
The multisociety COVID-specific guidelines were initially issued in April, endorsing PCI as the standard of care and allowing for consideration of fibrinolysis-based therapy at non-PCI capable hospitals.
Five previous publications on a total of 174 COVID-19 patients with ST-elevation have shown there are more frequent in-hospital STEMI presentations, more cases without a clear culprit lesion, more thrombotic lesions and microthrombi, and higher mortality, ranging from 12% to 72%. Still, there has been considerable controversy over exactly what to do when COVID-19 patients with ST elevation reach the cath lab, he said at the meeting sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.
NACMI represents the largest experience with ST-elevation patients and is a unique collaboration between the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Canadian Association of Interventional Cardiology, American College of Cardiology, and Midwest STEMI Consortium, noted Dr. Henry, who is medical director of the Lindner Center for Research and Education at the Christ Hospital, Cincinnati.
The registry enrolled any COVID-19–positive patient or person under investigation older than 18 years with ST-segment elevation or new-onset left bundle branch block on electrocardiogram with a clinical correlate of myocardial ischemia such as chest pain, dyspnea, cardiac arrest, shock, or mechanical ventilation. There were no exclusion criteria.
Data from 171 patients with confirmed COVID-19 and 423 PUI from 64 sites were then propensity-matched to a control population from the Midwest STEMI Consortium, a prospective, multicenter registry of consecutive STEMI patients.
The three groups were similar in sex and age but there was a striking difference in race, with 27% of African American and 24% of Hispanic patients COVID-confirmed, compared with 11% and 6% in the PUI group and 4% and 1% in the control group. Likewise, there was a significant increase in diabetes (44% vs. 33% vs. 20%), which has been reported previously with influenza.
COVID-19–positive patients, as compared with PUI and controls, were significantly more likely to present with cardiogenic shock before PCI (20% vs. 14% vs. 5%), but not cardiac arrest (12% vs. 17% vs. 11%), and to have lower left ventricular ejection fractions (45% vs. 45% vs. 50%).
They also presented with more atypical symptoms than PUI patients, particularly infiltrates on chest x-ray (49% vs. 17%) and dyspnea (58% vs. 38%). Data were not available for these outcomes among historic controls.
Importantly, 21% of the COVID-19 patients did not undergo angiography, compared with 5% of PUI patients and 0% of controls (P < .001), “which is much higher than we would expect or have suspected,” Dr. Henry said. Thrombolytic use was very uncommon in those undergoing angiography, likely as a result of the guidelines.
Very surprisingly, there were no differences in door-to-balloon times between the COVID-positive, PUI, and control groups despite the ongoing pandemic (80 min vs. 78 min vs. 86 min).
But there was clear worsening in in-hospital mortality in COVID-19–positive patients (32% vs. 12% and 6%; P < .001), as well as in-hospital stroke (3.4% vs. 2% vs. 0.6%) that reached statistical significance only when compared with historical controls (P = .039). Total length of stay was twice as long in COVID-confirmed patients as in both PUI and controls (6 days vs. 3 days; P < .001).
Following the formal presentation, invited discussant Philippe Gabriel Steg, MD, Imperial College London, said the researchers have provided a great service in reporting the data so quickly but noted that an ongoing French registry of events before, during, and after the first COVID-19 wave has not seen an increased death rate.
“Can you tease out whether the increased death rate is related to cardiovascular deaths or to COVID-related pneumonias, shocks, ARDSs [acute respiratory distress syndromes], and so on and so forth? Because our impression – and that’s what we’ve published in Lancet Public Health – is that the cardiovascular morality rate doesn’t seem that affected by COVID.”
Dr. Henry replied that these are early data but “I will tell you that patients who did get PCI had a mortality rate that was only around 12% or 13%, and the patients who did not undergo angiography or were treated with medical therapy had higher mortality. Now, of course, that’s selected and we need to do a much better matching and look at that, but that’s our goal and we will have that information,” he said.
During a press briefing on the study, discussant Renu Virmani, MD, president and founder of CVPath Institute, noted that, in their analysis of 40 autopsy cases from Bergamot, Italy, small intramyocardial microthrombi were seen in nine patients, whereas epicardial microthrombi were seen in only three or four.
“Some of the cases are being taken as being related to coronary disease but may be more thrombotic than anything else,” she said. “I think there’s a combination, and that’s why the outcomes are so poor. You didn’t show us TIMI flow but that’s something to think about: Was TIMI flow different in the patients who died because you have very high mortality? I think we need to get to the bottom of what is the underlying cause of that thrombosis.”
Future topics of interest include ethnic and regional/country differences; time-to-treatment including chest pain onset-to-arrival; transfer, in-hospital, and no-culprit patients; changes over time during the pandemic; and eventually 1-year outcomes, Dr. Henry said.
Press briefing moderator Ajay Kirtane, MD, director of the cardiac catheterization labs at NewYork-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving, New York, remarked that “a lot of times people will pooh-pooh observational data, but this is exactly the type of data that we need to try to be able to gather information about what our practices are, how they fit. And I think many of us around the world will see these data, and it will echo their own experience.”
The study was funded by the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions and the Canadian Association of Interventional Cardiology. Dr. Henry has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Patients with COVID-19 who present with ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) represent a unique, high-risk population with greater risks for in-hospital death and stroke, according to initial results from the North American COVID-19 ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Registry (NACMI).
Although COVID-19–confirmed patients were less likely to undergo angiography than patients under investigation (PUI) for COVID-19 or historical STEMI activation controls, 71% underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).
“Primary PCI is preferable and feasible in COVID-19–positive patients, with door-to-balloon times similar to PUI or COVID-negative patients, and that supports the updated COVID-specific STEMI guidelines,” study cochair Timothy D. Henry, MD, said in a late-breaking clinical science session at TCT 2020, the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics virtual annual meeting.
The multisociety COVID-specific guidelines were initially issued in April, endorsing PCI as the standard of care and allowing for consideration of fibrinolysis-based therapy at non-PCI capable hospitals.
Five previous publications on a total of 174 COVID-19 patients with ST-elevation have shown there are more frequent in-hospital STEMI presentations, more cases without a clear culprit lesion, more thrombotic lesions and microthrombi, and higher mortality, ranging from 12% to 72%. Still, there has been considerable controversy over exactly what to do when COVID-19 patients with ST elevation reach the cath lab, he said at the meeting sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.
NACMI represents the largest experience with ST-elevation patients and is a unique collaboration between the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Canadian Association of Interventional Cardiology, American College of Cardiology, and Midwest STEMI Consortium, noted Dr. Henry, who is medical director of the Lindner Center for Research and Education at the Christ Hospital, Cincinnati.
The registry enrolled any COVID-19–positive patient or person under investigation older than 18 years with ST-segment elevation or new-onset left bundle branch block on electrocardiogram with a clinical correlate of myocardial ischemia such as chest pain, dyspnea, cardiac arrest, shock, or mechanical ventilation. There were no exclusion criteria.
Data from 171 patients with confirmed COVID-19 and 423 PUI from 64 sites were then propensity-matched to a control population from the Midwest STEMI Consortium, a prospective, multicenter registry of consecutive STEMI patients.
The three groups were similar in sex and age but there was a striking difference in race, with 27% of African American and 24% of Hispanic patients COVID-confirmed, compared with 11% and 6% in the PUI group and 4% and 1% in the control group. Likewise, there was a significant increase in diabetes (44% vs. 33% vs. 20%), which has been reported previously with influenza.
COVID-19–positive patients, as compared with PUI and controls, were significantly more likely to present with cardiogenic shock before PCI (20% vs. 14% vs. 5%), but not cardiac arrest (12% vs. 17% vs. 11%), and to have lower left ventricular ejection fractions (45% vs. 45% vs. 50%).
They also presented with more atypical symptoms than PUI patients, particularly infiltrates on chest x-ray (49% vs. 17%) and dyspnea (58% vs. 38%). Data were not available for these outcomes among historic controls.
Importantly, 21% of the COVID-19 patients did not undergo angiography, compared with 5% of PUI patients and 0% of controls (P < .001), “which is much higher than we would expect or have suspected,” Dr. Henry said. Thrombolytic use was very uncommon in those undergoing angiography, likely as a result of the guidelines.
Very surprisingly, there were no differences in door-to-balloon times between the COVID-positive, PUI, and control groups despite the ongoing pandemic (80 min vs. 78 min vs. 86 min).
But there was clear worsening in in-hospital mortality in COVID-19–positive patients (32% vs. 12% and 6%; P < .001), as well as in-hospital stroke (3.4% vs. 2% vs. 0.6%) that reached statistical significance only when compared with historical controls (P = .039). Total length of stay was twice as long in COVID-confirmed patients as in both PUI and controls (6 days vs. 3 days; P < .001).
Following the formal presentation, invited discussant Philippe Gabriel Steg, MD, Imperial College London, said the researchers have provided a great service in reporting the data so quickly but noted that an ongoing French registry of events before, during, and after the first COVID-19 wave has not seen an increased death rate.
“Can you tease out whether the increased death rate is related to cardiovascular deaths or to COVID-related pneumonias, shocks, ARDSs [acute respiratory distress syndromes], and so on and so forth? Because our impression – and that’s what we’ve published in Lancet Public Health – is that the cardiovascular morality rate doesn’t seem that affected by COVID.”
Dr. Henry replied that these are early data but “I will tell you that patients who did get PCI had a mortality rate that was only around 12% or 13%, and the patients who did not undergo angiography or were treated with medical therapy had higher mortality. Now, of course, that’s selected and we need to do a much better matching and look at that, but that’s our goal and we will have that information,” he said.
During a press briefing on the study, discussant Renu Virmani, MD, president and founder of CVPath Institute, noted that, in their analysis of 40 autopsy cases from Bergamot, Italy, small intramyocardial microthrombi were seen in nine patients, whereas epicardial microthrombi were seen in only three or four.
“Some of the cases are being taken as being related to coronary disease but may be more thrombotic than anything else,” she said. “I think there’s a combination, and that’s why the outcomes are so poor. You didn’t show us TIMI flow but that’s something to think about: Was TIMI flow different in the patients who died because you have very high mortality? I think we need to get to the bottom of what is the underlying cause of that thrombosis.”
Future topics of interest include ethnic and regional/country differences; time-to-treatment including chest pain onset-to-arrival; transfer, in-hospital, and no-culprit patients; changes over time during the pandemic; and eventually 1-year outcomes, Dr. Henry said.
Press briefing moderator Ajay Kirtane, MD, director of the cardiac catheterization labs at NewYork-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving, New York, remarked that “a lot of times people will pooh-pooh observational data, but this is exactly the type of data that we need to try to be able to gather information about what our practices are, how they fit. And I think many of us around the world will see these data, and it will echo their own experience.”
The study was funded by the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions and the Canadian Association of Interventional Cardiology. Dr. Henry has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Patients with COVID-19 who present with ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) represent a unique, high-risk population with greater risks for in-hospital death and stroke, according to initial results from the North American COVID-19 ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Registry (NACMI).
Although COVID-19–confirmed patients were less likely to undergo angiography than patients under investigation (PUI) for COVID-19 or historical STEMI activation controls, 71% underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).
“Primary PCI is preferable and feasible in COVID-19–positive patients, with door-to-balloon times similar to PUI or COVID-negative patients, and that supports the updated COVID-specific STEMI guidelines,” study cochair Timothy D. Henry, MD, said in a late-breaking clinical science session at TCT 2020, the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics virtual annual meeting.
The multisociety COVID-specific guidelines were initially issued in April, endorsing PCI as the standard of care and allowing for consideration of fibrinolysis-based therapy at non-PCI capable hospitals.
Five previous publications on a total of 174 COVID-19 patients with ST-elevation have shown there are more frequent in-hospital STEMI presentations, more cases without a clear culprit lesion, more thrombotic lesions and microthrombi, and higher mortality, ranging from 12% to 72%. Still, there has been considerable controversy over exactly what to do when COVID-19 patients with ST elevation reach the cath lab, he said at the meeting sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.
NACMI represents the largest experience with ST-elevation patients and is a unique collaboration between the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Canadian Association of Interventional Cardiology, American College of Cardiology, and Midwest STEMI Consortium, noted Dr. Henry, who is medical director of the Lindner Center for Research and Education at the Christ Hospital, Cincinnati.
The registry enrolled any COVID-19–positive patient or person under investigation older than 18 years with ST-segment elevation or new-onset left bundle branch block on electrocardiogram with a clinical correlate of myocardial ischemia such as chest pain, dyspnea, cardiac arrest, shock, or mechanical ventilation. There were no exclusion criteria.
Data from 171 patients with confirmed COVID-19 and 423 PUI from 64 sites were then propensity-matched to a control population from the Midwest STEMI Consortium, a prospective, multicenter registry of consecutive STEMI patients.
The three groups were similar in sex and age but there was a striking difference in race, with 27% of African American and 24% of Hispanic patients COVID-confirmed, compared with 11% and 6% in the PUI group and 4% and 1% in the control group. Likewise, there was a significant increase in diabetes (44% vs. 33% vs. 20%), which has been reported previously with influenza.
COVID-19–positive patients, as compared with PUI and controls, were significantly more likely to present with cardiogenic shock before PCI (20% vs. 14% vs. 5%), but not cardiac arrest (12% vs. 17% vs. 11%), and to have lower left ventricular ejection fractions (45% vs. 45% vs. 50%).
They also presented with more atypical symptoms than PUI patients, particularly infiltrates on chest x-ray (49% vs. 17%) and dyspnea (58% vs. 38%). Data were not available for these outcomes among historic controls.
Importantly, 21% of the COVID-19 patients did not undergo angiography, compared with 5% of PUI patients and 0% of controls (P < .001), “which is much higher than we would expect or have suspected,” Dr. Henry said. Thrombolytic use was very uncommon in those undergoing angiography, likely as a result of the guidelines.
Very surprisingly, there were no differences in door-to-balloon times between the COVID-positive, PUI, and control groups despite the ongoing pandemic (80 min vs. 78 min vs. 86 min).
But there was clear worsening in in-hospital mortality in COVID-19–positive patients (32% vs. 12% and 6%; P < .001), as well as in-hospital stroke (3.4% vs. 2% vs. 0.6%) that reached statistical significance only when compared with historical controls (P = .039). Total length of stay was twice as long in COVID-confirmed patients as in both PUI and controls (6 days vs. 3 days; P < .001).
Following the formal presentation, invited discussant Philippe Gabriel Steg, MD, Imperial College London, said the researchers have provided a great service in reporting the data so quickly but noted that an ongoing French registry of events before, during, and after the first COVID-19 wave has not seen an increased death rate.
“Can you tease out whether the increased death rate is related to cardiovascular deaths or to COVID-related pneumonias, shocks, ARDSs [acute respiratory distress syndromes], and so on and so forth? Because our impression – and that’s what we’ve published in Lancet Public Health – is that the cardiovascular morality rate doesn’t seem that affected by COVID.”
Dr. Henry replied that these are early data but “I will tell you that patients who did get PCI had a mortality rate that was only around 12% or 13%, and the patients who did not undergo angiography or were treated with medical therapy had higher mortality. Now, of course, that’s selected and we need to do a much better matching and look at that, but that’s our goal and we will have that information,” he said.
During a press briefing on the study, discussant Renu Virmani, MD, president and founder of CVPath Institute, noted that, in their analysis of 40 autopsy cases from Bergamot, Italy, small intramyocardial microthrombi were seen in nine patients, whereas epicardial microthrombi were seen in only three or four.
“Some of the cases are being taken as being related to coronary disease but may be more thrombotic than anything else,” she said. “I think there’s a combination, and that’s why the outcomes are so poor. You didn’t show us TIMI flow but that’s something to think about: Was TIMI flow different in the patients who died because you have very high mortality? I think we need to get to the bottom of what is the underlying cause of that thrombosis.”
Future topics of interest include ethnic and regional/country differences; time-to-treatment including chest pain onset-to-arrival; transfer, in-hospital, and no-culprit patients; changes over time during the pandemic; and eventually 1-year outcomes, Dr. Henry said.
Press briefing moderator Ajay Kirtane, MD, director of the cardiac catheterization labs at NewYork-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving, New York, remarked that “a lot of times people will pooh-pooh observational data, but this is exactly the type of data that we need to try to be able to gather information about what our practices are, how they fit. And I think many of us around the world will see these data, and it will echo their own experience.”
The study was funded by the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions and the Canadian Association of Interventional Cardiology. Dr. Henry has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Entresto halves renal events in preserved EF heart failure patients
Patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) who received sacubitril/valsartan in the PARAGON-HF trial had significant protection against progression of renal dysfunction in a prespecified secondary analysis.
The 2,419 patients with HFpEF who received sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) had half the rate of the primary adverse renal outcome, compared with the 2,403 patients randomized to valsartan alone in the comparator group, a significant difference, according to the results published online Sept. 29 in Circulation by Finnian R. McCausland, MBBCh, and colleagues.
In absolute terms, sacubitril/valsartan treatment, an angiotensin-receptor/neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), cut the incidence of the combined renal endpoint – renal death, end-stage renal disease, or at least a 50% drop in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) – from 2.7% in the control group to 1.4% in the sacubitril/valsartan group during a median follow-up of 35 months.
The absolute difference of 1.3% equated to a number needed to treat of 51 to prevent one of these events.
Also notable was that renal protection from sacubitril/valsartan was equally robust across the range of baseline kidney function.
‘An important therapeutic option’
The efficacy “across the spectrum of baseline renal function” indicates treatment with sacubitril/valsartan is “an important therapeutic option to slow renal-function decline in patients with heart failure,” wrote Dr. McCausland, a nephrologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and colleagues.
The authors’ conclusion is striking because currently no drug class has produced clear evidence for efficacy in HFpEF.
On the other hand, the PARAGON-HF trial that provided the data for this new analysis was statistically neutral for its primary endpoint – a reduction in the combined rate of cardiovascular death and hospitalizations for heart failure – with a P value of .06 and 95% confidence interval of 0.75-1.01.
“Because this difference [in the primary endpoint incidence between the two study group] did not meet the predetermined level of statistical significance, subsequent analyses were considered to be exploratory,” noted the authors of the primary analysis of PARAGON-HF, as reported by Medscape Medical News.
Despite this limitation in interpreting secondary outcomes from the trial, the new report of a significant renal benefit “opens the potential to provide evidence-based treatment for patients with HFpEF,” commented Sheldon W. Tobe, MD, and Stephanie Poon, MD, in an editorial accompanying the latest analysis.
“At the very least, these results are certainly intriguing and suggest that there may be important patient subgroups with HFpEF who might benefit from using sacubitril/valsartan,” they emphasized.
First large trial to show renal improvement in HFpEF
The editorialists’ enthusiasm for the implications of the new findings relate in part to the fact that “PARAGON-HF is the first large trial to demonstrate improvement in renal parameters in HFpEF,” they noted.
“The finding that the composite renal outcome did not differ according to baseline eGFR is significant and suggests that the beneficial effect on renal function was indirect, possibly linked to improved cardiac function,” say Dr. Tobe, a nephrologist, and Dr. Poon, a cardiologist, both at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre in Toronto.
PARAGON-HF enrolled 4,822 HFpEF patients at 848 centers in 43 countries, and the efficacy analysis included 4,796 patients.
The composite renal outcome was mainly driven by the incidence of a 50% or greater drop from baseline in eGFR, which occurred in 27 patients (1.1%) in the sacubitril/valsartan group and 60 patients (2.5%) who received valsartan alone.
The annual average drop in eGFR during the study was 2.0 mL/min per 1.73m2 in the sacubitril/valsartan group and 2.7 mL/min per 1.73m2 in the control group.
Although the heart failure community was disappointed that sacubitril/valsartan failed to show a significant benefit for the study’s primary outcome in HFpEF, the combination has become a mainstay of treatment for patients with HFpEF based on its performance in the PARADIGM-HF trial.
And despite the unqualified support sacubitril/valsartan now receives in guidelines and its label as a foundational treatment for HFpEF, the formulation has had a hard time gaining traction in U.S. practice, often because of barriers placed by third-party payers.
PARAGON-HF was sponsored by Novartis, which markets sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto). Dr. McCausland has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Tobe has reported participating on a steering committee for Bayer Fidelio/Figaro studies and being a speaker on behalf of Pfizer and Servier. Dr. Poon has reported being an adviser to Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Servier.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) who received sacubitril/valsartan in the PARAGON-HF trial had significant protection against progression of renal dysfunction in a prespecified secondary analysis.
The 2,419 patients with HFpEF who received sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) had half the rate of the primary adverse renal outcome, compared with the 2,403 patients randomized to valsartan alone in the comparator group, a significant difference, according to the results published online Sept. 29 in Circulation by Finnian R. McCausland, MBBCh, and colleagues.
In absolute terms, sacubitril/valsartan treatment, an angiotensin-receptor/neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), cut the incidence of the combined renal endpoint – renal death, end-stage renal disease, or at least a 50% drop in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) – from 2.7% in the control group to 1.4% in the sacubitril/valsartan group during a median follow-up of 35 months.
The absolute difference of 1.3% equated to a number needed to treat of 51 to prevent one of these events.
Also notable was that renal protection from sacubitril/valsartan was equally robust across the range of baseline kidney function.
‘An important therapeutic option’
The efficacy “across the spectrum of baseline renal function” indicates treatment with sacubitril/valsartan is “an important therapeutic option to slow renal-function decline in patients with heart failure,” wrote Dr. McCausland, a nephrologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and colleagues.
The authors’ conclusion is striking because currently no drug class has produced clear evidence for efficacy in HFpEF.
On the other hand, the PARAGON-HF trial that provided the data for this new analysis was statistically neutral for its primary endpoint – a reduction in the combined rate of cardiovascular death and hospitalizations for heart failure – with a P value of .06 and 95% confidence interval of 0.75-1.01.
“Because this difference [in the primary endpoint incidence between the two study group] did not meet the predetermined level of statistical significance, subsequent analyses were considered to be exploratory,” noted the authors of the primary analysis of PARAGON-HF, as reported by Medscape Medical News.
Despite this limitation in interpreting secondary outcomes from the trial, the new report of a significant renal benefit “opens the potential to provide evidence-based treatment for patients with HFpEF,” commented Sheldon W. Tobe, MD, and Stephanie Poon, MD, in an editorial accompanying the latest analysis.
“At the very least, these results are certainly intriguing and suggest that there may be important patient subgroups with HFpEF who might benefit from using sacubitril/valsartan,” they emphasized.
First large trial to show renal improvement in HFpEF
The editorialists’ enthusiasm for the implications of the new findings relate in part to the fact that “PARAGON-HF is the first large trial to demonstrate improvement in renal parameters in HFpEF,” they noted.
“The finding that the composite renal outcome did not differ according to baseline eGFR is significant and suggests that the beneficial effect on renal function was indirect, possibly linked to improved cardiac function,” say Dr. Tobe, a nephrologist, and Dr. Poon, a cardiologist, both at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre in Toronto.
PARAGON-HF enrolled 4,822 HFpEF patients at 848 centers in 43 countries, and the efficacy analysis included 4,796 patients.
The composite renal outcome was mainly driven by the incidence of a 50% or greater drop from baseline in eGFR, which occurred in 27 patients (1.1%) in the sacubitril/valsartan group and 60 patients (2.5%) who received valsartan alone.
The annual average drop in eGFR during the study was 2.0 mL/min per 1.73m2 in the sacubitril/valsartan group and 2.7 mL/min per 1.73m2 in the control group.
Although the heart failure community was disappointed that sacubitril/valsartan failed to show a significant benefit for the study’s primary outcome in HFpEF, the combination has become a mainstay of treatment for patients with HFpEF based on its performance in the PARADIGM-HF trial.
And despite the unqualified support sacubitril/valsartan now receives in guidelines and its label as a foundational treatment for HFpEF, the formulation has had a hard time gaining traction in U.S. practice, often because of barriers placed by third-party payers.
PARAGON-HF was sponsored by Novartis, which markets sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto). Dr. McCausland has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Tobe has reported participating on a steering committee for Bayer Fidelio/Figaro studies and being a speaker on behalf of Pfizer and Servier. Dr. Poon has reported being an adviser to Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Servier.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) who received sacubitril/valsartan in the PARAGON-HF trial had significant protection against progression of renal dysfunction in a prespecified secondary analysis.
The 2,419 patients with HFpEF who received sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) had half the rate of the primary adverse renal outcome, compared with the 2,403 patients randomized to valsartan alone in the comparator group, a significant difference, according to the results published online Sept. 29 in Circulation by Finnian R. McCausland, MBBCh, and colleagues.
In absolute terms, sacubitril/valsartan treatment, an angiotensin-receptor/neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI), cut the incidence of the combined renal endpoint – renal death, end-stage renal disease, or at least a 50% drop in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) – from 2.7% in the control group to 1.4% in the sacubitril/valsartan group during a median follow-up of 35 months.
The absolute difference of 1.3% equated to a number needed to treat of 51 to prevent one of these events.
Also notable was that renal protection from sacubitril/valsartan was equally robust across the range of baseline kidney function.
‘An important therapeutic option’
The efficacy “across the spectrum of baseline renal function” indicates treatment with sacubitril/valsartan is “an important therapeutic option to slow renal-function decline in patients with heart failure,” wrote Dr. McCausland, a nephrologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, and colleagues.
The authors’ conclusion is striking because currently no drug class has produced clear evidence for efficacy in HFpEF.
On the other hand, the PARAGON-HF trial that provided the data for this new analysis was statistically neutral for its primary endpoint – a reduction in the combined rate of cardiovascular death and hospitalizations for heart failure – with a P value of .06 and 95% confidence interval of 0.75-1.01.
“Because this difference [in the primary endpoint incidence between the two study group] did not meet the predetermined level of statistical significance, subsequent analyses were considered to be exploratory,” noted the authors of the primary analysis of PARAGON-HF, as reported by Medscape Medical News.
Despite this limitation in interpreting secondary outcomes from the trial, the new report of a significant renal benefit “opens the potential to provide evidence-based treatment for patients with HFpEF,” commented Sheldon W. Tobe, MD, and Stephanie Poon, MD, in an editorial accompanying the latest analysis.
“At the very least, these results are certainly intriguing and suggest that there may be important patient subgroups with HFpEF who might benefit from using sacubitril/valsartan,” they emphasized.
First large trial to show renal improvement in HFpEF
The editorialists’ enthusiasm for the implications of the new findings relate in part to the fact that “PARAGON-HF is the first large trial to demonstrate improvement in renal parameters in HFpEF,” they noted.
“The finding that the composite renal outcome did not differ according to baseline eGFR is significant and suggests that the beneficial effect on renal function was indirect, possibly linked to improved cardiac function,” say Dr. Tobe, a nephrologist, and Dr. Poon, a cardiologist, both at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre in Toronto.
PARAGON-HF enrolled 4,822 HFpEF patients at 848 centers in 43 countries, and the efficacy analysis included 4,796 patients.
The composite renal outcome was mainly driven by the incidence of a 50% or greater drop from baseline in eGFR, which occurred in 27 patients (1.1%) in the sacubitril/valsartan group and 60 patients (2.5%) who received valsartan alone.
The annual average drop in eGFR during the study was 2.0 mL/min per 1.73m2 in the sacubitril/valsartan group and 2.7 mL/min per 1.73m2 in the control group.
Although the heart failure community was disappointed that sacubitril/valsartan failed to show a significant benefit for the study’s primary outcome in HFpEF, the combination has become a mainstay of treatment for patients with HFpEF based on its performance in the PARADIGM-HF trial.
And despite the unqualified support sacubitril/valsartan now receives in guidelines and its label as a foundational treatment for HFpEF, the formulation has had a hard time gaining traction in U.S. practice, often because of barriers placed by third-party payers.
PARAGON-HF was sponsored by Novartis, which markets sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto). Dr. McCausland has reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Tobe has reported participating on a steering committee for Bayer Fidelio/Figaro studies and being a speaker on behalf of Pfizer and Servier. Dr. Poon has reported being an adviser to Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Servier.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Ticagrelor monotherapy beats DAPT in STEMI
, a major randomized trial.
“This is the first report assessing the feasibility of ticagrelor monotherapy after short-term DAPT for STEMI patients with drug-eluting stents,” Byeong-Keuk Kim, MD, PhD, noted at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Research Therapeutics virtual annual meeting.
The positive results were consistent with the earlier TWILIGHT study (Ticagrelor with Aspirin or Alone in High-Risk Patients after Coronary Intervention), which also showed clinical benefit at 1 year for 3 months of DAPT followed by ticagrelor (Brilinta) monotherapy, albeit only in PCI patients without an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) or with non-STEMI ACS (N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 21;381[21]:2032-42).
TICO-STEMI was a prespecified substudy involving the 1,103 STEMI patients included in the previously reported parent 38-center South Korean TICO (Ticagrelor With or Without Aspirin in Acute Coronary Syndrome After PCI) study of 3,056 ACS patients treated with a second-generation ultrathin biodegradable polymer-coated sirolimus-eluting stent (JAMA. 2020 Jun 16;323[23]:2407-16).
The primary outcome in TICO-STEMI was the 12-month composite rate of net adverse clinical events, composed of major bleeding, all-cause mortality, acute MI, stroke, stent thrombosis, or target vessel revascularization. In an intention-to-treat analysis, the rate was 5.0% in the 12-month DAPT group and 3.7% with ticagrelor monotherapy after 3 months of DAPT, for a 27% relative risk reduction which didn’t achieve statistical significance. However, in an as-treated analysis, the between-group difference in the primary endpoint was stronger: a 5.2% incidence with 12 months of DAPT and 2.3% with ticagrelor monotherapy, for a relative risk reduction of 56%, which was statistically significant.
Major bleeding, one of two key secondary endpoints, was a different story: The incidence within 12 months by intention-to-treat was 2.9% with 12 months of DAPT compared to 0.9% with ticagrelor monotherapy, for a statistically significant 68% relative risk reduction in favor of ticagrelor monotherapy. In contrast, there was no between-group difference in the other secondary endpoint composed of major adverse cardio- and cerebrovascular events: 2.7% with ticagrelor monotherapy, 2.5% with 12 months of DAPT.
In the subgroup of TICO-STEMI patients at high bleeding risk, ticagrelor monotherapy was associated with a 12-month major bleeding rate of 1.8%, compared to 6.3% with a full year of DAPT. Conversely, in patients who underwent complex PCI, ticagrelor monotherapy was associated with a 4.9% rate of major adverse cardio- and cerebrovascular events through 1 year, numerically greater than but not statistically significantly different from the 2.7% rate with 12 months of DAPT.
Dr. Kim noted that the study had several limitations: It was open label, had no placebo control, and was underpowered to draw definite conclusions regarding the merits of dropping aspirin and continuing ticagrelor after 3 months in STEMI patients.
“Our findings should be interpreted with caution and call for confirmatory randomized trials,” he stressed.
Session comoderator Roxana Mehran, MD, said she “wholeheartedly” agrees with that assessment.
“We really do need a future trial, and we’re working to design TWILIGHT-STEMI,” a large randomized follow-up to the TWILIGHT trial, which she directed.
“I often imagine that we can have an even shorter duration of aspirin and ticagrelor and go to monotherapy sooner than 3 months in this very, very important subgroup,” added Dr. Mehran, professor of medicine, professor of population science and policy, and director of interventional cardiovascular research and clinical trials at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.
Discussant Marco Valgimigli, MD, PhD, of University Hospital in Bern, Switzerland, calculated that the number-needed-to-treat with ticagrelor monotherapy rather than 12 months of DAPT in order to prevent one additional major bleeding event in TICO-STEMI participants at high bleeding risk was 22, as compared to an NNT of 77 in those without high bleeding risk.
“From a clinical standpoint, this strategy seems particularly appealing in high bleeding risk patients,” the cardiologist concluded at the at the meeting, which was sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.
He added, however, that the TICO-STEMI data with respect to complex PCI “are not really reassuring and are probably worth another investigation.”
Dr. Kim reported having no financial conflicts regarding the TICO-STEMI trial, funded by Biotronik.
, a major randomized trial.
“This is the first report assessing the feasibility of ticagrelor monotherapy after short-term DAPT for STEMI patients with drug-eluting stents,” Byeong-Keuk Kim, MD, PhD, noted at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Research Therapeutics virtual annual meeting.
The positive results were consistent with the earlier TWILIGHT study (Ticagrelor with Aspirin or Alone in High-Risk Patients after Coronary Intervention), which also showed clinical benefit at 1 year for 3 months of DAPT followed by ticagrelor (Brilinta) monotherapy, albeit only in PCI patients without an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) or with non-STEMI ACS (N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 21;381[21]:2032-42).
TICO-STEMI was a prespecified substudy involving the 1,103 STEMI patients included in the previously reported parent 38-center South Korean TICO (Ticagrelor With or Without Aspirin in Acute Coronary Syndrome After PCI) study of 3,056 ACS patients treated with a second-generation ultrathin biodegradable polymer-coated sirolimus-eluting stent (JAMA. 2020 Jun 16;323[23]:2407-16).
The primary outcome in TICO-STEMI was the 12-month composite rate of net adverse clinical events, composed of major bleeding, all-cause mortality, acute MI, stroke, stent thrombosis, or target vessel revascularization. In an intention-to-treat analysis, the rate was 5.0% in the 12-month DAPT group and 3.7% with ticagrelor monotherapy after 3 months of DAPT, for a 27% relative risk reduction which didn’t achieve statistical significance. However, in an as-treated analysis, the between-group difference in the primary endpoint was stronger: a 5.2% incidence with 12 months of DAPT and 2.3% with ticagrelor monotherapy, for a relative risk reduction of 56%, which was statistically significant.
Major bleeding, one of two key secondary endpoints, was a different story: The incidence within 12 months by intention-to-treat was 2.9% with 12 months of DAPT compared to 0.9% with ticagrelor monotherapy, for a statistically significant 68% relative risk reduction in favor of ticagrelor monotherapy. In contrast, there was no between-group difference in the other secondary endpoint composed of major adverse cardio- and cerebrovascular events: 2.7% with ticagrelor monotherapy, 2.5% with 12 months of DAPT.
In the subgroup of TICO-STEMI patients at high bleeding risk, ticagrelor monotherapy was associated with a 12-month major bleeding rate of 1.8%, compared to 6.3% with a full year of DAPT. Conversely, in patients who underwent complex PCI, ticagrelor monotherapy was associated with a 4.9% rate of major adverse cardio- and cerebrovascular events through 1 year, numerically greater than but not statistically significantly different from the 2.7% rate with 12 months of DAPT.
Dr. Kim noted that the study had several limitations: It was open label, had no placebo control, and was underpowered to draw definite conclusions regarding the merits of dropping aspirin and continuing ticagrelor after 3 months in STEMI patients.
“Our findings should be interpreted with caution and call for confirmatory randomized trials,” he stressed.
Session comoderator Roxana Mehran, MD, said she “wholeheartedly” agrees with that assessment.
“We really do need a future trial, and we’re working to design TWILIGHT-STEMI,” a large randomized follow-up to the TWILIGHT trial, which she directed.
“I often imagine that we can have an even shorter duration of aspirin and ticagrelor and go to monotherapy sooner than 3 months in this very, very important subgroup,” added Dr. Mehran, professor of medicine, professor of population science and policy, and director of interventional cardiovascular research and clinical trials at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.
Discussant Marco Valgimigli, MD, PhD, of University Hospital in Bern, Switzerland, calculated that the number-needed-to-treat with ticagrelor monotherapy rather than 12 months of DAPT in order to prevent one additional major bleeding event in TICO-STEMI participants at high bleeding risk was 22, as compared to an NNT of 77 in those without high bleeding risk.
“From a clinical standpoint, this strategy seems particularly appealing in high bleeding risk patients,” the cardiologist concluded at the at the meeting, which was sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.
He added, however, that the TICO-STEMI data with respect to complex PCI “are not really reassuring and are probably worth another investigation.”
Dr. Kim reported having no financial conflicts regarding the TICO-STEMI trial, funded by Biotronik.
, a major randomized trial.
“This is the first report assessing the feasibility of ticagrelor monotherapy after short-term DAPT for STEMI patients with drug-eluting stents,” Byeong-Keuk Kim, MD, PhD, noted at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Research Therapeutics virtual annual meeting.
The positive results were consistent with the earlier TWILIGHT study (Ticagrelor with Aspirin or Alone in High-Risk Patients after Coronary Intervention), which also showed clinical benefit at 1 year for 3 months of DAPT followed by ticagrelor (Brilinta) monotherapy, albeit only in PCI patients without an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) or with non-STEMI ACS (N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 21;381[21]:2032-42).
TICO-STEMI was a prespecified substudy involving the 1,103 STEMI patients included in the previously reported parent 38-center South Korean TICO (Ticagrelor With or Without Aspirin in Acute Coronary Syndrome After PCI) study of 3,056 ACS patients treated with a second-generation ultrathin biodegradable polymer-coated sirolimus-eluting stent (JAMA. 2020 Jun 16;323[23]:2407-16).
The primary outcome in TICO-STEMI was the 12-month composite rate of net adverse clinical events, composed of major bleeding, all-cause mortality, acute MI, stroke, stent thrombosis, or target vessel revascularization. In an intention-to-treat analysis, the rate was 5.0% in the 12-month DAPT group and 3.7% with ticagrelor monotherapy after 3 months of DAPT, for a 27% relative risk reduction which didn’t achieve statistical significance. However, in an as-treated analysis, the between-group difference in the primary endpoint was stronger: a 5.2% incidence with 12 months of DAPT and 2.3% with ticagrelor monotherapy, for a relative risk reduction of 56%, which was statistically significant.
Major bleeding, one of two key secondary endpoints, was a different story: The incidence within 12 months by intention-to-treat was 2.9% with 12 months of DAPT compared to 0.9% with ticagrelor monotherapy, for a statistically significant 68% relative risk reduction in favor of ticagrelor monotherapy. In contrast, there was no between-group difference in the other secondary endpoint composed of major adverse cardio- and cerebrovascular events: 2.7% with ticagrelor monotherapy, 2.5% with 12 months of DAPT.
In the subgroup of TICO-STEMI patients at high bleeding risk, ticagrelor monotherapy was associated with a 12-month major bleeding rate of 1.8%, compared to 6.3% with a full year of DAPT. Conversely, in patients who underwent complex PCI, ticagrelor monotherapy was associated with a 4.9% rate of major adverse cardio- and cerebrovascular events through 1 year, numerically greater than but not statistically significantly different from the 2.7% rate with 12 months of DAPT.
Dr. Kim noted that the study had several limitations: It was open label, had no placebo control, and was underpowered to draw definite conclusions regarding the merits of dropping aspirin and continuing ticagrelor after 3 months in STEMI patients.
“Our findings should be interpreted with caution and call for confirmatory randomized trials,” he stressed.
Session comoderator Roxana Mehran, MD, said she “wholeheartedly” agrees with that assessment.
“We really do need a future trial, and we’re working to design TWILIGHT-STEMI,” a large randomized follow-up to the TWILIGHT trial, which she directed.
“I often imagine that we can have an even shorter duration of aspirin and ticagrelor and go to monotherapy sooner than 3 months in this very, very important subgroup,” added Dr. Mehran, professor of medicine, professor of population science and policy, and director of interventional cardiovascular research and clinical trials at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.
Discussant Marco Valgimigli, MD, PhD, of University Hospital in Bern, Switzerland, calculated that the number-needed-to-treat with ticagrelor monotherapy rather than 12 months of DAPT in order to prevent one additional major bleeding event in TICO-STEMI participants at high bleeding risk was 22, as compared to an NNT of 77 in those without high bleeding risk.
“From a clinical standpoint, this strategy seems particularly appealing in high bleeding risk patients,” the cardiologist concluded at the at the meeting, which was sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.
He added, however, that the TICO-STEMI data with respect to complex PCI “are not really reassuring and are probably worth another investigation.”
Dr. Kim reported having no financial conflicts regarding the TICO-STEMI trial, funded by Biotronik.
AT TCT 2020
Choose wisely
Four years ago, just prior to the 2016 presidential election, I mentioned the Choosing Wisely campaign in my JFP editorial.1 I said that family physicians should do their part in controlling health care costs by carefully selecting tests and treatments that are known to be effective and avoiding those that are not. This remains as true now as it was then.
The Choosing Wisely campaign was sparked by a family physician, Dr. Howard Brody, in the context of national health care reform. In a 2010 New England Journal of Medicine editorial, he challenged physicians to do their part in controlling health care costs by not ordering tests and treatments that have no value for patients.2 At that time, it was estimated that a third of tests and treatments ordered by US physicians were of marginal or no value.3
Dr. Brody’s editorial caught the attention of the National Physicians Alliance and eventually many other physician organizations. In 2012, the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation launched the Choosing Wisely initiative; today, the campaign Web site, choosingwisely.org, has a wealth of information and practice recommendations from 78 medical specialty organizations, including the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP).
In this month’s issue of JFP, Dr. Kate Rowland has summarized 10 of the most important Choosing Wisely recommendations that apply to family physicians and other primary care clinicians. Here are 5 more recommendations from the Choosing Wisely list of tests and treatments to avoid ordering for your patients:
- Don’t perform pelvic exams on asymptomatic nonpregnant women, unless necessary for guideline-appropriate screening for cervical cancer.
- Don’t routinely screen for prostate cancer using a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test or digital rectal exam. For men who want PSA screening, it should be performed only after engaging in shared decision-making.
- Don’t order annual electrocardiograms or any other cardiac screening for low-risk patients without symptoms.
- Don’t routinely prescribe antibiotics for otitis media in children ages 2 to 12 years with nonsevere symptoms when observation is reasonable.
- Don’t use dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry screening for osteoporosis in women younger than 65 or men younger than 70 with no risk factors.
In total, AAFP lists 18 recommendations (2 additional recommendations have been withdrawn, based on updated evidence) on the Choosing Wisely Web site. I encourage you to review them to see if you should change any of your current patient recommendations.
1. Hickner J. Count on this no matter who wins the election. J Fam Pract. 2016;65:664.
2. Brody H. Medicine’s ethical responsibility for health care reform—the Top Five list. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:283-285.
3. Fisher ES, Bynum JP, Skinner JS. Slowing the growth of health care costs—lessons from regional variation. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:849-852.
Editor-in-Chief
Editor-in-Chief
Editor-in-Chief
Four years ago, just prior to the 2016 presidential election, I mentioned the Choosing Wisely campaign in my JFP editorial.1 I said that family physicians should do their part in controlling health care costs by carefully selecting tests and treatments that are known to be effective and avoiding those that are not. This remains as true now as it was then.
The Choosing Wisely campaign was sparked by a family physician, Dr. Howard Brody, in the context of national health care reform. In a 2010 New England Journal of Medicine editorial, he challenged physicians to do their part in controlling health care costs by not ordering tests and treatments that have no value for patients.2 At that time, it was estimated that a third of tests and treatments ordered by US physicians were of marginal or no value.3
Dr. Brody’s editorial caught the attention of the National Physicians Alliance and eventually many other physician organizations. In 2012, the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation launched the Choosing Wisely initiative; today, the campaign Web site, choosingwisely.org, has a wealth of information and practice recommendations from 78 medical specialty organizations, including the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP).
In this month’s issue of JFP, Dr. Kate Rowland has summarized 10 of the most important Choosing Wisely recommendations that apply to family physicians and other primary care clinicians. Here are 5 more recommendations from the Choosing Wisely list of tests and treatments to avoid ordering for your patients:
- Don’t perform pelvic exams on asymptomatic nonpregnant women, unless necessary for guideline-appropriate screening for cervical cancer.
- Don’t routinely screen for prostate cancer using a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test or digital rectal exam. For men who want PSA screening, it should be performed only after engaging in shared decision-making.
- Don’t order annual electrocardiograms or any other cardiac screening for low-risk patients without symptoms.
- Don’t routinely prescribe antibiotics for otitis media in children ages 2 to 12 years with nonsevere symptoms when observation is reasonable.
- Don’t use dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry screening for osteoporosis in women younger than 65 or men younger than 70 with no risk factors.
In total, AAFP lists 18 recommendations (2 additional recommendations have been withdrawn, based on updated evidence) on the Choosing Wisely Web site. I encourage you to review them to see if you should change any of your current patient recommendations.
Four years ago, just prior to the 2016 presidential election, I mentioned the Choosing Wisely campaign in my JFP editorial.1 I said that family physicians should do their part in controlling health care costs by carefully selecting tests and treatments that are known to be effective and avoiding those that are not. This remains as true now as it was then.
The Choosing Wisely campaign was sparked by a family physician, Dr. Howard Brody, in the context of national health care reform. In a 2010 New England Journal of Medicine editorial, he challenged physicians to do their part in controlling health care costs by not ordering tests and treatments that have no value for patients.2 At that time, it was estimated that a third of tests and treatments ordered by US physicians were of marginal or no value.3
Dr. Brody’s editorial caught the attention of the National Physicians Alliance and eventually many other physician organizations. In 2012, the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation launched the Choosing Wisely initiative; today, the campaign Web site, choosingwisely.org, has a wealth of information and practice recommendations from 78 medical specialty organizations, including the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP).
In this month’s issue of JFP, Dr. Kate Rowland has summarized 10 of the most important Choosing Wisely recommendations that apply to family physicians and other primary care clinicians. Here are 5 more recommendations from the Choosing Wisely list of tests and treatments to avoid ordering for your patients:
- Don’t perform pelvic exams on asymptomatic nonpregnant women, unless necessary for guideline-appropriate screening for cervical cancer.
- Don’t routinely screen for prostate cancer using a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test or digital rectal exam. For men who want PSA screening, it should be performed only after engaging in shared decision-making.
- Don’t order annual electrocardiograms or any other cardiac screening for low-risk patients without symptoms.
- Don’t routinely prescribe antibiotics for otitis media in children ages 2 to 12 years with nonsevere symptoms when observation is reasonable.
- Don’t use dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry screening for osteoporosis in women younger than 65 or men younger than 70 with no risk factors.
In total, AAFP lists 18 recommendations (2 additional recommendations have been withdrawn, based on updated evidence) on the Choosing Wisely Web site. I encourage you to review them to see if you should change any of your current patient recommendations.
1. Hickner J. Count on this no matter who wins the election. J Fam Pract. 2016;65:664.
2. Brody H. Medicine’s ethical responsibility for health care reform—the Top Five list. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:283-285.
3. Fisher ES, Bynum JP, Skinner JS. Slowing the growth of health care costs—lessons from regional variation. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:849-852.
1. Hickner J. Count on this no matter who wins the election. J Fam Pract. 2016;65:664.
2. Brody H. Medicine’s ethical responsibility for health care reform—the Top Five list. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:283-285.
3. Fisher ES, Bynum JP, Skinner JS. Slowing the growth of health care costs—lessons from regional variation. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:849-852.
Female cardiac advantage essentially lost after MI
Women are known to lag 5-10 years behind men in experiencing coronary heart disease (CHD), but new research suggests the gap narrows substantially following a myocardial infarction.
“Women lose a considerable portion, but not all, of their coronary and survival advantage – i.e., the lower event rates – after suffering a MI,” study author Sanne Peters, PhD, George Institute for Global Health, Imperial College London, said in an interview.
Previous studies of sex differences in event rates after a coronary event have produced mixed results and were primarily focused on mortality following MI. Importantly, the studies also lacked a control group without a history of CHD and, thus, were unable to provide a reference point for the disparity in event rates, she explained.
Using the MarketScan and Medicare databases, however, Dr. Peters and colleagues matched 339,890 U.S. adults hospitalized for an MI between January 2015 and December 2016 with 1,359,560 U.S. adults without a history of CHD.
Over a median 1.3 years follow-up, there were 12,518 MIs in the non-CHD group and 27,115 recurrent MIs in the MI group.
The age-standardized rate of MI per 1,000 person-years was 4.0 in women and 6.1 in men without a history of CHD, compared with 57.6 in women and 62.7 in men with a prior MI.
After multivariate adjustment, the women-to-men hazard ratio for MI was 0.64 (95% confidence interval, 0.62-0.67) in the non-CHD group and 0.94 (95% CI, 0.92-0.96) in the prior MI group, the authors reported Oct. 5 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology
Additional results show the multivariate adjusted women-to-men hazard ratios for three other cardiovascular outcomes follow a similar pattern in the non-CHD and prior MI groups:
- CHD events: 0.53 (95% CI, 0.51-0.54) and 0.87 (95% CI, 0.85-0.89).
- Heart failure hospitalization: 0.93 (95% CI, 0.90-0.96) and 1.02 (95% CI, 1.00-1.04).
- All-cause mortality: 0.72 (95% CI, 0.71-0.73) and 0.90 (95% CI, 0.89-0.92).
“By including a control group of individuals without CHD, we demonstrated that the magnitude of the sex difference in cardiac event rates and survival is considerably smaller among those with prior MI than among those without a history of CHD,” Dr. Peters said.
Of note, the sex differences were consistent across age and race/ethnicity groups for all events, except for heart failure hospitalizations, where the adjusted hazard ratio for women vs. men age 80 years or older was 0.95 for those without a history of CHD (95% CI, 0.91-0.98) and 0.99 (95% CI, 0.96-1.02) for participants with a previous MI.
Dr. Peters said it’s not clear why the female advantage is attenuated post-MI but that one explanation is that women are less likely than men to receive guideline-recommended treatments and dosages or to adhere to prescribed therapies after MI hospitalization, which could put them at a higher risk of subsequent events and worse outcomes than men.
“Sex differences in pathophysiology of CHD and its complications may also explain, to some extent, why the rates of recurrent events are considerably more similar between the sexes than incident event rates,” she said. Compared with men, women have a higher incidence of MI with nonobstructive coronary artery disease and of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, and evidence-based treatment options are more limited for both conditions.
“After people read this, I think the important thing to recognize is we need to push– as much as we can, with what meds we have, and what data we have – secondary prevention in these women,” Laxmi Mehta, MD, director of preventive cardiology and women’s cardiovascular health at Ohio State University, Columbus, said in an interview.
The lack of a female advantage post-MI should also elicit a “really meaningful conversation with our patients on shared decision-making of why they need to be on medications, remembering on our part to prescribe the medications, remembering to prescribe cardiac rehab, and also reminding our community we do need more data and need to investigate this further,” she said.
In an accompanying editorial, Nanette Wenger, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, also points out that nonobstructive coronary disease is more common in women and, “yet, guideline-based therapies are those validated for obstructive coronary disease in a predominantly male population but, nonetheless, are applied for nonobstructive coronary disease.”
She advocates for aggressive evaluation and treatment for women with chest pain symptoms as well as early identification of women at risk for CHD, specifically those with metabolic syndrome, preeclampsia, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, chronic inflammatory conditions, and high-risk race/ethnicity.
“Next, when coronary angiography is undertaken, particularly in younger women, an assiduous search for spontaneous coronary artery dissection and its appropriate management, as well as prompt and evidence-based interventions and medical therapies for an acute coronary event [are indicated],” Dr. Wenger wrote. “However, basic to improving outcomes for women is the elucidation of the optimal noninvasive techniques to identify microvascular disease, which could then enable delineation of appropriate preventive and therapeutic approaches.”
Dr. Peters is supported by a U.K. Medical Research Council Skills Development Fellowship. Dr. Mehta and Dr. Wenger disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Women are known to lag 5-10 years behind men in experiencing coronary heart disease (CHD), but new research suggests the gap narrows substantially following a myocardial infarction.
“Women lose a considerable portion, but not all, of their coronary and survival advantage – i.e., the lower event rates – after suffering a MI,” study author Sanne Peters, PhD, George Institute for Global Health, Imperial College London, said in an interview.
Previous studies of sex differences in event rates after a coronary event have produced mixed results and were primarily focused on mortality following MI. Importantly, the studies also lacked a control group without a history of CHD and, thus, were unable to provide a reference point for the disparity in event rates, she explained.
Using the MarketScan and Medicare databases, however, Dr. Peters and colleagues matched 339,890 U.S. adults hospitalized for an MI between January 2015 and December 2016 with 1,359,560 U.S. adults without a history of CHD.
Over a median 1.3 years follow-up, there were 12,518 MIs in the non-CHD group and 27,115 recurrent MIs in the MI group.
The age-standardized rate of MI per 1,000 person-years was 4.0 in women and 6.1 in men without a history of CHD, compared with 57.6 in women and 62.7 in men with a prior MI.
After multivariate adjustment, the women-to-men hazard ratio for MI was 0.64 (95% confidence interval, 0.62-0.67) in the non-CHD group and 0.94 (95% CI, 0.92-0.96) in the prior MI group, the authors reported Oct. 5 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology
Additional results show the multivariate adjusted women-to-men hazard ratios for three other cardiovascular outcomes follow a similar pattern in the non-CHD and prior MI groups:
- CHD events: 0.53 (95% CI, 0.51-0.54) and 0.87 (95% CI, 0.85-0.89).
- Heart failure hospitalization: 0.93 (95% CI, 0.90-0.96) and 1.02 (95% CI, 1.00-1.04).
- All-cause mortality: 0.72 (95% CI, 0.71-0.73) and 0.90 (95% CI, 0.89-0.92).
“By including a control group of individuals without CHD, we demonstrated that the magnitude of the sex difference in cardiac event rates and survival is considerably smaller among those with prior MI than among those without a history of CHD,” Dr. Peters said.
Of note, the sex differences were consistent across age and race/ethnicity groups for all events, except for heart failure hospitalizations, where the adjusted hazard ratio for women vs. men age 80 years or older was 0.95 for those without a history of CHD (95% CI, 0.91-0.98) and 0.99 (95% CI, 0.96-1.02) for participants with a previous MI.
Dr. Peters said it’s not clear why the female advantage is attenuated post-MI but that one explanation is that women are less likely than men to receive guideline-recommended treatments and dosages or to adhere to prescribed therapies after MI hospitalization, which could put them at a higher risk of subsequent events and worse outcomes than men.
“Sex differences in pathophysiology of CHD and its complications may also explain, to some extent, why the rates of recurrent events are considerably more similar between the sexes than incident event rates,” she said. Compared with men, women have a higher incidence of MI with nonobstructive coronary artery disease and of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, and evidence-based treatment options are more limited for both conditions.
“After people read this, I think the important thing to recognize is we need to push– as much as we can, with what meds we have, and what data we have – secondary prevention in these women,” Laxmi Mehta, MD, director of preventive cardiology and women’s cardiovascular health at Ohio State University, Columbus, said in an interview.
The lack of a female advantage post-MI should also elicit a “really meaningful conversation with our patients on shared decision-making of why they need to be on medications, remembering on our part to prescribe the medications, remembering to prescribe cardiac rehab, and also reminding our community we do need more data and need to investigate this further,” she said.
In an accompanying editorial, Nanette Wenger, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, also points out that nonobstructive coronary disease is more common in women and, “yet, guideline-based therapies are those validated for obstructive coronary disease in a predominantly male population but, nonetheless, are applied for nonobstructive coronary disease.”
She advocates for aggressive evaluation and treatment for women with chest pain symptoms as well as early identification of women at risk for CHD, specifically those with metabolic syndrome, preeclampsia, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, chronic inflammatory conditions, and high-risk race/ethnicity.
“Next, when coronary angiography is undertaken, particularly in younger women, an assiduous search for spontaneous coronary artery dissection and its appropriate management, as well as prompt and evidence-based interventions and medical therapies for an acute coronary event [are indicated],” Dr. Wenger wrote. “However, basic to improving outcomes for women is the elucidation of the optimal noninvasive techniques to identify microvascular disease, which could then enable delineation of appropriate preventive and therapeutic approaches.”
Dr. Peters is supported by a U.K. Medical Research Council Skills Development Fellowship. Dr. Mehta and Dr. Wenger disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Women are known to lag 5-10 years behind men in experiencing coronary heart disease (CHD), but new research suggests the gap narrows substantially following a myocardial infarction.
“Women lose a considerable portion, but not all, of their coronary and survival advantage – i.e., the lower event rates – after suffering a MI,” study author Sanne Peters, PhD, George Institute for Global Health, Imperial College London, said in an interview.
Previous studies of sex differences in event rates after a coronary event have produced mixed results and were primarily focused on mortality following MI. Importantly, the studies also lacked a control group without a history of CHD and, thus, were unable to provide a reference point for the disparity in event rates, she explained.
Using the MarketScan and Medicare databases, however, Dr. Peters and colleagues matched 339,890 U.S. adults hospitalized for an MI between January 2015 and December 2016 with 1,359,560 U.S. adults without a history of CHD.
Over a median 1.3 years follow-up, there were 12,518 MIs in the non-CHD group and 27,115 recurrent MIs in the MI group.
The age-standardized rate of MI per 1,000 person-years was 4.0 in women and 6.1 in men without a history of CHD, compared with 57.6 in women and 62.7 in men with a prior MI.
After multivariate adjustment, the women-to-men hazard ratio for MI was 0.64 (95% confidence interval, 0.62-0.67) in the non-CHD group and 0.94 (95% CI, 0.92-0.96) in the prior MI group, the authors reported Oct. 5 in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology
Additional results show the multivariate adjusted women-to-men hazard ratios for three other cardiovascular outcomes follow a similar pattern in the non-CHD and prior MI groups:
- CHD events: 0.53 (95% CI, 0.51-0.54) and 0.87 (95% CI, 0.85-0.89).
- Heart failure hospitalization: 0.93 (95% CI, 0.90-0.96) and 1.02 (95% CI, 1.00-1.04).
- All-cause mortality: 0.72 (95% CI, 0.71-0.73) and 0.90 (95% CI, 0.89-0.92).
“By including a control group of individuals without CHD, we demonstrated that the magnitude of the sex difference in cardiac event rates and survival is considerably smaller among those with prior MI than among those without a history of CHD,” Dr. Peters said.
Of note, the sex differences were consistent across age and race/ethnicity groups for all events, except for heart failure hospitalizations, where the adjusted hazard ratio for women vs. men age 80 years or older was 0.95 for those without a history of CHD (95% CI, 0.91-0.98) and 0.99 (95% CI, 0.96-1.02) for participants with a previous MI.
Dr. Peters said it’s not clear why the female advantage is attenuated post-MI but that one explanation is that women are less likely than men to receive guideline-recommended treatments and dosages or to adhere to prescribed therapies after MI hospitalization, which could put them at a higher risk of subsequent events and worse outcomes than men.
“Sex differences in pathophysiology of CHD and its complications may also explain, to some extent, why the rates of recurrent events are considerably more similar between the sexes than incident event rates,” she said. Compared with men, women have a higher incidence of MI with nonobstructive coronary artery disease and of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, and evidence-based treatment options are more limited for both conditions.
“After people read this, I think the important thing to recognize is we need to push– as much as we can, with what meds we have, and what data we have – secondary prevention in these women,” Laxmi Mehta, MD, director of preventive cardiology and women’s cardiovascular health at Ohio State University, Columbus, said in an interview.
The lack of a female advantage post-MI should also elicit a “really meaningful conversation with our patients on shared decision-making of why they need to be on medications, remembering on our part to prescribe the medications, remembering to prescribe cardiac rehab, and also reminding our community we do need more data and need to investigate this further,” she said.
In an accompanying editorial, Nanette Wenger, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, also points out that nonobstructive coronary disease is more common in women and, “yet, guideline-based therapies are those validated for obstructive coronary disease in a predominantly male population but, nonetheless, are applied for nonobstructive coronary disease.”
She advocates for aggressive evaluation and treatment for women with chest pain symptoms as well as early identification of women at risk for CHD, specifically those with metabolic syndrome, preeclampsia, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, chronic inflammatory conditions, and high-risk race/ethnicity.
“Next, when coronary angiography is undertaken, particularly in younger women, an assiduous search for spontaneous coronary artery dissection and its appropriate management, as well as prompt and evidence-based interventions and medical therapies for an acute coronary event [are indicated],” Dr. Wenger wrote. “However, basic to improving outcomes for women is the elucidation of the optimal noninvasive techniques to identify microvascular disease, which could then enable delineation of appropriate preventive and therapeutic approaches.”
Dr. Peters is supported by a U.K. Medical Research Council Skills Development Fellowship. Dr. Mehta and Dr. Wenger disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.