CAD & Atherosclerosis

Patients with acute coronary syndromes who have been taking the antiplatelet medication, ticagrelor, and who need coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) may be able to safely have the procedure earlier than typically recommended, a new randomized trial suggests.

The RAPID CABG trial found that early surgery 2-3 days after ticagrelor cessation was noninferior in incurring severe or massive perioperative bleeding, compared with waiting 5-7 days. There was also no significant difference in TIMI CABG or Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 4 or 5 bleeding.

Patients in the delayed group had a numerically higher number of ischemic events requiring earlier surgery and had a longer hospital stay.

The study was presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

“RAPID CABG is the first and only randomized controlled trial evaluating the safety of early surgery in patients taking ticagrelor,” said lead investigator Derek So, MD.

Dr. So, a cardiologist at the University of Ottawa Heart Institute and a professor at the University of Ottawa, explained that ticagrelor is a first-line antiplatelet agent for patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS), but around 10% of patients presenting with ACS require CABG surgery.

A major concern among patients requiring bypass surgery is perioperative bleeding, and it has been shown that patients undergoing urgent bypass within 24 hours of the last dose of ticagrelor have increased mortality. Accordingly, guidelines suggest a waiting period for patients not requiring urgent bypass surgery, Dr. So noted.

Current North American guidelines suggest a waiting period of at least 5 days after stopping ticagrelor before bypass surgery. In contrast, the updated European and Japanese guidelines suggest a waiting period of 3 days.

Dr. So noted that all of the guidelines are based on cohort studies and pharmacodynamic studies, with no randomized evidence. Pharmacodynamic studies have shown that at 48 hours after the last dose of ticagrelor, the level of platelet inhibition drops to the same levels seen with long-term treatment with clopidogrel, a weaker antiplatelet drug, and after 120 hours (5 days) the effect has completely worn off.

Dr. So concluded that these new results from the RAPID CABG trial “may influence future iterations of North American guidelines with reduced waiting prior to bypass surgery” for patients receiving ticagrelor, and “they could also strengthen the level of evidence in European and Asian guidelines.”

Designated discussant of the RAPID CABG trial, Roxana Mehran, MD, professor of medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said this was a “very important study,” being the only randomized trial to look at this issue to date.

Dr. Mehran noted that the results showed a similar number of major life-threatening bleeding events in the early and delayed groups and met the noninferiority endpoint, but she pointed out that the trial had a small sample size and a small number of events. “Therefore, larger trials are needed to verify these important and encouraging results.”

However, she concluded that these results should be considered in decisions about the timing of bypass surgery in patients receiving ticagrelor. “I will be changing my practice and sending patients earlier based on this data,” she said.

 RAPID CABG

RAPID CABG was a physician-initiated multicenter randomized study evaluating the safety of early surgery at 2-3 days after ticagrelor cessation, compared with a delay of 5-7 days among patients presenting with ACS who required nonemergency CABG surgery.

The study enrolled 143 patients with ACS who were receiving ticagrelor and needed CABG surgery. Patients with stenting for culprit lesions, those requiring urgent surgery (less than 24 hours after presentation), and those requiring valve surgery were excluded.   

Three patients declined surgery, and several others underwent surgery outside the assigned time window, so the results were based on the per protocol analysis of patients who actually had CABG in the assigned time window: 65 patients in the early CABG group and 58 in the delayed group.

The mean time from last ticagrelor dose to surgery was 3 days in the early group and 6 days in the delayed group.

Platelet reactivity on the VerifyNow test showed more residual antiplatelet activity in the early group, with P2Y12 reaction unit (PRU) levels of 200 (vs. 251 in the delayed group). This test measures the extent of platelet aggregation in the presence of P2Y12-inhibitor drugs, with lower PRU levels showing stronger antiplatelet effects.

The primary outcome of the study was severe or massive bleeding by Universal Definition of Perioperative Bleeding (UDPB) class 3 or 4. This is defined as a blood transfusions of more than 5 units of red blood cells or plasma within 24 hours of surgical closure, chest tube drainage of over 1,000 mL in the first 12 hours, and reoperation for bleeding.

Results showed that 4.6% of the early-surgery group had a primary outcome bleeding event, compared with 5.2% of the delayed surgery group, meeting the criteria for noninferiority (P = .0253 for noninferiority).

Individual components of the primary endpoint showed three class 3 (severe) bleeding events in both groups and no class 4 (massive) bleeding events in either group.  

In terms of other bleeding outcomes, TIMI CABG bleeding occurred in two patients (3.1%) in the early-surgery group vs. no patients in the delayed group; BARC 4 bleeding occurred in two patients (3.1%) in the early group versus none in the delayed group, and there were no BARC 5 bleeding events in either group.

In the intention-to-treat analysis, ischemic events before surgery occurred in six patients (8.7%) in the delayed group (one myocardial infarction, four cases of recurrent ischemia, and one ventricular tachycardia) versus none in the early group.

Cumulative 6-month ischemic events occurred in nine patients (13.0%) in the delayed group vs. four patients (5.6%) in the early group, the difference being driven by nonfatal MI and recurrent ischemia.  

There were no cardiovascular deaths in either group and one all-cause death in both groups.

Patients undergoing early surgery also had a shorter hospitalization, with a median length of stay of 9 days versus 12 days in the delayed group.

Larger trial needed

Commenting on the RAPID CABG study at an AHA press conference, Joanna Chikwe, MD, chair of the cardiac surgery department at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said the results were in line with her practice.

“These results confirm what I already think is safe,” she said. “I’m comfortable going within 48 hours. But we individualize our approach, so it was helpful that the study investigators included platelet reactivity data. The interesting thing for me in this study was the number of adverse events in patients who waited longer.” 

Dr. Chikwe said her top-line message was that “Surgery looked incredibly safe; there was amazingly low mortality. And if a patient has an indication for surgery, waiting does not serve you well.”

However, she also cautioned that the trial was somewhat underpowered, with a small number of events that drove the primary outcome, leading to some uncertainty on the results.

“The RAPID trial was helpful, and although it confirms my practice, I think physicians may want to see a larger-powered trial to be convincingly compelled that they should change their practice,” Dr. Chikwe noted.  

She added that clinical trials in cardiac surgery are driven by inherent challenges. “Cardiac surgery is not very common, and it is hard to recruit patients into these trials, so you are generally tied to a small number of patients, and you therefore have to be extremely thoughtful about the study design. It is almost a given that you will need to use surrogate endpoints, and the choice of the surrogate endpoint can determine which way the trial goes.”

The RAPID CABG study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. So reports research support, consultancy, or speaker’s fees from AggreDyne, Roche Diagnostics, Fujimori Kogyo, and AstraZeneca Canada. Dr. Mehran reports that her institution has received significant trial funding from AstraZeneca (the manufacturer of ticagrelor).  

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with acute coronary syndromes who have been taking the antiplatelet medication, ticagrelor, and who need coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) may be able to safely have the procedure earlier than typically recommended, a new randomized trial suggests.

The RAPID CABG trial found that early surgery 2-3 days after ticagrelor cessation was noninferior in incurring severe or massive perioperative bleeding, compared with waiting 5-7 days. There was also no significant difference in TIMI CABG or Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 4 or 5 bleeding.

Patients in the delayed group had a numerically higher number of ischemic events requiring earlier surgery and had a longer hospital stay.

The study was presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

“RAPID CABG is the first and only randomized controlled trial evaluating the safety of early surgery in patients taking ticagrelor,” said lead investigator Derek So, MD.

Dr. So, a cardiologist at the University of Ottawa Heart Institute and a professor at the University of Ottawa, explained that ticagrelor is a first-line antiplatelet agent for patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS), but around 10% of patients presenting with ACS require CABG surgery.

A major concern among patients requiring bypass surgery is perioperative bleeding, and it has been shown that patients undergoing urgent bypass within 24 hours of the last dose of ticagrelor have increased mortality. Accordingly, guidelines suggest a waiting period for patients not requiring urgent bypass surgery, Dr. So noted.

Current North American guidelines suggest a waiting period of at least 5 days after stopping ticagrelor before bypass surgery. In contrast, the updated European and Japanese guidelines suggest a waiting period of 3 days.

Dr. So noted that all of the guidelines are based on cohort studies and pharmacodynamic studies, with no randomized evidence. Pharmacodynamic studies have shown that at 48 hours after the last dose of ticagrelor, the level of platelet inhibition drops to the same levels seen with long-term treatment with clopidogrel, a weaker antiplatelet drug, and after 120 hours (5 days) the effect has completely worn off.

Dr. So concluded that these new results from the RAPID CABG trial “may influence future iterations of North American guidelines with reduced waiting prior to bypass surgery” for patients receiving ticagrelor, and “they could also strengthen the level of evidence in European and Asian guidelines.”

Designated discussant of the RAPID CABG trial, Roxana Mehran, MD, professor of medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said this was a “very important study,” being the only randomized trial to look at this issue to date.

Dr. Mehran noted that the results showed a similar number of major life-threatening bleeding events in the early and delayed groups and met the noninferiority endpoint, but she pointed out that the trial had a small sample size and a small number of events. “Therefore, larger trials are needed to verify these important and encouraging results.”

However, she concluded that these results should be considered in decisions about the timing of bypass surgery in patients receiving ticagrelor. “I will be changing my practice and sending patients earlier based on this data,” she said.

 RAPID CABG

RAPID CABG was a physician-initiated multicenter randomized study evaluating the safety of early surgery at 2-3 days after ticagrelor cessation, compared with a delay of 5-7 days among patients presenting with ACS who required nonemergency CABG surgery.

The study enrolled 143 patients with ACS who were receiving ticagrelor and needed CABG surgery. Patients with stenting for culprit lesions, those requiring urgent surgery (less than 24 hours after presentation), and those requiring valve surgery were excluded.   

Three patients declined surgery, and several others underwent surgery outside the assigned time window, so the results were based on the per protocol analysis of patients who actually had CABG in the assigned time window: 65 patients in the early CABG group and 58 in the delayed group.

The mean time from last ticagrelor dose to surgery was 3 days in the early group and 6 days in the delayed group.

Platelet reactivity on the VerifyNow test showed more residual antiplatelet activity in the early group, with P2Y12 reaction unit (PRU) levels of 200 (vs. 251 in the delayed group). This test measures the extent of platelet aggregation in the presence of P2Y12-inhibitor drugs, with lower PRU levels showing stronger antiplatelet effects.

The primary outcome of the study was severe or massive bleeding by Universal Definition of Perioperative Bleeding (UDPB) class 3 or 4. This is defined as a blood transfusions of more than 5 units of red blood cells or plasma within 24 hours of surgical closure, chest tube drainage of over 1,000 mL in the first 12 hours, and reoperation for bleeding.

Results showed that 4.6% of the early-surgery group had a primary outcome bleeding event, compared with 5.2% of the delayed surgery group, meeting the criteria for noninferiority (P = .0253 for noninferiority).

Individual components of the primary endpoint showed three class 3 (severe) bleeding events in both groups and no class 4 (massive) bleeding events in either group.  

In terms of other bleeding outcomes, TIMI CABG bleeding occurred in two patients (3.1%) in the early-surgery group vs. no patients in the delayed group; BARC 4 bleeding occurred in two patients (3.1%) in the early group versus none in the delayed group, and there were no BARC 5 bleeding events in either group.

In the intention-to-treat analysis, ischemic events before surgery occurred in six patients (8.7%) in the delayed group (one myocardial infarction, four cases of recurrent ischemia, and one ventricular tachycardia) versus none in the early group.

Cumulative 6-month ischemic events occurred in nine patients (13.0%) in the delayed group vs. four patients (5.6%) in the early group, the difference being driven by nonfatal MI and recurrent ischemia.  

There were no cardiovascular deaths in either group and one all-cause death in both groups.

Patients undergoing early surgery also had a shorter hospitalization, with a median length of stay of 9 days versus 12 days in the delayed group.

Larger trial needed

Commenting on the RAPID CABG study at an AHA press conference, Joanna Chikwe, MD, chair of the cardiac surgery department at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said the results were in line with her practice.

“These results confirm what I already think is safe,” she said. “I’m comfortable going within 48 hours. But we individualize our approach, so it was helpful that the study investigators included platelet reactivity data. The interesting thing for me in this study was the number of adverse events in patients who waited longer.” 

Dr. Chikwe said her top-line message was that “Surgery looked incredibly safe; there was amazingly low mortality. And if a patient has an indication for surgery, waiting does not serve you well.”

However, she also cautioned that the trial was somewhat underpowered, with a small number of events that drove the primary outcome, leading to some uncertainty on the results.

“The RAPID trial was helpful, and although it confirms my practice, I think physicians may want to see a larger-powered trial to be convincingly compelled that they should change their practice,” Dr. Chikwe noted.  

She added that clinical trials in cardiac surgery are driven by inherent challenges. “Cardiac surgery is not very common, and it is hard to recruit patients into these trials, so you are generally tied to a small number of patients, and you therefore have to be extremely thoughtful about the study design. It is almost a given that you will need to use surrogate endpoints, and the choice of the surrogate endpoint can determine which way the trial goes.”

The RAPID CABG study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. So reports research support, consultancy, or speaker’s fees from AggreDyne, Roche Diagnostics, Fujimori Kogyo, and AstraZeneca Canada. Dr. Mehran reports that her institution has received significant trial funding from AstraZeneca (the manufacturer of ticagrelor).  

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with acute coronary syndromes who have been taking the antiplatelet medication, ticagrelor, and who need coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) may be able to safely have the procedure earlier than typically recommended, a new randomized trial suggests.

The RAPID CABG trial found that early surgery 2-3 days after ticagrelor cessation was noninferior in incurring severe or massive perioperative bleeding, compared with waiting 5-7 days. There was also no significant difference in TIMI CABG or Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 4 or 5 bleeding.

Patients in the delayed group had a numerically higher number of ischemic events requiring earlier surgery and had a longer hospital stay.

The study was presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

“RAPID CABG is the first and only randomized controlled trial evaluating the safety of early surgery in patients taking ticagrelor,” said lead investigator Derek So, MD.

Dr. So, a cardiologist at the University of Ottawa Heart Institute and a professor at the University of Ottawa, explained that ticagrelor is a first-line antiplatelet agent for patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS), but around 10% of patients presenting with ACS require CABG surgery.

A major concern among patients requiring bypass surgery is perioperative bleeding, and it has been shown that patients undergoing urgent bypass within 24 hours of the last dose of ticagrelor have increased mortality. Accordingly, guidelines suggest a waiting period for patients not requiring urgent bypass surgery, Dr. So noted.

Current North American guidelines suggest a waiting period of at least 5 days after stopping ticagrelor before bypass surgery. In contrast, the updated European and Japanese guidelines suggest a waiting period of 3 days.

Dr. So noted that all of the guidelines are based on cohort studies and pharmacodynamic studies, with no randomized evidence. Pharmacodynamic studies have shown that at 48 hours after the last dose of ticagrelor, the level of platelet inhibition drops to the same levels seen with long-term treatment with clopidogrel, a weaker antiplatelet drug, and after 120 hours (5 days) the effect has completely worn off.

Dr. So concluded that these new results from the RAPID CABG trial “may influence future iterations of North American guidelines with reduced waiting prior to bypass surgery” for patients receiving ticagrelor, and “they could also strengthen the level of evidence in European and Asian guidelines.”

Designated discussant of the RAPID CABG trial, Roxana Mehran, MD, professor of medicine at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said this was a “very important study,” being the only randomized trial to look at this issue to date.

Dr. Mehran noted that the results showed a similar number of major life-threatening bleeding events in the early and delayed groups and met the noninferiority endpoint, but she pointed out that the trial had a small sample size and a small number of events. “Therefore, larger trials are needed to verify these important and encouraging results.”

However, she concluded that these results should be considered in decisions about the timing of bypass surgery in patients receiving ticagrelor. “I will be changing my practice and sending patients earlier based on this data,” she said.

 RAPID CABG

RAPID CABG was a physician-initiated multicenter randomized study evaluating the safety of early surgery at 2-3 days after ticagrelor cessation, compared with a delay of 5-7 days among patients presenting with ACS who required nonemergency CABG surgery.

The study enrolled 143 patients with ACS who were receiving ticagrelor and needed CABG surgery. Patients with stenting for culprit lesions, those requiring urgent surgery (less than 24 hours after presentation), and those requiring valve surgery were excluded.   

Three patients declined surgery, and several others underwent surgery outside the assigned time window, so the results were based on the per protocol analysis of patients who actually had CABG in the assigned time window: 65 patients in the early CABG group and 58 in the delayed group.

The mean time from last ticagrelor dose to surgery was 3 days in the early group and 6 days in the delayed group.

Platelet reactivity on the VerifyNow test showed more residual antiplatelet activity in the early group, with P2Y12 reaction unit (PRU) levels of 200 (vs. 251 in the delayed group). This test measures the extent of platelet aggregation in the presence of P2Y12-inhibitor drugs, with lower PRU levels showing stronger antiplatelet effects.

The primary outcome of the study was severe or massive bleeding by Universal Definition of Perioperative Bleeding (UDPB) class 3 or 4. This is defined as a blood transfusions of more than 5 units of red blood cells or plasma within 24 hours of surgical closure, chest tube drainage of over 1,000 mL in the first 12 hours, and reoperation for bleeding.

Results showed that 4.6% of the early-surgery group had a primary outcome bleeding event, compared with 5.2% of the delayed surgery group, meeting the criteria for noninferiority (P = .0253 for noninferiority).

Individual components of the primary endpoint showed three class 3 (severe) bleeding events in both groups and no class 4 (massive) bleeding events in either group.  

In terms of other bleeding outcomes, TIMI CABG bleeding occurred in two patients (3.1%) in the early-surgery group vs. no patients in the delayed group; BARC 4 bleeding occurred in two patients (3.1%) in the early group versus none in the delayed group, and there were no BARC 5 bleeding events in either group.

In the intention-to-treat analysis, ischemic events before surgery occurred in six patients (8.7%) in the delayed group (one myocardial infarction, four cases of recurrent ischemia, and one ventricular tachycardia) versus none in the early group.

Cumulative 6-month ischemic events occurred in nine patients (13.0%) in the delayed group vs. four patients (5.6%) in the early group, the difference being driven by nonfatal MI and recurrent ischemia.  

There were no cardiovascular deaths in either group and one all-cause death in both groups.

Patients undergoing early surgery also had a shorter hospitalization, with a median length of stay of 9 days versus 12 days in the delayed group.

Larger trial needed

Commenting on the RAPID CABG study at an AHA press conference, Joanna Chikwe, MD, chair of the cardiac surgery department at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, said the results were in line with her practice.

“These results confirm what I already think is safe,” she said. “I’m comfortable going within 48 hours. But we individualize our approach, so it was helpful that the study investigators included platelet reactivity data. The interesting thing for me in this study was the number of adverse events in patients who waited longer.” 

Dr. Chikwe said her top-line message was that “Surgery looked incredibly safe; there was amazingly low mortality. And if a patient has an indication for surgery, waiting does not serve you well.”

However, she also cautioned that the trial was somewhat underpowered, with a small number of events that drove the primary outcome, leading to some uncertainty on the results.

“The RAPID trial was helpful, and although it confirms my practice, I think physicians may want to see a larger-powered trial to be convincingly compelled that they should change their practice,” Dr. Chikwe noted.  

She added that clinical trials in cardiac surgery are driven by inherent challenges. “Cardiac surgery is not very common, and it is hard to recruit patients into these trials, so you are generally tied to a small number of patients, and you therefore have to be extremely thoughtful about the study design. It is almost a given that you will need to use surrogate endpoints, and the choice of the surrogate endpoint can determine which way the trial goes.”

The RAPID CABG study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Dr. So reports research support, consultancy, or speaker’s fees from AggreDyne, Roche Diagnostics, Fujimori Kogyo, and AstraZeneca Canada. Dr. Mehran reports that her institution has received significant trial funding from AstraZeneca (the manufacturer of ticagrelor).  

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A novel, stent-shaped device that provides external buttressing to saphenous vein grafts placed during coronary artery bypass surgery was safe, but failed to improve 12-month patency of vein grafts, in a prospective study with 224 patients.

Despite the neutral result, “we are cautiously optimistic” about the prospects for the device to reduce the risk for failure of coronary vein grafts caused by intimal hyperplasia of the internal lining of the vein graft that leads to graft occlusion, said John D. Puskas, MD, lead investigator of the study, who reported the results at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

In the trial, called VEST, each buttressed vein graft was compared with a similar, unbuttressed graft in the same patient. Perhaps the biggest issue faced by the study was the unexpectedly high 42% rate of vein-graft occlusion or diffuse disease seen in the studied grafts 12 months after placement. This rate included both the vein grafts placed within the external buttressing device and control vein grafts that underwent the same postharvest preparation but weren’t placed within an external sheath, which is formed from woven cobalt chromium wire.

Dr. Puskas attributed this high failure rate to the need to remove all adventitia tissue and fat from the harvested saphenous vein segments before grafting, a step required to allow the vein conduit to fit inside the wire sheath. The potential exists to further optimize this step, he said in an interview.

“I was very surprised by the low 12-month patency rates” in both treatment arms of the study, commented Joanna Chikwe, MD, chair of cardiac surgery at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles.

External scaffold to counter blood pressure

The concept behind the external buttressing sheath is that the walls of saphenous vein grafts are not structured to accommodate arterial blood pressure, and over time this pressure produces accelerated atherosclerotic changes and premature occlusion and graft failure. The external support is supposed to impede vein wall dilatation, reduce irregularities of the inner lumen surface, and improve hemodynamics and shear stress.

The VEST trial ran at 14 U.S. and 3 Canadian centers and enrolled 224 patients scheduled for coronary artery bypass grafting with planned use of at least two saphenous vein grafts, along with an internal mammary artery graft for the left anterior descending coronary artery. The patients averaged 66 years of age, 21% were women, and 51% had diabetes.

All patients successfully underwent their surgery, with 203 returning after 12 months for their primary follow-up examination by intravascular ultrasound. However, because of the high rate of vein occlusion or development of diffuse intragraft disease, successful intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) examination of both vein grafts occurred in only 113 patients.

The IVUS examinations showed that the study’s primary endpoint, the intimal hyperplasia area in all 224 patients who received vein grafts, averaged 5.11 mm² in the grafts placed within the wire sleeve and 5.79 mm² for control grafts not placed in the wire sheath, a difference that fell short of significance (P = .072). However, in a sensitivity analysis that focused on only the 113 patients who had both vein grafts successfully assayed by IVUS, the average area of intimal hyperplasia was 4.58 mm² in the grafts within a wire sheath and 5.12 mm² in the control grafts, a significant difference (P = .043).

The combined rate of major adverse cardiovascular events after 12 months was 7%, including a 2% mortality rate, a 3% stroke rate, and 3% rate of Mis, outcomes that suggested “no safety signals,” said Dr. Puskas, chair of cardiovascular surgery at Mount Sinai St. Luke’s in New York.

Although a large body of evidence has shown the superiority of arterial grafts for long-term graft patency, vein grafts have many advantages that have maintained them as the most widely used conduits worldwide for coronary artery bypass surgery, Dr. Puskas said.

Saphenous vein segments are readily available from patients and easy to harvest; they nicely conform to the coronary arteries that require bypass, rarely leak, are easy to work with, and can successfully hold stitches. Surgeons performing coronary artery bypass are unlikely to abandon vein grafts anytime soon, which makes improving the performance of vein grafts a priority, Dr. Puskas said.

The study was sponsored by Vascular Graft Solutions, the company developing the venous graft external support. Dr. Puskas and Dr. Chikwe had no disclosures related to the study.

[email protected]
 

A novel, stent-shaped device that provides external buttressing to saphenous vein grafts placed during coronary artery bypass surgery was safe, but failed to improve 12-month patency of vein grafts, in a prospective study with 224 patients.

Despite the neutral result, “we are cautiously optimistic” about the prospects for the device to reduce the risk for failure of coronary vein grafts caused by intimal hyperplasia of the internal lining of the vein graft that leads to graft occlusion, said John D. Puskas, MD, lead investigator of the study, who reported the results at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

In the trial, called VEST, each buttressed vein graft was compared with a similar, unbuttressed graft in the same patient. Perhaps the biggest issue faced by the study was the unexpectedly high 42% rate of vein-graft occlusion or diffuse disease seen in the studied grafts 12 months after placement. This rate included both the vein grafts placed within the external buttressing device and control vein grafts that underwent the same postharvest preparation but weren’t placed within an external sheath, which is formed from woven cobalt chromium wire.

Dr. Puskas attributed this high failure rate to the need to remove all adventitia tissue and fat from the harvested saphenous vein segments before grafting, a step required to allow the vein conduit to fit inside the wire sheath. The potential exists to further optimize this step, he said in an interview.

“I was very surprised by the low 12-month patency rates” in both treatment arms of the study, commented Joanna Chikwe, MD, chair of cardiac surgery at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles.

External scaffold to counter blood pressure

The concept behind the external buttressing sheath is that the walls of saphenous vein grafts are not structured to accommodate arterial blood pressure, and over time this pressure produces accelerated atherosclerotic changes and premature occlusion and graft failure. The external support is supposed to impede vein wall dilatation, reduce irregularities of the inner lumen surface, and improve hemodynamics and shear stress.

The VEST trial ran at 14 U.S. and 3 Canadian centers and enrolled 224 patients scheduled for coronary artery bypass grafting with planned use of at least two saphenous vein grafts, along with an internal mammary artery graft for the left anterior descending coronary artery. The patients averaged 66 years of age, 21% were women, and 51% had diabetes.

All patients successfully underwent their surgery, with 203 returning after 12 months for their primary follow-up examination by intravascular ultrasound. However, because of the high rate of vein occlusion or development of diffuse intragraft disease, successful intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) examination of both vein grafts occurred in only 113 patients.

The IVUS examinations showed that the study’s primary endpoint, the intimal hyperplasia area in all 224 patients who received vein grafts, averaged 5.11 mm² in the grafts placed within the wire sleeve and 5.79 mm² for control grafts not placed in the wire sheath, a difference that fell short of significance (P = .072). However, in a sensitivity analysis that focused on only the 113 patients who had both vein grafts successfully assayed by IVUS, the average area of intimal hyperplasia was 4.58 mm² in the grafts within a wire sheath and 5.12 mm² in the control grafts, a significant difference (P = .043).

The combined rate of major adverse cardiovascular events after 12 months was 7%, including a 2% mortality rate, a 3% stroke rate, and 3% rate of Mis, outcomes that suggested “no safety signals,” said Dr. Puskas, chair of cardiovascular surgery at Mount Sinai St. Luke’s in New York.

Although a large body of evidence has shown the superiority of arterial grafts for long-term graft patency, vein grafts have many advantages that have maintained them as the most widely used conduits worldwide for coronary artery bypass surgery, Dr. Puskas said.

Saphenous vein segments are readily available from patients and easy to harvest; they nicely conform to the coronary arteries that require bypass, rarely leak, are easy to work with, and can successfully hold stitches. Surgeons performing coronary artery bypass are unlikely to abandon vein grafts anytime soon, which makes improving the performance of vein grafts a priority, Dr. Puskas said.

The study was sponsored by Vascular Graft Solutions, the company developing the venous graft external support. Dr. Puskas and Dr. Chikwe had no disclosures related to the study.

[email protected]
 

A novel, stent-shaped device that provides external buttressing to saphenous vein grafts placed during coronary artery bypass surgery was safe, but failed to improve 12-month patency of vein grafts, in a prospective study with 224 patients.

Despite the neutral result, “we are cautiously optimistic” about the prospects for the device to reduce the risk for failure of coronary vein grafts caused by intimal hyperplasia of the internal lining of the vein graft that leads to graft occlusion, said John D. Puskas, MD, lead investigator of the study, who reported the results at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

In the trial, called VEST, each buttressed vein graft was compared with a similar, unbuttressed graft in the same patient. Perhaps the biggest issue faced by the study was the unexpectedly high 42% rate of vein-graft occlusion or diffuse disease seen in the studied grafts 12 months after placement. This rate included both the vein grafts placed within the external buttressing device and control vein grafts that underwent the same postharvest preparation but weren’t placed within an external sheath, which is formed from woven cobalt chromium wire.

Dr. Puskas attributed this high failure rate to the need to remove all adventitia tissue and fat from the harvested saphenous vein segments before grafting, a step required to allow the vein conduit to fit inside the wire sheath. The potential exists to further optimize this step, he said in an interview.

“I was very surprised by the low 12-month patency rates” in both treatment arms of the study, commented Joanna Chikwe, MD, chair of cardiac surgery at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles.

External scaffold to counter blood pressure

The concept behind the external buttressing sheath is that the walls of saphenous vein grafts are not structured to accommodate arterial blood pressure, and over time this pressure produces accelerated atherosclerotic changes and premature occlusion and graft failure. The external support is supposed to impede vein wall dilatation, reduce irregularities of the inner lumen surface, and improve hemodynamics and shear stress.

The VEST trial ran at 14 U.S. and 3 Canadian centers and enrolled 224 patients scheduled for coronary artery bypass grafting with planned use of at least two saphenous vein grafts, along with an internal mammary artery graft for the left anterior descending coronary artery. The patients averaged 66 years of age, 21% were women, and 51% had diabetes.

All patients successfully underwent their surgery, with 203 returning after 12 months for their primary follow-up examination by intravascular ultrasound. However, because of the high rate of vein occlusion or development of diffuse intragraft disease, successful intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) examination of both vein grafts occurred in only 113 patients.

The IVUS examinations showed that the study’s primary endpoint, the intimal hyperplasia area in all 224 patients who received vein grafts, averaged 5.11 mm² in the grafts placed within the wire sleeve and 5.79 mm² for control grafts not placed in the wire sheath, a difference that fell short of significance (P = .072). However, in a sensitivity analysis that focused on only the 113 patients who had both vein grafts successfully assayed by IVUS, the average area of intimal hyperplasia was 4.58 mm² in the grafts within a wire sheath and 5.12 mm² in the control grafts, a significant difference (P = .043).

The combined rate of major adverse cardiovascular events after 12 months was 7%, including a 2% mortality rate, a 3% stroke rate, and 3% rate of Mis, outcomes that suggested “no safety signals,” said Dr. Puskas, chair of cardiovascular surgery at Mount Sinai St. Luke’s in New York.

Although a large body of evidence has shown the superiority of arterial grafts for long-term graft patency, vein grafts have many advantages that have maintained them as the most widely used conduits worldwide for coronary artery bypass surgery, Dr. Puskas said.

Saphenous vein segments are readily available from patients and easy to harvest; they nicely conform to the coronary arteries that require bypass, rarely leak, are easy to work with, and can successfully hold stitches. Surgeons performing coronary artery bypass are unlikely to abandon vein grafts anytime soon, which makes improving the performance of vein grafts a priority, Dr. Puskas said.

The study was sponsored by Vascular Graft Solutions, the company developing the venous graft external support. Dr. Puskas and Dr. Chikwe had no disclosures related to the study.

[email protected]
 

Treating elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) in adults younger than 40 with statins is highly cost-effective in men, and intermediately cost-effective in women, a new report suggests.

Time to relax the age 40 threshold

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association should emphasize lifetime risk of elevated cholesterol, Paul A. Heidenreich, MD, MS, Stanford University School of Medicine, California, and colleagues write in an accompanying editorial.

“In addition to calculating 10-year risk, we should calculate years of life lost (or QALYs lost) from unhealthy LDL-C levels, and both lifestyle and pharmacologic treatment should be considered to treat high LDL-C in adults regardless of age. We also need to communicate that the mantra ‘lower is better’ applies not only to a single measurement but to lifetime exposure to LDL-C,” the editorialists write.

“I think treatment should be earlier than age 40,” Dr. Heidenreich said in an interview.

“Part of the reason that 40 was chosen as a threshold was because everyone looked at 10-year, or even 20-year risk, and thought there was no reason to worry until you get older. It’s interesting that we never accepted that with high blood pressure. But more and more, we are learning that it is a lifelong process,” he said.

“Statins are getting less and less expensive, and their safety is more and more established with every decade that goes by. I definitely agree with this paper that it would actually make sense to be starting much earlier for those with elevated CVD risk from their high cholesterol.”

The study was supported by the U.S. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), the Medical Research Council, Swindon, U.K. Dr. Moran and Dr. Heidenreich have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Treating elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) in adults younger than 40 with statins is highly cost-effective in men, and intermediately cost-effective in women, a new report suggests.

Time to relax the age 40 threshold

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association should emphasize lifetime risk of elevated cholesterol, Paul A. Heidenreich, MD, MS, Stanford University School of Medicine, California, and colleagues write in an accompanying editorial.

“In addition to calculating 10-year risk, we should calculate years of life lost (or QALYs lost) from unhealthy LDL-C levels, and both lifestyle and pharmacologic treatment should be considered to treat high LDL-C in adults regardless of age. We also need to communicate that the mantra ‘lower is better’ applies not only to a single measurement but to lifetime exposure to LDL-C,” the editorialists write.

“I think treatment should be earlier than age 40,” Dr. Heidenreich said in an interview.

“Part of the reason that 40 was chosen as a threshold was because everyone looked at 10-year, or even 20-year risk, and thought there was no reason to worry until you get older. It’s interesting that we never accepted that with high blood pressure. But more and more, we are learning that it is a lifelong process,” he said.

“Statins are getting less and less expensive, and their safety is more and more established with every decade that goes by. I definitely agree with this paper that it would actually make sense to be starting much earlier for those with elevated CVD risk from their high cholesterol.”

The study was supported by the U.S. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), the Medical Research Council, Swindon, U.K. Dr. Moran and Dr. Heidenreich have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Treating elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) in adults younger than 40 with statins is highly cost-effective in men, and intermediately cost-effective in women, a new report suggests.

Time to relax the age 40 threshold

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association should emphasize lifetime risk of elevated cholesterol, Paul A. Heidenreich, MD, MS, Stanford University School of Medicine, California, and colleagues write in an accompanying editorial.

“In addition to calculating 10-year risk, we should calculate years of life lost (or QALYs lost) from unhealthy LDL-C levels, and both lifestyle and pharmacologic treatment should be considered to treat high LDL-C in adults regardless of age. We also need to communicate that the mantra ‘lower is better’ applies not only to a single measurement but to lifetime exposure to LDL-C,” the editorialists write.

“I think treatment should be earlier than age 40,” Dr. Heidenreich said in an interview.

“Part of the reason that 40 was chosen as a threshold was because everyone looked at 10-year, or even 20-year risk, and thought there was no reason to worry until you get older. It’s interesting that we never accepted that with high blood pressure. But more and more, we are learning that it is a lifelong process,” he said.

“Statins are getting less and less expensive, and their safety is more and more established with every decade that goes by. I definitely agree with this paper that it would actually make sense to be starting much earlier for those with elevated CVD risk from their high cholesterol.”

The study was supported by the U.S. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), the Medical Research Council, Swindon, U.K. Dr. Moran and Dr. Heidenreich have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Virtual platforms democratized scientific meetings during the COVID-19 pandemic but, as any meeting-goer will tell you, it’s the questions from the floor and the back-and-forth of an expert panel that often reveal the importance of and/or problems with a presentation. It’s the scrutiny that makes the science resonate, especially in this postfactual era.

The all-virtual American Heart Association Scientific Sessions 2021 is looking to recreate the engagement of an in-person meeting by offering more live interactive events. They range from seven late-breaking science (LBS) sessions to Saturday’s fireside chat on the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines and Monday’s dive into the controversial new AHA/American College of Cardiology Chest Pain guidelines.

To help digest the latest science, attendees will be able to have their questions answered in real-time via Slido, meet with the trialists, and hear live commentary from key opinion leaders after the live events. A networking function will also allow attendees and exhibitors to chat or meet virtually.

“In this day and age, many people pretty quickly can get access to the science but it’s what I call the IC sort of phenomenon – the presentation of the information, the context of the information, putting it into how I’m going to use it in my practice, and then the critical appraisal – that’s what most people want at the Scientific Sessions,” program committee chair Manesh R. Patel, MD, of Duke University School of Medicine, said in an interview. “We’re all craving ways in which we can interact with one another to put things in context.”

Plans for a hybrid in-person meeting in Boston were scuttled in September because of the Delta variant surge, but the theme of the meeting remained: “One World. Together for Science.” Attendees will be able to access more than 500 live and on-demand sessions including 117 oral abstracts, 286 poster sessions, 59 moderated digital posters, and over a dozen sessions focused on strategies to promote health equity.

“Last year there was a Presidential Session and a statement on structural racism, so we wanted to take the next step and say, What are the ways in which people are starting to interact and do things to make a difference?” explained Dr. Patel. “So, this year, you’ll see different versions of that from the Main Event session, which has some case vignettes and a panel discussion, to other health equity sessions that describe not just COVID care, but blood pressure care, maternal-fetal medicine, and congenital kids. Wherever we can, we’ve tried to infuse it throughout the sessions and will continue to.”

Late-breaking science

The LBS sessions kick off at 9:30 a.m. ET Saturday with AVATAR, a randomized trial of aortic valve replacement vs. watchful waiting in severe aortic stenosis proved asymptomatic through exercise testing.

“The findings of that trial, depending on what they are, could certainly impact clinical practice because it’s a very common scenario in which we have elderly patients with aortic valve stenosis that might be severe but they may not be symptomatic,” he said.

It’s followed by a randomized trial from the Cardiothoracic Surgical Trials Network, examining whether tricuspid repair at the time of mitral valve surgery leads to beneficial outcomes. “I think it’s a pretty important study,” Dr. Patel said, “because it’ll again affect how we think about our clinical practice.”

Rounding out the LBS.01 session is RAPID CABG, comparing early vs. delayed coronary bypass graft surgery (CABG) in patients with acute coronary syndromes on ticagrelor, and the pivotal U.S. VEST trial of an external support device already approved in Europe for saphenous vein grafts during CABG.

Saturday’s LBS.02 at 3:00 p.m. ET is devoted to hypertension and looks at how the COVID-19 pandemic affected blood pressure control. There’s also a study of remotely delivered hypertension and lipid management in 10,000 patients across the Partners Healthcare System and a cluster randomized trial of a village doctor–led blood pressure intervention in rural China.

Sunday’s LBS.03 at 8:00 a.m. ET is focused on atrial arrhythmias, starting with the CRAVE trial examining the effect of caffeine consumption on cardiac ectopy burden in 108 patients using an N-of-1 design and 2-day blocks on and off caffeine. “There’s an ability to identify a dose response that you get arrhythmias when you increase the amount of coffee you drink vs. not in an individual, so I think that will be likely discussed a lot and worth paying attention to,” Dr. Patel said.

The session also includes GIRAF, a comparison of cognitive outcomes with dabigatran (Pradaxa) vs. warfarin (Coumadin) in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF); PALACS, a randomized trial examining whether left-sided pericardiotomy prevents AF after cardiac surgery; and AMAZE, which study sponsor AtriCure revealed missed its primary efficacy endpoint of freedom from AF with the LARIAT suture delivery device for left atrial appendage closure plus pulmonary vein isolation.

LBS.04 at 3:30 p.m. ET Sunday takes on digital health, with results from the nonrandomized Fitbit Heart Study on AF notifications from 450,000 participants wearing a single-lead ECG patch. “A lot of technologies claim that they can detect things, and we should ask that people go through the rigorous evaluation to see if they in fact do. So, in that respect, I think it›s an important step,” observed Dr. Patel.

Also on tap is I-STOP-AFib, another N-of-1 study using mobile apps and the AliveCor device to identify individual AF triggers; and REVeAL-HF, a 4,000-patient study examining whether electronic alerts that provide clinicians with prognostic information on their heart failure (HF) patients will reduce mortality and 30-day HF hospitalizations.

LBS.05 at 5:00 p.m. ET provides new information from EMPEROR-Preserved in HF with preserved ejection fraction and main results from EMPULSE, also using the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance) in 530 patients hospitalized for acute HF.

The session also features CHIEF-HF, a randomized trial leveraging mobile technologies to test whether 12 weeks of another SGLT2 inhibitor, canagliflozin (Invokana), is superior to placebo for improving HF symptoms; and DREAM-HF, a comparison of transendocardial delivery of allogeneic mesenchymal precursor cells vs. a sham comparator in chronic HF as a result of left ventricular systolic dysfunction.

Monday’s LBS.06 at 8:00 a.m. ET details the safety and cholesterol-lowering efficacy of MK-0616, an investigational oral PCSK9 inhibitor. “It’s just a phase 2 [trial], but there’s interest in an oral PCSK9 inhibitor, given that the current ones are subcutaneous,” Dr. Patel said.

Results will also be presented from PREPARE-IT 2, which tested icosapent ethyl vs. placebo in outpatients with COVID-19. In the recently reported PREPARE-IT 1, a loading dose of icosapent ethyl failed to reduce the risk of hospitalization with SARS-CoV-2 infection among at-risk individuals.

LBS.07 at 11:00 a.m. Monday completes the late-breakers with new results from ASCEND, this time examining the effect of aspirin on dementia and cognitive impairment in patients with diabetes.

Next up is a look at the effectiveness of P2Y12 inhibitors in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in the adaptive ACTIV-4a trial, followed by results of the pivotal phase 3 REVERSE-IT trial of bentracimab, a recombinant human monoclonal antibody antigen fragment designed to reverse the antiplatelet activity of ticagrelor in the event of major bleeding or when urgent surgery is needed.

Closing out the session is AXIOMATIC-TKR, a double-blind comparison of the safety and efficacy of the investigational oral factor XI anticoagulant JNJ-70033093 vs. subcutaneous enoxaparin (Lovenox) in elective total knee replacement.

For those searching for more AHA-related science online, the Resuscitation Science Symposium (ReSS) will run from this Friday through Sunday and the Quality of Care and Outcomes Research (QCOR) Scientific Sessions will take the stage next Monday, Nov. 15.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Virtual platforms democratized scientific meetings during the COVID-19 pandemic but, as any meeting-goer will tell you, it’s the questions from the floor and the back-and-forth of an expert panel that often reveal the importance of and/or problems with a presentation. It’s the scrutiny that makes the science resonate, especially in this postfactual era.

The all-virtual American Heart Association Scientific Sessions 2021 is looking to recreate the engagement of an in-person meeting by offering more live interactive events. They range from seven late-breaking science (LBS) sessions to Saturday’s fireside chat on the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines and Monday’s dive into the controversial new AHA/American College of Cardiology Chest Pain guidelines.

To help digest the latest science, attendees will be able to have their questions answered in real-time via Slido, meet with the trialists, and hear live commentary from key opinion leaders after the live events. A networking function will also allow attendees and exhibitors to chat or meet virtually.

“In this day and age, many people pretty quickly can get access to the science but it’s what I call the IC sort of phenomenon – the presentation of the information, the context of the information, putting it into how I’m going to use it in my practice, and then the critical appraisal – that’s what most people want at the Scientific Sessions,” program committee chair Manesh R. Patel, MD, of Duke University School of Medicine, said in an interview. “We’re all craving ways in which we can interact with one another to put things in context.”

Plans for a hybrid in-person meeting in Boston were scuttled in September because of the Delta variant surge, but the theme of the meeting remained: “One World. Together for Science.” Attendees will be able to access more than 500 live and on-demand sessions including 117 oral abstracts, 286 poster sessions, 59 moderated digital posters, and over a dozen sessions focused on strategies to promote health equity.

“Last year there was a Presidential Session and a statement on structural racism, so we wanted to take the next step and say, What are the ways in which people are starting to interact and do things to make a difference?” explained Dr. Patel. “So, this year, you’ll see different versions of that from the Main Event session, which has some case vignettes and a panel discussion, to other health equity sessions that describe not just COVID care, but blood pressure care, maternal-fetal medicine, and congenital kids. Wherever we can, we’ve tried to infuse it throughout the sessions and will continue to.”

Late-breaking science

The LBS sessions kick off at 9:30 a.m. ET Saturday with AVATAR, a randomized trial of aortic valve replacement vs. watchful waiting in severe aortic stenosis proved asymptomatic through exercise testing.

“The findings of that trial, depending on what they are, could certainly impact clinical practice because it’s a very common scenario in which we have elderly patients with aortic valve stenosis that might be severe but they may not be symptomatic,” he said.

It’s followed by a randomized trial from the Cardiothoracic Surgical Trials Network, examining whether tricuspid repair at the time of mitral valve surgery leads to beneficial outcomes. “I think it’s a pretty important study,” Dr. Patel said, “because it’ll again affect how we think about our clinical practice.”

Rounding out the LBS.01 session is RAPID CABG, comparing early vs. delayed coronary bypass graft surgery (CABG) in patients with acute coronary syndromes on ticagrelor, and the pivotal U.S. VEST trial of an external support device already approved in Europe for saphenous vein grafts during CABG.

Saturday’s LBS.02 at 3:00 p.m. ET is devoted to hypertension and looks at how the COVID-19 pandemic affected blood pressure control. There’s also a study of remotely delivered hypertension and lipid management in 10,000 patients across the Partners Healthcare System and a cluster randomized trial of a village doctor–led blood pressure intervention in rural China.

Sunday’s LBS.03 at 8:00 a.m. ET is focused on atrial arrhythmias, starting with the CRAVE trial examining the effect of caffeine consumption on cardiac ectopy burden in 108 patients using an N-of-1 design and 2-day blocks on and off caffeine. “There’s an ability to identify a dose response that you get arrhythmias when you increase the amount of coffee you drink vs. not in an individual, so I think that will be likely discussed a lot and worth paying attention to,” Dr. Patel said.

The session also includes GIRAF, a comparison of cognitive outcomes with dabigatran (Pradaxa) vs. warfarin (Coumadin) in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF); PALACS, a randomized trial examining whether left-sided pericardiotomy prevents AF after cardiac surgery; and AMAZE, which study sponsor AtriCure revealed missed its primary efficacy endpoint of freedom from AF with the LARIAT suture delivery device for left atrial appendage closure plus pulmonary vein isolation.

LBS.04 at 3:30 p.m. ET Sunday takes on digital health, with results from the nonrandomized Fitbit Heart Study on AF notifications from 450,000 participants wearing a single-lead ECG patch. “A lot of technologies claim that they can detect things, and we should ask that people go through the rigorous evaluation to see if they in fact do. So, in that respect, I think it›s an important step,” observed Dr. Patel.

Also on tap is I-STOP-AFib, another N-of-1 study using mobile apps and the AliveCor device to identify individual AF triggers; and REVeAL-HF, a 4,000-patient study examining whether electronic alerts that provide clinicians with prognostic information on their heart failure (HF) patients will reduce mortality and 30-day HF hospitalizations.

LBS.05 at 5:00 p.m. ET provides new information from EMPEROR-Preserved in HF with preserved ejection fraction and main results from EMPULSE, also using the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance) in 530 patients hospitalized for acute HF.

The session also features CHIEF-HF, a randomized trial leveraging mobile technologies to test whether 12 weeks of another SGLT2 inhibitor, canagliflozin (Invokana), is superior to placebo for improving HF symptoms; and DREAM-HF, a comparison of transendocardial delivery of allogeneic mesenchymal precursor cells vs. a sham comparator in chronic HF as a result of left ventricular systolic dysfunction.

Monday’s LBS.06 at 8:00 a.m. ET details the safety and cholesterol-lowering efficacy of MK-0616, an investigational oral PCSK9 inhibitor. “It’s just a phase 2 [trial], but there’s interest in an oral PCSK9 inhibitor, given that the current ones are subcutaneous,” Dr. Patel said.

Results will also be presented from PREPARE-IT 2, which tested icosapent ethyl vs. placebo in outpatients with COVID-19. In the recently reported PREPARE-IT 1, a loading dose of icosapent ethyl failed to reduce the risk of hospitalization with SARS-CoV-2 infection among at-risk individuals.

LBS.07 at 11:00 a.m. Monday completes the late-breakers with new results from ASCEND, this time examining the effect of aspirin on dementia and cognitive impairment in patients with diabetes.

Next up is a look at the effectiveness of P2Y12 inhibitors in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in the adaptive ACTIV-4a trial, followed by results of the pivotal phase 3 REVERSE-IT trial of bentracimab, a recombinant human monoclonal antibody antigen fragment designed to reverse the antiplatelet activity of ticagrelor in the event of major bleeding or when urgent surgery is needed.

Closing out the session is AXIOMATIC-TKR, a double-blind comparison of the safety and efficacy of the investigational oral factor XI anticoagulant JNJ-70033093 vs. subcutaneous enoxaparin (Lovenox) in elective total knee replacement.

For those searching for more AHA-related science online, the Resuscitation Science Symposium (ReSS) will run from this Friday through Sunday and the Quality of Care and Outcomes Research (QCOR) Scientific Sessions will take the stage next Monday, Nov. 15.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Virtual platforms democratized scientific meetings during the COVID-19 pandemic but, as any meeting-goer will tell you, it’s the questions from the floor and the back-and-forth of an expert panel that often reveal the importance of and/or problems with a presentation. It’s the scrutiny that makes the science resonate, especially in this postfactual era.

The all-virtual American Heart Association Scientific Sessions 2021 is looking to recreate the engagement of an in-person meeting by offering more live interactive events. They range from seven late-breaking science (LBS) sessions to Saturday’s fireside chat on the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines and Monday’s dive into the controversial new AHA/American College of Cardiology Chest Pain guidelines.

To help digest the latest science, attendees will be able to have their questions answered in real-time via Slido, meet with the trialists, and hear live commentary from key opinion leaders after the live events. A networking function will also allow attendees and exhibitors to chat or meet virtually.

“In this day and age, many people pretty quickly can get access to the science but it’s what I call the IC sort of phenomenon – the presentation of the information, the context of the information, putting it into how I’m going to use it in my practice, and then the critical appraisal – that’s what most people want at the Scientific Sessions,” program committee chair Manesh R. Patel, MD, of Duke University School of Medicine, said in an interview. “We’re all craving ways in which we can interact with one another to put things in context.”

Plans for a hybrid in-person meeting in Boston were scuttled in September because of the Delta variant surge, but the theme of the meeting remained: “One World. Together for Science.” Attendees will be able to access more than 500 live and on-demand sessions including 117 oral abstracts, 286 poster sessions, 59 moderated digital posters, and over a dozen sessions focused on strategies to promote health equity.

“Last year there was a Presidential Session and a statement on structural racism, so we wanted to take the next step and say, What are the ways in which people are starting to interact and do things to make a difference?” explained Dr. Patel. “So, this year, you’ll see different versions of that from the Main Event session, which has some case vignettes and a panel discussion, to other health equity sessions that describe not just COVID care, but blood pressure care, maternal-fetal medicine, and congenital kids. Wherever we can, we’ve tried to infuse it throughout the sessions and will continue to.”

Late-breaking science

The LBS sessions kick off at 9:30 a.m. ET Saturday with AVATAR, a randomized trial of aortic valve replacement vs. watchful waiting in severe aortic stenosis proved asymptomatic through exercise testing.

“The findings of that trial, depending on what they are, could certainly impact clinical practice because it’s a very common scenario in which we have elderly patients with aortic valve stenosis that might be severe but they may not be symptomatic,” he said.

It’s followed by a randomized trial from the Cardiothoracic Surgical Trials Network, examining whether tricuspid repair at the time of mitral valve surgery leads to beneficial outcomes. “I think it’s a pretty important study,” Dr. Patel said, “because it’ll again affect how we think about our clinical practice.”

Rounding out the LBS.01 session is RAPID CABG, comparing early vs. delayed coronary bypass graft surgery (CABG) in patients with acute coronary syndromes on ticagrelor, and the pivotal U.S. VEST trial of an external support device already approved in Europe for saphenous vein grafts during CABG.

Saturday’s LBS.02 at 3:00 p.m. ET is devoted to hypertension and looks at how the COVID-19 pandemic affected blood pressure control. There’s also a study of remotely delivered hypertension and lipid management in 10,000 patients across the Partners Healthcare System and a cluster randomized trial of a village doctor–led blood pressure intervention in rural China.

Sunday’s LBS.03 at 8:00 a.m. ET is focused on atrial arrhythmias, starting with the CRAVE trial examining the effect of caffeine consumption on cardiac ectopy burden in 108 patients using an N-of-1 design and 2-day blocks on and off caffeine. “There’s an ability to identify a dose response that you get arrhythmias when you increase the amount of coffee you drink vs. not in an individual, so I think that will be likely discussed a lot and worth paying attention to,” Dr. Patel said.

The session also includes GIRAF, a comparison of cognitive outcomes with dabigatran (Pradaxa) vs. warfarin (Coumadin) in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF); PALACS, a randomized trial examining whether left-sided pericardiotomy prevents AF after cardiac surgery; and AMAZE, which study sponsor AtriCure revealed missed its primary efficacy endpoint of freedom from AF with the LARIAT suture delivery device for left atrial appendage closure plus pulmonary vein isolation.

LBS.04 at 3:30 p.m. ET Sunday takes on digital health, with results from the nonrandomized Fitbit Heart Study on AF notifications from 450,000 participants wearing a single-lead ECG patch. “A lot of technologies claim that they can detect things, and we should ask that people go through the rigorous evaluation to see if they in fact do. So, in that respect, I think it›s an important step,” observed Dr. Patel.

Also on tap is I-STOP-AFib, another N-of-1 study using mobile apps and the AliveCor device to identify individual AF triggers; and REVeAL-HF, a 4,000-patient study examining whether electronic alerts that provide clinicians with prognostic information on their heart failure (HF) patients will reduce mortality and 30-day HF hospitalizations.

LBS.05 at 5:00 p.m. ET provides new information from EMPEROR-Preserved in HF with preserved ejection fraction and main results from EMPULSE, also using the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance) in 530 patients hospitalized for acute HF.

The session also features CHIEF-HF, a randomized trial leveraging mobile technologies to test whether 12 weeks of another SGLT2 inhibitor, canagliflozin (Invokana), is superior to placebo for improving HF symptoms; and DREAM-HF, a comparison of transendocardial delivery of allogeneic mesenchymal precursor cells vs. a sham comparator in chronic HF as a result of left ventricular systolic dysfunction.

Monday’s LBS.06 at 8:00 a.m. ET details the safety and cholesterol-lowering efficacy of MK-0616, an investigational oral PCSK9 inhibitor. “It’s just a phase 2 [trial], but there’s interest in an oral PCSK9 inhibitor, given that the current ones are subcutaneous,” Dr. Patel said.

Results will also be presented from PREPARE-IT 2, which tested icosapent ethyl vs. placebo in outpatients with COVID-19. In the recently reported PREPARE-IT 1, a loading dose of icosapent ethyl failed to reduce the risk of hospitalization with SARS-CoV-2 infection among at-risk individuals.

LBS.07 at 11:00 a.m. Monday completes the late-breakers with new results from ASCEND, this time examining the effect of aspirin on dementia and cognitive impairment in patients with diabetes.

Next up is a look at the effectiveness of P2Y12 inhibitors in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in the adaptive ACTIV-4a trial, followed by results of the pivotal phase 3 REVERSE-IT trial of bentracimab, a recombinant human monoclonal antibody antigen fragment designed to reverse the antiplatelet activity of ticagrelor in the event of major bleeding or when urgent surgery is needed.

Closing out the session is AXIOMATIC-TKR, a double-blind comparison of the safety and efficacy of the investigational oral factor XI anticoagulant JNJ-70033093 vs. subcutaneous enoxaparin (Lovenox) in elective total knee replacement.

For those searching for more AHA-related science online, the Resuscitation Science Symposium (ReSS) will run from this Friday through Sunday and the Quality of Care and Outcomes Research (QCOR) Scientific Sessions will take the stage next Monday, Nov. 15.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The rate of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) over 5 years is similar whether revascularization is guided by instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) or fractional flow reserve (FFR), according to long-term results of the iFR-SWEDEHEART study.

“The results are about the same as reported at 12 months. There were no significant differences in any outcome we evaluated,” according to Matthias Götberg, MD, PhD.

When the initial results of the noninferiority iFR-SWEDEHEART trial were published after 1 year of follow-up, the primary MACE endpoint of death from any-cause nonfatal myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization, was met by 6.7% and 6.1% of those randomized to iFR or FFR, respectively.

These outcomes were not significantly different and placed iFR well within the predefined boundaries of noninferiority (P = .007).

In this new and final follow-up of iFR-SWEDEHEART, which evaluated the same 2,019 patients who were alive at 1 year (none were lost to follow-up), the MACE endpoint was met by 21.5% and 19.9% of those managed with iFR and FFR, respectively. The hazard ratio (1.09) had a wide 95% confidence interval (0.90-1.31) that did not approach statistical significance.
 

No differences seen across outcomes

When broken down into the MACE components, there were no differences between iFR and FFR, respectively, for all-cause death (9.4% vs. 7.9%), MI (5.8% vs. 5.7%) or unplanned revascularization (11.6% vs. 11.3%).

Across predefined subgroups, such as those defined by age, gender, stable versus unstable angina, and presence of risk factors such as diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and smoking, there were also no significant differences in outcome.

At the time iFR-SWEDEHART was initiated, FFR had already been accepted as more effective than angiographic assessment to identify lesion ischemia and the need for percutaneous intervention (PCI). The iFR-SWEDEHEART trial tested iFR, a relatively new technology at the time, as a noninferior alternative. Unlike FFR, which requires adenosine to dilate the vessel, adding cost and patient discomfort, iFR measures the resting pressure gradient across the coronary lesion, and it is generally easier to perform.

“The advantage of iFR is that it provides an instantaneous lesion assessment without the need for adenosine,” Dr. Götberg explained in presenting the results at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting, held virtually and live in Orlando.

When the procedural results were compared in the published study at 1 year, it was noted that the mean number of lesions evaluated per patient was higher (1.55 vs. 1.43; P = .002), but the proportion of lesions found functionally significant was lower (29.2% vs. 36.8%; P < .0001) among those randomized to iFR than in the FFR group.

While most other procedural characteristics, such as PCI access route, fluoroscopy time, and contrast use did not differ significantly, fewer stents were placed in patients managed with iFR (1.58 vs. 1.73; P = .048), and a reduction in the average procedural time of a few minutes approached significance (P = .09).
 

Patient discomfort is greater with FFR

Patient discomfort measured during the procedure did differ, according to Dr. Götberg, an interventional cardiologist at Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden.

Only about 30% in the FFR group reported no discomfort. Most of the others reported mild or moderate discomfort, but nearly 10% characterized the discomfort as severe. In the iFR group, more than 95% reported no discomfort. All of the remaining patients reported discomfort level as mild.

Because differences in MACE would be most likely to occur in the first year after revascularization, the similarity of the 1- and 5-year results were expected, according to Dr. Götberg. However, a 5-year follow-up was considered prudent given the relatively limited experience with iFR when the study was designed. This technique is now well established and widely used.

The study supports the premise that quicker and easier-to-obtain results with iFR are obtained without sacrificing greater relative risk of failing to identify a vulnerable lesion, according to Dr. Götberg.

Nevertheless, iFR and FFR “are not an exact match,” according to Jennifer A. Rymer, MD, an interventional cardiologist and assistant professor of medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C. Although she called this trial an “excellent” demonstration of comparable utility in distinguishing lesions that do not require intervention from those that do, she implied that some clinicians might still prefer FFR for other reasons.

For example, FFR provides information about coronary flow reserve and microvascular resistance that are relevant to the underlying pathophysiology in a diseased vessel, according to Shmuel Banai, MD, head of interventional cardiology, Tel Aviv Medical Center. Recognizing that this information is not as readily generated by iFR, he is among those who plan to continue to use FFR despite these results.

However, for those who are now routinely performing iFR for the purposes of guiding revascularization, “these data are reassuring,” said David Kandzari, MD, director of interventional cardiology, Piedmont Hart Institute, Atlanta. The 5-year data essentially eliminate the likelihood that iFR relative to FFR increases the risk of missing functionally significant lesions for revascularization procedures.

Dr. Götberg reports financial relationships with Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Phillips Healthcare. Dr. Rymer reports no potential financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Banai has a financial relationship with Neovasc. Dr. Kandzari reports financial relationships with Ablative Solutions and Medtronic.

The rate of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) over 5 years is similar whether revascularization is guided by instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) or fractional flow reserve (FFR), according to long-term results of the iFR-SWEDEHEART study.

“The results are about the same as reported at 12 months. There were no significant differences in any outcome we evaluated,” according to Matthias Götberg, MD, PhD.

When the initial results of the noninferiority iFR-SWEDEHEART trial were published after 1 year of follow-up, the primary MACE endpoint of death from any-cause nonfatal myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization, was met by 6.7% and 6.1% of those randomized to iFR or FFR, respectively.

These outcomes were not significantly different and placed iFR well within the predefined boundaries of noninferiority (P = .007).

In this new and final follow-up of iFR-SWEDEHEART, which evaluated the same 2,019 patients who were alive at 1 year (none were lost to follow-up), the MACE endpoint was met by 21.5% and 19.9% of those managed with iFR and FFR, respectively. The hazard ratio (1.09) had a wide 95% confidence interval (0.90-1.31) that did not approach statistical significance.
 

No differences seen across outcomes

When broken down into the MACE components, there were no differences between iFR and FFR, respectively, for all-cause death (9.4% vs. 7.9%), MI (5.8% vs. 5.7%) or unplanned revascularization (11.6% vs. 11.3%).

Across predefined subgroups, such as those defined by age, gender, stable versus unstable angina, and presence of risk factors such as diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and smoking, there were also no significant differences in outcome.

At the time iFR-SWEDEHART was initiated, FFR had already been accepted as more effective than angiographic assessment to identify lesion ischemia and the need for percutaneous intervention (PCI). The iFR-SWEDEHEART trial tested iFR, a relatively new technology at the time, as a noninferior alternative. Unlike FFR, which requires adenosine to dilate the vessel, adding cost and patient discomfort, iFR measures the resting pressure gradient across the coronary lesion, and it is generally easier to perform.

“The advantage of iFR is that it provides an instantaneous lesion assessment without the need for adenosine,” Dr. Götberg explained in presenting the results at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting, held virtually and live in Orlando.

When the procedural results were compared in the published study at 1 year, it was noted that the mean number of lesions evaluated per patient was higher (1.55 vs. 1.43; P = .002), but the proportion of lesions found functionally significant was lower (29.2% vs. 36.8%; P < .0001) among those randomized to iFR than in the FFR group.

While most other procedural characteristics, such as PCI access route, fluoroscopy time, and contrast use did not differ significantly, fewer stents were placed in patients managed with iFR (1.58 vs. 1.73; P = .048), and a reduction in the average procedural time of a few minutes approached significance (P = .09).
 

Patient discomfort is greater with FFR

Patient discomfort measured during the procedure did differ, according to Dr. Götberg, an interventional cardiologist at Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden.

Only about 30% in the FFR group reported no discomfort. Most of the others reported mild or moderate discomfort, but nearly 10% characterized the discomfort as severe. In the iFR group, more than 95% reported no discomfort. All of the remaining patients reported discomfort level as mild.

Because differences in MACE would be most likely to occur in the first year after revascularization, the similarity of the 1- and 5-year results were expected, according to Dr. Götberg. However, a 5-year follow-up was considered prudent given the relatively limited experience with iFR when the study was designed. This technique is now well established and widely used.

The study supports the premise that quicker and easier-to-obtain results with iFR are obtained without sacrificing greater relative risk of failing to identify a vulnerable lesion, according to Dr. Götberg.

Nevertheless, iFR and FFR “are not an exact match,” according to Jennifer A. Rymer, MD, an interventional cardiologist and assistant professor of medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C. Although she called this trial an “excellent” demonstration of comparable utility in distinguishing lesions that do not require intervention from those that do, she implied that some clinicians might still prefer FFR for other reasons.

For example, FFR provides information about coronary flow reserve and microvascular resistance that are relevant to the underlying pathophysiology in a diseased vessel, according to Shmuel Banai, MD, head of interventional cardiology, Tel Aviv Medical Center. Recognizing that this information is not as readily generated by iFR, he is among those who plan to continue to use FFR despite these results.

However, for those who are now routinely performing iFR for the purposes of guiding revascularization, “these data are reassuring,” said David Kandzari, MD, director of interventional cardiology, Piedmont Hart Institute, Atlanta. The 5-year data essentially eliminate the likelihood that iFR relative to FFR increases the risk of missing functionally significant lesions for revascularization procedures.

Dr. Götberg reports financial relationships with Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Phillips Healthcare. Dr. Rymer reports no potential financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Banai has a financial relationship with Neovasc. Dr. Kandzari reports financial relationships with Ablative Solutions and Medtronic.

The rate of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) over 5 years is similar whether revascularization is guided by instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) or fractional flow reserve (FFR), according to long-term results of the iFR-SWEDEHEART study.

“The results are about the same as reported at 12 months. There were no significant differences in any outcome we evaluated,” according to Matthias Götberg, MD, PhD.

When the initial results of the noninferiority iFR-SWEDEHEART trial were published after 1 year of follow-up, the primary MACE endpoint of death from any-cause nonfatal myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization, was met by 6.7% and 6.1% of those randomized to iFR or FFR, respectively.

These outcomes were not significantly different and placed iFR well within the predefined boundaries of noninferiority (P = .007).

In this new and final follow-up of iFR-SWEDEHEART, which evaluated the same 2,019 patients who were alive at 1 year (none were lost to follow-up), the MACE endpoint was met by 21.5% and 19.9% of those managed with iFR and FFR, respectively. The hazard ratio (1.09) had a wide 95% confidence interval (0.90-1.31) that did not approach statistical significance.
 

No differences seen across outcomes

When broken down into the MACE components, there were no differences between iFR and FFR, respectively, for all-cause death (9.4% vs. 7.9%), MI (5.8% vs. 5.7%) or unplanned revascularization (11.6% vs. 11.3%).

Across predefined subgroups, such as those defined by age, gender, stable versus unstable angina, and presence of risk factors such as diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and smoking, there were also no significant differences in outcome.

At the time iFR-SWEDEHART was initiated, FFR had already been accepted as more effective than angiographic assessment to identify lesion ischemia and the need for percutaneous intervention (PCI). The iFR-SWEDEHEART trial tested iFR, a relatively new technology at the time, as a noninferior alternative. Unlike FFR, which requires adenosine to dilate the vessel, adding cost and patient discomfort, iFR measures the resting pressure gradient across the coronary lesion, and it is generally easier to perform.

“The advantage of iFR is that it provides an instantaneous lesion assessment without the need for adenosine,” Dr. Götberg explained in presenting the results at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting, held virtually and live in Orlando.

When the procedural results were compared in the published study at 1 year, it was noted that the mean number of lesions evaluated per patient was higher (1.55 vs. 1.43; P = .002), but the proportion of lesions found functionally significant was lower (29.2% vs. 36.8%; P < .0001) among those randomized to iFR than in the FFR group.

While most other procedural characteristics, such as PCI access route, fluoroscopy time, and contrast use did not differ significantly, fewer stents were placed in patients managed with iFR (1.58 vs. 1.73; P = .048), and a reduction in the average procedural time of a few minutes approached significance (P = .09).
 

Patient discomfort is greater with FFR

Patient discomfort measured during the procedure did differ, according to Dr. Götberg, an interventional cardiologist at Skåne University Hospital, Lund, Sweden.

Only about 30% in the FFR group reported no discomfort. Most of the others reported mild or moderate discomfort, but nearly 10% characterized the discomfort as severe. In the iFR group, more than 95% reported no discomfort. All of the remaining patients reported discomfort level as mild.

Because differences in MACE would be most likely to occur in the first year after revascularization, the similarity of the 1- and 5-year results were expected, according to Dr. Götberg. However, a 5-year follow-up was considered prudent given the relatively limited experience with iFR when the study was designed. This technique is now well established and widely used.

The study supports the premise that quicker and easier-to-obtain results with iFR are obtained without sacrificing greater relative risk of failing to identify a vulnerable lesion, according to Dr. Götberg.

Nevertheless, iFR and FFR “are not an exact match,” according to Jennifer A. Rymer, MD, an interventional cardiologist and assistant professor of medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C. Although she called this trial an “excellent” demonstration of comparable utility in distinguishing lesions that do not require intervention from those that do, she implied that some clinicians might still prefer FFR for other reasons.

For example, FFR provides information about coronary flow reserve and microvascular resistance that are relevant to the underlying pathophysiology in a diseased vessel, according to Shmuel Banai, MD, head of interventional cardiology, Tel Aviv Medical Center. Recognizing that this information is not as readily generated by iFR, he is among those who plan to continue to use FFR despite these results.

However, for those who are now routinely performing iFR for the purposes of guiding revascularization, “these data are reassuring,” said David Kandzari, MD, director of interventional cardiology, Piedmont Hart Institute, Atlanta. The 5-year data essentially eliminate the likelihood that iFR relative to FFR increases the risk of missing functionally significant lesions for revascularization procedures.

Dr. Götberg reports financial relationships with Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Phillips Healthcare. Dr. Rymer reports no potential financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Banai has a financial relationship with Neovasc. Dr. Kandzari reports financial relationships with Ablative Solutions and Medtronic.

The use of statins by patients with rheumatoid arthritis appears to provide an overall net benefit on cardiovascular disease outcomes that outweighs the risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) seen with the drugs in the general population, according to evidence from a cohort study of more than 16,000 people in the United Kingdom that was presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

“Our study emphasizes that RA patients should be assessed for statin initiation to improve CVD risk,” lead study author Gulsen Ozen, MD, a third-year resident at the University of Nebraska, Omaha, said in an interview. Because the risk of T2DM with statin use is no worse in patients with RA than in the general population, statin initiation “is actually a great opportunity to address the risk factors for T2DM such as activity and exercise, obesity and weight loss, and [use of glucocorticoids], which have other important health effects,” she said.

“Also, importantly, even if [patients] develop T2DM, statins still work on CVD and mortality outcomes as in patients without diabetes,” Dr. Ozen added. “Given all, the benefits of statins way outweigh the hazards.”

Dr. Ozen said this was the first large cohort study to evaluate CVD mortality and T2DM risks with statins in patients with RA, a claim with which rheumatologist Elena Myasoedova, MD, PhD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., concurred.

Dr. Myasoedova, professor of rheumatology and epidemiology at Mayo, said in an interview that the study was “methodologically rigorous” using time-conditional propensity score (TCPS) matching and a prevalent new-user design, “thus addressing the immortal time bias” found in the design of studies in which patients enter a cohort but do not start a treatment before developing the outcome of interest and are assigned to the untreated group or when the period of delay from when patients enter the cohort to when they are treated is excluded from the analysis. An earlier study from the same authors did not use TCPS matching, she said.

“The study findings suggest that patients with RA can benefit from statin use in terms of CVD outcomes and mortality but physicians should use vigilance regarding increased T2DM risk and discuss this possibility with patients,” Dr. Myasoedova said. “Identifying patients who are at higher risk of developing T2DM after statin initiation would be important to personalize the approach to statin therapy.”
 

Study details

The study accessed records from the U.K. Clinical Practice Research Datalink and linked Hospital Episode Statistics and Office of National Statistics databases. It analyzed adult patients with RA who were diagnosed during 1989-2018 in two cohorts: One for CVD and all-cause mortality, consisting of 1,768 statin initiators and 3,528 TCPS-matched nonusers; and a T2DM cohort with 3,608 statin initiators and 7,208 TCPS-matched nonusers.

In the entire cohort, statin use was associated with a 32% reduction in CV events (composite endpoint of the nonfatal or fatal MI, stroke, hospitalized heart failure, or CVD mortality), a 54% reduction in all-cause mortality, and a 33% increase in risk for T2DM, Dr. Ozen said. Results were similar in both sexes, although CV event reduction with statins in men did not reach statistical significance, likely because of a smaller sample size, she said.

Patients with and without a history of CVD had a similar reduction in CV events and all-cause mortality, and risk for T2DM increased with statins, but the latter reached statistical significance only in patients without a history of CVD, Dr. Ozen said.

Patients with RA who are at risk for T2DM and who are taking statins require blood glucose monitoring, which is typically done in patients with RA on disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, and hemoglobin A1c testing when glucose levels are impaired, she said. “Any concerns for T2DM would be also communicated by the primary care providers of the patients to initiate further assessment and management,” she said.

But Dr. Ozen noted that confusion exists among primary care physicians and rheumatologists about who’s responsible for prescribing statins in these patients. “I would like to remind you that instead of assigning this role to a certain specialty, just good communication could improve this care gap of statin underutilization in RA,” she said. “Also, for rheumatologists, given that all-cause mortality reduction with statins was as high as CV event reduction, statins may be reducing other causes of mortality through improving disease activity.”

Bristol-Myers Squibb provided funding for the study. Dr. Ozen and Dr. Myasoedova have no relevant disclosures.

The use of statins by patients with rheumatoid arthritis appears to provide an overall net benefit on cardiovascular disease outcomes that outweighs the risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) seen with the drugs in the general population, according to evidence from a cohort study of more than 16,000 people in the United Kingdom that was presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

“Our study emphasizes that RA patients should be assessed for statin initiation to improve CVD risk,” lead study author Gulsen Ozen, MD, a third-year resident at the University of Nebraska, Omaha, said in an interview. Because the risk of T2DM with statin use is no worse in patients with RA than in the general population, statin initiation “is actually a great opportunity to address the risk factors for T2DM such as activity and exercise, obesity and weight loss, and [use of glucocorticoids], which have other important health effects,” she said.

“Also, importantly, even if [patients] develop T2DM, statins still work on CVD and mortality outcomes as in patients without diabetes,” Dr. Ozen added. “Given all, the benefits of statins way outweigh the hazards.”

Dr. Ozen said this was the first large cohort study to evaluate CVD mortality and T2DM risks with statins in patients with RA, a claim with which rheumatologist Elena Myasoedova, MD, PhD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., concurred.

Dr. Myasoedova, professor of rheumatology and epidemiology at Mayo, said in an interview that the study was “methodologically rigorous” using time-conditional propensity score (TCPS) matching and a prevalent new-user design, “thus addressing the immortal time bias” found in the design of studies in which patients enter a cohort but do not start a treatment before developing the outcome of interest and are assigned to the untreated group or when the period of delay from when patients enter the cohort to when they are treated is excluded from the analysis. An earlier study from the same authors did not use TCPS matching, she said.

“The study findings suggest that patients with RA can benefit from statin use in terms of CVD outcomes and mortality but physicians should use vigilance regarding increased T2DM risk and discuss this possibility with patients,” Dr. Myasoedova said. “Identifying patients who are at higher risk of developing T2DM after statin initiation would be important to personalize the approach to statin therapy.”
 

Study details

The study accessed records from the U.K. Clinical Practice Research Datalink and linked Hospital Episode Statistics and Office of National Statistics databases. It analyzed adult patients with RA who were diagnosed during 1989-2018 in two cohorts: One for CVD and all-cause mortality, consisting of 1,768 statin initiators and 3,528 TCPS-matched nonusers; and a T2DM cohort with 3,608 statin initiators and 7,208 TCPS-matched nonusers.

In the entire cohort, statin use was associated with a 32% reduction in CV events (composite endpoint of the nonfatal or fatal MI, stroke, hospitalized heart failure, or CVD mortality), a 54% reduction in all-cause mortality, and a 33% increase in risk for T2DM, Dr. Ozen said. Results were similar in both sexes, although CV event reduction with statins in men did not reach statistical significance, likely because of a smaller sample size, she said.

Patients with and without a history of CVD had a similar reduction in CV events and all-cause mortality, and risk for T2DM increased with statins, but the latter reached statistical significance only in patients without a history of CVD, Dr. Ozen said.

Patients with RA who are at risk for T2DM and who are taking statins require blood glucose monitoring, which is typically done in patients with RA on disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, and hemoglobin A1c testing when glucose levels are impaired, she said. “Any concerns for T2DM would be also communicated by the primary care providers of the patients to initiate further assessment and management,” she said.

But Dr. Ozen noted that confusion exists among primary care physicians and rheumatologists about who’s responsible for prescribing statins in these patients. “I would like to remind you that instead of assigning this role to a certain specialty, just good communication could improve this care gap of statin underutilization in RA,” she said. “Also, for rheumatologists, given that all-cause mortality reduction with statins was as high as CV event reduction, statins may be reducing other causes of mortality through improving disease activity.”

Bristol-Myers Squibb provided funding for the study. Dr. Ozen and Dr. Myasoedova have no relevant disclosures.

The use of statins by patients with rheumatoid arthritis appears to provide an overall net benefit on cardiovascular disease outcomes that outweighs the risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) seen with the drugs in the general population, according to evidence from a cohort study of more than 16,000 people in the United Kingdom that was presented at the virtual annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

“Our study emphasizes that RA patients should be assessed for statin initiation to improve CVD risk,” lead study author Gulsen Ozen, MD, a third-year resident at the University of Nebraska, Omaha, said in an interview. Because the risk of T2DM with statin use is no worse in patients with RA than in the general population, statin initiation “is actually a great opportunity to address the risk factors for T2DM such as activity and exercise, obesity and weight loss, and [use of glucocorticoids], which have other important health effects,” she said.

“Also, importantly, even if [patients] develop T2DM, statins still work on CVD and mortality outcomes as in patients without diabetes,” Dr. Ozen added. “Given all, the benefits of statins way outweigh the hazards.”

Dr. Ozen said this was the first large cohort study to evaluate CVD mortality and T2DM risks with statins in patients with RA, a claim with which rheumatologist Elena Myasoedova, MD, PhD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., concurred.

Dr. Myasoedova, professor of rheumatology and epidemiology at Mayo, said in an interview that the study was “methodologically rigorous” using time-conditional propensity score (TCPS) matching and a prevalent new-user design, “thus addressing the immortal time bias” found in the design of studies in which patients enter a cohort but do not start a treatment before developing the outcome of interest and are assigned to the untreated group or when the period of delay from when patients enter the cohort to when they are treated is excluded from the analysis. An earlier study from the same authors did not use TCPS matching, she said.

“The study findings suggest that patients with RA can benefit from statin use in terms of CVD outcomes and mortality but physicians should use vigilance regarding increased T2DM risk and discuss this possibility with patients,” Dr. Myasoedova said. “Identifying patients who are at higher risk of developing T2DM after statin initiation would be important to personalize the approach to statin therapy.”
 

Study details

The study accessed records from the U.K. Clinical Practice Research Datalink and linked Hospital Episode Statistics and Office of National Statistics databases. It analyzed adult patients with RA who were diagnosed during 1989-2018 in two cohorts: One for CVD and all-cause mortality, consisting of 1,768 statin initiators and 3,528 TCPS-matched nonusers; and a T2DM cohort with 3,608 statin initiators and 7,208 TCPS-matched nonusers.

In the entire cohort, statin use was associated with a 32% reduction in CV events (composite endpoint of the nonfatal or fatal MI, stroke, hospitalized heart failure, or CVD mortality), a 54% reduction in all-cause mortality, and a 33% increase in risk for T2DM, Dr. Ozen said. Results were similar in both sexes, although CV event reduction with statins in men did not reach statistical significance, likely because of a smaller sample size, she said.

Patients with and without a history of CVD had a similar reduction in CV events and all-cause mortality, and risk for T2DM increased with statins, but the latter reached statistical significance only in patients without a history of CVD, Dr. Ozen said.

Patients with RA who are at risk for T2DM and who are taking statins require blood glucose monitoring, which is typically done in patients with RA on disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, and hemoglobin A1c testing when glucose levels are impaired, she said. “Any concerns for T2DM would be also communicated by the primary care providers of the patients to initiate further assessment and management,” she said.

But Dr. Ozen noted that confusion exists among primary care physicians and rheumatologists about who’s responsible for prescribing statins in these patients. “I would like to remind you that instead of assigning this role to a certain specialty, just good communication could improve this care gap of statin underutilization in RA,” she said. “Also, for rheumatologists, given that all-cause mortality reduction with statins was as high as CV event reduction, statins may be reducing other causes of mortality through improving disease activity.”

Bristol-Myers Squibb provided funding for the study. Dr. Ozen and Dr. Myasoedova have no relevant disclosures.

Just months after the MASTER DAPT trial showed that abbreviated dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) lowers the risk of bleeding after stent placement in patients at high bleeding risk, a new analysis showed the favorable benefit-to-risk ratio was about the same in the subgroup who also had an acute or recent myocardial infarction.

In the new prespecified MASTER DAPT analysis, the data show that the subgroup with both an increased bleeding risk and an increased risk of ischemic events benefited much like the entire study population from a shorter DAPT duration, reported Pieter C. Smits, MD, PhD, at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting, held virtually and live in Orlando.

“There was no signal towards increased ischemic risk in the abbreviated DAPT population presenting with recent acute MI,” said Dr. Smits, emphasizing the consistency of results in this “bi-risk” subgroup with objective criteria for increased risks of bleeding and ischemic events.

MASTER DAPT main results published

The main results of the MASTER DAPT trial were presented at the 2021 annual meeting of the European Society of Cardiology and published recently in the New England Journal of Medicine. The trial randomized 4,434 patients who met one or more criteria for high bleeding risk. These included age of at least 75 years, documented anemia, a clinical indication for oral anticoagulants, and previous bleeding episodes requiring hospitalization.

In the trial, all patients were maintained on DAPT for 1 month after implantation of a biodegradable-polymer, sirolimus-eluting coronary stent (Ultimaster, Terumo). At the end of the month, those randomized to abbreviated DAPT started immediately on single-agent antiplatelet therapy, while those in the standard DAPT group remained on DAPT for at least 2 additional months.

Over 1 year of follow-up, the bleeding event rate was lower in the abbreviated DAPT group (6.5% vs. 9.4%; P < .0001 for superiority). The slight increase in major ischemic events among those in the abbreviated DAPT group (6.1% vs. 5.9%) was not significantly different (P = .001 for noninferiority).

When compared on the basis of net adverse clinical events (NACE), which comprised all-case death, MI, stroke, or Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) level 3 or 5 bleeding, there was a slight advantage for abbreviated DAPT (7.5% vs. 7.7%). This did not reach significance, but it was similar (P < .001 for noninferiority), favoring the abbreviated course of DAPT because of the bleeding advantage.

Recent MI vs. no MI

In the new analysis, patients in both the abbreviated and standard DAPT group were stratified into those with no major cardiovascular event within the past 12 months and those with an acute MI or acute coronary syndrome within this time. There were somewhat more patients without a history of MI within the previous 12 months in both the abbreviated DAPT (1,381 vs. 914 patients) and standard DAPT (1,418 vs. 866) groups.

In those without a recent MI, NACE rates were nearly identical over 1-year follow-up for those who received abbreviated versus standard DAPT. In both, slightly more than 6% had a NACE event, producing a hazard ratio of 1.03 for abbreviated versus standard DAPT (P = 0.85).

For those with a recent MI, event rates began to separate within 30 days. By 1 year, NACE rates exceeded 10% in those on standard DAPT, but remained below 9% for those on abbreviated DAPT. The lower hazard ratio in the abbreviated DAPT group (HR, 0.83; P = .22) did not reach statistical significance, but it did echo the larger MASTER DAPT conclusion.

“An abbreviated DAPT strategy significantly reduced clinically relevant bleeding risk in these bi-risk patients without increasing risk of ischemic events,” reported Dr. Smits, director of interventional cardiology at Maasstad Hospital, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
 

No difference in NACE components

In fact, when the components of NACE were evaluated individually in the subgroup of patients with prior MI, both stroke (HR, 0.47; P = .16) and all-cause death (HR, 0.78; P = .28), although not significant, numerically favored abbreviated DAPT.

There was no difference between abbreviated and standard DAPT for risk of MI at 1 year (HR, 1.03; P = .92).

As in the overall MASTER DAPT results, bleeding risk (BARC 2, 3, or 5 bleeding) was significantly reduced in the substudy among those with a recent prior MI (P = .013) or those with no MI in the prior 12 months (P = .01).

In MASTER DAPT, which was an open-label study that randomized participants in 30 countries, all patients received one type of drug-eluting stent. While Dr. Smits conceded that it is not clear whether the conclusions about abbreviated DAPT can be extrapolated to other stents, he noted that recent long-term outcomes for modern drug-eluting coronary stents have been similar, suggesting these results might be more broadly applicable.

According to Dr. Smit, the consistency of this subgroup analysis with the previously published MASTER DAPT study is mutually reinforcing for a role of abbreviated DAPT in patients at high bleeding risk. Other experts agreed.

“One of the concerns that people have had is exactly what has been addressed here in this subgroup analysis. These are the patients that are not only bleeding-risk high but ischemic-risk high. The question was whether the benefit of reducing bleeding risk is offset by increasing stent thrombosis or other ischemic event outcomes, and the answer from the analysis is really clearly no,” said Philippe Gabriel Steg, MD, chief, department of cardiology, Hôpital Bichat, Paris, at the meeting, sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

Dr. Smits reports financial relationships with Abiomed, Abbott Vascular, Daiichi-Sankyo, Microport, Opsense, and Terumo Medical. Dr. Steg reports financial relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Idorsia, Merck, Novartis, Regeneron, and Sanofi-Aventis.

Just months after the MASTER DAPT trial showed that abbreviated dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) lowers the risk of bleeding after stent placement in patients at high bleeding risk, a new analysis showed the favorable benefit-to-risk ratio was about the same in the subgroup who also had an acute or recent myocardial infarction.

In the new prespecified MASTER DAPT analysis, the data show that the subgroup with both an increased bleeding risk and an increased risk of ischemic events benefited much like the entire study population from a shorter DAPT duration, reported Pieter C. Smits, MD, PhD, at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting, held virtually and live in Orlando.

“There was no signal towards increased ischemic risk in the abbreviated DAPT population presenting with recent acute MI,” said Dr. Smits, emphasizing the consistency of results in this “bi-risk” subgroup with objective criteria for increased risks of bleeding and ischemic events.

MASTER DAPT main results published

The main results of the MASTER DAPT trial were presented at the 2021 annual meeting of the European Society of Cardiology and published recently in the New England Journal of Medicine. The trial randomized 4,434 patients who met one or more criteria for high bleeding risk. These included age of at least 75 years, documented anemia, a clinical indication for oral anticoagulants, and previous bleeding episodes requiring hospitalization.

In the trial, all patients were maintained on DAPT for 1 month after implantation of a biodegradable-polymer, sirolimus-eluting coronary stent (Ultimaster, Terumo). At the end of the month, those randomized to abbreviated DAPT started immediately on single-agent antiplatelet therapy, while those in the standard DAPT group remained on DAPT for at least 2 additional months.

Over 1 year of follow-up, the bleeding event rate was lower in the abbreviated DAPT group (6.5% vs. 9.4%; P < .0001 for superiority). The slight increase in major ischemic events among those in the abbreviated DAPT group (6.1% vs. 5.9%) was not significantly different (P = .001 for noninferiority).

When compared on the basis of net adverse clinical events (NACE), which comprised all-case death, MI, stroke, or Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) level 3 or 5 bleeding, there was a slight advantage for abbreviated DAPT (7.5% vs. 7.7%). This did not reach significance, but it was similar (P < .001 for noninferiority), favoring the abbreviated course of DAPT because of the bleeding advantage.

Recent MI vs. no MI

In the new analysis, patients in both the abbreviated and standard DAPT group were stratified into those with no major cardiovascular event within the past 12 months and those with an acute MI or acute coronary syndrome within this time. There were somewhat more patients without a history of MI within the previous 12 months in both the abbreviated DAPT (1,381 vs. 914 patients) and standard DAPT (1,418 vs. 866) groups.

In those without a recent MI, NACE rates were nearly identical over 1-year follow-up for those who received abbreviated versus standard DAPT. In both, slightly more than 6% had a NACE event, producing a hazard ratio of 1.03 for abbreviated versus standard DAPT (P = 0.85).

For those with a recent MI, event rates began to separate within 30 days. By 1 year, NACE rates exceeded 10% in those on standard DAPT, but remained below 9% for those on abbreviated DAPT. The lower hazard ratio in the abbreviated DAPT group (HR, 0.83; P = .22) did not reach statistical significance, but it did echo the larger MASTER DAPT conclusion.

“An abbreviated DAPT strategy significantly reduced clinically relevant bleeding risk in these bi-risk patients without increasing risk of ischemic events,” reported Dr. Smits, director of interventional cardiology at Maasstad Hospital, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
 

No difference in NACE components

In fact, when the components of NACE were evaluated individually in the subgroup of patients with prior MI, both stroke (HR, 0.47; P = .16) and all-cause death (HR, 0.78; P = .28), although not significant, numerically favored abbreviated DAPT.

There was no difference between abbreviated and standard DAPT for risk of MI at 1 year (HR, 1.03; P = .92).

As in the overall MASTER DAPT results, bleeding risk (BARC 2, 3, or 5 bleeding) was significantly reduced in the substudy among those with a recent prior MI (P = .013) or those with no MI in the prior 12 months (P = .01).

In MASTER DAPT, which was an open-label study that randomized participants in 30 countries, all patients received one type of drug-eluting stent. While Dr. Smits conceded that it is not clear whether the conclusions about abbreviated DAPT can be extrapolated to other stents, he noted that recent long-term outcomes for modern drug-eluting coronary stents have been similar, suggesting these results might be more broadly applicable.

According to Dr. Smit, the consistency of this subgroup analysis with the previously published MASTER DAPT study is mutually reinforcing for a role of abbreviated DAPT in patients at high bleeding risk. Other experts agreed.

“One of the concerns that people have had is exactly what has been addressed here in this subgroup analysis. These are the patients that are not only bleeding-risk high but ischemic-risk high. The question was whether the benefit of reducing bleeding risk is offset by increasing stent thrombosis or other ischemic event outcomes, and the answer from the analysis is really clearly no,” said Philippe Gabriel Steg, MD, chief, department of cardiology, Hôpital Bichat, Paris, at the meeting, sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

Dr. Smits reports financial relationships with Abiomed, Abbott Vascular, Daiichi-Sankyo, Microport, Opsense, and Terumo Medical. Dr. Steg reports financial relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Idorsia, Merck, Novartis, Regeneron, and Sanofi-Aventis.

Just months after the MASTER DAPT trial showed that abbreviated dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) lowers the risk of bleeding after stent placement in patients at high bleeding risk, a new analysis showed the favorable benefit-to-risk ratio was about the same in the subgroup who also had an acute or recent myocardial infarction.

In the new prespecified MASTER DAPT analysis, the data show that the subgroup with both an increased bleeding risk and an increased risk of ischemic events benefited much like the entire study population from a shorter DAPT duration, reported Pieter C. Smits, MD, PhD, at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting, held virtually and live in Orlando.

“There was no signal towards increased ischemic risk in the abbreviated DAPT population presenting with recent acute MI,” said Dr. Smits, emphasizing the consistency of results in this “bi-risk” subgroup with objective criteria for increased risks of bleeding and ischemic events.

MASTER DAPT main results published

The main results of the MASTER DAPT trial were presented at the 2021 annual meeting of the European Society of Cardiology and published recently in the New England Journal of Medicine. The trial randomized 4,434 patients who met one or more criteria for high bleeding risk. These included age of at least 75 years, documented anemia, a clinical indication for oral anticoagulants, and previous bleeding episodes requiring hospitalization.

In the trial, all patients were maintained on DAPT for 1 month after implantation of a biodegradable-polymer, sirolimus-eluting coronary stent (Ultimaster, Terumo). At the end of the month, those randomized to abbreviated DAPT started immediately on single-agent antiplatelet therapy, while those in the standard DAPT group remained on DAPT for at least 2 additional months.

Over 1 year of follow-up, the bleeding event rate was lower in the abbreviated DAPT group (6.5% vs. 9.4%; P < .0001 for superiority). The slight increase in major ischemic events among those in the abbreviated DAPT group (6.1% vs. 5.9%) was not significantly different (P = .001 for noninferiority).

When compared on the basis of net adverse clinical events (NACE), which comprised all-case death, MI, stroke, or Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) level 3 or 5 bleeding, there was a slight advantage for abbreviated DAPT (7.5% vs. 7.7%). This did not reach significance, but it was similar (P < .001 for noninferiority), favoring the abbreviated course of DAPT because of the bleeding advantage.

Recent MI vs. no MI

In the new analysis, patients in both the abbreviated and standard DAPT group were stratified into those with no major cardiovascular event within the past 12 months and those with an acute MI or acute coronary syndrome within this time. There were somewhat more patients without a history of MI within the previous 12 months in both the abbreviated DAPT (1,381 vs. 914 patients) and standard DAPT (1,418 vs. 866) groups.

In those without a recent MI, NACE rates were nearly identical over 1-year follow-up for those who received abbreviated versus standard DAPT. In both, slightly more than 6% had a NACE event, producing a hazard ratio of 1.03 for abbreviated versus standard DAPT (P = 0.85).

For those with a recent MI, event rates began to separate within 30 days. By 1 year, NACE rates exceeded 10% in those on standard DAPT, but remained below 9% for those on abbreviated DAPT. The lower hazard ratio in the abbreviated DAPT group (HR, 0.83; P = .22) did not reach statistical significance, but it did echo the larger MASTER DAPT conclusion.

“An abbreviated DAPT strategy significantly reduced clinically relevant bleeding risk in these bi-risk patients without increasing risk of ischemic events,” reported Dr. Smits, director of interventional cardiology at Maasstad Hospital, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
 

No difference in NACE components

In fact, when the components of NACE were evaluated individually in the subgroup of patients with prior MI, both stroke (HR, 0.47; P = .16) and all-cause death (HR, 0.78; P = .28), although not significant, numerically favored abbreviated DAPT.

There was no difference between abbreviated and standard DAPT for risk of MI at 1 year (HR, 1.03; P = .92).

As in the overall MASTER DAPT results, bleeding risk (BARC 2, 3, or 5 bleeding) was significantly reduced in the substudy among those with a recent prior MI (P = .013) or those with no MI in the prior 12 months (P = .01).

In MASTER DAPT, which was an open-label study that randomized participants in 30 countries, all patients received one type of drug-eluting stent. While Dr. Smits conceded that it is not clear whether the conclusions about abbreviated DAPT can be extrapolated to other stents, he noted that recent long-term outcomes for modern drug-eluting coronary stents have been similar, suggesting these results might be more broadly applicable.

According to Dr. Smit, the consistency of this subgroup analysis with the previously published MASTER DAPT study is mutually reinforcing for a role of abbreviated DAPT in patients at high bleeding risk. Other experts agreed.

“One of the concerns that people have had is exactly what has been addressed here in this subgroup analysis. These are the patients that are not only bleeding-risk high but ischemic-risk high. The question was whether the benefit of reducing bleeding risk is offset by increasing stent thrombosis or other ischemic event outcomes, and the answer from the analysis is really clearly no,” said Philippe Gabriel Steg, MD, chief, department of cardiology, Hôpital Bichat, Paris, at the meeting, sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.

Dr. Smits reports financial relationships with Abiomed, Abbott Vascular, Daiichi-Sankyo, Microport, Opsense, and Terumo Medical. Dr. Steg reports financial relationships with Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Idorsia, Merck, Novartis, Regeneron, and Sanofi-Aventis.

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) guided by quantitative flow ratio (QFR) lesion assessment provided better clinical outcomes than visual assessment of the angiogram in the sham-controlled FAVOR III China study.

PCI success rates were about 95% with both strategies; however, QFR guidance was associated with fewer major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 1 year, use of fewer stents, less contrast medium exposure, and fewer procedural complications.

“The simplicity and safety of QFR compared with wire-based physiologic measurements should facilitate the adoption of physiologic lesion assessment into routine clinical practice,” co–primary investigator Bo Xu, MBBS, Fuwai Hospital, Beijing, said.

The results were presented at Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics (TCT) 2021, held online and in Orlando, and published simultaneously in The Lancet.

Although pressure wire–based physiological assessment with fractional flow reserve (FFR) and instantaneous wave-free ratio (IFR) more accurately identify flow-limiting lesions than standard angiography and have been shown to improve outcomes after PCI, the authors note that it’s underused in practice because of prolonged procedural time, potential pressure wire complications, and side effects from hyperemic agents.

QFR, however, is derived from 3-dimensional coronary artery reconstruction and computational fluid dynamics from the angiogram, so FFR can be estimated without the need for a pressure wire or hyperemic drugs.

FAVOR III China was designed statistically for superiority and enrolled 3,847 patients with stable or unstable angina or a myocardial infarction (MI) at least 72 hours before screening if they had at least one coronary lesion with a diameter stenosis of 50% to 90% and a reference vessel diameter of at least 2.5 mm. The intention-to-treat population included 3,825 patients (mean age, 62.7 years; 29.4% female).

In the QFR group, QFR was measured in all coronary arteries with a lesion but PCI performed only in lesions with a QFR of at least 0.80 or diameter stenosis greater than 90%. Two angiographic imaging runs were taken and the data transmitted to the AngioPlus system (Pulse Medical Imaging Technology) by a local network of sites for QFR calculation.

PCI in the angiography-guided group was performed on the basis of visual angiographic assessment only. A 10-minute delay was used in both groups to preserve masking.

The primary endpoint of 1-year MACE, a composite of all-cause death, MI, or ischemia-driven revascularization, occurred in 5.8% of the QFR-guided group and 8.8% of the angiography-guided group (hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.51-0.83; P = .0004).

The curves separated within 48 hours, driven largely by fewer MIs (3.4% vs. 5.7%; P = .0008) and ischemia-driven revascularizations (2.0% vs. 3.1%; P = .0078) in the QFR-guided group, Mr. Xu said.

The major secondary endpoint of MACE excluding periprocedural MI occurred in 3.1% of QFR-guided patients and 4.8% of angiography-guided patients (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.46-0.89; P = .0073).

The prerandomization revascularization plan was changed in 23.3% of patients with QFR and only 6.2% in the angiography group (P < .0001), mainly due to deferral of treatment of at least one vessel originally planned for PCI (19.6% vs. 5.2%; P < .0001).

“I think in the next guideline they will change the recommendation, not just to include FFR and IFR, but also to include QFR,” Giuseppe Tarantini, MD, PhD, University of Padua, Italy, said during a press briefing on the study.

“This is a milestone in our community, not only because it is easier to use compared to the other lesion-specific indexes like FFR, IFR, but also for the need to expand the use of physiology in the setting of interventional cardiology,” he added.

In an accompanying commentary, Robert A. Byrne, MBBCh, PhD, and Laurna McGovern, MBBCh, both from the Cardiovascular Research Institute Dublin, say the results are “relevant for cardiovascular disease researchers and clinicians and an important step forward for the field of angiography-derived flow measurements for guidance of PCI.”

They point out, however, that the control group did not receive pressure wire–guided PCI, which is the standard of care in contemporary practice and out of step with clinical practice guidelines, thus limiting external validity.

They also note that experiences to date suggest that up to 20% of patients may be unsuitable for the algorithm analysis because of coronary anatomy, presence of overlapping vessels, and insufficient image quality.

Commenting for this news organization, David E. Kandzari, MD, chief of the Piedmont Heart Institute, Atlanta, said “the technology isn’t readily available in catheterization labs today. Could it be assimilated into the cath labs at one point in the near term? I think absolutely, and that would be a welcome addition to expedite the procedure itself.”

Nevertheless, he said the results “need to be externally validated too, with what is the gold standard today of FFR in a larger experience.”

Session moderator Gregg W. Stone, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said FAVOR III China has “advanced our knowledge” but pointed out that the ongoing randomized FAVOR III Europe Japan study is directly comparing QFR with invasive pressure-wire assessed FFR. The estimated primary completion date for that study is Dec. 31.

The study was supported by grants from the Beijing Municipal Science and Technology Commission, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, and the National Clinical Research Center for Cardiovascular Diseases, Fuwai Hospital. Dr. Byrne reported institutional research or educational funding from Abbott Vascular, Biosensors, Biotronik, and Boston Scientific. Ms. McGovern has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kandzari reported minor consulting honoraria from the interventional device industry and institutional research grant support.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) guided by quantitative flow ratio (QFR) lesion assessment provided better clinical outcomes than visual assessment of the angiogram in the sham-controlled FAVOR III China study.

PCI success rates were about 95% with both strategies; however, QFR guidance was associated with fewer major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 1 year, use of fewer stents, less contrast medium exposure, and fewer procedural complications.

“The simplicity and safety of QFR compared with wire-based physiologic measurements should facilitate the adoption of physiologic lesion assessment into routine clinical practice,” co–primary investigator Bo Xu, MBBS, Fuwai Hospital, Beijing, said.

The results were presented at Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics (TCT) 2021, held online and in Orlando, and published simultaneously in The Lancet.

Although pressure wire–based physiological assessment with fractional flow reserve (FFR) and instantaneous wave-free ratio (IFR) more accurately identify flow-limiting lesions than standard angiography and have been shown to improve outcomes after PCI, the authors note that it’s underused in practice because of prolonged procedural time, potential pressure wire complications, and side effects from hyperemic agents.

QFR, however, is derived from 3-dimensional coronary artery reconstruction and computational fluid dynamics from the angiogram, so FFR can be estimated without the need for a pressure wire or hyperemic drugs.

FAVOR III China was designed statistically for superiority and enrolled 3,847 patients with stable or unstable angina or a myocardial infarction (MI) at least 72 hours before screening if they had at least one coronary lesion with a diameter stenosis of 50% to 90% and a reference vessel diameter of at least 2.5 mm. The intention-to-treat population included 3,825 patients (mean age, 62.7 years; 29.4% female).

In the QFR group, QFR was measured in all coronary arteries with a lesion but PCI performed only in lesions with a QFR of at least 0.80 or diameter stenosis greater than 90%. Two angiographic imaging runs were taken and the data transmitted to the AngioPlus system (Pulse Medical Imaging Technology) by a local network of sites for QFR calculation.

PCI in the angiography-guided group was performed on the basis of visual angiographic assessment only. A 10-minute delay was used in both groups to preserve masking.

The primary endpoint of 1-year MACE, a composite of all-cause death, MI, or ischemia-driven revascularization, occurred in 5.8% of the QFR-guided group and 8.8% of the angiography-guided group (hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.51-0.83; P = .0004).

The curves separated within 48 hours, driven largely by fewer MIs (3.4% vs. 5.7%; P = .0008) and ischemia-driven revascularizations (2.0% vs. 3.1%; P = .0078) in the QFR-guided group, Mr. Xu said.

The major secondary endpoint of MACE excluding periprocedural MI occurred in 3.1% of QFR-guided patients and 4.8% of angiography-guided patients (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.46-0.89; P = .0073).

The prerandomization revascularization plan was changed in 23.3% of patients with QFR and only 6.2% in the angiography group (P < .0001), mainly due to deferral of treatment of at least one vessel originally planned for PCI (19.6% vs. 5.2%; P < .0001).

“I think in the next guideline they will change the recommendation, not just to include FFR and IFR, but also to include QFR,” Giuseppe Tarantini, MD, PhD, University of Padua, Italy, said during a press briefing on the study.

“This is a milestone in our community, not only because it is easier to use compared to the other lesion-specific indexes like FFR, IFR, but also for the need to expand the use of physiology in the setting of interventional cardiology,” he added.

In an accompanying commentary, Robert A. Byrne, MBBCh, PhD, and Laurna McGovern, MBBCh, both from the Cardiovascular Research Institute Dublin, say the results are “relevant for cardiovascular disease researchers and clinicians and an important step forward for the field of angiography-derived flow measurements for guidance of PCI.”

They point out, however, that the control group did not receive pressure wire–guided PCI, which is the standard of care in contemporary practice and out of step with clinical practice guidelines, thus limiting external validity.

They also note that experiences to date suggest that up to 20% of patients may be unsuitable for the algorithm analysis because of coronary anatomy, presence of overlapping vessels, and insufficient image quality.

Commenting for this news organization, David E. Kandzari, MD, chief of the Piedmont Heart Institute, Atlanta, said “the technology isn’t readily available in catheterization labs today. Could it be assimilated into the cath labs at one point in the near term? I think absolutely, and that would be a welcome addition to expedite the procedure itself.”

Nevertheless, he said the results “need to be externally validated too, with what is the gold standard today of FFR in a larger experience.”

Session moderator Gregg W. Stone, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said FAVOR III China has “advanced our knowledge” but pointed out that the ongoing randomized FAVOR III Europe Japan study is directly comparing QFR with invasive pressure-wire assessed FFR. The estimated primary completion date for that study is Dec. 31.

The study was supported by grants from the Beijing Municipal Science and Technology Commission, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, and the National Clinical Research Center for Cardiovascular Diseases, Fuwai Hospital. Dr. Byrne reported institutional research or educational funding from Abbott Vascular, Biosensors, Biotronik, and Boston Scientific. Ms. McGovern has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kandzari reported minor consulting honoraria from the interventional device industry and institutional research grant support.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) guided by quantitative flow ratio (QFR) lesion assessment provided better clinical outcomes than visual assessment of the angiogram in the sham-controlled FAVOR III China study.

PCI success rates were about 95% with both strategies; however, QFR guidance was associated with fewer major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 1 year, use of fewer stents, less contrast medium exposure, and fewer procedural complications.

“The simplicity and safety of QFR compared with wire-based physiologic measurements should facilitate the adoption of physiologic lesion assessment into routine clinical practice,” co–primary investigator Bo Xu, MBBS, Fuwai Hospital, Beijing, said.

The results were presented at Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics (TCT) 2021, held online and in Orlando, and published simultaneously in The Lancet.

Although pressure wire–based physiological assessment with fractional flow reserve (FFR) and instantaneous wave-free ratio (IFR) more accurately identify flow-limiting lesions than standard angiography and have been shown to improve outcomes after PCI, the authors note that it’s underused in practice because of prolonged procedural time, potential pressure wire complications, and side effects from hyperemic agents.

QFR, however, is derived from 3-dimensional coronary artery reconstruction and computational fluid dynamics from the angiogram, so FFR can be estimated without the need for a pressure wire or hyperemic drugs.

FAVOR III China was designed statistically for superiority and enrolled 3,847 patients with stable or unstable angina or a myocardial infarction (MI) at least 72 hours before screening if they had at least one coronary lesion with a diameter stenosis of 50% to 90% and a reference vessel diameter of at least 2.5 mm. The intention-to-treat population included 3,825 patients (mean age, 62.7 years; 29.4% female).

In the QFR group, QFR was measured in all coronary arteries with a lesion but PCI performed only in lesions with a QFR of at least 0.80 or diameter stenosis greater than 90%. Two angiographic imaging runs were taken and the data transmitted to the AngioPlus system (Pulse Medical Imaging Technology) by a local network of sites for QFR calculation.

PCI in the angiography-guided group was performed on the basis of visual angiographic assessment only. A 10-minute delay was used in both groups to preserve masking.

The primary endpoint of 1-year MACE, a composite of all-cause death, MI, or ischemia-driven revascularization, occurred in 5.8% of the QFR-guided group and 8.8% of the angiography-guided group (hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.51-0.83; P = .0004).

The curves separated within 48 hours, driven largely by fewer MIs (3.4% vs. 5.7%; P = .0008) and ischemia-driven revascularizations (2.0% vs. 3.1%; P = .0078) in the QFR-guided group, Mr. Xu said.

The major secondary endpoint of MACE excluding periprocedural MI occurred in 3.1% of QFR-guided patients and 4.8% of angiography-guided patients (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.46-0.89; P = .0073).

The prerandomization revascularization plan was changed in 23.3% of patients with QFR and only 6.2% in the angiography group (P < .0001), mainly due to deferral of treatment of at least one vessel originally planned for PCI (19.6% vs. 5.2%; P < .0001).

“I think in the next guideline they will change the recommendation, not just to include FFR and IFR, but also to include QFR,” Giuseppe Tarantini, MD, PhD, University of Padua, Italy, said during a press briefing on the study.

“This is a milestone in our community, not only because it is easier to use compared to the other lesion-specific indexes like FFR, IFR, but also for the need to expand the use of physiology in the setting of interventional cardiology,” he added.

In an accompanying commentary, Robert A. Byrne, MBBCh, PhD, and Laurna McGovern, MBBCh, both from the Cardiovascular Research Institute Dublin, say the results are “relevant for cardiovascular disease researchers and clinicians and an important step forward for the field of angiography-derived flow measurements for guidance of PCI.”

They point out, however, that the control group did not receive pressure wire–guided PCI, which is the standard of care in contemporary practice and out of step with clinical practice guidelines, thus limiting external validity.

They also note that experiences to date suggest that up to 20% of patients may be unsuitable for the algorithm analysis because of coronary anatomy, presence of overlapping vessels, and insufficient image quality.

Commenting for this news organization, David E. Kandzari, MD, chief of the Piedmont Heart Institute, Atlanta, said “the technology isn’t readily available in catheterization labs today. Could it be assimilated into the cath labs at one point in the near term? I think absolutely, and that would be a welcome addition to expedite the procedure itself.”

Nevertheless, he said the results “need to be externally validated too, with what is the gold standard today of FFR in a larger experience.”

Session moderator Gregg W. Stone, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said FAVOR III China has “advanced our knowledge” but pointed out that the ongoing randomized FAVOR III Europe Japan study is directly comparing QFR with invasive pressure-wire assessed FFR. The estimated primary completion date for that study is Dec. 31.

The study was supported by grants from the Beijing Municipal Science and Technology Commission, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, and the National Clinical Research Center for Cardiovascular Diseases, Fuwai Hospital. Dr. Byrne reported institutional research or educational funding from Abbott Vascular, Biosensors, Biotronik, and Boston Scientific. Ms. McGovern has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kandzari reported minor consulting honoraria from the interventional device industry and institutional research grant support.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

More than half of people living with HIV and suppressed viral loads nonetheless had imaging-confirmed coronary artery disease – and despite longtime use of HIV drugs that have been associated with cardiovascular trouble, none of those drugs were implicated in disease risk in this study.

“Traditional risk factors and duration of HIV infection were associated with severe coronary artery disease,” said Andreas Knudsen, MD, PhD, an infectious disease provider at Copenhagen University Hospital, Hvidovre, Denmark, during his presentation at the 18th European AIDS Conference. “When we adjusted for time since diagnosis of HIV, none of the drugs remained associated with the severity of coronary artery disease.”

Notably, that included abacavir, which was found in another EACS presentation and in past research to be associated with increased rates of heart attacks. Abacavir is sold individually as a generic as well as a component of Epzicom (abacavir/lamivudine) and the single-drug regimen Triumeq (dolutegravir/abacavir/lamivudine).

The Copenhagen Comorbidity in HIV Infection (COCOMO) study enrolled 1,099 people living with HIV in the Danish capital beginning in 2015, and 705 of them had angiographies via CT available to include in the results. The participants were almost all male (89%), at a healthy weight (BMI of 25), and 96% had undetectable viral loads.

Large minorities of participants also had traditional risk factors for coronary artery disease. More than one in four smoked, one in five had high cholesterol, and 42% had high blood pressure. In addition, many had used drugs that have been associated with cardiovascular trouble, including abacavir, which 26% of participants had used; indinavir, used by 17% of participants; zidovudine/AZT, used by 47%; and didanosine, which 14% used. (While abacavir is still in use, the other three drugs are considered legacy drugs and are not in current use.)

In addition, nearly one in three (29%) were currently using a protease inhibitor, which has been associated with heart failure.

When the investigators looked at participants’ CTs, they found that, by the Coronary Artery Disease-Reporting and Data Systems (CAD-RAMS) scoring system, close to half (46%) had clear arteries with no signs of coronary artery disease. But that also meant that 54% had some blockage or stiffening of the arteries. The good news is that 27% of those people had minimal or mild coronary artery disease.

But a full 17% had confirmed obstructive coronary artery disease, and another 1 in 10 participants had the highest level of blockages. When they broke the data down by traditional and HIV medication–related risk factors for coronary artery disease, they found something interesting. Although obesity was associated with the presence of atherosclerosis, it wasn’t associated with severe disease. But diabetes was the reverse of that: It wasn’t associated with the presence of the disease, but it was associated with more severe disease.

And when they looked at abacavir, they found no relationship between the drug and atherosclerosis. “Abacavir was not associated with the presence of atherosclerosis and was also not associated with severity of disease,” said Dr. Knudsen.

Although past use of AZT, indinavir, and didanosine were associated with severity of atherosclerosis, that association went away when Dr. Knudsen and team adjusted the findings for time since diagnosis. What was associated atherosclerosis was length of time living with HIV itself. For every 5 years a person lived with HIV, the study found the risk of having any atherosclerosis increased 20% and severity increased 23%. In addition, being a man was associated with a nearly 2.5-times increased risk of having any atherosclerosis and a 96% increased chance of having more severe atherosclerosis. Having diabetes was associated with a nearly threefold increased risk of atherosclerosis, as was every additional decade of life for a person who was living with HIV.

The findings confirm the baseline data of the REPRIEVE trial, which recently released data showing similarly high rates of atherosclerotic plaque in people living with HIV who didn’t register as “at risk” for cardiovascular disease using traditional scoring methods.

“It’s important in that it’s a huge study that’s confirmatory [of] what we know, which is that there are high levels of subclinical coronary artery disease in people living with HIV,” said Steven Grinspoon, MD, professor at Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts, and principal investigator of REPRIEVE.

As for the lack of association between abacavir and cardiovascular risk, he said he’s taking the findings with a grain of salt.

“It’s hard to make a lot out of that,” he said. “It’s hard to know in a cross-sectional study. People put people on different things.”

In Spain, where Jose Ignacio Bernardino, MD, treats people living with HIV at La Paz University Hospital in Madrid, abacavir is mostly a moot point, as clinicians have long since moved away from maintaining people living with HIV on any abacavir-containing regimens. What’s more important in the study, he told this news organization, is that “worrisome” high level of risk. REPRIEVE will test whether statins can reduce heart disease events in people living with HIV. But in the meantime, he said the take-away for clinicians from the study is the primary importance of traditional cardiovascular risk factors.

“We have to acknowledge that the major cardiovascular risk factor is age,” he said. “When patients are approaching their 50s, I usually try to stress a lot about cardiovascular risk factors in general. I stress healthy lifestyle – get physical exercise, hypertension, glucose, lipids – in every single patient.”

Dr. Knudsen and Dr. Bernardino have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Grinspoon reports receiving personal and consulting fees from Theratechnologies and ViiV Healthcare.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

More than half of people living with HIV and suppressed viral loads nonetheless had imaging-confirmed coronary artery disease – and despite longtime use of HIV drugs that have been associated with cardiovascular trouble, none of those drugs were implicated in disease risk in this study.

“Traditional risk factors and duration of HIV infection were associated with severe coronary artery disease,” said Andreas Knudsen, MD, PhD, an infectious disease provider at Copenhagen University Hospital, Hvidovre, Denmark, during his presentation at the 18th European AIDS Conference. “When we adjusted for time since diagnosis of HIV, none of the drugs remained associated with the severity of coronary artery disease.”

Notably, that included abacavir, which was found in another EACS presentation and in past research to be associated with increased rates of heart attacks. Abacavir is sold individually as a generic as well as a component of Epzicom (abacavir/lamivudine) and the single-drug regimen Triumeq (dolutegravir/abacavir/lamivudine).

The Copenhagen Comorbidity in HIV Infection (COCOMO) study enrolled 1,099 people living with HIV in the Danish capital beginning in 2015, and 705 of them had angiographies via CT available to include in the results. The participants were almost all male (89%), at a healthy weight (BMI of 25), and 96% had undetectable viral loads.

Large minorities of participants also had traditional risk factors for coronary artery disease. More than one in four smoked, one in five had high cholesterol, and 42% had high blood pressure. In addition, many had used drugs that have been associated with cardiovascular trouble, including abacavir, which 26% of participants had used; indinavir, used by 17% of participants; zidovudine/AZT, used by 47%; and didanosine, which 14% used. (While abacavir is still in use, the other three drugs are considered legacy drugs and are not in current use.)

In addition, nearly one in three (29%) were currently using a protease inhibitor, which has been associated with heart failure.

When the investigators looked at participants’ CTs, they found that, by the Coronary Artery Disease-Reporting and Data Systems (CAD-RAMS) scoring system, close to half (46%) had clear arteries with no signs of coronary artery disease. But that also meant that 54% had some blockage or stiffening of the arteries. The good news is that 27% of those people had minimal or mild coronary artery disease.

But a full 17% had confirmed obstructive coronary artery disease, and another 1 in 10 participants had the highest level of blockages. When they broke the data down by traditional and HIV medication–related risk factors for coronary artery disease, they found something interesting. Although obesity was associated with the presence of atherosclerosis, it wasn’t associated with severe disease. But diabetes was the reverse of that: It wasn’t associated with the presence of the disease, but it was associated with more severe disease.

And when they looked at abacavir, they found no relationship between the drug and atherosclerosis. “Abacavir was not associated with the presence of atherosclerosis and was also not associated with severity of disease,” said Dr. Knudsen.

Although past use of AZT, indinavir, and didanosine were associated with severity of atherosclerosis, that association went away when Dr. Knudsen and team adjusted the findings for time since diagnosis. What was associated atherosclerosis was length of time living with HIV itself. For every 5 years a person lived with HIV, the study found the risk of having any atherosclerosis increased 20% and severity increased 23%. In addition, being a man was associated with a nearly 2.5-times increased risk of having any atherosclerosis and a 96% increased chance of having more severe atherosclerosis. Having diabetes was associated with a nearly threefold increased risk of atherosclerosis, as was every additional decade of life for a person who was living with HIV.

The findings confirm the baseline data of the REPRIEVE trial, which recently released data showing similarly high rates of atherosclerotic plaque in people living with HIV who didn’t register as “at risk” for cardiovascular disease using traditional scoring methods.

“It’s important in that it’s a huge study that’s confirmatory [of] what we know, which is that there are high levels of subclinical coronary artery disease in people living with HIV,” said Steven Grinspoon, MD, professor at Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts, and principal investigator of REPRIEVE.

As for the lack of association between abacavir and cardiovascular risk, he said he’s taking the findings with a grain of salt.

“It’s hard to make a lot out of that,” he said. “It’s hard to know in a cross-sectional study. People put people on different things.”

In Spain, where Jose Ignacio Bernardino, MD, treats people living with HIV at La Paz University Hospital in Madrid, abacavir is mostly a moot point, as clinicians have long since moved away from maintaining people living with HIV on any abacavir-containing regimens. What’s more important in the study, he told this news organization, is that “worrisome” high level of risk. REPRIEVE will test whether statins can reduce heart disease events in people living with HIV. But in the meantime, he said the take-away for clinicians from the study is the primary importance of traditional cardiovascular risk factors.

“We have to acknowledge that the major cardiovascular risk factor is age,” he said. “When patients are approaching their 50s, I usually try to stress a lot about cardiovascular risk factors in general. I stress healthy lifestyle – get physical exercise, hypertension, glucose, lipids – in every single patient.”

Dr. Knudsen and Dr. Bernardino have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Grinspoon reports receiving personal and consulting fees from Theratechnologies and ViiV Healthcare.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

More than half of people living with HIV and suppressed viral loads nonetheless had imaging-confirmed coronary artery disease – and despite longtime use of HIV drugs that have been associated with cardiovascular trouble, none of those drugs were implicated in disease risk in this study.

“Traditional risk factors and duration of HIV infection were associated with severe coronary artery disease,” said Andreas Knudsen, MD, PhD, an infectious disease provider at Copenhagen University Hospital, Hvidovre, Denmark, during his presentation at the 18th European AIDS Conference. “When we adjusted for time since diagnosis of HIV, none of the drugs remained associated with the severity of coronary artery disease.”

Notably, that included abacavir, which was found in another EACS presentation and in past research to be associated with increased rates of heart attacks. Abacavir is sold individually as a generic as well as a component of Epzicom (abacavir/lamivudine) and the single-drug regimen Triumeq (dolutegravir/abacavir/lamivudine).

The Copenhagen Comorbidity in HIV Infection (COCOMO) study enrolled 1,099 people living with HIV in the Danish capital beginning in 2015, and 705 of them had angiographies via CT available to include in the results. The participants were almost all male (89%), at a healthy weight (BMI of 25), and 96% had undetectable viral loads.

Large minorities of participants also had traditional risk factors for coronary artery disease. More than one in four smoked, one in five had high cholesterol, and 42% had high blood pressure. In addition, many had used drugs that have been associated with cardiovascular trouble, including abacavir, which 26% of participants had used; indinavir, used by 17% of participants; zidovudine/AZT, used by 47%; and didanosine, which 14% used. (While abacavir is still in use, the other three drugs are considered legacy drugs and are not in current use.)

In addition, nearly one in three (29%) were currently using a protease inhibitor, which has been associated with heart failure.

When the investigators looked at participants’ CTs, they found that, by the Coronary Artery Disease-Reporting and Data Systems (CAD-RAMS) scoring system, close to half (46%) had clear arteries with no signs of coronary artery disease. But that also meant that 54% had some blockage or stiffening of the arteries. The good news is that 27% of those people had minimal or mild coronary artery disease.

But a full 17% had confirmed obstructive coronary artery disease, and another 1 in 10 participants had the highest level of blockages. When they broke the data down by traditional and HIV medication–related risk factors for coronary artery disease, they found something interesting. Although obesity was associated with the presence of atherosclerosis, it wasn’t associated with severe disease. But diabetes was the reverse of that: It wasn’t associated with the presence of the disease, but it was associated with more severe disease.

And when they looked at abacavir, they found no relationship between the drug and atherosclerosis. “Abacavir was not associated with the presence of atherosclerosis and was also not associated with severity of disease,” said Dr. Knudsen.

Although past use of AZT, indinavir, and didanosine were associated with severity of atherosclerosis, that association went away when Dr. Knudsen and team adjusted the findings for time since diagnosis. What was associated atherosclerosis was length of time living with HIV itself. For every 5 years a person lived with HIV, the study found the risk of having any atherosclerosis increased 20% and severity increased 23%. In addition, being a man was associated with a nearly 2.5-times increased risk of having any atherosclerosis and a 96% increased chance of having more severe atherosclerosis. Having diabetes was associated with a nearly threefold increased risk of atherosclerosis, as was every additional decade of life for a person who was living with HIV.

The findings confirm the baseline data of the REPRIEVE trial, which recently released data showing similarly high rates of atherosclerotic plaque in people living with HIV who didn’t register as “at risk” for cardiovascular disease using traditional scoring methods.

“It’s important in that it’s a huge study that’s confirmatory [of] what we know, which is that there are high levels of subclinical coronary artery disease in people living with HIV,” said Steven Grinspoon, MD, professor at Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts, and principal investigator of REPRIEVE.

As for the lack of association between abacavir and cardiovascular risk, he said he’s taking the findings with a grain of salt.

“It’s hard to make a lot out of that,” he said. “It’s hard to know in a cross-sectional study. People put people on different things.”

In Spain, where Jose Ignacio Bernardino, MD, treats people living with HIV at La Paz University Hospital in Madrid, abacavir is mostly a moot point, as clinicians have long since moved away from maintaining people living with HIV on any abacavir-containing regimens. What’s more important in the study, he told this news organization, is that “worrisome” high level of risk. REPRIEVE will test whether statins can reduce heart disease events in people living with HIV. But in the meantime, he said the take-away for clinicians from the study is the primary importance of traditional cardiovascular risk factors.

“We have to acknowledge that the major cardiovascular risk factor is age,” he said. “When patients are approaching their 50s, I usually try to stress a lot about cardiovascular risk factors in general. I stress healthy lifestyle – get physical exercise, hypertension, glucose, lipids – in every single patient.”

Dr. Knudsen and Dr. Bernardino have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Grinspoon reports receiving personal and consulting fees from Theratechnologies and ViiV Healthcare.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The applicability of the results of the ISCHEMIA trial to real-world clinical practice in the United States has been called into question by a new study showing that less than a third of U.S. patients with stable ischemic heart disease (IHD) who currently undergo intervention would meet the trial’s inclusion criteria.

The ISCHEMIA trial, first reported in 2019, showed that, for stable patients with moderate to severe ischemia, an invasive approach using percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) did not significantly reduce major cardiovascular events after a median 3.2 years of follow-up, compared with a conservative medical strategy.

For the current study, a group of interventionalists analyzed contemporary U.S. data on patients undergoing PCI and found that a large proportion of patients receiving PCI for stable ischemic heart disease in the United States would not have met criteria of the ISCHEMIA trial population.

The study was published online Nov. 1 in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions).  

“While ISCHEMIA was a very well-conducted trial, our results show that it only applies to about one-third of stable IHD patients undergoing intervention in U.S. clinical practice in the real world. In this group, while ISCHEMIA did not show a reduction in event rate in the intervention group, there was a reduction in symptoms,” lead author Saurav Chatterjee, MD, Long Island Jewish Medical Center, New York, told this news organization.

“But ISCHEMIA did not really answer the question for 67% of stable IHD in current U.S. practice. We may be abIe to defer PCI in these patients, but we don’t know that from the ISCHEMIA trial, as these patients were not included in the trial,” Chatterjee said.  

“There is some concern that people will accept the ISCHEMIA results as being universal, but we cannot apply these results to all stable IHD patients who currently undergo intervention,” he added. “We believe that patients who do not fall into the ISCHEMIA population need a nuanced individual approach, taking into account symptom burden and patient preferences.”

In the new report, Dr. Chatterjee and associates note that the applicability of the ISCHEMIA findings to contemporary practice has been questioned by some, because of the exclusion of a significant proportion of patients that are routinely considered for revascularization, both within and outside of the United States.

They point out that the ISCHEMIA trial recruited 16.5% of its participants from the United States, and the proportion of patients in contemporary U.S. practice that would have qualified for the trial is not clear.

They therefore examined the proportion of stable IHD patients meeting inclusion criteria for the ISCHEMIA trial in a U.S. nationwide PCI registry.

The researchers used data from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) CathPCI Registry, which includes patients undergoing PCI at 1,662 institutions and accounts for more than 90% of PCI-capable hospitals in the United States.

All PCI procedures performed at institutions participating in the NCDR CathPCI Registry from October 2017 to June 2019 were identified. Patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome (ACS), cardiogenic shock, or cardiac arrest were excluded, as there is significant evidence in favor of revascularization in these groups, and they were not included in the ISCHEMIA trial.

Subsequently, all remaining stable IHD patients were classified into one of four groups.

• ISCHEMIA-like: These patients had intermediate- or high-risk findings on a stress test but no high-risk features that would have excluded enrollment into the ISCHEMIA trial
• High risk: This group comprised patients with stable IHD and left ventricular ejection fraction less than 35%, significant unprotected left main stenosis (>50%), preexisting dialysis, recent heart-failure exacerbation, or heart transplant. These patients would have met exclusion criteria for the ISCHEMIA trial
• Low risk: This group included patients with stable and negative or low-risk findings on stress test and would have met exclusion criteria for the ISCHEMIA trial
• Not classifiable: This group comprised patients with stable IHD not fitting any of the other cohorts, including no stress test or extent of ischemia not reported on stress testing. These patients would have not had enough information to clearly meet inclusion or exclusion criteria for the ISCHEMIA trial

Results showed that during the study period 927,011 patients underwent PCI as recorded in the NCDR CathPCI Registry. Of these, 58% had ACS, cardiogenic shock, or cardiac arrest and were excluded; the remaining 388,212 patients who underwent PCI for stable IHD comprised the study population.

Of these, 125,302 (32.28%) had a moderate- or high-risk stress test without high-risk anatomic or clinical features and met ISCHEMIA trial inclusion criteria.

Among stable IHD patients not meeting ISCHEMIA trial inclusion criteria, 71,852 (18.51%) had high-risk criteria that would have excluded them from the ISCHEMIA trial, a total of 67,159 (17.29%) patients had low-risk criteria that would have excluded them from the ISCHEMIA trial, and 123,899 (31.92%) were unclassifiable, either owing to lack of stress testing or the extent of ischemia not being reported on stress testing.

The authors suggest that the unclassifiable patients appear to represent a “higher-risk” population than those closely resembling the ISCHEMIA trial population, with more prior myocardial infarction and heart failure.
 

ISCHEMIA investigators respond

In an accompanying editorial, ISCHEMIA investigators David J. Maron, MD, Stanford (Calif.) University, and Sripal Bangalore, MD, and Judith S. Hochman, MD, New York University, argue that many of the patients highlighted by Dr. Chatterjee and associates were excluded from the ISCHEMIA trial for good reason.

They explain that ISCHEMIA was designed under the premise that prior stable IHD strategy trials such as COURAGE and BARI 2D included lower-risk patients, and the remaining gap was to evaluate the utility of invasive management in those at higher risk with moderate or severe stress-induced ischemia.

They point out that, among the NCDR patients with stable IHD in the current study by Dr. Chatterjee and associates who did not meet ISCHEMIA entry criteria, 18.5% had high-risk features, including 35.2% with left main coronary artery disease, 43.7% with left ventricular systolic dysfunction, and 16.8% with end-stage renal disease.

Although ISCHEMIA results do not apply to patients who were excluded from the trial, there is little controversy regarding the benefit of revascularization in patients with stable IHD with left main coronary artery disease or left ventricular ejection fraction <35%, which is why they were excluded from ISCHEMIA, the editorialists note.  

They also report that patients with end-stage renal disease, who were also designated as not meeting ISCHEMIA inclusion criteria, were included in the companion ISCHEMIA CKD trial.

They further point out that, at the other end of the risk spectrum, 17.3% of stable IHD patients in the current analysis had negative or low-risk functional testing, and these patients were excluded from ISCHEMIA because they were shown in COURAGE and BARI 2D to not benefit from revascularization, and they do not meet guideline recommendations for elective PCI in the absence of symptoms.

Of the 31.9% of stable IHD patients who had missing data on ischemic burden, the ISCHEMIA investigators say that some of these would have qualified for the trial, although it is not possible to say how many. They suggest a conservative estimate of 50%.

Taking these arguments into account, the editorialists recalculated the proportion of NCDR PCI patients with stable IHD who would have been included in ISCHEMIA as between 62.1% and 68.6% of patients.

They say the current NCDR analysis by Dr. Chatterjee and associates should be interpreted as indicating, at worst, that the ISCHEMIA trial results apply to only 32% of patients undergoing elective PCI in the United States, and at best “that the results apply to a far higher proportion, excluding only those at high risk (18.5%) or with unacceptable symptoms despite maximal medical therapy (percentage unknown), for whom PCI is clearly indicated.”

The editorialists conclude: “The purpose of the analysis by Chatterjee et al. is to inform the cardiovascular community of the proportion of patients with stable IHD in clinical practice who would have been excluded from ISCHEMIA without regard for the logic of each exclusion criterion. The purpose of this editorial is to provide context for the analysis, admittedly from the perspective of ISCHEMIA investigators, with the hope that this helps readers clearly see the relevance of the trial to patients under their care.”

They add: “For practical and ethical reasons, ISCHEMIA excluded stable patients with high-risk features, angina inadequately controlled by medication, and low-risk features who do not meet evidence-based guidelines for revascularization. That leaves a large percentage of patients for whom the ISCHEMIA trial is highly relevant; exactly what percentage on the basis of NCDR data is hard to say.”

The ISCHEMIA trial was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The applicability of the results of the ISCHEMIA trial to real-world clinical practice in the United States has been called into question by a new study showing that less than a third of U.S. patients with stable ischemic heart disease (IHD) who currently undergo intervention would meet the trial’s inclusion criteria.

The ISCHEMIA trial, first reported in 2019, showed that, for stable patients with moderate to severe ischemia, an invasive approach using percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) did not significantly reduce major cardiovascular events after a median 3.2 years of follow-up, compared with a conservative medical strategy.

For the current study, a group of interventionalists analyzed contemporary U.S. data on patients undergoing PCI and found that a large proportion of patients receiving PCI for stable ischemic heart disease in the United States would not have met criteria of the ISCHEMIA trial population.

The study was published online Nov. 1 in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions).  

“While ISCHEMIA was a very well-conducted trial, our results show that it only applies to about one-third of stable IHD patients undergoing intervention in U.S. clinical practice in the real world. In this group, while ISCHEMIA did not show a reduction in event rate in the intervention group, there was a reduction in symptoms,” lead author Saurav Chatterjee, MD, Long Island Jewish Medical Center, New York, told this news organization.

“But ISCHEMIA did not really answer the question for 67% of stable IHD in current U.S. practice. We may be abIe to defer PCI in these patients, but we don’t know that from the ISCHEMIA trial, as these patients were not included in the trial,” Chatterjee said.  

“There is some concern that people will accept the ISCHEMIA results as being universal, but we cannot apply these results to all stable IHD patients who currently undergo intervention,” he added. “We believe that patients who do not fall into the ISCHEMIA population need a nuanced individual approach, taking into account symptom burden and patient preferences.”

In the new report, Dr. Chatterjee and associates note that the applicability of the ISCHEMIA findings to contemporary practice has been questioned by some, because of the exclusion of a significant proportion of patients that are routinely considered for revascularization, both within and outside of the United States.

They point out that the ISCHEMIA trial recruited 16.5% of its participants from the United States, and the proportion of patients in contemporary U.S. practice that would have qualified for the trial is not clear.

They therefore examined the proportion of stable IHD patients meeting inclusion criteria for the ISCHEMIA trial in a U.S. nationwide PCI registry.

The researchers used data from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) CathPCI Registry, which includes patients undergoing PCI at 1,662 institutions and accounts for more than 90% of PCI-capable hospitals in the United States.

All PCI procedures performed at institutions participating in the NCDR CathPCI Registry from October 2017 to June 2019 were identified. Patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome (ACS), cardiogenic shock, or cardiac arrest were excluded, as there is significant evidence in favor of revascularization in these groups, and they were not included in the ISCHEMIA trial.

Subsequently, all remaining stable IHD patients were classified into one of four groups.

• ISCHEMIA-like: These patients had intermediate- or high-risk findings on a stress test but no high-risk features that would have excluded enrollment into the ISCHEMIA trial
• High risk: This group comprised patients with stable IHD and left ventricular ejection fraction less than 35%, significant unprotected left main stenosis (>50%), preexisting dialysis, recent heart-failure exacerbation, or heart transplant. These patients would have met exclusion criteria for the ISCHEMIA trial
• Low risk: This group included patients with stable and negative or low-risk findings on stress test and would have met exclusion criteria for the ISCHEMIA trial
• Not classifiable: This group comprised patients with stable IHD not fitting any of the other cohorts, including no stress test or extent of ischemia not reported on stress testing. These patients would have not had enough information to clearly meet inclusion or exclusion criteria for the ISCHEMIA trial

Results showed that during the study period 927,011 patients underwent PCI as recorded in the NCDR CathPCI Registry. Of these, 58% had ACS, cardiogenic shock, or cardiac arrest and were excluded; the remaining 388,212 patients who underwent PCI for stable IHD comprised the study population.

Of these, 125,302 (32.28%) had a moderate- or high-risk stress test without high-risk anatomic or clinical features and met ISCHEMIA trial inclusion criteria.

Among stable IHD patients not meeting ISCHEMIA trial inclusion criteria, 71,852 (18.51%) had high-risk criteria that would have excluded them from the ISCHEMIA trial, a total of 67,159 (17.29%) patients had low-risk criteria that would have excluded them from the ISCHEMIA trial, and 123,899 (31.92%) were unclassifiable, either owing to lack of stress testing or the extent of ischemia not being reported on stress testing.

The authors suggest that the unclassifiable patients appear to represent a “higher-risk” population than those closely resembling the ISCHEMIA trial population, with more prior myocardial infarction and heart failure.
 

ISCHEMIA investigators respond

In an accompanying editorial, ISCHEMIA investigators David J. Maron, MD, Stanford (Calif.) University, and Sripal Bangalore, MD, and Judith S. Hochman, MD, New York University, argue that many of the patients highlighted by Dr. Chatterjee and associates were excluded from the ISCHEMIA trial for good reason.

They explain that ISCHEMIA was designed under the premise that prior stable IHD strategy trials such as COURAGE and BARI 2D included lower-risk patients, and the remaining gap was to evaluate the utility of invasive management in those at higher risk with moderate or severe stress-induced ischemia.

They point out that, among the NCDR patients with stable IHD in the current study by Dr. Chatterjee and associates who did not meet ISCHEMIA entry criteria, 18.5% had high-risk features, including 35.2% with left main coronary artery disease, 43.7% with left ventricular systolic dysfunction, and 16.8% with end-stage renal disease.

Although ISCHEMIA results do not apply to patients who were excluded from the trial, there is little controversy regarding the benefit of revascularization in patients with stable IHD with left main coronary artery disease or left ventricular ejection fraction <35%, which is why they were excluded from ISCHEMIA, the editorialists note.  

They also report that patients with end-stage renal disease, who were also designated as not meeting ISCHEMIA inclusion criteria, were included in the companion ISCHEMIA CKD trial.

They further point out that, at the other end of the risk spectrum, 17.3% of stable IHD patients in the current analysis had negative or low-risk functional testing, and these patients were excluded from ISCHEMIA because they were shown in COURAGE and BARI 2D to not benefit from revascularization, and they do not meet guideline recommendations for elective PCI in the absence of symptoms.

Of the 31.9% of stable IHD patients who had missing data on ischemic burden, the ISCHEMIA investigators say that some of these would have qualified for the trial, although it is not possible to say how many. They suggest a conservative estimate of 50%.

Taking these arguments into account, the editorialists recalculated the proportion of NCDR PCI patients with stable IHD who would have been included in ISCHEMIA as between 62.1% and 68.6% of patients.

They say the current NCDR analysis by Dr. Chatterjee and associates should be interpreted as indicating, at worst, that the ISCHEMIA trial results apply to only 32% of patients undergoing elective PCI in the United States, and at best “that the results apply to a far higher proportion, excluding only those at high risk (18.5%) or with unacceptable symptoms despite maximal medical therapy (percentage unknown), for whom PCI is clearly indicated.”

The editorialists conclude: “The purpose of the analysis by Chatterjee et al. is to inform the cardiovascular community of the proportion of patients with stable IHD in clinical practice who would have been excluded from ISCHEMIA without regard for the logic of each exclusion criterion. The purpose of this editorial is to provide context for the analysis, admittedly from the perspective of ISCHEMIA investigators, with the hope that this helps readers clearly see the relevance of the trial to patients under their care.”

They add: “For practical and ethical reasons, ISCHEMIA excluded stable patients with high-risk features, angina inadequately controlled by medication, and low-risk features who do not meet evidence-based guidelines for revascularization. That leaves a large percentage of patients for whom the ISCHEMIA trial is highly relevant; exactly what percentage on the basis of NCDR data is hard to say.”

The ISCHEMIA trial was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The applicability of the results of the ISCHEMIA trial to real-world clinical practice in the United States has been called into question by a new study showing that less than a third of U.S. patients with stable ischemic heart disease (IHD) who currently undergo intervention would meet the trial’s inclusion criteria.

The ISCHEMIA trial, first reported in 2019, showed that, for stable patients with moderate to severe ischemia, an invasive approach using percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) did not significantly reduce major cardiovascular events after a median 3.2 years of follow-up, compared with a conservative medical strategy.

For the current study, a group of interventionalists analyzed contemporary U.S. data on patients undergoing PCI and found that a large proportion of patients receiving PCI for stable ischemic heart disease in the United States would not have met criteria of the ISCHEMIA trial population.

The study was published online Nov. 1 in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions).  

“While ISCHEMIA was a very well-conducted trial, our results show that it only applies to about one-third of stable IHD patients undergoing intervention in U.S. clinical practice in the real world. In this group, while ISCHEMIA did not show a reduction in event rate in the intervention group, there was a reduction in symptoms,” lead author Saurav Chatterjee, MD, Long Island Jewish Medical Center, New York, told this news organization.

“But ISCHEMIA did not really answer the question for 67% of stable IHD in current U.S. practice. We may be abIe to defer PCI in these patients, but we don’t know that from the ISCHEMIA trial, as these patients were not included in the trial,” Chatterjee said.  

“There is some concern that people will accept the ISCHEMIA results as being universal, but we cannot apply these results to all stable IHD patients who currently undergo intervention,” he added. “We believe that patients who do not fall into the ISCHEMIA population need a nuanced individual approach, taking into account symptom burden and patient preferences.”

In the new report, Dr. Chatterjee and associates note that the applicability of the ISCHEMIA findings to contemporary practice has been questioned by some, because of the exclusion of a significant proportion of patients that are routinely considered for revascularization, both within and outside of the United States.

They point out that the ISCHEMIA trial recruited 16.5% of its participants from the United States, and the proportion of patients in contemporary U.S. practice that would have qualified for the trial is not clear.

They therefore examined the proportion of stable IHD patients meeting inclusion criteria for the ISCHEMIA trial in a U.S. nationwide PCI registry.

The researchers used data from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) CathPCI Registry, which includes patients undergoing PCI at 1,662 institutions and accounts for more than 90% of PCI-capable hospitals in the United States.

All PCI procedures performed at institutions participating in the NCDR CathPCI Registry from October 2017 to June 2019 were identified. Patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome (ACS), cardiogenic shock, or cardiac arrest were excluded, as there is significant evidence in favor of revascularization in these groups, and they were not included in the ISCHEMIA trial.

Subsequently, all remaining stable IHD patients were classified into one of four groups.

• ISCHEMIA-like: These patients had intermediate- or high-risk findings on a stress test but no high-risk features that would have excluded enrollment into the ISCHEMIA trial
• High risk: This group comprised patients with stable IHD and left ventricular ejection fraction less than 35%, significant unprotected left main stenosis (>50%), preexisting dialysis, recent heart-failure exacerbation, or heart transplant. These patients would have met exclusion criteria for the ISCHEMIA trial
• Low risk: This group included patients with stable and negative or low-risk findings on stress test and would have met exclusion criteria for the ISCHEMIA trial
• Not classifiable: This group comprised patients with stable IHD not fitting any of the other cohorts, including no stress test or extent of ischemia not reported on stress testing. These patients would have not had enough information to clearly meet inclusion or exclusion criteria for the ISCHEMIA trial

Results showed that during the study period 927,011 patients underwent PCI as recorded in the NCDR CathPCI Registry. Of these, 58% had ACS, cardiogenic shock, or cardiac arrest and were excluded; the remaining 388,212 patients who underwent PCI for stable IHD comprised the study population.

Of these, 125,302 (32.28%) had a moderate- or high-risk stress test without high-risk anatomic or clinical features and met ISCHEMIA trial inclusion criteria.

Among stable IHD patients not meeting ISCHEMIA trial inclusion criteria, 71,852 (18.51%) had high-risk criteria that would have excluded them from the ISCHEMIA trial, a total of 67,159 (17.29%) patients had low-risk criteria that would have excluded them from the ISCHEMIA trial, and 123,899 (31.92%) were unclassifiable, either owing to lack of stress testing or the extent of ischemia not being reported on stress testing.

The authors suggest that the unclassifiable patients appear to represent a “higher-risk” population than those closely resembling the ISCHEMIA trial population, with more prior myocardial infarction and heart failure.
 

ISCHEMIA investigators respond

In an accompanying editorial, ISCHEMIA investigators David J. Maron, MD, Stanford (Calif.) University, and Sripal Bangalore, MD, and Judith S. Hochman, MD, New York University, argue that many of the patients highlighted by Dr. Chatterjee and associates were excluded from the ISCHEMIA trial for good reason.

They explain that ISCHEMIA was designed under the premise that prior stable IHD strategy trials such as COURAGE and BARI 2D included lower-risk patients, and the remaining gap was to evaluate the utility of invasive management in those at higher risk with moderate or severe stress-induced ischemia.

They point out that, among the NCDR patients with stable IHD in the current study by Dr. Chatterjee and associates who did not meet ISCHEMIA entry criteria, 18.5% had high-risk features, including 35.2% with left main coronary artery disease, 43.7% with left ventricular systolic dysfunction, and 16.8% with end-stage renal disease.

Although ISCHEMIA results do not apply to patients who were excluded from the trial, there is little controversy regarding the benefit of revascularization in patients with stable IHD with left main coronary artery disease or left ventricular ejection fraction <35%, which is why they were excluded from ISCHEMIA, the editorialists note.  

They also report that patients with end-stage renal disease, who were also designated as not meeting ISCHEMIA inclusion criteria, were included in the companion ISCHEMIA CKD trial.

They further point out that, at the other end of the risk spectrum, 17.3% of stable IHD patients in the current analysis had negative or low-risk functional testing, and these patients were excluded from ISCHEMIA because they were shown in COURAGE and BARI 2D to not benefit from revascularization, and they do not meet guideline recommendations for elective PCI in the absence of symptoms.

Of the 31.9% of stable IHD patients who had missing data on ischemic burden, the ISCHEMIA investigators say that some of these would have qualified for the trial, although it is not possible to say how many. They suggest a conservative estimate of 50%.

Taking these arguments into account, the editorialists recalculated the proportion of NCDR PCI patients with stable IHD who would have been included in ISCHEMIA as between 62.1% and 68.6% of patients.

They say the current NCDR analysis by Dr. Chatterjee and associates should be interpreted as indicating, at worst, that the ISCHEMIA trial results apply to only 32% of patients undergoing elective PCI in the United States, and at best “that the results apply to a far higher proportion, excluding only those at high risk (18.5%) or with unacceptable symptoms despite maximal medical therapy (percentage unknown), for whom PCI is clearly indicated.”

The editorialists conclude: “The purpose of the analysis by Chatterjee et al. is to inform the cardiovascular community of the proportion of patients with stable IHD in clinical practice who would have been excluded from ISCHEMIA without regard for the logic of each exclusion criterion. The purpose of this editorial is to provide context for the analysis, admittedly from the perspective of ISCHEMIA investigators, with the hope that this helps readers clearly see the relevance of the trial to patients under their care.”

They add: “For practical and ethical reasons, ISCHEMIA excluded stable patients with high-risk features, angina inadequately controlled by medication, and low-risk features who do not meet evidence-based guidelines for revascularization. That leaves a large percentage of patients for whom the ISCHEMIA trial is highly relevant; exactly what percentage on the basis of NCDR data is hard to say.”

The ISCHEMIA trial was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.