Granger, Christopher B.

Hypertension is the single most important modifiable risk factor for preventable disability and death worldwide and disproportionately affects socially disadvantaged populations. We face a paradox—blood pressure control is low and recent trends suggest it is even declining, despite the availability of inexpensive and effective therapies. A variety of barriers on the system, patient, and healthcare provider side hinder effective drug-based risk factor management. Clinical inertia represents a major barrier on the clinician side, as well as workload and limited education. Common barriers on the patient side include limited English proficiency, low health literacy, and nonadherence with misaligned incentives, limited resources, lack of structured clinical pathways, and reimbursement issues. New innovations in the field of RNA-targeted therapies and device-based interventions could prevent and potentially even cure diseases previously designated as chronic health conditions, such as hypertension. Such novel therapies could potentially overcome several major barriers to effective treatment, including nonadherence. Drug development of novel, long-acting treatments requires consideration of specific clinical trial design aspects, including safety collection, benefit: risk assessment, the development and assessment of novel, qualitative surrogate end points, such as time-in-therapeutic range, the use of representative trial settings as well as the definition of standard of care in placebo-controlled trials, which should be of reasonably high-quality allowing for credible evaluation of effectiveness. Here, we provide an overview on barriers to effective treatment and a framework for trials assessing novel treatments for cardiovascular disease risk factors, including early and broad implementation programs.

Previous studies about the COVID-19 pandemic on STEMI patient outcomes have conflicting results. It remains unclear if this may be attributed to regional differences and/or differences during COVID-19 wave periods. Using the American Heart Association Get With The Guidelines–Coronary Artery Disease registry data, we evaluated (1) time metrics related to STEMI system goals and (2) regional variation in STEMI incidence and in-hospital mortality during pandemic wave time periods. The study included all patients 18–100 years old admitted with STEMI (n = 72,516) to 1 of 435 American Heart Association Get With The Guidelines–Coronary Artery Disease hospitals (1 October 2019–31 December 2021). Of these, 70.8% were male and 73.0% non-Hispanic White, with a median age of 63 (IQR 18) years. Compared to pre-pandemic time frames, patients with STEMI had a higher risk profile, delayed time to treatment, were treated with fibrinolytic therapy or primary PCI, and were transferred for primary PCI at similar rates, and had higher adjusted in-hospital mortality (during the second wave in the South and Midwest). Preservation of STEMI systems of care resulted in an overall lower in-hospital mortality rate than predicted, although opportunities exist to improve treatment delays. Regional differences in mortality rates require further study.

Abstract An integral component of the practice of medicine is focused on the initiation of medications, based on clinical practice guidelines and underlying trial evidence, which usually test the addition of novel medications intended for life-long use in short-term clinical trials. Much less attention is given to the question of medication discontinuation, especially after a lengthy period of treatment, during which patients age gets older and diseases may either progress or new diseases may emerge. Given the paucity of data, clinical practice guidelines offer little to no guidance on when and how to deprescribe cardiovascular medications. Such decisions are often left to the discretion of clinicians, who, together with their patients, express concern of potential adverse effects of medication discontinuation. Even in the absence of adverse effects, the continuation of medications without any proven effect may cause harm due to drug–drug interactions, the emergence of polypharmacy, and additional preventable spending to already strained health systems. Herein, several cardiovascular medications or medication classes are discussed that in the opinion of this author group should generally be discontinued, either for the prevention of potential harm, for a lack of benefit, or for the availability of better alternatives.

Abstract Background Direct oral anticoagulation (DOACs) prevent stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and have a superior safety profile compared with vitamin K antagonists (VKA). Yet, better definition of incidence and risk factors for major bleeding associated with DOACs in clinical practice may be important given emerging stroke prevention technologies, both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic. Purpose To describe the incidence of and risk factors for major bleeding in individuals with AF on DOAC therapy. Methods We reviewed electronic health record data for two patient cohorts with AF prescribed DOACs: (1) Duke University Health System (DUHS) (2010–2018) and (2) Sites within the Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network (PCORnet) (2015–2019) which had ≥6 years assimilated data from both inpatient and outpatient encounters (7 sites). In each cohort, we assessed the 5-year incidence of major bleeding events defined as hospitalization for intracranial hemorrhage, or hospitalization for gastro-intestinal bleeding or procedure to control bleeding accompanied by transfusion within ±7 days or death within 30 days. Multivariable Fine-Gray proportional hazards modeling in each cohort was performed to evaluate independent risk factors for major bleeding on DOAC therapy. Results The cohorts included 10,625 patients (DUHS) and 58,321 patients (PCORnet) with AF. Major bleeding events occurred within 5 years of diagnosis in 639 (7.9%) of DUHS patients and 2568 (6.6%) of PCORnet patients (Table 1). The DUHS model predicted time to first major bleeding event with a C-index of 0.756 (95% CI 0.737, 0.775) and the PCORNet model had a c-index of 0.745 (0.736, 0.755) (Table 2). Independent factors associated with major bleeding consistent across both models (p<0.001 in PCORnet for all unless noted) were higher CHA2DS2-VASc scores, lower eGFR, anemia (HR per 1-point increase in hemoglobin up to 12 g/dL 0.79 [0.76, 0.82]), prior major bleeding (HR 2.70 [2.22, 3.30]), cancer (HR 1.23 [1.12, 1.36]), recent cardiac surgery (HR 0.70 [0.51, 0.97]; p=0.030), alcohol use (HR 1.56 [1.29, 1.88]), aspirin use (HR 1.44 [1.32, 1.57]), and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor use (HR 1.30 [1.19, 1.42]). Conclusions Across a large and geographically diverse contemporary population, risk of bleeding on DOAC for stroke prevention in AF remains a frequent and important clinical problem. There is an unmet need for stroke prevention therapies with improved safety profiles. We identified risk factors for major bleeding events on DOAC therapy, some of which are not represented in traditional risk scores, which may inform shared decision making for stroke prevention. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: Private company. Main funding source(s): Bayer Pharmaceuticals

AbstractTargeted temperature management (TTM) has become a cornerstone in the treatment of comatose post-cardiac arrest patients over the last two decades. Belief in the efficacy of this intervention for improving neurologically intact survival was based on two trials from 2002, one truly randomized-controlled and one small quasi-randomized trial, without clear confirmation of that finding. Subsequent large randomized trials reported no difference in outcomes between TTM at 33 vs. 36°C and no benefit of TTM at 33°C as compared with fever control alone. Given that these results may help shape post-cardiac arrest patient care, we sought to review the history and rationale as well as trial evidence for TTM, critically review the TTM2 trial, and highlight gaps in knowledge and research needs for the future. Finally, we provide contemporary guidance for the use of TTM in daily clinical practice.

Background: The package insert for apixaban recommends against its use for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) with prosthetic heart valves. There are no published data on the use of apixaban in patients with AF with bioprosthetic valves. This analysis provides preliminary exploratory data on the safety and efficacy of apixaban in these patients. Methods: The ARISTOTLE trial randomized patients with AF to apixaban versus warfarin, and patients with a history of bioprosthetic valve replacement were eligible for inclusion in the trial. In this secondary analysis, baseline characteristics of patients with bioprosthetic valves were compared between apixaban and warfarin patients using Wilcoxon tests for continuous variables and chi-square tests for categorical variables. Unadjusted endpoints were compared between randomized treatments using a Cox regression model. With data collection on these valve patients ongoing, this interim report represents 82 of 260 patients with a history of valve surgery from ARISTOTLE. Results: Among 82 patients with bioprosthetic valves, 41 patients each were in the apixaban and warfarin arms. The patients had a median age of 78 years (vs. 70 years in overall trial), 18% had prior stroke (vs. 19% in overall trial), and 41% had concomitant aspirin use (vs. 31% in overall trial). Other than a higher rate of hypertension in the warfarin arm (98% vs. 81%, p=0.03), there were no statistically significant differences in baseline characteristics between the two groups. There were few events in patients with bioprosthetic valves. There were 2 stroke events, and there were no statistically significant differences between the apixaban and warfarin groups for major bleeding, stroke/systemic embolism, all-cause death, or cardiovascular death (Table). Conclusions: Among the small number of patients in ARISTOTLE with bioprosthetic valves, there were few events with similar event rates in both the apixaban and warfarin groups.

Objectives Growth differentiation factor 15 (GDF-15) is a biomarker independently associated with bleeding and death in anticoagulated patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). GDF-15 is also used as one component in the more precise biomarker-based ABC (age, biomarkers, clinical history)-AF-bleeding and ABC-AF-death risk scores. Data from large trials indicate a geographic variability in regard to overall outcomes, including bleeding and mortality risk. Our aim was to assess the consistency of the association between GDF-15, ABC-AF-bleeding score and ABC-AF-death score, with major bleeding and death, across world geographic regions. Methods Data were available from 14 767 patients with AF from the Apixaban for Reduction in Stroke and Other Thromboembolic Events in Atrial Fibrillation (ARISTOTLE) trial and 8651 patients with AF from the Randomized Evaluation of Long-Term Anticoagulation Therapy (RE-LY) trial in this cohort study. GDF-15 was analysed from plasma samples obtained at randomisation. The geographical consistency of the associations between outcomes and GDF-15, ABC-AF-bleeding score and ABC-AF-death scores were assessed by Cox-regression models including interactions with predefined geographical region. Results GDF-15 and the ABC-AF-bleeding score were associated with major bleeding in both trials across regions (p<0.0001). Similarly, GDF-15 and the ABC-AF-death score were associated with all-cause mortality in both trials across regions (p<0.0001). Overall, the association between GDF-15, the ABC-AF-bleeding score and ABC-AF-death risk score with major bleeding and death was consistent across regions in both ARISTOTLE and the RE-LY trial cohorts. The ABC-AF-bleeding and ABC-AF-death risk scores were consistent regarding discriminative ability when comparing geographic regions in both trial cohorts. The C-indices ranged from 0.649 to 0.760 for the ABC-AF-bleeding and from 0.677 to 0.806 for the ABC-AF-death score by different geographic regions. Conclusions In patients with AF on anticoagulation, GDF-15 and the biomarker-based ABC-AF-bleeding and ABC-AF-death risk scores are consistently associated with respectively increased risk of major bleeding and death and have similar prognostic value across world geographic regions. Trial registration number ClinicalTrials.gov Registry NCT00412984 and NCT00262600.

A growing number of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with stent implantation also have atrial fibrillation. This poses challenges for their optimal antithrombotic management because patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing PCI require oral anticoagulation for the prevention of cardiac thromboembolism and dual antiplatelet therapy for the prevention of coronary thrombotic complications. The combination of oral anticoagulation and dual antiplatelet therapy substantially increases the risk of bleeding. Over the last decade, a series of North American Consensus Statements on the Management of Antithrombotic Therapy in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention have been reported. Since the last update in 2018, several pivotal clinical trials in the field have been published. This document provides a focused updated of the 2018 recommendations. The group recommends that in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing PCI, a non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant is the oral anticoagulation of choice. Dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and a P2Y 12 inhibitor should be given to all patients during the peri-PCI period (during inpatient stay, until time of discharge, up to 1 week after PCI, at the discretion of the treating physician), after which the default strategy is to stop aspirin and continue treatment with a P2Y 12 inhibitor, preferably clopidogrel, in combination with a non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (ie, double therapy). In patients at increased thrombotic risk who have an acceptable risk of bleeding, it is reasonable to continue aspirin (ie, triple therapy) for up to 1 month. Double therapy should be given for 6 to 12 months with the actual duration depending on the ischemic and bleeding risk profile of the patient, after which patients should discontinue antiplatelet therapy and receive oral anticoagulation alone.