Lopes, Renato D

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.

Antiplatelet therapy is the mainstay of pharmacologic treatment to prevent thrombotic or ischemic events in patients with coronary artery disease treated with percutaneous coronary intervention and those treated medically for an acute coronary syndrome. The use of antiplatelet therapy comes at the expense of an increased risk of bleeding complications. Defining the optimal intensity of platelet inhibition according to the clinical presentation of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and individual patient factors is a clinical challenge. Modulation of antiplatelet therapy is a medical action that is frequently performed to balance the risk of thrombotic or ischemic events and the risk of bleeding. This aim may be achieved by reducing (ie, de-escalation) or increasing (ie, escalation) the intensity of platelet inhibition by changing the type, dose, or number of antiplatelet drugs. Because de-escalation or escalation can be achieved in different ways, with a number of emerging approaches, confusion arises with terminologies that are often used interchangeably. To address this issue, this Academic Research Consortium collaboration provides an overview and definitions of different strategies of antiplatelet therapy modulation for patients with coronary artery disease, including but not limited to those undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, and consensus statements on standardized definitions.

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is one of the strongest risk factors for ischemic stroke, which is a leading cause of disability and death. Given the aging population, increasing prevalence of AF risk factors, and improved survival in those with cardiovascular disease, the number of individuals affected by AF will continue increasing over time. While multiple proven stroke prevention therapies exist, important questions remain about the optimal approach to stroke prevention at the population and individual patient levels. Our report summarizes the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute virtual workshop focused on identifying key research opportunities related to stroke prevention in AF. The workshop reviewed major knowledge gaps and identified targeted research opportunities to advance stroke prevention in AF in the following areas: (1) improving risk stratification tools for stroke and intracranial hemorrhage; (2) addressing challenges with oral anticoagulants; and (3) delineating the optimal roles of percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion and surgical left atrial appendage closure/excision. This report aims to promote innovative, impactful research that will lead to more personalized, effective use of stroke prevention strategies in people with AF.

Abstract Aims The incidence of respiratory failure and use of invasive or non-invasive mechanical ventilation (MV) in the cardiac intensive care units (CICUs) is increasing. While institutional MV volumes are associated with reduced mortality in medical and surgical ICUs, this volume–mortality relationship has not been characterized in the CICU. Methods and results National population-based data were used to identify patients admitted to CICUs (2005–2015) requiring MV in Canada. CICUs were categorized into low (≤100), intermediate (101–300), and high (>300) volume centres based on spline knots identified in the association between annual MV volume and mortality. Outcomes of interest included all-cause in-hospital mortality, the proportion of patients requiring prolonged MV (>96 h) and CICU length of stay (LOS). Among 47 173 CICU admissions requiring MV, 89.5% (42 200) required invasive MV. The median annual CICU MV volume was 43 (inter-hospital range 1–490). Compared to low-volume centres (35.9%), in-hospital mortality was lower in intermediate [29.2%, adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.84, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72–0.97, P = 0.019] and high-volume (18.2%; aOR 0.82, 95% CI 0.66–1.02, P = 0.076) centres. Prolonged MV was higher in low-volume (29.2%) compared to high-volume (14.8%, aOR 0.70, 95% CI 0.55–0.89, P = 0.003) and intermediate-volume (23.0%, aOR 0.85, 95% CI 0.68–1.06, P = 0.14] centres. Mortality and prolonged MV were lower in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)-capable and academic centres, but a shorter CICU LOS was observed only in subgroup of PCI-capable intermediate- and high-volume hospitals. Conclusions In a national dataset, we observed that higher CICU MV volumes were associated with lower incidence of in-hospital mortality, prolonged MV, and CICU LOS. Our data highlight the need for minimum MV volume benchmarks for CICUs caring for patients with respiratory failure.

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.

BackgroundThe optimal anticoagulation strategy for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and bioprosthetic valve (BPV) replacement or native valve repair remains uncertain.HypothesisWe evaluated the safety and efficacy of apixaban vs warfarin in patients with AF and a history of BPV replacement or native valve repair.MethodsUsing data from Apixaban for Reduction in Stroke and Other Thromboembolic Events in Atrial Fibrillation (ARISTOTLE) (n = 18 201), a randomized trial comparing apixaban with warfarin in patients with AF, we analyzed the subgroup of patients (n = 251) with prior valve surgery. We contacted sites by telephone to obtain additional data about prior valve surgery. Full data were available for 156 patients. The primary efficacy endpoint was stroke/systemic embolism. The primary safety endpoint was major bleeding. Treatment groups were compared using a Cox regression model.ResultsIn ARISTOTLE, 104 (0.6%) patients had a history of BPV replacement (n = 73 [aortic], n = 26 [mitral], n = 5 [mitral and aortic]) and 52 (0.3%) had a history of valve repair (n = 50 [mitral], n = 2 [aortic]). Among patients with BPVs, 55 were randomized to apixaban and 49 to warfarin. Among those with a history of native valve repair, 32 were randomized to apixaban and 20 to warfarin. Overall clinical event rates were low, with no significant differences between apixaban and warfarin for any outcomes.ConclusionsIn patients with AF and a history of BPV replacement or repair, the safety and efficacy of apixaban compared with warfarin was consistent with results from ARISTOTLE. These data suggest that apixaban may be reasonable for patients with BPVs or prior valve repair, though future larger randomized trials are needed.ClinicalTrials.govNCT00412984.