Lópes, 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.

Background Oral anticoagulation (OAC) can reduce stroke risk at the cost of increased bleeding risk in those with atrial fibrillation (AF). Observational data have shown that higher-risk patients with AF most likely to benefit from OAC are less likely to receive OAC at hospital discharge. Methods We used data from ORBIT-AF Registry, a cohort of 9,589 AF patients enrolled among 173 participating outpatient practices. OAC was defined as warfarin or dabigatran use at study enrollment. Stroke and bleeding risk were calculated using the CHADS2 and ATRIA scores, respectively. Results The study population had a mean age of 73.5 years; 57.8% were men. Overall, 76.4% of patients received OAC. Use of OAC rose with increasing CHADS2 stroke risk, from 67% for CHADS2 <1 to 80% for CHADS2 ≥2 (p<0.0001). OAC use fell slightly with increasing ATRIA bleeding risk, from 77% for ATRIA score ≤3 to 74% with ≥5 (p=0.002 for trend). Among patients with low bleeding risk, rates of OAC increased commensurate with stroke risk (p<0.0001 for interaction; see figure). Higher bleeding risk tended to decrease rates of OAC among patients with a CHADS2 score ≥2 (p=0.13 for interaction). Conclusions In community-based outpatients with AF, use of OAC rose with increasing thromboembolic risk and declined with higher bleeding risk. These findings suggest that the risk-treatment paradox may be less that previously reported. Provision of OAC in community practice appears to appropriately consider patients' stroke and bleeding risks. Further research is required to understand how quality improvement initiatives can further improve stroke prevention.

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.

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 (&gt;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 (&gt;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.

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.

Clinically recognized atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with higher risk of complications, including ischemic stroke, cognitive decline, heart failure, myocardial infarction, and death. It is increasingly recognized that AF frequently is undetected until complications such as stroke or heart failure occur. Hence, the public and clinicians have an intense interest in detecting AF earlier. However, the most appropriate strategies to detect undiagnosed AF (sometimes referred to as subclinical AF) and the prognostic and therapeutic implications of AF detected by screening are uncertain. Our report summarizes the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute’s virtual workshop focused on identifying key research priorities related to AF screening. Global experts reviewed major knowledge gaps and identified critical research priorities in the following areas: (1) role of opportunistic screening; (2) AF as a risk factor, risk marker, or both; (3) relationship between AF burden detected with long-term monitoring and outcomes/treatments; (4) designs of potential randomized trials of systematic AF screening with clinically relevant outcomes; and (5) role of AF screening after ischemic stroke. Our report aims to inform and catalyze AF screening research that will advance innovative, resource-efficient, and clinically relevant studies in diverse populations to improve the diagnosis, management, and prognosis of patients with undiagnosed AF.