Caterina, Raffaele De

Abstract Background and Aims A simple diagnostic method able to reliably exclude left main (LM) coronary artery disease (CAD) or LMCAD-equivalent would expand implementation of an initial non-invasive strategy in patients with chronic coronary syndrome (CCS). This study assessed the diagnostic utility of an approach using clinical and ECG stress testing (EST) variables in excluding LMCAD/LMCAD-equivalent in CCS patients. Methods In a multicentre case-control study, CCS patients undergoing invasive coronary angiography (CAG) after a maximal EST were evaluated. Cases were patients with angiographic ≥ 50% LM stenosis or ≥70% stenosis of both proximal left anterior descending and proximal circumflex arteries, matched with similar patients without them (controls) in a 1:3 ratio. A risk model developed through logistic regression was internally and externally validated. Results Three hundred and thirty-five cases were matched with 797 controls. The model area under the curve (AUC) was .78. Assuming LMCAD prevalence of 5% and a misclassification cost ratio of 1:100 (ratio of cost of performing CAG in a control to cost of not performing CAG in a case), negative predictive value was 98.2%. Thus, CAG could be safely avoided in 41% of patients, missing one LMCAD/LMCAD-equivalent diagnosis for every 58 CAGs safely spared in patients without them. Conclusions Among CCS patients, LMCAD/LMCAD-equivalent can be excluded with high negative predictive value through a model based on clinical and EST parameters, allowing initial non-invasive management of most patients able to exercise. This approach is potentially useful particularly in communities where access to computed tomography coronary angiography is limited.

Abstract A substantial number of chronic coronary syndrome (CCS) patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) experience periprocedural myocardial injury or infarction. Accurate diagnosis of these PCI-related complications is required to guide further management given that their occurrence may be associated with increased risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Due to lack of scientific data, the cut-off thresholds of post-PCI cardiac troponin (cTn) elevation used for defining periprocedural myocardial injury and infarction, have been selected based on expert consensus opinions, and their prognostic relevance remains unclear. In this Consensus Document from the ESC Working Group on Cellular Biology of the Heart and European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI), we recommend, whenever possible, the measurement of baseline (pre-PCI) cTn and post-PCI cTn values in all CCS patients undergoing PCI. We confirm the prognostic relevance of the post-PCI cTn elevation >5× 99th percentile URL threshold used to define type 4a myocardial infarction (MI). In the absence of periprocedural angiographic flow-limiting complications or electrocardiogram (ECG) and imaging evidence of new myocardial ischaemia, we propose the same post-PCI cTn cut-off threshold (>5× 99th percentile URL) be used to define prognostically relevant ‘major’ periprocedural myocardial injury. As both type 4a MI and major periprocedural myocardial injury are strong independent predictors of all-cause mortality at 1 year post-PCI, they may be used as quality metrics and surrogate endpoints for clinical trials. Further research is needed to evaluate treatment strategies for reducing the risk of major periprocedural myocardial injury, type 4a MI, and MACE in CCS patients undergoing PCI.

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.

Background: The use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) with oral anticoagulants has been associated with an increased risk of bleeding. We investigated the risk of bleeding and major cardiovascular outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation taking NSAIDs and apixaban or warfarin. Methods: The ARISTOTLE trial (Apixaban for Reduction in Stroke and Other Thromboembolic Events in Atrial Fibrillation; n=18 201) compared apixaban with warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation at an increased risk of stroke. Patients in ARISTOTLE without severe renal (creatine clearance ≤30 mL/min) or liver disease were included in this analysis (n=17 423). NSAID use at baseline, NSAID use during the trial (incident NSAID use), and never users were described. The primary outcome was major bleeding. Secondary outcomes included clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding, gastrointestinal bleeding, heart failure hospitalization, stroke or systemic embolism, and all-cause mortality. NSAID use during the trial, and the interaction between randomized treatment, was analyzed using time-dependent Cox proportional hazards models. Results: Those with baseline NSAID use (n=832 [4.8%]), incident NSAID use (n=2185 [13.2%]), and never users were similar in median age (age [25th, 75th]; 70 [64, 77] versus 70 [63, 75] versus 70 [62, 76]). Those with NSAID use at baseline and incident NSAID use were more likely to have a history of bleeding than never users (24.5% versus 21.0% versus 15.6%, respectively). During a median follow-up (25th, 75th) of 1.8 (1.4, 2.3) years and when excluding those taking NSAID at baseline, we found that incident NSAID use was associated with an increased risk of major bleeding (hazard ratio [HR], 1.61 [95% CI, 1.11–2.33]) and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding (HR, 1.70 [95% CI, 1.16–2.48]), but not gastrointestinal bleeding. No significant interaction was observed between NSAID use and randomized treatment for any outcome. Conclusions: A substantial number of patients in the ARISTOTLE trial took NSAIDs. Incident NSAID use was associated with major and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding, but not with gastrointestinal bleeding. The safety and efficacy of apixaban versus warfarin appeared not significantly to be altered by NSAID use. This study warrants more investigation of the effect of NSAIDs on the outcomes of patients treated with apixaban. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00412984.

Objectives Compare the effect of apixaban and warfarin on coagulation and primary haemostasis biomarkers in atrial fibrillation (AF). Methods The biomarker substudy from the Apixaban for Reduction in Stroke and Other Thromboembolic Events in Atrial Fibrillation trial included 4850 patients with AF randomised to treatment with apixaban or warfarin. Sixty per cent of patients used vitamin K antagonist (VKA) within 7 days before randomisation. Prothrombin fragment 1+2 (F1+2), D-dimer, soluble CD40 ligand (sCD40L) and von Willebrand factor (vWF) antigen were analysed at randomisation and after 2 months of study treatment. Results In patients not on VKA treatment at randomisation, F1+2 and D-dimer levels were decreased by 25% and 23%, respectively, with apixaban, and by 59% and 38%, respectively, with warfarin (p<0.0001 for treatment differences for both). In patients on VKA at randomisation, F1+2 and D-dimer levels increased by 41% and 10%, respectively, with apixaban and decreased by 37% and 11%, respectively, with warfarin (p<0.0001 for treatment differences for both). sCD40L levels were slightly increased at 2 months, regardless of VKA or randomised treatment. Apixaban and warfarin also both reduced vWF antigen regardless of VKA treatment. The efficacy (stroke) and safety (bleeding) of apixaban compared with warfarin was similar irrespectively of biomarker levels at 2 months. Conclusions Treatment with apixaban compared with warfarin for stroke prevention in patients with AF was associated with less reduction in thrombin generation and fibrin turnover. This effect of apixaban could contribute to the clinical results where apixaban was superior to warfarin both in stroke prevention and in reducing bleeding risk. Trial registration number NCT00412984.

Background Patients with atrial fibrillation ( AF ) and hypertension are at high risk for stroke. Previous studies have shown elevated risk of stroke in patients with AF who have a history of hypertension (regardless of blood pressure [ BP ] control) and in patients with elevated BP . We assessed the association of hypertension and BP control on clinical outcomes. Methods and Results In ARISTOTLE (n=18 201), BP was evaluated as history of hypertension requiring treatment and elevated BP (systolic ≥140 and/or diastolic ≥90 mm Hg) at study entry and any point during the trial. Hazard ratios ( HR s) were derived from Cox proportional hazards models including BP as a time‐dependent covariate. A total of 15 916 (87.5%) patients had a history of hypertension requiring treatment. In patients with elevated BP measurement at any point during the trial, the rate of stroke or systemic embolism was significantly higher ( HR , 1.53; 95% confidence interval [ CI ], 1.25–1.86), as was hemorrhagic stroke ( HR 1.85; 95% CI , 1.26–2.72) and ischemic stroke ( HR , 1.50; 95% CI , 1.18–1.90). Rates of major bleeding were lower in patients with a history of hypertension ( HR , 0.80; 95% CI , 0.66–0.98) and nonsignificantly lower in patients with elevated BP at study entry ( HR , 0.89; 95% CI , 0.77–1.03). The benefit of apixaban versus warfarin on preventing stroke or systemic embolism was consistent among patients with and without a history of hypertension ( P interaction=0.27), BP control at baseline ( P interaction=0.43), and BP control during the trial ( P interaction=0.97). Conclusions High BP measurement at any point during the trial was independently associated with a substantially higher risk of stroke or systemic embolism. These results strongly support efforts to treat elevated BP as an important strategy to optimally lower risk of stroke in patients with AF . Clinical Trial Registration URL : https://ClinicalTrials.gov/ . Unique identifier: NCT 00412984.

Background— Apixaban is approved for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. However, the Apixaban for Reduction in Stroke and Other Thromboembolic Events in Atrial Fibrillation (ARISTOTLE) trial included a substantial number of patients with valvular heart disease and only excluded patients with clinically significant mitral stenosis or mechanical prosthetic heart valves. Methods and Results— We compared the effect of apixaban and warfarin on rates of stroke or systemic embolism, major bleeding, and death in patients with and without moderate or severe valvular heart disease using Cox proportional hazards modeling. Of the 18 201 patients enrolled in ARISTOTLE, 4808 (26.4%) had a history of moderate or severe valvular heart disease or previous valve surgery. Patients with valvular heart disease had higher rates of stroke or systemic embolism and bleeding than patients without valvular heart disease. There was no evidence of a differential effect of apixaban over warfarin in patients with and without valvular heart disease in reducing stroke and systemic embolism (hazard ratio [HR], 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.51–0.97 and HR, 0.84; 95%, CI 0.67–1.04; interaction P =0.38), causing less major bleeding (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.61–1.04 and HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.55–0.77; interaction P =0.23), and reducing mortality (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.84–1.22 and HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.73–0.96; interaction P =0.10). Conclusions— More than a quarter of the patients in ARISTOTLE with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation had moderate or severe valvular heart disease. There was no evidence of a differential effect of apixaban over warfarin in reducing stroke or systemic embolism, causing less bleeding, and reducing death in patients with and without valvular heart disease. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00412984.