Gersh, Bernard J.

Background: The efficacy of remote ischaemic conditioning in clinical trials of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) or elective percutaneous coronary intervention is controversial. We aimed to systematically review and meta-analyse whether remote ischaemic conditioning reduces myocardial damage in those patients. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase and Web of Science from inception until December 2017 for randomised clinical trials evaluating remote ischaemic conditioning versus a control group. Two independent reviewers extracted data of 23 trials (2118 patients with STEMI; 2048 patients undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention) which were meta-analysed using random-effects models. Results: Remote ischaemic conditioning reduced infarct size in STEMI patients when assessed by imaging (mean difference of infarct size as percentage of left ventricle −2.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) –4.37 to −0.48; P=0.01; I2=44%; n=925) or biomarkers related to myocardial injury (peak values of cardiac biomarker release reported as standardised mean difference −0.19, 95% CI −0.37 to −0.02; P=0.03; I2=58%; n=1483) and increased myocardial salvage index (mean difference 0.07, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.13; P=0.02; I2=49%; n= 636). Left ventricular ejection fraction was increased when assessed during the first days after STEMI (mean difference 1.53, 95% CI 0.23 to 2.83; P=0.02; I2=28%; n=1192). Remote ischaemic conditioning had no influence on biomarker values after elective percutaneous coronary intervention (standardised mean difference 0.06, 95% CI −0.17 to 0.30; P=0.59). Conclusions: Despite a statistically significant reduction of myocardial damage in STEMI patients, the magnitude of the reduction was small and a significant impact on clinical events is unlikely. With respect to elective percutaneous coronary intervention, remote ischaemic conditioning had no influence on myocardial injury and its use is not supported by our analysis.

Background Oral anticoagulation ( OAC ) reduces stroke risk in atrial fibrillation, but bleeding is a frequent side effect. The decision to discontinue or modify medication regimens in response to a bleeding event may differ according to bleeding site and severity. Methods and Results We used data from a large, national outpatient registry, ORBIT ‐ AF (Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation; 2010–2011), to evaluate event characteristics and OAC management following the first bleeding event occurring during follow‐up. Bleeding events were classified into 3 categories: (1) International Society of Thrombosis and Hemostasis major bleeding, (2) clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding requiring medical attention, and (3) nuisance bleeding not requiring medical attention (eg, bruising, hemorrhoidal bleeding). Of 9743 patients enrolled in ORBIT ‐ AF with follow‐up data, 510 (3.23/100 subject‐years) experienced a major bleed, 615 (3.90/100 subject‐years), experienced a clinically relevant nonmajor bleed, and 1558 (9.87/100 subject‐years) experienced a nuisance bleed, among first bleeds over 2 years. Nearly one third of patients (31.6%) discontinued OAC therapy following a major bleeding event, 12.7% following a clinically relevant nonmajor bleed, and 4.5% following a nuisance bleed. Compared with those who experienced a clinically relevant nonmajor or nuisance bleed, patients who experienced a major bleed were more likely to be black and female and to have a history of heart failure and stroke. Those who discontinued were more likely to have central nervous system or gastrointestinal bleeding than those who persisted on OAC therapy. Conclusions Overall, 1 in 3 patients who experienced a major bleed was no longer anticoagulated after the event. Those who discontinued OAC were more likely to have central nervous system or gastrointestinal bleeding than those who persisted on OAC .

Background: Bleeding is commonly cited as a reason for stopping oral anticoagulants (OACs). Whether minor bleeding events (nuisance bleeding, NB) in patients with atrial fibrillation on OACs are associated with OAC discontinuation, major bleeding, and stroke/systemic embolism (SSE) is unknown. Methods: Within the ORBIT-AF prospective, outpatient registry (Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation), we identified 6771 patients ≥18 years of age at 172 sites with atrial fibrillation and eligible follow-up visits. NB was ascertained from the medical record and was defined as minor bleeding that did not require medical attention (eg, bruising, hemorrhoidal bleeding). We used multivariable pooled logistic regression modeling to evaluate the associations between NB and major bleeding and SSE in the 180 days after documentation of NB. Our unit of analysis was the patient visit, occurring at ≈6-month intervals for a median of 1.5 years following enrollment. Changes in anticoagulation treatment satisfaction after NB were examined descriptively in a subset of patients. Results: The median age of the overall population was 75.0 (interquartile range, 67.0–81.0); 90.0% were white and 42.5% were female. Among 6771 patients (18 560 visits), n=1357 (20.0%) had documented NB, for an incidence rate of 14.8 events per 100 person-years. Over 96.4% of patients remained on OAC therapy after the NB event. Overall, 287 (4.3%) patients experienced major bleeding and 64 (0.96%) had a SSE event during follow-up. NB was not associated with a significant increased risk of major bleeding over 6 months in models adjusting for the ATRIA bleeding score (Anticoagulation and Risk Factors in Atrial Fibrillation) (odds ratio, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.68–1.60; P =0.86). NB was also not associated with increased SSE risk over 6 months in models adjusting for the CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc risk score (odds ratio, 1.24; 95% confidence interval, 0.53–2.91; P =0.62). Conclusions: NB is common among patients with atrial fibrillation on OACs. However, NB was not associated with a higher risk of major bleeding or SSE over the next 6 months, suggesting its occurrence should not lead to changes in anticoagulation treatment strategies in OAC-treated patients. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01165710.

Background: Elevated B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) is reflective of impaired cardiac function and is associated with worse prognosis among patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). We sought to assess the association between baseline BNP, adverse outcomes, and the relative efficacy of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in patients with left main CAD. Methods: The EXCEL trial (Evaluation of XIENCE Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization) randomized patients with left main CAD and low or intermediate SYNTAX scores (Synergy Between PCI With TAXUS and Cardiac Surgery) to PCI with everolimus-eluting stents versus CABG. The primary end point was the composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. We used multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression to assess the associations between normal versus elevated BNP (≥100 pg/mL), randomized treatment, and the 3-year risk of adverse events. Results: BNP at baseline was elevated in 410 of 1037 (39.5%) patients enrolled in EXCEL. Patients with elevated BNP levels were older and more frequently had additional cardiovascular risk factors and lower left ventricular ejection fraction than those with normal BNP, but had similar SYNTAX scores. Patients with elevated BNP had significantly higher 3-year rates of the primary end point (18.6% versus 11.7%; adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16–2.28; P =0.005) and higher mortality (11.5% versus 3.9%; adjusted HR, 2.49; 95% CI, 1.48–4.19; P =0.0006), both from cardiovascular and noncardiovascular causes. In contrast, there were no significant differences in the risks of myocardial infarction, stroke, ischemia-driven revascularization, stent thrombosis, graft occlusion, or major bleeding. A significant interaction ( P interaction =0.03) was present between elevated versus normal BNP and treatment with PCI versus CABG for the adjusted risk of the primary composite end point at 3 years among patients with elevated BNP (adjusted HR for PCI versus CABG, 1.54; 95% CI, 0.96–2.47) versus normal BNP (adjusted HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.46–1.20). This interaction was stronger when log(BNP) was modeled as a continuous variable ( P interaction =0.002). Conclusions: In the EXCEL trial, elevated baseline BNP levels in patients with left main CAD undergoing revascularization were independently associated with long-term mortality but not nonfatal adverse ischemic or bleeding events. The relative long-term outcomes after PCI versus CABG for revascularization of left main CAD may be conditioned by the baseline BNP level. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01205776.