Khan, Muhammad Shahzeb

Abstract Aims To compare early de-escalation of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) (1–3 months) to monotherapy with either P2Y12 inhibitor or aspirin vs. 12 months DAPT after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stent (DES). Methods and results Electronic databases of Medline, Embase, and Cochrane library were searched through February 2020 to identify randomized controlled trials. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted with random effects model. The main endpoints of interest were cardiovascular mortality and total bleeding events. Among seven trials (35 821 patients), 52.6% patients were presented with acute coronary syndrome. A total of 3359 patients and 14 530 patients were de-escalated to aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy, respectively. At a median follow-up of 12 months, compared with 12 months of DAPT, there was no significant difference in cardiovascular mortality between 1-month DAPT followed by P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy [hazard ratio (HR) 0.84 (95% credible interval 0.29–2.43)], 3 months of DAPT followed by P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy [HR 0.74 (0.39–1.46)], or 3 months of DAPT [HR 1.00 (0.54–1.86)] followed by aspirin monotherapy. Except for de-escalation of DAPT to aspirin monotherapy after 3 months [HR 0.75 (0.43–1.20)], de-escalation to P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy after 1 month [HR 0.28 (0.10–0.83)], or 3 months [HR 0.57 (0.33–0.98)] were associated with significant decrease in total bleeding events. There were no significant differences in terms of ischaemic endpoints among different DAPT strategies. Conclusion Early de-escalation of DAPT (1–3 months) to monotherapy with a P2Y12 inhibitor instead of aspirin might be a safer and equally effective approach compared with 12 months of DAPT in patients with PCI and DES.

ABSTRACT Aims Left atrial (LA) mechanical function may play a significant role in the development and progression of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate association of impaired LA function with outcomes in HFpEF. Methods and results Multiple databases were searched for original studies measuring different phases of LA function in HFpEF patients. Comparative LA function between HFpEF patients and healthy controls was assessed by pooling weighted mean differences (WMD). Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals were pooled to evaluate the prognostic utility of LA function. Twenty-two studies (2 trials, 20 observational) comprising 1974 HFpEF patients and 751 healthy controls were included. HFpEF patients had decreased LA reservoir [WMD = −12.21% (−15.47, −8.95); P < 0.001], LA conduit [WMD = −5.68% (−8.56, −2.79); P < 0.001], and pump [WMD = −11.07% (−14.81, −7.34); P < 0.001] emptying fractions compared with controls. LA reservoir [WMD = −13.38% (−16.07, −10.68); P < 0.001], conduit [WMD = −4.09% (−6.77, −1.42); P = 0.003], and pump [WMD = −3.53% (−4.47, −2.59); P < 0.001] strains were also significantly lower in HFpEF patients. Decreased LA reservoir strain [HR 1.24 (1.02, 1.50); P = 0.03] was significantly associated with risk of composite all-cause mortality or heart failure hospitalization. Conclusions Impaired LA function appears to have diagnostic and prognostic value in HFpEF, but whether indices of LA function truly refine discrimination for diagnosis or prognosis remains to be fully determined. Larger studies are needed to better evaluate associations between LA function and clinical outcomes and the role of LA function as a target for novel HFpEF therapies.

Background: Efficacy of an intervention is commonly evaluated using P values, in addition to effect size measures such as absolute risk reduction, relative risk reduction, and numbers needed to treat. However, these measures are not always intuitive to clinicians. The fragility index (FI) is a more intuitive number that can facilitate interpretation but can only be used with binary outcomes. FI is the minimum number of patients who must be moved from the nonevent group to the event group to turn a significant result nonsignificant. In this retrospective analysis, we assessed the robustness of cardiovascular randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which report a positive (statistically significant) primary outcome by using the FI. Methods and Results: We searched Medline from 2007 to 2017 to identify cardiovascular RCTs published in 6 high impact journals ( The Lancet , New England Journal of Medicine , Journal of the American Medical Association , Circulation , Journal of the American College of Cardiology and European Heart Journal ). Only RCTs with sample sizes >500 and a 2-by-2 factorial design or dichotomous primary outcomes were selected. FI was calculated using a defined approach. Among the cohort of 123 RCTs that met inclusion criteria, median FI was 13 (interquartile range, 5–26). In 28 trials (22.8%), FI ranged between 1 and 4. In 37 trials (30.1%), number of patients lost to follow-up was higher than the FI. Pharmaceutical interventions had higher FI compared with other interventions, FI=19 (7–52; P =0.002). Median FI varied according to subspecialty (electrophysiology=2; heart failure=11; interventional cardiology=8; P =0.020) and multiregional RCTs had higher FI=22 (12–53.25; P =0.023). FI did not differ based on risk of bias indicators, funding, or publication year. Conclusions: Considerable variations in FI were observed among cardiovascular trials, suggesting the need for careful interpretation of results, particularly when number of patients lost to follow-up exceeds FI.

Background: In the busy world of cardiovascular medicine, abstracts may be the only part of a publication that clinicians read. Therefore, it is critical for abstracts to accurately reflect article content. The extended CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) Statement for Abstracts was developed to ensure high abstract quality. However, it is unknown how often adherence to CONSORT guidelines occurs among cardiovascular journals. Methods and Results: We searched MEDLINE for randomized controlled trials published in 3 major cardiovascular journals ( Circulation, Journal of the American College of Cardiology , and European Heart Journal ) from 2011 to 2017. Post hoc, interim, and cost-effective analyses of randomized controlled trials were excluded. Two independent investigators extracted the data using a prespecified data collection form and a third investigator adjudicated the data. The primary outcome was frequency of subcategory adherence to CONSORT guidelines. A total of 478 abstracts were included in the analysis. Approximately half of the abstracts (53%; 255/478; 95% CI, 49%–57%) identified the article as randomized in the title. All abstracts detailed the interventions for both study groups (100%) and 81% (95% CI, 78%–85%) reported trial registration. Methodological quality reporting was relatively low: 9% (45/478; 95% CI, 6%–12%) described participant eligibility criteria with settings for data collection, 43% (204/478; 95% CI, 39%–47%) reported details of blinding, and <1% (4/478; 95% CI, 0%–2%) reported allocation concealment. Approximately 60% (301/478; 95% CI, 59%–67%) of the included abstracts provided primary outcome results while 55% (262/478; 95% CI, 51%–60%) reported harms or adverse effects. Conclusions: There is a high prevalence of nonadherence to CONSORT guidelines among leading cardiovascular journals. Efforts by editors, authors, and reviewers should be made to increase adherence and promote transparent and unbiased presentation of study results.

Background The safety and efficacy of aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in patients with diabetes mellitus remains controversial. Design A meta-analysis to investigate the effects of aspirin for the prevention of cardiovascular disease in diabetes mellitus. Methods Ten randomized controlled trials were selected using MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL databases until 27 September 2018. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and risk differences (RDs) reported as incident events per 1000 person-years were calculated. Results In 33,679 patients, aspirin did not significantly reduce the risk of major adverse cardiovascular outcomes (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.87–1.00, P = 0.06; RD −0.68 incident cases per 1000 person-years (95% CI −1.54, 0.17)), cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.83–1.09, P = 0.49; RD 0.11 incident cases per 1000 person-years (95% CI −0.80, 1.02)), myocardial infarction (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.75–1.11, P = 0.36; RD −0.66 incident cases per 1000 person-years (95% CI −2.07, 0.75)), or stroke (RR 0.91, 95% C, 0.76–1.10, P = 0.33; RD −0.55 incident cases per 1000 person-years (95% CI −1.57, 0.47)). There was a significantly higher risk of total bleeding associated with aspirin (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.07–1.55, P = 0.01; RD 1.49 incident cases per 1000 person-years (95% CI 0.36, 2.61)). Conclusion The use of aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in patients with diabetes mellitus increases the risk of total bleeding without reducing the risk of major adverse cardiovascular outcomes.