Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND: Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) undergoing coronary angiography (CA), adequate hydration and minimizing volume of contrast media (CM) are class 1b recommendations for preventing contrast induced nephropathy (CIN). Current data are insufficient to justify specific recommendations about isoosmolar vs. low-osmolar contrast media by the ACCF/AHA/SCAI guidelines. METHODS: Randomized trials comparing IOCM to LOCM in CKD stage 3 and above patients undergoing CA, and reporting incidence of CIN (defined by a rise in creatinine of 25% from baseline) were included in the analysis. The secondary outcome of the study was the incidence of serum creatinine increase by >1mg/dl. RESULTS: A total of 2839 patients were included in 10 trials, in which 1430 patients received IOCM and 1393 received LOCM. When compared to LOCM, IOCM was not associated with significant benefit in preventing CIN (OR=0.72, [CI: 0.50-1.04], P=0.08, I2=59%). Subgroup analysis revealed non-significant difference in incidence of CIN based on baseline use of N-acetylcystine (NAC), diabetes status, ejection fraction, and whether percutaneous coronary intervention vs coronary angiography alone was performed. The difference between IOCM and LOCM was further attenuated when restricted to studies with larger sample size (>250 patients) (OR=0.93; [CI: 0.66-1.30]) or when compared with non-ionic LOCM (OR=0.79, [CI: 0.52-1.21]). CONCLUSION: In patients with CKD stage 3 and above undergoing coronary angiography, use of IOCM showed overall non-significant difference in incidence of CIN compared to LOCM. The difference was further attenuated when IOCM was compared with non-ionic LOCM.

OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the outcomes with use of renin angiotensin system (RAS) blockers compared with other antihypertensive agents in people with diabetes. DESIGN/METHODS:Meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION/METHODS:PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane central register of controlled trials databases for randomized trials of RAS blockers versus other antihypertensive agents in people with diabetes mellitus. Outcomes were death, cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, angina, stroke, heart failure, revascularization, and end stage renal disease. RESULTS:The search yielded 19 randomized controlled trials that enrolled 25,414 participants with diabetes for a total of 95,910 patient years of follow-up. When compared with other antihypertensive agents, RAS blockers were associated with a similar risk of death (relative risk 0.99, 95% confidence interval 0.93 to 1.05), cardiovascular death (1.02, 0.83 to 1.24), myocardial infarction (0.87, 0.64 to 1.18), angina pectoris (0.80, 0.58 to 1.11), stroke (1.04, 0.92 to 1.17), heart failure (0.90, 0.76 to 1.07), and revascularization (0.97, 0.77 to 1.22). There was also no difference in the hard renal outcome of end stage renal disease (0.99, 0.78 to 1.28) (power of 94% to show a 23% reduction in end stage renal disease). CONCLUSIONS:In people with diabetes, RAS blockers are not superior to other antihypertensive drug classes such as thiazides, calcium channel blockers, and β blockers at reducing the risk of hard cardiovascular and renal endpoints. These findings support the recommendations of the guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology/European Society of Hypertension and eighth Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure to also use other antihypertensive agents in people with diabetes but without kidney disease.

BACKGROUND: While strong associations are seen between serum uric acid levels and gout and cardiovascular disease (CVD), few studies have assessed differences between gout patients (pts) with and without CVD.
OBJECTIVE(S): To compare disease and comorbidity characteristics among gout pts with and without CVD, identifying differences in treatment patterns and healthcare utilization in a real-world cohort.
METHOD(S): Data were assessed from a survey of U.S. physicians and in-depth patient chart audits. Severity of gout was measured by physician global assessment, flares, organ/joint damage, and tophi. Type/dose of xanthine oxidase inhibitor, length of current treatment, sociodemographic factors, and physician type were identified. Multivariate and descriptive statistics described differences among pts with and without CVD and assessed urate-lowering therapy (ULT) use and gout disease control.
RESULT(S): 1159 patient charts were abstracted (738, CVD; 421, no CVD; 81% male; 38% >= 61 y; 71% white). Pts with CVD had longer duration of gout (52 vs. 34 mo; P < 0.001) and were more likely to have clinician-reported tophi (28% vs. 15%; P < 0.001), organ/joint damage (19% vs. 9%; P < 0.001), severe gout (19% vs. 11%; P < 0.001), and more flares in the past 12 mo. (2.1% vs. 1.8%; P = 0.017). Time from gout diagnosis to start of ULT was delayed for those with CVD (24 vs. 16 mo.; P = 0.02), but these pts were more likely to be on ULT (83% vs. 59%; P < 0.001). Gout pts with CVD were more likely to have obesity (28% vs. 18%; P < 0.001), diabetes (26% vs. 12%; P < 0.001), osteoarthritis (25% vs. 11%; P < 0.001), chronic kidney disease (17% vs. 5%; P < 0.001), and prostate disease (males, n = 933; 10% vs. 2%; P < 0.001). Gout pts with CVD were more likely to have an emergency department visit for gout in the past 12 mo. (12% vs. 7%; P = 0.003). Overall, ULT use was associated with better gout control. In a backward, stepwise logistic model in pts with CVD, those more likely be treated with ULT had organ/joint damage (odds ratio [OR] = 13.3), severe gout (OR = 1.5), or prostate disease (OR = 4.2), but these were not significant predictors for pts without CVD.
CONCLUSION(S): In this study, pts treated with ULT were more likely to have better gout control. Gout pts with CVD were more likely to be on ULT, despite delayed initiation of therapy. Given that gout pts with CVD were more likely to have additional comorbidities and more severe gout, the delay in treatment may be associated with the severity of disease in these pts. These data suggest that gout pts with CVD constitute a less healthy group in need of earlier, more aggressive therapy

Objective: The optimal blood pressure(BP) target has been a matter of debate. The recent SPRINT trial showed significant benefits of a BP target of <120 mmHg albeit with an increase in serious adverse effects (SAE). Design and method: PUBMED/EMBASE/CENTRAL were searched for randomized trials comparing treating to different BP targets. Trial arms were grouped into five systolic BP target categories: 1) < 160 mmHg; 2) < 150 mmHg; 3) < 140 mmHg; 4) < 130 mmHg and 5) < 120 mmHg. Efficacy outcomes of stroke, myocardial infarction, death, cardiovascular death, heart failure and safety outcomes of SAE were evaluated using a network meta-analysis. Results: Seventeen trials that enrolled 55,163 patients with 204,103 patient-years of follow-up were included. There was a significant decrease in stroke (RR = 0.54; 95% CI 0.29-1.00) and myocardial infarction with systolic BP < 120 mmHg (vs. < 160 mmHg) (RR = 0.68; 95% CI 0.47-1.00). Sensitivity analysis using achieved systolic BP showed a 72%, 97% and 227% increase in stroke with systolic BP of < 140 mmHg, < 150 mmHg and < 160 mm when compared with systolic BP < 120 mmHg. There was no difference in death, cardiovascular death or heart failure when comparing any of the BP targets. However, the point estimate favored lower BP targets (< 120 mmHg, < 130 mmHg) when compared with higher BP targets (< 140 mmHg or <150 mmHg). BP targets of < 120 mmHg and < 130 mmHg ranked #1 and #2 as the most efficacious target. There was a signifi- cant increase in SAE with systolic BP <120 mmHg vs. <150 mmHg (RR = 1.83; 95% CI 1.05-3.20) or vs. <140 mmHg (RR = 2.12; 95% CI 1.46-3.08). BP targets of < 140 mmHg and < 150 mmHg ranked #1 and #2 as the safest target for the outcome of SAE. Cluster plots for combined efficacy and safety showed that a systolic BP target of < 130 mmHg had optimal balance between efficacy and safety. Conclusions: Among patients with cardiovascular disease, a systolic BP target of < 130 mmHg achieved optimal balance between efficacy and safety