Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to examine the temporal trends in demographics, clinical characteristics, management strategies, and in-hospital outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS-AMI) who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) from the Cath-PCI Registry (2005 to 2013). BACKGROUND: The authors examined contemporary use and outcomes of PCI in patients with CS-AMI. METHODS: The authors used the Cath-PCI Registry to evaluate 56,497 patients (January 2005 to December 2013) undergoing PCI for CS-AMI. Temporal trends in clinical variables and outcomes were assessed. RESULTS: Compared with cases performed from 2005 to 2006, CS-AMI patients receiving PCI from 2011 to 2013 were more likely to have diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, previous PCI, dialysis, but less likely to have chronic lung disease, peripheral vascular disease, or heart failure within 2 weeks (p < 0.01). Between 2005 and 2006 to 2011 and 2013, intra-aortic balloon pump use decreased (49.5% to 44.9%; p < 0.01), drug-eluting stent use declined (65% to 46%; p < 0.01), and the use of bivalirudin increased (12.6% to 45.6%). Adjusted in-hospital mortality; increased (27.6% in 2005 to 2006 vs. 30.6% in 2011 to 2013, adjusted odds ratio: 1.09, 95% confidence interval: 1.005 to .173; p = 0.04) for patients who were managed with an early invasive strategy (<24 h from symptoms). CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that despite the evolution of medical technology and use of contemporary therapeutic measures, in-hospital mortality in CS-AMI patients who are managed invasively continues to rise. Additional research and targeted efforts are indicated to improve outcomes in this high-risk cohort.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEis) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) in patients without heart failure. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Meta-analysis of randomized trials identified using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials searches from January 1, 1980, through April 13, 2015, of ACEis and ARBs compared with placebo or active controls and corroborated with head-to-head trials of ARBs vs ACEis. Outcomes were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), angina, stroke, heart failure, revascularization, and new-onset diabetes. RESULTS: Our search yielded 106 randomized trials that enrolled 254,301 patients. Compared with placebo, ACEis but not ARBs reduced the outcomes of all-cause mortality (ACEis vs placebo: relative risk [RR], 0.89; 95% CI, 0.80-1.00; ARBs vs placebo: RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.96-1.06; Pinteraction=.04), cardiovascular death (RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.70-0.99 and RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.92-1.14; Pinteraction=.05), and MI (RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.78-0.90 and RR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.85-1.03; Pinteraction=.06). The meta-regression analysis revealed that the difference between ACEis and ARBs compared with placebo was due to a higher placebo event rate in the ACEis trials (most of these trials were conducted a decade earlier than the ARB trials) for the outcome of all-cause mortality (P=.001), cardiovascular death (P<.001), and MI (P=.02). Sensitivity analyses restricted to trials published after 2000 revealed similar outcomes with ACEis vs placebo and ARBs vs placebo (Pinteraction>.05). Head-to-head comparison trials of ARBs vs ACEis exhibited no difference in outcomes except for a lower risk of drug withdrawal due to adverse effects with ARBs (RR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.65-0.81). CONCLUSION: In patients without heart failure, evidence from placebo-controlled trials (restricted to trials after 2000), active controlled trials, and head-to-head randomized trials all suggest ARBs to be as efficacious and safe as ACEis, with the added advantage of better tolerability.

AIMS: Selective vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) inhibitors have the potential for greater potency and less off-target toxicity compared with multikinase tyrosine kinase inhibitors in the treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma. We carried out a meta-analysis to determine quantitatively the differences in comparative efficacy and tolerability between these newer, selective agents and the multikinase inhibitors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched four electronic databases for published randomised controlled trials comparing selective VEGFR inhibitors with multikinase tyrosine kinase inhibitors for metastatic renal cell carcinoma and carried out a meta-analysis. Outcomes of interest were progression-free survival, objective response rate (ORR), overall survival, discontinuation of treatment due to adverse events (DAE) and occurrence of specific toxicities. RESULTS: Four trials involving the selective VEGFR inhibitors axitinib, tivozanib and dovitinib were analysed, all using sorafenib as the comparator. There was a 22% reduction in risk of disease progression with selective VEGFR inhibitors (relative risk 0.78; 95% confidence interval 0.69-0.87) compared with sorafenib, the tyrosine kinase inhibitor in all trials, and similar whether the agents were first-line or subsequent therapy. ORR was improved with selective VEGFR inhibitors, with 91% increased odds over sorafenib (odds ratio 1.91; 95% confidence interval 1.35-2.69). Overall survival was similar between groups (relative risk 1.03; 95% confidence interval 0.88-1.21) and DAE differed only in sensitivity analysis with exclusion of dovitinib (odds ratio 0.62; 95% confidence interval 0.41-0.94). Frequencies of the most common toxicities were overall similar, but differences included more frequent grade 3 or 4 fatigue and less frequent palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia with selective VEGFR therapy. CONCLUSION: Although selective VEGFR inhibitors are associated with similar overall survival as multikinase inhibitor sorafenib, they show significant improvement in progression-free survival, regardless of first-line or later use, and ORR compared with sorafenib. Tolerability due to toxicities is similar.

BACKGROUND: The 2013 American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA) guideline on the treatment of blood cholesterol recommends moderate to high intensity statins for patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease but departs from the traditional treat to target approach. Whether percentage low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) reduction or attained LDL-C levels add incremental prognostic value to statin dose is not known. METHODS: Patients in the TNT, IDEAL and SPARCL trials (patient-level data) randomized to a statin arm (atorvastatin 80mg/10mg or simvastatin 20mg) were chosen. Patients were divided into groups based on attained LDL-C levels (70 mg/dl) and percent LDL-C reduction (>/=50% vs. <50%). Primary outcome was major cardiovascular event defined as death from coronary heart disease, nonfatal myocardial infarction, resuscitated cardiac arrest, or stroke. Incremental prognostic value was assessed by using a forward conditional Cox proportional hazards model. Two models were tested: Model 1: Step 1-statin dose; Step 2-add attained LDL-C levels (continuous variable); Step 3-add percent LDL-C reduction (continuous variable). Model 2: step 2 and 3 were reversed. RESULTS: Among 13,937 patients included in this study, percent LDL-C reduction added incremental prognostic value over both statin dose and attained LDL-C levels (Global chi2 increased from 3.64 to 26.1 to 47.5; P<0.0001). However, attained LDL-C level did not provide incremental prognostic value over statin dose and percent LDL-C reduction (Global chi2 increased from 3.64 to 47.5 to 47.5; P<0.0001 and 0.94 respectively). Among patients with attained LDL-C /=50%. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, percent LDL-C reduction provides incremental prognostic value over statin dose and attained LDL-C levels. However, the attained LDL-C level does not provide additional prognostic value over statin dose and percent LDL-C reduction.

Previous studies have debated the notion that low blood pressure (BP) during treatment, particularly diastolic (DBP), is associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease. We evaluated the impact of low BP on cardiovascular outcomes in a high-risk population of 15,244 hypertensive patients, almost half of whom had a history of coronary artery disease (CAD). In the prospective Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-term Use Evaluation (VALUE) trial, patients were randomized to valsartan or amlodipine regimens and followed for 4.2 years (mean) with no difference in the primary cardiovascular endpoint. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to evaluate the relationship between average on-treatment BP and clinical outcomes. The relationship between BP and cardiovascular events was adjusted for age, gender and body mass index, and baseline qualifying risk factors and diseases (smoking, high total cholesterol, diabetes mellitus, proteinuria, CAD, previous stroke and left ventricular hypertrophy). DBP >/= 90 mmHg, compared with < 90 mmHg, was associated with increased incidence of the primary cardiovascular endpoint (all cardiac events); however, DBP < 70 mmHg, compared with >/= 70 mmHg, was not associated with increased incidence after covariate adjustment (no J-shaped curve). Similar results were observed for death, myocardial infarction (MI), heart failure and stroke, considered separately. Nadir for MI was at DBP of 76 mmHg and for stroke 60 mmHg. The ratio of MI to stroke increased with lower DBP. In CAD patients the MI to stroke ratio was more pronounced than in patients without CAD but there was no significant J-curve in either group. Systolic BP >/= 150 but not < 130 mmHg, compared with 130-149 mmHg, similarly was associated with increased risk for primary outcome. In conclusion, patients in BP strata >/= 150/90 mmHg, but not patients in BP strata < 130/70 mmHg, were at increased risk for adverse outcomes in this hypertensive, high-risk population. Although benefit in preventing MI in relation to preventing stroke levels off for the lowest BPs, these data provide no support for a J-curve in the treatment of high-risk hypertensive patients . The increase in the ratio of MI to stroke with lower DBP indicates target organ heterogeneity in that the optimal on-treatment DBP for cerebroprotection is below that for cardioprotection.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) and triple therapy (TT, dual antiplatelet plus warfarin) in patients with myocardial infarction (MI) or PCI with stenting (PCI-S) who also require chronic oral anticoagulation. BACKGROUND: Recommendations for the optimal antiplatelet/anticoagulant treatment regimen for patients undergoing PCI-S or MI who also require oral anticoagulation are largely based on evidence from observational studies and expert opinions. METHODS: A systematic search was performed for studies comparing TT vs. DAPT in patients post PCI-S or MI and requiring chronic anticoagulation. Primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were ischemic stroke, major bleeding, MI, and stent thrombosis. Pooled relative risks (RR) were calculated using random effects model. RESULTS: A total of 17 studies were included, with 14,921 patients [TT: 5,819(39%) and DAPT: 9,102(61%)] and a mean follow-up of 1.6 years. The majority of patients required oral anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation. Compared to DAPT, patients treated with TT had no significant difference in all-cause mortality [RR: 0.81, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.61-1.08, P = 0.15], MI [RR 0.74, 95% CI: 0.51-1.06, P = 0.10], and stent thrombosis [RR 0.67, 95% CI: 0.35-1.30, P = 0.24]. Patients treated with TT had significantly increased risk of major bleeding [RR 1.20, 95% CI: 1.03-1.39, P = 0.02], whereas the risk for ischemic stroke was significantly lower [RR 0.59, 95% CI: 0.38-0.92, P = 0.02]. CONCLUSIONS: All-cause mortality appears similar in patients treated with TT or DAPT although TT was associated with higher rates of major bleeding and a lower risk for ischemic stroke. (c) 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.