Denis Xavier

Dabigatran versus Warfarin in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation

BACKGROUND Warfarin reduces the risk of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation but increases the risk of hemorrhage and is difficult to use. Dabigatran is a new oral direct thrombin inhibitor. METHODS In this noninferiority trial, we randomly assigned 18,113 patients who had atrial fibrillation and a risk of stroke to receive, in a blinded fashion, fixed doses of dabigatran--110 mg or 150 mg twice daily--or, in an unblinded fashion, adjusted-dose warfarin. The median duration of the follow-up period was 2.0 years. The primary outcome was stroke or systemic embolism. RESULTS Rates of the primary outcome were 1.69% per year in the warfarin group, as compared with 1.53% per year in the group that received 110 mg of dabigatran (relative risk with dabigatran, 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74 to 1.11; P<0.001 for noninferiority) and 1.11% per year in the group that received 150 mg of dabigatran (relative risk, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.82; P<0.001 for superiority). The rate of major bleeding was 3.36% per year in the warfarin group, as compared with 2.71% per year in the group receiving 110 mg of dabigatran (P=0.003) and 3.11% per year in the group receiving 150 mg of dabigatran (P=0.31). The rate of hemorrhagic stroke was 0.38% per year in the warfarin group, as compared with 0.12% per year with 110 mg of dabigatran (P<0.001) and 0.10% per year with 150 mg of dabigatran (P<0.001). The mortality rate was 4.13% per year in the warfarin group, as compared with 3.75% per year with 110 mg of dabigatran (P=0.13) and 3.64% per year with 150 mg of dabigatran (P=0.051). CONCLUSIONS In patients with atrial fibrillation, dabigatran given at a dose of 110 mg was associated with rates of stroke and systemic embolism that were similar to those associated with warfarin, as well as lower rates of major hemorrhage. Dabigatran administered at a dose of 150 mg, as compared with warfarin, was associated with lower rates of stroke and systemic embolism but similar rates of major hemorrhage. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00262600.)

RISK FACTORS FOR ISCHAEMIC AND INTRACEREBRAL HAEMORRHAGIC STROKE IN 22 COUNTRIES (THE INTERSTROKE STUDY): A CASE-CONTROL STUDY

BACKGROUND The contribution of various risk factors to the burden of stroke worldwide is unknown, particularly in countries of low and middle income. We aimed to establish the association of known and emerging risk factors with stroke and its primary subtypes, assess the contribution of these risk factors to the burden of stroke, and explore the differences between risk factors for stroke and myocardial infarction. METHODS We undertook a standardised case-control study in 22 countries worldwide between March 1, 2007, and April 23, 2010. Cases were patients with acute first stroke (within 5 days of symptoms onset and 72 h of hospital admission). Controls had no history of stroke, and were matched with cases for age and sex. All participants completed a structured questionnaire and a physical examination, and most provided blood and urine samples. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) and population-attributable risks (PARs) for the association of all stroke, ischaemic stroke, and intracerebral haemorrhagic stroke with selected risk factors. FINDINGS In the first 3000 cases (n=2337, 78%, with ischaemic stroke; n=663, 22%, with intracerebral haemorrhagic stroke) and 3000 controls, significant risk factors for all stroke were: history of hypertension (OR 2.64, 99% CI 2.26-3.08; PAR 34.6%, 99% CI 30.4-39.1); current smoking (2.09, 1.75-2.51; 18.9%, 15.3-23.1); waist-to-hip ratio (1.65, 1.36-1.99 for highest vs lowest tertile; 26.5%, 18.8-36.0); diet risk score (1.35, 1.11-1.64 for highest vs lowest tertile; 18.8%, 11.2-29.7); regular physical activity (0.69, 0.53-0.90; 28.5%, 14.5-48.5); diabetes mellitus (1.36, 1.10-1.68; 5.0%, 2.6-9.5); alcohol intake (1.51, 1.18-1.92 for more than 30 drinks per month or binge drinking; 3.8%, 0.9-14.4); psychosocial stress (1.30, 1.06-1.60; 4.6%, 2.1-9.6) and depression (1.35, 1.10-1.66; 5.2%, 2.7-9.8); cardiac causes (2.38, 1.77-3.20; 6.7%, 4.8-9.1); and ratio of apolipoproteins B to A1 (1.89, 1.49-2.40 for highest vs lowest tertile; 24.9%, 15.7-37.1). Collectively, these risk factors accounted for 88.1% (99% CI 82.3-92.2) of the PAR for all stroke. When an alternate definition of hypertension was used (history of hypertension or blood pressure >160/90 mm Hg), the combined PAR was 90.3% (85.3-93.7) for all stroke. These risk factors were all significant for ischaemic stroke, whereas hypertension, smoking, waist-to-hip ratio, diet, and alcohol intake were significant risk factors for intracerebral haemorrhagic stroke. INTERPRETATION Our findings suggest that ten risk factors are associated with 90% of the risk of stroke. Targeted interventions that reduce blood pressure and smoking, and promote physical activity and a healthy diet, could substantially reduce the burden of stroke. FUNDING Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, Canadian Stroke Network, Pfizer Cardiovascular Award, Merck, AstraZeneca, and Boehringer Ingelheim.

Radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography and intervention in patients with acute coronary syndromes (RIVAL): a randomised, parallel group, multicentre trial

BACKGROUND Small trials have suggested that radial access for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) reduces vascular complications and bleeding compared with femoral access. We aimed to assess whether radial access was superior to femoral access in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) who were undergoing coronary angiography with possible intervention. METHODS The RadIal Vs femorAL access for coronary intervention (RIVAL) trial was a randomised, parallel group, multicentre trial. Patients with ACS were randomly assigned (1:1) by a 24 h computerised central automated voice response system to radial or femoral artery access. The primary outcome was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or non-coronary artery bypass graft (non-CABG)-related major bleeding at 30 days. Key secondary outcomes were death, myocardial infarction, or stroke; and non-CABG-related major bleeding at 30 days. A masked central committee adjudicated the primary outcome, components of the primary outcome, and stent thrombosis. All other outcomes were as reported by the investigators. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment allocation. Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01014273. FINDINGS Between June 6, 2006, and Nov 3, 2010, 7021 patients were enrolled from 158 hospitals in 32 countries. 3507 patients were randomly assigned to radial access and 3514 to femoral access. The primary outcome occurred in 128 (3·7%) of 3507 patients in the radial access group compared with 139 (4·0%) of 3514 in the femoral access group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·92, 95% CI 0·72-1·17; p=0·50). Of the six prespecified subgroups, there was a significant interaction for the primary outcome with benefit for radial access in highest tertile volume radial centres (HR 0·49, 95% CI 0·28-0·87; p=0·015) and in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (0·60, 0·38-0·94; p=0·026). The rate of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 30 days was 112 (3·2%) of 3507 patients in the radial group compared with 114 (3·2%) of 3514 in the femoral group (HR 0·98, 95% CI 0·76-1·28; p=0·90). The rate of non-CABG-related major bleeding at 30 days was 24 (0·7%) of 3507 patients in the radial group compared with 33 (0·9%) of 3514 patients in the femoral group (HR 0·73, 95% CI 0·43-1·23; p=0·23). At 30 days, 42 of 3507 patients in the radial group had large haematoma compared with 106 of 3514 in the femoral group (HR 0·40, 95% CI 0·28-0·57; p<0·0001). Pseudoaneurysm needing closure occurred in seven of 3507 patients in the radial group compared with 23 of 3514 in the femoral group (HR 0·30, 95% CI 0·13-0·71; p=0·006). INTERPRETATION Radial and femoral approaches are both safe and effective for PCI. However, the lower rate of local vascular complications may be a reason to use the radial approach. FUNDING Sanofi-Aventis, Population Health Research Institute, and Canadian Network for Trials Internationally (CANNeCTIN), an initiative of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

Dronedarone in high-risk permanent atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND Dronedarone restores sinus rhythm and reduces hospitalization or death in intermittent atrial fibrillation. It also lowers heart rate and blood pressure and has antiadrenergic and potential ventricular antiarrhythmic effects. We hypothesized that dronedarone would reduce major vascular events in high-risk permanent atrial fibrillation. METHODS We assigned patients who were at least 65 years of age with at least a 6-month history of permanent atrial fibrillation and risk factors for major vascular events to receive dronedarone or placebo. The first coprimary outcome was stroke, myocardial infarction, systemic embolism, or death from cardiovascular causes. The second coprimary outcome was unplanned hospitalization for a cardiovascular cause or death. RESULTS After the enrollment of 3236 patients, the study was stopped for safety reasons. The first coprimary outcome occurred in 43 patients receiving dronedarone and 19 receiving placebo (hazard ratio, 2.29; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.34 to 3.94; P=0.002). There were 21 deaths from cardiovascular causes in the dronedarone group and 10 in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 2.11; 95% CI, 1.00 to 4.49; P=0.046), including death from arrhythmia in 13 patients and 4 patients, respectively (hazard ratio, 3.26; 95% CI, 1.06 to 10.00; P=0.03). Stroke occurred in 23 patients in the dronedarone group and 10 in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.11 to 4.88; P=0.02). Hospitalization for heart failure occurred in 43 patients in the dronedarone group and 24 in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.10 to 2.99; P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS Dronedarone increased rates of heart failure, stroke, and death from cardiovascular causes in patients with permanent atrial fibrillation who were at risk for major vascular events. Our data show that this drug should not be used in such patients. (Funded by Sanofi-Aventis; PALLAS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01151137.).

Aspirin in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery

BACKGROUND There is substantial variability in the perioperative administration of aspirin in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery, both among patients who are already on an aspirin regimen and among those who are not. METHODS Using a 2-by-2 factorial trial design, we randomly assigned 10,010 patients who were preparing to undergo noncardiac surgery and were at risk for vascular complications to receive aspirin or placebo and clonidine or placebo. The results of the aspirin trial are reported here. The patients were stratified according to whether they had not been taking aspirin before the study (initiation stratum, with 5628 patients) or they were already on an aspirin regimen (continuation stratum, with 4382 patients). Patients started taking aspirin (at a dose of 200 mg) or placebo just before surgery and continued it daily (at a dose of 100 mg) for 30 days in the initiation stratum and for 7 days in the continuation stratum, after which patients resumed their regular aspirin regimen. The primary outcome was a composite of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction at 30 days. RESULTS The primary outcome occurred in 351 of 4998 patients (7.0%) in the aspirin group and in 355 of 5012 patients (7.1%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio in the aspirin group, 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.86 to 1.15; P=0.92). Major bleeding was more common in the aspirin group than in the placebo group (230 patients [4.6%] vs. 188 patients [3.8%]; hazard ratio, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.01, to 1.49; P=0.04). The primary and secondary outcome results were similar in the two aspirin strata. CONCLUSIONS Administration of aspirin before surgery and throughout the early postsurgical period had no significant effect on the rate of a composite of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction but increased the risk of major bleeding. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; POISE-2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01082874.).

Dabigatran compared with warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation and previous transient ischaemic attack or stroke: a subgroup analysis of the RE-LY trial

BACKGROUND In the Randomised Evaluation of Long-Term Anticoagulation Therapy (RE-LY) trial, dabigatran reduced occurrence of both stroke and haemorrhage compared with warfarin in patients who had atrial fibrillation and were at increased risk of stroke. We aimed to assess the effects of dabigatran compared with warfarin in the subgroup of patients with previous stroke or transient ischaemic attack. METHODS In the RE-LY trial, 18,113 patients from 967 centres in 44 countries were randomly assigned to 110 mg or 150 mg dabigatran twice daily or to warfarin dose adjusted to international normalised ratio 2·0 to 3·0. Median follow-up was 2·0 years (IQR 1·14-2·86), and the primary outcome was stroke or systemic embolism. The primary safety outcome was major haemorrhage. Patients and investigators were aware of whether patients received warfarin or dabigatran, but not of dabigatran dose, and event adjudicators were masked to treatment. In a predefined analysis, we investigated the outcomes of the RE-LY trial in subgroups of patients with or without previous stroke or transient ischaemic attack. RE-LY is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00262600. FINDINGS Within the subgroup of patients with previous stroke or transient ischaemic attack, 1195 patients were from the 110 mg dabigatran group, 1233 from the 150 mg dabigatran group, and 1195 from the warfarin group. Stroke or systemic embolism occurred in 65 patients (2·78% per year) on warfarin compared with 55 (2·32% per year) on 110 mg dabigatran (relative risk 0·84, 95% CI 0·58-1·20) and 51 (2·07% per year) on 150 mg dabigatran (0·75, 0·52-1·08). The rate of major bleeding was significantly lower in patients on 110 mg dabigatran (RR 0·66, 95% CI 0·48-0·90) and similar in those on 150 mg dabigatran (RR 1·01; 95% CI 0·77-1·34) compared with those on warfarin. The effects of both doses of dabigatran compared with warfarin were not significantly different between patients with previous stroke or transient ischaemic attack and those without for any of the outcomes from RE-LY apart from vascular death (110 mg group compared with warfarin group, interaction p=0·038). INTERPRETATION The effects of 110 mg dabigatran and 150 mg dabigatran twice daily in patients with previous stroke or transient ischaemic attack are consistent with those of other patients in RE-LY, for whom, compared with warfarin, 150 mg dabigatran reduced stroke or systemic embolism and 110 mg dabligatran was non-inferior. [corrected] Most effects of both dabigatran doses were consistent in patients with versus those without previous stroke or transient ischaemic attack. FUNDING Boehringer Ingelheim.

Low-Dose Aspirin for Preventing Recurrent Venous Thromboembolism

BACKGROUND Patients who have had a first episode of unprovoked venous thromboembolism have a high risk of recurrence after anticoagulants are discontinued. Aspirin may be effective in preventing a recurrence of venous thromboembolism. METHODS We randomly assigned 822 patients who had completed initial anticoagulant therapy after a first episode of unprovoked venous thromboembolism to receive aspirin, at a dose of 100 mg daily, or placebo for up to 4 years. The primary outcome was a recurrence of venous thromboembolism. RESULTS During a median follow-up period of 37.2 months, venous thromboembolism recurred in 73 of 411 patients assigned to placebo and in 57 of 411 assigned to aspirin (a rate of 6.5% per year vs. 4.8% per year; hazard ratio with aspirin, 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52 to 1.05; P=0.09). Aspirin reduced the rate of the two prespecified secondary composite outcomes: the rate of venous thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, stroke, or cardiovascular death was reduced by 34% (a rate of 8.0% per year with placebo vs. 5.2% per year with aspirin; hazard ratio with aspirin, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.92; P=0.01), and the rate of venous thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, stroke, major bleeding, or death from any cause was reduced by 33% (hazard ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.91; P=0.01). There was no significant between-group difference in the rates of major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding episodes (rate of 0.6% per year with placebo vs. 1.1% per year with aspirin, P=0.22) or serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS In this study, aspirin, as compared with placebo, did not significantly reduce the rate of recurrence of venous thromboembolism but resulted in a significant reduction in the rate of major vascular events, with improved net clinical benefit. These results substantiate earlier evidence of a therapeutic benefit of aspirin when it is given to patients after initial anticoagulant therapy for a first episode of unprovoked venous thromboembolism. (Funded by National Health and Medical Research Council [Australia] and others; Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry number, ACTRN12605000004662.).

Characteristics and Short-Term Prognosis of Perioperative Myocardial Infarction in Patients Undergoing Noncardiac Surgery: A Cohort Study

BACKGROUND Each year, millions of patients worldwide have a perioperative myocardial infarction (MI) after noncardiac surgery. OBJECTIVE To examine the characteristics and short-term outcome of perioperative MI. DESIGN Cohort study. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT00182039) SETTING 190 centers in 23 countries. PATIENTS 8351 patients included in the POISE (PeriOperative ISchemic Evaluation) trial. MEASUREMENTS Four cardiac biomarker or enzyme assays were measured within 3 days of surgery. The definition of perioperative MI included either autopsy findings of acute MI or an elevated level of a cardiac biomarker or enzyme and at least 1 of the following defining features: ischemic symptoms, development of pathologic Q waves, ischemic changes on electrocardiography, coronary artery intervention, or cardiac imaging evidence of MI. RESULTS Within 30 days of random assignment, 415 patients (5.0%) had a perioperative MI. Most MIs (74.1%) occurred within 48 hours of surgery; 65.3% of patients did not experience ischemic symptoms. The 30-day mortality rate was 11.6% (48 of 415 patients) among patients who had a perioperative MI and 2.2% (178 of 7936 patients) among those who did not (P < 0.001). Among patients with a perioperative MI, mortality rates were elevated and similar between those with (9.7%; adjusted odds ratio, 4.76 [95% CI, 2.68 to 8.43]) and without (12.5%; adjusted odds ratio, 4.00 [CI, 2.65 to 6.06]) ischemic symptoms. LIMITATION Cardiac markers were measured only until day 3 after surgery, and additional asymptomatic MIs may have been missed. CONCLUSION Most patients with a perioperative MI will not experience ischemic symptoms. Data suggest that routine monitoring of troponin levels in at-risk patients is needed after surgery to detect most MIs, which have an equally poor prognosis regardless of whether they are symptomatic or asymptomatic.

Treatment and outcomes of acute coronary syndromes in India (CREATE): a prospective analysis of registry data

BACKGROUND India has the highest burden of acute coronary syndromes in the world, yet little is known about the treatments and outcomes of these diseases. We aimed to document the characteristics, treatments, and outcomes of patients with acute coronary syndromes who were admitted to hospitals in India. METHODS We did a prospective registry study in 89 centres from 10 regions and 50 cities in India. Eligible patients had suspected acute myocardial infarction with definite electrocardiograph changes (whether elevated ST [STEMI] or non-STEMI or unstable angina), or had suspected myocardial infarction without ECG changes but with prior evidence of ischaemic heart disease. We recorded a range of clinical outcomes, and all-cause mortality at 30 days. FINDINGS We enrolled 20,937 patients. Of the 20,468 patients who were given a definite diagnosis, 12,405 (60.6%) had STEMI. The mean age of these patients was 57.5 (SD 12.1) years; patients with STEMI were younger (56.3 [12.1] years) than were those with non-STEMI or unstable angina (59.3 [11.8] years). Most patients were from lower middle 10,737 (52.5%) and poor 3999 (19.6%) social classes. The median time from symptoms to hospital was 360 (IQR 123-1317) min, with 50 (25-68) min from hospital to thrombolysis. 6226 (30.4%) patients had diabetes; 7720 (37.7%) had hypertension; and 8242 (40.2%) were smokers. Treatments for STEMI differed from those for non-STEMI or unstable angina. More patients with STEMI than with non-STEMI were given anti-platelet drugs (98.2%vs 97.4%); angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) (60.5%vs 51.2%); and percutaneous coronary interventions (8.0%vs 6.7%, p<0.0001 for all comparisons). Thrombolytics (96.3% streptokinase) were used for 58.5% of patients with STEMI. Conversely, fewer patients with STEMI than those with non-STEMI or unstable angina were given beta blockers (57.5%vs 61.9%); lipid-lowering drugs (50.8%vs 53.9%); and coronary bypass graft surgery (1.9%vs 4.4%, p<0.0001 for all comparisons). The 30-day outcomes for patients with STEMI were death (8.6%), reinfarction (2.3%), and stroke (0.7%). Outcomes for those with non-STEMI or unstable angina were better: death (3.7%), reinfarction (1.2%), and stroke (0.3%, p<0.0001 for all comparisons). Use of key treatments also differed by socioeconomic status: more rich patients than poor patients were given thrombolytics (60.6%vs 52.3%), beta blockers (58.8%vs 49.6%), lipid-lowering drugs (61.2%vs 36.0%), ACE inhibitors or ARB (63.2%vs 54.1%), percutaneous coronary intervention (15.3%vs 2.0%), and coronary artery bypass graft surgery (7.5%vs 0.7%, p<0.0001 for all comparisons). Mortality was higher for poor patients than for rich patients (8.2%vs 5.5%, p<0.0001). Adjustment for treatments (but not risk factors and baseline characteristics) eliminated this difference in mortality. INTERPRETATION Patients in India who have acute coronary syndromes have a higher rate of STEMI than do patients in developed countries. Since most of these patients were poor, less likely to get evidence-based treatments, and had greater 30-day mortality, reduction of delays in access to hospital and provision of affordable treatments could reduce morbidity and mortality.

Blood-pressure lowering in intermediate-risk persons without cardiovascular disease

BACKGROUND Antihypertensive therapy reduces the risk of cardiovascular events among high-risk persons and among those with a systolic blood pressure of 160 mm Hg or higher, but its role in persons at intermediate risk and with lower blood pressure is unclear. METHODS In one comparison from a 2-by-2 factorial trial, we randomly assigned 12,705 participants at intermediate risk who did not have cardiovascular disease to receive either candesartan at a dose of 16 mg per day plus hydrochlorothiazide at a dose of 12.5 mg per day or placebo. The first coprimary outcome was the composite of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke; the second coprimary outcome additionally included resuscitated cardiac arrest, heart failure, and revascularization. The median follow-up was 5.6 years. RESULTS The mean blood pressure of the participants at baseline was 138.1/81.9 mm Hg; the decrease in blood pressure was 6.0/3.0 mm Hg greater in the active-treatment group than in the placebo group. The first coprimary outcome occurred in 260 participants (4.1%) in the active-treatment group and in 279 (4.4%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79 to 1.10; P=0.40); the second coprimary outcome occurred in 312 participants (4.9%) and 328 participants (5.2%), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.11; P=0.51). In one of the three prespecified hypothesis-based subgroups, participants in the subgroup for the upper third of systolic blood pressure (>143.5 mm Hg) who were in the active-treatment group had significantly lower rates of the first and second coprimary outcomes than those in the placebo group; effects were neutral in the middle and lower thirds (P=0.02 and P=0.009, respectively, for trend in the two outcomes). CONCLUSIONS Therapy with candesartan at a dose of 16 mg per day plus hydrochlorothiazide at a dose of 12.5 mg per day was not associated with a lower rate of major cardiovascular events than placebo among persons at intermediate risk who did not have cardiovascular disease. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and AstraZeneca; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00468923.).