Jeffrey B. Washam

Comparative Efficacy of Dronedarone and Amiodarone for the Maintenance of Sinus Rhythm in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation

OBJECTIVES We sought to compare the efficacy and safety of dronedarone versus amiodarone for the prevention of recurrent atrial fibrillation (AF). BACKGROUND Dronedarone is a noniodinated amiodarone congener developed to maintain sinus rhythm. Few data are available to directly compare the efficacy and safety of dronedarone versus amiodarone. METHODS We conducted a systematic overview of all randomized controlled trials in which the authors evaluated dronedarone or amiodarone for the prevention of AF. The effect of amiodarone versus dronedarone was summarized by the use of indirect comparison meta-analysis and normal logistic meta-regression models. RESULTS We identified 4 placebo-controlled trials of dronedarone, 4 placebo-controlled trials of amiodarone, and 1 trial of dronedarone versus amiodarone. By using random-effects modeling, we found that there was a significant estimated reduction in recurrent AF with amiodarone versus placebo (odds ratio [OR]: 0.12; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.08 to 0.19) but not dronedarone versus placebo (OR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.33 to 1.87). A normal logistic regression model incorporating all trial evidence found amiodarone superior to dronedarone (OR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.37 to 0.63; p < 0.001) for the prevention of recurrent AF. In contrast, these models also found a trend toward greater all-cause mortality (OR: 1.61; 95% CI: 0.97 to 2.68; p = 0.066) and greater overall adverse events requiring drug discontinuation with amiodarone versus dronedarone (OR: 1.81; 95% CI: 1.33 to 2.46; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS Dronedarone is less effective than amiodarone for the maintenance of sinus rhythm, but has fewer adverse effects. For every 1,000 patients treated with dronedarone instead of amiodarone, we estimate approximately 228 more recurrences of AF in exchange for 9.6 fewer deaths and 62 fewer adverse events requiring discontinuation of drug.

Perioperative Beta Blockade in Noncardiac Surgery: A Systematic Review for the 2014 ACC/AHA Guideline on Perioperative Cardiovascular Evaluation and Management of Patients Undergoing Noncardiac Surgery A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines

Objective— To review the literature systematically to determine whether initiation of beta blockade within 45 days prior to noncardiac surgery reduces 30-day cardiovascular morbidity and mortality rates. Methods— PubMed (up to April 2013), Embase (up to April 2013), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (up to March 2013), and conference abstracts (January 2011 to April 2013) were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies comparing perioperative beta blockade with inactive control during noncardiac surgery. Pooled relative risks (RRs) were calculated under the random-effects model. We conducted subgroup analyses to assess how the DECREASE-I (Dutch Echocardiographic Cardiac Risk Evaluation Applying Stress Echocardiography), DECREASE-IV, and POISE-1 (Perioperative Ischemic Evaluation) trials influenced our conclusions. Results— We identified 17 studies, of which 16 were RCTs (12 043 participants) and 1 was a cohort study (348 participants). Aside from the DECREASE trials, all other RCTs initiated beta blockade within 1 day or less prior to surgery. Among RCTs, beta blockade decreased nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI) (RR: 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.58 to 0.82) but increased nonfatal stroke (RR: 1.76; 95% CI: 1.07 to 2.91), hypotension (RR: 1.47; 95% CI: 1.34 to 1.60), and bradycardia (RR: 2.61; 95% CI: 2.18 to 3.12). These findings were qualitatively unchanged after the DECREASE and POISE-1 trials were excluded. Effects on mortality rate differed significantly between the DECREASE trials and other trials. Beta blockers were associated with a trend toward reduced all-cause mortality rate in the DECREASE trials (RR: 0.42; 95% CI: 0.15 to 1.22) but with increased all-cause mortality rate in other trials (RR: 1.30; 95% CI: 1.03 to 1.64). Beta blockers reduced cardiovascular mortality rate in the DECREASE trials (RR: 0.17; 95% CI: 0.05 to 0.64) but were associated with trends toward increased cardiovascular mortality rate in other trials (RR: 1.25; 95% CI: 0.92 to 1.71). These differences were qualitatively unchanged after the POISE-1 trial was excluded. Conclusions— Perioperative beta blockade started within 1 day or less before noncardiac surgery prevents nonfatal MI but increases risks of stroke, death, hypotension, and bradycardia. Without the controversial DECREASE studies, there are insufficient data on beta blockade started 2 or more days prior to surgery. Multicenter RCTs are needed to address this knowledge gap.

Perioperative Beta Blockade in Noncardiac Surgery: A Systematic Review for the 2014 ACC/AHA Guideline on Perioperative Cardiovascular Evaluation and Management of Patients Undergoing Noncardiac Surgery

OBJECTIVE To review the literature systematically to determine whether initiation of beta blockade within 45 days prior to noncardiac surgery reduces 30-day cardiovascular morbidity and mortality rates. METHODS PubMed (up to April 2013), Embase (up to April 2013), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (up to March 2013), and conference abstracts (January 2011 to April 2013) were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies comparing perioperative beta blockade with inactive control during noncardiac surgery. Pooled relative risks (RRs) were calculated under the random-effects model. We conducted subgroup analyses to assess how the DECREASE-I (Dutch Echocardiographic Cardiac Risk Evaluation Applying Stress Echocardiography), DECREASE-IV, and POISE-1 (Perioperative Ischemic Evaluation) trials influenced our conclusions. RESULTS We identified 17 studies, of which 16 were RCTs (12,043 participants) and 1 was a cohort study (348 participants). Aside from the DECREASE trials, all other RCTs initiated beta blockade within 1 day or less prior to surgery. Among RCTs, beta blockade decreased nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI) (RR: 0.69; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.58 to 0.82) but increased nonfatal stroke (RR: 1.76; 95% CI:1.07 to 2.91), hypotension (RR: 1.47; 95% CI: 1.34 to 1.60), and bradycardia (RR: 2.61; 95% CI: 2.18 to 3.12). These findings were qualitatively unchanged after the DECREASE and POISE-1 trials were excluded. Effects on mortality rate differed significantly between the DECREASE trials and other trials. Beta blockers were associated with a trend toward reduced all-cause mortality rate in the DECREASE trials (RR: 0.42; 95% CI: 0.15 to 1.22) but with increased all-cause mortality rate in other trials (RR: 1.30; 95% CI: 1.03 to 1.64). Beta blockers reduced cardiovascular mortality rate in the DECREASE trials (RR:0.17; 95% CI: 0.05 to 0.64) but were associated with trends toward increased cardiovascular mortality rate in other trials (RR: 1.25; 95% CI: 0.92 to 1.71). These differences were qualitatively unchanged after the POISE-1 trial was excluded. CONCLUSIONS Perioperative beta blockade started within 1 day or less before noncardiac surgery prevents nonfatal MI but increases risks of stroke, death, hypotension, and bradycardia. Without the controversial DECREASE studies, there are insufficient data on beta blockade started 2 or more days prior to surgery. Multicenter RCTs are needed to address this knowledge gap.

Conflicting Results Between Randomized Trials and Observational Studies on the Impact of Proton Pump Inhibitors on Cardiovascular Events When Coadministered With Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Systematic Review

Background— Discordant results have been reported on the effects of concomitant use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) for cardiovascular outcomes. We conducted a systematic review comparing the effectiveness and safety of concomitant use of PPIs and DAPT in the postdischarge treatment of unstable angina/non–ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction patients. Methods and Results— We searched for clinical studies in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, from 1995 to 2012. Reviewers screened and extracted data, assessed applicability and quality, and graded the strength of evidence. We performed meta-analyses of direct comparisons when outcomes and follow-up periods were comparable. Thirty-five studies were eligible. Five (4 randomized controlled trials and 1 observational) assessed the effect of omeprazole when added to DAPT; the other 30 (observational) assessed the effect of PPIs as a class when compared with no PPIs. Random-effects meta-analyses of the studies assessing PPIs as a class consistently reported higher event rates in patients receiving PPIs for various clinical outcomes at 1 year (composite ischemic end points, all-cause mortality, nonfatal MI, stroke, revascularization, and stent thrombosis). However, the results from randomized controlled trials evaluating omeprazole compared with placebo showed no difference in ischemic outcomes, despite a reduction in upper gastrointestinal bleeding with omeprazole. Conclusions— Large, well-conducted observational studies of PPIs and randomized controlled trials of omeprazole seem to provide conflicting results for the effect of PPIs on cardiovascular outcomes when coadministered with DAPT. Prospective trials that directly compare pharmacodynamic parameters and clinical events among specific PPI agents in patients with unstable angina/non–ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction treated with DAPT are warranted.

Management of Patients on Non–Vitamin K Antagonist Oral Anticoagulants in the Acute Care and Periprocedural Setting: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Non–vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are now widely used as alternatives to warfarin for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation and management of venous thromboembolism. In clinical practice, there is still widespread uncertainty on how to manage patients on NOACs who bleed or who are at risk for bleeding. Clinical trial data related to NOAC reversal for bleeding and perioperative management are sparse, and recommendations are largely derived from expert opinion. Knowledge of time of last ingestion of the NOAC and renal function is critical to managing these patients given that laboratory measurement is challenging because of the lack of commercially available assays in the United States. Idarucizumab is available as an antidote to rapidly reverse the effects of dabigatran. At present, there is no specific antidote available in the United States for the oral factor Xa inhibitors. Prothrombin concentrate may be considered in life-threatening bleeding. Healthcare institutions should adopt a NOAC reversal and perioperative management protocol developed with multidisciplinary input.

Contemporary Management of Cardiogenic Shock: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Cardiogenic shock is a high-acuity, potentially complex, and hemodynamically diverse state of end-organ hypoperfusion that is frequently associated with multisystem organ failure. Despite improving survival in recent years, patient morbidity and mortality remain high, and there are few evidence-based therapeutic interventions known to clearly improve patient outcomes. This scientific statement on cardiogenic shock summarizes the epidemiology, pathophysiology, causes, and outcomes of cardiogenic shock; reviews contemporary best medical, surgical, mechanical circulatory support, and palliative care practices; advocates for the development of regionalized systems of care; and outlines future research priorities.

Polypharmacy and the Efficacy and Safety of Rivaroxaban Versus Warfarin in the Prevention of Stroke in Patients With Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation

Background— Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) often take multiple medications. Methods and Results— We examined characteristics and compared adjusted outcomes between rivaroxaban and warfarin according to number of concomitant baseline medications and the presence of combined cytochrome P450 3A4 and P-glycoprotein inhibitors in the Rivaroxaban Once Daily Oral Direct Factor Xa Inhibition Compared With Vitamin K Antagonism for Prevention of Stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fibrillation (ROCKET AF) study. At baseline, 5101 patients (36%) were on 0 to 4 medications, 7298 (51%) were on 5 to 9, and 1865 (13%) were on ≥10. Although polypharmacy was not associated with higher risk of stroke or non–central nervous system embolism (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.02 for ≥10 versus 0–4 medications; 95% confidence interval, 0.76–1.38), it was associated with higher risks of the combined end point of stroke, non–central nervous system embolism, vascular death, or myocardial infarction (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.41 for ≥10 versus 0–4 medications; 95% confidence interval, 1.18–1.68) and nonmajor clinically relevant or major bleeding (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.47 for ≥10 versus 0–4 medications; 95% confidence interval, 1.31–1.65). There was no significant difference in primary efficacy (adjusted interaction P=0.99) or safety outcomes (adjusted interaction P=0.87) between treatment groups by number of medications. Patients treated with 0 to 4 medications had lower rates of major bleeding with rivaroxaban (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.71; 95% confidence interval, 0.52–0.95; interaction P=0.0074). There was no evidence of differential outcomes in those treated with ≥1 combined cytochrome P450 3A4 and P-glycoprotein inhibitors. Conclusions— In a population of patients with atrial fibrillation, two thirds were on ≥5 medications. Increasing medication use was associated with higher risk of bleeding but not stroke. Rivaroxaban was tolerated across complex patients on multiple medications. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00403767.

Individual Proton Pump Inhibitors and Outcomes in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease on Dual Antiplatelet Therapy: A Systematic Review.

Background Observational studies evaluating the possible interaction between proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and clopidogrel have shown mixed results. We conducted a systematic review comparing the safety of individual PPIs in patients with coronary artery disease taking clopidogrel. Methods and Results Studies performed from January 1995 to December 2013 were screened for inclusion. Data were extracted, and study quality was graded for 34 potential studies. For those studies in which follow‐up period, outcomes, and multivariable adjustment were comparable, meta‐analysis was performed. The adjusted odds or hazard ratios for the composite of cardiovascular or all‐cause death, myocardial infarction, and stroke at 1 year were reported in 6 observational studies with data on individual PPIs. Random‐effects meta‐analyses of the 6 studies revealed an increased risk for adverse cardiovascular events for those taking pantoprazole (hazard ratio 1.38; 95% CI 1.12–1.70), lansoprazole (hazard ratio 1.29; 95% CI 1.09–1.52), or esomeprazole (hazard ratio 1.27; 95% CI 1.02–1.58) compared with patients on no PPI. This association was not significant for omeprazole (hazard ratio 1.16; 95% CI 0.93–1.44). Sensitivity analyses for the coronary artery disease population (acute coronary syndrome versus mixed) and exclusion of a single study due to heterogeneity of reported results did not have significant influence on the effect estimates for any PPIs. Conclusions Several frequently used PPIs previously thought to be safe for concomitant use with clopidogrel were associated with greater risk of adverse cardiovascular events. Although the data are observational, they highlight the need for randomized controlled trials to evaluate the safety of concomitant PPI and clopidogrel use in patients with coronary artery disease.

Polypharmacy and effects of apixaban versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation: post hoc analysis of the ARISTOTLE trial

Objective To determine whether the treatment effect of apixaban versus warfarin differs with increasing numbers of concomitant drugs used by patients with atrial fibrillation. Design Post hoc analysis performed in 2015 of results from ARISTOTLE (apixaban for reduction in stroke and other thromboembolic events in atrial fibrillation)—a multicentre, double blind, double dummy trial that started in 2006 and ended in 2011. Participants 18 201 ARISTOTLE trial participants. Interventions In the ARISTOTLE trial, patients were randomised to either 5 mg apixaban twice daily (n=9120) or warfarin (target international normalised ratio range 2.0-3.0; n=9081). In the post hoc analysis, patients were divided into groups according to the number of concomitant drug treatments used at baseline (0-5, 6-8, ≥9 drugs) with a median follow-up of 1.8 years. Main outcome measures Clinical outcomes and treatment effects of apixaban versus warfarin (adjusted for age, sex, and country). Results Each patient used a median of six drugs (interquartile range 5-9); polypharmacy (≥5 drugs) was seen in 13 932 (76.5%) patients. Greater numbers of concomitant drugs were used in older patients, women, and patients in the United States. The number of comorbidities increased across groups of increasing numbers of drugs (0-5, 6-8, ≥9 drugs), as did the proportions of patients treated with drugs that interact with warfarin or apixaban. Mortality also rose significantly with the number of drug treatments (P<0.001), as did rates of stroke or systemic embolism (1.29, 1.48, and 1.57 per 100 patient years, for 0-5, 6-8, and ≥9 drugs, respectively) and major bleeding (1.91, 2.46, and 3.88 per 100 patient years, respectively). Relative risk reductions in stroke or systemic embolism for apixaban versus warfarin were consistent, regardless of the number of concomitant drugs (Pinteraction=0.82). A smaller reduction in major bleeding was seen with apixaban versus warfarin with increasing numbers of concomitant drugs (Pinteraction=0.017). Patients with interacting (potentiating) drugs for warfarin or apixaban had similar outcomes and consistent treatment effects of apixaban versus warfarin. Conclusions In the ARISTOTLE trial, three quarters of patients had polypharmacy; this subgroup had an increased comorbidity, more interacting drugs, increased mortality, and higher rates of thromboembolic and bleeding complications. In terms of a potential differential response to anticoagulation therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation and polypharmacy, apixaban was more effective than warfarin, and is at least just as safe. Trial registration ARISTOTLE trial, ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00412984.

Pharmacotherapy in Chronic Kidney Disease Patients Presenting With Acute Coronary Syndrome A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is frequently encountered among patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Recent data from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry–Acute Coronary Treatment and Intervention Outcomes Network (NCDR-ACTION) reported CKD (defined as estimated creatinine clearance [CrCl] <60 mL·min−1·1.73 m−2) prevalence rates of 30.5% among patients presenting with ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and 42.9% among patients presenting with non–ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI).1 The presence of CKD among patients presenting with ACS has been associated with worse outcomes, including higher rates of mortality and bleeding.2–4 Despite the increased risk for adverse outcomes, CKD patients presenting with ACS are less likely to receive evidence-based therapies, including medications.1 In addition, patients with CKD have been underrepresented in randomized controlled trials of ACS pharmacotherapy.5,6 Thus, the net effect is a relative lack of evidence and potential for uncertainty in selecting medications in this high-risk population. The purpose of this scientific statement is to provide a comprehensive review of the published literature and provide recommendations on the use of evidence-based pharmacotherapies in CKD patients presenting with ACS. It has been appreciated now for more than a decade that CKD is a powerful independent predictor of cardiovascular morbidity, cardiovascular mortality, and all-cause mortality. The systematic classification of CKD in large part is based on the efforts of Andrew Levey and colleagues, who published the K/DOQI (Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative) clinical practice guidelines for CKD.7 The original schema somewhat arbitrarily defined stages 1 to 5 CKD on the basis of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) in the following manner: Stage 1, eGFR ≥90 mL·min−1·1.73 m−2 (with evidence of kidney damage present, such as albuminuria); stage 2, eGFR <90 but ≥60 (with evidence of kidney damage such as albuminuria); stage 3, …