Joanna Dobson

Influence of Nonfatal Hospitalization for Heart Failure on Subsequent Mortality in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure

Background— Patients with chronic heart failure (HF) are at increased risk of both fatal and nonfatal major adverse cardiovascular events. We used data from the Candesartan in Heart failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM) trials to assess the influence of nonfatal hospitalizations for HF on subsequent mortality rates in a broad spectrum of HF patients. Methods and Results— In the present study, 7599 patients with New York Heart Association class II to IV HF and reduced or preserved left ventricular ejection fraction were randomized to placebo or candesartan. We assessed the risk of death after discharge from a first hospitalization for HF using time-updated Cox proportional-hazards models on 7572 patients for whom discharge data were available. Of 7572 patients, 1455 (19%) had at least 1 HF hospitalization, and 586 of 1819 deaths occurred after discharge from an HF hospitalization. The mortality rate was increased after HF hospitalizations, even after adjustment for baseline predictors of death (hazard ratio, 3.15; 95% confidence interval, 2.83 to 3.50). Longer duration of HF hospitalization enhanced the risk of dying, as did repeat HF hospitalizations. Moreover, risk of death was highest within a month of discharge and then declined progressively over time, particularly for death resulting from HF progression and for sudden cardiac death. We observed a similar pattern of risk associated with all-cause hospitalization, although the magnitude was less than that with HF hospitalization. Conclusions— In patients with chronic HF, the risk of death is greatest in the early period after discharge after a hospitalization for HF and is directly related to the duration and frequency of HF hospitalizations. These findings suggest a role for increased surveillance in the early postdischarge period of greatest vulnerability after an HF admission.

Short-term outcome after stenting versus endarterectomy for symptomatic carotid stenosis: a preplanned meta-analysis of individual patient data.

BACKGROUND Results from randomised controlled trials have shown a higher short-term risk of stroke associated with carotid stenting than with carotid endarterectomy for the treatment of symptomatic carotid stenosis. However, these trials were underpowered for investigation of whether carotid artery stenting might be a safe alternative to endarterectomy in specific patient subgroups. We therefore did a preplanned meta-analysis of individual patient data from three randomised controlled trials. METHODS Data from all 3433 patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis who were randomly assigned and analysed in the Endarterectomy versus Angioplasty in Patients with Symptomatic Severe Carotid Stenosis (EVA-3S) trial, the Stent-Protected Angioplasty versus Carotid Endarterectomy (SPACE) trial, and the International Carotid Stenting Study (ICSS) were pooled and analysed with fixed-effect binomial regression models adjusted for source trial. The primary outcome event was any stroke or death. The intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis included all patients and outcome events occurring between randomisation and 120 days thereafter. The per-protocol (PP) analysis was restricted to patients receiving the allocated treatment and events occurring within 30 days after treatment. FINDINGS In the first 120 days after randomisation (ITT analysis), any stroke or death occurred significantly more often in the carotid stenting group (153 [8·9%] of 1725) than in the carotid endarterectomy group (99 [5·8%] of 1708, risk ratio [RR] 1·53, [95% CI 1·20-1·95], p=0·0006; absolute risk difference 3·2 [1·4-4·9]). Of all subgroup variables assessed, only age significantly modified the treatment effect: in patients younger than 70 years (median age), the estimated 120-day risk of stroke or death was 50 (5·8%) of 869 patients in the carotid stenting group and 48 (5·7%) of 843 in the carotid endarterectomy group (RR 1·00 [0·68-1·47]); in patients 70 years or older, the estimated risk with carotid stenting was twice that with carotid endarterectomy (103 [12·0%] of 856 vs 51 [5·9%] of 865, 2·04 [1·48-2·82], interaction p=0·0053, p=0·0014 for trend). In the PP analysis, risk estimates of stroke or death within 30 days of treatment among patients younger than 70 years were 43 (5·1%) of 851 patients in the stenting group and 37 (4·5%) of 821 in the endarterectomy group (1·11 [0·73-1·71]); in patients 70 years or older, the estimates were 87 (10·5%) of 828 patients and 36 (4·4%) of 824, respectively (2·41 [1·65-3·51]; categorical interaction p=0·0078, trend interaction p=0·0013]. INTERPRETATION Stenting for symptomatic carotid stenosis should be avoided in older patients (age ≥70 years), but might be as safe as endarterectomy in younger patients. FUNDING The Stroke Association.

Predicting survival in heart failure: a risk score based on 39 372 patients from 30 studies

AIMS Using a large international database from multiple cohort studies, the aim is to create a generalizable easily used risk score for mortality in patients with heart failure (HF). METHODS AND RESULTS The MAGGIC meta-analysis includes individual data on 39 372 patients with HF, both reduced and preserved left-ventricular ejection fraction (EF), from 30 cohort studies, six of which were clinical trials. 40.2% of patients died during a median follow-up of 2.5 years. Using multivariable piecewise Poisson regression methods with stepwise variable selection, a final model included 13 highly significant independent predictors of mortality in the following order of predictive strength: age, lower EF, NYHA class, serum creatinine, diabetes, not prescribed beta-blocker, lower systolic BP, lower body mass, time since diagnosis, current smoker, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, male gender, and not prescribed ACE-inhibitor or angiotensin-receptor blockers. In preserved EF, age was more predictive and systolic BP was less predictive of mortality than in reduced EF. Conversion into an easy-to-use integer risk score identified a very marked gradient in risk, with 3-year mortality rates of 10 and 70% in the bottom quintile and top decile of risk, respectively. CONCLUSION In patients with HF of both reduced and preserved EF, the influences of readily available predictors of mortality can be quantified in an integer score accessible by an easy-to-use website www.heartfailurerisk.org. The score has the potential for widespread implementation in a clinical setting.

Long-term outcomes after stenting versus endarterectomy for treatment of symptomatic carotid stenosis : the International Carotid Stenting Study (ICSS) randomised trial

Summary Background Stenting is an alternative to endarterectomy for treatment of carotid artery stenosis, but long-term efficacy is uncertain. We report long-term data from the randomised International Carotid Stenting Study comparison of these treatments. Methods Patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis were randomly assigned 1:1 to open treatment with stenting or endarterectomy at 50 centres worldwide. Randomisation was computer generated centrally and allocated by telephone call or fax. Major outcomes were assessed by an independent endpoint committee unaware of treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was fatal or disabling stroke in any territory after randomisation to the end of follow-up. Analysis was by intention to treat ([ITT] all patients) and per protocol from 31 days after treatment (all patients in whom assigned treatment was completed). Functional ability was rated with the modified Rankin scale. This study is registered, number ISRCTN25337470. Findings 1713 patients were assigned to stenting (n=855) or endarterectomy (n=858) and followed up for a median of 4·2 years (IQR 3·0–5·2, maximum 10·0). Three patients withdrew immediately and, therefore, the ITT population comprised 1710 patients. The number of fatal or disabling strokes (52 vs 49) and cumulative 5-year risk did not differ significantly between the stenting and endarterectomy groups (6·4% vs 6·5%; hazard ratio [HR] 1·06, 95% CI 0·72–1·57, p=0·77). Any stroke was more frequent in the stenting group than in the endarterectomy group (119 vs 72 events; ITT population, 5-year cumulative risk 15·2% vs 9·4%, HR 1·71, 95% CI 1·28–2·30, p<0·001; per-protocol population, 5-year cumulative risk 8·9% vs 5·8%, 1·53, 1·02–2·31, p=0·04), but were mainly non-disabling strokes. The distribution of modified Rankin scale scores at 1 year, 5 years, or final follow-up did not differ significantly between treatment groups. Interpretation Long-term functional outcome and risk of fatal or disabling stroke are similar for stenting and endarterectomy for symptomatic carotid stenosis. Funding Medical Research Council, Stroke Association, Sanofi-Synthélabo, European Union.

Long-term risk of carotid restenosis in patients randomly assigned to endovascular treatment or endarterectomy in the Carotid and Vertebral Artery Transluminal Angioplasty Study (CAVATAS): long-term follow-up of a randomised trial

Summary Background In the Carotid and Vertebral Artery Transluminal Angioplasty Study (CAVATAS), early recurrent carotid stenosis was more common in patients assigned to endovascular treatment than it was in patients assigned to endarterectomy (CEA), raising concerns about the long-term effectiveness of endovascular treatment. We aimed to investigate the long-term risks of restenosis in patients included in CAVATAS. Methods 413 patients who were randomly assigned in CAVATAS and completed treatment for carotid stenosis (200 patients had endovascular treatment and 213 patients had endarterectomy) had prospective clinical follow-up at a median of 5 years and carotid duplex ultrasound at a median of 4 years. We investigated the cumulative long-term incidence of carotid restenosis after endovascular treatment and endarterectomy, the effect of the use of stents on restenosis after endovascular treatment, risk factors for the development of restenosis, and the effect of carotid restenosis on the risk of recurrent cerebrovascular events. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered, number ISRCTN01425573. Findings Severe carotid restenosis (≥70%) or occlusion occurred significantly more often in patients in the endovascular arm than in patients in the endarterectomy arm (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 3·17, 95% CI 1·89–5·32; p<0·0001). The estimated 5-year incidence of restenosis was 30·7% in the endovascular arm and 10·5% in the endarterectomy arm. Patients in the endovascular arm who were treated with a stent (n=50) had a significantly lower risk of developing restenosis of 70% or greater compared with those treated with balloon angioplasty alone (n=145; HR 0·43, 0·19–0·97; p=0·04). Current smoking or a history of smoking was a predictor of restenosis of 70% or more (2·32, 1·19–4·54; p=0·01) and the early finding of moderate stenosis (50–69%) up to 60 days after treatment was associated with the risk of progression to restenosis of 70% or more (3·76, 1·88–7·52; p=0·0002). The composite endpoint of ipsilateral non-perioperative stroke or transient ischaemic attack occurred more often in patients in whom restenosis of 70% or more was diagnosed in the first year after treatment compared with patients without restenosis of 70% or more (5-year incidence 23% vs 11%; HR 2·18, 1·04–4·54; p=0·04), but the increase in ipsilateral stroke alone was not significant (10% vs 5%; 1·67, 0·54–5·11). Interpretation Restenosis is about three times more common after endovascular treatment than after endarterectomy and is associated with recurrent ipsilateral cerebrovascular symptoms; however, the risk of recurrent ipsilateral stroke is low. Further data are required from on-going trials of stenting versus endarterectomy to ascertain whether long-term ultrasound follow-up is necessary after carotid revascularisation. Funding British Heart Foundation; UK National Health Service Management Executive; UK Stroke Association.

Endovascular treatment with angioplasty or stenting versus endarterectomy in patients with carotid artery stenosis in the Carotid And Vertebral Artery Transluminal Angioplasty Study (CAVATAS): long-term follow-up of a randomised trial

Summary Background Endovascular treatment (angioplasty with or without stenting) is an alternative to carotid endarterectomy for carotid artery stenosis but there are scarce long-term efficacy data showing that it prevents stroke. We therefore report the long-term results of the Carotid and Vertebral Artery Transluminal Angioplasty Study (CAVATAS). Methods Between March, 1992, and July, 1997, patients who presented at a participating centre with a confirmed stenosis of the internal carotid artery that was deemed equally suitable for either carotid endarterectomy or endovascular treatment were randomly assigned to either treatment in equal proportions by telephone or fax from the randomisation service at the Oxford Clinical Trials Unit, UK. Patients were seen by an independent neurologist at 1 and 6 months after treatment and then every year after randomisation for as long as possible, up to a maximum of 11 years. Major outcome events were transient ischaemic attack, non-disabling, disabling, and fatal stroke, myocardial infarction, and death from any other cause. Outcomes were adjudicated on by investigators who were masked to treatment. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered, number ISRCTN 01425573. Findings 504 patients with stenosis of the carotid artery (90% symptomatic) were randomly assigned to endovascular treatment (n=251) or surgery (n=253). Within 30 days of treatment, there were more minor strokes that lasted less than 7 days in the endovascular group (8 vs 1) but the number of other strokes in any territory or death was the same (25 vs 25). There were more cranial nerve palsies (22 vs 0) in the endarterectomy group than in the endovascular group. Median length of follow up in both groups was 5 years (IQR 2–6). By comparing endovascular treatment with endarterectomy after the 30-day post-treatment period, the 8-year incidence and hazard ratio (HR) at the end of follow-up for ipsilateral non-perioperative stroke was 11·3% versus 8·6% (HR 1·22, 95% CI 0·59–2·54); for ipsilateral non-perioperative stroke or TIA was 19·3% versus 17·2% (1·29, 0·78–2·14); and for any non-perioperative stroke was 21·1% versus 15·4% (1·66, 0·99–2·80). Interpretation More patients had stroke during follow-up in the endovascular group than in the surgical group, but the rate of ipsilateral non-perioperative stroke was low in both groups and none of the differences in the stroke outcome measures was significant. However, the study was underpowered and the confidence intervals were wide. More long-term data are needed from the on going stenting versus endarterectomy trials. Funding British Heart Foundation; UK National Health Service Management Executive; UK Stroke Association.

Oseltamivir treatment for influenza in adults: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND Despite widespread use, questions remain about the efficacy of oseltamivir in the treatment of influenza. We aimed to do an individual patient data meta-analysis for all clinical trials comparing oseltamivir with placebo for treatment of seasonal influenza in adults regarding symptom alleviation, complications, and safety. METHODS We included all published and unpublished Roche-sponsored randomised placebo-controlled, double-blind trials of 75 mg twice a day oseltamivir in adults. Trials of oseltamivir for treatment of naturally occurring influenza-like illness in adults reporting at least one of the study outcomes were eligible. We also searched Medline, PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the ClinicalTrials.gov trials register for other relevant trials published before Jan 1, 2014 (search last updated on Nov 27, 2014). We analysed intention-to-treat infected, intention-to-treat, and safety populations. The primary outcome was time to alleviation of all symptoms analysed with accelerated failure time methods. We used risk ratios and Mantel-Haenszel methods to work out complications, admittances to hospital, and safety outcomes. FINDINGS We included data from nine trials including 4328 patients. In the intention-to-treat infected population, we noted a 21% shorter time to alleviation of all symptoms for oseltamivir versus placebo recipients (time ratio 0·79, 95% CI 0·74-0·85; p<0·0001). The median times to alleviation were 97·5 h for oseltamivir and 122·7 h for placebo groups (difference -25·2 h, 95% CI -36·2 to -16·0). For the intention-to-treat population, the estimated treatment effect was attenuated (time ratio 0·85) but remained highly significant (median difference -17·8 h). In the intention-to-treat infected population, we noted fewer lower respiratory tract complications requiring antibiotics more than 48 h after randomisation (risk ratio [RR] 0·56, 95% CI 0·42-0·75; p=0·0001; 4·9% oseltamivir vs 8·7% placebo, risk difference -3·8%, 95% CI -5·0 to -2·2) and also fewer admittances to hospital for any cause (RR 0·37, 95% CI 0·17-0·81; p=0·013; 0·6% oseltamivir, 1·7% placebo, risk difference -1·1%, 95% CI -1·4 to -0·3). Regarding safety, oseltamivir increased the risk of nausea (RR 1·60, 95% CI 1·29-1·99; p<0·0001; 9·9% oseltamivir vs 6·2% placebo, risk difference 3·7%, 95% CI 1·8-6·1) and vomiting (RR 2·43, 95% CI 1·83-3·23; p<0·0001; 8·0% oseltamivir vs 3·3% placebo, risk difference 4·7%, 95% CI 2·7-7·3). We recorded no effect on neurological or psychiatric disorders or serious adverse events. INTERPRETATION Our findings show that oseltamivir in adults with influenza accelerates time to clinical symptom alleviation, reduces risk of lower respiratory tract complications, and admittance to hospital, but increases the occurrence of nausea and vomiting. FUNDING Multiparty Group for Advice on Science (MUGAS) foundation.

Weight loss and mortality risk in patients with chronic heart failure in the candesartan in heart failure: assessment of reduction in mortality and morbidity (CHARM) programme

AIMS The curiosity that leanness is associated with poor survival in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) needs further insight by investigating the impact of weight loss on prognosis in a large sample of patients across a broad spectrum of both reduced and preserved left ventricular (LV) systolic function. METHODS AND RESULTS We investigated the change in weight over 6 months in 6933 patients in the Candesartan in Heart failure: Reduction in Mortality and morbidity (CHARM) programme, and its association with subsequent mortality (1435 deaths) over a median 32.9 months follow-up using Cox proportional hazard models to account for the impact of body mass index and other risk predictors. We then used time-updated Cox models to relate each patients ongoing data on annual weight change to their mortality hazard. The percentage weight loss over 6 months had a highly significant monotonically increasing association with excess mortality, both for cardiovascular and for other causes of death. Patients with 5% or greater weight loss in 6 months had over a 50% increase in hazard compared with those with stable weight. Weight loss carried a particularly high risk in patients who were already lean at study entry. Findings were similar in the presence of dependent oedema, preserved or reduced LV ejection fraction, and treatment with candesartan, although weight loss was significantly less common on candesartan. The time-updated analyses revealed an even stronger link between weight loss and short-term risk of dying, i.e. risk increased more than four-fold for patients whose last recorded annual weight loss exceeded 10%. Weight gain had a more modestly increased short-term mortality risk. Weight loss accelerates in the year prior to death. CONCLUSIONS Weight loss and leanness are important predictors of poor prognosis in CHF. Being lean and losing weight is particularly bad. The detection of weight change, and particularly weight loss, should be considered as an adverse sign prompting further evaluation.

Categorisation of continuous risk factors in epidemiological publications: a survey of current practice

Background Reports of observational epidemiological studies often categorise (group) continuous risk factor (exposure) variables. However, there has been little systematic assessment of how categorisation is practiced or reported in the literature and no extended guidelines for the practice have been identified. Thus, we assessed the nature of such practice in the epidemiological literature. Two months (December 2007 and January 2008) of five epidemiological and five general medical journals were reviewed. All articles that examined the relationship between continuous risk factors and health outcomes were surveyed using a standard proforma, with the focus on the primary risk factor. Using the survey results we provide illustrative examples and, combined with ideas from the broader literature and from experience, we offer guidelines for good practice. Results Of the 254 articles reviewed, 58 were included in our survey. Categorisation occurred in 50 (86%) of them. Of those, 42% also analysed the variable continuously and 24% considered alternative groupings. Most (78%) used 3 to 5 groups. No articles relied solely on dichotomisation, although it did feature prominently in 3 articles. The choice of group boundaries varied: 34% used quantiles, 18% equally spaced categories, 12% external criteria, 34% other approaches and 2% did not describe the approach used. Categorical risk estimates were most commonly (66%) presented as pairwise comparisons to a reference group, usually the highest or lowest (79%). Reporting of categorical analysis was mostly in tables; only 20% in figures. Conclusions Categorical analyses of continuous risk factors are common. Accordingly, we provide recommendations for good practice. Key issues include pre-defining appropriate choice of groupings and analysis strategies, clear presentation of grouped findings in tables and figures, and drawing valid conclusions from categorical analyses, avoiding injudicious use of multiple alternative analyses.

Carotid Stenting: Is There an Operator Effect? A Pooled Analysis From the Carotid Stenting Trialists’ Collaboration

Background and Purpose— Randomized clinical trials show higher 30-day risk of stroke or death after carotid artery stenting compared with surgery. We examined whether operator experience is associated with 30-day risk of stroke or death in the Carotid Stenting Trialists’ Collaboration database. Methods— The Carotid Stenting Trialists’ Collaboration is a pooled individual patient database including all patients recruited in 3 randomized trials of stenting versus endarterectomy for symptomatic carotid stenosis (Endarterectomy Versus Angioplasty in patients with Symptomatic Severe Carotid Stenosis trial, Stent-Protected Angioplasty versus Carotid Endarterectomy trial, and International Carotid Stenting Study). Lifetime carotid artery stenting experience, lifetime experience in stenting procedures excluding the carotid, and annual number of procedures performed within the trial (in-trial volume), divided into tertiles, were used to measure operator experience. The outcome event was the occurrence of any stroke or death within 30 days of the procedure. The analysis was done per protocol. Results— Among 1546 patients who underwent carotid artery stenting, 120 (7.8%) had a stroke or death within 30 days of the procedure. The 30-day risk of stroke or death did not differ according to operator lifetime carotid artery stenting experience (P=0.8) or operator lifetime stenting experience excluding the carotid (P=0.7). In contrast, the 30-day risk of stroke or death was significantly higher in patients treated by operators with low (mean ⩽3.2 procedures/y; risk 10.1%; adjusted risk ratio=2.30 [1.36–3.87]) and intermediate annual in-trial volumes (3.2–5.6 procedures/y; 8.4%; adjusted risk ratio=1.93 [1.14–3.27]) compared with patients treated by high annual in-trial volume operators (>5.6 procedures/y; 5.1%). Conclusions— Carotid stenting should only be performed by operators with annual procedure volume ≥6 cases per year.