John A. Cairns

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.

Aspirin, sulfinpyrazone, or both in unstable angina. Results of a Canadian multicenter trial.

We performed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in 555 patients with unstable angina who were hospitalized in coronary care units. Patients received one of four possible treatment regimens: aspirin (325 mg four times daily), sulfinpyrazone (200 mg four times daily), both, or neither. They were entered into the trial within eight days of hospitalization and were treated and followed for up to two years (mean, 18 months). The incidence of cardiac death and nonfatal myocardial infarction, considered together, was 8.6 per cent in the groups given aspirin and 17.0 per cent in the other groups, representing a risk reduction with aspirin of 51 per cent (P = 0.008). The corresponding figures for either cardiac death alone or death from any cause were 3.0 per cent in the groups given aspirin and 11.7 per cent in the other groups, representing a risk reduction of 71 per cent (P = 0.004). Analysis by intention to treat yielded smaller risk reductions with aspirin of 30 per cent (P = 0.072), 56 per cent (P = 0.009), and 43 per cent (P = 0.035) for the outcomes of cardiac death or nonfatal acute myocardial infarction, cardiac death alone, and all deaths, respectively. There was no observed benefit of sulfinpyrazone for any outcome event, and there was no evidence of an interaction between sulfinpyrazone and aspirin. Considered together with the results of a previous clinical trial, these findings provide strong evidence for a beneficial effect of aspirin in patients with unstable angina.

Randomised trial of outcome after myocardial infarction in patients with frequent or repetitive ventricular premature depolarisations: CAMIAT

BACKGROUND Survivors of acute myocardial infarction with frequent or repetitive ventricular premature depolarisations (VPDs) have higher mortality 1-2 years after the event than those without VPDs. Although there is no therapy of proven efficacy for such patients, previous studies of amiodarone have been encouraging. CAMIAT was a randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial designed to assess the effect of amiodarone on the risk of resuscitated ventricular fibrillation or arrhythmic death among survivors of myocardial infarction with frequent or repetitive VPDs (> or = 10 VPDs per h or > or = 1 run of ventricular tachycardia). METHODS Patients from 36 Canadian hospitals were randomly assigned amiodarone or placebo; a loading dose of 10 mg/kg daily for 2 weeks, a maintenance dose of 300-400 mg daily for 3.5 months, 200-300 mg daily for 4 months, and 200 mg for 5-7 days per week for 16 months. Patients were followed up for 2 years. The primary outcome was the composite of resuscitated ventricular fibrillation or arrhythmic death. FINDINGS We recruited 1202 patients (606 in the amiodarone group and 596 in the placebo group). The mean follow-up was 1.79 years (SD 0.44). In the efficacy analysis, resuscitated ventricular fibrillation or arrhythmic death occurred in 39 (6.9%) [corrected] patients in the placebo group and in 25 (4.5%) [corrected] in the amiodarone group (relative-risk reduction 48.5% [95% CI 4.5 to 72.2], p = 0.016). In the intention-to-treat analysis, primary outcome events occurred in 24 (6.9%) patients in the placebo group and in 15 (4.5%) in the amiodarone group (38.2% [95% CI -2.1 to 62.6], p = 0.029). The absolute-risk reductions were greatest among patients with congestive heart failure or a history of myocardial infarction. INTERPRETATION Amiodarone reduces the incidence of ventricular fibrillation or arrhythmic death among survivors of acute myocardial infarction with frequent or repetitive VPDs. Treatment decisions for individual survivors should require an assessment of their baseline risk factors and judgments based on the synthesis of our findings with those of related trials.

Focused 2012 Update of the Canadian Cardiovascular Society Atrial Fibrillation Guidelines: Recommendations for Stroke Prevention and Rate/Rhythm Control

The Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) published the complete set of 2010 Atrial Fibrillation (AF) Guidelines in the January, 2011 issue of the Canadian Journal of Cardiology. During its deliberations, the CCS Guidelines Committee engaged to a timely review of future evidence, with periodic composition of focused updates to address clinically important advances. In 2011, results were published from 3 pivotal AF trials: the Rivaroxaban Once Daily Oral Direct Factor Xa Inhibition Compared with Vitamin K Antagonist for Prevention of Stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fibrillation (ROCKET-AF), the Apixaban for Reduction in Stroke and Other Thromboembolic Events in Atrial Fibrillation (ARISTOTLE) study, and the Permanent Atrial Fibrillation Outcome Study Using Dronedarone on Top of Standard Therapy (PALLAS), comparing dronedarone with placebo in patients with permanent AF and additional cardiovascular disease risk-factor burden. Each of these large randomized trials provided clear results with major implications for AF management. Other important evidence that has emerged since the 2010 Guidelines includes findings about prediction instruments for AF-associated stroke and bleeding risk, stroke risk in paroxysmal-AF patients, risk-benefit considerations related to oral anticoagulation in patients with chronic kidney disease, and risk/benefit considerations in the use of antiplatelet agents, alone and in combination with each other or with oral anticoagulants, in AF patients. The Guidelines Committee judged that this extensive and important new evidence required focused updating of the 2010 Guidelines with respect to stroke prevention and rate/rhythm control. This report presents the details of the new recommendations, along with the background and rationale.

2014 Focused Update of the Canadian Cardiovascular Society Guidelines for the Management of Atrial Fibrillation

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is an extremely common clinical problem with an important population morbidity and mortality burden. The management of AF is complex and fraught with many uncertain and contentious issues, which are being addressed by extensive ongoing basic and clinical research. The Canadian Cardiovascular Society AF Guidelines Committee produced an extensive set of evidence-based AF management guidelines in 2010 and updated them in the areas of anticoagulation and rate/rhythm control in 2012. In late 2013, the committee judged that sufficient new information regarding AF management had become available since 2012 to warrant an update to the Canadian Cardiovascular Society AF Guidelines. After extensive evaluation of the new evidence, the committee has updated the guidelines for: (1) stroke prevention principles; (2) anticoagulation of AF patients with chronic kidney disease; (3) detection of AF in patients with stroke; (4) investigation and management of subclinical AF; (5) left atrial appendage closure in stroke prevention; (6) emergency department management of AF; (7) periprocedural anticoagulation management; and (8) rate and rhythm control including catheter ablation. This report presents the details of the updated recommendations, along with their background and rationale. In addition, a complete set of presently applicable recommendations, those that have been updated and those that remain in force from previous guideline versions, is provided in the Supplementary Material.

Canadian Cardiovascular Society Atrial Fibrillation Guidelines 2010: Prevention of Stroke and Systemic Thromboembolism in Atrial Fibrillation and Flutter

The stroke rate in atrial fibrillation is 4.5% per year, with death or permanent disability in over half. The risk of stroke varies from under 1% to over 20% per year, related to the risk factors of congestive heart failure, hypertension, age, diabetes, and prior stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA). Major bleeding with vitamin K antagonists varies from about 1% to over 12% per year and is related to a number of risk factors. The CHADS(2) index and the HAS-BLED score are useful schemata for the prediction of stroke and bleeding risks. Vitamin K antagonists reduce the risk of stroke by 64%, aspirin reduces it by 19%, and vitamin K antagonists reduce the risk of stroke by 39% when directly compared with aspirin. Dabigatran is superior to warfarin for stroke prevention and causes no increase in major bleeding. We recommend that all patients with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter, whether paroxysmal, persistent, or permanent, should be stratified for the risk of stroke and for the risk of bleeding and that most should receive antithrombotic therapy. We make detailed recommendations as to the preferred agents in various types of patients and for the management of antithrombotic therapies in the common clinical settings of cardioversion, concomitant coronary artery disease, surgical or diagnostic procedures with a risk of major bleeding, and the occurrence of stroke or major bleeding. Alternatives to antithrombotic therapies are briefly discussed.

Effects of Radial Versus Femoral Artery Access in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes With or Without ST-Segment Elevation

OBJECTIVES The purpose of this study was to determine the consistency of the effects of radial artery access in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and in those with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTEACS). BACKGROUND The safety associated with radial access may translate into mortality benefit in higher-risk patients, such as those with STEMI. METHODS We compared efficacy and bleeding outcomes in patients randomized to radial versus femoral access in RIVAL (RadIal Vs femorAL access for coronary intervention trial) (N = 7,021) separately in those with STEMI (n = 1,958) and NSTEACS (n = 5,063). Interaction tests between access site and acute coronary syndrome type were performed. RESULTS Baseline characteristics were well matched between radial and femoral groups. There were significant interactions for the primary outcome of death/myocardial infarction/stroke/non-coronary artery bypass graft-related major bleeding (p = 0.025), the secondary outcome of death/myocardial infarction/stroke (p = 0.011) and mortality (p = 0.001). In STEMI patients, radial access reduced the primary outcome compared with femoral access (3.1% vs. 5.2%; hazard ratio [HR]: 0.60; p = 0.026). For NSTEACS, the rates were 3.8% and 3.5%, respectively (p = 0.49). In STEMI patients, death/myocardial infarction/stroke were also reduced with radial access (2.7% vs. 4.6%; HR 0.59; p = 0.031), as was all-cause mortality (1.3% vs. 3.2%; HR: 0.39; p = 0.006), with no difference in NSTEACS patients. Operator radial experience was greater in STEMI versus NSTEACS patients (400 vs. 326 cases/year, p < 0.0001). In primary PCI, mortality was reduced with radial access (1.4% vs. 3.1%; HR: 0.46; p = 0.041). CONCLUSIONS In patients with STEMI, radial artery access reduced the primary outcome and mortality. No such benefit was observed in patients with NSTEACS. The radial approach may be preferred in STEMI patients when the operator has considerable radial experience. (A Trial of Trans-radial Versus Trans-femoral Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) Access Site Approach in Patients With Unstable Angina or Myocardial Infarction Managed With an Invasive Strategy [RIVAL]; NCT01014273).

Comparison of High-Dose with Low-Dose Subcutaneous Heparin to Prevent Left Ventricular Mural Thrombosis in Patients with Acute Transmural Anterior Myocardial Infarction

We performed a double-blind randomized trial comparing high doses of subcutaneous heparin (12,500 units every 12 hours) with low doses (5000 units every 12 hours) for 10 days in the prevention of left ventricular mural thrombosis in 221 patients with acute anterior myocardial infarction. Left ventricular mural thrombosis was observed by two-dimensional echocardiography on the 10th day after infarction in 10 of 95 patients (11 percent) in the high-dose group and in 28 of 88 patients (32 percent) in the low-dose group (P = 0.0004). One patient in the high-dose group and four in the low-dose group had nonhemorrhagic strokes (P = 0.17). One patient in the low-dose group had a fatal pulmonary embolism. There was no difference in the frequency of hemorrhagic complications, which occurred in six patients in the high-dose group and four in the low-dose group. The mean (+/- SEM) plasma heparin concentration was 0.18 +/- 0.017 U per milliliter in the high-dose group and 0.01 +/- 0.005 U per milliliter in the low-dose group (P less than 0.0001). In the high-dose group, the mean plasma heparin concentration was 0.10 +/- 0.029 U per milliliter among patients with abnormal two-dimensional echocardiograms, as compared with 0.19 +/- 0.019 U per milliliter among patients with normal echocardiograms (P = 0.01). We conclude that heparin administered subcutaneously in a dosage of 12,500 units every 12 hours to patients with acute anterior transmural myocardial infarction is more effective than a lower dosage (5000 units every 12 hours) in preventing left ventricular mural thrombosis.

Amiodarone Interaction With β-Blockers Analysis of the Merged EMIAT (European Myocardial Infarct Amiodarone Trial) and CAMIAT (Canadian Amiodarone Myocardial Infarction Trial) Databases

Background—Investigations with in vitro and animal models suggest an interaction between amiodarone and β-blockers. The objective of this work was to explore if an interaction with β-blocker treatment plays a role in the decrease of cardiac arrhythmic deaths with amiodarone in patients recovered from an acute myocardial infarction. Methods and Results—A pooled database from 2 similar randomized clinical trials, the European Amiodarone Myocardial Infarction Trial (EMIAT) and the Canadian Amiodarone Myocardial Infarction Trial (CAMIAT), was used. Four groups of post–myocardial infarction patients were defined: β-blockers and amiodarone used, β-blockers used alone, amiodarone used alone, and neither used. All analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. Unadjusted and adjusted relative risks for all-cause mortality, cardiac death, arrhythmic cardiac death, nonarrhythmic cardiac death, arrhythmic death, or resuscitated cardiac arrest were lower for patients receiving β-blockers and amiodarone than for t...BACKGROUND Investigations with in vitro and animal models suggest an interaction between amiodarone and beta-blockers. The objective of this work was to explore if an interaction with beta-blocker treatment plays a role in the decrease of cardiac arrhythmic deaths with amiodarone in patients recovered from an acute myocardial infarction. METHODS AND RESULTS A pooled database from 2 similar randomized clinical trials, the European Amiodarone Myocardial Infarction Trial (EMIAT) and the Canadian Amiodarone Myocardial Infarction Trial (CAMIAT), was used. Four groups of post-myocardial infarction patients were defined: beta-blockers and amiodarone used, beta-blockers used alone, amiodarone used alone, and neither used. All analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. Unadjusted and adjusted relative risks for all-cause mortality, cardiac death, arrhythmic cardiac death, nonarrhythmic cardiac death, arrhythmic death, or resuscitated cardiac arrest were lower for patients receiving beta-blockers and amiodarone than for those without beta-blockers, with or without amiodarone. The interaction was statistically significant for cardiac death and arrhythmic death or resuscitated cardiac arrest (P=0.05 and 0.03, respectively). Findings were consistent across subgroups. CONCLUSIONS These findings are based on a post hoc analysis. However, they confirm prior results from in vitro and animal experiments suggesting an interaction between beta-blockers and amiodarone. In practice, not only is the adjunct of amiodarone to beta-blockers not hazardous, but beta-blocker therapy should be continued if possible in patients in whom amiodarone is indicated.

Depression and risk of sudden cardiac death after acute myocardial infarction: testing for the confounding effects of fatigue.

OBJECTIVES This study examined the impact of depressive symptoms and social support on 2-year sudden cardiac death (SCD) risk, controlling for fatigue symptoms. METHODS Myocardial infarction (MI) patients (N = 671) participating in the Canadian Amiodarone Myocardial Infarction Arrhythmia Trial completed measures of depression, hostility, and social support. RESULTS After controlling for significant biological predictors, psychosocial predictors of increased SCD risk in the survival analysis were greater social network contacts (RR = 1.04; 95% CI = 1.01-1.06; p < .007), lower social participation (RR = 0.98; 95% CI = 0.96-1.00; p < .05), and, in placebo-treated patients, elevated depressive symptoms (RR = 2.45; 95% CI = 1.14-5.35; p < .02). Fatigue was associated with SCD (RR = 1.31; 95% CI = 1.11-1.53; p < .001), and, when included in the model, diminished the influence of depression (RR = 1.73; 95% CI = 0.75-3.98; p = .20). When the cognitive-affective depressive symptoms were examined separately from somatic symptoms, there was a trend for an association between cognitive-affective symptoms and SCD in placebo-treated patients after controlling for fatigue (RR = 1.09; 95% CI = 0.99-1.19, p < .06). CONCLUSIONS Symptoms of depression and fatigue overlap in patients with MI. The trend for the cognitive-affective symptoms of depression to be associated with SCD risk, even after controlling for dyspnea/fatigue, suggests that the association between depression and mortality after AMI cannot be entirely explained as a confound of cardiac-related fatigue. The independent contribution of social participation suggests a role of both depressive symptomatology and social factors in influencing mortality risk after MI.