Leopoldo Soares Piegas

Renal outcomes with telmisartan, ramipril, or both, in people at high vascular risk (the ONTARGET study): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, controlled trial

BACKGROUND Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) and angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors are known to reduce proteinuria. Their combination might be more effective than either treatment alone, but long-term data for comparative changes in renal function are not available. We investigated the renal effects of ramipril (an ACE inhibitor), telmisartan (an ARB), and their combination in patients aged 55 years or older with established atherosclerotic vascular disease or with diabetes with end-organ damage. METHODS The trial ran from 2001 to 2007. After a 3-week run-in period, 25 620 participants were randomly assigned to ramipril 10 mg a day (n=8576), telmisartan 80 mg a day (n=8542), or to a combination of both drugs (n=8502; median follow-up was 56 months), and renal function and proteinuria were measured. The primary renal outcome was a composite of dialysis, doubling of serum creatinine, and death. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00153101. FINDINGS 784 patients permanently discontinued randomised therapy during the trial because of hypotensive symptoms (406 on combination therapy, 149 on ramipril, and 229 on telmisartan). The number of events for the composite primary outcome was similar for telmisartan (n=1147 [13.4%]) and ramipril (1150 [13.5%]; hazard ratio [HR] 1.00, 95% CI 0.92-1.09), but was increased with combination therapy (1233 [14.5%]; HR 1.09, 1.01-1.18, p=0.037). The secondary renal outcome, dialysis or doubling of serum creatinine, was similar with telmisartan (189 [2.21%]) and ramipril (174 [2.03%]; HR 1.09, 0.89-1.34) and more frequent with combination therapy (212 [2.49%]: HR 1.24, 1.01-1.51, p=0.038). Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) declined least with ramipril compared with telmisartan (-2.82 [SD 17.2] mL/min/1.73 m(2)vs -4.12 [17.4], p<0.0001) or combination therapy (-6.11 [17.9], p<0.0001). The increase in urinary albumin excretion was less with telmisartan (p=0.004) or with combination therapy (p=0.001) than with ramipril. INTERPRETATION In people at high vascular risk, telmisartans effects on major renal outcomes are similar to ramipril. Although combination therapy reduces proteinuria to a greater extent than monotherapy, overall it worsens major renal outcomes.

Impact of diabetes on long-term prognosis in patients with unstable angina and non-Q-wave myocardial infarction: results of the OASIS (Organization to Assess Strategies for Ischemic Syndromes) Registry.

BackgroundAlthough unstable coronary artery disease is the most common reason for admission to a coronary care unit, the long-term prognosis of patients with this diagnosis is unknown. This is particularly true for patients with diabetes mellitus, who are known to have a high morbidity and mortality after an acute myocardial infarction. Methods and ResultsProspectively collected data from 6 different countries in the Organization to Assess Strategies for Ischemic Syndromes (OASIS) registry were analyzed to determine the 2-year prognosis of diabetic and nondiabetic patients who were hospitalized with unstable angina or non–Q-wave myocardial infarction. Overall, 1718 of 8013 registry patients (21%) had diabetes. Diabetic patients had a higher rate of coronary bypass surgery than nondiabetic patients (23% versus 20%, P <0.001) but had similar rates of catheterization and angioplasty. Diabetes independently predicted mortality (relative risk [RR], 1.57; 95% CI, 1.38 to 1.81;P <0.001), as well as cardiovascular death, new myocardial infarction, stroke, and new congestive heart failure. Moreover, compared with their nondiabetic counterparts, women had a significantly higher risk than men (RR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.60 to 2.44; and RR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.56, respectively). Interestingly, diabetic patients without prior cardiovascular disease had the same event rates for all outcomes as nondiabetic patients with previous vascular disease. ConclusionsHospitalization for unstable angina or non–Q-wave myocardial infarction predicts a high 2-year morbidity and mortality; this is especially evident for patients with diabetes. Diabetic patients with no previous cardiovascular disease have the same long-term morbidity and mortality as nondiabetic patients with established cardiovascular disease after hospitalization for unstable coronary artery disease.

Metabolic Modulation of Acute Myocardial Infarction The ECLA Glucose-Insulin-Potassium Pilot Trial

Background —Several trials have been performed in the past using glucose, insulin, and potassium infusion (GIK) for the treatment of acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Because of continuing uncertainty about the potential role of this therapeutic intervention, we conducted a randomized trial to evaluate the impact of a GIK solution during the first hours of AMI. Methods and Results —Four hundred seven patients with suspected AMI admitted within 24 hours of symptoms onset were enrolled. In a ratio of 2:1, 268 patients were allocated to receive GIK (high- or low-dose) and 139 to receive control. Phlebitis and serum changes in the plasma concentration of glucose or potassium were observed more often with GIK. A trend toward a nonsignificant reduction in major and minor in-hospital events was observed in patients allocated to GIK. In 252 patients (61.9%) treated with reperfusion strategies, a statistically significant reduction in mortality (relative risk [RR] 0.34; 95% CI: 0.15 to 0.78; 2 P =0.008) and a consistent trend toward fewer in-hospital events in the GIK group were observed. Conclusions —Our results confirm that a metabolic modulation strategy in the first hours of an AMI is feasible, applicable worldwide, and has mild side effects. The statistically significant mortality reduction in patients who underwent a reperfusion strategy might have important implications for the management of AMI patients. It is now essential to perform a large-scale trial to reliably determine the magnitude of benefit.

Off-Pump or On-Pump Coronary-Artery Bypass Grafting at 30 Days

BACKGROUND The relative benefits and risks of performing coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG) with a beating-heart technique (off-pump CABG), as compared with cardiopulmonary bypass (on-pump CABG), are not clearly established. METHODS At 79 centers in 19 countries, we randomly assigned 4752 patients in whom CABG was planned to undergo the procedure off-pump or on-pump. The first coprimary outcome was a composite of death, nonfatal stroke, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or new renal failure requiring dialysis at 30 days after randomization. RESULTS There was no significant difference in the rate of the primary composite outcome between off-pump and on-pump CABG (9.8% vs. 10.3%; hazard ratio for the off-pump group, 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79 to 1.14; P=0.59) or in any of its individual components. The use of off-pump CABG, as compared with on-pump CABG, significantly reduced the rates of blood-product transfusion (50.7% vs. 63.3%; relative risk, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.75 to 0.85; P<0.001), reoperation for perioperative bleeding (1.4% vs. 2.4%; relative risk, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.93; P=0.02), acute kidney injury (28.0% vs. 32.1%; relative risk, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.80 to 0.96; P=0.01), and respiratory complications (5.9% vs. 7.5%; relative risk, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.63 to 0.98; P=0.03) but increased the rate of early repeat revascularizations (0.7% vs. 0.2%; hazard ratio, 4.01; 95% CI, 1.34 to 12.0; P=0.01). CONCLUSIONS There was no significant difference between off-pump and on-pump CABG with respect to the 30-day rate of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or renal failure requiring dialysis. The use of off-pump CABG resulted in reduced rates of transfusion, reoperation for perioperative bleeding, respiratory complications, and acute kidney injury but also resulted in an increased risk of early revascularization. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research; CORONARY ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00463294.).

Variations between countries in invasive cardiac procedures and outcomes in patients with suspected unstable angina or myocardial infarction without initial ST elevation

BACKGROUND There are wide variations between countries in the use of invasive cardiac catheterisation and revascularisation procedures for patients with acute ischaemic syndromes. We studied the relation between rates of such procedures and rates of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, refractory angina, and major bleeding in a prospective, registry-based study in six countries with widely varying intervention rates. METHODS 7987 consecutive patients presenting with unstable angina or suspected myocardial infarction without ST-segment elevation were recruited prospectively from 95 hospitals in six countries and followed up for 6 months. FINDINGS The rates of all procedures were highest in patients in Brazil and the USA, intermediate in Canada and Australia, and lowest in Hungary and Poland. There were no significant differences in rates of cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction among these countries (4.7% overall [range 3.7-5.6] at 7 days; 11% overall [9-12] at 6 months). For the countries with the highest rates of invasive procedures (59%) versus the rest (21%) there was no difference in rate of cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction (adjusted odds ratio 0.88 at 7 days and 1.0 at 6 months). Rates of stroke were higher in Brazil and the USA than in the countries with lower intervention rates (adjusted odds ratio at 7 days 3.0, p=0.012; at 6 months 1.8, p=0.004) but rates of refractory angina at 7 days (0.7, p<0.001) and readmission for unstable angina at 6 months were lower (0.70, 0.63; both p<0.001). Comparison of results for hospitals without cardiac-catheterisation facilities and for those with such facilities gave adjusted odds ratios for cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 6 months of 0.83 (10.6% vs 12.5%, p=0.05) and for refractory angina of 1.25 (19.3% vs 16.1%, p=0.09). INTERPRETATION Higher rates of invasive and revascularisation procedures were associated with lower rates of refractory angina or readmission for unstable angina, no apparent reduction in cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction, but with higher rates of stroke. Randomised trials should assess the relative impact of conservative and more aggressive approaches to invasive cardiac procedures and revascularisations in patients with unstable angina.

Effects of Off-Pump and On-Pump Coronary-Artery Bypass Grafting at 1 Year

BACKGROUND Previously, we reported that there was no significant difference at 30 days in the rate of a primary composite outcome of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or new renal failure requiring dialysis between patients who underwent coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG) performed with a beating-heart technique (off-pump) and those who underwent CABG performed with cardiopulmonary bypass (on-pump). We now report results on quality of life and cognitive function and on clinical outcomes at 1 year. METHODS We enrolled 4752 patients with coronary artery disease who were scheduled to undergo CABG and randomly assigned them to undergo the procedure off-pump or on-pump. Patients were enrolled at 79 centers in 19 countries. We assessed quality of life and cognitive function at discharge, at 30 days, and at 1 year and clinical outcomes at 1 year. RESULTS At 1 year, there was no significant difference in the rate of the primary composite outcome between off-pump and on-pump CABG (12.1% and 13.3%, respectively; hazard ratio with off-pump CABG, 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.77 to 1.07; P=0.24). The rate of the primary outcome was also similar in the two groups in the period between 31 days and 1 year (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.55 to 1.13; P=0.19). The rate of repeat coronary revascularization at 1 year was 1.4% in the off-pump group and 0.8% in the on-pump group (hazard ratio, 1.66; 95% CI, 0.95 to 2.89; P=0.07). There were no significant differences between the two groups at 1 year in measures of quality of life or neurocognitive function. CONCLUSIONS At 1 year after CABG, there was no significant difference between off-pump and on-pump CABG with respect to the primary composite outcome, the rate of repeat coronary revascularization, quality of life, or neurocognitive function. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research; CORONARY ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00463294.).

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.).

Cholesterol Lowering in Intermediate-Risk Persons without Cardiovascular Disease.

BACKGROUND Previous trials have shown that the use of statins to lower cholesterol reduces the risk of cardiovascular events among persons without cardiovascular disease. Those trials have involved persons with elevated lipid levels or inflammatory markers and involved mainly white persons. It is unclear whether the benefits of statins can be extended to an intermediate-risk, ethnically diverse population without cardiovascular disease. METHODS In one comparison from a 2-by-2 factorial trial, we randomly assigned 12,705 participants in 21 countries who did not have cardiovascular disease and were at intermediate risk to receive rosuvastatin at a dose of 10 mg per day or placebo. The first coprimary outcome was the composite of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke, and the second coprimary outcome additionally included revascularization, heart failure, and resuscitated cardiac arrest. The median follow-up was 5.6 years. RESULTS The overall mean low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level was 26.5% lower in the rosuvastatin group than in the placebo group. The first coprimary outcome occurred in 235 participants (3.7%) in the rosuvastatin group and in 304 participants (4.8%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64 to 0.91; P=0.002). The results for the second coprimary outcome were consistent with the results for the first (occurring in 277 participants [4.4%] in the rosuvastatin group and in 363 participants [5.7%] in the placebo group; hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.64 to 0.88; P<0.001). The results were also consistent in subgroups defined according to cardiovascular risk at baseline, lipid level, C-reactive protein level, blood pressure, and race or ethnic group. In the rosuvastatin group, there was no excess of diabetes or cancers, but there was an excess of cataract surgery (in 3.8% of the participants, vs. 3.1% in the placebo group; P=0.02) and muscle symptoms (in 5.8% of the participants, vs. 4.7% in the placebo group; P=0.005). CONCLUSIONS Treatment with rosuvastatin at a dose of 10 mg per day resulted in a significantly lower risk of cardiovascular events than placebo in an intermediate-risk, ethnically diverse population without cardiovascular disease. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and AstraZeneca; HOPE-3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00468923.).

Rivaroxaban with or without Aspirin in Stable Cardiovascular Disease

BACKGROUND We evaluated whether rivaroxaban alone or in combination with aspirin would be more effective than aspirin alone for secondary cardiovascular prevention. METHODS In this double‐blind trial, we randomly assigned 27,395 participants with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease to receive rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) plus aspirin (100 mg once daily), rivaroxaban (5 mg twice daily), or aspirin (100 mg once daily). The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, stroke, or myocardial infarction. The study was stopped for superiority of the rivaroxaban‐plus‐aspirin group after a mean follow‐up of 23 months. RESULTS The primary outcome occurred in fewer patients in the rivaroxaban‐plus‐aspirin group than in the aspirin‐alone group (379 patients [4.1%] vs. 496 patients [5.4%]; hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66 to 0.86; P<0.001; z=‐4.126), but major bleeding events occurred in more patients in the rivaroxaban‐plus‐aspirin group (288 patients [3.1%] vs. 170 patients [1.9%]; hazard ratio, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.40 to 2.05; P<0.001). There was no significant difference in intracranial or fatal bleeding between these two groups. There were 313 deaths (3.4%) in the rivaroxaban‐plus‐aspirin group as compared with 378 (4.1%) in the aspirin‐alone group (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.96; P=0.01; threshold P value for significance, 0.0025). The primary outcome did not occur in significantly fewer patients in the rivaroxaban‐alone group than in the aspirin‐alone group, but major bleeding events occurred in more patients in the rivaroxaban‐alone group. CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease, those assigned to rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) plus aspirin had better cardiovascular outcomes and more major bleeding events than those assigned to aspirin alone. Rivaroxaban (5 mg twice daily) alone did not result in better cardiovascular outcomes than aspirin alone and resulted in more major bleeding events. (Funded by Bayer; COMPASS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01776424.)

The long-term multicenter observational study of dabigatran treatment in patients with atrial fibrillation (RELY-ABLE) study

Background— During follow-up of between 1 and 3 years in the Randomized Evaluation of Long-term Anticoagulation Therapy (RE-LY) trial, 2 doses of dabigatran etexilate were shown to be effective and safe for the prevention of stroke or systemic embolism in patients with atrial fibrillation. There is a need for longer-term follow-up of patients on dabigatran and for further data comparing the 2 dabigatran doses. Methods and Results— Patients randomly assigned to dabigatran in RE-LY were eligible for the Long-term Multicenter Extension of Dabigatran Treatment in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation (RELY-ABLE) trial if they had not permanently discontinued study medication at the time of their final RE-LY study visit. Enrolled patients continued to receive the double-blind dabigatran dose received in RE-LY, for up to 28 months of follow up after RE-LY (median follow-up, 2.3 years). There were 5851 patients enrolled, representing 48% of patients originally randomly assigned to receive dabigatran in RE-LY and 86% of RELY-ABLE–eligible patients. Rates of stroke or systemic embolism were 1.46% and 1.60%/y on dabigatran 150 and 110 mg twice daily, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.69–1.20). Rates of major hemorrhage were 3.74% and 2.99%/y on dabigatran 150 and 110 mg (hazard ratio, 1.26; 95% confidence interval, 1.04–1.53). Rates of death were 3.02% and 3.10%/y (hazard ratio, 0.97; 95% confidence interval, 0.80–1.19). Rates of hemorrhagic stroke were 0.13% and 0.14%/y. Conclusions— During 2.3 years of continued treatment with dabigatran after RE-LY, there was a higher rate of major bleeding with dabigatran 150 mg twice daily in comparison with 110 mg, and similar rates of stroke and death. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00808067.