Manesh R. Patel

Rivaroxaban versus Warfarin in Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation

BACKGROUND The use of warfarin reduces the rate of ischemic stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation but requires frequent monitoring and dose adjustment. Rivaroxaban, an oral factor Xa inhibitor, may provide more consistent and predictable anticoagulation than warfarin. METHODS In a double-blind trial, we randomly assigned 14,264 patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation who were at increased risk for stroke to receive either rivaroxaban (at a daily dose of 20 mg) or dose-adjusted warfarin. The per-protocol, as-treated primary analysis was designed to determine whether rivaroxaban was noninferior to warfarin for the primary end point of stroke or systemic embolism. RESULTS In the primary analysis, the primary end point occurred in 188 patients in the rivaroxaban group (1.7% per year) and in 241 in the warfarin group (2.2% per year) (hazard ratio in the rivaroxaban group, 0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66 to 0.96; P<0.001 for noninferiority). In the intention-to-treat analysis, the primary end point occurred in 269 patients in the rivaroxaban group (2.1% per year) and in 306 patients in the warfarin group (2.4% per year) (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.03; P<0.001 for noninferiority; P=0.12 for superiority). Major and nonmajor clinically relevant bleeding occurred in 1475 patients in the rivaroxaban group (14.9% per year) and in 1449 in the warfarin group (14.5% per year) (hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.11; P=0.44), with significant reductions in intracranial hemorrhage (0.5% vs. 0.7%, P=0.02) and fatal bleeding (0.2% vs. 0.5%, P=0.003) in the rivaroxaban group. CONCLUSIONS In patients with atrial fibrillation, rivaroxaban was noninferior to warfarin for the prevention of stroke or systemic embolism. There was no significant between-group difference in the risk of major bleeding, although intracranial and fatal bleeding occurred less frequently in the rivaroxaban group. (Funded by Johnson & Johnson and Bayer; ROCKET AF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00403767.).

ACCF/SCAI/STS/AATS/AHA/ASNC 2009 Appropriateness Criteria for Coronary Revascularization A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriateness Criteria Task Force, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American Heart Association, and the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology: Endorsed by the American Society of Echocardiography, the Heart Failure Society of America, and the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography

The American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF), Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, and the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, along with key specialty and subspecialty societies, conducted an appropriateness review of common clinical scenarios in which coronary revascularization is frequently considered. The clinical scenarios were developed to mimic common situations encountered in everyday practice and included information on symptom status, extent of medical therapy, risk level as assessed by noninvasive testing, and coronary anatomy. Approximately 180 clinical scenarios were developed by a writing committee and scored by a separate technical panel on a scale of 1 to 9. Scores of 7 to 9 indicate that revascularization was considered appropriate and likely to improve health outcomes or survival. Scores of 1 to 3 indicate revascularization was considered inappropriate and unlikely to improve health outcomes or survival. The mid range (4 to 6) indicates a clinical scenario for which the likelihood that coronary revascularization would improve health outcomes or survival was considered uncertain. For the majority of the clinical scenarios, the panel only considered the appropriateness of revascularization irrespective of whether this was accomplished by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG). In a select subgroup of clinical scenarios in which revascularization is generally considered appropriate, the appropriateness of PCI and CABG individually as the primary mode of revascularization was considered. In general, the use of coronary revascularization for patients with acute coronary syndromes and combinations of significant symptoms and/or ischemia was viewed favorably. In contrast, revascularization of asymptomatic patients or patients with low-risk findings on noninvasive testing and minimal medical therapy were viewed less favorably. It is anticipated that these results will have an impact on physician decision making and patient education regarding expected benefits from revascularization and will help guide future research.

Outcomes of Anatomical versus Functional Testing for Coronary Artery Disease

BACKGROUND Many patients have symptoms suggestive of coronary artery disease (CAD) and are often evaluated with the use of diagnostic testing, although there are limited data from randomized trials to guide care. METHODS We randomly assigned 10,003 symptomatic patients to a strategy of initial anatomical testing with the use of coronary computed tomographic angiography (CTA) or to functional testing (exercise electrocardiography, nuclear stress testing, or stress echocardiography). The composite primary end point was death, myocardial infarction, hospitalization for unstable angina, or major procedural complication. Secondary end points included invasive cardiac catheterization that did not show obstructive CAD and radiation exposure. RESULTS The mean age of the patients was 60.8±8.3 years, 52.7% were women, and 87.7% had chest pain or dyspnea on exertion. The mean pretest likelihood of obstructive CAD was 53.3±21.4%. Over a median follow-up period of 25 months, a primary end-point event occurred in 164 of 4996 patients in the CTA group (3.3%) and in 151 of 5007 (3.0%) in the functional-testing group (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.83 to 1.29; P=0.75). CTA was associated with fewer catheterizations showing no obstructive CAD than was functional testing (3.4% vs. 4.3%, P=0.02), although more patients in the CTA group underwent catheterization within 90 days after randomization (12.2% vs. 8.1%). The median cumulative radiation exposure per patient was lower in the CTA group than in the functional-testing group (10.0 mSv vs. 11.3 mSv), but 32.6% of the patients in the functional-testing group had no exposure, so the overall exposure was higher in the CTA group (mean, 12.0 mSv vs. 10.1 mSv; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS In symptomatic patients with suspected CAD who required noninvasive testing, a strategy of initial CTA, as compared with functional testing, did not improve clinical outcomes over a median follow-up of 2 years. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; PROMISE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01174550.).

ACCF/SCCT/ACR/AHA/ASE/ASNC/NASCI/SCAI/SCMR 2010 Appropriate Use Criteria for Cardiac Computed Tomography

The American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF), along with key specialty and subspecialty societies, conducted an appropriate use review of common clinical scenarios where cardiac computed tomography (CCT) is frequently considered. The present document is an update to the original CCT/cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) appropriateness criteria published in 2006, written to reflect changes in test utilization, to incorporate new clinical data, and to clarify CCT use where omissions or lack of clarity existed in the original criteria (1). The indications for this review were drawn from common applications or anticipated uses, as well as from current clinical practice guidelines. Ninety-three clinical scenarios were developed by a writing group and scored by a separate technical panel on a scale of 1 to 9 to designate appropriate use, inappropriate use, or uncertain use. In general, use of CCT angiography for diagnosis and risk assessment in patients with low or intermediate risk or pretest probability for coronary artery disease (CAD) was viewed favorably, whereas testing in high-risk patients, routine repeat testing, and general screening in certain clinical scenarios were viewed less favorably. Use of noncontrast computed tomography (CT) for calcium scoring was rated as appropriate within intermediate- and selected low-risk patients. Appropriate applications of CCT are also within the category of cardiac structural and functional evaluation. It is anticipated that these results will have an impact on physician decision making, performance, and reimbursement policy, and that they will help guide future research.

2011 ACCF/AHA Guideline for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines

L. David Hillis, MD, FACC, Chair†; Peter K. Smith, MD, FACC, Vice Chair*†; Jeffrey L. Anderson, MD, FACC, FAHA*‡; John A. Bittl, MD, FACC§; Charles R. Bridges, MD, SCD, FACC, FAHA*†; John G. Byrne, MD, FACC†; Joaquin E. Cigarroa, MD, FACC†; Verdi J. DiSesa, MD, FACC†; Loren F. Hiratzka, MD, FACC, FAHA†; Adolph M. Hutter, Jr, MD, MACC, FAHA†; Michael E. Jessen, MD, FACC*†; Ellen C. Keeley, MD, MS†; Stephen J. Lahey, MD†; Richard A. Lange, MD, FACC, FAHA†§; Martin J. London, MD ; Michael J. Mack, MD, FACC*¶; Manesh R. Patel, MD, FACC†; John D. Puskas, MD, FACC*†; Joseph F. Sabik, MD, FACC*#; Ola Selnes, PhD†; David M. Shahian, MD, FACC, FAHA**; Jeffrey C. Trost, MD, FACC*†; Michael D. Winniford, MD, FACC†

2011 ACCF/AHA Guideline for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery

Alice K. Jacobs, MD, FACC, FAHA, Chair Jeffrey L. Anderson, MD, FACC, FAHA, Chair-Elect Nancy Albert, PhD, CCNS, CCRN, FAHA Mark A. Creager, MD, FACC, FAHA Steven M. Ettinger, MD, FACC Robert A. Guyton, MD, FACC Jonathan L. Halperin, MD, FACC, FAHA Judith S. Hochman, MD, FACC, FAHA

ACCF/ACR/AHA/NASCI/SCMR 2010 Expert Consensus Document on Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation Task Force on Expert Consensus Documents

Robert A. Harrington, MD, FACC, FAHA, Chair Jeffrey L. Anderson, MD, FACC, FAHA[††][1] Eric R. Bates, MD, FACC Charles R. Bridges, MD, MPH, FACC, FAHA Mark J. Eisenberg, MD, MPH, FACC, FAHA Victor A. Ferrari, MD, FACC, FAHA Cindy L. Grines, MD, FACC[††][1] Mark A. Hlatky, MD, FACC,

Prevention of stroke and systemic embolism with rivaroxaban compared with warfarin in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation and moderate renal impairment

AIMS Patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) and renal insufficiency are at increased risk for ischaemic stroke and bleeding during anticoagulation. Rivaroxaban, an oral, direct factor Xa inhibitor metabolized predominantly by the liver, preserves the benefit of warfarin for stroke prevention while causing fewer intracranial and fatal haemorrhages. METHODS AND RESULTS We randomized 14 264 patients with AF in a double-blind trial to rivaroxaban 20 mg/day [15 mg/day if creatinine clearance (CrCl) 30-49 mL/min] or dose-adjusted warfarin (target international normalized ratio 2.0-3.0). Compared with patients with CrCl >50 mL/min (mean age 73 years), the 2950 (20.7%) patients with CrCl 30-49 mL/min were older (79 years) and had higher event rates irrespective of study treatment. Among those with CrCl 30-49 mL/min, the primary endpoint of stroke or systemic embolism occurred in 2.32 per 100 patient-years with rivaroxaban 15 mg/day vs. 2.77 per 100 patient-years with warfarin [hazard ratio (HR) 0.84; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57-1.23] in the per-protocol population. Intention-to-treat analysis yielded similar results (HR 0.86; 95% CI 0.63-1.17) to the per-protocol results. Rates of the principal safety endpoint (major and clinically relevant non-major bleeding: 17.82 vs. 18.28 per 100 patient-years; P = 0.76) and intracranial bleeding (0.71 vs. 0.88 per 100 patient-years; P = 0.54) were similar with rivaroxaban or warfarin. Fatal bleeding (0.28 vs. 0.74% per 100 patient-years; P = 0.047) occurred less often with rivaroxaban. CONCLUSION Patients with AF and moderate renal insufficiency have higher rates of stroke and bleeding than those with normal renal function. There was no evidence of heterogeneity in treatment effect across dosing groups. Dose adjustment in ROCKET-AF yielded results consistent with the overall trial in comparison with dose-adjusted warfarin.

Detection of Myocardial Damage in Patients With Sarcoidosis

Background— In patients with sarcoidosis, sudden death is a leading cause of mortality, which may represent unrecognized cardiac involvement. Delayed-enhancement cardiovascular magnetic resonance (DE-CMR) can detect minute amounts of myocardial damage. We sought to compare DE-CMR with standard clinical evaluation for the identification of cardiac involvement. Methods and Results— Eighty-one consecutive patients with biopsy-proven extracardiac sarcoidosis were prospectively recruited for a parallel and masked comparison of cardiac involvement between (1) DE-CMR and (2) standard clinical evaluation with the use of consensus criteria (modified Japanese Ministry of Health [JMH] guidelines). Standard evaluation included 12-lead ECG and at least 1 dedicated non-CMR cardiac study (echocardiography, radionuclide scintigraphy, or cardiac catheterization). Patients were followed for 21±8 months for major adverse events (death, defibrillator shock, or pacemaker requirement). Patients were predominantly middle-aged (46±11 years), female (62%), and black (73%) and had chronic sarcoidosis (median, 7 years) and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (median, 56%). DE-CMR identified cardiac involvement in 21 patients (26%) and JMH criteria in 10 (12%, 8 overlapping), a >2-fold higher rate for DE-CMR (P=0.005). All patients with myocardial damage on DE-CMR had coronary disease excluded by x-ray angiography. Pathology evaluation in 15 patients (19%) identified 4 with cardiac sarcoidosis; all 4 were positive by DE-CMR, whereas 2 were JMH positive. On follow-up, 8 had adverse events, including 5 cardiac deaths. Patients with myocardial damage on DE-CMR had a 9-fold higher rate of adverse events and an 11.5-fold higher rate of cardiac death than patients without damage. Conclusions— In patients with sarcoidosis, DE-CMR is more than twice as sensitive for cardiac involvement as current consensus criteria. Myocardial damage detected by DE-CMR appears to be associated with future adverse events including cardiac death, but events were few, and this needs confirmation in a larger cohort.

ACCF/ASE/AHA/ASNC/HFSA/HRS/SCAI/SCCM/SCCT/SCMR 2011 Appropriate Use Criteria for Echocardiography

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1128 Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1128