Nevin C. Baker

The impact of proprotein convertase subtilisin-kexin type 9 serine protease inhibitors on lipid levels and outcomes in patients with primary hypercholesterolaemia: a network meta-analysis.

AIMS We performed a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in patients with primary hypercholesterolaemia to compare the impact of proprotein convertase subtilisin-kexin type 9 serine protease (PCSK9) inhibitors with placebo and ezetimibe on lipid levels and outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for RCTs assessing PCSK9 inhibitors vs. other therapies in patients with primary hypercholesterolaemia. Network meta-analysis with both a frequentist approach and a Bayesian framework was performed to directly and indirectly compare PCSK9 inhibition on lipid levels with ezetimibe and placebo. Odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (OR [95% CIs]) were generated with random-effects models to compare outcomes. Our meta-analysis included 17 RCTs with 13 083 patients that were randomized to PCSK9 inhibitors (n = 8250), placebo (n = 3957), ezetimibe (n = 846), or PCSK9 inhibitors and ezetimibe (n = 30). The mean age was 59 ± 10, 52% were male, 34% had coronary artery disease, 51% had hypertension, 19% had diabetes mellitus, baseline LDL of 122 ± 36 mg/dL, total cholesterol of 199 ± 39 mg/dL, and HDL of 51 ± 14 mg/dL. inhibitors significantly reduced LDL cholesterol by 57% relative to placebo (P < 0.001) and 36.1% relative to ezetimibe (P < 0.001). Proprotein convertase subtilisin-kexin type 9 serine protease inhibitors reduced the incidence of all-cause mortality [OR 0.43 (95% CI 0.22-0.82), P = 0.01] but was associated with an increased incidence of neurocognitive adverse events [OR 2.34 (95% CI 1.11-4.93), I(2) = 4%, P = 0.02] when compared with placebo. CONCLUSION Proprotein convertase subtilisin-kexin type 9 serine protease inhibition significantly improved lipid profiles and reduced the incidence of all-cause mortality compared with placebo but had a higher rate of neurocognitive adverse events. Thus, PCSK9 inhibitor therapy may serve as an alternative for patients with statin intolerance and for those who do not respond to other lipid reduction therapy.

Scaffold Thrombosis After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With ABSORB Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to determine the risk of scaffold thrombosis (ST) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with placement of an ABSORB bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, California) by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis. BACKGROUND PCI with BVS placement holds great potential, but concern has recently been raised regarding the risk of ST. METHODS MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, and meeting abstracts were searched for all studies that included outcomes data for patients after PCI with BVS placement. For studies comparing BVSs with drug-eluting stents (DES), pooled estimates of outcomes, presented as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), were generated with random-effects models. RESULTS Our analysis included 10,510 patients (8,351 with a BVS and 2,159 with DES) with a follow-up of 6.4 ± 5.1 months and 60 ± 11 years of age; 78% were male, 36% had stable angina, and 59% had acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Among patients with a BVS, cardiovascular death occurred in 0.6%, myocardial infarction (MI) in 2.1%, target lesion revascularization in 2.0%, and definite/probable ST in 1.2% of patients. Of BVS patients, 0.27% had acute ST and 0.57% had subacute ST. Meta-analysis demonstrated that patients who received a BVS were at a higher risk of MI (OR: 2.06, 95% CI: 1.31 to 3.22, p = 0.002) and definite/probable ST (OR: 2.06, 95% CI: 1.07 to 3.98, p = 0.03) compared with patients who received DES, whereas there was a trend toward decreased all-cause mortality with a BVS (OR: 0.40, 95% CI: 0.15 to 1.06, p = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS Patients undergoing PCI with a BVS had increased definite/probable ST and MI during follow-up compared with DES. Further studies with long-term follow-up are needed to assess the risk of ST with a BVS.

Comparison of conventional and high-sensitivity troponin in patients with chest pain: A collaborative meta-analysis

BACKGROUND Multiple studies have evaluated the diagnostic and prognostic performance of conventional troponin (cTn) and high-sensitivity troponin (hs-cTn). We performed a collaborative meta-analysis comparing cTn and hs-cTn for diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and assessment of prognosis in patients with chest pain. METHODS MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, and EMBASE were searched for studies assessing both cTn and hs-cTn in patients with chest pain. Study authors were contacted and many provided previously unpublished data. RESULTS From 17 included studies, there were 8,644 patients. Compared with baseline cTn, baseline hs-cTn had significantly greater sensitivity (0.884 vs 0.749, P < .001) and negative predictive value (NPV; 0.964 vs 0.935, P < .001), whereas specificity (0.816 vs 0.938, P < .001) and positive predictive value (0.558 vs 0.759, P < .001) were significantly reduced. Based on summary receiver operating characteristic curves, test performance for the diagnosis of AMI was not significantly different between baseline cTn and hs-cTn (0.90 [95% CI 0.85-0.95] vs 0.92 [95% CI 0.90-0.94]). In a subanalysis of 6 studies that alternatively defined AMI based on hs-cTn, cTn had lower sensitivity (0.666, P < .001) and NPV (0.906, P < .001). Elevation of baseline hs-cTn, but negative baseline cTn, was associated with increased risk of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction during follow-up (P < .001) compared with both negative. CONCLUSION High-sensitivity troponin has significantly greater early sensitivity and NPV for the diagnosis of AMI at the cost of specificity and positive predictive value, which may enable early rule in/out of AMI in patients with chest pain. Baseline hs-cTn elevation in the setting of negative cTn is also associated with increased nonfatal myocardial infarction or death during follow-up.

Overview of the 2014 Food and Drug Administration Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee Meeting About Vorapaxar

Patients with a history of heart disease are at increased risk for future cardiovascular events, including myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and death resulting from cardiovascular disease. Although coronary artery disease remains the leading cause of mortality worldwide, advancements in medical therapy, particularly antithrombotic agents, have improved patient outcomes.1–4 Although the trend for MI and death after acute coronary syndrome (ACS) over the past 20 years has declined,5,6 such medical advancements are still met with discouraging rates of death and MI after revascularization.7 To this end, it is the recommendation of the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association that all ACS patients, regardless of whether percutaneous coronary intervention was performed, be treated with dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) for 1 year ( Class IA ).8 Such recommendations are based largely on results from the Clopidogrel in Unstable Angina to Prevent Recurrent Events (CURE) trial, which assessed aspirin versus DAPT with aspirin and clopidogrel for the reduction of ischemic end points in patients presenting with non–ST-segment–elevation ACS who did not receive percutaneous coronary intervention.9 Seeing a need for further risk reduction in long-term management of patients with established atherothrombotic risk, the Thrombin Receptor Antagonist in Secondary Prevention of Atherothrombotic Ischemic Events (TRA 2P)–Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) 50 was conducted. The study drug, vorapaxar (Zontivity, Merck, NJ), is an antagonist of the platelet protease-activated receptor (PAR-1) and inhibits thrombin-induced platelet aggregation.10,11 Vorapaxar was shown to have a significant benefit for the reduction of cardiovascular death and ischemic complications in addition to secondary prevention.12 Vorapaxar was also tested in the Thrombin Receptor Antagonist for Clinical Event Reduction in Acute Coronary Syndrome (TRACER) trial as part of adjunct therapy in the non–ST-segment–elevation ACS population.13 In this population, however, …

Meta-analysis of direct and indirect comparison of ticagrelor and prasugrel effects on platelet reactivity.

Studies have linked on-treatment platelet reactivity (PR) to adverse clinical outcomes. Because new P2Y12 inhibitors (prasugrel and ticagrelor) have been predominantly tested against clopidogrel, data on pharmacodynamic comparisons between these 2 drugs are scarce. We compared ticagrelor with prasugrel in a network meta-analysis. PubMed, Cochrane, and EMBASE were searched for studies assessing PR in patients with coronary artery disease treated with ticagrelor or prasugrel. All studies using prasugrel and/or ticagrelor providing platelet function measurement data using VerifyNow P2Y12 reaction units (PRUs), platelet reactivity index (PRI) vasodilator-stimulated phosphoprotein phosphorylation, or maximal platelet aggregation (MPA) by light transmission aggregometry were considered eligible. Mixed treatment comparison models directly compared ticagrelor and prasugrel and indirectly compared them using clopidogrel as a comparator with data presented as mean difference (95% confidence interval). Data were extracted from 29 studies, including 5,395 patients. Compared with clopidogrel 75 mg, both prasugrel 10 mg and ticagrelor 90 mg twice daily were associated with lower PRU (mean difference -117 [-134.1, -100.5] and -159.7 [-182.6, -136.6], respectively), a lower PRI (-24.2 [-28.2, -20.3] and -33.6 [-39.9, -27.6], respectively), and lower MPA (-11.8 [-17, -6.3] and -20.7 [-28.5, -12.8], respectively). Similar results were obtained with clopidogrel 150 mg. Ticagrelor 90 mg twice daily was associated with lower PRU (-42.5 [-62.9, -21.9]), lower PRI (-9.3 [-15.6, -3.5]), and lower MPA (-8.9 [-16.4, -1.2]) compared with prasugrel 10 mg. In conclusion, our meta-analysis suggests that ticagrelor achieved significantly lower on-treatment PR compared with prasugrel, with both being superior to clopidogrel standard or high dose.

Clinical Presentation and Outcomes of Coronary In-Stent Restenosis Across 3-Stent Generations

Background—Clinical presentation of bare metal stent in-stent restenosis (ISR) in patients undergoing target lesion revascularization is well characterized and negatively affects on outcomes, whereas the presentation and outcomes of first- and second-generation drug-eluting stents (DESs) remains under-reported. Methods and Results—The study included 909 patients (1077 ISR lesions) distributed as follows: bare metal stent (n=388), first-generation DES (n=425), and second-generation DES (n=96), categorized into acute coronary syndrome (ACS) or non-ACS presentation mode at the time of first target lesion revascularization. ACS was further classified as myocardial infarction (MI) and unstable angina. For bare metal stent, first-generation DES and second-generation DES, ACS was the clinical presentation in 67.8%, 71.0%, and 66.7% of patients, respectively (P=0.470), whereas MI occurred in 10.6%, 10.1%, and 5.2% of patients, respectively (P=0.273). The correlates for MI as ISR presentation were current smokers (odds ratio, 3.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.78–5.13; P<0.001), and chronic renal failure (odds ratio, 2.73; 95% CI, 1.60–4.70; P<0.001), with a protective trend for the second-generation DES ISR (odds ratio, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.12–1.03; P=0.060). ACS presentations had an independent effect on major adverse cardiac events (death, MI, and re-target lesion revascularization) at 6 months (MI versus non-ACS: adjusted hazard ratio, 4.06; 95% CI, 1.84–8.94; P<0.001; unstable angina versus non-ACS: adjusted hazard ratio, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.01–3.87; P=0.046). Conclusions—ISR clinical presentation is similar irrespective of stent type. MI as ISR presentation seems to be associated with patient and not device-related factors. ACS as ISR presentation has an independent effect on major adverse cardiac events, suggesting that ISR remains a hazard and should be minimized.

Overview of the 2014 Food and Drug Administration Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee Meeting Regarding Cangrelor

Landmark clinical trials have established the benefit of P2Y12 inhibitors in the setting of acute coronary syndrome and percutaneous coronary intervention. On February 12, 2014, the Medicines Company (Sponsor) presented efficacy and safety data regarding cangrelor to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee. The Sponsor sought approval for 2 indications: (1) in the setting of percutaneous coronary intervention for the reduction of thrombotic cardiovascular events (including stent thrombosis) in patients with coronary artery disease and (2) in the setting of bridging therapy in patients with acute coronary syndrome or with stents who are at increased risk for thrombotic events (such as stent thrombosis) when oral P2Y12 therapy is interrupted because of surgery. The following is a summary of the data presented to the FDA by the Sponsor, the FDAs clinical review of cangrelor.

Bivalirudin versus heparin for percutaneous coronary intervention: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

AIMS Given controversy over anticoagulation regimens for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), we performed an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare bivalirudin versus heparin. METHODS AND RESULTS Medline/Pubmed and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched for all RCTs comparing bivalirudin with provisional glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor (GPI) use versus heparin with provisional or routine GPI use for PCI. Pooled estimates of 30day outcomes, presented as risk ratios (RR) [95% confidence intervals], were generated with random-effect models. Our analysis included 14 studies with 30,446 patients that were randomized to bivalirudin with provisional GPI use (n=14,869) versus heparin with provisional (n=6451) or routine GPI use (n=9126). There was no significant difference between anticoagulation with bivalirudin compared with heparin for death (RR 0.95 [0.78-1.14]) or myocardial infarction (RR 1.10 [0.97-1.25]). Early stent thrombosis was significantly greater with bivalirudin compared with heparin (RR 1.61 [1.18-2.20], p=0.003), especially in patients undergoing primary PCI (2.15 [1.15-4.03], p=0.02). However, bivalirudin reduced the risk of major bleeding (RR 0.59 [0.51-0.70], p<0.0001) and TIMI major bleeding (RR 0.59 [0.48-0.72], p<0.0001) compared with heparin. Meta-regression analysis demonstrated that bleeding risk with use of heparin significantly increases with increasing GPI use (p=0.02). CONCLUSION Meta-analysis of 14 RCTs with 30,446 patients demonstrated that bivalirudin is associated with higher risk of stent thrombosis but lower risk of major bleeding compared with heparin.

Clinical profiles and correlates of mortality in nonagenarians with severe aortic stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

BACKGROUND Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is the current standard for nonoperable and high-risk surgical patients with aortic stenosis, including those of advanced age. However, the clinical profiles, procedural characteristics, and outcomes of nonagenarians undergoing TAVR have not been thoroughly reported. METHODS A total of 654 patients (n = 107 >90 years old and n = 547 <90 years) with severe aortic stenosis undergoing TAVR were included in this analysis. Baseline characteristics, procedural variables, and in-hospital outcomes and complications at 30 days and 12 months were analyzed. RESULTS Overall, of the patients included, 46% were high risk and 53% inoperable. Although nonagenarians had a higher Society of Thoracic Surgeons score of 9.2 ± 4 (12.1 ± 4 vs 8.6 ± 4, P < .001), other factors were considerably lower in this group: diabetes (22% vs 36%, P = .008), hyperlipidemia (65% vs 83%, P < .001), prior coronary artery bypass (13% vs 39%, P < .001), and mean body mass index (24.5 ± 5 vs 28.1 ± 7 kg/m(2), P < .001). The correlates for 1-year mortality in nonagenarians were as follows: ≥moderate aortic insufficiency post-TAVR (hazard ratio [HR] 5.07, 95% CI 1.17-22, P = .03), pacemaker implantation after TAVR (HR 6.87, 95% CI 2.32-20.3, P = .001), and peripheral vascular disease (HR 2.35, 95% CI 1.03-5.38, P = .042). Mortality at 30 days (12.1% vs 7.1%, P = .07) and at 1 year (25% vs 21%, P = .35) was similar between groups. CONCLUSION Nonagenarians undergoing TAVR had a healthier clinical profile compared with younger patients. Age alone should not be a discriminatory factor when screening elderly patients with aortic stenosis because even the nonagenarians are doing well when compared with the younger elderly population. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement remains a viable option for the treatment of severe symptomatic aortic stenosis for the elderly regardless of their age.

Impact of Pre-Procedural Serum Albumin Levels on Outcome of Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement

Risk assessment for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) patients is challenging, and surgical scores do not optimally correlate with outcome. The aim of this study was to assess the correlation between serum albumin and survival of patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis undergoing TAVR. Patients with severe aortic stenosis who underwent TAVR were categorized into 2 groups according to low and normal preprocedural serum albumin (<3.5 and ≥3.5 g/dl, respectively). The all-cause mortality rates at hospital discharge, at 30-day and 1-year follow-up were compared across the groups. Additionally, a Cox proportional-hazards model was generated to assess the independent effect of serum albumin at 1-year follow-up. Among 567 consecutive patients who underwent TAVR, 476 (84%) had documented preprocedural serum albumin measurements. Of these, 50% had low serum albumin levels, and 50% had normal serum albumin levels. Baseline and procedural characteristics, including age, gender, and transapical access, were similar among the groups. Prevalence of left ventricular ejection fraction<40% was higher in patients with low albumin (29% vs 20%, p=0.02), and risk assessment according to Society of Thoracic Surgeons score tended to be higher in the low-albumin group (10±4.7 vs 9.4±4.4, p=0.09). Patients presenting with low albumin had higher in-hospital mortality (11% vs 5%), as well as at 30-day (12% vs 6%, p=0.01) and 1-year (29% vs 19%, p=0.02) follow-up. Serum albumin was independently associated with 1-year mortality (adjusted hazard ratio per 0.1 g/dl decrease 1.64, 95% confidence interval 2.50 to 1.75, p=0.02), along with body mass index<20 kg/m2 (hazard ratio 1.89, 95% confidence interval 3.33 to 1.75, p=0.03). In conclusion, preprocedural serum albumin level and low body mass index are independently associated with mortality in patients who undergo TAVR. Patients with severe aortic stenosis and low albumin levels should undergo careful evaluation before and after TAVR.