Petr Widimsky

European guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice: executive summary

Guidelines and Expert Consensus Documents summarize and evaluate all currently available evidence on a particular issue with the aim to assist physicians in selecting the best management strategies for a typical patient, suffering from a given condition, taking into account the impact on outcome, as well as the risk–benefit ratio of particular diagnostic or therapeutic means. Guidelines are not substitutes for textbooks. The legal implications of medical guidelines have been discussed previously. A great number of Guidelines and Expert Consensus Documents have been issued in recent years by the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) as well as by other societies and organizations. Because of the impact on clinical practice, quality criteria for development of guidelines have been established in order to make all decisions transparent to the user. The recommendations for formulating and issuing ESC Guidelines and Expert Consensus Documents can be found on the ESC web site (http://www.escardio.org/knowledge/guidelines/rules). In brief, experts in the field are selected and undertake a comprehensive review of the published evidence for management and/or prevention of a given condition. A critical evaluation of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures is performed, including assessment of the risk–benefit ratio. Estimates of expected health outcomes for larger societies are included, where data exist. The level of evidence and the strength of recommendation of particular treatment options are weighed and graded according to predefined scales, as outlined in the tables below. The experts of the writing panels have provided disclosure statements of all relationships they may have which might be perceived as real or potential sources of conflicts of interest. These disclosure forms are kept on file at the European Heart House, headquarters of the ESC. Any changes in conflict of interest that arise during the writing period must be notified to the ESC. The Task Force report was entirely …

ESC guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure 2008: the Task Force for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure 2008 of the European Society of Cardiology. Developed in collaboration with the Heart Failure Association of the ESC (HFA) and endorsed by the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM).

Authors/Task Force Members: Kenneth Dickstein (Chairperson) (Norway)*, Alain Cohen-Solal (France), Gerasimos Filippatos (Greece), John J.V. McMurray (UK), Piotr Ponikowski (Poland), Philip Alexander Poole-Wilson (UK), Anna Strömberg (Sweden), Dirk J. van Veldhuisen (The Netherlands), Dan Atar (Norway), Arno W. Hoes (The Netherlands), Andre Keren (Israel), Alexandre Mebazaa (France), Markku Nieminen (Finland), Silvia Giuliana Priori (Italy), Karl Swedberg (Sweden)

Guidelines on the diagnosis and management of acute pulmonary embolism: the Task Force for the Diagnosis and Management of Acute Pulmonary Embolism of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC).

Non-thrombotic PE does not represent a distinct clinical syndrome. It may be due to a variety of embolic materials and result in a wide spectrum of clinical presentations, making the diagnosis difficult. With the exception of severe air and fat embolism, the haemodynamic consequences of non-thrombotic emboli are usually mild. Treatment is mostly supportive but may differ according to the type of embolic material and clinical severity.

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.

European guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice: full text. Fourth Joint Task Force of the European Society of Cardiology and other societies on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice (constituted by representatives of nine societies and by invited experts).

Other experts who contributed to parts of the guidelines: Edmond Walma, Tony Fitzgerald, Marie Therese Cooney, Alexandra Dudina European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Committee for Practice Guidelines (CPG): Alec Vahanian (Chairperson), John Camm, Raffaele De Caterina, Veronica Dean, Kenneth Dickstein, Christian Funck-Brentano, Gerasimos Filippatos, Irene Hellemans, Steen Dalby Kristensen, Keith McGregor, Udo Sechtem, Sigmund Silber, Michal Tendera, Petr Widimsky, Jose Luis Zamorano Document reviewers: Irene Hellemans (CPG Review Co-ordinator), Attila Altiner, Enzo Bonora, Paul N. Durrington, Robert Fagard, Simona Giampaoli, Harry Hemingway, Jan Hakansson, Sverre Erik Kjeldsen, Mogens Lytken Larsen, Giuseppe Mancia, Athanasios J. Manolis, Kristina Orth-Gomer, Terje Pedersen, Mike Rayner, Lars Ryden, Mario Sammut, Neil Schneiderman, Anton F. Stalenhoef, Lale Tokgözoglu, Olov Wiklund, Antonis Zampelas

Double-dose versus standard-dose clopidogrel and high-dose versus low-dose aspirin in individuals undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for acute coronary syndromes (CURRENT-OASIS 7): a randomised factorial trial

BACKGROUND Clopidogrel and aspirin are the most commonly used antiplatelet therapies for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We assessed the effect of various clopidogrel and aspirin regimens in prevention of major cardiovascular events and stent thrombosis in patients undergoing PCI. METHODS The CURRENT-OASIS 7 trial was undertaken in 597 centres in 39 countries. 25,086 individuals with acute coronary syndromes and intended early PCI were randomly assigned to double-dose (600 mg on day 1, 150 mg on days 2-7, then 75 mg daily) versus standard-dose (300 mg on day 1 then 75 mg daily) clopidogrel, and high-dose (300-325 mg daily) versus low-dose (75-100 mg daily) aspirin. Randomisation was done with a 24 h computerised central automated voice response system. The clopidogrel dose comparison was double-blind and the aspirin dose comparison was open label with blinded assessment of outcomes. This prespecified analysis is of the 17,263 individuals who underwent PCI. The primary outcome was cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 30 days. Analyses were by intention to treat, adjusted for propensity to undergo PCI. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00335452. FINDINGS 8560 patients were assigned to double-dose and 8703 to standard-dose clopidogrel (8558 and 8702 completed 30-day follow-up, respectively), and 8624 to high-dose and 8639 to low-dose aspirin (8622 and 8638 completed 30-day follow-up, respectively). Compared with the standard dose, double-dose clopidogrel reduced the rate of the primary outcome (330 events [3·9%] vs 392 events [4·5%]; adjusted hazard ratio 0·86, 95% CI 0·74-0·99, p=0·039) and definite stent thrombosis (58 [0·7%] vs 111 [1·3%]; 0·54 [0·39-0·74], p=0·0001). High-dose and low-dose aspirin did not differ for the primary outcome (356 [4·1%] vs 366 [4·2%]; 0·98, 0·84-1·13, p=0·76). Major bleeding was more common with double-dose than with standard-dose clopidogrel (139 [1·6%] vs 99 [1·1%]; 1·41, 1·09-1·83, p=0·009) and did not differ between high-dose and low-dose aspirin (128 [1·5%] vs 110 [1·3%]; 1·18, 0·92-1·53, p=0·20). INTERPRETATION In patients undergoing PCI for acute coronary syndromes, a 7-day double-dose clopidogrel regimen was associated with a reduction in cardiovascular events and stent thrombosis compared with the standard dose. Efficacy and safety did not differ between high-dose and low-dose aspirin. A double-dose clopidogrel regimen can be considered for all patients with acute coronary syndromes treated with an early invasive strategy and intended early PCI. FUNDING Sanofi-Aventis and Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Guidelines for pre-operative cardiac risk assessment and perioperative cardiac management in non-cardiac surgery

The American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and the European Society of Cardiology are all in the process of completing updated versions of our Guidelines for Perioperative Care. Our respective writing committees are undertaking a careful analysis of all relevant validated studies and always incorporate appropriate new trials and meta-analyses into our evidence review. In the interim, our current joint position is that the initiation of beta blockers in patients who will undergo non-cardiac surgery should not be considered routine, but should be considered carefully by each patients treating physician on a case-by-case basis. Please see the expression of concern which is free to view in Eur Heart J (2013) 34 (44): 3460; doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/eht431. AAA : abdominal aortic aneurysm ACC : American College of Cardiology ACE : angiotensin-converting enzyme ACS : acute coronary syndrome AHA : American Heart Association AR : aortic regurgitation ARB : angiotensin receptor blocker AS : aortic stenosis AF : atrial fibrillation BBSA : β-blocker in spinal anaesthesia BNP : brain natriuretic peptide CABG : coronary artery bypass grafting CARP : coronary artery revascularization prophylaxis CASS : coronary artery surgery study CI : confidence interval COX-2 : cyclooxygenase-2 COPD : chronic obstructive pulmonary disease CPET : cardiopulmonary exercise testing CPG : Committee for Practice Guidelines CRP : C-reactive protein CT : computed tomography cTnI : cardiac troponin I cTnT : cardiac troponin T CVD : cardiovascular disease DECREASE : Dutch Echocardiographic Cardiac Risk Evaluating Applying Stress Echo DES : drug-eluting stent DIPOM : Diabetes Postoperative Mortality and Morbidity DSE : dobutamine stress echocardiography ECG : electrocardiography ESC : European Society of Cardiology FEV1 : forced expiratory volume in 1 s FRISC : fast revascularization in instability in coronary disease HR : hazard ratio ICU : intensive care unit IHD : ischaemic heart disease INR : international normalized ratio LMWH : low molecular weight heparin LQTS : long QT syndrome LR : likelihood ratio LV : left ventricular MaVS : metoprolol after surgery MET : metabolic equivalent MI : myocardial infarction MR : mitral regurgitation MRI : magnetic resonance imaging MS : mitral stenosis NICE-SUGAR : normoglycaemia in intensive care evaluation and survival using glucose algorithm regulation NSTEMI : non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction NT-proBNP : N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide NYHA : New York Heart Association OPUS : orbofiban in patients with unstable coronary syndromes OR : odds ratio PaCO2 : mixed expired volume of alveolar and dead space gas PAH : pulmonary arterial hypertension PETCO2 : end-tidal expiratory CO2 pressure PCI : percutaneous coronary intervention PDA : personal digital assistant POISE : PeriOperative ISchaemic Evaluation trial QUO-VADIS : QUinapril On Vascular ACE and Determinants of ISchemia ROC : receiver operating characteristic SD : standard deviation SMVT : sustained monomorphic ventricular tachycardia SPECT : single photon emission computed tomography SPVT : sustained polymorphic ventricular tachycardia STEMI : ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction SVT : supraventricular tachycardia SYNTAX : synergy between percutaneous coronary intervention with taxus and cardiac surgery TACTICS : treat angina with aggrastat and determine cost of therapy with an invasive or conservative strategy TIA : transient ischaemic attack TIMI : thrombolysis in myocardial infarction TOE : transoesophageal echocardiography UFH : unfractionated heparin VCO2 : carbon dioxide production VE : minute ventilation VHD : valvular heart disease VKA : vitamin K antagonist VO2 : oxygen consumption VPB : ventricular premature beat VT : ventricular tachycardia Guidelines and Expert Consensus Documents aim to present management and recommendations based on the relevant evidence on a particular subject in order to help physicians to select the best possible management strategies for the individual patient suffering from a specific condition, taking into account not only the impact on outcome, but also the risk–benefit ratio of particular diagnostic or therapeutic means. Guidelines are no substitutes for textbooks. The legal implications of medical guidelines have been discussed previously.1 A great number of Guidelines and Expert Consensus Documents have been issued in recent years by the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and also by other organizations or related societies. Because of the impact on clinical practice, quality criteria for development of guidelines have been established in order to make all decisions transparent to the user. The recommendations for formulating and issuing ESC guidelines and Expert Consensus Documents can be found on the ESC website in the guidelines section (www.escardio.org). In brief, experts in the field are selected and undertake a comprehensive review of the published evidence for management and/or prevention of a given condition. …

Facilitated PCI in Patients with ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction

BACKGROUND We hypothesized that percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) preceded by early treatment with abciximab plus half-dose reteplase (combination-facilitated PCI) or with abciximab alone (abciximab-facilitated PCI) would improve outcomes in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, as compared with abciximab administered immediately before the procedure (primary PCI). METHODS In this international, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, we randomly assigned patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction who presented 6 hours or less after the onset of symptoms to receive combination-facilitated PCI, abciximab-facilitated PCI, or primary PCI. All patients received unfractionated heparin or enoxaparin before PCI and a 12-hour infusion of abciximab after PCI. The primary end point was the composite of death from all causes, ventricular fibrillation occurring more than 48 hours after randomization, cardiogenic shock, and congestive heart failure during the first 90 days after randomization. RESULTS A total of 2452 patients were randomly assigned to a treatment group. Significantly more patients had early ST-segment resolution with combination-facilitated PCI (43.9%) than with abciximab-facilitated PCI (33.1%) or primary PCI (31.0%; P=0.01 and P=0.003, respectively). The primary end point occurred in 9.8%, 10.5%, and 10.7% of the patients in the combination-facilitated PCI group, abciximab-facilitated PCI group, and primary-PCI group, respectively (P=0.55); 90-day mortality rates were 5.2%, 5.5%, and 4.5%, respectively (P=0.49). CONCLUSIONS Neither facilitation of PCI with reteplase plus abciximab nor facilitation with abciximab alone significantly improved the clinical outcomes, as compared with abciximab given at the time of PCI, in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00046228 [ClinicalTrials.gov].)

Early versus Delayed Invasive Intervention in Acute Coronary Syndromes

BACKGROUND Earlier trials have shown that a routine invasive strategy improves outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndromes without ST-segment elevation. However, the optimal timing of such intervention remains uncertain. METHODS We randomly assigned 3031 patients with acute coronary syndromes to undergo either routine early intervention (coronary angiography < or = 24 hours after randomization) or delayed intervention (coronary angiography > or = 36 hours after randomization). The primary outcome was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 6 months. A prespecified secondary outcome was death, myocardial infarction, or refractory ischemia at 6 months. RESULTS Coronary angiography was performed in 97.6% of patients in the early-intervention group (median time, 14 hours) and in 95.7% of patients in the delayed-intervention group (median time, 50 hours). At 6 months, the primary outcome occurred in 9.6% of patients in the early-intervention group, as compared with 11.3% in the delayed-intervention group (hazard ratio in the early-intervention group, 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68 to 1.06; P=0.15). There was a relative reduction of 28% in the secondary outcome of death, myocardial infarction, or refractory ischemia in the early-intervention group (9.5%), as compared with the delayed-intervention group (12.9%) (hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.89; P=0.003). Prespecified analyses showed that early intervention improved the primary outcome in the third of patients who were at highest risk (hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.89) but not in the two thirds at low-to-intermediate risk (hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.56; P=0.01 for heterogeneity). CONCLUSIONS Early intervention did not differ greatly from delayed intervention in preventing the primary outcome, but it did reduce the rate of the composite secondary outcome of death, myocardial infarction, or refractory ischemia and was superior to delayed intervention in high-risk patients. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00552513.)

Thrombin-Receptor Antagonist Vorapaxar in Acute Coronary Syndromes

BACKGROUND Vorapaxar is a new oral protease-activated-receptor 1 (PAR-1) antagonist that inhibits thrombin-induced platelet activation. METHODS In this multinational, double-blind, randomized trial, we compared vorapaxar with placebo in 12,944 patients who had acute coronary syndromes without ST-segment elevation. The primary end point was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, stroke, recurrent ischemia with rehospitalization, or urgent coronary revascularization. RESULTS Follow-up in the trial was terminated early after a safety review. After a median follow-up of 502 days (interquartile range, 349 to 667), the primary end point occurred in 1031 of 6473 patients receiving vorapaxar versus 1102 of 6471 patients receiving placebo (Kaplan-Meier 2-year rate, 18.5% vs. 19.9%; hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85 to 1.01; P=0.07). A composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke occurred in 822 patients in the vorapaxar group versus 910 in the placebo group (14.7% and 16.4%, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.81 to 0.98; P=0.02). Rates of moderate and severe bleeding were 7.2% in the vorapaxar group and 5.2% in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.16 to 1.58; P<0.001). Intracranial hemorrhage rates were 1.1% and 0.2%, respectively (hazard ratio, 3.39; 95% CI, 1.78 to 6.45; P<0.001). Rates of nonhemorrhagic adverse events were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS In patients with acute coronary syndromes, the addition of vorapaxar to standard therapy did not significantly reduce the primary composite end point but significantly increased the risk of major bleeding, including intracranial hemorrhage. (Funded by Merck; TRACER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00527943.).