Pierre Theroux

ACC/AHA Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Unstable Angina and Non–ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: Executive Summary and Recommendations A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee on the Management of Patients With Unstable Angina)

The American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA) Task Force on Practice Guidelines was formed to make recommendations regarding the diagnosis and treatment of patients with known or suspected cardiovascular disease. Coronary artery disease (CAD) is the leading cause of death in the United States. Unstable angina (UA) and the closely related condition non–ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) are very common manifestations of this disease. These life-threatening disorders are a major cause of emergency medical care and hospitalizations in the United States. In 1996, the National Center for Health Statistics reported 1 433 000 hospitalizations for UA or NSTEMI. In recognition of the importance of the management of this common entity and of the rapid advances in the management of this condition, the need to revise guidelines published by the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (AHCPR) and the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute in 1994 was evident. This Task Force therefore formed the current committee to develop guidelines for the management of UA and NSTEMI. The present guidelines supersede the 1994 guidelines. The customary ACC/AHA classifications I, II, and III summarize both the evidence and expert opinion and provide final recommendations for both patient evaluation and therapy: Class I: Conditions for which there is evidence and/or general agreement that a given procedure or treatment is useful and effective . Class II: Conditions for which there is conflicting evidence and/or a divergence of opinion about the usefulness/efficacy of a procedure or treatment. Class IIa: Weight of evidence/opinion is in favor of usefulness/efficacy. Class IIb: Usefulness/efficacy is less well established by evidence/opinion. Class III: Conditions for which there is evidence and/or general agreement that the procedure/treatment is not useful/effective and in some cases may be harmful. The weight of the evidence was ranked highest (A) if the data …

ACC/AHA 2007 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Unstable Angina/Non–ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction. A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the 2002 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Unstable Angina/Non–ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction)

Angina/Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction : ACC/AHA 2007 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Unstable ISSN: 1524-4539 Copyright

Aspirin, heparin, or both to treat acute unstable angina

We tested the usefulness of aspirin (325 mg twice daily), heparin (1000 units per hour by intravenous infusion), and a combination of the two in the early management of acute unstable angina pectoris in a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial involving 479 patients. The patients entered the study as soon as possible after hospital admission (at a mean [+/- SD] of 7.9 +/- 8.0 hours after the last episode of pain), and the study was ended after 6 +/- 3 days, when definitive therapy had been selected. Major end points--refractory angina, myocardial infarction, and death--occurred in 23, 12, and 1.7 percent of the 118 patients receiving placebo, respectively. Heparin was associated with a decrease in the occurrence of refractory angina (P = 0.002). The incidence of myocardial infarction was significantly reduced in the groups receiving aspirin (3 percent; P = 0.01), heparin (0.8 percent; P less than 0.001), and aspirin plus heparin (1.6 percent, P = 0.003), and no deaths occurred in these groups. There were too few deaths overall to permit evaluation of the effect of treatment on this end point. The combination of aspirin and heparin had no greater protective effect than heparin alone but was associated with slightly more serious bleeding (3.3 vs. 1.7 percent). We conclude that in the acute phase of unstable angina, either aspirin or heparin treatment is associated with a reduced incidence of myocardial infarction, and there is a trend favoring heparin over aspirin. Heparin treatment is also associated with a reduced incidence of refractory angina.

Platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors in acute coronary syndromes: a meta-analysis of all major randomised clinical trials.

BACKGROUND Platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors have been shown to reduce cardiac complications in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. The clinical efficacy of these drugs in acute coronary syndromes, however, is still unclear. We did a meta-analysis of all large randomised trials designed to study the clinical efficacy and safety of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors in patients with acute coronary syndromes who were not routinely scheduled to undergo early coronary revascularisation. METHODS Inclusion criteria were: randomisation of patients with acute coronary syndromes but without persistent ST elevation; comparison of a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor with placebo or control therapy; non-recommendation of early coronary revascularisation during study-drug infusion; and enrollment of at least 1000 patients. Data on individual patients were obtained from all participants in these trials. FINDINGS Six trials, enrolling 31402 patients, fulfilled the inclusion criteria. 30 days after randomisation, 3530 (11.2%) patients died or developed a myocardial infarction. At 30 days, a 9% reduction in the odds of death or myocardial infarction was seen with glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors compared with placebo or control (10.8% [1980/18297] vs 11.8% [1550/13105] events; odds ratio 0.91 [95% CI 0.84-0.98]; p=0.015). The relative treatment benefit was similar in subgroups of patients according to important clinical baseline characteristics; hence, the absolute treatment benefit was largest in high-risk patients. An unexpected and significant interaction was seen between sex and allocated treatment, with a treatment benefit in men (0.81 [0.75-0.89] but not in women (1.15 [1.01-1.30]). However, once patients were stratified according to troponin concentration, there was no evidence of a sex difference in treatment response, and a risk reduction was seen in men and women with raised troponin concentrations. Major bleeding complications were increased by glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (2.4% [445/18297] vs 1.4% [180/13105]; p<0.0001), but intracranial bleeding was not (16 [0.09%] vs 8 [0.06%]; p=0.40). INTERPRETATION Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors reduce the occurrence of death or myocardial infarction in patients with acute coronary syndromes not routinely scheduled for early revascularisation. The event reduction is greatest in patients at high risk of thrombotic complications. Treatment with a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor might therefore be considered especially in such patients early after admission, and continued until a decision about early coronary revascularisation has been made.

ACC/AHA Guideline Update for the Management of Patients With Unstable Angina and Non–ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction—2002: Summary Article

The American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines for the management of unstable angina and non–ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (UA/NSTEMI) were published in September 2000.1 Since then, a number of clinical trials and observational studies have been published or presented that, when taken together, alter significantly the recommendations made in that document. Therefore, the ACC/AHA Committee on the Management of Patients With Unstable Angina, with the concurrence of the ACC/AHA Task Force on Practice Guidelines, revised these guidelines. These revisions were prepared in December 2001, reviewed and approved, and then published on the ACC World Wide Web site (www.acc.org) and AHA World Wide Web site (www.americanheart.org) on March 15, 2002. The present article describes these revisions and provides further updates in this rapidly moving field. Minor clarifications in the wording of three recommendations that now appear differently from those that were previously published on the ACC and AHA Web sites are noted in footnotes. The ACC/AHA classifications I, II, and III are used to summarize indications as follows: Class I: Conditions for which there is evidence and/or general agreement that a given procedure or treatment is useful and effective. Class II: Conditions for which there is conflicting evidence and/or a divergence of opinion about the usefulness/efficacy of a procedure or treatment. IIa: Weight of evidence/opinion is in favor of usefulness/efficacy. IIb: Usefulness/efficacy is less well established by evidence/opinion. Class III: Conditions for which there is evidence and/or general agreement that the procedure/treatment is not useful/effective and in some cases may be harmful. The weight of the evidence was ranked highest (A) if the data were derived from multiple randomized clinical trials that involved large numbers of patients and intermediate (B) if the data were derived from a limited number of randomized trials that involved small numbers of …

ACC/AHA guidelines for the management of patients with unstable angina and non–st-segment elevation myocardial infarction: A report of the american college of cardiology/ american heart association task force on practice guidelines (committee on the management of patients with unstable angina)

Preamble......971 I. Introduction ......972 A. Organization of Committee and Evidence Review......972 B. Purpose of These Guidelines......973 C. Overview of the Acute Coronary Syndrome......973 1. Definition of Terms......973 2. Pathogenesis of UA/NSTEMI ......974 3. Presentations of

Long-Term Use of Ticagrelor in Patients with Prior Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND The potential benefit of dual antiplatelet therapy beyond 1 year after a myocardial infarction has not been established. We investigated the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor, a P2Y12 receptor antagonist with established efficacy after an acute coronary syndrome, in this context. METHODS We randomly assigned, in a double-blind 1:1:1 fashion, 21,162 patients who had had a myocardial infarction 1 to 3 years earlier to ticagrelor at a dose of 90 mg twice daily, ticagrelor at a dose of 60 mg twice daily, or placebo. All the patients were to receive low-dose aspirin and were followed for a median of 33 months. The primary efficacy end point was the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. The primary safety end point was Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) major bleeding. RESULTS The two ticagrelor doses each reduced, as compared with placebo, the rate of the primary efficacy end point, with Kaplan-Meier rates at 3 years of 7.85% in the group that received 90 mg of ticagrelor twice daily, 7.77% in the group that received 60 mg of ticagrelor twice daily, and 9.04% in the placebo group (hazard ratio for 90 mg of ticagrelor vs. placebo, 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75 to 0.96; P=0.008; hazard ratio for 60 mg of ticagrelor vs. placebo, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.74 to 0.95; P=0.004). Rates of TIMI major bleeding were higher with ticagrelor (2.60% with 90 mg and 2.30% with 60 mg) than with placebo (1.06%) (P<0.001 for each dose vs. placebo); the rates of intracranial hemorrhage or fatal bleeding in the three groups were 0.63%, 0.71%, and 0.60%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS In patients with a myocardial infarction more than 1 year previously, treatment with ticagrelor significantly reduced the risk of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke and increased the risk of major bleeding. (Funded by AstraZeneca; PEGASUS-TIMI 54 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01225562.).

2011 ACCF/AHA focused update incorporated into the ACC/AHA 2007 guidelines for the management of patients with unstable Angina/non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction: A report of the American College of cardiology foundation/American heart association task force on practice guidelines

Developed in Collaboration With the American College of Emergency Physicians, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Endorsed by the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation and the Society for Academic Emergency

Prognostic value of exercise testing soon after myocardial infarction.

The prognostic value of a limited treadmill exercises test performed one day before hospital discharge after acute myocardial infarction was studied in 210 consecutive patients who had no over heart failure and had been free of chest pain for at least four days. No complications occurred. During a one-year follow-up period 28 of 43 patients (65 per cent) who had chest pain during the test reported angina, as compared with 60 of 167 (36 per cent) who had no chest pain during test (P less than 0.001). The one-year mortality rates were 2.1 per cent (three of 146) in patients without changes in the S-T segment during exercise and 27 per cent (17 of 64) in those with depression of the S-T segment (P less than 0.001). Sudden death occurred in one of 146 (0.7 per cent) patients who showed no change in the S-T segment and in 10 of 64 (16 per cent) with depression of the segment (P less than 0.001). Thus, a limited treadmill exercise test performed before hospital discharge after acute myocardial infarction is safe and can predict mortality in the subsequent year.

Vorapaxar in the Secondary Prevention of Atherothrombotic Events

BACKGROUND Thrombin potently activates platelets through the protease-activated receptor PAR-1. Vorapaxar is a novel antiplatelet agent that selectively inhibits the cellular actions of thrombin through antagonism of PAR-1. METHODS We randomly assigned 26,449 patients who had a history of myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, or peripheral arterial disease to receive vorapaxar (2.5 mg daily) or matching placebo and followed them for a median of 30 months. The primary efficacy end point was the composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke. After 2 years, the data and safety monitoring board recommended discontinuation of the study treatment in patients with a history of stroke owing to the risk of intracranial hemorrhage. RESULTS At 3 years, the primary end point had occurred in 1028 patients (9.3%) in the vorapaxar group and in 1176 patients (10.5%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio for the vorapaxar group, 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80 to 0.94; P<0.001). Cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or recurrent ischemia leading to revascularization occurred in 1259 patients (11.2%) in the vorapaxar group and 1417 patients (12.4%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.82 to 0.95; P=0.001). Moderate or severe bleeding occurred in 4.2% of patients who received vorapaxar and 2.5% of those who received placebo (hazard ratio, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.43 to 1.93; P<0.001). There was an increase in the rate of intracranial hemorrhage in the vorapaxar group (1.0%, vs. 0.5% in the placebo group; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS Inhibition of PAR-1 with vorapaxar reduced the risk of cardiovascular death or ischemic events in patients with stable atherosclerosis who were receiving standard therapy. However, it increased the risk of moderate or severe bleeding, including intracranial hemorrhage. (Funded by Merck; TRA 2P-TIMI 50 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00526474.).