ACC 2019

NEW ORLEANS – For patients with atrial fibrillation and either a recent acute coronary syndrome or percutaneous coronary intervention, combined treatment for 6 months with the anticoagulant apixaban and a P2Y12 inhibitor antiplatelet drug, but without aspirin, was safer than and as effective as a regimen that either also included aspirin or that substituted a vitamin K antagonist, such as warfarin, for the direct-acting oral anticoagulant, based on results from a multicenter, randomized trial with more than 4,600 patients.

The apixaban plus P2Y12 inhibitor (typically, clopidogrel) combination “resulted in less bleeding and fewer hospitalizations without significant differences in ischemic events than regimens that included a vitamin K antagonist, aspirin, or both,” Renato D. Lopes, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology. Concurrently, his report of the results also appeared in an online article.

This finding in the AUGUSTUS trial gives clinicians more guidance for the long-standing dilemma of how to best prevent arterial thrombus formation in patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib). To prevent a stroke, these patients routinely receive treatment with an anticoagulant when they have an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) event or undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Typically, they receive several months of dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin plus a P2Y12 inhibitor to prevent a clot from forming in the stented or unstable region of a coronary artery.

These patients are not uncommon; this circumstance occurs for about 20% of all AFib patients, and poses the question of what is the safest and most effective way to treat them. Should they get triple therapy with an anticoagulant, aspirin, and a P2Y12 inhibitor, an option that could cause excess bleeding; or should one of the three drugs drop out with the potential for an increased rate of ischemic events? The AUGUSTUS findings suggest that one solution is treatment with a combination of the direct-acting oral anticoagulant apixaban (Eliquis) and the P2Y12 inhibitor clopidogrel (Plavix) but without aspirin.

For the majority of patients like the ones enrolled, “less is more.” By dropping aspirin from the treatment mix, patients did better, said Dr. Lopes, a professor of medicine at Duke University in Durham, N.C.

Dr. Lopes and his associates designed AUGUSTUS (A Study of Apixaban in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation, Not Caused by a Heart Valve Problem, Who Are at Risk for Thrombosis [Blood Clots] Due to Having Had a Recent Coronary Event, Such as a Heart Attack or a Procedure to Open the Vessels of the Heart) as a two-by-two factorial study to address two different questions: During 6 months of treatment, how did apixaban compare with a vitamin K antagonist (usually warfarin) in these patients for safety and efficacy, and how did aspirin compare with placebo in this setting for the same endpoints?

The trial enrolled 4,614 patients at 492 sites in 33 countries. All patients in the study received a P2Y12 inhibitor, with 93% treated with clopidogrel. The study had roughly as many patients as the combined total of patients enrolled in two smaller, prior studies that had looked at roughly the same questions in similar patients.

“The aspirin part is the more interesting, and probably more unique and important finding,” John H. Alexander, MD, a coinvestigator on the study, said in a video interview. Regardless of the anticoagulant used, patients who received aspirin had a 16% rate of major bleeds or clinically relevant non-major bleeds, compared with a 9% rate among those on placebo, a statistically significant result that underscored the bleeding risk posed by adding aspirin to an anticoagulant and a P2Y12 inhibitor.

The results also showed no statistically significant difference in any efficacy measure with or without aspirin, including the rate of death or hospitalization, or of any individual ischemic endpoint. However the results showed a signal of a small increase in the rates of each of three types of ischemic events – stent thrombosis, MI, and need for urgent revascularization, each of which showed a numerical increase when aspirin was dropped. But the increase was small.

Dr. Lopes calculated that, for example, to prevent one episode of stent thrombosis by treating with aspirin also would cause 15 major or clinically relevant non-major bleeds, which makes inclusion of aspirin something of a judgment call for each patient, said Dr. Alexander, a professor of medicine at Duke. An AFib patient with a high risk for thrombosis but a low risk for bleeding following PCI or an ACS event might be a reasonable patient to treat with aspirin along with apixaban and a P2Y12 inhibitor, he explained.

The rate of major or clinically relevant bleeds was 11% with apixaban and 15% with a vitamin K antagonist, a statistically significant difference. Patients treated with apixaban also had a significantly reduced rate of death or hospitalization, 24%, compared with 27% among those on the vitamin K antagonist, as well as a significantly lower rate of stroke.

Overall the lowest bleeding rate was in patients on apixaban but no aspirin, a 7% rate, while the highest rate was in patients on a vitamin K antagonist plus aspirin, a 19% rate.

Dr. Alexander said that it would be an overreach to extrapolate these findings to other direct-acting oral anticoagulants, compared with a vitamin K antagonist, but he believed that the findings the study generated about aspirin were probably relevant regardless of the anticoagulant used.
 

mzoler@mdedge.com

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

NEW ORLEANS – For patients with atrial fibrillation and either a recent acute coronary syndrome or percutaneous coronary intervention, combined treatment for 6 months with the anticoagulant apixaban and a P2Y12 inhibitor antiplatelet drug, but without aspirin, was safer than and as effective as a regimen that either also included aspirin or that substituted a vitamin K antagonist, such as warfarin, for the direct-acting oral anticoagulant, based on results from a multicenter, randomized trial with more than 4,600 patients.

The apixaban plus P2Y12 inhibitor (typically, clopidogrel) combination “resulted in less bleeding and fewer hospitalizations without significant differences in ischemic events than regimens that included a vitamin K antagonist, aspirin, or both,” Renato D. Lopes, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology. Concurrently, his report of the results also appeared in an online article.

This finding in the AUGUSTUS trial gives clinicians more guidance for the long-standing dilemma of how to best prevent arterial thrombus formation in patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib). To prevent a stroke, these patients routinely receive treatment with an anticoagulant when they have an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) event or undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Typically, they receive several months of dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin plus a P2Y12 inhibitor to prevent a clot from forming in the stented or unstable region of a coronary artery.

These patients are not uncommon; this circumstance occurs for about 20% of all AFib patients, and poses the question of what is the safest and most effective way to treat them. Should they get triple therapy with an anticoagulant, aspirin, and a P2Y12 inhibitor, an option that could cause excess bleeding; or should one of the three drugs drop out with the potential for an increased rate of ischemic events? The AUGUSTUS findings suggest that one solution is treatment with a combination of the direct-acting oral anticoagulant apixaban (Eliquis) and the P2Y12 inhibitor clopidogrel (Plavix) but without aspirin.

For the majority of patients like the ones enrolled, “less is more.” By dropping aspirin from the treatment mix, patients did better, said Dr. Lopes, a professor of medicine at Duke University in Durham, N.C.

Dr. Lopes and his associates designed AUGUSTUS (A Study of Apixaban in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation, Not Caused by a Heart Valve Problem, Who Are at Risk for Thrombosis [Blood Clots] Due to Having Had a Recent Coronary Event, Such as a Heart Attack or a Procedure to Open the Vessels of the Heart) as a two-by-two factorial study to address two different questions: During 6 months of treatment, how did apixaban compare with a vitamin K antagonist (usually warfarin) in these patients for safety and efficacy, and how did aspirin compare with placebo in this setting for the same endpoints?

The trial enrolled 4,614 patients at 492 sites in 33 countries. All patients in the study received a P2Y12 inhibitor, with 93% treated with clopidogrel. The study had roughly as many patients as the combined total of patients enrolled in two smaller, prior studies that had looked at roughly the same questions in similar patients.

“The aspirin part is the more interesting, and probably more unique and important finding,” John H. Alexander, MD, a coinvestigator on the study, said in a video interview. Regardless of the anticoagulant used, patients who received aspirin had a 16% rate of major bleeds or clinically relevant non-major bleeds, compared with a 9% rate among those on placebo, a statistically significant result that underscored the bleeding risk posed by adding aspirin to an anticoagulant and a P2Y12 inhibitor.

The results also showed no statistically significant difference in any efficacy measure with or without aspirin, including the rate of death or hospitalization, or of any individual ischemic endpoint. However the results showed a signal of a small increase in the rates of each of three types of ischemic events – stent thrombosis, MI, and need for urgent revascularization, each of which showed a numerical increase when aspirin was dropped. But the increase was small.

Dr. Lopes calculated that, for example, to prevent one episode of stent thrombosis by treating with aspirin also would cause 15 major or clinically relevant non-major bleeds, which makes inclusion of aspirin something of a judgment call for each patient, said Dr. Alexander, a professor of medicine at Duke. An AFib patient with a high risk for thrombosis but a low risk for bleeding following PCI or an ACS event might be a reasonable patient to treat with aspirin along with apixaban and a P2Y12 inhibitor, he explained.

The rate of major or clinically relevant bleeds was 11% with apixaban and 15% with a vitamin K antagonist, a statistically significant difference. Patients treated with apixaban also had a significantly reduced rate of death or hospitalization, 24%, compared with 27% among those on the vitamin K antagonist, as well as a significantly lower rate of stroke.

Overall the lowest bleeding rate was in patients on apixaban but no aspirin, a 7% rate, while the highest rate was in patients on a vitamin K antagonist plus aspirin, a 19% rate.

Dr. Alexander said that it would be an overreach to extrapolate these findings to other direct-acting oral anticoagulants, compared with a vitamin K antagonist, but he believed that the findings the study generated about aspirin were probably relevant regardless of the anticoagulant used.
 

mzoler@mdedge.com

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

NEW ORLEANS – For patients with atrial fibrillation and either a recent acute coronary syndrome or percutaneous coronary intervention, combined treatment for 6 months with the anticoagulant apixaban and a P2Y12 inhibitor antiplatelet drug, but without aspirin, was safer than and as effective as a regimen that either also included aspirin or that substituted a vitamin K antagonist, such as warfarin, for the direct-acting oral anticoagulant, based on results from a multicenter, randomized trial with more than 4,600 patients.

The apixaban plus P2Y12 inhibitor (typically, clopidogrel) combination “resulted in less bleeding and fewer hospitalizations without significant differences in ischemic events than regimens that included a vitamin K antagonist, aspirin, or both,” Renato D. Lopes, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology. Concurrently, his report of the results also appeared in an online article.

This finding in the AUGUSTUS trial gives clinicians more guidance for the long-standing dilemma of how to best prevent arterial thrombus formation in patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib). To prevent a stroke, these patients routinely receive treatment with an anticoagulant when they have an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) event or undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Typically, they receive several months of dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin plus a P2Y12 inhibitor to prevent a clot from forming in the stented or unstable region of a coronary artery.

These patients are not uncommon; this circumstance occurs for about 20% of all AFib patients, and poses the question of what is the safest and most effective way to treat them. Should they get triple therapy with an anticoagulant, aspirin, and a P2Y12 inhibitor, an option that could cause excess bleeding; or should one of the three drugs drop out with the potential for an increased rate of ischemic events? The AUGUSTUS findings suggest that one solution is treatment with a combination of the direct-acting oral anticoagulant apixaban (Eliquis) and the P2Y12 inhibitor clopidogrel (Plavix) but without aspirin.

For the majority of patients like the ones enrolled, “less is more.” By dropping aspirin from the treatment mix, patients did better, said Dr. Lopes, a professor of medicine at Duke University in Durham, N.C.

Dr. Lopes and his associates designed AUGUSTUS (A Study of Apixaban in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation, Not Caused by a Heart Valve Problem, Who Are at Risk for Thrombosis [Blood Clots] Due to Having Had a Recent Coronary Event, Such as a Heart Attack or a Procedure to Open the Vessels of the Heart) as a two-by-two factorial study to address two different questions: During 6 months of treatment, how did apixaban compare with a vitamin K antagonist (usually warfarin) in these patients for safety and efficacy, and how did aspirin compare with placebo in this setting for the same endpoints?

The trial enrolled 4,614 patients at 492 sites in 33 countries. All patients in the study received a P2Y12 inhibitor, with 93% treated with clopidogrel. The study had roughly as many patients as the combined total of patients enrolled in two smaller, prior studies that had looked at roughly the same questions in similar patients.

“The aspirin part is the more interesting, and probably more unique and important finding,” John H. Alexander, MD, a coinvestigator on the study, said in a video interview. Regardless of the anticoagulant used, patients who received aspirin had a 16% rate of major bleeds or clinically relevant non-major bleeds, compared with a 9% rate among those on placebo, a statistically significant result that underscored the bleeding risk posed by adding aspirin to an anticoagulant and a P2Y12 inhibitor.

The results also showed no statistically significant difference in any efficacy measure with or without aspirin, including the rate of death or hospitalization, or of any individual ischemic endpoint. However the results showed a signal of a small increase in the rates of each of three types of ischemic events – stent thrombosis, MI, and need for urgent revascularization, each of which showed a numerical increase when aspirin was dropped. But the increase was small.

Dr. Lopes calculated that, for example, to prevent one episode of stent thrombosis by treating with aspirin also would cause 15 major or clinically relevant non-major bleeds, which makes inclusion of aspirin something of a judgment call for each patient, said Dr. Alexander, a professor of medicine at Duke. An AFib patient with a high risk for thrombosis but a low risk for bleeding following PCI or an ACS event might be a reasonable patient to treat with aspirin along with apixaban and a P2Y12 inhibitor, he explained.

The rate of major or clinically relevant bleeds was 11% with apixaban and 15% with a vitamin K antagonist, a statistically significant difference. Patients treated with apixaban also had a significantly reduced rate of death or hospitalization, 24%, compared with 27% among those on the vitamin K antagonist, as well as a significantly lower rate of stroke.

Overall the lowest bleeding rate was in patients on apixaban but no aspirin, a 7% rate, while the highest rate was in patients on a vitamin K antagonist plus aspirin, a 19% rate.

Dr. Alexander said that it would be an overreach to extrapolate these findings to other direct-acting oral anticoagulants, compared with a vitamin K antagonist, but he believed that the findings the study generated about aspirin were probably relevant regardless of the anticoagulant used.
 

mzoler@mdedge.com

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

NEW ORLEANS – Patients with severely symptomatic aortic stenosis at low surgical risk had significantly better key outcomes with transcatheter aortic valve replacement than with surgical valve replacement through 1 year of follow-up in the landmark PARTNER 3 and Evolut Low Risk randomized trials presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

As the two study presenters stepped down from the stage after sharing their results, the packed audience in the meeting’s main arena rose to shower them with a prolonged standing ovation.

“This is a historic moment, and all of us here should recognize it as such,” thundered discussant Eugene Braunwald, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “We’re going to remember it. We’re going to tell our grandchildren and great grandchildren that we were there at the time these incredible advances in the care of patients with aortic stenosis were presented.”

This was in fact the day that transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), a relatively young, rapidly evolving nonsurgical technique, finally overtook surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), a mature operation first successfully performed back in 1962. Previous large, randomized trials had established that TAVR was superior to SAVR in extreme-risk patients and noninferior to surgery in high- and intermediate-risk patients, yet with the advantage of much quicker recovery. The only remaining question was how TAVR would stack up in low-risk patients, who comprise 80% of those who currently undergo SAVR for aortic stenosis.

“Two separate groups using two separate valves have come to very similar conclusions. This doesn’t double the acceptability, it quadruples it,” Dr. Braunwald said.

PARTNER 3

Martin B. Leon, MD, presented the findings of the PARTNER 3 (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves) trial, in which 1,000 low-risk patients at 71 centers were randomized to TAVR with transfemoral placement of the balloon-expandable Edwards Lifesciences Sapien 3 bioprosthetic valve or to SAVR. The mean age of the patients was 73 years, with a mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score of 1.9%. Operators had to have more than 1 year of experience using the Sapien 3 valve in order to participate in the trial.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

At 1 year post procedure, the rate of the primary composite endpoint comprising death, stroke, or cardiovascular rehospitalization was 8.5% in the TAVR group and 15.1% with SAVR, for a highly significant 46% relative risk reduction. All three components of the primary endpoint occurred significantly less often in the TAVR group. And the rate of the key endpoint of death or disabling stroke was 1.0% with TAVR, compared with 2.9% with SAVR, reported Dr. Leon, coprincipal investigator in PARTNER 3 and professor of medicine at Columbia University, New York.

TAVR also outperformed SAVR on all six prespecified major secondary endpoints. These included new-onset atrial fibrillation within 30 days, at 5.0% with TAVR and 39.5% with SAVR; length of index hospitalization at 3 versus 7 days; all stroke at 30 days at 0.6% versus 2.4%; and death or a significant deterioration in quality of life at 30 days as measured by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire at 3.9% versus 30.6%. There was significantly less life-threatening or major bleeding within 30 days in the TAVR group, by a margin of 3.6% versus 24.5%, and similarly low rates of new pacemaker implantation at 6.5% versus 4.0%. There was, however, a higher 30-day incidence of new left bundle branch block with TAVR, by a margin of 22% versus 8%, which may eventually translate into need for a pacemaker.

“Based upon these findings, TAVR, through 1 year, should be considered the preferred therapy in low-surgical-risk aortic stenosis patients. The PARTNER randomized trials over the past 12 years clearly indicate that the relative value of TAVR, compared with surgery, is independent of surgical risk profiles,” Dr. Leon declared.

Evolut Low Risk

Michael J. Reardon, MD, coprincipal investigator for the Evolut Low Risk study and professor of cardiovascular surgery at Houston Methodist Hospital, reported on 1,468 patients randomized to TAVR with a Medtronic self-expanding, supra-annular bioprosthetic valve or to SAVR. Of them, 22% of patients got the most recent version of the valve, known as the Evolut PRO, 74% got the Evolut R, and the remainder received the first-generation CoreValve.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

The primary endpoint – death or disabling stroke – was slightly different from that in PARTNER 3. At 1 year, the rate was 2.9% in the TAVR arm and 4.6% with SAVR, a statistically significant difference, while at 2 years the rate was 5.3% with TAVR and 6.7% with SAVR, a difference that was not significant. Impressively, the rate of the composite of death, disabling stroke, or heart failure hospitalizations through 1 year was 5.6% with TAVR versus 10.2% with SAVR.

“We’ve shown that, with TAVR, you’re more likely to be alive, without a stroke, and outside the hospital. This is exactly what my patients tell me they want when we sit down for shared decision-making and talk about their expectations,” Dr. Reardon said.

Noting the striking similarity of across-the-board outcomes in the two trials, Dr. Reardon concluded, “I think what we’re seeing here is a class effect of TAVR, and we have to recognize it as such.”

Dr. Leon agreed, with a caveat. “I think the class effect for these two versions of TAVR systems is very real. I wouldn’t presume to think that every TAVR device will perform the same way, so I think we need a lot more data on the newer devices that are being introduced.”

The reaction

During the question-and-answer session, the two investigators were asked about stroke rates, which were significantly lower in the TAVR patients even though in the early randomized trials in high-risk patients the stroke rates were twice as high with TAVR than SAVR. The explanation probably lies in a mix of device refinements over time, better techniques, standardized procedures, and careful patient selection, they said.

“If you look at stroke in the TAVR arm in both these trials, we’re almost approaching the background stroke rate in a group of 74-year-olds sitting around in a room,” Dr. Reardon observed.

Both trials will continue to assess participants both clinically and by echocardiography through 10 years, in part to assess TAVR valve durability, but also to evaluate the durability of surgical valves, which isn’t nearly as well established as most people think, according to the investigators.

“There is a myth of surgical bioprosthetic valve immortality. It’s based upon relatively few numbers of patients, largely sponsor-based studies, with numbers at risk at 15-20 years that are extremely low,” Dr. Leon asserted. “The majority of surgical valves being used today and touted as being durable are backed by only 2-4 years of data.”

In contrast, he added, “We have 5-year TAVR data which is absolutely definitive of no early structural valve deterioration.”

Discussant Mayra E. Guerrero, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., expressed concern that “this paradigm shift to ‘TAVR for all’ ” could break the bank for many institutions because the cost of TAVR valves is far greater than for SAVR valves. But she was heartened by the fresh PARTNER 3 and Evolut Low Risk data showing TAVR patients had fewer ICU days, shorter hospital stays, fewer strokes, more frequent discharge home, and a lower rehospitalization rate.

Dr. Reardon was reassuring on this score.

“I am 100% convinced that when we do the financials for these two trials, TAVR is going to be a cost saver and a huge winner,” the surgeon said.

He reported serving as a consultant to Medtronic and receiving research grants from Medtronic and Boston Scientific. Dr. Leon reported receiving research grants from Edwards Lifesciences and St. Jude Medical and acting as a consultant to several medical device companies.

The two trials have been published online by the New England Journal of Medicine.

bjancin@mdedge.com

SOURCES: Leon MB et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Mar 16. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1814052; Reardon MJ et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Mar 16. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1816885.

NEW ORLEANS – Patients with severely symptomatic aortic stenosis at low surgical risk had significantly better key outcomes with transcatheter aortic valve replacement than with surgical valve replacement through 1 year of follow-up in the landmark PARTNER 3 and Evolut Low Risk randomized trials presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

As the two study presenters stepped down from the stage after sharing their results, the packed audience in the meeting’s main arena rose to shower them with a prolonged standing ovation.

“This is a historic moment, and all of us here should recognize it as such,” thundered discussant Eugene Braunwald, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “We’re going to remember it. We’re going to tell our grandchildren and great grandchildren that we were there at the time these incredible advances in the care of patients with aortic stenosis were presented.”

This was in fact the day that transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), a relatively young, rapidly evolving nonsurgical technique, finally overtook surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), a mature operation first successfully performed back in 1962. Previous large, randomized trials had established that TAVR was superior to SAVR in extreme-risk patients and noninferior to surgery in high- and intermediate-risk patients, yet with the advantage of much quicker recovery. The only remaining question was how TAVR would stack up in low-risk patients, who comprise 80% of those who currently undergo SAVR for aortic stenosis.

“Two separate groups using two separate valves have come to very similar conclusions. This doesn’t double the acceptability, it quadruples it,” Dr. Braunwald said.

PARTNER 3

Martin B. Leon, MD, presented the findings of the PARTNER 3 (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves) trial, in which 1,000 low-risk patients at 71 centers were randomized to TAVR with transfemoral placement of the balloon-expandable Edwards Lifesciences Sapien 3 bioprosthetic valve or to SAVR. The mean age of the patients was 73 years, with a mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score of 1.9%. Operators had to have more than 1 year of experience using the Sapien 3 valve in order to participate in the trial.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

At 1 year post procedure, the rate of the primary composite endpoint comprising death, stroke, or cardiovascular rehospitalization was 8.5% in the TAVR group and 15.1% with SAVR, for a highly significant 46% relative risk reduction. All three components of the primary endpoint occurred significantly less often in the TAVR group. And the rate of the key endpoint of death or disabling stroke was 1.0% with TAVR, compared with 2.9% with SAVR, reported Dr. Leon, coprincipal investigator in PARTNER 3 and professor of medicine at Columbia University, New York.

TAVR also outperformed SAVR on all six prespecified major secondary endpoints. These included new-onset atrial fibrillation within 30 days, at 5.0% with TAVR and 39.5% with SAVR; length of index hospitalization at 3 versus 7 days; all stroke at 30 days at 0.6% versus 2.4%; and death or a significant deterioration in quality of life at 30 days as measured by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire at 3.9% versus 30.6%. There was significantly less life-threatening or major bleeding within 30 days in the TAVR group, by a margin of 3.6% versus 24.5%, and similarly low rates of new pacemaker implantation at 6.5% versus 4.0%. There was, however, a higher 30-day incidence of new left bundle branch block with TAVR, by a margin of 22% versus 8%, which may eventually translate into need for a pacemaker.

“Based upon these findings, TAVR, through 1 year, should be considered the preferred therapy in low-surgical-risk aortic stenosis patients. The PARTNER randomized trials over the past 12 years clearly indicate that the relative value of TAVR, compared with surgery, is independent of surgical risk profiles,” Dr. Leon declared.

Evolut Low Risk

Michael J. Reardon, MD, coprincipal investigator for the Evolut Low Risk study and professor of cardiovascular surgery at Houston Methodist Hospital, reported on 1,468 patients randomized to TAVR with a Medtronic self-expanding, supra-annular bioprosthetic valve or to SAVR. Of them, 22% of patients got the most recent version of the valve, known as the Evolut PRO, 74% got the Evolut R, and the remainder received the first-generation CoreValve.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

The primary endpoint – death or disabling stroke – was slightly different from that in PARTNER 3. At 1 year, the rate was 2.9% in the TAVR arm and 4.6% with SAVR, a statistically significant difference, while at 2 years the rate was 5.3% with TAVR and 6.7% with SAVR, a difference that was not significant. Impressively, the rate of the composite of death, disabling stroke, or heart failure hospitalizations through 1 year was 5.6% with TAVR versus 10.2% with SAVR.

“We’ve shown that, with TAVR, you’re more likely to be alive, without a stroke, and outside the hospital. This is exactly what my patients tell me they want when we sit down for shared decision-making and talk about their expectations,” Dr. Reardon said.

Noting the striking similarity of across-the-board outcomes in the two trials, Dr. Reardon concluded, “I think what we’re seeing here is a class effect of TAVR, and we have to recognize it as such.”

Dr. Leon agreed, with a caveat. “I think the class effect for these two versions of TAVR systems is very real. I wouldn’t presume to think that every TAVR device will perform the same way, so I think we need a lot more data on the newer devices that are being introduced.”

The reaction

During the question-and-answer session, the two investigators were asked about stroke rates, which were significantly lower in the TAVR patients even though in the early randomized trials in high-risk patients the stroke rates were twice as high with TAVR than SAVR. The explanation probably lies in a mix of device refinements over time, better techniques, standardized procedures, and careful patient selection, they said.

“If you look at stroke in the TAVR arm in both these trials, we’re almost approaching the background stroke rate in a group of 74-year-olds sitting around in a room,” Dr. Reardon observed.

Both trials will continue to assess participants both clinically and by echocardiography through 10 years, in part to assess TAVR valve durability, but also to evaluate the durability of surgical valves, which isn’t nearly as well established as most people think, according to the investigators.

“There is a myth of surgical bioprosthetic valve immortality. It’s based upon relatively few numbers of patients, largely sponsor-based studies, with numbers at risk at 15-20 years that are extremely low,” Dr. Leon asserted. “The majority of surgical valves being used today and touted as being durable are backed by only 2-4 years of data.”

In contrast, he added, “We have 5-year TAVR data which is absolutely definitive of no early structural valve deterioration.”

Discussant Mayra E. Guerrero, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., expressed concern that “this paradigm shift to ‘TAVR for all’ ” could break the bank for many institutions because the cost of TAVR valves is far greater than for SAVR valves. But she was heartened by the fresh PARTNER 3 and Evolut Low Risk data showing TAVR patients had fewer ICU days, shorter hospital stays, fewer strokes, more frequent discharge home, and a lower rehospitalization rate.

Dr. Reardon was reassuring on this score.

“I am 100% convinced that when we do the financials for these two trials, TAVR is going to be a cost saver and a huge winner,” the surgeon said.

He reported serving as a consultant to Medtronic and receiving research grants from Medtronic and Boston Scientific. Dr. Leon reported receiving research grants from Edwards Lifesciences and St. Jude Medical and acting as a consultant to several medical device companies.

The two trials have been published online by the New England Journal of Medicine.

bjancin@mdedge.com

SOURCES: Leon MB et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Mar 16. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1814052; Reardon MJ et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Mar 16. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1816885.

NEW ORLEANS – Patients with severely symptomatic aortic stenosis at low surgical risk had significantly better key outcomes with transcatheter aortic valve replacement than with surgical valve replacement through 1 year of follow-up in the landmark PARTNER 3 and Evolut Low Risk randomized trials presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

As the two study presenters stepped down from the stage after sharing their results, the packed audience in the meeting’s main arena rose to shower them with a prolonged standing ovation.

“This is a historic moment, and all of us here should recognize it as such,” thundered discussant Eugene Braunwald, MD, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, Boston. “We’re going to remember it. We’re going to tell our grandchildren and great grandchildren that we were there at the time these incredible advances in the care of patients with aortic stenosis were presented.”

This was in fact the day that transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), a relatively young, rapidly evolving nonsurgical technique, finally overtook surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), a mature operation first successfully performed back in 1962. Previous large, randomized trials had established that TAVR was superior to SAVR in extreme-risk patients and noninferior to surgery in high- and intermediate-risk patients, yet with the advantage of much quicker recovery. The only remaining question was how TAVR would stack up in low-risk patients, who comprise 80% of those who currently undergo SAVR for aortic stenosis.

“Two separate groups using two separate valves have come to very similar conclusions. This doesn’t double the acceptability, it quadruples it,” Dr. Braunwald said.

PARTNER 3

Martin B. Leon, MD, presented the findings of the PARTNER 3 (Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves) trial, in which 1,000 low-risk patients at 71 centers were randomized to TAVR with transfemoral placement of the balloon-expandable Edwards Lifesciences Sapien 3 bioprosthetic valve or to SAVR. The mean age of the patients was 73 years, with a mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score of 1.9%. Operators had to have more than 1 year of experience using the Sapien 3 valve in order to participate in the trial.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

At 1 year post procedure, the rate of the primary composite endpoint comprising death, stroke, or cardiovascular rehospitalization was 8.5% in the TAVR group and 15.1% with SAVR, for a highly significant 46% relative risk reduction. All three components of the primary endpoint occurred significantly less often in the TAVR group. And the rate of the key endpoint of death or disabling stroke was 1.0% with TAVR, compared with 2.9% with SAVR, reported Dr. Leon, coprincipal investigator in PARTNER 3 and professor of medicine at Columbia University, New York.

TAVR also outperformed SAVR on all six prespecified major secondary endpoints. These included new-onset atrial fibrillation within 30 days, at 5.0% with TAVR and 39.5% with SAVR; length of index hospitalization at 3 versus 7 days; all stroke at 30 days at 0.6% versus 2.4%; and death or a significant deterioration in quality of life at 30 days as measured by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire at 3.9% versus 30.6%. There was significantly less life-threatening or major bleeding within 30 days in the TAVR group, by a margin of 3.6% versus 24.5%, and similarly low rates of new pacemaker implantation at 6.5% versus 4.0%. There was, however, a higher 30-day incidence of new left bundle branch block with TAVR, by a margin of 22% versus 8%, which may eventually translate into need for a pacemaker.

“Based upon these findings, TAVR, through 1 year, should be considered the preferred therapy in low-surgical-risk aortic stenosis patients. The PARTNER randomized trials over the past 12 years clearly indicate that the relative value of TAVR, compared with surgery, is independent of surgical risk profiles,” Dr. Leon declared.

Evolut Low Risk

Michael J. Reardon, MD, coprincipal investigator for the Evolut Low Risk study and professor of cardiovascular surgery at Houston Methodist Hospital, reported on 1,468 patients randomized to TAVR with a Medtronic self-expanding, supra-annular bioprosthetic valve or to SAVR. Of them, 22% of patients got the most recent version of the valve, known as the Evolut PRO, 74% got the Evolut R, and the remainder received the first-generation CoreValve.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

The primary endpoint – death or disabling stroke – was slightly different from that in PARTNER 3. At 1 year, the rate was 2.9% in the TAVR arm and 4.6% with SAVR, a statistically significant difference, while at 2 years the rate was 5.3% with TAVR and 6.7% with SAVR, a difference that was not significant. Impressively, the rate of the composite of death, disabling stroke, or heart failure hospitalizations through 1 year was 5.6% with TAVR versus 10.2% with SAVR.

“We’ve shown that, with TAVR, you’re more likely to be alive, without a stroke, and outside the hospital. This is exactly what my patients tell me they want when we sit down for shared decision-making and talk about their expectations,” Dr. Reardon said.

Noting the striking similarity of across-the-board outcomes in the two trials, Dr. Reardon concluded, “I think what we’re seeing here is a class effect of TAVR, and we have to recognize it as such.”

Dr. Leon agreed, with a caveat. “I think the class effect for these two versions of TAVR systems is very real. I wouldn’t presume to think that every TAVR device will perform the same way, so I think we need a lot more data on the newer devices that are being introduced.”

The reaction

During the question-and-answer session, the two investigators were asked about stroke rates, which were significantly lower in the TAVR patients even though in the early randomized trials in high-risk patients the stroke rates were twice as high with TAVR than SAVR. The explanation probably lies in a mix of device refinements over time, better techniques, standardized procedures, and careful patient selection, they said.

“If you look at stroke in the TAVR arm in both these trials, we’re almost approaching the background stroke rate in a group of 74-year-olds sitting around in a room,” Dr. Reardon observed.

Both trials will continue to assess participants both clinically and by echocardiography through 10 years, in part to assess TAVR valve durability, but also to evaluate the durability of surgical valves, which isn’t nearly as well established as most people think, according to the investigators.

“There is a myth of surgical bioprosthetic valve immortality. It’s based upon relatively few numbers of patients, largely sponsor-based studies, with numbers at risk at 15-20 years that are extremely low,” Dr. Leon asserted. “The majority of surgical valves being used today and touted as being durable are backed by only 2-4 years of data.”

In contrast, he added, “We have 5-year TAVR data which is absolutely definitive of no early structural valve deterioration.”

Discussant Mayra E. Guerrero, MD, of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., expressed concern that “this paradigm shift to ‘TAVR for all’ ” could break the bank for many institutions because the cost of TAVR valves is far greater than for SAVR valves. But she was heartened by the fresh PARTNER 3 and Evolut Low Risk data showing TAVR patients had fewer ICU days, shorter hospital stays, fewer strokes, more frequent discharge home, and a lower rehospitalization rate.

Dr. Reardon was reassuring on this score.

“I am 100% convinced that when we do the financials for these two trials, TAVR is going to be a cost saver and a huge winner,” the surgeon said.

He reported serving as a consultant to Medtronic and receiving research grants from Medtronic and Boston Scientific. Dr. Leon reported receiving research grants from Edwards Lifesciences and St. Jude Medical and acting as a consultant to several medical device companies.

The two trials have been published online by the New England Journal of Medicine.

bjancin@mdedge.com

SOURCES: Leon MB et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Mar 16. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1814052; Reardon MJ et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Mar 16. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1816885.

Immediate angiography after resuscitation from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest does not improve survival compared to delaying angiography until neurologic recovery in patients with no evidence of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, according to data presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology.

The Coronary Angiography after Cardiac Arrest (COACT) trial involved 552 patients who had been successfully resuscitated after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, without signs of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. The study also excluded patients with shock and severe renal dysfunction, and was not blinded, so this may have influenced treatment decisions.

Patients were randomized either to immediate coronary angiography after resuscitation, while still unconscious, or delayed coronary angiography until they had recovered neurologically, which was generally after discharge from intensive care.

Overall, 97.1% of patients in the immediate angiography group and 64.9% of the delayed angiography group underwent coronary angiography, with the median time until angiography being 0.8 hours in the immediate group and 119.9 hours in the delayed group.

In the immediate angiography group, 3.4% of patients were found to have an acute coronary occlusion, while in the delayed group that figure was 7.6%. Percutaneous coronary intervention was performed in 33% of the immediate angiography group and 24.2% of the delayed angiography group.

Survival rates at 90 days were not significantly different between the two groups; 64.5% of the immediate angiography group and 67.2% of the delayed angiography group survived to 90 days (OR 0.89, P = 0.51). The two groups also did not significantly differ in the secondary endpoints of survival with good cerebral performance or mild-to-moderate disability (62.9% vs. 64.4%).

“Our findings do not corroborate findings of previous observational studies, which showed a survival benefit with immediate coronary angiography in patients who had cardiac arrest without STEMI,” wrote Dr. Jorrit S. Lemkes, from the department of cardiology at Amsterdam University Medical Center VUmc, and co-authors. “This difference could be related to the observational nature of the previous studies, which may have resulted in selection bias that favored treating patients who had a presumed better prognosis with a strategy of immediate angiography.”

They also suggested the lack of benefit from early coronary angiography could relate to the fact that majority of those who died did so as a result of neurological complications, as has been seen in other studies of resuscitation.

The authors did note that the vast majority of patients in the study had stable coronary artery lesions, and only 5% showed thrombotic occlusions. They suggested this could explain their results, as percutaneous coronary intervention was not associated with improved outcomes in patients with stable coronary artery lesions – only in patients with acute thrombotic coronary occlusions.

However, they did see the suggestion of a treatment effect in patients over 70 years old and those with a history of coronary artery disease.

The study also revealed differences in subsequent treatment between patients who underwent immediate coronary angiography and those who had delayed angiography. Those in the delayed group were significantly more likely to be treated with salicylates or a P2Y12 inhibitor than those in the immediate angiography group.

“This observation illustrates how the result of immediate coronary angiography can influence treatment, since patients who did not have evidence of coronary artery disease on angiography do not require antiplatelet therapy,” the authors wrote.

Conversely, patients in the immediate angiography were more likely to receive a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor. However the authors said these different strategies did not translate to any significant difference in major bleeding.
 

The COACT trial results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine simultaneously with Dr.Lemkes's presentation.

COACT was supported by the Netherlands Heart Institute, Biotronik and AstraZeneca. Two authors declared grants and support from the study supporters, both in and outside the context of the study. One author declared grants from private industry outside the study. No other conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCE: Lemkes J et al. NEJM, 2019, March 18. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1816897
 

Immediate angiography after resuscitation from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest does not improve survival compared to delaying angiography until neurologic recovery in patients with no evidence of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, according to data presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology.

The Coronary Angiography after Cardiac Arrest (COACT) trial involved 552 patients who had been successfully resuscitated after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, without signs of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. The study also excluded patients with shock and severe renal dysfunction, and was not blinded, so this may have influenced treatment decisions.

Patients were randomized either to immediate coronary angiography after resuscitation, while still unconscious, or delayed coronary angiography until they had recovered neurologically, which was generally after discharge from intensive care.

Overall, 97.1% of patients in the immediate angiography group and 64.9% of the delayed angiography group underwent coronary angiography, with the median time until angiography being 0.8 hours in the immediate group and 119.9 hours in the delayed group.

In the immediate angiography group, 3.4% of patients were found to have an acute coronary occlusion, while in the delayed group that figure was 7.6%. Percutaneous coronary intervention was performed in 33% of the immediate angiography group and 24.2% of the delayed angiography group.

Survival rates at 90 days were not significantly different between the two groups; 64.5% of the immediate angiography group and 67.2% of the delayed angiography group survived to 90 days (OR 0.89, P = 0.51). The two groups also did not significantly differ in the secondary endpoints of survival with good cerebral performance or mild-to-moderate disability (62.9% vs. 64.4%).

“Our findings do not corroborate findings of previous observational studies, which showed a survival benefit with immediate coronary angiography in patients who had cardiac arrest without STEMI,” wrote Dr. Jorrit S. Lemkes, from the department of cardiology at Amsterdam University Medical Center VUmc, and co-authors. “This difference could be related to the observational nature of the previous studies, which may have resulted in selection bias that favored treating patients who had a presumed better prognosis with a strategy of immediate angiography.”

They also suggested the lack of benefit from early coronary angiography could relate to the fact that majority of those who died did so as a result of neurological complications, as has been seen in other studies of resuscitation.

The authors did note that the vast majority of patients in the study had stable coronary artery lesions, and only 5% showed thrombotic occlusions. They suggested this could explain their results, as percutaneous coronary intervention was not associated with improved outcomes in patients with stable coronary artery lesions – only in patients with acute thrombotic coronary occlusions.

However, they did see the suggestion of a treatment effect in patients over 70 years old and those with a history of coronary artery disease.

The study also revealed differences in subsequent treatment between patients who underwent immediate coronary angiography and those who had delayed angiography. Those in the delayed group were significantly more likely to be treated with salicylates or a P2Y12 inhibitor than those in the immediate angiography group.

“This observation illustrates how the result of immediate coronary angiography can influence treatment, since patients who did not have evidence of coronary artery disease on angiography do not require antiplatelet therapy,” the authors wrote.

Conversely, patients in the immediate angiography were more likely to receive a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor. However the authors said these different strategies did not translate to any significant difference in major bleeding.
 

The COACT trial results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine simultaneously with Dr.Lemkes's presentation.

COACT was supported by the Netherlands Heart Institute, Biotronik and AstraZeneca. Two authors declared grants and support from the study supporters, both in and outside the context of the study. One author declared grants from private industry outside the study. No other conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCE: Lemkes J et al. NEJM, 2019, March 18. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1816897
 

Immediate angiography after resuscitation from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest does not improve survival compared to delaying angiography until neurologic recovery in patients with no evidence of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, according to data presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology.

The Coronary Angiography after Cardiac Arrest (COACT) trial involved 552 patients who had been successfully resuscitated after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, without signs of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. The study also excluded patients with shock and severe renal dysfunction, and was not blinded, so this may have influenced treatment decisions.

Patients were randomized either to immediate coronary angiography after resuscitation, while still unconscious, or delayed coronary angiography until they had recovered neurologically, which was generally after discharge from intensive care.

Overall, 97.1% of patients in the immediate angiography group and 64.9% of the delayed angiography group underwent coronary angiography, with the median time until angiography being 0.8 hours in the immediate group and 119.9 hours in the delayed group.

In the immediate angiography group, 3.4% of patients were found to have an acute coronary occlusion, while in the delayed group that figure was 7.6%. Percutaneous coronary intervention was performed in 33% of the immediate angiography group and 24.2% of the delayed angiography group.

Survival rates at 90 days were not significantly different between the two groups; 64.5% of the immediate angiography group and 67.2% of the delayed angiography group survived to 90 days (OR 0.89, P = 0.51). The two groups also did not significantly differ in the secondary endpoints of survival with good cerebral performance or mild-to-moderate disability (62.9% vs. 64.4%).

“Our findings do not corroborate findings of previous observational studies, which showed a survival benefit with immediate coronary angiography in patients who had cardiac arrest without STEMI,” wrote Dr. Jorrit S. Lemkes, from the department of cardiology at Amsterdam University Medical Center VUmc, and co-authors. “This difference could be related to the observational nature of the previous studies, which may have resulted in selection bias that favored treating patients who had a presumed better prognosis with a strategy of immediate angiography.”

They also suggested the lack of benefit from early coronary angiography could relate to the fact that majority of those who died did so as a result of neurological complications, as has been seen in other studies of resuscitation.

The authors did note that the vast majority of patients in the study had stable coronary artery lesions, and only 5% showed thrombotic occlusions. They suggested this could explain their results, as percutaneous coronary intervention was not associated with improved outcomes in patients with stable coronary artery lesions – only in patients with acute thrombotic coronary occlusions.

However, they did see the suggestion of a treatment effect in patients over 70 years old and those with a history of coronary artery disease.

The study also revealed differences in subsequent treatment between patients who underwent immediate coronary angiography and those who had delayed angiography. Those in the delayed group were significantly more likely to be treated with salicylates or a P2Y12 inhibitor than those in the immediate angiography group.

“This observation illustrates how the result of immediate coronary angiography can influence treatment, since patients who did not have evidence of coronary artery disease on angiography do not require antiplatelet therapy,” the authors wrote.

Conversely, patients in the immediate angiography were more likely to receive a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor. However the authors said these different strategies did not translate to any significant difference in major bleeding.
 

The COACT trial results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine simultaneously with Dr.Lemkes's presentation.

COACT was supported by the Netherlands Heart Institute, Biotronik and AstraZeneca. Two authors declared grants and support from the study supporters, both in and outside the context of the study. One author declared grants from private industry outside the study. No other conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCE: Lemkes J et al. NEJM, 2019, March 18. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1816897
 

Amlodipine plus either hydrochlorothiazide or perindopril effectively reduced blood pressure better than perindopril and hydrochlorothiazide in black African patients with hypertension, based on data presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology.

“(A) long-acting dihydropyridine calcium-channel blocker (in this case, amlodipine) may be critical to more efficacious blood-pressure lowering among black patients as part of the two-drug combinations used (in Africa),” wrote lead author Dike B. Ojji, PhD, of the University of Abuja in Gwagwalada, Abuja, Nigeria, and his coauthors. “These results contrast with recommendations for black patients in the most recent U.S. guidelines” which recommend either a calcium channel blocker or a diuretic in combination with a different drug class.

The study was published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Ingram Publishing/ThinkStock

In the CREOLE study, Dr. Ojji and his colleagues enrolled 728 black patients, mean age 51 years and 63% of them women, in a randomized, single-blind, three-group trial across six countries in sub-Saharan Africa. All patients had uncontrolled hypertension and were assigned to one of three treatment groups: amlodipine plus hydrochlorothiazide (n = 244), amlodipine plus perindopril (n = 243), and perindopril plus hydrochlorothiazide (n = 241). Patients underwent 24-hour ambulatory blood-pressure measuring at baseline and at 6 months.

Of the 621 patients who completed the trial, those in the two groups receiving amlodipine had a larger mean reduction in systolic blood pressure after 6 months than the group receiving perindopril plus hydrochlorothiazide. Compared with the perindopril plus hydrochlorothiazide group, the amlodipine plus hydrochlorothiazide group had an additional -3.14 mm Hg reduction in systolic blood pressure from baseline (95% confidence interval, -5.90 to -0.38, P = 0.03) while the amlodipine plus perindopril group had an additional -3.00 mm Hg reduction (95% CI, -5.81 to -0.20, P = 0.04). The difference between the amlodipine plus hydrochlorothiazide group and the amlodipine plus perindopril group was -0.14 mm Hg (95% CI, -2.90 to 2.61, P = 0.92).

The limitations of the study included using nonmatching trial drugs and not adjusting the P values for the three comparisons of the primary end point, the authors wrote. It’s uncertain whether the findings can be extrapolated to black patients with diabetes or to those living outside of sub-Saharan Africa.

The study was sponsored by a grant from the GlaxoSmithKline Africa Noncommunicable Disease Open Lab. Trial drugs were donated by Aspen Pharmacare. Two authors reported receiving grants and personal fees from numerous pharmaceutical companies.
 

SOURCE: Ojji DB et al. NEJM. 2019 Mar 18. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1901113.

Amlodipine plus either hydrochlorothiazide or perindopril effectively reduced blood pressure better than perindopril and hydrochlorothiazide in black African patients with hypertension, based on data presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology.

“(A) long-acting dihydropyridine calcium-channel blocker (in this case, amlodipine) may be critical to more efficacious blood-pressure lowering among black patients as part of the two-drug combinations used (in Africa),” wrote lead author Dike B. Ojji, PhD, of the University of Abuja in Gwagwalada, Abuja, Nigeria, and his coauthors. “These results contrast with recommendations for black patients in the most recent U.S. guidelines” which recommend either a calcium channel blocker or a diuretic in combination with a different drug class.

The study was published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Ingram Publishing/ThinkStock

In the CREOLE study, Dr. Ojji and his colleagues enrolled 728 black patients, mean age 51 years and 63% of them women, in a randomized, single-blind, three-group trial across six countries in sub-Saharan Africa. All patients had uncontrolled hypertension and were assigned to one of three treatment groups: amlodipine plus hydrochlorothiazide (n = 244), amlodipine plus perindopril (n = 243), and perindopril plus hydrochlorothiazide (n = 241). Patients underwent 24-hour ambulatory blood-pressure measuring at baseline and at 6 months.

Of the 621 patients who completed the trial, those in the two groups receiving amlodipine had a larger mean reduction in systolic blood pressure after 6 months than the group receiving perindopril plus hydrochlorothiazide. Compared with the perindopril plus hydrochlorothiazide group, the amlodipine plus hydrochlorothiazide group had an additional -3.14 mm Hg reduction in systolic blood pressure from baseline (95% confidence interval, -5.90 to -0.38, P = 0.03) while the amlodipine plus perindopril group had an additional -3.00 mm Hg reduction (95% CI, -5.81 to -0.20, P = 0.04). The difference between the amlodipine plus hydrochlorothiazide group and the amlodipine plus perindopril group was -0.14 mm Hg (95% CI, -2.90 to 2.61, P = 0.92).

The limitations of the study included using nonmatching trial drugs and not adjusting the P values for the three comparisons of the primary end point, the authors wrote. It’s uncertain whether the findings can be extrapolated to black patients with diabetes or to those living outside of sub-Saharan Africa.

The study was sponsored by a grant from the GlaxoSmithKline Africa Noncommunicable Disease Open Lab. Trial drugs were donated by Aspen Pharmacare. Two authors reported receiving grants and personal fees from numerous pharmaceutical companies.
 

SOURCE: Ojji DB et al. NEJM. 2019 Mar 18. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1901113.

Amlodipine plus either hydrochlorothiazide or perindopril effectively reduced blood pressure better than perindopril and hydrochlorothiazide in black African patients with hypertension, based on data presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology.

“(A) long-acting dihydropyridine calcium-channel blocker (in this case, amlodipine) may be critical to more efficacious blood-pressure lowering among black patients as part of the two-drug combinations used (in Africa),” wrote lead author Dike B. Ojji, PhD, of the University of Abuja in Gwagwalada, Abuja, Nigeria, and his coauthors. “These results contrast with recommendations for black patients in the most recent U.S. guidelines” which recommend either a calcium channel blocker or a diuretic in combination with a different drug class.

The study was published simultaneously in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Ingram Publishing/ThinkStock

In the CREOLE study, Dr. Ojji and his colleagues enrolled 728 black patients, mean age 51 years and 63% of them women, in a randomized, single-blind, three-group trial across six countries in sub-Saharan Africa. All patients had uncontrolled hypertension and were assigned to one of three treatment groups: amlodipine plus hydrochlorothiazide (n = 244), amlodipine plus perindopril (n = 243), and perindopril plus hydrochlorothiazide (n = 241). Patients underwent 24-hour ambulatory blood-pressure measuring at baseline and at 6 months.

Of the 621 patients who completed the trial, those in the two groups receiving amlodipine had a larger mean reduction in systolic blood pressure after 6 months than the group receiving perindopril plus hydrochlorothiazide. Compared with the perindopril plus hydrochlorothiazide group, the amlodipine plus hydrochlorothiazide group had an additional -3.14 mm Hg reduction in systolic blood pressure from baseline (95% confidence interval, -5.90 to -0.38, P = 0.03) while the amlodipine plus perindopril group had an additional -3.00 mm Hg reduction (95% CI, -5.81 to -0.20, P = 0.04). The difference between the amlodipine plus hydrochlorothiazide group and the amlodipine plus perindopril group was -0.14 mm Hg (95% CI, -2.90 to 2.61, P = 0.92).

The limitations of the study included using nonmatching trial drugs and not adjusting the P values for the three comparisons of the primary end point, the authors wrote. It’s uncertain whether the findings can be extrapolated to black patients with diabetes or to those living outside of sub-Saharan Africa.

The study was sponsored by a grant from the GlaxoSmithKline Africa Noncommunicable Disease Open Lab. Trial drugs were donated by Aspen Pharmacare. Two authors reported receiving grants and personal fees from numerous pharmaceutical companies.
 

SOURCE: Ojji DB et al. NEJM. 2019 Mar 18. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1901113.

NEW ORLEANS – The first medical society guideline to comprehensively address all facets of primary prevention of cardiovascular disease put special emphasis on a team-based approach that takes into account each person’s social determinants of health. The guideline substantially dialed down prior recommendations on aspirin for primary prevention by calling for no use in people older than 70 years and infrequent use in those 40-70 years old.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association released their 2019 guideline on the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease on March 17, during the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology (J Amer Coll Cardiol. 2019 March 17;doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.03.010.). The guideline is a “one-stop shop” that pulls together existing recommendations from the two organizations and combines it with some new recommendations that address issues such as aspirin prophylaxis, and the social setting of each person, said Donna K. Arnett, Ph.D., professor of epidemiology at the University of Kentucky, dean of the university’s College of Public Health, and co-chair of the guideline writing panel.

“We made the social determinants of health front and center. With many people, clinicians don’t ask whether they have access to healthy foods or a way to get to the pharmacy. Asking about these issues is step one,” toward helping people address their social situation, Dr. Arnett said while introducing the new guideline in a press briefing. The guideline recommends that clinicians assess the social determinants for each person treated for cardiovascular disease prevention using a screening tool developed by the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and made available by the National Academy of Medicine (NAM Perspectives. 2017; doi:10.31478/201705b).

“No other guideline has highlighted the social determinants of health,” noted Erin D. Michos, MD, associate director of preventive cardiology at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, and a member of the guideline-writing panel. Other overarching themes of the guideline are its emphasis on the need for a team of clinicians to deliver all the disparate and time-consuming facets of care needed for comprehensive primary prevention of cardiovascular disease, and its call for a healthy lifestyle throughout life as foundations for prevention, Dr. Michos said in an interview.

With 48 recommendations, the guideline also deals with prevention issues such as a healthy diet and body mass, appropriate control of diabetes, smoking cessation, and control of blood pressure and cholesterol (see chart). The writing committee took the cholesterol and blood pressure recommendations directly from recent guidelines from the ACC and AHA in 2017 (blood pressure:J Amer Coll Cardiol. 2018 May;71[19]:e177-e248) and 2018 (cholesterol:Circulation. 2018 Nov 10;doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000625).

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“Generally no, occasionally yes,” is aspirin appropriate for people in this age group, notably those at high risk for cardiovascular disease and also at low risk for bleeding, explained Amit Khera, MD, a guideline-panel member, and professor of medicine and director of preventive cardiology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.

As a guideline for primary prevention, a prime target audience is primary care physicians, who would need to be instrumental in applying the guideline. But the guideline recommendations released by the ACC and AHA for blood pressure management in 2017 were not accepted by U.S. groups that represent primary care physicians, the American College of Physicians, and the American Academy of Family Physicians.

John J. Warner, MD, an interventional cardiologist, executive vice president for health system affairs at UT Southwestern, and president of the AHA when the blood pressure guideline came out said that the ACC and AHA “learned some lessons” from the blood pressure experience. The societies responded this time around by “trying to view the document through as many lenses as possible” during the peer review process, Dr. Warner said during the press conference.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

She especially applauded the recommendations to assess each person’s social determinants of health, the team-care approach, and the recommendations dealing with diet and other aspects of a healthy lifestyle. “This was a perfect time” to bring together the existing blood pressure and cholesterol guidelines, the new guidance on aspirin use, and the other recommendation in a single document, she said in an interview.

Dr. Arnett, Dr. Michos, Dr. Khera, Dr. Warner, and Dr. Gulati had no disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

SOURCE: Arnett DK et al. J Amer Coll Cardiol. 2019 March 17;doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.03.010.

NEW ORLEANS – The first medical society guideline to comprehensively address all facets of primary prevention of cardiovascular disease put special emphasis on a team-based approach that takes into account each person’s social determinants of health. The guideline substantially dialed down prior recommendations on aspirin for primary prevention by calling for no use in people older than 70 years and infrequent use in those 40-70 years old.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association released their 2019 guideline on the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease on March 17, during the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology (J Amer Coll Cardiol. 2019 March 17;doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.03.010.). The guideline is a “one-stop shop” that pulls together existing recommendations from the two organizations and combines it with some new recommendations that address issues such as aspirin prophylaxis, and the social setting of each person, said Donna K. Arnett, Ph.D., professor of epidemiology at the University of Kentucky, dean of the university’s College of Public Health, and co-chair of the guideline writing panel.

“We made the social determinants of health front and center. With many people, clinicians don’t ask whether they have access to healthy foods or a way to get to the pharmacy. Asking about these issues is step one,” toward helping people address their social situation, Dr. Arnett said while introducing the new guideline in a press briefing. The guideline recommends that clinicians assess the social determinants for each person treated for cardiovascular disease prevention using a screening tool developed by the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and made available by the National Academy of Medicine (NAM Perspectives. 2017; doi:10.31478/201705b).

“No other guideline has highlighted the social determinants of health,” noted Erin D. Michos, MD, associate director of preventive cardiology at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, and a member of the guideline-writing panel. Other overarching themes of the guideline are its emphasis on the need for a team of clinicians to deliver all the disparate and time-consuming facets of care needed for comprehensive primary prevention of cardiovascular disease, and its call for a healthy lifestyle throughout life as foundations for prevention, Dr. Michos said in an interview.

With 48 recommendations, the guideline also deals with prevention issues such as a healthy diet and body mass, appropriate control of diabetes, smoking cessation, and control of blood pressure and cholesterol (see chart). The writing committee took the cholesterol and blood pressure recommendations directly from recent guidelines from the ACC and AHA in 2017 (blood pressure:J Amer Coll Cardiol. 2018 May;71[19]:e177-e248) and 2018 (cholesterol:Circulation. 2018 Nov 10;doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000625).

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“Generally no, occasionally yes,” is aspirin appropriate for people in this age group, notably those at high risk for cardiovascular disease and also at low risk for bleeding, explained Amit Khera, MD, a guideline-panel member, and professor of medicine and director of preventive cardiology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.

As a guideline for primary prevention, a prime target audience is primary care physicians, who would need to be instrumental in applying the guideline. But the guideline recommendations released by the ACC and AHA for blood pressure management in 2017 were not accepted by U.S. groups that represent primary care physicians, the American College of Physicians, and the American Academy of Family Physicians.

John J. Warner, MD, an interventional cardiologist, executive vice president for health system affairs at UT Southwestern, and president of the AHA when the blood pressure guideline came out said that the ACC and AHA “learned some lessons” from the blood pressure experience. The societies responded this time around by “trying to view the document through as many lenses as possible” during the peer review process, Dr. Warner said during the press conference.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

She especially applauded the recommendations to assess each person’s social determinants of health, the team-care approach, and the recommendations dealing with diet and other aspects of a healthy lifestyle. “This was a perfect time” to bring together the existing blood pressure and cholesterol guidelines, the new guidance on aspirin use, and the other recommendation in a single document, she said in an interview.

Dr. Arnett, Dr. Michos, Dr. Khera, Dr. Warner, and Dr. Gulati had no disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

SOURCE: Arnett DK et al. J Amer Coll Cardiol. 2019 March 17;doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.03.010.

NEW ORLEANS – The first medical society guideline to comprehensively address all facets of primary prevention of cardiovascular disease put special emphasis on a team-based approach that takes into account each person’s social determinants of health. The guideline substantially dialed down prior recommendations on aspirin for primary prevention by calling for no use in people older than 70 years and infrequent use in those 40-70 years old.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association released their 2019 guideline on the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease on March 17, during the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology (J Amer Coll Cardiol. 2019 March 17;doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.03.010.). The guideline is a “one-stop shop” that pulls together existing recommendations from the two organizations and combines it with some new recommendations that address issues such as aspirin prophylaxis, and the social setting of each person, said Donna K. Arnett, Ph.D., professor of epidemiology at the University of Kentucky, dean of the university’s College of Public Health, and co-chair of the guideline writing panel.

“We made the social determinants of health front and center. With many people, clinicians don’t ask whether they have access to healthy foods or a way to get to the pharmacy. Asking about these issues is step one,” toward helping people address their social situation, Dr. Arnett said while introducing the new guideline in a press briefing. The guideline recommends that clinicians assess the social determinants for each person treated for cardiovascular disease prevention using a screening tool developed by the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and made available by the National Academy of Medicine (NAM Perspectives. 2017; doi:10.31478/201705b).

“No other guideline has highlighted the social determinants of health,” noted Erin D. Michos, MD, associate director of preventive cardiology at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore, and a member of the guideline-writing panel. Other overarching themes of the guideline are its emphasis on the need for a team of clinicians to deliver all the disparate and time-consuming facets of care needed for comprehensive primary prevention of cardiovascular disease, and its call for a healthy lifestyle throughout life as foundations for prevention, Dr. Michos said in an interview.

With 48 recommendations, the guideline also deals with prevention issues such as a healthy diet and body mass, appropriate control of diabetes, smoking cessation, and control of blood pressure and cholesterol (see chart). The writing committee took the cholesterol and blood pressure recommendations directly from recent guidelines from the ACC and AHA in 2017 (blood pressure:J Amer Coll Cardiol. 2018 May;71[19]:e177-e248) and 2018 (cholesterol:Circulation. 2018 Nov 10;doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000625).

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

“Generally no, occasionally yes,” is aspirin appropriate for people in this age group, notably those at high risk for cardiovascular disease and also at low risk for bleeding, explained Amit Khera, MD, a guideline-panel member, and professor of medicine and director of preventive cardiology at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas.

As a guideline for primary prevention, a prime target audience is primary care physicians, who would need to be instrumental in applying the guideline. But the guideline recommendations released by the ACC and AHA for blood pressure management in 2017 were not accepted by U.S. groups that represent primary care physicians, the American College of Physicians, and the American Academy of Family Physicians.

John J. Warner, MD, an interventional cardiologist, executive vice president for health system affairs at UT Southwestern, and president of the AHA when the blood pressure guideline came out said that the ACC and AHA “learned some lessons” from the blood pressure experience. The societies responded this time around by “trying to view the document through as many lenses as possible” during the peer review process, Dr. Warner said during the press conference.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

She especially applauded the recommendations to assess each person’s social determinants of health, the team-care approach, and the recommendations dealing with diet and other aspects of a healthy lifestyle. “This was a perfect time” to bring together the existing blood pressure and cholesterol guidelines, the new guidance on aspirin use, and the other recommendation in a single document, she said in an interview.

Dr. Arnett, Dr. Michos, Dr. Khera, Dr. Warner, and Dr. Gulati had no disclosures.

mzoler@mdedge.com

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

SOURCE: Arnett DK et al. J Amer Coll Cardiol. 2019 March 17;doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.03.010.

For select patients with heart failure and 3-4+ secondary mitral regurgitation, transcatheter mitral valve repair (TMVr) with the edge-to-edge MitraClip improves survival and overall health status for at least 2 years, based on results from a substudy of the COAPT trial.

Significant improvements seen at 1 month in the TMVr group had waned only slightly by the 2-year time point, reported lead author Suzanne V. Arnold, MD, of Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute and University of Missouri–Kansas City, who presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology. The study was simultaneously published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“Considering the previously reported benefits of TMVr on survival and heart failure hospitalization, these health status findings further support the device as a valuable treatment option for heart failure patients with severe secondary mitral regurgitation who remain symptomatic despite maximally-tolerated guideline-directed medical therapy,” Dr. Arnold and her colleagues concluded.

Primary findings from the COAPT (Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therapy for Heart Failure Patients with Functional Mitral Regurgitation) trial showed that TMVr reduced hospitalizations due to heart failure and all-cause mortality over 2 years, leading the Food and Drug Administration to grant an extended indication to MitraClip. With the present substudy, the investigators sought to learn more about impacts of TMVr on overall health.

“Beyond prolonging survival and reducing hospitalizations, improving patients’ health status (i.e., symptoms, functional status, quality of life) is a key treatment goal of TMVr,” the investigators wrote. “In fact, among older patients with comorbidities and high symptom burden, health status improvement may be of greater importance to patients than improved survival.”

To measure these outcomes, the investigators employed the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) and the SF-36 health status survey, which they administered to 302 patients in the TMVr group and 312 patients in the standard care group. The primary endpoint was the KCCQ overall summary score (KCCQ-OS), which ranges from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health status.

Across all patients, the average baseline KCCQ-OS score was 52.4 ± 23.0. After 1 month, the average KCCQ-OS score rose 2.1 points in the standard care group, while the TMVr group saw a 16.9-point increase, most heavily through the questionnaire’s quality of life domain. These figures translate to a mean between-group difference of 15.9 points, a value that decreased only slightly after 2 years, to 12.8 points. Further suggesting that TMVr had beneficial and lasting effects, a significantly greater percentage of patients in the TMVr group than in the standard care group were alive with a moderately large health improvement after 2 years (36.4% vs 16.6%; P less than .001).

The study was funded by Abbott Vascular. Several of the investigators reported financial relationships with Abbott as well as Novartis, Bayer, V-wave, Corvia, and others.

SOURCE: Arnold et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Mar 17.

For select patients with heart failure and 3-4+ secondary mitral regurgitation, transcatheter mitral valve repair (TMVr) with the edge-to-edge MitraClip improves survival and overall health status for at least 2 years, based on results from a substudy of the COAPT trial.

Significant improvements seen at 1 month in the TMVr group had waned only slightly by the 2-year time point, reported lead author Suzanne V. Arnold, MD, of Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute and University of Missouri–Kansas City, who presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology. The study was simultaneously published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“Considering the previously reported benefits of TMVr on survival and heart failure hospitalization, these health status findings further support the device as a valuable treatment option for heart failure patients with severe secondary mitral regurgitation who remain symptomatic despite maximally-tolerated guideline-directed medical therapy,” Dr. Arnold and her colleagues concluded.

Primary findings from the COAPT (Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therapy for Heart Failure Patients with Functional Mitral Regurgitation) trial showed that TMVr reduced hospitalizations due to heart failure and all-cause mortality over 2 years, leading the Food and Drug Administration to grant an extended indication to MitraClip. With the present substudy, the investigators sought to learn more about impacts of TMVr on overall health.

“Beyond prolonging survival and reducing hospitalizations, improving patients’ health status (i.e., symptoms, functional status, quality of life) is a key treatment goal of TMVr,” the investigators wrote. “In fact, among older patients with comorbidities and high symptom burden, health status improvement may be of greater importance to patients than improved survival.”

To measure these outcomes, the investigators employed the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) and the SF-36 health status survey, which they administered to 302 patients in the TMVr group and 312 patients in the standard care group. The primary endpoint was the KCCQ overall summary score (KCCQ-OS), which ranges from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health status.

Across all patients, the average baseline KCCQ-OS score was 52.4 ± 23.0. After 1 month, the average KCCQ-OS score rose 2.1 points in the standard care group, while the TMVr group saw a 16.9-point increase, most heavily through the questionnaire’s quality of life domain. These figures translate to a mean between-group difference of 15.9 points, a value that decreased only slightly after 2 years, to 12.8 points. Further suggesting that TMVr had beneficial and lasting effects, a significantly greater percentage of patients in the TMVr group than in the standard care group were alive with a moderately large health improvement after 2 years (36.4% vs 16.6%; P less than .001).

The study was funded by Abbott Vascular. Several of the investigators reported financial relationships with Abbott as well as Novartis, Bayer, V-wave, Corvia, and others.

SOURCE: Arnold et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Mar 17.

For select patients with heart failure and 3-4+ secondary mitral regurgitation, transcatheter mitral valve repair (TMVr) with the edge-to-edge MitraClip improves survival and overall health status for at least 2 years, based on results from a substudy of the COAPT trial.

Significant improvements seen at 1 month in the TMVr group had waned only slightly by the 2-year time point, reported lead author Suzanne V. Arnold, MD, of Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute and University of Missouri–Kansas City, who presented the findings at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology. The study was simultaneously published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“Considering the previously reported benefits of TMVr on survival and heart failure hospitalization, these health status findings further support the device as a valuable treatment option for heart failure patients with severe secondary mitral regurgitation who remain symptomatic despite maximally-tolerated guideline-directed medical therapy,” Dr. Arnold and her colleagues concluded.

Primary findings from the COAPT (Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therapy for Heart Failure Patients with Functional Mitral Regurgitation) trial showed that TMVr reduced hospitalizations due to heart failure and all-cause mortality over 2 years, leading the Food and Drug Administration to grant an extended indication to MitraClip. With the present substudy, the investigators sought to learn more about impacts of TMVr on overall health.

“Beyond prolonging survival and reducing hospitalizations, improving patients’ health status (i.e., symptoms, functional status, quality of life) is a key treatment goal of TMVr,” the investigators wrote. “In fact, among older patients with comorbidities and high symptom burden, health status improvement may be of greater importance to patients than improved survival.”

To measure these outcomes, the investigators employed the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) and the SF-36 health status survey, which they administered to 302 patients in the TMVr group and 312 patients in the standard care group. The primary endpoint was the KCCQ overall summary score (KCCQ-OS), which ranges from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health status.

Across all patients, the average baseline KCCQ-OS score was 52.4 ± 23.0. After 1 month, the average KCCQ-OS score rose 2.1 points in the standard care group, while the TMVr group saw a 16.9-point increase, most heavily through the questionnaire’s quality of life domain. These figures translate to a mean between-group difference of 15.9 points, a value that decreased only slightly after 2 years, to 12.8 points. Further suggesting that TMVr had beneficial and lasting effects, a significantly greater percentage of patients in the TMVr group than in the standard care group were alive with a moderately large health improvement after 2 years (36.4% vs 16.6%; P less than .001).

The study was funded by Abbott Vascular. Several of the investigators reported financial relationships with Abbott as well as Novartis, Bayer, V-wave, Corvia, and others.

SOURCE: Arnold et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Mar 17.

NEW ORLEANS – Detection of an irregular pulse rhythm by an algorithm installed on a smartwatch had a positive predictive value of 84% for simultaneous ECG-confirmed atrial fibrillation in the landmark Apple Heart Study, investigators reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology.

This was a single-arm, prospective, open-label, observational study of unprecedented size and speediness of completion. It included nearly 420,000 self-enrolled adults living in the U.S., with 8 months of monitoring. But despite the study’s flashy size and trendy digital health theme, the researchers were careful not to oversell the findings.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

bjancin@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Turakhia M, ACC 19 NCT03335800

NEW ORLEANS – Detection of an irregular pulse rhythm by an algorithm installed on a smartwatch had a positive predictive value of 84% for simultaneous ECG-confirmed atrial fibrillation in the landmark Apple Heart Study, investigators reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology.

This was a single-arm, prospective, open-label, observational study of unprecedented size and speediness of completion. It included nearly 420,000 self-enrolled adults living in the U.S., with 8 months of monitoring. But despite the study’s flashy size and trendy digital health theme, the researchers were careful not to oversell the findings.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

bjancin@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Turakhia M, ACC 19 NCT03335800

NEW ORLEANS – Detection of an irregular pulse rhythm by an algorithm installed on a smartwatch had a positive predictive value of 84% for simultaneous ECG-confirmed atrial fibrillation in the landmark Apple Heart Study, investigators reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology.

This was a single-arm, prospective, open-label, observational study of unprecedented size and speediness of completion. It included nearly 420,000 self-enrolled adults living in the U.S., with 8 months of monitoring. But despite the study’s flashy size and trendy digital health theme, the researchers were careful not to oversell the findings.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

bjancin@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Turakhia M, ACC 19 NCT03335800

NEW ORLEANS – The portability, convenience, and the mobile health care that wearable technology achieve is clearly being described in the Apple Heart Study, Matthew W. Martinez, MD, medical director of the Sports Cardiology and Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy Center at the Lehigh Valley Health Network in Allentown, Pa., said in a video interview.

The Apple Heart Study, presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology, evaluated a mobile app that uses the watch’s existing light sensor technology to detect subtle changes that might indicate an arrhythmia.

The Apple Watch generates a tachogram, which is a plot of time between heart beats. If an abnormal tachogram occurs five out of six times, they are analyzed by an algorithm and sent to the Apple Watch.

The positive predictive value for the tachogram was 71%, and the positive predictive value for the notification was 84%.

Dr. Martinez, who is lead cardiologist for U.S. Major League Soccer and is also heavily involved with the National Football League, said that the study helps clinicians understand the utility of wearable technology.

His take home from the study is that, when people are notified by their watch, they should notify their health care provider, and the provider should take it seriously.

Dr. Martinez was not involved in the Apple Heart Study, and had no relevant disclosures.

bjancin@mdedge.com

NEW ORLEANS – The portability, convenience, and the mobile health care that wearable technology achieve is clearly being described in the Apple Heart Study, Matthew W. Martinez, MD, medical director of the Sports Cardiology and Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy Center at the Lehigh Valley Health Network in Allentown, Pa., said in a video interview.

The Apple Heart Study, presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology, evaluated a mobile app that uses the watch’s existing light sensor technology to detect subtle changes that might indicate an arrhythmia.

The Apple Watch generates a tachogram, which is a plot of time between heart beats. If an abnormal tachogram occurs five out of six times, they are analyzed by an algorithm and sent to the Apple Watch.

The positive predictive value for the tachogram was 71%, and the positive predictive value for the notification was 84%.

Dr. Martinez, who is lead cardiologist for U.S. Major League Soccer and is also heavily involved with the National Football League, said that the study helps clinicians understand the utility of wearable technology.

His take home from the study is that, when people are notified by their watch, they should notify their health care provider, and the provider should take it seriously.

Dr. Martinez was not involved in the Apple Heart Study, and had no relevant disclosures.

bjancin@mdedge.com

NEW ORLEANS – The portability, convenience, and the mobile health care that wearable technology achieve is clearly being described in the Apple Heart Study, Matthew W. Martinez, MD, medical director of the Sports Cardiology and Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy Center at the Lehigh Valley Health Network in Allentown, Pa., said in a video interview.

The Apple Heart Study, presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology, evaluated a mobile app that uses the watch’s existing light sensor technology to detect subtle changes that might indicate an arrhythmia.

The Apple Watch generates a tachogram, which is a plot of time between heart beats. If an abnormal tachogram occurs five out of six times, they are analyzed by an algorithm and sent to the Apple Watch.

The positive predictive value for the tachogram was 71%, and the positive predictive value for the notification was 84%.

Dr. Martinez, who is lead cardiologist for U.S. Major League Soccer and is also heavily involved with the National Football League, said that the study helps clinicians understand the utility of wearable technology.

His take home from the study is that, when people are notified by their watch, they should notify their health care provider, and the provider should take it seriously.

Dr. Martinez was not involved in the Apple Heart Study, and had no relevant disclosures.

bjancin@mdedge.com

Asymptomatic patients with coronary artery calcium (CAC) scores of 1,000 or higher should be considered at higher risk for cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality than those with CAC scores of 400-999, based on data from a large retrospective study presented by Allison W. Peng at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology.

“Our data argues for consideration of CAC 1000 (or more) as a distinct group with CVD mortality greater than that of contemporary secondary prevention trials ... We showed that those with CAC 1000 (or more) have both a higher area and density of calcification, a more dispersed pattern of calcification in their coronary artery tree (the majority with 4-vessel disease), with a markedly more diffuse distribution of extra-coronary calcification compared to the other CAC groups,” Ms. Peng and her colleagues wrote in the study, which was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Future guidelines should address these patients as a distinct risk group that might gain the most benefit from targeted, aggressive preventive therapy, the researchers said.

Current guidelines identify individuals with CAC scores over 400 as the highest risk group. With a mean follow-up time of 12.3 years, the results from 66,636 asymptomatic individuals in the CAC consortium study, which included over 2,800 patients with CAC (Agatston) scores of 1,000 or more, indicate patients with CAC scores of 1000 or more have nearly a 2-fold higher risk of CVD mortality compared to those with CAC scores of 400-999. While the mortality risk levels off slightly in those with scores exceeding 1000, all-cause and cause-specific mortality risk still increases with no apparent upper CAC threshold.

Patients with a CAC score of at least 1000 were 66.3 years old, on average; 86.3% were male, 52.4% had 4-vessel CAC, and they had a larger total CAC area.

Compared to patients with CAC scores of 400-999, those with a CAC score of 1000 or more had a greater risk of cardiovascular disease (HR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.41-2.08), coronary heart disease (HR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.43-2.36), cancer (HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.07-1.73), and all-cause mortality (HR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.33-1.70).

Those with CAC scores of 400-999 had a 2.1, 3.6, 2.7, and 9.8 mortality rate per 1000 person-years for CHD, CVD, cancer, and all-cause mortality, respectively. But those with CAC scores of 1000 of more had a 5.1, 8.0, 4.6, and 18.8 mortality rate per 1000 person-years for CHD, CVD, cancer, and all-cause mortality, respectively.

The leading cause of death was CVD; 36.5% in the CAC 400-999 group and 42.6% in the CAC 1000 or more group. CHD mortality, as a subset of CVD mortality, constituted 21.1% of deaths in the CAC 400-999 group and 27.1% of deaths in the CAC 1000 or more group.

“Future randomized controlled trials of aggressive preventative therapies, for example PCSK9-inhibitors and anti-inflammatory drugs, in patients with CAC ≥ 1000, may prove helpful to evaluate the benefits of such treatment in this unique group,” the authors wrote. They also urged updating current guidelines to reflect best practices for these patients.

The study was funded by The National Institutes of Health. The authors have no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Peng A et al. Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Asymptomatic patients with coronary artery calcium (CAC) scores of 1,000 or higher should be considered at higher risk for cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality than those with CAC scores of 400-999, based on data from a large retrospective study presented by Allison W. Peng at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology.

“Our data argues for consideration of CAC 1000 (or more) as a distinct group with CVD mortality greater than that of contemporary secondary prevention trials ... We showed that those with CAC 1000 (or more) have both a higher area and density of calcification, a more dispersed pattern of calcification in their coronary artery tree (the majority with 4-vessel disease), with a markedly more diffuse distribution of extra-coronary calcification compared to the other CAC groups,” Ms. Peng and her colleagues wrote in the study, which was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Future guidelines should address these patients as a distinct risk group that might gain the most benefit from targeted, aggressive preventive therapy, the researchers said.

Current guidelines identify individuals with CAC scores over 400 as the highest risk group. With a mean follow-up time of 12.3 years, the results from 66,636 asymptomatic individuals in the CAC consortium study, which included over 2,800 patients with CAC (Agatston) scores of 1,000 or more, indicate patients with CAC scores of 1000 or more have nearly a 2-fold higher risk of CVD mortality compared to those with CAC scores of 400-999. While the mortality risk levels off slightly in those with scores exceeding 1000, all-cause and cause-specific mortality risk still increases with no apparent upper CAC threshold.

Patients with a CAC score of at least 1000 were 66.3 years old, on average; 86.3% were male, 52.4% had 4-vessel CAC, and they had a larger total CAC area.

Compared to patients with CAC scores of 400-999, those with a CAC score of 1000 or more had a greater risk of cardiovascular disease (HR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.41-2.08), coronary heart disease (HR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.43-2.36), cancer (HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.07-1.73), and all-cause mortality (HR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.33-1.70).

Those with CAC scores of 400-999 had a 2.1, 3.6, 2.7, and 9.8 mortality rate per 1000 person-years for CHD, CVD, cancer, and all-cause mortality, respectively. But those with CAC scores of 1000 of more had a 5.1, 8.0, 4.6, and 18.8 mortality rate per 1000 person-years for CHD, CVD, cancer, and all-cause mortality, respectively.

The leading cause of death was CVD; 36.5% in the CAC 400-999 group and 42.6% in the CAC 1000 or more group. CHD mortality, as a subset of CVD mortality, constituted 21.1% of deaths in the CAC 400-999 group and 27.1% of deaths in the CAC 1000 or more group.

“Future randomized controlled trials of aggressive preventative therapies, for example PCSK9-inhibitors and anti-inflammatory drugs, in patients with CAC ≥ 1000, may prove helpful to evaluate the benefits of such treatment in this unique group,” the authors wrote. They also urged updating current guidelines to reflect best practices for these patients.

The study was funded by The National Institutes of Health. The authors have no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Peng A et al. Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Asymptomatic patients with coronary artery calcium (CAC) scores of 1,000 or higher should be considered at higher risk for cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality than those with CAC scores of 400-999, based on data from a large retrospective study presented by Allison W. Peng at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology.

“Our data argues for consideration of CAC 1000 (or more) as a distinct group with CVD mortality greater than that of contemporary secondary prevention trials ... We showed that those with CAC 1000 (or more) have both a higher area and density of calcification, a more dispersed pattern of calcification in their coronary artery tree (the majority with 4-vessel disease), with a markedly more diffuse distribution of extra-coronary calcification compared to the other CAC groups,” Ms. Peng and her colleagues wrote in the study, which was published online in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Future guidelines should address these patients as a distinct risk group that might gain the most benefit from targeted, aggressive preventive therapy, the researchers said.

Current guidelines identify individuals with CAC scores over 400 as the highest risk group. With a mean follow-up time of 12.3 years, the results from 66,636 asymptomatic individuals in the CAC consortium study, which included over 2,800 patients with CAC (Agatston) scores of 1,000 or more, indicate patients with CAC scores of 1000 or more have nearly a 2-fold higher risk of CVD mortality compared to those with CAC scores of 400-999. While the mortality risk levels off slightly in those with scores exceeding 1000, all-cause and cause-specific mortality risk still increases with no apparent upper CAC threshold.

Patients with a CAC score of at least 1000 were 66.3 years old, on average; 86.3% were male, 52.4% had 4-vessel CAC, and they had a larger total CAC area.

Compared to patients with CAC scores of 400-999, those with a CAC score of 1000 or more had a greater risk of cardiovascular disease (HR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.41-2.08), coronary heart disease (HR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.43-2.36), cancer (HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.07-1.73), and all-cause mortality (HR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.33-1.70).

Those with CAC scores of 400-999 had a 2.1, 3.6, 2.7, and 9.8 mortality rate per 1000 person-years for CHD, CVD, cancer, and all-cause mortality, respectively. But those with CAC scores of 1000 of more had a 5.1, 8.0, 4.6, and 18.8 mortality rate per 1000 person-years for CHD, CVD, cancer, and all-cause mortality, respectively.

The leading cause of death was CVD; 36.5% in the CAC 400-999 group and 42.6% in the CAC 1000 or more group. CHD mortality, as a subset of CVD mortality, constituted 21.1% of deaths in the CAC 400-999 group and 27.1% of deaths in the CAC 1000 or more group.

“Future randomized controlled trials of aggressive preventative therapies, for example PCSK9-inhibitors and anti-inflammatory drugs, in patients with CAC ≥ 1000, may prove helpful to evaluate the benefits of such treatment in this unique group,” the authors wrote. They also urged updating current guidelines to reflect best practices for these patients.

The study was funded by The National Institutes of Health. The authors have no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Peng A et al. Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

The American College of Cardiology announced at its ACC Quality Summit in New Orleans that it will offer a Transcatheter Valve Certification to assist hospitals that perform transcatheter valve repair and replacement.

The certification is an external review process that will allow hospitals to meet standards for multidisciplinary teams, formalized training, shared decision making, and registry performance. During the certification process, hospitals will learn best practices for implementing evidence-based medicine in the care of individual patients and identify quality improvement opportunities.

The Transcatheter Valve Certification will be launched in mid-2019. To earn the certification, hospitals must already participate in an established national clinical database.

“ACC’s Transcatheter Valve Certification tool merges the latest science and process improvement methodologies. This certification incorporates recent guidelines and expert consensus statements regarding the care of patients requiring transcatheter valve therapies,” Phillip D. Levy, MD, chair of the ACC accreditation management board, said in a press release.

Find the full press release on the ACC website.

lfranki@mdedge.com

The American College of Cardiology announced at its ACC Quality Summit in New Orleans that it will offer a Transcatheter Valve Certification to assist hospitals that perform transcatheter valve repair and replacement.

The certification is an external review process that will allow hospitals to meet standards for multidisciplinary teams, formalized training, shared decision making, and registry performance. During the certification process, hospitals will learn best practices for implementing evidence-based medicine in the care of individual patients and identify quality improvement opportunities.

The Transcatheter Valve Certification will be launched in mid-2019. To earn the certification, hospitals must already participate in an established national clinical database.

“ACC’s Transcatheter Valve Certification tool merges the latest science and process improvement methodologies. This certification incorporates recent guidelines and expert consensus statements regarding the care of patients requiring transcatheter valve therapies,” Phillip D. Levy, MD, chair of the ACC accreditation management board, said in a press release.

Find the full press release on the ACC website.

lfranki@mdedge.com

The American College of Cardiology announced at its ACC Quality Summit in New Orleans that it will offer a Transcatheter Valve Certification to assist hospitals that perform transcatheter valve repair and replacement.

The certification is an external review process that will allow hospitals to meet standards for multidisciplinary teams, formalized training, shared decision making, and registry performance. During the certification process, hospitals will learn best practices for implementing evidence-based medicine in the care of individual patients and identify quality improvement opportunities.

The Transcatheter Valve Certification will be launched in mid-2019. To earn the certification, hospitals must already participate in an established national clinical database.

“ACC’s Transcatheter Valve Certification tool merges the latest science and process improvement methodologies. This certification incorporates recent guidelines and expert consensus statements regarding the care of patients requiring transcatheter valve therapies,” Phillip D. Levy, MD, chair of the ACC accreditation management board, said in a press release.

Find the full press release on the ACC website.

lfranki@mdedge.com