Acute Coronary Syndromes

Out-of-hospital cardiac arrests increased 58% during the peak of the COVID-19 outbreak in the hard-hit region of Lombardy, Italy, compared with the same period last year, a new analysis shows.

During the first 40 days of the outbreak beginning Feb. 21, four provinces in northern Italy reported 362 cases of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest compared with 229 during the same period in 2019.

The increases in these provinces varied in magnitude from 18% in Mantua, where there were 1,688 confirmed COVID-19 cases, to 187% in Lodi, which had 2,116 COVID-19 cases. The Cremona province, which had the highest number of COVID-19 cases at 3,869, saw a 143% increase in out-of-hospital cardiac arrests.

The mortality rate in the field was 14.9 percentage points higher in 2020 than in 2019 among patients in whom resuscitation was attempted by emergency medical services (EMS), Enrico Baldi, MD, University of Pavia, Italy, and colleagues reported in a letter April 29 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“The sex and age of the patients were similar in the 2020 and 2019 periods, but in 2020, the incidence of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest due to a medical cause was 6.5 percentage points higher, the incidence of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest at home was 7.3 percentage points higher, and the incidence of unwitnessed cardiac arrest was 11.3 percentage points higher,” the authors wrote.

Patients were also less likely to receive cardiopulmonary resuscitation from bystanders in 2020 vs 2019 (–15.6 percentage points) and were more likely to die before reaching the hospital when resuscitation was attempted by EMS (+14.9 percentage points).

Among all patients, the death rate in the field increased 11.4 percentage points during the outbreak, from 77.3% in 2019 to 88.7% in 2020.

The cumulative incidence of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in 2020 was “strongly associated” with the cumulative incidence of COVID-19 (Spearman rank correlation coefficient, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.83-0.91) and the spike in cases “followed the time course of the COVID-19 outbreak,” the researchers noted.

A total of 103 patients, who arrested out of hospital and were diagnosed with or suspected of having COVID-19, “account for 77.4% of the increase in cases of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest observed in these provinces in 2020,” the investigators noted.

As the pandemic has taken hold, hospitals and physicians across the United States are also voicing concerns about the drop in the number of patients presenting with myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke.

Nearly one-third of Americans (29%) report having delayed or avoided medical care because of concerns of catching COVID-19, according to a new poll released April 28 from the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) and Morning Consult, a global data research firm.

Despite many emergency departments reporting a decline in patient volume, 74% of respondents said they were worried about hospital wait times and overcrowding. Another 59% expressed concerns about being turned away from the hospital or doctor’s office.

At the same time, the survey found strong support for emergency physicians and 73% of respondents said they were concerned about overstressing the health care system.

The drop-off in Americans seeking care for MI and strokes nationally prompted eight professional societies – including ACEP, the American Heart Association, and the Association of Black Cardiologists – to issue a joint statement urging those experiencing symptoms to call 911 and seek care for these life-threatening events.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Out-of-hospital cardiac arrests increased 58% during the peak of the COVID-19 outbreak in the hard-hit region of Lombardy, Italy, compared with the same period last year, a new analysis shows.

During the first 40 days of the outbreak beginning Feb. 21, four provinces in northern Italy reported 362 cases of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest compared with 229 during the same period in 2019.

The increases in these provinces varied in magnitude from 18% in Mantua, where there were 1,688 confirmed COVID-19 cases, to 187% in Lodi, which had 2,116 COVID-19 cases. The Cremona province, which had the highest number of COVID-19 cases at 3,869, saw a 143% increase in out-of-hospital cardiac arrests.

The mortality rate in the field was 14.9 percentage points higher in 2020 than in 2019 among patients in whom resuscitation was attempted by emergency medical services (EMS), Enrico Baldi, MD, University of Pavia, Italy, and colleagues reported in a letter April 29 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“The sex and age of the patients were similar in the 2020 and 2019 periods, but in 2020, the incidence of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest due to a medical cause was 6.5 percentage points higher, the incidence of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest at home was 7.3 percentage points higher, and the incidence of unwitnessed cardiac arrest was 11.3 percentage points higher,” the authors wrote.

Patients were also less likely to receive cardiopulmonary resuscitation from bystanders in 2020 vs 2019 (–15.6 percentage points) and were more likely to die before reaching the hospital when resuscitation was attempted by EMS (+14.9 percentage points).

Among all patients, the death rate in the field increased 11.4 percentage points during the outbreak, from 77.3% in 2019 to 88.7% in 2020.

The cumulative incidence of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in 2020 was “strongly associated” with the cumulative incidence of COVID-19 (Spearman rank correlation coefficient, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.83-0.91) and the spike in cases “followed the time course of the COVID-19 outbreak,” the researchers noted.

A total of 103 patients, who arrested out of hospital and were diagnosed with or suspected of having COVID-19, “account for 77.4% of the increase in cases of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest observed in these provinces in 2020,” the investigators noted.

As the pandemic has taken hold, hospitals and physicians across the United States are also voicing concerns about the drop in the number of patients presenting with myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke.

Nearly one-third of Americans (29%) report having delayed or avoided medical care because of concerns of catching COVID-19, according to a new poll released April 28 from the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) and Morning Consult, a global data research firm.

Despite many emergency departments reporting a decline in patient volume, 74% of respondents said they were worried about hospital wait times and overcrowding. Another 59% expressed concerns about being turned away from the hospital or doctor’s office.

At the same time, the survey found strong support for emergency physicians and 73% of respondents said they were concerned about overstressing the health care system.

The drop-off in Americans seeking care for MI and strokes nationally prompted eight professional societies – including ACEP, the American Heart Association, and the Association of Black Cardiologists – to issue a joint statement urging those experiencing symptoms to call 911 and seek care for these life-threatening events.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Out-of-hospital cardiac arrests increased 58% during the peak of the COVID-19 outbreak in the hard-hit region of Lombardy, Italy, compared with the same period last year, a new analysis shows.

During the first 40 days of the outbreak beginning Feb. 21, four provinces in northern Italy reported 362 cases of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest compared with 229 during the same period in 2019.

The increases in these provinces varied in magnitude from 18% in Mantua, where there were 1,688 confirmed COVID-19 cases, to 187% in Lodi, which had 2,116 COVID-19 cases. The Cremona province, which had the highest number of COVID-19 cases at 3,869, saw a 143% increase in out-of-hospital cardiac arrests.

The mortality rate in the field was 14.9 percentage points higher in 2020 than in 2019 among patients in whom resuscitation was attempted by emergency medical services (EMS), Enrico Baldi, MD, University of Pavia, Italy, and colleagues reported in a letter April 29 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“The sex and age of the patients were similar in the 2020 and 2019 periods, but in 2020, the incidence of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest due to a medical cause was 6.5 percentage points higher, the incidence of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest at home was 7.3 percentage points higher, and the incidence of unwitnessed cardiac arrest was 11.3 percentage points higher,” the authors wrote.

Patients were also less likely to receive cardiopulmonary resuscitation from bystanders in 2020 vs 2019 (–15.6 percentage points) and were more likely to die before reaching the hospital when resuscitation was attempted by EMS (+14.9 percentage points).

Among all patients, the death rate in the field increased 11.4 percentage points during the outbreak, from 77.3% in 2019 to 88.7% in 2020.

The cumulative incidence of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in 2020 was “strongly associated” with the cumulative incidence of COVID-19 (Spearman rank correlation coefficient, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.83-0.91) and the spike in cases “followed the time course of the COVID-19 outbreak,” the researchers noted.

A total of 103 patients, who arrested out of hospital and were diagnosed with or suspected of having COVID-19, “account for 77.4% of the increase in cases of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest observed in these provinces in 2020,” the investigators noted.

As the pandemic has taken hold, hospitals and physicians across the United States are also voicing concerns about the drop in the number of patients presenting with myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke.

Nearly one-third of Americans (29%) report having delayed or avoided medical care because of concerns of catching COVID-19, according to a new poll released April 28 from the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) and Morning Consult, a global data research firm.

Despite many emergency departments reporting a decline in patient volume, 74% of respondents said they were worried about hospital wait times and overcrowding. Another 59% expressed concerns about being turned away from the hospital or doctor’s office.

At the same time, the survey found strong support for emergency physicians and 73% of respondents said they were concerned about overstressing the health care system.

The drop-off in Americans seeking care for MI and strokes nationally prompted eight professional societies – including ACEP, the American Heart Association, and the Association of Black Cardiologists – to issue a joint statement urging those experiencing symptoms to call 911 and seek care for these life-threatening events.

The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

A consensus statement from the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP), and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions (SCAI) outlines recommendations for a systematic approach for the care of patients with an acute myocardial infarction (AMI) during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The statement was published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains the standard of care for patients with ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) at PCI-capable hospitals when it can be provided in a timely fashion in a dedicated cardiac catheterization laboratory with an expert care team wearing personal protection equipment (PPE), the writing group advised.

“A fibrinolysis-based strategy may be entertained at non-PCI capable referral hospitals or in specific situations where primary PCI cannot be executed or is not deemed the best option,” they said.

SCAI President Ehtisham Mahmud, MD, of the University of California, San Diego, and the writing group also said that clinicians should recognize that cardiovascular manifestations of COVID-19 are “complex” in patients presenting with AMI, myocarditis simulating a STEMI, stress cardiomyopathy, nonischemic cardiomyopathy, coronary spasm, or nonspecific myocardial injury.

A “broad differential diagnosis for ST elevations (including COVID-associated myocarditis) should be considered in the ED prior to choosing a reperfusion strategy,” they advised.

In the absence of hemodynamic instability or ongoing ischemic symptoms, non-STEMI patients with known or suspected COVID-19 are best managed with an initial medical stabilization strategy, the group said.

They also said it is “imperative that health care workers use appropriate PPE for all invasive procedures during this pandemic” and that new rapid COVID-19 testing be “expeditiously” disseminated to all hospitals that manage patients with AMI.

Major challenges are that the prevalence of the COVID-19 in the United States remains unknown and there is the risk for asymptomatic spread.

The writing group said it’s “critical” to “inform the public that we can minimize exposure to the coronavirus so they can continue to call the Emergency Medical System (EMS) for acute ischemic heart disease symptoms and therefore get the appropriate level of cardiac care that their presentation warrants.”

This research had no commercial funding. Dr. Mahmud reported receiving clinical trial research support from Corindus, Abbott Vascular, and CSI; consulting with Medtronic; and consulting and equity with Abiomed. A complete list of author disclosures is included with the original article.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

A consensus statement from the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP), and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions (SCAI) outlines recommendations for a systematic approach for the care of patients with an acute myocardial infarction (AMI) during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The statement was published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains the standard of care for patients with ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) at PCI-capable hospitals when it can be provided in a timely fashion in a dedicated cardiac catheterization laboratory with an expert care team wearing personal protection equipment (PPE), the writing group advised.

“A fibrinolysis-based strategy may be entertained at non-PCI capable referral hospitals or in specific situations where primary PCI cannot be executed or is not deemed the best option,” they said.

SCAI President Ehtisham Mahmud, MD, of the University of California, San Diego, and the writing group also said that clinicians should recognize that cardiovascular manifestations of COVID-19 are “complex” in patients presenting with AMI, myocarditis simulating a STEMI, stress cardiomyopathy, nonischemic cardiomyopathy, coronary spasm, or nonspecific myocardial injury.

A “broad differential diagnosis for ST elevations (including COVID-associated myocarditis) should be considered in the ED prior to choosing a reperfusion strategy,” they advised.

In the absence of hemodynamic instability or ongoing ischemic symptoms, non-STEMI patients with known or suspected COVID-19 are best managed with an initial medical stabilization strategy, the group said.

They also said it is “imperative that health care workers use appropriate PPE for all invasive procedures during this pandemic” and that new rapid COVID-19 testing be “expeditiously” disseminated to all hospitals that manage patients with AMI.

Major challenges are that the prevalence of the COVID-19 in the United States remains unknown and there is the risk for asymptomatic spread.

The writing group said it’s “critical” to “inform the public that we can minimize exposure to the coronavirus so they can continue to call the Emergency Medical System (EMS) for acute ischemic heart disease symptoms and therefore get the appropriate level of cardiac care that their presentation warrants.”

This research had no commercial funding. Dr. Mahmud reported receiving clinical trial research support from Corindus, Abbott Vascular, and CSI; consulting with Medtronic; and consulting and equity with Abiomed. A complete list of author disclosures is included with the original article.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

A consensus statement from the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP), and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions (SCAI) outlines recommendations for a systematic approach for the care of patients with an acute myocardial infarction (AMI) during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The statement was published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains the standard of care for patients with ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) at PCI-capable hospitals when it can be provided in a timely fashion in a dedicated cardiac catheterization laboratory with an expert care team wearing personal protection equipment (PPE), the writing group advised.

“A fibrinolysis-based strategy may be entertained at non-PCI capable referral hospitals or in specific situations where primary PCI cannot be executed or is not deemed the best option,” they said.

SCAI President Ehtisham Mahmud, MD, of the University of California, San Diego, and the writing group also said that clinicians should recognize that cardiovascular manifestations of COVID-19 are “complex” in patients presenting with AMI, myocarditis simulating a STEMI, stress cardiomyopathy, nonischemic cardiomyopathy, coronary spasm, or nonspecific myocardial injury.

A “broad differential diagnosis for ST elevations (including COVID-associated myocarditis) should be considered in the ED prior to choosing a reperfusion strategy,” they advised.

In the absence of hemodynamic instability or ongoing ischemic symptoms, non-STEMI patients with known or suspected COVID-19 are best managed with an initial medical stabilization strategy, the group said.

They also said it is “imperative that health care workers use appropriate PPE for all invasive procedures during this pandemic” and that new rapid COVID-19 testing be “expeditiously” disseminated to all hospitals that manage patients with AMI.

Major challenges are that the prevalence of the COVID-19 in the United States remains unknown and there is the risk for asymptomatic spread.

The writing group said it’s “critical” to “inform the public that we can minimize exposure to the coronavirus so they can continue to call the Emergency Medical System (EMS) for acute ischemic heart disease symptoms and therefore get the appropriate level of cardiac care that their presentation warrants.”

This research had no commercial funding. Dr. Mahmud reported receiving clinical trial research support from Corindus, Abbott Vascular, and CSI; consulting with Medtronic; and consulting and equity with Abiomed. A complete list of author disclosures is included with the original article.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

When patients with atrial fibrillation have an acute coronary syndrome event or undergo percutaneous coronary intervention, their window of opportunity for benefiting from a triple antithrombotic regimen was, at best, about 30 days, according to a post hoc analysis of AUGUSTUS, a multicenter, randomized trial with more than 4,600 patients.

Beyond 30 days out to 180 days, the incremental benefit from reduced ischemic events fell to essentially zero, giving it a clear back seat to the ongoing, increased bleeding risk from adding a third antithrombotic drug.

Patients randomized to receive aspirin in addition to an anticoagulant, either apixaban or a vitamin K antagonist such as warfarin, and a P2Y12 inhibitor such as clopidogrel “for up to approximately 30 days” had a roughly similar decrease in severe ischemic events and increase in severe bleeding events, suggesting that even acutely the overall impact of adding aspirin on top of the other two antithrombotics was a wash, John H. Alexander, MD, said in a presentation of research during the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation, which was presented online this year. ACC organizers chose to present parts of the meeting virtually after COVID-19 concerns caused them to cancel the meeting.

Using aspirin as a third antithrombotic in patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) who have also recently had either an acute coronary syndrome event (ACS) or underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), “may be reasonable,” for selected patients, but is a decision that requires careful individualization, cautioned Dr. Alexander, professor of medicine and director of Cardiovascular Research at the Duke Clinical Research Institute of Duke University, Durham, N.C.

“This is a superb secondary analysis looking at the time course of potential benefit and harm with aspirin, and they found that aspirin was beneficial only in the first 30 days. After 30 days, it’s startling and remarkable that the ischemic event curves were completely on top of each other,” commented Julia H. Indik, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist at Banner–University Medical Center Tuscon and designated discussant for the report. “This substudy will be essential for updating the guidelines,” she predicted. “When a treatment’s benefit equals its risks,” which happened when aspirin was part of the regimen during the first 30 days, “then it’s not even a class IIb recommendation; it’s class III,” the classification used by the ACC and collaborating groups to identify treatments where net benefit and net risk are similar and hence the treatment is considered not recommended.

A key element in the analysis Dr. Alexander presented was to define a spectrum of clinical events as representing broad, intermediate, or severe ischemic or bleeding events. The severe category for bleeding events included fatal, intracranial, and any bleed rated as major by the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH) criteria, while the broad bleeding definition included all of these plus bleeds that directly resulted in hospitalization and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeds. For ischemic events, the severe group consisted of cardiovascular death, MI, stent thrombosis, and ischemic stroke, while the broad category also tallied urgent revascularizations and cardiovascular hospitalizations.

“I believe the severe bleeds and severe ischemic events we identified are roughly equal in severity,” Dr. Alexander noted. “Where I think we need more analysis is which patients have more bleeding risk and which have more ischemia risk. We need a more tailored approach to identify patient subgroups, perhaps based on angiographic characteristics, or something else,” that modifies the trade-off that, on a population level, seems very evenly balanced.

Applying this approach to scoring the severity of adverse outcomes, Dr. Alexander reported that, during the first 30 days on treatment, patients on aspirin had a net absolute gain of 1.0% in severe bleeding events, compared with placebo, and a 3.4% gain in broad bleeds, while showing a 0.9% drop in severe ischemic events but no between-group difference in the rate of broadly defined ischemic events. During days 31-180, the addition of aspirin resulted in virtually no reductions in ischemic events regardless of whether they were severe, intermediate, or broad, but adding aspirin continued to produce an excess of bleeding episodes in all three categories. The results also appeared in an article published online (Circulation. 2020 Mar 29. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.046534).

“We did not see a time window when the ischemia risk was greater than the bleeding risk,” Dr. Alexander noted, and he also highlighted that the one option the analysis could not explore is never giving these patients any aspirin. “Patients received aspirin for some number of days before randomization,” a median of 6 days from the time of their ACS or PCI event until randomization, “so we don’t have great insight into whether no aspirin” is an reasonable option.

The AUGUSTUS trial randomized 4,614 patients with AFib and a recent ACS or PCI event at any of 492 sites in 33 countries during 2015-2018. The study’s primary endpoint was the rate of major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding by the ISTH criteria during 6 months on treatment, while composites of death or hospitalization, and death plus ischemic events served as secondary outcomes. All patients received an antiplatelet P2Y12 inhibitor, with 93% of patients receiving clopidogrel, and were randomized in a 2 x 2 factorial design to one of four regimens: either apixaban or a vitamin K antagonist (such as warfarin), and to aspirin or placebo. The study’s primary findings showed that using apixaban instead of a vitamin K antagonist significantly reduced bleeding events as well as the rate of death or hospitalization, but the rate of death and ischemic events was similar in the two arms. The primary AUGUSTUS finding for the aspirin versus placebo randomization was that overall throughout the study ischemic events were balanced in the these two treatment arms while aspirin boosted bleeding (N Engl J Med. 2019 Apr 18;380[16]:1509-24).

AUGUSTUS was sponsored by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer, the companies that market apixaban. Dr. Alexander has been a consultant to and received research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer; has been a consultant to AbbVie, Bayer, CryoLife, CSL Behring, Novo Nordisk, Portola, Quantum Genomics, XaTek, and Zafgen; and has received research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, CryoLife, CSL Behring, GlaxoSmithKline, and XaTek. Dr. Indik had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Alexander JH et al. ACC 2020, Abstract 409-08.

When patients with atrial fibrillation have an acute coronary syndrome event or undergo percutaneous coronary intervention, their window of opportunity for benefiting from a triple antithrombotic regimen was, at best, about 30 days, according to a post hoc analysis of AUGUSTUS, a multicenter, randomized trial with more than 4,600 patients.

Beyond 30 days out to 180 days, the incremental benefit from reduced ischemic events fell to essentially zero, giving it a clear back seat to the ongoing, increased bleeding risk from adding a third antithrombotic drug.

Patients randomized to receive aspirin in addition to an anticoagulant, either apixaban or a vitamin K antagonist such as warfarin, and a P2Y12 inhibitor such as clopidogrel “for up to approximately 30 days” had a roughly similar decrease in severe ischemic events and increase in severe bleeding events, suggesting that even acutely the overall impact of adding aspirin on top of the other two antithrombotics was a wash, John H. Alexander, MD, said in a presentation of research during the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation, which was presented online this year. ACC organizers chose to present parts of the meeting virtually after COVID-19 concerns caused them to cancel the meeting.

Using aspirin as a third antithrombotic in patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) who have also recently had either an acute coronary syndrome event (ACS) or underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), “may be reasonable,” for selected patients, but is a decision that requires careful individualization, cautioned Dr. Alexander, professor of medicine and director of Cardiovascular Research at the Duke Clinical Research Institute of Duke University, Durham, N.C.

“This is a superb secondary analysis looking at the time course of potential benefit and harm with aspirin, and they found that aspirin was beneficial only in the first 30 days. After 30 days, it’s startling and remarkable that the ischemic event curves were completely on top of each other,” commented Julia H. Indik, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist at Banner–University Medical Center Tuscon and designated discussant for the report. “This substudy will be essential for updating the guidelines,” she predicted. “When a treatment’s benefit equals its risks,” which happened when aspirin was part of the regimen during the first 30 days, “then it’s not even a class IIb recommendation; it’s class III,” the classification used by the ACC and collaborating groups to identify treatments where net benefit and net risk are similar and hence the treatment is considered not recommended.

A key element in the analysis Dr. Alexander presented was to define a spectrum of clinical events as representing broad, intermediate, or severe ischemic or bleeding events. The severe category for bleeding events included fatal, intracranial, and any bleed rated as major by the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH) criteria, while the broad bleeding definition included all of these plus bleeds that directly resulted in hospitalization and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeds. For ischemic events, the severe group consisted of cardiovascular death, MI, stent thrombosis, and ischemic stroke, while the broad category also tallied urgent revascularizations and cardiovascular hospitalizations.

“I believe the severe bleeds and severe ischemic events we identified are roughly equal in severity,” Dr. Alexander noted. “Where I think we need more analysis is which patients have more bleeding risk and which have more ischemia risk. We need a more tailored approach to identify patient subgroups, perhaps based on angiographic characteristics, or something else,” that modifies the trade-off that, on a population level, seems very evenly balanced.

Applying this approach to scoring the severity of adverse outcomes, Dr. Alexander reported that, during the first 30 days on treatment, patients on aspirin had a net absolute gain of 1.0% in severe bleeding events, compared with placebo, and a 3.4% gain in broad bleeds, while showing a 0.9% drop in severe ischemic events but no between-group difference in the rate of broadly defined ischemic events. During days 31-180, the addition of aspirin resulted in virtually no reductions in ischemic events regardless of whether they were severe, intermediate, or broad, but adding aspirin continued to produce an excess of bleeding episodes in all three categories. The results also appeared in an article published online (Circulation. 2020 Mar 29. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.046534).

“We did not see a time window when the ischemia risk was greater than the bleeding risk,” Dr. Alexander noted, and he also highlighted that the one option the analysis could not explore is never giving these patients any aspirin. “Patients received aspirin for some number of days before randomization,” a median of 6 days from the time of their ACS or PCI event until randomization, “so we don’t have great insight into whether no aspirin” is an reasonable option.

The AUGUSTUS trial randomized 4,614 patients with AFib and a recent ACS or PCI event at any of 492 sites in 33 countries during 2015-2018. The study’s primary endpoint was the rate of major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding by the ISTH criteria during 6 months on treatment, while composites of death or hospitalization, and death plus ischemic events served as secondary outcomes. All patients received an antiplatelet P2Y12 inhibitor, with 93% of patients receiving clopidogrel, and were randomized in a 2 x 2 factorial design to one of four regimens: either apixaban or a vitamin K antagonist (such as warfarin), and to aspirin or placebo. The study’s primary findings showed that using apixaban instead of a vitamin K antagonist significantly reduced bleeding events as well as the rate of death or hospitalization, but the rate of death and ischemic events was similar in the two arms. The primary AUGUSTUS finding for the aspirin versus placebo randomization was that overall throughout the study ischemic events were balanced in the these two treatment arms while aspirin boosted bleeding (N Engl J Med. 2019 Apr 18;380[16]:1509-24).

AUGUSTUS was sponsored by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer, the companies that market apixaban. Dr. Alexander has been a consultant to and received research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer; has been a consultant to AbbVie, Bayer, CryoLife, CSL Behring, Novo Nordisk, Portola, Quantum Genomics, XaTek, and Zafgen; and has received research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, CryoLife, CSL Behring, GlaxoSmithKline, and XaTek. Dr. Indik had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Alexander JH et al. ACC 2020, Abstract 409-08.

When patients with atrial fibrillation have an acute coronary syndrome event or undergo percutaneous coronary intervention, their window of opportunity for benefiting from a triple antithrombotic regimen was, at best, about 30 days, according to a post hoc analysis of AUGUSTUS, a multicenter, randomized trial with more than 4,600 patients.

Beyond 30 days out to 180 days, the incremental benefit from reduced ischemic events fell to essentially zero, giving it a clear back seat to the ongoing, increased bleeding risk from adding a third antithrombotic drug.

Patients randomized to receive aspirin in addition to an anticoagulant, either apixaban or a vitamin K antagonist such as warfarin, and a P2Y12 inhibitor such as clopidogrel “for up to approximately 30 days” had a roughly similar decrease in severe ischemic events and increase in severe bleeding events, suggesting that even acutely the overall impact of adding aspirin on top of the other two antithrombotics was a wash, John H. Alexander, MD, said in a presentation of research during the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation, which was presented online this year. ACC organizers chose to present parts of the meeting virtually after COVID-19 concerns caused them to cancel the meeting.

Using aspirin as a third antithrombotic in patients with atrial fibrillation (AFib) who have also recently had either an acute coronary syndrome event (ACS) or underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), “may be reasonable,” for selected patients, but is a decision that requires careful individualization, cautioned Dr. Alexander, professor of medicine and director of Cardiovascular Research at the Duke Clinical Research Institute of Duke University, Durham, N.C.

“This is a superb secondary analysis looking at the time course of potential benefit and harm with aspirin, and they found that aspirin was beneficial only in the first 30 days. After 30 days, it’s startling and remarkable that the ischemic event curves were completely on top of each other,” commented Julia H. Indik, MD, a cardiac electrophysiologist at Banner–University Medical Center Tuscon and designated discussant for the report. “This substudy will be essential for updating the guidelines,” she predicted. “When a treatment’s benefit equals its risks,” which happened when aspirin was part of the regimen during the first 30 days, “then it’s not even a class IIb recommendation; it’s class III,” the classification used by the ACC and collaborating groups to identify treatments where net benefit and net risk are similar and hence the treatment is considered not recommended.

A key element in the analysis Dr. Alexander presented was to define a spectrum of clinical events as representing broad, intermediate, or severe ischemic or bleeding events. The severe category for bleeding events included fatal, intracranial, and any bleed rated as major by the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH) criteria, while the broad bleeding definition included all of these plus bleeds that directly resulted in hospitalization and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeds. For ischemic events, the severe group consisted of cardiovascular death, MI, stent thrombosis, and ischemic stroke, while the broad category also tallied urgent revascularizations and cardiovascular hospitalizations.

“I believe the severe bleeds and severe ischemic events we identified are roughly equal in severity,” Dr. Alexander noted. “Where I think we need more analysis is which patients have more bleeding risk and which have more ischemia risk. We need a more tailored approach to identify patient subgroups, perhaps based on angiographic characteristics, or something else,” that modifies the trade-off that, on a population level, seems very evenly balanced.

Applying this approach to scoring the severity of adverse outcomes, Dr. Alexander reported that, during the first 30 days on treatment, patients on aspirin had a net absolute gain of 1.0% in severe bleeding events, compared with placebo, and a 3.4% gain in broad bleeds, while showing a 0.9% drop in severe ischemic events but no between-group difference in the rate of broadly defined ischemic events. During days 31-180, the addition of aspirin resulted in virtually no reductions in ischemic events regardless of whether they were severe, intermediate, or broad, but adding aspirin continued to produce an excess of bleeding episodes in all three categories. The results also appeared in an article published online (Circulation. 2020 Mar 29. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.046534).

“We did not see a time window when the ischemia risk was greater than the bleeding risk,” Dr. Alexander noted, and he also highlighted that the one option the analysis could not explore is never giving these patients any aspirin. “Patients received aspirin for some number of days before randomization,” a median of 6 days from the time of their ACS or PCI event until randomization, “so we don’t have great insight into whether no aspirin” is an reasonable option.

The AUGUSTUS trial randomized 4,614 patients with AFib and a recent ACS or PCI event at any of 492 sites in 33 countries during 2015-2018. The study’s primary endpoint was the rate of major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding by the ISTH criteria during 6 months on treatment, while composites of death or hospitalization, and death plus ischemic events served as secondary outcomes. All patients received an antiplatelet P2Y12 inhibitor, with 93% of patients receiving clopidogrel, and were randomized in a 2 x 2 factorial design to one of four regimens: either apixaban or a vitamin K antagonist (such as warfarin), and to aspirin or placebo. The study’s primary findings showed that using apixaban instead of a vitamin K antagonist significantly reduced bleeding events as well as the rate of death or hospitalization, but the rate of death and ischemic events was similar in the two arms. The primary AUGUSTUS finding for the aspirin versus placebo randomization was that overall throughout the study ischemic events were balanced in the these two treatment arms while aspirin boosted bleeding (N Engl J Med. 2019 Apr 18;380[16]:1509-24).

AUGUSTUS was sponsored by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer, the companies that market apixaban. Dr. Alexander has been a consultant to and received research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer; has been a consultant to AbbVie, Bayer, CryoLife, CSL Behring, Novo Nordisk, Portola, Quantum Genomics, XaTek, and Zafgen; and has received research funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, CryoLife, CSL Behring, GlaxoSmithKline, and XaTek. Dr. Indik had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Alexander JH et al. ACC 2020, Abstract 409-08.

The signature electrocardiographic sign indicating ST-segment-elevation MI may be a less-consistent indicator of actual STEMI at a time when patients with COVID-19 have come to overwhelm many hospital ICUs.

Many of the 18 such patients identified at six New York City hospitals who showed ST-segment elevation on their 12-lead ECG in the city’s first month of fighting the pandemic turned out to be free of either obstructive coronary artery disease by angiography or of regional wall-motion abnormalities (RWMA) by ECG, according to a letter published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Those 10 patients in the 18-case series were said to have noncoronary myocardial injury, perhaps from myocarditis – a prevalent feature of severe COVID-19 – and the remaining 8 patients with obstructive coronary artery disease, RWMA, or both were diagnosed with STEMI. Of the latter patients, six went to the cath lab and five of those underwent percutaneous coronary intervention, Sripal Bangalore, MD, MHA, of New York University, and colleagues reported.

In an interview, Dr. Bangalore framed the case-series report as a caution against substituting fibrinolytic therapy for primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with STE while hospitals are unusually burdened by the COVID-19 pandemic and invasive procedures intensify the threat of SARS-CoV-2 exposure to clinicians.

The strategy was recently advanced as an option for highly selected patients in a statement from the American College of Cardiology and Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI).

“During the COVID-19 pandemic, one of the main reasons fibrinolytic therapy has been pushed is to reduce the exposure to the cath-lab staff,” Dr. Bangalore observed. “But if you pursue that route, it’s problematic because more than half may not have obstructive disease and fibrinolytic therapy may not help. And if you give them fibrinolytics, you’re potentially increasing their risk of bleeding complications.

“The take-home from these 18 patients is that it’s very difficult to guess who is going to have obstructive disease and who is going to have nonobstructive disease,” Dr. Bangalore said. “Maybe we should assess these patients with not just an ECG but with a quick echo, then make a decision. Our practice so far has been to take these patients to the cath lab.”

The ACC/SCAI statement proposed that “fibrinolysis can be considered an option for the relatively stable STEMI patient with active COVID-19” after careful consideration of possible patient benefit versus the risks of cath-lab personnel exposure to the virus.

Only six patients in the current series, including five in the STEMI group, are reported to have had chest pain at about the time of STE, observed Michael J. Blaha, MD, MPH, of Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore.

So, he said in an interview, “one of their points is that you have to take ST elevations with a grain of salt in this [COVID-19] era, because there are a lot of people presenting with ST elevations in the absence of chest pain.”

That, and the high prevalence of nonobstructive disease in the series, indeed argues against the use of fibrinolytic therapy in such patients, Dr. Blaha said.

Normally, when there is STE, “the pretest probability of STEMI is so high, and if you can’t make it to the cath lab for some reason, sure, it makes sense to give lytics.” However, he said, “COVID-19 is changing the clinical landscape. Now, with a variety of virus-mediated myocardial injury presentations, including myocarditis, the pretest probability of MI is lower.”

The current report “confirms that, in the COVID era, ST elevations are not diagnostic for MI and must be considered within the totality of clinical evidence, and a conservative approach to going to the cath lab is probably warranted,” Dr. Blaha said in an interview.

However, with the reduced pretest probability of STE for STEMI, he agreed, “I almost don’t see any scenario where I’d be comfortable, based on ECG changes alone, giving lytics at this time.”

Dr. Bangalore pointed out that all of the 18 patients in the series had elevated levels of the fibrin degradation product D-dimer, a biomarker that reflects ongoing hemostatic activation. Levels were higher in the 8 patients who ultimately received a STEMI diagnosis than in the remaining 10 patients.

But COVID-19 patients in general may have elevated D-dimer and “a lot of microthrombi,” he said. “So the question is, are those microthrombi also causal for any of the ECG changes we are also seeing?”

Aside from microthrombi, global hypoxia and myocarditis could be other potential causes of STE in COVID-19 patients in the absence of STEMI, Dr. Bangalore proposed. “At this point we just generally don’t know.”

Dr. Bangalore reported no conflicts; disclosures for the other authors are available at nejm.org. Dr. Blaha disclosed receiving grants from Amgen and serving on advisory boards for Amgen and other pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

The signature electrocardiographic sign indicating ST-segment-elevation MI may be a less-consistent indicator of actual STEMI at a time when patients with COVID-19 have come to overwhelm many hospital ICUs.

Many of the 18 such patients identified at six New York City hospitals who showed ST-segment elevation on their 12-lead ECG in the city’s first month of fighting the pandemic turned out to be free of either obstructive coronary artery disease by angiography or of regional wall-motion abnormalities (RWMA) by ECG, according to a letter published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Those 10 patients in the 18-case series were said to have noncoronary myocardial injury, perhaps from myocarditis – a prevalent feature of severe COVID-19 – and the remaining 8 patients with obstructive coronary artery disease, RWMA, or both were diagnosed with STEMI. Of the latter patients, six went to the cath lab and five of those underwent percutaneous coronary intervention, Sripal Bangalore, MD, MHA, of New York University, and colleagues reported.

In an interview, Dr. Bangalore framed the case-series report as a caution against substituting fibrinolytic therapy for primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with STE while hospitals are unusually burdened by the COVID-19 pandemic and invasive procedures intensify the threat of SARS-CoV-2 exposure to clinicians.

The strategy was recently advanced as an option for highly selected patients in a statement from the American College of Cardiology and Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI).

“During the COVID-19 pandemic, one of the main reasons fibrinolytic therapy has been pushed is to reduce the exposure to the cath-lab staff,” Dr. Bangalore observed. “But if you pursue that route, it’s problematic because more than half may not have obstructive disease and fibrinolytic therapy may not help. And if you give them fibrinolytics, you’re potentially increasing their risk of bleeding complications.

“The take-home from these 18 patients is that it’s very difficult to guess who is going to have obstructive disease and who is going to have nonobstructive disease,” Dr. Bangalore said. “Maybe we should assess these patients with not just an ECG but with a quick echo, then make a decision. Our practice so far has been to take these patients to the cath lab.”

The ACC/SCAI statement proposed that “fibrinolysis can be considered an option for the relatively stable STEMI patient with active COVID-19” after careful consideration of possible patient benefit versus the risks of cath-lab personnel exposure to the virus.

Only six patients in the current series, including five in the STEMI group, are reported to have had chest pain at about the time of STE, observed Michael J. Blaha, MD, MPH, of Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore.

So, he said in an interview, “one of their points is that you have to take ST elevations with a grain of salt in this [COVID-19] era, because there are a lot of people presenting with ST elevations in the absence of chest pain.”

That, and the high prevalence of nonobstructive disease in the series, indeed argues against the use of fibrinolytic therapy in such patients, Dr. Blaha said.

Normally, when there is STE, “the pretest probability of STEMI is so high, and if you can’t make it to the cath lab for some reason, sure, it makes sense to give lytics.” However, he said, “COVID-19 is changing the clinical landscape. Now, with a variety of virus-mediated myocardial injury presentations, including myocarditis, the pretest probability of MI is lower.”

The current report “confirms that, in the COVID era, ST elevations are not diagnostic for MI and must be considered within the totality of clinical evidence, and a conservative approach to going to the cath lab is probably warranted,” Dr. Blaha said in an interview.

However, with the reduced pretest probability of STE for STEMI, he agreed, “I almost don’t see any scenario where I’d be comfortable, based on ECG changes alone, giving lytics at this time.”

Dr. Bangalore pointed out that all of the 18 patients in the series had elevated levels of the fibrin degradation product D-dimer, a biomarker that reflects ongoing hemostatic activation. Levels were higher in the 8 patients who ultimately received a STEMI diagnosis than in the remaining 10 patients.

But COVID-19 patients in general may have elevated D-dimer and “a lot of microthrombi,” he said. “So the question is, are those microthrombi also causal for any of the ECG changes we are also seeing?”

Aside from microthrombi, global hypoxia and myocarditis could be other potential causes of STE in COVID-19 patients in the absence of STEMI, Dr. Bangalore proposed. “At this point we just generally don’t know.”

Dr. Bangalore reported no conflicts; disclosures for the other authors are available at nejm.org. Dr. Blaha disclosed receiving grants from Amgen and serving on advisory boards for Amgen and other pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

The signature electrocardiographic sign indicating ST-segment-elevation MI may be a less-consistent indicator of actual STEMI at a time when patients with COVID-19 have come to overwhelm many hospital ICUs.

Many of the 18 such patients identified at six New York City hospitals who showed ST-segment elevation on their 12-lead ECG in the city’s first month of fighting the pandemic turned out to be free of either obstructive coronary artery disease by angiography or of regional wall-motion abnormalities (RWMA) by ECG, according to a letter published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Those 10 patients in the 18-case series were said to have noncoronary myocardial injury, perhaps from myocarditis – a prevalent feature of severe COVID-19 – and the remaining 8 patients with obstructive coronary artery disease, RWMA, or both were diagnosed with STEMI. Of the latter patients, six went to the cath lab and five of those underwent percutaneous coronary intervention, Sripal Bangalore, MD, MHA, of New York University, and colleagues reported.

In an interview, Dr. Bangalore framed the case-series report as a caution against substituting fibrinolytic therapy for primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with STE while hospitals are unusually burdened by the COVID-19 pandemic and invasive procedures intensify the threat of SARS-CoV-2 exposure to clinicians.

The strategy was recently advanced as an option for highly selected patients in a statement from the American College of Cardiology and Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI).

“During the COVID-19 pandemic, one of the main reasons fibrinolytic therapy has been pushed is to reduce the exposure to the cath-lab staff,” Dr. Bangalore observed. “But if you pursue that route, it’s problematic because more than half may not have obstructive disease and fibrinolytic therapy may not help. And if you give them fibrinolytics, you’re potentially increasing their risk of bleeding complications.

“The take-home from these 18 patients is that it’s very difficult to guess who is going to have obstructive disease and who is going to have nonobstructive disease,” Dr. Bangalore said. “Maybe we should assess these patients with not just an ECG but with a quick echo, then make a decision. Our practice so far has been to take these patients to the cath lab.”

The ACC/SCAI statement proposed that “fibrinolysis can be considered an option for the relatively stable STEMI patient with active COVID-19” after careful consideration of possible patient benefit versus the risks of cath-lab personnel exposure to the virus.

Only six patients in the current series, including five in the STEMI group, are reported to have had chest pain at about the time of STE, observed Michael J. Blaha, MD, MPH, of Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore.

So, he said in an interview, “one of their points is that you have to take ST elevations with a grain of salt in this [COVID-19] era, because there are a lot of people presenting with ST elevations in the absence of chest pain.”

That, and the high prevalence of nonobstructive disease in the series, indeed argues against the use of fibrinolytic therapy in such patients, Dr. Blaha said.

Normally, when there is STE, “the pretest probability of STEMI is so high, and if you can’t make it to the cath lab for some reason, sure, it makes sense to give lytics.” However, he said, “COVID-19 is changing the clinical landscape. Now, with a variety of virus-mediated myocardial injury presentations, including myocarditis, the pretest probability of MI is lower.”

The current report “confirms that, in the COVID era, ST elevations are not diagnostic for MI and must be considered within the totality of clinical evidence, and a conservative approach to going to the cath lab is probably warranted,” Dr. Blaha said in an interview.

However, with the reduced pretest probability of STE for STEMI, he agreed, “I almost don’t see any scenario where I’d be comfortable, based on ECG changes alone, giving lytics at this time.”

Dr. Bangalore pointed out that all of the 18 patients in the series had elevated levels of the fibrin degradation product D-dimer, a biomarker that reflects ongoing hemostatic activation. Levels were higher in the 8 patients who ultimately received a STEMI diagnosis than in the remaining 10 patients.

But COVID-19 patients in general may have elevated D-dimer and “a lot of microthrombi,” he said. “So the question is, are those microthrombi also causal for any of the ECG changes we are also seeing?”

Aside from microthrombi, global hypoxia and myocarditis could be other potential causes of STE in COVID-19 patients in the absence of STEMI, Dr. Bangalore proposed. “At this point we just generally don’t know.”

Dr. Bangalore reported no conflicts; disclosures for the other authors are available at nejm.org. Dr. Blaha disclosed receiving grants from Amgen and serving on advisory boards for Amgen and other pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Among patients who had an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, intravenous sodium nitrite given by paramedics during resuscitation did not significantly improve their chances of being admitted to or discharged from the hospital alive.

The study was presented at the recent “virtual” American College of Cardiology 2020 Scientific Session (ACC.20)/World Congress of Cardiology (WCC).

Lead investigator Francis Kim, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, explained that sodium nitrate is an antioxidant; animal studies have suggested that under conditions of hypoxia, it is converted into the vasodilator nitric oxide, which can increase blood flow to the brain and heart tissues.

In animal models of cardiac arrest, the use of sodium nitrite during resuscitation increased survival by almost 50%.

For the current study, 1,502 patients who had an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest were randomly assigned to receive either a low dose (45 mg) or a high dose (60 mg) of sodium nitrite or a placebo. The average age of the patients who were included in the study was 64 years, and 66% were male; 22% had ventricular fibrillation, 43% had asystole, and 29% had pulseless electrical activity.

Results showed no statistically significant differences between the groups who received placebo, low-dose sodium nitrite, or high-dose sodium nitrite on survival to hospital admission (the primary endpoint) or on hospital discharge (the secondary endpoint). There was also no difference in either endpoint in the subgroup with ventricular fibrillation.

“Our results are disappointing, especially after the promising findings in animal studies, but we feel this trial shuts the door on using this drug in this indication,” Kim said.

Discussing the study at an ACC press conference, Dhanunjaya Lakkireddy, MD, University of Kansas Hospital and Medical Center and ACC Electrophysiology Council chair, said this was “an excellent trial in the unending quest to try to improve survival in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

“As we all aware, if we don’t get blood circulation to the brain for more than 5 seconds, we pass out, and if don’t get blood circulation to the brain for more than 5 minutes, brain death occurs. When people suffer out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, the rate of survival is therefore dramatically lower when the ability to resuscitate goes beyond 5 minutes,” Lakkireddy noted.

He questioned why the current trial showed no effect when there had been significant early promise in animal studies. He suggested factors that could have been relevant included the time to intervention ― which was an average of 22 minutes from call to randomization ― perfusion of the brain, whether the drug cleared the blood-brain barrier, whether nitric oxide levels in the brain were sufficient, and the patient population that was included in the study.

“A large percentage of patients had asystole or pulseless electrical activity ― these are known to have worse outcomes ― and 60% of patients in the study did not have a witnessed arrest and could have been down for much longer and therefore could have had a significantly higher level of irreversible brain damage,” Lakkireddy pointed out.

“If we can understand some of the issues, we may be able to do another trial in a different subset of patients in whom the duration of arrest is significantly lower,” he commented.

The study was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Kim has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Among patients who had an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, intravenous sodium nitrite given by paramedics during resuscitation did not significantly improve their chances of being admitted to or discharged from the hospital alive.

The study was presented at the recent “virtual” American College of Cardiology 2020 Scientific Session (ACC.20)/World Congress of Cardiology (WCC).

Lead investigator Francis Kim, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, explained that sodium nitrate is an antioxidant; animal studies have suggested that under conditions of hypoxia, it is converted into the vasodilator nitric oxide, which can increase blood flow to the brain and heart tissues.

In animal models of cardiac arrest, the use of sodium nitrite during resuscitation increased survival by almost 50%.

For the current study, 1,502 patients who had an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest were randomly assigned to receive either a low dose (45 mg) or a high dose (60 mg) of sodium nitrite or a placebo. The average age of the patients who were included in the study was 64 years, and 66% were male; 22% had ventricular fibrillation, 43% had asystole, and 29% had pulseless electrical activity.

Results showed no statistically significant differences between the groups who received placebo, low-dose sodium nitrite, or high-dose sodium nitrite on survival to hospital admission (the primary endpoint) or on hospital discharge (the secondary endpoint). There was also no difference in either endpoint in the subgroup with ventricular fibrillation.

“Our results are disappointing, especially after the promising findings in animal studies, but we feel this trial shuts the door on using this drug in this indication,” Kim said.

Discussing the study at an ACC press conference, Dhanunjaya Lakkireddy, MD, University of Kansas Hospital and Medical Center and ACC Electrophysiology Council chair, said this was “an excellent trial in the unending quest to try to improve survival in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

“As we all aware, if we don’t get blood circulation to the brain for more than 5 seconds, we pass out, and if don’t get blood circulation to the brain for more than 5 minutes, brain death occurs. When people suffer out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, the rate of survival is therefore dramatically lower when the ability to resuscitate goes beyond 5 minutes,” Lakkireddy noted.

He questioned why the current trial showed no effect when there had been significant early promise in animal studies. He suggested factors that could have been relevant included the time to intervention ― which was an average of 22 minutes from call to randomization ― perfusion of the brain, whether the drug cleared the blood-brain barrier, whether nitric oxide levels in the brain were sufficient, and the patient population that was included in the study.

“A large percentage of patients had asystole or pulseless electrical activity ― these are known to have worse outcomes ― and 60% of patients in the study did not have a witnessed arrest and could have been down for much longer and therefore could have had a significantly higher level of irreversible brain damage,” Lakkireddy pointed out.

“If we can understand some of the issues, we may be able to do another trial in a different subset of patients in whom the duration of arrest is significantly lower,” he commented.

The study was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Kim has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Among patients who had an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, intravenous sodium nitrite given by paramedics during resuscitation did not significantly improve their chances of being admitted to or discharged from the hospital alive.

The study was presented at the recent “virtual” American College of Cardiology 2020 Scientific Session (ACC.20)/World Congress of Cardiology (WCC).

Lead investigator Francis Kim, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, explained that sodium nitrate is an antioxidant; animal studies have suggested that under conditions of hypoxia, it is converted into the vasodilator nitric oxide, which can increase blood flow to the brain and heart tissues.

In animal models of cardiac arrest, the use of sodium nitrite during resuscitation increased survival by almost 50%.

For the current study, 1,502 patients who had an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest were randomly assigned to receive either a low dose (45 mg) or a high dose (60 mg) of sodium nitrite or a placebo. The average age of the patients who were included in the study was 64 years, and 66% were male; 22% had ventricular fibrillation, 43% had asystole, and 29% had pulseless electrical activity.

Results showed no statistically significant differences between the groups who received placebo, low-dose sodium nitrite, or high-dose sodium nitrite on survival to hospital admission (the primary endpoint) or on hospital discharge (the secondary endpoint). There was also no difference in either endpoint in the subgroup with ventricular fibrillation.

“Our results are disappointing, especially after the promising findings in animal studies, but we feel this trial shuts the door on using this drug in this indication,” Kim said.

Discussing the study at an ACC press conference, Dhanunjaya Lakkireddy, MD, University of Kansas Hospital and Medical Center and ACC Electrophysiology Council chair, said this was “an excellent trial in the unending quest to try to improve survival in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

“As we all aware, if we don’t get blood circulation to the brain for more than 5 seconds, we pass out, and if don’t get blood circulation to the brain for more than 5 minutes, brain death occurs. When people suffer out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, the rate of survival is therefore dramatically lower when the ability to resuscitate goes beyond 5 minutes,” Lakkireddy noted.

He questioned why the current trial showed no effect when there had been significant early promise in animal studies. He suggested factors that could have been relevant included the time to intervention ― which was an average of 22 minutes from call to randomization ― perfusion of the brain, whether the drug cleared the blood-brain barrier, whether nitric oxide levels in the brain were sufficient, and the patient population that was included in the study.

“A large percentage of patients had asystole or pulseless electrical activity ― these are known to have worse outcomes ― and 60% of patients in the study did not have a witnessed arrest and could have been down for much longer and therefore could have had a significantly higher level of irreversible brain damage,” Lakkireddy pointed out.

“If we can understand some of the issues, we may be able to do another trial in a different subset of patients in whom the duration of arrest is significantly lower,” he commented.

The study was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Kim has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients who underwent complex PCI for acute coronary syndrome followed by 3 months of dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with ticagrelor plus aspirin fared significantly better by dropping aspirin at that point in favor of long-term ticagrelor monotherapy than with continued dual-antiplatelet therapy in the TWILIGHT-COMPLEX study.

The rate of clinically relevant bleeding was significantly lower at 12 months of follow-up in the ticagrelor monotherapy group than it was in patients randomized to continued DAPT. Moreover, this major benefit came at no cost in terms of ischemic events, which were actually numerically less frequent in the ticagrelor plus placebo group, George D. Dangas, MD, reported at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. ACC organizers chose to present parts of the meeting virtually after COVID-19 concerns caused them to cancel the meeting.

“We found that the aspirin just doesn’t add that much, even in complex patients – just bleeding complications, for the most part,” explained Dr. Dangas, professor of medicine and of surgery at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

The TWILIGHT-COMPLEX study was a secondary post hoc analysis of outcomes in 2,342 participants in the previously reported larger parent TWILIGHT randomized trial who underwent complex PCI. The main TWILIGHT trial included 7,119 patients in 11 countries who underwent PCI for acute coronary syndrome, successfully completed 3 months of DAPT with ticagrelor plus aspirin without incident, and were then randomized double blind to 12 months of ticagrelor plus placebo or to another 12 months of ticagrelor and aspirin.

In the overall TWILIGHT trial, ticagrelor alone resulted in a significantly lower clinically relevant bleeding rate than did long-term ticagrelor plus aspirin, with no increase in the risk of death, MI, or stroke (N Engl J Med 2019; 381:2032-42). But the results left many interventional cardiologists wondering if a ticagrelor monotherapy strategy was really applicable to their more challenging patients undergoing complex PCI given that the risk of ischemic events is known to climb with PCI complexity. The TWILIGHT-COMPLEX study was specifically designed to address that concern.

To be eligible for TWILIGHT-COMPLEX, patients had to meet one or more prespecified angiographic or procedural criteria for complex PCI, such as a total stent length in excess of 60 mm, three or more treated lesions, use of an atherectomy device, or PCI of a left main lesion, a chronic total occlusion, or a bifurcation lesion with two stents. These complex PCI patients accounted for one-third of the total study population in TWILIGHT; 36% of them met more than one criteria for complex PCI.
 

TWILIGHT-COMPLEX findings

In the 12 months after randomization, patients who received ticagrelor plus placebo had a 4.2% incidence of clinically significant Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding, which was significantly lower than the 7.7% rate in the group on long-term DAPT and represented a 46% relative risk reduction. Severe or fatal bleeding – that is, BARC type 3 or 5 – occurred in 1.1% of those on ticagrelor monotherapy and 2.6% of the DAPT group, for a significant 59% relative risk reduction.

The composite ischemic endpoint comprising cardiovascular death, MI, or ischemic stroke occurred in 3.6% of the ticagrelor monotherapy group and 4.8% of patients on long-term DAPT, a trend that didn’t achieve statistical significance. The all-cause mortality rate was 0.9% in the ticagrelor monotherapy group and 1.5% with extended DAPT, again a nonsignificant difference. Similarly, the rate of definite or probable stent thrombosis was numerically lower with ticagrelor monotherapy, by a margin of 0.4% versus 0.8%, a nonsignificant difference.

The results were consistent regardless of which specific criteria for complex PCI a patient had or how many of them.
 

Results are ‘reassuring’

At a press conference where Dr. Dangas presented the TWILIGHT-COMPLEX results, discussant Claire S. Duvernoy, MD, said she was “very impressed” with just how complex the PCIs were in the study participants.

“Really, these are the patients that in my own practice we’ve always been the most cautious about, the most worried about thrombotic risk, and the ones where we get down on our house staff when they drop an antiplatelet agent. So this study is very reassuring,” said Dr. Duvernoy, professor of medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

She identified two key differences between TWILIGHT-COMPLEX and earlier studies that showed a benefit for extended DAPT in higher-risk patients. In the earlier studies, it was the P2Y12 inhibitor that was dropped; TWILIGHT was the first major randomized trial to discontinue the aspirin instead. And patients in the TWILIGHT study received second-generation drug-eluting stents.

“That makes a huge difference,” Dr. Duvernoy said. “We have stents now that are much safer than the old ones were, and that’s what allows us to gain this incredible benefit of reduced bleeding.”

Dr. Dangas cautioned that since this was a secondary post hoc analysis, the TWILIGHT-COMPLEX study must be viewed as hypothesis-generating.

The TWILIGHT trial was funded by AstraZeneca. Dr. Dangas reported receiving institutional research grants from that company as well as Bayer and Daichi-Sankyo. He also served as a paid consultant to Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, and Biosensors.

Simultaneous with his presentation at ACC 2020, the TWILIGHT-COMPLEX results were published online (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Mar 13. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.03.011).

SOURCE: Dangas GD. ACC 20, Abstract 410-09.

Patients who underwent complex PCI for acute coronary syndrome followed by 3 months of dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with ticagrelor plus aspirin fared significantly better by dropping aspirin at that point in favor of long-term ticagrelor monotherapy than with continued dual-antiplatelet therapy in the TWILIGHT-COMPLEX study.

The rate of clinically relevant bleeding was significantly lower at 12 months of follow-up in the ticagrelor monotherapy group than it was in patients randomized to continued DAPT. Moreover, this major benefit came at no cost in terms of ischemic events, which were actually numerically less frequent in the ticagrelor plus placebo group, George D. Dangas, MD, reported at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. ACC organizers chose to present parts of the meeting virtually after COVID-19 concerns caused them to cancel the meeting.

“We found that the aspirin just doesn’t add that much, even in complex patients – just bleeding complications, for the most part,” explained Dr. Dangas, professor of medicine and of surgery at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

The TWILIGHT-COMPLEX study was a secondary post hoc analysis of outcomes in 2,342 participants in the previously reported larger parent TWILIGHT randomized trial who underwent complex PCI. The main TWILIGHT trial included 7,119 patients in 11 countries who underwent PCI for acute coronary syndrome, successfully completed 3 months of DAPT with ticagrelor plus aspirin without incident, and were then randomized double blind to 12 months of ticagrelor plus placebo or to another 12 months of ticagrelor and aspirin.

In the overall TWILIGHT trial, ticagrelor alone resulted in a significantly lower clinically relevant bleeding rate than did long-term ticagrelor plus aspirin, with no increase in the risk of death, MI, or stroke (N Engl J Med 2019; 381:2032-42). But the results left many interventional cardiologists wondering if a ticagrelor monotherapy strategy was really applicable to their more challenging patients undergoing complex PCI given that the risk of ischemic events is known to climb with PCI complexity. The TWILIGHT-COMPLEX study was specifically designed to address that concern.

To be eligible for TWILIGHT-COMPLEX, patients had to meet one or more prespecified angiographic or procedural criteria for complex PCI, such as a total stent length in excess of 60 mm, three or more treated lesions, use of an atherectomy device, or PCI of a left main lesion, a chronic total occlusion, or a bifurcation lesion with two stents. These complex PCI patients accounted for one-third of the total study population in TWILIGHT; 36% of them met more than one criteria for complex PCI.
 

TWILIGHT-COMPLEX findings

In the 12 months after randomization, patients who received ticagrelor plus placebo had a 4.2% incidence of clinically significant Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding, which was significantly lower than the 7.7% rate in the group on long-term DAPT and represented a 46% relative risk reduction. Severe or fatal bleeding – that is, BARC type 3 or 5 – occurred in 1.1% of those on ticagrelor monotherapy and 2.6% of the DAPT group, for a significant 59% relative risk reduction.

The composite ischemic endpoint comprising cardiovascular death, MI, or ischemic stroke occurred in 3.6% of the ticagrelor monotherapy group and 4.8% of patients on long-term DAPT, a trend that didn’t achieve statistical significance. The all-cause mortality rate was 0.9% in the ticagrelor monotherapy group and 1.5% with extended DAPT, again a nonsignificant difference. Similarly, the rate of definite or probable stent thrombosis was numerically lower with ticagrelor monotherapy, by a margin of 0.4% versus 0.8%, a nonsignificant difference.

The results were consistent regardless of which specific criteria for complex PCI a patient had or how many of them.
 

Results are ‘reassuring’

At a press conference where Dr. Dangas presented the TWILIGHT-COMPLEX results, discussant Claire S. Duvernoy, MD, said she was “very impressed” with just how complex the PCIs were in the study participants.

“Really, these are the patients that in my own practice we’ve always been the most cautious about, the most worried about thrombotic risk, and the ones where we get down on our house staff when they drop an antiplatelet agent. So this study is very reassuring,” said Dr. Duvernoy, professor of medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

She identified two key differences between TWILIGHT-COMPLEX and earlier studies that showed a benefit for extended DAPT in higher-risk patients. In the earlier studies, it was the P2Y12 inhibitor that was dropped; TWILIGHT was the first major randomized trial to discontinue the aspirin instead. And patients in the TWILIGHT study received second-generation drug-eluting stents.

“That makes a huge difference,” Dr. Duvernoy said. “We have stents now that are much safer than the old ones were, and that’s what allows us to gain this incredible benefit of reduced bleeding.”

Dr. Dangas cautioned that since this was a secondary post hoc analysis, the TWILIGHT-COMPLEX study must be viewed as hypothesis-generating.

The TWILIGHT trial was funded by AstraZeneca. Dr. Dangas reported receiving institutional research grants from that company as well as Bayer and Daichi-Sankyo. He also served as a paid consultant to Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, and Biosensors.

Simultaneous with his presentation at ACC 2020, the TWILIGHT-COMPLEX results were published online (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Mar 13. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.03.011).

SOURCE: Dangas GD. ACC 20, Abstract 410-09.

Patients who underwent complex PCI for acute coronary syndrome followed by 3 months of dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with ticagrelor plus aspirin fared significantly better by dropping aspirin at that point in favor of long-term ticagrelor monotherapy than with continued dual-antiplatelet therapy in the TWILIGHT-COMPLEX study.

The rate of clinically relevant bleeding was significantly lower at 12 months of follow-up in the ticagrelor monotherapy group than it was in patients randomized to continued DAPT. Moreover, this major benefit came at no cost in terms of ischemic events, which were actually numerically less frequent in the ticagrelor plus placebo group, George D. Dangas, MD, reported at the joint scientific sessions of the American College of Cardiology and the World Heart Federation. ACC organizers chose to present parts of the meeting virtually after COVID-19 concerns caused them to cancel the meeting.

“We found that the aspirin just doesn’t add that much, even in complex patients – just bleeding complications, for the most part,” explained Dr. Dangas, professor of medicine and of surgery at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

The TWILIGHT-COMPLEX study was a secondary post hoc analysis of outcomes in 2,342 participants in the previously reported larger parent TWILIGHT randomized trial who underwent complex PCI. The main TWILIGHT trial included 7,119 patients in 11 countries who underwent PCI for acute coronary syndrome, successfully completed 3 months of DAPT with ticagrelor plus aspirin without incident, and were then randomized double blind to 12 months of ticagrelor plus placebo or to another 12 months of ticagrelor and aspirin.

In the overall TWILIGHT trial, ticagrelor alone resulted in a significantly lower clinically relevant bleeding rate than did long-term ticagrelor plus aspirin, with no increase in the risk of death, MI, or stroke (N Engl J Med 2019; 381:2032-42). But the results left many interventional cardiologists wondering if a ticagrelor monotherapy strategy was really applicable to their more challenging patients undergoing complex PCI given that the risk of ischemic events is known to climb with PCI complexity. The TWILIGHT-COMPLEX study was specifically designed to address that concern.

To be eligible for TWILIGHT-COMPLEX, patients had to meet one or more prespecified angiographic or procedural criteria for complex PCI, such as a total stent length in excess of 60 mm, three or more treated lesions, use of an atherectomy device, or PCI of a left main lesion, a chronic total occlusion, or a bifurcation lesion with two stents. These complex PCI patients accounted for one-third of the total study population in TWILIGHT; 36% of them met more than one criteria for complex PCI.
 

TWILIGHT-COMPLEX findings

In the 12 months after randomization, patients who received ticagrelor plus placebo had a 4.2% incidence of clinically significant Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding, which was significantly lower than the 7.7% rate in the group on long-term DAPT and represented a 46% relative risk reduction. Severe or fatal bleeding – that is, BARC type 3 or 5 – occurred in 1.1% of those on ticagrelor monotherapy and 2.6% of the DAPT group, for a significant 59% relative risk reduction.

The composite ischemic endpoint comprising cardiovascular death, MI, or ischemic stroke occurred in 3.6% of the ticagrelor monotherapy group and 4.8% of patients on long-term DAPT, a trend that didn’t achieve statistical significance. The all-cause mortality rate was 0.9% in the ticagrelor monotherapy group and 1.5% with extended DAPT, again a nonsignificant difference. Similarly, the rate of definite or probable stent thrombosis was numerically lower with ticagrelor monotherapy, by a margin of 0.4% versus 0.8%, a nonsignificant difference.

The results were consistent regardless of which specific criteria for complex PCI a patient had or how many of them.
 

Results are ‘reassuring’

At a press conference where Dr. Dangas presented the TWILIGHT-COMPLEX results, discussant Claire S. Duvernoy, MD, said she was “very impressed” with just how complex the PCIs were in the study participants.

“Really, these are the patients that in my own practice we’ve always been the most cautious about, the most worried about thrombotic risk, and the ones where we get down on our house staff when they drop an antiplatelet agent. So this study is very reassuring,” said Dr. Duvernoy, professor of medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

She identified two key differences between TWILIGHT-COMPLEX and earlier studies that showed a benefit for extended DAPT in higher-risk patients. In the earlier studies, it was the P2Y12 inhibitor that was dropped; TWILIGHT was the first major randomized trial to discontinue the aspirin instead. And patients in the TWILIGHT study received second-generation drug-eluting stents.

“That makes a huge difference,” Dr. Duvernoy said. “We have stents now that are much safer than the old ones were, and that’s what allows us to gain this incredible benefit of reduced bleeding.”

Dr. Dangas cautioned that since this was a secondary post hoc analysis, the TWILIGHT-COMPLEX study must be viewed as hypothesis-generating.

The TWILIGHT trial was funded by AstraZeneca. Dr. Dangas reported receiving institutional research grants from that company as well as Bayer and Daichi-Sankyo. He also served as a paid consultant to Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, and Biosensors.

Simultaneous with his presentation at ACC 2020, the TWILIGHT-COMPLEX results were published online (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Mar 13. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2020.03.011).

SOURCE: Dangas GD. ACC 20, Abstract 410-09.

A second trial has shown benefit of stopping aspirin 3 months after stenting and continuing solely with ticagrelor monotherapy.

The Ticagrelor With or Without Aspirin in Acute Coronary Syndrome After PCI (TICO) study shows very similar results as the TWILIGHT trial reported last year. But whereas TWILIGHT enrolled a more general PCI population, TICO included only patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS).

The South Korean TICO trial was presented today at the “virtual” American College of Cardiology 2020 Scientific Session (ACC.20)/World Congress of Cardiology.

Presenting the study, senior investigator Yangsoo Jang, MD, PhD, professor of cardiology at Yonsei University College of Medicine in Seoul, South Korea, concluded: “Ticagrelor monotherapy after 3-month dual antiplatelet therapy  showed a significantly lower risk of net adverse clinical events than currently recommended ticagrelor-based 12-month dual antiplatelet therapy. The reduced risk was mainly due to decreased major bleeding.”

These findings indicate that ticagrelor monotherapy “could be an optimal strategy that balances both ischemic and bleeding risks for patients with ACS,” he added.

Discussant of the TICO study, Deepak Bhatt, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said: “This is an independent confirmation of TWILIGHT. To have two independent trials reaching the same conclusion — that the regimen of ticagrelor monotherapy after 3 months dual antiplatelet therapy essentially cuts major bleeding in half — is very comforting.”

Michelle O’Donoghue, MD, also from Brigham and Women’s and chair of the ACC session at which the study was presented, added, “A particular strength of this trial was that you had an all-ACS population.”

Enough to Change Guidelines?

Discussing the trial at an ACC press conference, Claire Duvernoy, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, suggested that the results from TICO and TWILIGHT together are “enough evidence to change the guidelines. I think we are there,” she added.  

“TICO adds to our expanding body of evidence for newer, more potent, P2Y12 inhibitors as monotherapy. This trial stands out as the only exclusive ACS study looking at this and the only trial enrolling a significant population of STEMI patients,” Duvernoy said.

She pointed out one caveat — the need to discontinue ticagrelor because of dyspnea, which she said occurs in around 10%-15% of patients in her practice.

“Also, both TICO and TWILIGHT used the latest second-generation drug-eluting stents, which may have better safety and allows us to get away with less antiplatelet therapy,” Duvernoy noted.  

The TICO trial, conducted at 38 centers in South Korea, enrolled 3056 patients with ACS (average age 61 years) undergoing PCI and stenting with the second-generation ultrathin biodegradable polymer-coated sirolimus-eluting stents (Biotronik).

All patients received ticagrelor plus aspirin for 3 months, then were randomly assigned to continue treatment with ticagrelor and aspirin or ticagrelor alone.

The primary study endpoint was a net clinical benefit composite of death, MI, stroke, stent thrombosis, revascularization, or TIMI major bleeding at 12 months. This occurred in 3.9% of those randomly assigned to ticagrelor alone vs 5.9% of those who continued on dual antiplatelet therapy, giving a hazard ratio of 0.66 (P = .01).

The curves separated early with a marked difference in event rate being seen at 3 months after randomization. At this point, rates of the composite endpoint were 1.4% in the ticagrelor monotherapy group vs 3.5% in the dual antiplatelet therapy group (HR, 0.41; P = .001). 

The benefit was driven by a reduced risk of major bleeding in the ticagrelor monotherapy group. At 1 year, the rate of TIMI major bleeding was 1.7% in the ticagrelor alone group vs 3% in the dual antiplatelet group (HR, 0.56; P = .02).

There was no difference in ischemic events between the two groups. The rate of death/MI/ stroke/stent thrombosis/revascularization at 1 year was 2.3% in the ticagrelor alone group vs 3.4% for those on dual antiplatelet therapy (P = .09)

Yang noted that limitations of the study included an open-label design, no placebo used, and exclusion of patients with an elevated risk for bleeding (defined as aged 80 years or older, having had a stroke within the past year, or having had brain surgery or a traumatic brain injury within the past 6 months).

As part of his discussion, Bhatt asked how these results can be reconciled with trials such as CHARISMA and PEGASUS, which showed higher rates of MI with abbreviated durations of dual antiplatelet therapy

Jang replied: “Maybe for STEMI patients, if the duration of [dual antiplatelet therapy] is prolonged ischemic events may be reduced, especially if clopidogrel is used. But my opinion is when ticagrelor or prasugrel are used — they are very strong P2Y12 inhibitors — you can reduce duration of dual therapy by dropping aspirin. I think aspirin just makes the bleeding.”

Also commenting on the TICO study, Jacqueline Tamis-Holland, MD, Mount Sinai Saint Luke’s Hospital, New York City, pointed out that there was an interaction between the number of diseased vessels, and asked for more information on the complexity of disease in the patients in this trial.

“We had very few CTOs (total chronic occlusions) and left main disease,” Jang replied. “Dual antiplatelet duration is related to total atherosclerotic burden I think, so if you have very high atherosclerotic burden and multivessel disease, dual therapy may be more important. But our data show that the ticagrelor monotherapy group is not inferior to conventional dual therapy, so this suggests that even in multivessel disease, 3 months dual antiplatelet therapy is enough if you use a potent agent like ticagrelor as monotherapy after.”

This study was funded by Biotronik, manufacturer of the stents used. Jang has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Bhatt reports consultant fees/honoraria from Elsevier Practice Update Cardiology, Medtelligence/WebMD, MJH Life Sciences, and WebMD; and research grants from Abbott, Afimmune, Amarin, Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cardax, Chiesi, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Ethicon, FlowCo, Forest Laboratories, Fractyl, Idorsia, Ironwood, Ischemix, Lexicon, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Regeneron, Roche, sanofi-aventis, Synaptic, Takeda, The Medicines Company.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A second trial has shown benefit of stopping aspirin 3 months after stenting and continuing solely with ticagrelor monotherapy.

The Ticagrelor With or Without Aspirin in Acute Coronary Syndrome After PCI (TICO) study shows very similar results as the TWILIGHT trial reported last year. But whereas TWILIGHT enrolled a more general PCI population, TICO included only patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS).

The South Korean TICO trial was presented today at the “virtual” American College of Cardiology 2020 Scientific Session (ACC.20)/World Congress of Cardiology.

Presenting the study, senior investigator Yangsoo Jang, MD, PhD, professor of cardiology at Yonsei University College of Medicine in Seoul, South Korea, concluded: “Ticagrelor monotherapy after 3-month dual antiplatelet therapy  showed a significantly lower risk of net adverse clinical events than currently recommended ticagrelor-based 12-month dual antiplatelet therapy. The reduced risk was mainly due to decreased major bleeding.”

These findings indicate that ticagrelor monotherapy “could be an optimal strategy that balances both ischemic and bleeding risks for patients with ACS,” he added.

Discussant of the TICO study, Deepak Bhatt, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said: “This is an independent confirmation of TWILIGHT. To have two independent trials reaching the same conclusion — that the regimen of ticagrelor monotherapy after 3 months dual antiplatelet therapy essentially cuts major bleeding in half — is very comforting.”

Michelle O’Donoghue, MD, also from Brigham and Women’s and chair of the ACC session at which the study was presented, added, “A particular strength of this trial was that you had an all-ACS population.”

Enough to Change Guidelines?

Discussing the trial at an ACC press conference, Claire Duvernoy, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, suggested that the results from TICO and TWILIGHT together are “enough evidence to change the guidelines. I think we are there,” she added.  

“TICO adds to our expanding body of evidence for newer, more potent, P2Y12 inhibitors as monotherapy. This trial stands out as the only exclusive ACS study looking at this and the only trial enrolling a significant population of STEMI patients,” Duvernoy said.

She pointed out one caveat — the need to discontinue ticagrelor because of dyspnea, which she said occurs in around 10%-15% of patients in her practice.

“Also, both TICO and TWILIGHT used the latest second-generation drug-eluting stents, which may have better safety and allows us to get away with less antiplatelet therapy,” Duvernoy noted.  

The TICO trial, conducted at 38 centers in South Korea, enrolled 3056 patients with ACS (average age 61 years) undergoing PCI and stenting with the second-generation ultrathin biodegradable polymer-coated sirolimus-eluting stents (Biotronik).

All patients received ticagrelor plus aspirin for 3 months, then were randomly assigned to continue treatment with ticagrelor and aspirin or ticagrelor alone.

The primary study endpoint was a net clinical benefit composite of death, MI, stroke, stent thrombosis, revascularization, or TIMI major bleeding at 12 months. This occurred in 3.9% of those randomly assigned to ticagrelor alone vs 5.9% of those who continued on dual antiplatelet therapy, giving a hazard ratio of 0.66 (P = .01).

The curves separated early with a marked difference in event rate being seen at 3 months after randomization. At this point, rates of the composite endpoint were 1.4% in the ticagrelor monotherapy group vs 3.5% in the dual antiplatelet therapy group (HR, 0.41; P = .001). 

The benefit was driven by a reduced risk of major bleeding in the ticagrelor monotherapy group. At 1 year, the rate of TIMI major bleeding was 1.7% in the ticagrelor alone group vs 3% in the dual antiplatelet group (HR, 0.56; P = .02).

There was no difference in ischemic events between the two groups. The rate of death/MI/ stroke/stent thrombosis/revascularization at 1 year was 2.3% in the ticagrelor alone group vs 3.4% for those on dual antiplatelet therapy (P = .09)

Yang noted that limitations of the study included an open-label design, no placebo used, and exclusion of patients with an elevated risk for bleeding (defined as aged 80 years or older, having had a stroke within the past year, or having had brain surgery or a traumatic brain injury within the past 6 months).

As part of his discussion, Bhatt asked how these results can be reconciled with trials such as CHARISMA and PEGASUS, which showed higher rates of MI with abbreviated durations of dual antiplatelet therapy

Jang replied: “Maybe for STEMI patients, if the duration of [dual antiplatelet therapy] is prolonged ischemic events may be reduced, especially if clopidogrel is used. But my opinion is when ticagrelor or prasugrel are used — they are very strong P2Y12 inhibitors — you can reduce duration of dual therapy by dropping aspirin. I think aspirin just makes the bleeding.”

Also commenting on the TICO study, Jacqueline Tamis-Holland, MD, Mount Sinai Saint Luke’s Hospital, New York City, pointed out that there was an interaction between the number of diseased vessels, and asked for more information on the complexity of disease in the patients in this trial.

“We had very few CTOs (total chronic occlusions) and left main disease,” Jang replied. “Dual antiplatelet duration is related to total atherosclerotic burden I think, so if you have very high atherosclerotic burden and multivessel disease, dual therapy may be more important. But our data show that the ticagrelor monotherapy group is not inferior to conventional dual therapy, so this suggests that even in multivessel disease, 3 months dual antiplatelet therapy is enough if you use a potent agent like ticagrelor as monotherapy after.”

This study was funded by Biotronik, manufacturer of the stents used. Jang has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Bhatt reports consultant fees/honoraria from Elsevier Practice Update Cardiology, Medtelligence/WebMD, MJH Life Sciences, and WebMD; and research grants from Abbott, Afimmune, Amarin, Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cardax, Chiesi, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Ethicon, FlowCo, Forest Laboratories, Fractyl, Idorsia, Ironwood, Ischemix, Lexicon, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Regeneron, Roche, sanofi-aventis, Synaptic, Takeda, The Medicines Company.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A second trial has shown benefit of stopping aspirin 3 months after stenting and continuing solely with ticagrelor monotherapy.

The Ticagrelor With or Without Aspirin in Acute Coronary Syndrome After PCI (TICO) study shows very similar results as the TWILIGHT trial reported last year. But whereas TWILIGHT enrolled a more general PCI population, TICO included only patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS).

The South Korean TICO trial was presented today at the “virtual” American College of Cardiology 2020 Scientific Session (ACC.20)/World Congress of Cardiology.

Presenting the study, senior investigator Yangsoo Jang, MD, PhD, professor of cardiology at Yonsei University College of Medicine in Seoul, South Korea, concluded: “Ticagrelor monotherapy after 3-month dual antiplatelet therapy  showed a significantly lower risk of net adverse clinical events than currently recommended ticagrelor-based 12-month dual antiplatelet therapy. The reduced risk was mainly due to decreased major bleeding.”

These findings indicate that ticagrelor monotherapy “could be an optimal strategy that balances both ischemic and bleeding risks for patients with ACS,” he added.

Discussant of the TICO study, Deepak Bhatt, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said: “This is an independent confirmation of TWILIGHT. To have two independent trials reaching the same conclusion — that the regimen of ticagrelor monotherapy after 3 months dual antiplatelet therapy essentially cuts major bleeding in half — is very comforting.”

Michelle O’Donoghue, MD, also from Brigham and Women’s and chair of the ACC session at which the study was presented, added, “A particular strength of this trial was that you had an all-ACS population.”

Enough to Change Guidelines?

Discussing the trial at an ACC press conference, Claire Duvernoy, MD, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, suggested that the results from TICO and TWILIGHT together are “enough evidence to change the guidelines. I think we are there,” she added.  

“TICO adds to our expanding body of evidence for newer, more potent, P2Y12 inhibitors as monotherapy. This trial stands out as the only exclusive ACS study looking at this and the only trial enrolling a significant population of STEMI patients,” Duvernoy said.

She pointed out one caveat — the need to discontinue ticagrelor because of dyspnea, which she said occurs in around 10%-15% of patients in her practice.

“Also, both TICO and TWILIGHT used the latest second-generation drug-eluting stents, which may have better safety and allows us to get away with less antiplatelet therapy,” Duvernoy noted.  

The TICO trial, conducted at 38 centers in South Korea, enrolled 3056 patients with ACS (average age 61 years) undergoing PCI and stenting with the second-generation ultrathin biodegradable polymer-coated sirolimus-eluting stents (Biotronik).

All patients received ticagrelor plus aspirin for 3 months, then were randomly assigned to continue treatment with ticagrelor and aspirin or ticagrelor alone.

The primary study endpoint was a net clinical benefit composite of death, MI, stroke, stent thrombosis, revascularization, or TIMI major bleeding at 12 months. This occurred in 3.9% of those randomly assigned to ticagrelor alone vs 5.9% of those who continued on dual antiplatelet therapy, giving a hazard ratio of 0.66 (P = .01).

The curves separated early with a marked difference in event rate being seen at 3 months after randomization. At this point, rates of the composite endpoint were 1.4% in the ticagrelor monotherapy group vs 3.5% in the dual antiplatelet therapy group (HR, 0.41; P = .001). 

The benefit was driven by a reduced risk of major bleeding in the ticagrelor monotherapy group. At 1 year, the rate of TIMI major bleeding was 1.7% in the ticagrelor alone group vs 3% in the dual antiplatelet group (HR, 0.56; P = .02).

There was no difference in ischemic events between the two groups. The rate of death/MI/ stroke/stent thrombosis/revascularization at 1 year was 2.3% in the ticagrelor alone group vs 3.4% for those on dual antiplatelet therapy (P = .09)

Yang noted that limitations of the study included an open-label design, no placebo used, and exclusion of patients with an elevated risk for bleeding (defined as aged 80 years or older, having had a stroke within the past year, or having had brain surgery or a traumatic brain injury within the past 6 months).

As part of his discussion, Bhatt asked how these results can be reconciled with trials such as CHARISMA and PEGASUS, which showed higher rates of MI with abbreviated durations of dual antiplatelet therapy

Jang replied: “Maybe for STEMI patients, if the duration of [dual antiplatelet therapy] is prolonged ischemic events may be reduced, especially if clopidogrel is used. But my opinion is when ticagrelor or prasugrel are used — they are very strong P2Y12 inhibitors — you can reduce duration of dual therapy by dropping aspirin. I think aspirin just makes the bleeding.”

Also commenting on the TICO study, Jacqueline Tamis-Holland, MD, Mount Sinai Saint Luke’s Hospital, New York City, pointed out that there was an interaction between the number of diseased vessels, and asked for more information on the complexity of disease in the patients in this trial.

“We had very few CTOs (total chronic occlusions) and left main disease,” Jang replied. “Dual antiplatelet duration is related to total atherosclerotic burden I think, so if you have very high atherosclerotic burden and multivessel disease, dual therapy may be more important. But our data show that the ticagrelor monotherapy group is not inferior to conventional dual therapy, so this suggests that even in multivessel disease, 3 months dual antiplatelet therapy is enough if you use a potent agent like ticagrelor as monotherapy after.”

This study was funded by Biotronik, manufacturer of the stents used. Jang has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Bhatt reports consultant fees/honoraria from Elsevier Practice Update Cardiology, Medtelligence/WebMD, MJH Life Sciences, and WebMD; and research grants from Abbott, Afimmune, Amarin, Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cardax, Chiesi, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Ethicon, FlowCo, Forest Laboratories, Fractyl, Idorsia, Ironwood, Ischemix, Lexicon, Medtronic, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Regeneron, Roche, sanofi-aventis, Synaptic, Takeda, The Medicines Company.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In about 7% of people with confirmed novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and 22% of the critically ill, the virus injures the heart, probably by either attacking it directly or causing a cytokine storm that leads to myocyte apoptosis, according to a report from the Columbia University Division of Cardiology in New York.

Reports from China document patients presenting with palpitations and chest pain without the typical fever and cough. Among those affected, acute myocardial injury is either apparent at presentation or develops after hospitalization.

The exact mechanism of injury is uncertain, but for now, “it appears that the incidence of fulminant myocarditis and profound cardiogenic shock is low; however, the rate of recovery and mode of treatment are yet to be determined,” wrote authors led by Kevin Clerkin, MD, a cardiologist and assistant professor of medicine at Columbia.

High-sensitivity cardiac troponin I (hs-cTnI) might be prognostic. In one Chinese study of hospitalized patients, median hs-cTnI levels were 2.5 pg/mL in survivors on day 4 of symptoms and did not change significantly during follow-up. Among people who died, day 4 hs-cTnI was 8.8 pg/mL and climbed to 290.6 pg/mL by day 22.

“The rise in hs-cTnI tracks with other inflammatory biomarkers ... raising the possibility that this reflects cytokine storm or secondary hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis more than isolated myocardial injury,” Dr. Clerkin and colleagues wrote.

But there are also acute heart injury reports out of China, including one man who presented with chest pain and ST-segment elevation, but no coronary obstruction, and another who presented with fulminant myocarditis in addition to severe respiratory manifestations, but with no cardiac history.

Both had depressed left ventricular ejection fractions, enlarged left ventricles, and elevated cardiac biomarkers, and both responded to intravenous immunoglobulin and steroids, among other treatments.

Amid a surge of COVID-19 cases at Columbia, “we have seen both forms of cardiac presentations: those presenting with cardiac predominant symptoms (none have had true [ST-segment elevation myocardial infarctions] yet, but most fall in the myopericarditis group), some of which have required mechanical circulatory support, and those who seem to have secondary myocardial injury with globally elevated inflammatory biomarkers (e.g., ferritin, interleukin-6, lactate dehydrogenase, hs-cTnI, and D-dimer),” Dr. Clerkin said in an interview.

“We are discussing each of these cases in a multidisciplinary fashion with our infectious disease, pulmonary, interventional cardiology, and cardiac surgery colleagues to try to make the best decision based on what we know and as our knowledge evolves,” he said.

The exact cardiac effect of COVID-19 is unknown for now, but it is known already that it rides along with cardiovascular issues. There’s a high prevalence of hypertension, diabetes, and diagnosed cardiovascular disease among patients, but it’s unclear at this point if it’s because the virus favors older people who happen to be more likely to have those problems or if it attacks people with those conditions preferentially.

It might be the latter. The virus that causes COVID-19, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), invades cells through angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) 2 receptors, which are highly expressed in the heart.

That raises the question of whether ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers might help. However, “at this time, nearly all major societies have recommended against adding or stopping ... antagonists in this setting, unless done on clinical grounds independently of COVID-19, given the lack of evidence,” Dr. Clerkin and his colleagues wrote.

As for heart transplants, the current thinking is to continue them without changes in immunosuppression so long as recipients test negative and haven’t been around anyone who has tested positive for a month. If a donor had COVID-19, they should have been free of the virus by polymerase chain reaction for at least 14 days. The concern is that it might be in the donor heart.

If transplant patients come down with COVID-19, the “data to date [indicate that management] is supportive care and continuation of immunosuppression for mild COVID-19 with reduction of the antimetabolite (mycophenolate or azathioprine), and further treatment based on disease severity and drug availability. Notably, one potential treatment option for COVID-19 is protease inhibitors,” the authors said, but it’s important to remember that they will increase the levels of cyclosporine, tacrolimus, and other calcineurin inhibitor transplant drugs.

At Columbia, “our processes have been adjusted” for heart transplants. “For instance, non-urgent testing (pre- and post-transplant) has been tabled, we have predominantly shifted to noninvasive screening for rejection, and each potential transplant requires more scrutiny for urgency, donor screening/risk for COVID-19, and perioperative management,” Dr. Clerkin said in the interview.

A study out of Wuhan, China, the outbreak epicenter, was reassuring. It found that routine prevention efforts were enough to protect heart transplant patients.

There was no funding, and the authors had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Clerkin KJ et al. Circulation. 2020 Mar 21. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.046941

In about 7% of people with confirmed novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and 22% of the critically ill, the virus injures the heart, probably by either attacking it directly or causing a cytokine storm that leads to myocyte apoptosis, according to a report from the Columbia University Division of Cardiology in New York.

Reports from China document patients presenting with palpitations and chest pain without the typical fever and cough. Among those affected, acute myocardial injury is either apparent at presentation or develops after hospitalization.

The exact mechanism of injury is uncertain, but for now, “it appears that the incidence of fulminant myocarditis and profound cardiogenic shock is low; however, the rate of recovery and mode of treatment are yet to be determined,” wrote authors led by Kevin Clerkin, MD, a cardiologist and assistant professor of medicine at Columbia.

High-sensitivity cardiac troponin I (hs-cTnI) might be prognostic. In one Chinese study of hospitalized patients, median hs-cTnI levels were 2.5 pg/mL in survivors on day 4 of symptoms and did not change significantly during follow-up. Among people who died, day 4 hs-cTnI was 8.8 pg/mL and climbed to 290.6 pg/mL by day 22.

“The rise in hs-cTnI tracks with other inflammatory biomarkers ... raising the possibility that this reflects cytokine storm or secondary hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis more than isolated myocardial injury,” Dr. Clerkin and colleagues wrote.

But there are also acute heart injury reports out of China, including one man who presented with chest pain and ST-segment elevation, but no coronary obstruction, and another who presented with fulminant myocarditis in addition to severe respiratory manifestations, but with no cardiac history.

Both had depressed left ventricular ejection fractions, enlarged left ventricles, and elevated cardiac biomarkers, and both responded to intravenous immunoglobulin and steroids, among other treatments.

Amid a surge of COVID-19 cases at Columbia, “we have seen both forms of cardiac presentations: those presenting with cardiac predominant symptoms (none have had true [ST-segment elevation myocardial infarctions] yet, but most fall in the myopericarditis group), some of which have required mechanical circulatory support, and those who seem to have secondary myocardial injury with globally elevated inflammatory biomarkers (e.g., ferritin, interleukin-6, lactate dehydrogenase, hs-cTnI, and D-dimer),” Dr. Clerkin said in an interview.

“We are discussing each of these cases in a multidisciplinary fashion with our infectious disease, pulmonary, interventional cardiology, and cardiac surgery colleagues to try to make the best decision based on what we know and as our knowledge evolves,” he said.

The exact cardiac effect of COVID-19 is unknown for now, but it is known already that it rides along with cardiovascular issues. There’s a high prevalence of hypertension, diabetes, and diagnosed cardiovascular disease among patients, but it’s unclear at this point if it’s because the virus favors older people who happen to be more likely to have those problems or if it attacks people with those conditions preferentially.

It might be the latter. The virus that causes COVID-19, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), invades cells through angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) 2 receptors, which are highly expressed in the heart.

That raises the question of whether ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers might help. However, “at this time, nearly all major societies have recommended against adding or stopping ... antagonists in this setting, unless done on clinical grounds independently of COVID-19, given the lack of evidence,” Dr. Clerkin and his colleagues wrote.

As for heart transplants, the current thinking is to continue them without changes in immunosuppression so long as recipients test negative and haven’t been around anyone who has tested positive for a month. If a donor had COVID-19, they should have been free of the virus by polymerase chain reaction for at least 14 days. The concern is that it might be in the donor heart.

If transplant patients come down with COVID-19, the “data to date [indicate that management] is supportive care and continuation of immunosuppression for mild COVID-19 with reduction of the antimetabolite (mycophenolate or azathioprine), and further treatment based on disease severity and drug availability. Notably, one potential treatment option for COVID-19 is protease inhibitors,” the authors said, but it’s important to remember that they will increase the levels of cyclosporine, tacrolimus, and other calcineurin inhibitor transplant drugs.

At Columbia, “our processes have been adjusted” for heart transplants. “For instance, non-urgent testing (pre- and post-transplant) has been tabled, we have predominantly shifted to noninvasive screening for rejection, and each potential transplant requires more scrutiny for urgency, donor screening/risk for COVID-19, and perioperative management,” Dr. Clerkin said in the interview.

A study out of Wuhan, China, the outbreak epicenter, was reassuring. It found that routine prevention efforts were enough to protect heart transplant patients.

There was no funding, and the authors had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Clerkin KJ et al. Circulation. 2020 Mar 21. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.046941

In about 7% of people with confirmed novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and 22% of the critically ill, the virus injures the heart, probably by either attacking it directly or causing a cytokine storm that leads to myocyte apoptosis, according to a report from the Columbia University Division of Cardiology in New York.

Reports from China document patients presenting with palpitations and chest pain without the typical fever and cough. Among those affected, acute myocardial injury is either apparent at presentation or develops after hospitalization.

The exact mechanism of injury is uncertain, but for now, “it appears that the incidence of fulminant myocarditis and profound cardiogenic shock is low; however, the rate of recovery and mode of treatment are yet to be determined,” wrote authors led by Kevin Clerkin, MD, a cardiologist and assistant professor of medicine at Columbia.

High-sensitivity cardiac troponin I (hs-cTnI) might be prognostic. In one Chinese study of hospitalized patients, median hs-cTnI levels were 2.5 pg/mL in survivors on day 4 of symptoms and did not change significantly during follow-up. Among people who died, day 4 hs-cTnI was 8.8 pg/mL and climbed to 290.6 pg/mL by day 22.

“The rise in hs-cTnI tracks with other inflammatory biomarkers ... raising the possibility that this reflects cytokine storm or secondary hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis more than isolated myocardial injury,” Dr. Clerkin and colleagues wrote.

But there are also acute heart injury reports out of China, including one man who presented with chest pain and ST-segment elevation, but no coronary obstruction, and another who presented with fulminant myocarditis in addition to severe respiratory manifestations, but with no cardiac history.

Both had depressed left ventricular ejection fractions, enlarged left ventricles, and elevated cardiac biomarkers, and both responded to intravenous immunoglobulin and steroids, among other treatments.

Amid a surge of COVID-19 cases at Columbia, “we have seen both forms of cardiac presentations: those presenting with cardiac predominant symptoms (none have had true [ST-segment elevation myocardial infarctions] yet, but most fall in the myopericarditis group), some of which have required mechanical circulatory support, and those who seem to have secondary myocardial injury with globally elevated inflammatory biomarkers (e.g., ferritin, interleukin-6, lactate dehydrogenase, hs-cTnI, and D-dimer),” Dr. Clerkin said in an interview.

“We are discussing each of these cases in a multidisciplinary fashion with our infectious disease, pulmonary, interventional cardiology, and cardiac surgery colleagues to try to make the best decision based on what we know and as our knowledge evolves,” he said.

The exact cardiac effect of COVID-19 is unknown for now, but it is known already that it rides along with cardiovascular issues. There’s a high prevalence of hypertension, diabetes, and diagnosed cardiovascular disease among patients, but it’s unclear at this point if it’s because the virus favors older people who happen to be more likely to have those problems or if it attacks people with those conditions preferentially.

It might be the latter. The virus that causes COVID-19, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), invades cells through angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) 2 receptors, which are highly expressed in the heart.

That raises the question of whether ACE inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers might help. However, “at this time, nearly all major societies have recommended against adding or stopping ... antagonists in this setting, unless done on clinical grounds independently of COVID-19, given the lack of evidence,” Dr. Clerkin and his colleagues wrote.

As for heart transplants, the current thinking is to continue them without changes in immunosuppression so long as recipients test negative and haven’t been around anyone who has tested positive for a month. If a donor had COVID-19, they should have been free of the virus by polymerase chain reaction for at least 14 days. The concern is that it might be in the donor heart.

If transplant patients come down with COVID-19, the “data to date [indicate that management] is supportive care and continuation of immunosuppression for mild COVID-19 with reduction of the antimetabolite (mycophenolate or azathioprine), and further treatment based on disease severity and drug availability. Notably, one potential treatment option for COVID-19 is protease inhibitors,” the authors said, but it’s important to remember that they will increase the levels of cyclosporine, tacrolimus, and other calcineurin inhibitor transplant drugs.

At Columbia, “our processes have been adjusted” for heart transplants. “For instance, non-urgent testing (pre- and post-transplant) has been tabled, we have predominantly shifted to noninvasive screening for rejection, and each potential transplant requires more scrutiny for urgency, donor screening/risk for COVID-19, and perioperative management,” Dr. Clerkin said in the interview.

A study out of Wuhan, China, the outbreak epicenter, was reassuring. It found that routine prevention efforts were enough to protect heart transplant patients.

There was no funding, and the authors had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Clerkin KJ et al. Circulation. 2020 Mar 21. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.046941

PHOENIX – African Americans with systemic lupus erythematosus are more likely to experience recurrent hospitalizations for cardiovascular disease, compared with other racial/ethnic groups, results from a single-state registry study found.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

“SLE is an autoimmune disease that causes inflammation affecting multiple organ systems including the cardiovascular system,” Meghan Angley, MPH, said at the Epidemiology and Prevention/Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health meeting. “Therefore, individuals with SLE are at risk for early CVD. African Americans represent the racial group at greatest risk for SLE.”

According to Ms. Angley, with the department of epidemiology at Emory University, Atlanta, white women with SLE have CVD associated mortality 12 years earlier than their non-SLE counterparts, while African American women with SLE have CVD-associated mortality 19 years earlier than their non-SLE counterparts. “We know that recurrent hospitalizations for CVD are associated with mortality,” she said. “These represent potential points of identification of high-risk individuals and also points of interventions.”

In order to study racial disparities across recurrent hospitalizations for cardiovascular disease in an SLE population, Ms. Angley and her colleagues drew from the Georgia Lupus Registry, which is a population-based registry of patients with validated SLE in two Georgia counties. They included all cases diagnosed between 2000 and 2004. The registry was linked to records of all inpatient hospitalizations in Georgia between 2000 and 2013. The researchers used ICD-9 codes to identify hospitalizations for coronary heart disease, peripheral artery disease, cerebrovascular disease, and heart failure and used the Prentice-Williams-Peterson model for recurrent time-to-event analysis. Specifically, they looked at the total time scale from the point of diagnosis to each of the subsequent CVD hospitalizations and truncated the number of hospitalizations at three to maintain stable modeling estimates. The analysis was censored at the time of patient death or at the end of 2013 and adjusted for sex and age at diagnosis.

The sample included 417 African Americans with SLE and 149 non–African Americans with the disease. Most (86%) were female, and the non–African American group was slightly more likely to have been diagnosed with SLE after the age of 45 years, compared with the African American group (36% vs. 30%, respectively).

Ms. Angley and her colleagues found that 24% of African Americans had at least one CVD hospitalization, and 14% had at least two, while 13% of non–African Americans had at least one CVD hospitalization, and 5% had at least two. Among those in the African American group, reasons for hospitalizations were congestive heart failure, (58%), cerebrovascular disease (27%), coronary heart disease (18%), and peripheral artery disease (2%). Among those in the non–African American group, reasons for hospitalizations were congestive heart failure (38%), coronary heart disease (38%), cerebrovascular disease (25%), and peripheral artery disease (6%).

Overall, African American race was associated with recurrent hospitalizations (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.9). In an event-specific stratified analysis, the association between African American race and the hazard of recurrence became even more pronounced with each event (hospitalization 1 aHR, 1.2; hospitalization 2 aHR, 1.5; hospitalization 3 aHR, 1.9). The researchers also observed that African Americans were hospitalized sooner, compared with non–African Americans: a median of 3.68 versus 4.61 years for hospitalization 1, 3.73 years versus 5.98 years for hospitalization 2, and 4.84 years versus 8.14 years for hospitalization 3.

“African Americans with SLE are more likely to experience recurrent hospitalizations for CVD,” Ms. Angley concluded at the meeting, which was sponsored by the American Heart Association. “The events occur sooner after diagnosis than in non–African Americans, suggesting that African Americans may be more vulnerable to the cardiovascular complications of SLE. Our next steps include examining potential reasons for these disparities, such as looking at primary care patterns over time, SLE severity over time, and treatment at CVD hospitalizations.”

In an interview, one of the meeting session’s moderators, Sherry-Ann Brown, MD, called for additional research to determine the reasons for disparities that were observed between African Americans with SLE and their non–African American counterparts. “We need to figure out why and address it,” said Dr. Brown, who is a cardiologist and physician-scientist at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. “We recognize that social determinants of health, such as insurance, socioeconomic factors, and psychosocial factors, can contribute. We need to figure out the additional steps we need to take in order to close that gap.”

Ms. Angley reported having no disclosures. The study was funded by grants from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and by the National Institutes of Health.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Angley M et al. Epi/Lifestyle 2020, Abstract 5.

PHOENIX – African Americans with systemic lupus erythematosus are more likely to experience recurrent hospitalizations for cardiovascular disease, compared with other racial/ethnic groups, results from a single-state registry study found.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

“SLE is an autoimmune disease that causes inflammation affecting multiple organ systems including the cardiovascular system,” Meghan Angley, MPH, said at the Epidemiology and Prevention/Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health meeting. “Therefore, individuals with SLE are at risk for early CVD. African Americans represent the racial group at greatest risk for SLE.”

According to Ms. Angley, with the department of epidemiology at Emory University, Atlanta, white women with SLE have CVD associated mortality 12 years earlier than their non-SLE counterparts, while African American women with SLE have CVD-associated mortality 19 years earlier than their non-SLE counterparts. “We know that recurrent hospitalizations for CVD are associated with mortality,” she said. “These represent potential points of identification of high-risk individuals and also points of interventions.”

In order to study racial disparities across recurrent hospitalizations for cardiovascular disease in an SLE population, Ms. Angley and her colleagues drew from the Georgia Lupus Registry, which is a population-based registry of patients with validated SLE in two Georgia counties. They included all cases diagnosed between 2000 and 2004. The registry was linked to records of all inpatient hospitalizations in Georgia between 2000 and 2013. The researchers used ICD-9 codes to identify hospitalizations for coronary heart disease, peripheral artery disease, cerebrovascular disease, and heart failure and used the Prentice-Williams-Peterson model for recurrent time-to-event analysis. Specifically, they looked at the total time scale from the point of diagnosis to each of the subsequent CVD hospitalizations and truncated the number of hospitalizations at three to maintain stable modeling estimates. The analysis was censored at the time of patient death or at the end of 2013 and adjusted for sex and age at diagnosis.

The sample included 417 African Americans with SLE and 149 non–African Americans with the disease. Most (86%) were female, and the non–African American group was slightly more likely to have been diagnosed with SLE after the age of 45 years, compared with the African American group (36% vs. 30%, respectively).

Ms. Angley and her colleagues found that 24% of African Americans had at least one CVD hospitalization, and 14% had at least two, while 13% of non–African Americans had at least one CVD hospitalization, and 5% had at least two. Among those in the African American group, reasons for hospitalizations were congestive heart failure, (58%), cerebrovascular disease (27%), coronary heart disease (18%), and peripheral artery disease (2%). Among those in the non–African American group, reasons for hospitalizations were congestive heart failure (38%), coronary heart disease (38%), cerebrovascular disease (25%), and peripheral artery disease (6%).

Overall, African American race was associated with recurrent hospitalizations (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.9). In an event-specific stratified analysis, the association between African American race and the hazard of recurrence became even more pronounced with each event (hospitalization 1 aHR, 1.2; hospitalization 2 aHR, 1.5; hospitalization 3 aHR, 1.9). The researchers also observed that African Americans were hospitalized sooner, compared with non–African Americans: a median of 3.68 versus 4.61 years for hospitalization 1, 3.73 years versus 5.98 years for hospitalization 2, and 4.84 years versus 8.14 years for hospitalization 3.

“African Americans with SLE are more likely to experience recurrent hospitalizations for CVD,” Ms. Angley concluded at the meeting, which was sponsored by the American Heart Association. “The events occur sooner after diagnosis than in non–African Americans, suggesting that African Americans may be more vulnerable to the cardiovascular complications of SLE. Our next steps include examining potential reasons for these disparities, such as looking at primary care patterns over time, SLE severity over time, and treatment at CVD hospitalizations.”

In an interview, one of the meeting session’s moderators, Sherry-Ann Brown, MD, called for additional research to determine the reasons for disparities that were observed between African Americans with SLE and their non–African American counterparts. “We need to figure out why and address it,” said Dr. Brown, who is a cardiologist and physician-scientist at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. “We recognize that social determinants of health, such as insurance, socioeconomic factors, and psychosocial factors, can contribute. We need to figure out the additional steps we need to take in order to close that gap.”

Ms. Angley reported having no disclosures. The study was funded by grants from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and by the National Institutes of Health.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Angley M et al. Epi/Lifestyle 2020, Abstract 5.

PHOENIX – African Americans with systemic lupus erythematosus are more likely to experience recurrent hospitalizations for cardiovascular disease, compared with other racial/ethnic groups, results from a single-state registry study found.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

“SLE is an autoimmune disease that causes inflammation affecting multiple organ systems including the cardiovascular system,” Meghan Angley, MPH, said at the Epidemiology and Prevention/Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health meeting. “Therefore, individuals with SLE are at risk for early CVD. African Americans represent the racial group at greatest risk for SLE.”

According to Ms. Angley, with the department of epidemiology at Emory University, Atlanta, white women with SLE have CVD associated mortality 12 years earlier than their non-SLE counterparts, while African American women with SLE have CVD-associated mortality 19 years earlier than their non-SLE counterparts. “We know that recurrent hospitalizations for CVD are associated with mortality,” she said. “These represent potential points of identification of high-risk individuals and also points of interventions.”

In order to study racial disparities across recurrent hospitalizations for cardiovascular disease in an SLE population, Ms. Angley and her colleagues drew from the Georgia Lupus Registry, which is a population-based registry of patients with validated SLE in two Georgia counties. They included all cases diagnosed between 2000 and 2004. The registry was linked to records of all inpatient hospitalizations in Georgia between 2000 and 2013. The researchers used ICD-9 codes to identify hospitalizations for coronary heart disease, peripheral artery disease, cerebrovascular disease, and heart failure and used the Prentice-Williams-Peterson model for recurrent time-to-event analysis. Specifically, they looked at the total time scale from the point of diagnosis to each of the subsequent CVD hospitalizations and truncated the number of hospitalizations at three to maintain stable modeling estimates. The analysis was censored at the time of patient death or at the end of 2013 and adjusted for sex and age at diagnosis.

The sample included 417 African Americans with SLE and 149 non–African Americans with the disease. Most (86%) were female, and the non–African American group was slightly more likely to have been diagnosed with SLE after the age of 45 years, compared with the African American group (36% vs. 30%, respectively).

Ms. Angley and her colleagues found that 24% of African Americans had at least one CVD hospitalization, and 14% had at least two, while 13% of non–African Americans had at least one CVD hospitalization, and 5% had at least two. Among those in the African American group, reasons for hospitalizations were congestive heart failure, (58%), cerebrovascular disease (27%), coronary heart disease (18%), and peripheral artery disease (2%). Among those in the non–African American group, reasons for hospitalizations were congestive heart failure (38%), coronary heart disease (38%), cerebrovascular disease (25%), and peripheral artery disease (6%).

Overall, African American race was associated with recurrent hospitalizations (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.9). In an event-specific stratified analysis, the association between African American race and the hazard of recurrence became even more pronounced with each event (hospitalization 1 aHR, 1.2; hospitalization 2 aHR, 1.5; hospitalization 3 aHR, 1.9). The researchers also observed that African Americans were hospitalized sooner, compared with non–African Americans: a median of 3.68 versus 4.61 years for hospitalization 1, 3.73 years versus 5.98 years for hospitalization 2, and 4.84 years versus 8.14 years for hospitalization 3.

“African Americans with SLE are more likely to experience recurrent hospitalizations for CVD,” Ms. Angley concluded at the meeting, which was sponsored by the American Heart Association. “The events occur sooner after diagnosis than in non–African Americans, suggesting that African Americans may be more vulnerable to the cardiovascular complications of SLE. Our next steps include examining potential reasons for these disparities, such as looking at primary care patterns over time, SLE severity over time, and treatment at CVD hospitalizations.”

In an interview, one of the meeting session’s moderators, Sherry-Ann Brown, MD, called for additional research to determine the reasons for disparities that were observed between African Americans with SLE and their non–African American counterparts. “We need to figure out why and address it,” said Dr. Brown, who is a cardiologist and physician-scientist at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn. “We recognize that social determinants of health, such as insurance, socioeconomic factors, and psychosocial factors, can contribute. We need to figure out the additional steps we need to take in order to close that gap.”

Ms. Angley reported having no disclosures. The study was funded by grants from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and by the National Institutes of Health.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Angley M et al. Epi/Lifestyle 2020, Abstract 5.

LOS ANGELES – The edge that the direct-acting oral anticoagulant apixaban (Eliquis) has over warfarin for safely preventing ischemic events in patients with atrial fibrillation and either a recent acute coronary syndrome event or a recent percutaneous coronary intervention held up even in patients with a history of stroke, transient ischemic attack, or thromboembolic event, according to a prespecified secondary analysis of data collected in the AUGUSTUS trial.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The treatment advantages of apixaban, compared with warfarin, seen in the overall AUGUSTUS results, first reported in March 2019, “were consistent” with the benefits seen in the subgroup of enrolled patients with a prior stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), or thromboembolic (TE) event, M. Cecilia Bahit, MD, said at the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association.

All patients in AUGUSTUS received a P2Y12 inhibitor antiplatelet drug, which was clopidogrel for more than 90% of patients. The two-by-two factorial design of AUGUSTUS also assessed the safety and efficacy of either adding or withholding aspirin from the two-drug regimen that all patients in the study received with a P2Y12 inhibitor plus an anticoagulant (apixaban or warfarin). The most notable finding of the aspirin versus placebo analysis was that patients without a prior stroke, TIA, or TE event had a “more profound” increase in their rate of major or clinically relevant minor bleeds when also treated with aspirin, compared with patients who received aspirin and had a history of stroke, TIA, or TE event, reported Dr. Bahit, a chief of cardiology and director of clinical research at the INECO Foundation in Rosario, Argentina.

In general, the findings of the secondary analysis that took into account stroke, TIA, or TE history “confirmed” the main AUGUSTUS findings, Dr. Bahit said; an antithrombotic regimen of apixaban plus clopidogrel (or other P2Y12 inhibitor) without aspirin was superior for both efficacy and safety, compared with the alternative regimens that either substituted warfarin for apixaban or that added aspirin.

AUGUSTUS enrolled 4,614 atrial fibrillation (AFib) patients who either had a recent acute coronary syndrome (ACS) event or had recently undergone percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) at any of 492 sites in 33 countries during 2015-2018. The study’s primary endpoint was the incidence of major or clinically relevant minor bleeds after 6 months, which was significantly lower in the subgroups that received apixaban instead of warfarin and in patients who received placebo instead of aspirin. The secondary endpoint of death or hospitalization after 6 months was also significantly lower in the apixaban-treated patients, compared with those on warfarin, while the aspirin and placebo subgroups showed no difference in the incidence of these events (N Engl J Med. 2019 Apr 18;380[16]:1509-24).

The results reported by Dr. Bahit also highlighted both the high risk faced by patients with AFib who also have had an ACS event or PCI, as well as a prior stroke, TIA, or TE event, noted Larry B. Goldstein, MD, professor and chairman of neurology at the University of Kentucky, Lexington. “It’s difficult, because these patients had an ACS event or PCI, and you don’t want a coronary too close up, but do these patients really need a P2Y12 inhibitor plus an anticoagulant? Could these patients do as well on apixaban only? I would have liked to see that treatment arm in the study,” Dr. Goldstein commented in an interview.

“These are challenging patients because they often require anticoagulation for the AFib as well as antiplatelet agents” for the recent PCI or ACS event, commented Mitchell S.V. Elkind, MD, professor of neurology at Columbia University, New York. “The question has always been: How many blood thinners should these patients be on? Potentially they could be on three different agents [an anticoagulant and two antiplatelet drugs], and we know that all of those drugs together pretty dramatically increase the risk of bleeding. About 15% of the patients in the overall AUGUSTUS trial had either cerebrovascular disease or systemic thromboembolism, so this was a small subgroup of the overall trial, but the overall trial was large so it’s a significant number of patients who met this criteria. The results confirmed that even in a group of patients who may be considered at high risk because they have a prior history of cerebrovascular disease use of apixaban instead of warfarin seemed safer, and that those patients did not need to be on aspirin as well as their other antiplatelet agent. Patients with a history of stroke, in fact, had a lower risk of bleeding than the other patients in this trial, so one could argue that they should be on an agent like apixaban as well as an antiplatelet agent like clopidogrel without addition of aspirin,” he said in a recorded statement.

In addition to implications for using prescription drugs like apixaban and clopidogrel, the findings also send a message about the need for very aggressive implementation of lifestyle measures that can reduce cardiovascular disease risk in these patients, added Dr. Goldstein. The AUGUSTUS outcome analyses that subdivided the study population into those with a prior stroke, TIA, or TE event – 633 patients or about 14% of the 4,581 patients eligible for this analysis – and those who did not have this history showed the extremely high, incrementally elevated risk faced by patients with these prior events.

A history of stroke, TIA, or TE event linked with a jump in the 90-day rate of major or clinically relevant minor bleeds from 13% without this history to 17%, which is a 31% relative increase; it boosted the 90-day rate of death or hospitalization from 25% to 31%, a 24% relative increase; and it jacked up the rate of death or ischemic events from 6% to 9%, a 50% relative increase, Dr. Bahit reported.

These substantial increases “suggest we need to be very aggressive” in managing these high-risk patients who combine a background of AFib, a prior stroke, TIA, or TE events, and a recent ACS event or PCI, Dr. Goldstein observed. In these patients, he suggested that clinicians make sure to address smoking cessation, obesity, exercise, diet, and statin use, and get each of these to an optimal level to further cut risk. If all five of these basic interventions were successfully administered to a patient they could collectively cut the patient’s event risk by about 80%, he added.

AUGUSTUS was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer, the companies that jointly market apixaban. Dr. Bahit has received honoraria from Pfizer, and from CSL Behring and Merck. Dr. Elkind and Dr. Goldstein had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Bahit MC et al. ISC 2020, Abstract LB22.

LOS ANGELES – The edge that the direct-acting oral anticoagulant apixaban (Eliquis) has over warfarin for safely preventing ischemic events in patients with atrial fibrillation and either a recent acute coronary syndrome event or a recent percutaneous coronary intervention held up even in patients with a history of stroke, transient ischemic attack, or thromboembolic event, according to a prespecified secondary analysis of data collected in the AUGUSTUS trial.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The treatment advantages of apixaban, compared with warfarin, seen in the overall AUGUSTUS results, first reported in March 2019, “were consistent” with the benefits seen in the subgroup of enrolled patients with a prior stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), or thromboembolic (TE) event, M. Cecilia Bahit, MD, said at the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association.

All patients in AUGUSTUS received a P2Y12 inhibitor antiplatelet drug, which was clopidogrel for more than 90% of patients. The two-by-two factorial design of AUGUSTUS also assessed the safety and efficacy of either adding or withholding aspirin from the two-drug regimen that all patients in the study received with a P2Y12 inhibitor plus an anticoagulant (apixaban or warfarin). The most notable finding of the aspirin versus placebo analysis was that patients without a prior stroke, TIA, or TE event had a “more profound” increase in their rate of major or clinically relevant minor bleeds when also treated with aspirin, compared with patients who received aspirin and had a history of stroke, TIA, or TE event, reported Dr. Bahit, a chief of cardiology and director of clinical research at the INECO Foundation in Rosario, Argentina.

In general, the findings of the secondary analysis that took into account stroke, TIA, or TE history “confirmed” the main AUGUSTUS findings, Dr. Bahit said; an antithrombotic regimen of apixaban plus clopidogrel (or other P2Y12 inhibitor) without aspirin was superior for both efficacy and safety, compared with the alternative regimens that either substituted warfarin for apixaban or that added aspirin.

AUGUSTUS enrolled 4,614 atrial fibrillation (AFib) patients who either had a recent acute coronary syndrome (ACS) event or had recently undergone percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) at any of 492 sites in 33 countries during 2015-2018. The study’s primary endpoint was the incidence of major or clinically relevant minor bleeds after 6 months, which was significantly lower in the subgroups that received apixaban instead of warfarin and in patients who received placebo instead of aspirin. The secondary endpoint of death or hospitalization after 6 months was also significantly lower in the apixaban-treated patients, compared with those on warfarin, while the aspirin and placebo subgroups showed no difference in the incidence of these events (N Engl J Med. 2019 Apr 18;380[16]:1509-24).

The results reported by Dr. Bahit also highlighted both the high risk faced by patients with AFib who also have had an ACS event or PCI, as well as a prior stroke, TIA, or TE event, noted Larry B. Goldstein, MD, professor and chairman of neurology at the University of Kentucky, Lexington. “It’s difficult, because these patients had an ACS event or PCI, and you don’t want a coronary too close up, but do these patients really need a P2Y12 inhibitor plus an anticoagulant? Could these patients do as well on apixaban only? I would have liked to see that treatment arm in the study,” Dr. Goldstein commented in an interview.

“These are challenging patients because they often require anticoagulation for the AFib as well as antiplatelet agents” for the recent PCI or ACS event, commented Mitchell S.V. Elkind, MD, professor of neurology at Columbia University, New York. “The question has always been: How many blood thinners should these patients be on? Potentially they could be on three different agents [an anticoagulant and two antiplatelet drugs], and we know that all of those drugs together pretty dramatically increase the risk of bleeding. About 15% of the patients in the overall AUGUSTUS trial had either cerebrovascular disease or systemic thromboembolism, so this was a small subgroup of the overall trial, but the overall trial was large so it’s a significant number of patients who met this criteria. The results confirmed that even in a group of patients who may be considered at high risk because they have a prior history of cerebrovascular disease use of apixaban instead of warfarin seemed safer, and that those patients did not need to be on aspirin as well as their other antiplatelet agent. Patients with a history of stroke, in fact, had a lower risk of bleeding than the other patients in this trial, so one could argue that they should be on an agent like apixaban as well as an antiplatelet agent like clopidogrel without addition of aspirin,” he said in a recorded statement.

In addition to implications for using prescription drugs like apixaban and clopidogrel, the findings also send a message about the need for very aggressive implementation of lifestyle measures that can reduce cardiovascular disease risk in these patients, added Dr. Goldstein. The AUGUSTUS outcome analyses that subdivided the study population into those with a prior stroke, TIA, or TE event – 633 patients or about 14% of the 4,581 patients eligible for this analysis – and those who did not have this history showed the extremely high, incrementally elevated risk faced by patients with these prior events.

A history of stroke, TIA, or TE event linked with a jump in the 90-day rate of major or clinically relevant minor bleeds from 13% without this history to 17%, which is a 31% relative increase; it boosted the 90-day rate of death or hospitalization from 25% to 31%, a 24% relative increase; and it jacked up the rate of death or ischemic events from 6% to 9%, a 50% relative increase, Dr. Bahit reported.

These substantial increases “suggest we need to be very aggressive” in managing these high-risk patients who combine a background of AFib, a prior stroke, TIA, or TE events, and a recent ACS event or PCI, Dr. Goldstein observed. In these patients, he suggested that clinicians make sure to address smoking cessation, obesity, exercise, diet, and statin use, and get each of these to an optimal level to further cut risk. If all five of these basic interventions were successfully administered to a patient they could collectively cut the patient’s event risk by about 80%, he added.

AUGUSTUS was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer, the companies that jointly market apixaban. Dr. Bahit has received honoraria from Pfizer, and from CSL Behring and Merck. Dr. Elkind and Dr. Goldstein had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Bahit MC et al. ISC 2020, Abstract LB22.

LOS ANGELES – The edge that the direct-acting oral anticoagulant apixaban (Eliquis) has over warfarin for safely preventing ischemic events in patients with atrial fibrillation and either a recent acute coronary syndrome event or a recent percutaneous coronary intervention held up even in patients with a history of stroke, transient ischemic attack, or thromboembolic event, according to a prespecified secondary analysis of data collected in the AUGUSTUS trial.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The treatment advantages of apixaban, compared with warfarin, seen in the overall AUGUSTUS results, first reported in March 2019, “were consistent” with the benefits seen in the subgroup of enrolled patients with a prior stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), or thromboembolic (TE) event, M. Cecilia Bahit, MD, said at the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association.

All patients in AUGUSTUS received a P2Y12 inhibitor antiplatelet drug, which was clopidogrel for more than 90% of patients. The two-by-two factorial design of AUGUSTUS also assessed the safety and efficacy of either adding or withholding aspirin from the two-drug regimen that all patients in the study received with a P2Y12 inhibitor plus an anticoagulant (apixaban or warfarin). The most notable finding of the aspirin versus placebo analysis was that patients without a prior stroke, TIA, or TE event had a “more profound” increase in their rate of major or clinically relevant minor bleeds when also treated with aspirin, compared with patients who received aspirin and had a history of stroke, TIA, or TE event, reported Dr. Bahit, a chief of cardiology and director of clinical research at the INECO Foundation in Rosario, Argentina.

In general, the findings of the secondary analysis that took into account stroke, TIA, or TE history “confirmed” the main AUGUSTUS findings, Dr. Bahit said; an antithrombotic regimen of apixaban plus clopidogrel (or other P2Y12 inhibitor) without aspirin was superior for both efficacy and safety, compared with the alternative regimens that either substituted warfarin for apixaban or that added aspirin.

AUGUSTUS enrolled 4,614 atrial fibrillation (AFib) patients who either had a recent acute coronary syndrome (ACS) event or had recently undergone percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) at any of 492 sites in 33 countries during 2015-2018. The study’s primary endpoint was the incidence of major or clinically relevant minor bleeds after 6 months, which was significantly lower in the subgroups that received apixaban instead of warfarin and in patients who received placebo instead of aspirin. The secondary endpoint of death or hospitalization after 6 months was also significantly lower in the apixaban-treated patients, compared with those on warfarin, while the aspirin and placebo subgroups showed no difference in the incidence of these events (N Engl J Med. 2019 Apr 18;380[16]:1509-24).

The results reported by Dr. Bahit also highlighted both the high risk faced by patients with AFib who also have had an ACS event or PCI, as well as a prior stroke, TIA, or TE event, noted Larry B. Goldstein, MD, professor and chairman of neurology at the University of Kentucky, Lexington. “It’s difficult, because these patients had an ACS event or PCI, and you don’t want a coronary too close up, but do these patients really need a P2Y12 inhibitor plus an anticoagulant? Could these patients do as well on apixaban only? I would have liked to see that treatment arm in the study,” Dr. Goldstein commented in an interview.

“These are challenging patients because they often require anticoagulation for the AFib as well as antiplatelet agents” for the recent PCI or ACS event, commented Mitchell S.V. Elkind, MD, professor of neurology at Columbia University, New York. “The question has always been: How many blood thinners should these patients be on? Potentially they could be on three different agents [an anticoagulant and two antiplatelet drugs], and we know that all of those drugs together pretty dramatically increase the risk of bleeding. About 15% of the patients in the overall AUGUSTUS trial had either cerebrovascular disease or systemic thromboembolism, so this was a small subgroup of the overall trial, but the overall trial was large so it’s a significant number of patients who met this criteria. The results confirmed that even in a group of patients who may be considered at high risk because they have a prior history of cerebrovascular disease use of apixaban instead of warfarin seemed safer, and that those patients did not need to be on aspirin as well as their other antiplatelet agent. Patients with a history of stroke, in fact, had a lower risk of bleeding than the other patients in this trial, so one could argue that they should be on an agent like apixaban as well as an antiplatelet agent like clopidogrel without addition of aspirin,” he said in a recorded statement.

In addition to implications for using prescription drugs like apixaban and clopidogrel, the findings also send a message about the need for very aggressive implementation of lifestyle measures that can reduce cardiovascular disease risk in these patients, added Dr. Goldstein. The AUGUSTUS outcome analyses that subdivided the study population into those with a prior stroke, TIA, or TE event – 633 patients or about 14% of the 4,581 patients eligible for this analysis – and those who did not have this history showed the extremely high, incrementally elevated risk faced by patients with these prior events.

A history of stroke, TIA, or TE event linked with a jump in the 90-day rate of major or clinically relevant minor bleeds from 13% without this history to 17%, which is a 31% relative increase; it boosted the 90-day rate of death or hospitalization from 25% to 31%, a 24% relative increase; and it jacked up the rate of death or ischemic events from 6% to 9%, a 50% relative increase, Dr. Bahit reported.

These substantial increases “suggest we need to be very aggressive” in managing these high-risk patients who combine a background of AFib, a prior stroke, TIA, or TE events, and a recent ACS event or PCI, Dr. Goldstein observed. In these patients, he suggested that clinicians make sure to address smoking cessation, obesity, exercise, diet, and statin use, and get each of these to an optimal level to further cut risk. If all five of these basic interventions were successfully administered to a patient they could collectively cut the patient’s event risk by about 80%, he added.

AUGUSTUS was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer, the companies that jointly market apixaban. Dr. Bahit has received honoraria from Pfizer, and from CSL Behring and Merck. Dr. Elkind and Dr. Goldstein had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Bahit MC et al. ISC 2020, Abstract LB22.