| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Bosch, Jackie, et al.
(författare)
-
Lowering cholesterol, blood pressure, or both to prevent cardiovascular events : results of 8.7 years of follow-up of Heart Outcomes Evaluation Prevention (HOPE)-3 study participants
- 2021
-
Ingår i: European Heart Journal. - : Oxford University Press. - 0195-668X .- 1522-9645. ; 42:31, s. 2995-3007
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Aims: Rosuvastatin (10 mg per day) compared with placebo reduced major adverse cardiovascular (CV) events by 24% in 12 705 participants at intermediate CV risk after 5.6 years. There was no benefit of blood pressure (BP) lowering treatment in the overall group, but a reduction in events in the third of participants with elevated systolic BP. After cessation of all the trial medications, we examined whether the benefits observed during the active treatment phase were sustained, enhanced, or attenuated.Methods and results: After the randomized treatment period (5.6 years), participants were invited to participate in 3.1 further years of observation (total 8.7 years). The first co-primary outcome for the entire length of follow-up was the composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, or CV death [major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE)-1], and the second was MACE-1 plus resuscitated cardiac arrest, heart failure, or coronary revascularization (MACE-2). In total, 9326 (78%) of 11 994 surviving Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation (HOPE)-3 subjects consented to participate in extended follow-up. During 3.1 years of post-trial observation (total follow-up of 8.7 years), participants originally randomized to rosuvastatin compared with placebo had a 20% additional reduction in MACE-1 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.64-0.99] and a 17% additional reduction in MACE-2 (95% CI 0.68-1.01). Therefore, over the 8.7 years of follow-up, there was a 21% reduction in MACE-1 (95% CI 0.69-0.90, P = 0.005) and 21% reduction in MACE-2 (95% CI 0.69-0.89, P = 0.002). There was no benefit of BP lowering in the overall study either during the active or post-trial observation period, however, a 24% reduction in MACE-1 was observed over 8.Conclusion: The CV benefits of rosuvastatin, and BP lowering in those with elevated systolic BP, compared with placebo continue to accrue for at least 3 years after cessation of randomized treatment in individuals without cardiovascular disease indicating a legacy effect. [GRAPHICS] .
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Maron, David J., et al.
(författare)
-
Initial Invasive or Conservative Strategy for Stable Coronary Disease
- 2020
-
Ingår i: New England Journal of Medicine. - 0028-4793 .- 1533-4406. ; 382:15, s. 1395-1407
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain.Methods: We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction.Results: Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, -1.8 percentage points; 95% CI, -4.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32).Conclusions: Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; ISCHEMIA ClinicalTrials.gov number, .) Patients with stable coronary disease were randomly assigned to an initial invasive strategy with angiography and revascularization if appropriate or to medical therapy alone. At 3.2 years, there was no significant difference between the groups with respect to the estimated rate of ischemic events. The findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction.
|
|
| 7. |
- De Caterina, Raffaele, et al.
(författare)
-
Heterogeneity of diabetes as a risk factor for major adverse cardiovascular events in anticoagulated patients with atrial fibrillation : an analysis of the ARISTOTLE trial.
- 2020
-
Ingår i: European Heart Journal - Cardiovascular Pharmacotherapy. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 2055-6837 .- 2055-6845. ; 8:3, s. 227-235
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- AIMS: Whether diabetes without insulin therapy is an independent cardiovascular (CV) risk factor in atrial fibrillation (AF) has recently been questioned. We investigated the prognostic relevance of diabetes with or without insulin treatment in patients in the ARISTOTLE trial.METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with AF and increased stroke risk randomized to apixaban vs. warfarin were classified according to diabetes status: no diabetes; diabetes on no diabetes medications; diabetes on non-insulin antidiabetic drugs only; or insulin-treated. The associations between such patient subgroups and stroke/systemic embolism (SE), myocardial infarction (MI), and CV death were examined by Cox proportional hazard regression, both unadjusted and adjusted for other prognostic variables. Patients with diabetes were younger and had a higher body mass index. Median CHA2DS2VASc score was 4.0 in patients with diabetes and 3.0 in patients without diabetes. We found no significant difference in stroke/SE incidence across patient subgroups. Compared with no diabetes, only insulin-treated diabetes was significantly associated with higher risk. When adjusted for clinical variables, compared with no diabetes, the hazard ratios (HRs) for MI (95% confidence intervals) were for diabetes on no medication: 1.15 (0.62-2.14); for diabetes on non-insulin antidiabetic drugs: 1.32 (0.90-1.94); for insulin-treated diabetes: 2.34 (1.43-3.82); interaction P = 0.008. HRs for CV death were for diabetes on no medication: 1.19 (0.86-166); for diabetes on non-insulin antidiabetic drugs: 1.12 (0.88-1.42); for insulin-treated diabetes 1.85 (1.36-2.53), interaction P = 0.001.CONCLUSION: In anticoagulated patients with AF, a higher risk of MI and CV death is largely confined to diabetes treated with insulin.
|
|
| 8. |
- Reynolds, Harmony R., et al.
(författare)
-
Outcomes in the ISCHEMIA Trial Based on Coronary Artery Disease and Ischemia Severity
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Circulation. - : Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. - 0009-7322 .- 1524-4539. ; 144:13, s. 1024-1038
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: The ISCHEMIA trial (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches) postulated that patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) and moderate or severe ischemia would benefit from revascularization. We investigated the relationship between severity of CAD and ischemia and trial outcomes, overall and by management strategy.METHODS: In total, 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia were randomized to an initial invasive or conservative management strategy. Blinded, core laboratory-interpreted coronary computed tomographic angiography was used to assess anatomic eligibility for randomization. Extent and severity of CAD were classified with the modified Duke Prognostic Index (n=2475, 48%). Ischemia severity was interpreted by independent core laboratories (nuclear, echocardiography, magnetic resonance imaging, exercise tolerance testing, n=5105, 99%). We compared 4-year event rates across subgroups defined by severity of ischemia and CAD. The primary end point for this analysis was all-cause mortality. Secondary end points were myocardial infarction (MI), cardiovascular death or MI, and the trial primary end point (cardiovascular death, MI, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest).RESULTS: Relative to mild/no ischemia, neither moderate ischemia nor severe ischemia was associated with increased mortality (moderate ischemia hazard ratio [HR], 0.89 [95% CI, 0.61-1.30]; severe ischemia HR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.57-1.21]; P=0.33). Nonfatal MI rates increased with worsening ischemia severity (HR for moderate ischemia, 1.20 [95% CI, 0.86-1.69] versus mild/no ischemia; HR for severe ischemia, 1.37 [95% CI, 0.98-1.91]; P=0.04 for trend, P=NS after adjustment for CAD). Increasing CAD severity was associated with death (HR, 2.72 [95% CI, 1.06-6.98]) and MI (HR, 3.78 [95% CI, 1.63-8.78]) for the most versus least severe CAD subgroup. Ischemia severity did not identify a subgroup with treatment benefit on mortality, MI, the trial primary end point, or cardiovascular death or MI. In the most severe CAD subgroup (n=659), the 4-year rate of cardiovascular death or MI was lower in the invasive strategy group (difference, 6.3% [95% CI, 0.2%-12.4%]), but 4-year all-cause mortality was similar.CONCLUSIONS: Ischemia severity was not associated with increased risk after adjustment for CAD severity. More severe CAD was associated with increased risk. Invasive management did not lower all-cause mortality at 4 years in any ischemia or CAD subgroup.
|
|
