| 1. |
- Ekerstad, Niklas, et al.
(författare)
-
Clinical Frailty Scale classes are independently associated with 6-month mortality for patients after acute myocardial infarction
- 2022
-
Ingår i: European Heart Journal. - : Oxford University Press. - 2048-8726 .- 2048-8734. ; 11:2, s. 89-98
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Aims: Data on the prognostic value of frailty to guide clinical decision-making for patients with myocardial infarction (MI) are scarce. To analyse the association between frailty classification, treatment patterns, in-hospital outcomes, and 6-month mortality in a large population of patients with MI.Methods and results: An observational, multicentre study with a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data using the SWEDEHEART registry. In total, 3381 MI patients with a level of frailty assessed using the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS-9) were included. Of these patients, 2509 (74.2%) were classified as non-vulnerable non-frail (CFS 1–3), 446 (13.2%) were vulnerable non-frail (CFS 4), and 426 (12.6%) were frail (CFS 5–9). Frailty and non-frail vulnerability were associated with worse in-hospital outcomes compared with non-frailty, i.e. higher rates of mortality (13.4% vs. 4.0% vs. 1.8%), cardiogenic shock (4.7% vs. 2.5% vs. 1.9%), and major bleeding (4.5% vs. 2.7% vs. 1.1%) (allP < 0.001), and less frequent use of evidence-based therapies. In Cox regression analyses, frailty was strongly and independently associated with 6-month mortality compared with non-frailty, after adjustment for age, sex, the GRACE risk score components, and other potential risk factors [hazard ratio (HR) 3.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.30–4.79]. A similar pattern was seen for vulnerable non-frail patients (fully adjusted HR 2.07, 95% CI1.41–3.02).Conclusion: Frailty assessed with the CFS was independently and strongly associated with all-cause 6-month mortality, also after comprehensive adjustment for baseline differences in other risk factors. Similarly, non-frail vulnerability was independently associated with higher mortality compared with those with preserved functional ability.
|
|
| 2. |
- Fanaroff, Alexander C., et al.
(författare)
-
Frequency, Regional Variation, and Predictors of Undetermined Cause of Death in Cardiometabolic Clinical Trials : A Pooled Analysis of 9259 Deaths in 9 Trials
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Circulation. - 0009-7322 .- 1524-4539. ; 139:7, s. 863-873
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Modern cardiometabolic clinical trials often include cardiovascular death as a component of a composite primary outcome, requiring central adjudication by a clinical events committee to classify cause of death. However, sometimes the cause of death cannot be determined from available data. The US Food and Drug Administration has indicated that this circumstance should occur only rarely, but its prevalence has not been formally assessed. METHODS: Data from 9 global clinical trials (2009-2017) with long-term follow-up and blinded, centrally adjudicated cause of death were used to calculate the proportion of deaths attributed to cardiovascular, noncardiovascular, or undetermined causes by therapeutic area (diabetes mellitus/pre-diabetes mellitus, stable atherosclerosis, atrial fibrillation, and acute coronary syndrome), region of patient enrollment, and year of trial manuscript publication. Patient-and trial-level variables associated with undetermined cause of death were identified using a logistic model. RESULTS: Across 127 049 enrolled participants from 9 trials, there were 9259 centrally adjudicated deaths: 5012 (54.1%) attributable to cardiovascular causes, 2800 (30.2%) attributable to noncardiovascular causes, and 1447 (15.6%) attributable to undetermined causes. There was variability in the proportion of deaths ascribed to undetermined causes by trial therapeutic area, region of enrollment, and year of trial manuscript publication. On multivariable analysis, acute coronary syndrome or atrial fibrillation trial (versus atherosclerotic vascular disease or diabetes mellitus/pre-diabetes mellitus), longer time from enrollment to death, more recent trial manuscript publication year, enrollment in North America (versus Western Europe), female sex, and older age were associated with greater likelihood of death of undetermined cause. CONCLUSIONS: In 9 cardiometabolic clinical trials with long-term followup, approximately 16% of deaths had undetermined causes. This provides a baseline for quality assessment of clinical trials and informs operational efforts to potentially reduce the frequency of undetermined deaths in future clinical research.
|
|
| 3. |
- Guimarães, Patrícia O, et al.
(författare)
-
Clinical features and outcomes of patients with type 2 myocardial infarction : Insights from the Thrombin Receptor Antagonist for Clinical Event Reduction in Acute Coronary Syndrome (TRACER) trial
- 2018
-
Ingår i: American Heart Journal. - : Elsevier BV. - 0002-8703 .- 1097-6744. ; 196, s. 28-35
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Type 2 myocardial infarction (MI) is characterized by an imbalance between myocardial blood supply and demand, leading to myocardial ischemia without coronary plaque rupture, but its diagnosis is challenging.METHODS: In the TRACER trial, patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes were included. We aimed to describe provoking factors, cardiac biomarker profiles, treatment patterns, and clinical outcomes of patients with type 2 MIs. MI events during trial follow-up were adjudicated by an independent clinical events classification committee (CEC) and were classified according to the Third Universal Definition of MI. Using available source documents retrieved as part of the CEC process, we performed a retrospective chart abstraction to collect details on the type 2 MIs. Cox regression models were used to explore the association between MI type (type 1 or type 2) and cardiovascular death.RESULTS: Overall, 10.3% (n=1327) of TRACER participants had a total of 1579 adjudicated MIs during a median follow-up of 502 days (25th and 75th percentiles [IQR] 349-667). Of all MIs, 5.2% (n=82) were CEC-adjudicated type 2 MIs, occurring in 76 patients. The incidence of type 2 MI was higher in the first month following randomization, after which the distribution became more scattered. The most frequent potential provoking factors for type 2 MIs were tachyarrhythmias (38.2%), anemia/bleeding (21.1%), hypotension/shock (14.5%), and hypertensive emergencies (11.8%). Overall, 36.3% had a troponin increase >10× the upper limit of normal. Coronary angiography was performed in 22.4% (n=17) of patients during hospitalizations due to type 2 MIs. The hazard of cardiovascular death was numerically higher following type 2 MI (vs. no MI, adj. HR 11.82, 95% CI 5.71-24.46; P<.0001) than that of type 1 MI (vs. no MI, adj. HR 8.90, 95% CI 6.93-11.43; P<.0001).CONCLUSIONS: Type 2 MIs were more prevalent in the first month after ACS, were characterized by the presence of triggers and infrequent use of an invasive strategy, and were associated with a high risk of death. Further efforts are needed to better define the role and implications of type 2 MI in both clinical practice and research.
|
|
| 4. |
- Mark, Daniel B., et al.
(författare)
-
Comprehensive Quality-of-Life Outcomes With Invasive Versus Conservative Management of Chronic Coronary Disease in ISCHEMIA
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Circulation. - : Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health). - 0009-7322 .- 1524-4539. ; 145:17, s. 1294-1307
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches) compared an initial invasive treatment strategy (INV) with an initial conservative strategy in 5179 participants with chronic coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia. The ISCHEMIA research program included a comprehensive quality-of-life (QOL) substudy.METHODS: In 1819 participants (907 INV, 912 conservative strategy), we collected a battery of disease-specific and generic QOL instruments by structured interviews at baseline; at 3, 12, 24, and 36 months postrandomization; and at study closeout. Assessments included angina-related QOL (19-item Seattle Angina Questionnaire), generic health status (EQ-5D), depressive symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire-8), and, for North American patients, cardiac functional status (Duke Activity Status Index).RESULTS: Median age was 67 years, 19.2% were female, and 15.9% were non-White. The estimated mean difference for the 19-item Seattle Angina Questionnaire Summary score favored INV (1.4 points [95% CI, 0.2-2.5] over all follow-up). No differences were observed in patients with rare/absent baseline angina (SAQ Angina Frequency score >80). Among patients with more frequent angina at baseline (SAQ Angina Frequency score <80, 744 patients, 41%), those randomly assigned to INV had a mean 3.7-point higher 19-item Seattle Angina Questionnaire Summary score than conservative strategy (95% CI, 1.6-5.8) with consistent effects across SAQ subscales: Physical Limitations 3.2 points (95% CI, 0.2-6.1), Angina Frequency 3.2 points (95% CI, 1.2-5.1), Quality of Life/Health Perceptions 5.3 points (95% CI, 2.8-7.8). For the Duke Activity Status Index, no difference was estimated overall by treatment, but in patients with baseline SAQ Angina Frequency scores <80, Duke Activity Status Index scores were higher for INV (3.2 points [95% CI, 0.6-5.7]), whereas patients with rare/absent baseline angina showed no treatment-related differences. Moderate to severe depression was infrequent at randomization (11.5%-12.8%) and was unaffected by treatment assignment.CONCLUSIONS: In the ISCHEMIA comprehensive QOL substudy, patients with more frequent baseline angina reported greater improvements in the symptom, physical functioning, and psychological well-being dimensions of QOL when treated with an invasive strategy, whereas patients who had rare/absent angina at baseline reported no consistent treatment-related QOL differences.
|
|
| 5. |
- 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.
|
|
| 6. |
- Nguyen, Dan D., et al.
(författare)
-
Health Status and Clinical Outcomes in Older Adults With Chronic Coronary Disease
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Journal of the American College of Cardiology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0735-1097 .- 1558-3597. ; 81:17, s. 1697-1709
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Whether initial invasive management in older vs younger adults with chronic coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia improves health status or clinical outcomes is unknown. OBJECTIVES The goal of this study was to examine the impact of age on health status and clinical outcomes with invasive vs conservative management in the ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches) trial.METHODS: One-year angina-specific health status was assessed with the 7-item Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) (score range 0-100; higher scores indicate better health status). Cox proportional hazards models estimated the treatment effect of invasive vs conservative management as a function of age on the composite clinical outcome of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for resuscitated cardiac arrest, unstable angina, or heart failure.RESULTS: Among 4,617 participants, 2,239 (48.5%) were aged <65 years, 1,713 (37.1%) were aged 65 to 74 years, and 665 (14.4%) were aged $75 years. Baseline SAQ summary scores were lower in participants aged <65 years. Fully adjusted differences in 1-year SAQ summary scores (invasive minus conservative) were 4.90 (95% CI: 3.56-6.24) at age 55 years, 3.48 (95% CI: 2.40-4.57) at age 65 years, and 2.13 (95% CI: 0.75-3.51) at age 75 years (Pinteraction = 0.008). Improvement in SAQ Angina Frequency was less dependent on age (Pinteraction = 0.08). There were no age differences between invasive vs conservative management on the composite clinical outcome (Pinteraction = 0.29).CONCLUSIONS: Older patients with chronic coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia had consistent improvement in angina frequency but less improvement in angina-related health status with invasive management compared with younger patients. Invasive management was not associated with improved clinical outcomes in older or younger patients.
|
|
| 7. |
- Reynolds, Harmony R., et al.
(författare)
-
Sex Differences in Revascularization, Treatment Goals, and Outcomes of Patients With Chronic Coronary Disease : Insights From the ISCHEMIA Trial
- 2024
-
Ingår i: Journal of the American Heart Association. - : John Wiley & Sons. - 2047-9980. ; 13:5
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BackgroundWomen with chronic coronary disease are generally older than men and have more comorbidities but less atherosclerosis. We explored sex differences in revascularization, guideline‐directed medical therapy, and outcomes among patients with chronic coronary disease with ischemia on stress testing, with and without invasive management.Methods and ResultsThe ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches) trial randomized patients with moderate or severe ischemia to invasive management with angiography, revascularization, and guideline‐directed medical therapy, or initial conservative management with guideline‐directed medical therapy alone. We evaluated the primary outcome (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest) and other end points, by sex, in 1168 (22.6%) women and 4011 (77.4%) men. Invasive group catheterization rates were similar, with less revascularization among women (73.4% of invasive‐assigned women revascularized versus 81.2% of invasive‐assigned men; P<0.001). Women had less coronary artery disease: multivessel in 60.0% of invasive‐assigned women and 74.8% of invasive‐assigned men, and no ≥50% stenosis in 12.3% versus 4.5% (P<0.001). In the conservative group, 4‐year catheterization rates were 26.3% of women versus 25.6% of men (P=0.72). Guideline‐directed medical therapy use was lower among women with fewer risk factor goals attained. There were no sex differences in the primary outcome (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] for women versus men, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.77–1.13]; P=0.47) or the major secondary outcome of cardiovascular death/myocardial infarction (adjusted HR, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.76–1.14]; P=0.49), with no significant sex‐by‐treatment‐group interactions.ConclusionsWomen had less extensive coronary artery disease and, therefore, lower revascularization rates in the invasive group. Despite lower risk factor goal attainment, women with chronic coronary disease experienced similar risk‐adjusted outcomes to men in the ISCHEMIA trial.
|
|
| 8. |
- Sharma, Abhinav, et al.
(författare)
-
Clinical Events Classification (CEC) in Clinical Trials : Report on the Current Landscape and Future Directions - Proceedings from the CEC Summit 2018
- 2022
-
Ingår i: American Heart Journal. - : Elsevier. - 0002-8703 .- 1097-6744. ; 246, s. 93-104
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Importance: Clinical events adjudication is pivotal for generating consistent and comparable evidence in clinical trials. The methodology of event adjudication is evolving, but research is needed to develop best practices and spur innovation.Observations: A meeting of stakeholders from regulatory agencies, academic and contract research organizations, pharmaceutical and device companies, and clinical trialists convened in Chicago, IL, for Clinical Events Classification (CEC) Summit 2018 to discuss key topics and future directions. Formal studies are lacking on strategies to optimize CEC conduct, improve efficiency, minimize cost, and generally increase the speed and accuracy of the event adjudication process. Major challenges to CEC discussed included ensuring rigorous quality of the process, identifying safety events, standardizing event definitions, using uniform strategies for missing information, facilitating interactions between CEC members and other trial leadership, and determining the CEC's role in pragmatic trials or trials using real-world data. Consensus recommendations from the meeting include the following: 1) ensure an adequate adjudication infrastructure; 2) use negatively adjudicated events to identify important safety events reported only outside the scope of the primary endpoint; 3) conduct further research in the use of artificial intelligence and digital/mobile technologies to streamline adjudication processes; and 4) emphasize the importance of standardizing event definitions and quality metrics of CEC programs.Conclusions and Relevance: As novel strategies for clinical trials emerge to generate evidence for regulatory approval and to guide clinical practice, a greater understanding of the role of the CEC process will be critical to optimize trial conduct and increase confidence in the data generated.
|
|
