Search

Background: Acute heart failure (AHF) is a leading cause of hospitalization and mortality - especially in patients aged≥65 years in high-income countries - and represents a high healthcare burden. In the past decade, the epidemiology and management of heart failure (HF) has changed, with the emergence of new medical and interventional therapeutics, but up-to-date real-life data are scarce., Aims: The main objectives are to describe baseline characteristics (with an emphasis on lifestyle, cognitive status, HF knowledge and treatment adherence), management, and in-hospital and mid-term outcomes of AHF patients in France. Secondary objectives are to investigate determinants of prognosis, modalities of treatment and follow-up, and identify gaps between guidelines and real-life management., Methods: OFICA2 is a prospective multicentre observational survey that enrolled 1513 patients hospitalized for AHF in 80 participating centres in France during March and April 2021. The diagnosis of AHF was made according to the European Society of Cardiology guidelines definition. Inclusion criteria were age≥18years, health coverage and consent to participate. Detailed information was collected prospectively starting at admission. Thanks to direct linking with the French National Health Database, the anteriority up to 2years before inclusion, as well as a 3-year follow-up is specified for each patient and includes individual information on death, hospital admissions, major clinical events, drug delivery and use of reimbursed health resources., Conclusion: This cohort provides a representative snapshot on contemporary AHF, with a particular focus on self-care determinants, and will improve knowledge about AHF presentation, management and outcomes., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.)

Background: Despite major advances in prevention and treatment, cardiovascular diseases - particularly acute myocardial infarction - remain a leading cause of death worldwide and in France. Collecting contemporary data about the characteristics, management and outcomes of patients with acute myocardial infarction in France is important., Aims: The main objectives are to describe baseline characteristics, contemporary management, in-hospital and long-term outcomes of patients with acute myocardial infarction hospitalized in tertiary care centres in France; secondary objectives are to investigate determinants of prognosis (including periodontal disease and sleep-disordered breathing), to identify gaps between evidence-based recommendations and management and to assess medical care costs for the index hospitalization and during the follow-up period., Methods: FRENCHIE (FRENch CoHort of myocardial Infarction Evaluation) is an ongoing prospective multicentre observational study (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04050956) enrolling more than 19,000 patients hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction with onset of symptoms within 48hours in 35 participating centres in France since March 2019. Main exclusion criteria are age<18 years, lack of health coverage and procedure-related myocardial infarction (types 4a and 5). Detailed information was collected prospectively, starting at admission, including demographic data, risk factors, medical history and treatments, initial management, with prehospital care pathways and medication doses, and outcomes until hospital discharge. The follow-up period (up to 20 years for each patient) is ensured by linking with the French national health database (Système national des données de santé), and includes information on death, hospital admissions, major clinical events, healthcare consumption (including drug reimbursement) and total healthcare costs. FRENCHIE is also used as a platform for cohort-nested studies - currently three randomized trials and two observational studies., Conclusions: This nationwide large contemporary cohort with very long-term follow-up will improve knowledge about acute myocardial infarction management and outcomes in France, and provide a useful platform for nested studies and trials., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Background: Conflicting data exist on the association between consumption of coffee or tea and cardiovascular outcomes, and few focus on patients with established coronary artery disease., Aim: To describe the association between coffee or tea consumption and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with stable coronary artery disease, using an extensive contemporary international registry, allowing the identification of multiple potential confounders., Methods: The Prospective Observational Longitudinal Registry of Patients With Stable Coronary Artery Disease (CLARIFY) registry enrolled in 2009 and 2010 in 45 countries, with a 5-year follow-up. Patients were categorized according to daily consumption of coffee or tea, and were compared with those declaring neither. The primary composite outcome of myocardial infarction, stroke or cardiovascular death was analysed at 5years, as well as all-cause mortality. Sensitivity analyses were performed with a multivariable model., Results: A total of 15,459 and 10,029 patients declared coffee or tea consumption, respectively. At 5years, after full adjustment, no association was found between coffee consumption and the primary outcome: hazard ratio 1.04 (95% confidence interval 0.89-1.21) for 1 cup; 0.94 (0.82-1.08) for 2-3 cups; and 1.04 (0.86-1.27) for ≥4 cups (P=0.51). Drinking tea was not associated with a different incidence of the primary outcome before or after adjustment, with fully adjusted hazard ratios of 1.08 (95% confidence interval 0.84-1.38) for 1 cup, 1.12 (0.96-1.31) for 2-3 cups and 0.95 (0.79-1.14) for ≥4 cups (P=0.30). After full adjustment, neither coffee nor tea drinking was associated with all-cause mortality., Conclusions: In outpatients with stable coronary artery disease, there was no association between coffee or tea consumption and ischaemic outcomes or all-cause mortality., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Background: Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging may provide a non-invasive alternative to coronary angiography for differentiating between ischaemic and non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy in cases of unexplained reduced left ventricular ejection fraction., Aim: The CAMAREC study aims to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging in predicting significant coronary artery disease in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, using coronary angiography as the gold standard for comparison., Methods: CAMAREC is a prospective cohort study of 406 patients in 10 centres with newly diagnosed, unexplained left ventricular ejection fraction ≤ 45%. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging and coronary angiography will be conducted within a 2-week interval, starting with cardiac magnetic resonance imaging; independent committees will review the results blindly. Primary outcome is sensitivity of detecting ischaemic scar on cardiac magnetic resonance imaging for predicting significant coronary artery disease on coronary angiography according to Felker's criteria. Secondary outcomes include specificity and positive and negative predictive values (with 95% confidence intervals) of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging for predicting significant coronary artery disease in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, kappa concordance coefficient between cardiac magnetic resonance imaging and coronary angiography for diagnosing the affected myocardial territory, and the impact of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging on revascularization decisions. Two ancillary studies will evaluate the incremental cost-effectiveness of using cardiac magnetic resonance imaging first versus coronary angiography first, and the sensitivity of pre- and postcontrast T1-mapping for predicting significant coronary artery disease in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction., Conclusion: Our study protocol is designed to rigorously evaluate cardiac magnetic resonance imaging as a non-invasive alternative to coronary angiography in patients with unexplained reduced left ventricular ejection fraction. The results will have significant implications for patient management, and may support growing evidence for the clinical utility of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Background: Transcatheter mitral valve implantation (TMVI) may be attractive to treat high-risk patients with mitral bioprosthesis or annuloplasty ring failure or severe mitral annular calcification., Aim: To report the outcomes of patients after valve-in-valve/ring/mitral annular calcification TMVI using balloon expandable transcatheter aortic valves, according to the degree of urgency of the procedure., Methods: All patients who underwent TMVI in our centre from 2010 to 2021 were classified into three groups: elective, urgent or emergent/salvage TMVI., Results: A total of 157 patients were included: 129 (82.2%) had elective, 21 (13.4%) urgent and 7 (4.4%) had emergent/salvage TMVI. Patients with emergent/salvage TMVI had a higher EuroSCORE II: elective, 7.3%; urgent, 9.7%; emergent/salvage, 54.5% (P<0.0001). The indication for TMVI was bioprosthesis failure in all of the emergent/salvage group, in 13 of the urgent group (61.9%) and in 62 of the elective group (48.1%). Overall, the technical success rate of TMVI was 86%, and was similar in the three groups (elective, 86.1%; urgent, 95.2%; emergent/salvage, 71.4%). The cumulative survival rate at 2-year follow-up was lower in the emergent/salvage group than in the elective or urgent group (42.9% vs 71.2% for the elective group; 76.2% for the urgent group; log-rank test, P=0.012). The excess mortality in the emergent/salvage group occurred during the first month postprocedure. Thereafter, the 30-day landmark analysis did not show any more statistical difference between the three groups (log-rank test, P=0.94)., Conclusions: Emergent/salvage TMVI was associated with high early mortality, but 1-month survivors had similar outcomes to patients with elective/urgent TMVI. The degree of urgency of the procedure should not prevent TMVI in high-risk patients., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Background: In patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease, percutaneous coronary intervention for non-culprit lesions is superior to treatment of the culprit lesion alone. The optimal timing for non-infarct-related artery revascularization - immediate versus staged - has not been investigated adequately., Aim: We aimed to assess clinical outcomes at 1 year in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction with multivessel disease using immediate versus staged non-infarct-related artery revascularization., Methods: Outcomes were analysed in patients from the randomized FLOWER-MI trial, in whom, after successful primary percutaneous coronary intervention, non-culprit lesions were assessed using fractional flow reserve or angiography during the index procedure or during a staged procedure during the initial hospital stay, ≤5 days after the index procedure. The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction and unplanned hospitalization with urgent revascularization at 1year., Results: Among 1171 patients enrolled in this study, 1119 (96.2%) had complete revascularization performed during a staged procedure, and 44 (3.8%) at the time of primary percutaneous coronary intervention. During follow-up, a primary outcome event occurred in one of the patients (2.3%) with an immediate strategy and in 55 patients (4.9%) with a staged strategy (adjusted hazard ratio 1.44, 95% confidence interval 0.39-12.69; P=0.64)., Conclusions: Staged non-infarct-related artery complete revascularization was the strategy preferred by investigators in practice in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction with multivessel disease. This strategy was not superior to immediate revascularization, which, in the context of this trial, was used in a small proportion of patients. Further randomized studies are needed to confirm these observational findings., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Background: Few data are available on procedural complications of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the setting of acute coronary syndrome in the contemporary era., Aim: We sought to describe the prevalence of procedural complications of PCI in a non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE ACS) cohort, and to identify their clinical characteristics and association with clinical outcomes., Methods: Patients randomized in TAO (Treatment of Acute coronary syndrome with Otamixaban), an international randomized controlled trial (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01076764) that compared otamixaban with unfractionated heparin plus eptifibatide in patients with NSTE ACS who underwent PCI, were included in the analysis. Procedural complications were collected prospectively, categorized and adjudicated by a blinded Clinical Events Committee, with review of angiograms. A multivariable model was constructed to identify independent clinical characteristics associated with procedural complications., Results: A total of 8656 patients with NSTE ACS who were enrolled in the TAO trial underwent PCI, and 451 (5.2%) experienced at least one complication. The most frequent complications were no/slow reflow (1.5%) and dissection with decreased flow (1.2%). Procedural complications were associated with the 7-day ischaemic outcome of death, myocardial infarction or stroke (24.2% vs. 6.0%, odds ratio 5.01, 95% confidence interval 3.96-6.33; P<0.0001) and with Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction major and minor bleeding (6.2% vs. 2.3%, odds ratio 2.79, 95% confidence interval 1.86-4.2; P<0.0001). Except for previous coronary artery bypass grafting, multivariable analysis did not identify preprocedural clinical predictors of complications., Conclusions: In a contemporary NSTE ACS population, procedural complications with PCI remain frequent, are difficult to predict based on clinical characteristics, and are associated with worse ischaemic and haemorrhagic outcomes., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.)

Background: Cardiac rehabilitation is strongly recommended in patients after acute myocardial infarction., Aims: To assess cardiac rehabilitation prescription after acute myocardial infarction according to predicted risk, and its association with 1-year mortality, using the FAST-MI registries., Methods: We used data from three 1-month French nationwide registries, conducted 5 years apart from 2005 to 2015, including 13130 patients with acute myocardial infarction admitted to coronary or intensive care units. Atherothrombotic risk stratification was performed using the Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction Risk Score for Secondary Prevention (TRS-2P). Patients were classified into three categories: Group 1 (low risk; no or one risk indicator; score of 0 or 1); Group 2 (intermediate risk; two risk indicators; score of 2); and Group 3 (high risk; at least three risk indicators; score of≥3)., Results: Among the 12291 patients, cardiac rehabilitation prescription was 43.6% (49.9% in Group 1; 43.0% in Group 2; 35.2% in Group 3). Using Cox multivariable analysis, cardiac rehabilitation prescription was associated with lower mortality at 1 year in the overall population (3.8% vs. 8.2%; hazard ratio [HR] 0.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.61-0.85; P<0.001). Cardiac rehabilitation was associated with improved 1-year mortality, with homogeneous relative risk reductions in low- and intermediate-risk categories (HR 0.70, 95% CI 0.51-0.94) compared with high-risk patients (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59-0.88). In absolute terms, however, mortality decrease associated with cardiac rehabilitation was positively correlated with risk level (Group 1, 0.9% vs. 2.4%; Group 2, 3.0% vs. 4.2%; Group 3, 10.5% vs. 17.3%)., Conclusion: Cardiac rehabilitation prescription was inversely correlated with patient risk. A positive association between cardiac rehabilitation and 1-year survival after acute myocardial infarction was present whatever the risk level, but the greatest mortality reduction was observed in high-risk patients., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common arrhythmia worldwide, and its prevalence is expected to increase with population ageing. The use of vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) for the prevention of stroke and/or systemic embolism in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) was recently challenged by non-VKA oral anticoagulants (NOACs), demonstrating a favourable risk-benefit profile, with reductions in stroke, intracranial haemorrhage and mortality, similar major bleeding, but increased gastrointestinal bleeding. Nevertheless, data on their use in a "real-life" setting are scarce for France., Aims: To compare the characteristics of patients with AF newly anticoagulated with either VKAs or NOACs, to describe the reasons for discontinuing the previous anticoagulant strategy and/or choosing the newly initiated anticoagulant treatment, and to precisely describe the prescriptions of patients newly initiated with apixaban., Methods: This is a nationwide multicentre non-interventional cross-sectional study conducted in patients with AF by a representative stratified sample of cardiologists in France. Over a 12-month accrual period, consecutive patients aged ≥18 years with NVAF, for whom anticoagulant treatment (VKAs or NOACs) has been initiated within the last three months before the index consultation, will be included. The primary outcome will be the comparison of anticoagulant-naïve patient characteristics, co-morbidities and treatment history among the anticoagulant subgroups. Secondary endpoints will include a description of the reasons for discontinuing the previous anticoagulant strategy and/or for initiating and choosing the newly initiated anticoagulant treatment, as well as the prescription conditions of apixaban., Conclusion: The PAROS study will provide real-life data on the characteristics of NVAF patients and their anticoagulant prescription in France., (Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.)

Cardiovascular disease is still the main cause of death in the world, and coronary artery disease is the largest contributor. Screening asymptomatic individuals for coronary artery disease in view of preventive treatment is therefore of crucial interest. Apart from established risk scores based on traditional risk factors such as the Framingham or SCORE risk scores, new biomarkers and imaging methods have emerged (high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, lipoprotein-associated phospholipase A2 and secretory phospholipase A2, coronary artery calcium score, carotid intima-media thickness and ankle-brachial index). Their added value on top of the classic risk scores varies considerably and the most convincing evidence exists for coronary artery calcium score in intermediate-risk asymptomatic individuals., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Patients with coronary artery disease and a history of stroke account for as many as one in eight of all patients with coronary artery disease, and they are at higher risk of ischaemic events than patients with 'lone' coronary artery disease. It is therefore tempting to increase the potency of antithrombotic treatment in this patient subset. However, these patients are also at greater risk of intracranial haemorrhage. In recent trials of new antithrombotic agents in acute coronary syndromes, patients with a history of cerebrovascular disease derived no clinical benefit from (and were even harmed by) the potent novel antithrombotic agents, with an increased risk of intracranial haemorrhage. However, this risk did not appear to be uniform: it was higher in patients with a history of stroke than in those with a history of transient ischaemic attack, and appeared to be largely confined to the first year after stroke/transient ischaemic attack. Specific strategies to optimize the benefit/risk ratio of antithrombotic agents in this relatively common patient group should be developed and evaluated., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

The Diabetes and Cardiovascular Disease study group of the Société francophone du diabète (SFD, French Society of Diabetes) in collaboration with the Société française de cardiologie (SFC, French Society of Cardiology) have devised a consensus statement on the care of the hyperglycaemic/diabetic patient during and in the immediate follow-up of acute coronary syndrome (ACS); in particular, it includes the different phases of ACS [the intensive care unit (ICU) period, the post-ICU period and the short-term follow-up period after discharge, including cardiac rehabilitation] and also embraces all of the various diagnostic and therapeutic issues with a view to optimizing the collaboration between cardiologists and diabetologists. As regards diagnosis, subjects with HbA(1c) greater or equal to 6.5% on admission may be considered diabetic while, in those with no known diabetes and HbA(1c) less than 6.5%, it is recommended that an OGTT be performed 7 to 28 days after ACS. During hospitalization in the ICU, continuous insulin treatment should be initiated in all patients when admission blood glucose levels are greater or equal to 180 mg/dL (10.0 mmol/L) and, in those with previously known diabetes, when preprandial glucose levels are greater or equal to 140 mg/dL (7.77 mmol/L) during follow-up. The recommended blood glucose target is 140-180 mg/dL (7.7-10 mmol/L) for most patients. Following the ICU period, insulin treatment is not mandatory for every patient, and other antidiabetic treatments may be considered, with the choice of optimal treatment depending on the metabolic profile of the patient. Patients should be referred to a diabetologist before discharge from hospital in cases of unknown diabetes diagnosed during ACS hospitalization, of HbA(1c) greater or equal to 8% at the time of admission, or newly introduced insulin therapy or severe/repeated hypoglycaemia. Referral to a diabetologist after hospital discharge is recommended if diabetes is diagnosed by the OGTT, or during cardiac rehabilitation in cases of uncontrolled diabetes (HbA(1c) ≥ 8%) or severe/repeated hypoglycaemia.

Objective: We sought to describe the results of transfemoral aortic valve implantation using either the Sapien prosthesis or the CoreValve System., Background: Results of transfemoral aortic valve implantation using both commercially available prostheses have rarely been studied., Patients: Of 236 patients at high-risk or with contraindications to surgery, consecutively referred for transcatheter aortic valve implantation between October 2006 and June 2009, 83 were treated with transfemoral aortic valve implantation. The Sapien was the only prosthesis available until May 2008 and, since then, was used as the first option, while the CoreValve System was used when contraindications to the Sapien prosthesis were present., Results: Patients were aged 81+/-9 years, 98% in New York Heart Association classes III/IV, with predicted surgical mortalities of 26+/-14% using the EuroSCORE and 15+/-8% using the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality score. Seventy-two patients were treated with the Sapien prosthesis and 11 with the CoreValve System. The valve was implanted in 94% of the cases. Thirty-day mortality was 7%. Overall, 1- and 2-year survival rates were 78+/-5% and 71+/-7%, respectively. Among patients treated with the Sapien, the 1-year survival rate was 67+/-12% in the first 20% of patients versus 86+/-5% in the last 80% of patients (p=0.02). In univariate analysis, early experience was the only significant predictor of 1-year mortality., Conclusion: Combining the use of the Sapien and the CoreValve prostheses increases the number of patients who can be treated by transfemoral aortic valve implantation and provides satisfactory results at 2 years in this high-risk population. The results are strongly influenced by experience., (Copyright 2010 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Aim: To describe longitudinal trends in patients' characteristics, management and hospital outcomes over 20 years of therapy for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI)., Methods: From 1988 to 2007, 2100 consecutive patients with STEMI were admitted within 6 hours of symptom onset to a centre with a systematic reperfusion policy. The population was divided into three periods 1988-1996, 1996-2001 and 2001-2007., Results: The baseline risk of mortality increased over time (p=0.02). Use of primary PCI increased and the proportion not receiving reperfusion therapy decreased (from 11.4 to 4.2%, p=0.0001). Adjunctive use of stents and glycoprotein IIb/IIIa antagonists increased. The proportion of patients achieving acute TIMI-3 flow in the infarct artery increased (81 to 92%, p=0.001), while time from symptom onset to reperfusion decreased (240 to 205 min, p<0.0001). This was associated with a decrease in age- and sex-adjusted in-hospital mortality from 8.9 to 7.7% and eventually 5.4% (p<0.01). However, the mortality of patients with cardiogenic shock was unaffected (76, 62 and 61%, respectively, p=0.18)., Conclusion: Reperfusion therapy can be implemented in up to 96% of STEMI patients admitted within 6 hours of symptom onset and this is associated with improvements in outcomes. Further improvements are needed in the management of patients with cardiogenic shock.