Search

Background Days alive out of hospital (DAOH) is an objective and patient‐centered net benefit end point. There are no assessments of DAOH in clinical trials of interventions for atrial fibrillation (AF), and it is not known whether this end point is of clinical utility in these populations. Methods and Results ROCKET AF (Rivaroxaban Once Daily Oral Direct Factor Xa Inhibition Compared With Vitamin K Antagonism for Prevention of Stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fibrillation) was an international double‐blind, double‐dummy randomized clinical trial that compared rivaroxaban with warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation at increased risk for stroke. We assessed DAOH using investigator‐reported event data for up to 12 months after randomization in ROCKET AF. We assessed DAOH overall, by treatment group, and by subgroup, including age, sex, and comorbidities, using Poisson regression. The mean±SD number of days dead was 7.3±41.2, days hospitalized was 1.2±7.2, and mean DAOH was 350.7±56.2, with notable left skew. Patients with comorbidities had fewer DAOH overall. There were no differences in DAOH by treatment arm, with mean DAOH of 350.6±56.5 for those randomized to rivaroxaban and 350.7±55.8 for those randomized to warfarin (P=0.86). A sensitivity analysis found no difference in DAOH not disabled with rivaroxaban versus warfarin (DAOH not disabled, 349.2±59.5 days and 349.1 days±59.3 days, respectively, P=0.88). Conclusions DAOH did not identify a treatment difference between patients randomized to rivaroxaban versus warfarin. This may be driven in part by the low overall event rates in atrial fibrillation anticoagulation trials, which leads to substantial left skew in measures of DAOH.

Abstract Aims The aim of our study was to investigate heterogeneity of health status treatment response of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Methods and results We leveraged data from CHAMP‐HF, an observational registry of 140 US clinics and 5026 outpatients with chronic HFrEF, where health status was serially assessed using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ)‐12 Overall Summary Scale (range from 0 to 100; ≥20‐point improvement is a very large improvement). In 334 patients newly initiated on sacubitril/valsartan, we used hierarchical multivariable logistic regression (13 patient‐level characteristics as well as baseline KCCQ‐12 score) to calculate the odds ratio (OR) of any characteristic being associated with a very large health status improvement. A total of 104/334 (31.1%) of patients achieved the primary endpoint, where only worse baseline health status [KCCQ‐12 score of 0–60 points had an OR = 0.86/5‐point higher score (CI 0.79, 0.93)], and those with a KCCQ‐12 score of 60–80 points had an OR = 0.61/5‐point higher score (0.45–0.82), which was associated with a very large benefit. No other patient characteristic was associated with a very large health status improvement (P > 0.05). Conclusions We found that, after initiation of sacubitril/valsartan, only worse baseline health status was associated with very large health status improvement. Accordingly, a trial of therapy—particularly in those with worse symptoms, function, and quality of life—and assessing treatment response are likely to be the best prospective strategy.

Background The WATCH‐DM (weight [body mass index], age, hypertension, creatinine, high‐density lipoprotein cholesterol, diabetes control [fasting plasma glucose], ECG QRS duration, myocardial infarction, and coronary artery bypass grafting) and TRS‐HFDM (Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction [TIMI] risk score for heart failure in diabetes) risk scores were developed to predict risk of heart failure (HF) among individuals with type 2 diabetes. WATCH‐DM was developed to predict incident HF, whereas TRS‐HFDM predicts HF hospitalization among patients with and without a prior HF history. We evaluated the model performance of both scores to predict incident HF events among patients with type 2 diabetes and no history of HF hospitalization across different cohorts and clinical settings with varying baseline risk. Methods and Results Incident HF risk was estimated by the integer‐based WATCH‐DM and TRS‐HFDM scores in participants with type 2 diabetes free of baseline HF from 2 randomized clinical trials (TECOS [Trial Evaluating Cardiovascular Outcomes With Sitagliptin], N=12 028; and Look AHEAD [Look Action for Health in Diabetes] trial, N=4867). The integer‐based WATCH‐DM score was also validated in electronic health record data from a single large health care system (N=7475). Model discrimination was assessed by the Harrell concordance index and calibration by the Greenwood‐Nam‐D’Agostino statistic. HF incidence rate was 7.5, 3.9, and 4.1 per 1000 person‐years in the TECOS, Look AHEAD trial, and electronic health record cohorts, respectively. Integer‐based WATCH‐DM and TRS‐HFDM scores had similar discrimination and calibration for predicting 5‐year HF risk in the Look AHEAD trial cohort (concordance indexes=0.70; Greenwood‐Nam‐D’Agostino P>0.30 for both). Both scores had lower discrimination and underpredicted HF risk in the TECOS cohort (concordance indexes=0.65 and 0.66, respectively; Greenwood‐Nam‐D’Agostino P

Background There are limited data on the use of angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors (ARNIs) in minority populations with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction. We used data from the CHAMP‐HF (Change the Management of Patients With Heart Failure) registry to evaluate ARNI initiation and associated changes in health status and clinical outcomes across different races and ethnicities. Methods and Results CHAMP‐HF was a prospective, observational registry of US outpatients with chronic HF with reduced ejection fraction. We compared patients starting ARNI with patients not starting ARNI using a propensity‐matched analysis. Patients were grouped as Hispanic, non‐Hispanic Black, non‐Hispanic White, or non‐Hispanic other individuals, where “non‐Hispanic other” consists of all patients who did not identify as Hispanic, Black, or White. Health status was assessed using the 12‐item Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire. Outcomes were analyzed with multivariable models that included race and ethnicity, ARNI initiation, and an interaction term between race and ethnicity and ARNI initiation. Cox proportional hazards models were used for death/HF hospitalization, and multiple regression was used for change in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire score. The analysis included 1516 patients, with 758 patients in each group (ARNI and no ARNI). Changes in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire score after ARNI initiation were similar among all race and ethnicity groups (mean [SD], non‐Hispanic White individuals, 3.5 [19.0]; non‐Hispanic Black individuals, 2.0 [17.0]; non‐Hispanic other individuals, 5.5 [20.3]; and Hispanic individuals, 3.2 [20.1]), with no statistically significant interaction between race and ethnicity and ARNI initiation (P=0.21). There was similarly no statistically significant interaction between race and ethnicity and ARNI initiation for HF hospitalization (P=0.82) or all‐cause mortality (P=0.92). Conclusions In a large registry of outpatients with HF with reduced ejection fraction, the association between ARNI initiation and outcomes did not differ by race and ethnicity. These data support the use of ARNI therapy for chronic HF with reduced ejection fraction irrespective of race and ethnicity.

Background In event‐driven clinical trials, study termination is based on accrual of a target number of primary efficacy events. For noninferiority trials in which superiority is conditionally examined, the ideal cohort in which to track event accrual is unclear. We used data from the ROCKET AF (Rivaroxaban Once Daily Oral Direct Factor Xa Inhibition Compared With Vitamin K Antagonism for Prevention of Stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fibrillation) trial to determine the effect of primary efficacy‐event tracking in the per‐protocol cohort during the on‐treatment period versus the intention‐to‐treat (ITT) cohort during the ITT period. Methods and Results ROCKET AF was terminated after accruing 429 primary efficacy events (stroke or systemic embolism) in the per‐protocol cohort during the on‐treatment period for noninferiority. We identified the date on which 429 events occurred in the ITT cohort during the ITT period. We performed noninferiority and superiority analyses based on hypothetical study termination on this date. ROCKET AF would have terminated 226 days earlier if events were tracked during the ITT period. Similar to the main trial findings, rivaroxaban would have met noninferiority versus warfarin for the primary efficacy end point (hazard ratio [HR], 0.77; 95% CI, 0.62–0.96; P

Background Previous studies of patients with nontraumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) suggest better outcomes at hospitals with higher case and procedural volumes, but the shape of the volume‐outcome curve has not been defined. We sought to establish minimum volume criteria for SAH and aneurysm obliteration procedures that could be used for comprehensive stroke center certification. Methods and Results Data from 8512 discharges in the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) from 2010 to 2011 were analyzed using logistic regression models to evaluate the association between clinical outcomes (in‐hospital mortality and the NIS‐SAH Outcome Measure [NIS‐SOM]) and measures of hospital annual case volume (nontraumatic SAH discharges, coiling, and clipping procedures). Sensitivity and specificity analyses for the association of desirable outcomes with different volume thresholds were performed. During 8512 SAH hospitalizations, 28.7% of cases underwent clipping and 20.1% underwent coiling with rates of 21.2% for in‐hospital mortality and 38.6% for poor outcome on the NIS‐SOM. The mean (range) of SAH, coiling, and clipping annual case volumes were 30.9 (1–195), 8.7 (0–94), and 6.1 (0–69), respectively. Logistic regression demonstrated improved outcomes with increasing annual case volumes of SAH discharges and procedures for aneurysm obliteration, with attenuation of the benefit beyond 35 SAH cases/year. Analysis of sensitivity and specificity using different volume thresholds confirmed these results. Analysis of previously proposed volume thresholds, including those utilized as minimum standards for comprehensive stroke center certification, showed that hospitals with more than 35 SAH cases annually had consistently superior outcomes compared with hospitals with fewer cases, although some hospitals below this threshold had similar outcomes. The adjusted odds ratio demonstrating lower risk of poor outcomes with SAH annual case volume ≥35 compared with 20 to 34 was 0.82 for the NIS‐SOM (95% CI, 0.71–094; P=0.0054) and 0.80 (95% CI, 0.68–0.93; P=0.0055) for in‐hospital mortality. Conclusions Outcomes for patients with SAH improve with increasing hospital case volumes and procedure volumes, with consistently better outcomes for hospitals with more than 35 SAH cases per year.

Background Peripheral artery disease (PAD) and heart failure (HF) are each independently associated with poor outcomes. Risk factors associated with new‐onset HF in patients with primary PAD are unknown. Furthermore, how the presence of HF is associated with outcomes in patients with PAD is unknown. Methods and Results This analysis examined risk relationships of HF on outcomes in patients with symptomatic PAD randomized to ticagrelor or clopidogrel as part of the EUCLID (Examining Use of Ticagrelor in Peripheral Arterial Disease) trial. Patients were stratified based on presence of HF at enrollment. Cox models were used to determine the association of HF with outcomes. A separate Cox model was used to identify risk factors associated with development of HF during follow‐up. Patients with PAD and HF had over twice the rate of concomitant coronary artery disease as those without HF. Patients with PAD and HF had significantly increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (hazard ratio [HR], 1.31; 95% CI, 1.13–1.51) and all‐cause mortality (HR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.19–1.63). In patients with PAD, the presence of HF was associated with significantly less bleeding (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.45–0.96). Characteristics associated with HF development included age ≥66 (HR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.18–1.40 per 5 years), diabetes mellitus (HR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.41–2.43), and weight (bidirectionally associated, ≥76 kg, HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.64–0.93;

Background There is concern that selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) substantially increase bleeding risk in patients taking anticoagulants. Methods and Results We studied 737 patients taking SSRIs in the ROCKET AF (Rivaroxaban Once Daily Oral Direct Factor Xa Inhibition Compared With Vitamin K Antagonism for Prevention of Embolism and Stroke Trial in Atrial Fibrillation) trial of rivaroxaban compared with warfarin for the prevention of stroke/systemic embolism in patients with atrial fibrillation. These patients were propensity score matched 1:1 to 737 patients not taking SSRIs. The primary outcome measure was major and nonmajor clinically relevant bleeding events, the principal safety outcome in ROCKET AF. Over a mean 1.6 years of follow‐up, the rate of major/nonmajor clinically relevant bleeding was 18.57 events/100 patient‐years for SSRI users versus 16.84 events/100 patient‐years for matched comparators, adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) of 1.16 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.95–1.43). The aHRs were similar in patients taking rivaroxaban (aHR 1.11 [95% CI, 0.82–1.51]) and those taking warfarin (aHR 1.21 [95% CI, 0.91–1.60]). For the rarer outcome of major bleeding, the aHR for SSRI users versus those not taking SSRIs was 1.13 (95% CI, 0.62–2.06) for rivaroxaban; for warfarin, the aHR was higher, at 1.58 (95% CI, 0.96–2.60) but not statistically significantly elevated. Conclusions We found no significant increase in bleeding risk when SSRIs were combined with anticoagulant therapy, although there was a suggestion of increased bleeding risk with SSRIs added to warfarin. While physicians should be vigilant regarding bleeding risk, our results provide reassurance that SSRIs can be safely added to anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation. Clinical Trial Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00403767.

BackgroundThe 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association cholesterol guidelines recommend high‐intensity statins for patients after myocardial infarction (MI) rather than treating to a low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol goal, as the previous ATP III (Adult Treatment Panel third report) guidelines had advised. Methods and ResultsTo evaluate the frequency of postdischarge lipid testing and high‐intensity statin use among MI patients discharged on a statin during the ATP III guidelines era, we linked ACTION (Acute Coronary Treatment and Intervention Outcomes Network) Registry data to Medicare claims for 11 046 MI patients aged ≥65 years who were discharged alive on a statin from 347 hospitals (2007–2009). Multivariable regression was used to evaluate the association between lipid testing and 1‐year high‐intensity statin use. Only 21% of MI patients were discharged on a high‐intensity statin. By 90 days after MI, 44% of patients discharged on a statin underwent lipid testing (43% on low‐ or moderate‐intensity statins and 49% on high‐intensity statins; P=0.001). Follow‐up lipid testing rates were 47% among patients with in‐hospital low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol ≥100 mg/dL and 47% among newly prescribed statin recipients. By 1 year, only 14% of patients were on high‐intensity statins. Only 4% of patients discharged on low‐ or moderate‐dose statin were uptitrated to high intensity; postdischarge lipid testing was associated with a slightly higher likelihood of high‐intensity statin use by 1 year (5.4% versus 2.9%, adjusted odds ratio: 1.92; 95% confidence interval, 1.52–2.41). ConclusionsPrevious guidelines recommended low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol goal‐directed statin therapy, but lipid testing and high‐intensity statin use were infrequent after MI. The American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines may promote more intensive cardiovascular risk reduction by eliminating treatment dependence on lipid testing.

BackgroundAlthough implantation of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) in patients receiving warfarin is well studied, limited data are available on the use of oral factor Xa inhibitors in this setting. Methods and ResultsUsing data from Rivaroxaban Once Daily Oral Direct Factor Xa Inhibition Compared with Vitamin K Antagonism for Prevention of Stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fibrillation (ROCKET AF) (n=14 264), we compared baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation randomized to rivaroxaban versus warfarin who did and did not undergo CIED implantation or revision. In this post‐hoc, postrandomization, on‐treatment analysis, only the first intervention per patient was analyzed. During a median follow‐up of 2.2 years, 453 patients (242 rivaroxaban group; 211 warfarin group) underwent de novo CIED implantation (64.2%) or revision procedures (35.8%). Patients who received CIEDs were older, more likely to be male, and more likely to have past myocardial infarction, but had similar stroke risk compared to patients who did not receive CIEDs. Most patients who received a device had study drug interrupted for the procedure and did not receive bridging anticoagulation. During the 30‐day postprocedural period, 11 patients (4.55%) in the rivaroxaban group experienced bleeding complications compared with 15 (7.13%) in the warfarin group. Thromboembolic complications occurred in 3 patients (1.26%) in the rivaroxaban group and 1 (0.48%) in the warfarin group. Event rates were too low for formal hypothesis testing. ConclusionsBleeding and thromboembolic events were low in both rivaroxaban‐ and warfarin‐treated patients. Periprocedural use of oral factor Xa inhibitors in CIED implantation requires further study in prospective, randomized trials. Clinical Trial RegistrationURL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00403767.

BackgroundWhile use of P2Y12 receptor inhibitor is recommended by guidelines, few studies have examined its effectiveness among older non–ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction patients who did not undergo coronary revascularization. Methods and ResultsWe included unrevascularized non–ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction patients ≥65 years discharged home from 463 ACTION Registry‐GWTG hospitals from 2007 to 2010. Rates of discharge clopidogrel use were described for patients with no angiography, angiography without obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD; ≥50% stenosis in ≥1 vessel), and angiography with obstructive CAD. Two‐year outcomes were ascertained from linked Medicare data and included composite major adverse cardiac events (defined as all‐cause death, myocardial infarction readmission, or revascularization), and individual components. Outcomes associated with clopidogrel use were adjusted using inverse probability‐weighted propensity modeling. Of 14 154 unrevascularized patients, 54.7% (n=7745) did not undergo angiography, 10.6% (n=1494) had angiography without CAD, and 34.7% (n=4915) had angiography with CAD. Discharge clopidogrel was prescribed for 42.2% of all unrevascularized patients: 37.8% without angiography, 34.1% without obstructive CAD at angiography, and 51.6% with obstructive CAD at angiography. Discharge clopidogrel use was not associated with major adverse cardiac events in any group: without angiography (adjusted hazard ratio [95% CI]: 0.99 [0.93–1.06]), angiography without CAD (1.04 [0.74–1.47]), and angiography with CAD (1.12 [1.00–1.25], Pinteraction=0.20). ConclusionsWe found no association between discharge clopidogrel use and long‐term risk of major adverse cardiac events among older, unrevascularized non–ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction patients. Clopidogrel use in this population requires further prospective evaluation.