Search

Background: Red blood cell transfusion can cause fluid overload. We evaluated the interaction between heart failure (HF) at baseline and transfusion strategy on outcomes in acute myocardial infarction (AMI)., Methods: We used data from the randomized REALITY trial. HF was defined as history of HF or Killip class > 1 at randomization. Primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE): composite of all-cause death, nonrecurrent AMI, stroke, or emergency revascularization prompted by ischemia at 30 days., Results: Among 658 randomized patients, 311 (47.3%) had HF. Patients with HF had higher rates of MACE at 30 days and 1 year and higher rates of nonfatal new-onset HF. There was no interaction between HF and effect of randomized assignment on the primary outcome or nonfatal new-onset HF. A liberal transfusion strategy was associated with increased all-cause death at 30 days and at 1 year in patients with HF (P interaction  = 0.009 and P = 0.049, respectively). The main numerical difference in cause of death between restrictive and liberal strategies was death by HF at 30 days (4 vs 11)., Conclusions: HF is frequent in patients with AMI and anemia and is associated with higher risk of MACE (including all-cause death) and nonfatal new-onset HF. Although there was no interaction of HF with effect of transfusion strategy on MACE, a liberal transfusion strategy was associated with higher all-cause death that appears driven by a higher risk of early death caused by HF., Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02648113., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: To estimate the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility ratios of a restrictive vs. liberal transfusion strategy in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients with anaemia., Methods and Results: Patients (n = 666) with AMI and haemoglobin between 7-8 and 10 g/dL recruited in 35 hospitals in France and Spain were randomly assigned to a restrictive (n = 342) or a liberal (n = 324) transfusion strategy with 1-year prospective collection of resource utilization and quality of life using the EQ5D3L questionnaire. The economic evaluation was based on 648 patients from the per-protocol population. The outcomes were 30-day and 1-year cost-effectiveness, with major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) averted as the effectiveness outcome. and a 1-year cost-utility ratio.The 30-day incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was €33 065 saved per additional MACE averted with the restrictive vs. liberal strategy, with an 84% probability for the restrictive strategy to be cost-saving and MACE-reducing (i.e. dominant). At 1 year, the point estimate of the cost-utility ratio was €191 500 saved per quality-adjusted life year gained; however, the cumulated MACE was outside the pre-specified non-inferiority margin, resulting in a decremental cost-effectiveness ratio with a point estimate of €72 000 saved per additional MACE with the restrictive strategy., Conclusion: In patients with AMI and anaemia, the restrictive transfusion strategy was dominant (cost-saving and outcome-improving) at 30 days. At 1 year, the restrictive strategy remained cost-saving, but clinical non-inferiority on MACE was no longer maintained., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02648113., One Sentence Summary: The use of a restrictive transfusion strategy in patients with acute myocardial infarction is associated with lower healthcare costs, but more evidence is needed to ascertain its long-term clinical impact., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Importance: The optimal transfusion strategy in patients with acute myocardial infarction and anemia is unclear., Objective: To determine whether a restrictive transfusion strategy would be clinically noninferior to a liberal strategy., Design, Setting, and Participants: Open-label, noninferiority, randomized trial conducted in 35 hospitals in France and Spain including 668 patients with myocardial infarction and hemoglobin level between 7 and 10 g/dL. Enrollment could be considered at any time during the index admission for myocardial infarction. The first participant was enrolled in March 2016 and the last was enrolled in September 2019. The final 30-day follow-up was accrued in November 2019., Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to undergo a restrictive (transfusion triggered by hemoglobin ≤8; n = 342) or a liberal (transfusion triggered by hemoglobin ≤10 g/dL; n = 324) transfusion strategy., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary clinical outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; composite of all-cause death, stroke, recurrent myocardial infarction, or emergency revascularization prompted by ischemia) at 30 days. Noninferiority required that the upper bound of the 1-sided 97.5% CI for the relative risk of the primary outcome be less than 1.25. The secondary outcomes included the individual components of the primary outcome., Results: Among 668 patients who were randomized, 666 patients (median [interquartile range] age, 77 [69-84] years; 281 [42.2%] women) completed the 30-day follow-up, including 342 in the restrictive transfusion group (122 [35.7%] received transfusion; 342 total units of packed red blood cells transfused) and 324 in the liberal transfusion group (323 [99.7%] received transfusion; 758 total units transfused). At 30 days, MACE occurred in 36 patients (11.0% [95% CI, 7.5%-14.6%]) in the restrictive group and in 45 patients (14.0% [95% CI, 10.0%-17.9%]) in the liberal group (difference, -3.0% [95% CI, -8.4% to 2.4%]). The relative risk of the primary outcome was 0.79 (1-sided 97.5% CI, 0.00-1.19), meeting the prespecified noninferiority criterion. In the restrictive vs liberal group, all-cause death occurred in 5.6% vs 7.7% of patients, recurrent myocardial infarction occurred in 2.1% vs 3.1%, emergency revascularization prompted by ischemia occurred in 1.5% vs 1.9%, and nonfatal ischemic stroke occurred in 0.6% of patients in both groups., Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with acute myocardial infarction and anemia, a restrictive compared with a liberal transfusion strategy resulted in a noninferior rate of MACE after 30 days. However, the CI included what may be a clinically important harm., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02648113.

Background: Anemia is common in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI), and is an independent predictor of mortality. The optimal transfusion strategy in these patients is unclear., Hypothesis: We hypothesized that a "restrictive" transfusion strategy (triggered by hemoglobin ≤8 g/dL) is clinically noninferior to a "liberal" transfusion strategy (triggered by hemoglobin ≤10 g/dL), but is less costly., Methods: REALITY is an international, randomized, multicenter, open-label trial comparing a restrictive vs a liberal transfusion strategy in patients with AMI and anemia. The primary outcome is the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) at 30 days, using the primary composite clinical outcome of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; comprising all-cause death, nonfatal stroke, nonfatal recurrent myocardial infarction, or emergency revascularization prompted by ischemia) as the effectiveness criterion. Secondary outcomes include the ICER at 1 year, and MACE (and its components) at 30 days and at 1 year., Results: The trial aimed to enroll 630 patients. Based on estimated event rates of 11% in the restrictive group and 15% in the liberal group, this number will provide 80% power to demonstrate clinical noninferiority of the restrictive group, with a noninferiority margin corresponding to a relative risk equal to 1.25. The sample size will also provide 80% power to show the cost-effectiveness of the restrictive strategy at a threshold of €50 000 per quality-adjusted life year., Conclusions: REALITY will provide important guidance on the management of patients with AMI and anemia., (© 2020 The Authors. Clinical Cardiology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: It remains controversial whether exposure to combination antiretroviral treatment increases the risk of myocardial infarction., Methods: In this prospective observational study, we enrolled 23,468 patients from 11 previously established cohorts from December 1999 to April 2001 and collected follow-up data until February 2002. Data were collected on infection with the human immunodeficiency virus and on risk factors for and the incidence of myocardial infarction. Relative rates were calculated with Poisson regression models. Combination antiretroviral therapy was defined as any combination regimen of antiretroviral drugs that included a protease inhibitor or a nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor., Results: Over a period of 36,199 person-years, 126 patients had a myocardial infarction. The incidence of myocardial infarction increased with longer exposure to combination antiretroviral therapy (adjusted relative rate per year of exposure, 1.26 [95 percent confidence interval, 1.12 to 1.41]; P<0.001). Other factors significantly associated with myocardial infarction were older age, current or former smoking, previous cardiovascular disease, and male sex, but not a family history of coronary heart disease. A higher total serum cholesterol level, a higher triglyceride level, and the presence of diabetes were also associated with an increased incidence of myocardial infarction., Conclusions: Combination antiretroviral therapy was independently associated with a 26 percent relative increase in the rate of myocardial infarction per year of exposure during the first four to six years of use. However, the absolute risk of myocardial infarction was low and must be balanced against the marked benefits from antiretroviral treatment., (Copyright 2003 Massachusetts Medical Society)