Search

A better understanding of the central role of inflammation in the development of coronary artery disease (CAD) has been the impetus for the evaluation of therapeutic strategies targeting the interleukin-1ß/interleukin-6 cytokine signaling pathway, involved in both chronic atherogenesis and in triggering of atherosclerotic plaque rupture. As an inexpensive pharmacologic agent with relatively few adverse effects that tend to be mild and tolerable, the role of colchicine in secondary prevention of atherothrombotic events has been the focus of multiple recent large-scale randomized controlled trials involving patients with stable CAD (Low-Dose Colchicine [LoDoCo] and LoDoCo2 trials), a recent myocardial infarction (Colchicine Cardiovascular Outcome Trial [COLCOT], Colchicine in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome [COPS], and Colchicine and Spironolactone in Patients With Myocardial Infarction/Synergy Stent Registry [CLEAR SYNERGY] trials), and undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions (Colchicine in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention [COLCHICINE-PCI] trial). Based on this evidence, low-dose colchicine (0.5 mg once daily) should be considered in patients with recent myocardial infarctions-within 30 days and, ideally, within 3 days-or with stable CAD to improve cardiovascular outcomes. Colchicine should not be used in patients with severe renal or hepatic disease because of the risk of severe toxicity. No serious adverse effect was associated with the combined use of colchicine and high-intensity statin therapy in large trials. The impact of colchicine in high-risk populations of patients with peripheral arterial disease and in those with diabetes for the primary prevention of CAD remains to be established., (Copyright © 2021 Canadian Cardiovascular Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.

Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting Interests:Ms. Tri has nothing to disclose. Ms. Albers reports grants from Astra Zeneca, during the conduct of the tool development; personal fees from Astra Zeneca, outside the submitted work. Dr. Koshman has nothing to disclose. Dr. Bucci reports personal fees from Astra Zeneca, outside of the submitted work. Dr. Kertland reports personal fees from Astra Zeneca, outside the submitted work. Dr. Semchuk reports grants from Astra Zeneca, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Astra Zeneca, outside the submitted work.

Background: Accurate and complete medication histories are not always obtained in clinical practice., Objective: This qualitative research study was undertaken to explore the barriers to and facilitators of obtaining accurate medication histories., Methods: Individual interviews, based on a structured interview guide, were conducted with 25 patients from both inpatient and ambulatory care clinic settings. Focus groups, based on a semistructured interview guide, were conducted with pharmacists, medical residents, and nurses. Transcribed data were analyzed by forming coded units and assessing these units for emerging themes., Results: Major themes that emerged from the patient interviews included patient ownership of health and medication knowledge (with knowledge of medications and their side effects and how to take medications being seen as important), patient-specific strategies to improve medication histories (e.g., use of regularly updated medication lists), and suggestions for system-level facilitators to improve medication histories (e.g., centralized databases of medication histories, increased patient education regarding the use and purpose of medications). Major themes also emerged from focus groups with health care professionals, including shared responsibility for medication history-taking among all 3 health care professions, perceptions about the barriers to medication history-taking (including patients not knowing their medications and not bringing their medication lists), and suggestions to improve medication histories (e.g., educating patients to bring medication vials to hospital admissions and appointments, using a centralized computer database for medication histories)., Conclusions: Key recommendations resulting from this study include using standardized documentation techniques for medication histories, recording of medication history information in centralized electronic databases, educating patients to bring medications to every health care visit, and establishing criteria for pharmacist referral for cases involving complex medication histories.

Acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) accounts for approximately 30% of all acute coronary syndromes (ACS). The high early mortality for patients with STEMI is largely due to the extent of the ischemic injury. However, immediate reperfusion either pharmacologically with fibrinolysis or mechanically by primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) limits the size of the infarction and reduces mortality. Reperfusion therapy by primary PCI reduces mortality and the risk of reinfarction, beyond the benefits achieved by fibrinolysis, especially when the primary PCI is initiated within 90 minutes of first medical contact. The use of adjuvant therapy with antiplatelet and anticoagulant agents is essential to enhance the results of reperfusion, and/or maintain vessel patency following either mode of reperfusion. This review discusses the assessment and management of the patient with an acute STEMI, using recommendations from the most recent American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association, European Society of Cardiology, and existing Canadian guidelines. It provides an updated perspective and critical appraisal with practical application of the recommendations within the Canadian Healthcare system., (Copyright © 2011 Canadian Cardiovascular Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Despite the reduction of coronary heart disease mortality over the past 40 years, hospital admissions for acute coronary syndromes (ACS) continue to increase. The goal of this 2-part article is to review the issues at each stage of assessment and management of the ACS patient, and to propose an optimal treatment strategy for the individual patient in the context of the realities, culture, and delivery of healthcare in Canada. ACS patients are categorized as either ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) or non-ST-elevation ACS (NSTE-ACS). For the patients with NSTE-ACS, prevention of recurrent ischemic events is the primary goal. Assessment of risk for recurrent ischemic and bleeding events helps to determine the net benefit of early cardiac catheterization and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and intensive antiplatelet and anticoagulant treatment. Those with higher ischemic risk features should be considered for an early invasive strategy and receive both dual antiplatelet therapy and an anticoagulant at the time of first medical assessment. Patients without high-risk features could be considered for medical treatment and a selectively invasive strategy; with coronary angiography and revascularization only if high-risk features become apparent. Long-term vascular protection with lifestyle modification (especially smoking cessation), lipid lowering, blood pressure and glycemic control, and the use of renin angiotensin aldosterone system (RAAS) blockade to prevent recurrent ischemic events, is important in all patients with ACS., (Copyright © 2011 Canadian Cardiovascular Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Our objective was to evaluate treatment patterns and the attainment of current National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP)-recommended lipid targets in unselected high-risk ambulatory patients., Methods: Between December 2001 and December 2004, the prospective Vascular Protection and Guidelines Oriented Approach to Lipid Lowering Registries recruited 8056 outpatients with diabetes, established cardiovascular disease (CVD), or both, who had a complete lipid profile measured within 6 months before enrollment. The primary outcome measure was treatment success, defined as the achievement of LDL-cholesterol<2.6 mmol/L (100 mg/dL) according to NCEP guidelines. We examined patient characteristics and use of lipid-modifying therapy in relation to treatment outcome, which included the recently proposed optional LDL-cholesterol target (<1.8 mmol/L [70 mg/dL]) for very high-risk patients., Results: Overall, 78.2% of patients were treated with a statin and 51.2% had achieved the recommended LDL-cholesterol target. Treatment success rate was highest in diabetic patients with CVD (59.6%), followed by nondiabetic patients with CVD (51.8%), and lowest (44.8%) in diabetic patients without CVD (P<.0001). Compared with untreated patients, those on statins were more likely to achieve target (34.4% vs 55.9%, P<.0001). Of the patients who failed to meet target, only 9.9% were taking high-dose statin, while 29.3% were not prescribed any statin therapy. Among very high-risk patients, 20.8% attained the optional LDL-cholesterol goal. In multivariable analysis, advanced age, male sex, diabetes, coronary artery disease, coronary revascularization, and use of statin were associated with treatment success (all P<.0001)., Conclusion: Despite the well-established benefits of available lipid-modifying drugs, current management of dyslipidemia continues to be suboptimal, with a substantial proportion of patients failing to achieve guideline-recommended lipid targets. There remains an important opportunity to improve the quality of care for these high-risk patients.

Non-ST segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE ACS) include a clinical spectrum that ranges from unstable angina to NSTE myocardial infarction. Management goals aim to prevent recurrent ACS and improve long-term outcomes by choosing a treatment strategy according to an estimate of the risk of an adverse outcome. Recent registry data suggest that patients with NSTE ACS frequently do not receive recommended treatment, and that risk stratification is not used to determine either the choice of treatment or the speed of access to coronary angiography. The present article evaluates the evidence for recommended treatment using information from recent trials and guidelines published by the major cardiac organizations in Europe and North America. Using this information, a multidisciplinary group developed a simplified algorithm that uses risk stratification to select an optimal early management strategy. Long-term outcomes are improved by a multi-faceted vascular protection strategy that is initiated at the time of hospitalization for NSTE ACS.

Hydroxymethylglutaryl coenzyme A (HMG CoA) reductase inhibitors, otherwise known as statins, are the most common class of lipid lowering medications prescribed today. Although this class of medications is contraindicated in pregnant women and those trying to conceive, there are many individuals who would benefit from these medications. Multiple randomized controlled trials have demonstrated that statins are effective in both primary and secondary prevention of coronary artery disease. Simple risk stratification tools can identify the women who would benefit.

Background: Access to new therapies in hospitals depends upon both clinical trial evidence and local Pharmacy and Therapeutics (P&T) committee approval. The process of formulary evaluation by P&T committees is not well-understood., Objectives: To describe the formulary decision-making process in Canadian hospitals for cardiovascular medications recently made available on the Canadian market., Methods: Postal survey of hospital pharmacy directors in all Canadian hospitals with more than 50 beds. Target drugs included abciximab, enoxaparin, dalteparin, clopidogrel, eptifibatide and tirofiban., Results: Of 428 surveys mailed, responses were received from 164 P&T committees representing 350 hospitals for an effective response rate of 82%. While physicians make up the largest proportion of committee membership, pharmacists play an influential role. Information most commonly cited as influencing formulary decisions included published clinical trials (97%), regional guidelines (90%), pharmacoeconomic data (84%), decisions at peer hospitals (73%) and local opinion leaders (60%). However, this information was often not required on formulary applications. Approval timelines varied widely for target medications but there were no regional, hospital or P&T committee characteristics that were independent predictors of early formulary application or approval., Conclusions: There is wide variability in the time taken for Canadian institutions to adopt new cardiovascular therapies, which is not explained by regional, hospital or P&T committee characteristics. Standardization of the formulary application and evaluation processes, including sharing of information amongst institutions, would lead to broader understanding of the applicable issues, more objectivity and improved efficiency.

The pharmacokinetics of zalcitabine (ddC) were studied in three groups of subjects with varying degrees of renal function: group I (n = 5), creatinine clearance (Clcr) 0-10 mL/min; group II (n = 10), Clcr 11-50 mL/min; and group III (n = 8), Clcr > 50 mL/min. Each patient received a single 0.75-mg oral dose of zalcitabine, and multiple blood and urine samples were collected over a 10-hour period after administration. Plasma and urine concentrations of zalcitabine were measured by high-performance liquid chromatography. No statistically significant differences were observed between the three groups in maximum concentration (Cmax), time to Cmax (tmax), or volume of distribution (V/F). Also, elimination half-life (t1/2), area under the concentration-time curve (AUC0-10), total body clearance (Cl/F), elimination rate constant (Ke), and renal clearance (Clr) did not differ significantly between the two groups with renal impairment (groups I and II). However, there was a significant difference in these parameters between groups with renal impairment (I and II) and group III. A linear correlation was observed between creatinine clearance (Clcr) and Clr, Ke, and Cl/F in all subjects. Clearance of zalcitabine is decreased after a single oral dose in patients with renal impairment. Dosage adjustment may be warranted in such patients, especially in those with severe renal impairment.

Objective: To assess the risk of bleeding complications in patients treated with combination aspirin and heparin for cerebral ischemia., Design: A retrospective, cohort study., Setting: A large urban teaching hospital., Patients: One hundred charts of stroke patients who had received anticoagulation with or without aspirin therapy were identified from the Stroke Data Bank. Bleeding rates were compared between the two groups., Results: Forty-two patients who had received heparin and/or warfarin in combination with aspirin were compared with 33 patients who had received anticoagulation alone. The mean duration of anticoagulant therapy was 8.0 and 8.4 days, respectively. Bleeding rates were not different between the two groups: 23.8 percent (10/42) (p = 0.78) and 24.2 percent (8/33), respectively. Although the bleeding rate was substantial, there was only one major bleed (severe epistaxis) occurring in a patient receiving anticoagulation only. No patient had an intracerebral hemorrhage., Conclusions: Our data suggest that combination antithrombotic therapy is safe in a controlled, inpatient setting.

Nitrate tolerance is of significant clinical concern and every effort should be made to avoid this undesirable effect. The mechanism of tolerance is not clear but probably is multifactorial. Although ACE inhibitors, diuretics, and NAC have been tried as preventative measures, the only method proven to maintain nitrate effectiveness in patients is a nitrate-free interval. The results of further studies designed to determine the actual period of time that the patient is protected will be helpful. This may guide us in choosing the optimal nitrate therapy.

Objective: To observe and characterize the blood pressure (BP)-lowering and adverse hemodynamic and/or central nervous system effects of intravenous bolus doses of labetalol in hemorrhagic stroke patients., Design: Observational, prospective, pilot survey conducted over an eight-week period., Setting: Surgical intensive care unit., Participants: Patients admitted with an intracerebral or subarachnoid hemorrhage., Main Outcome Parameters: Absolute decline in systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP), time to peak reduction in SBP and DBP, and adverse hemodynamic and mental status changes., Results: Labetalol at doses between 5 and 25 mg lowered SBP by 6-19 percent (baseline 152-184 mm Hg) and DBP by 3-26 percent (baseline 50-99 mm Hg). Adverse hemodynamic or mental status changes were not detected following labetalol administration., Conclusions: Small (< or = 25 mg) intravenous bolus doses of labetalol produce mild decreases in BP in hemorrhagic stroke patients.