Search

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained cardiac arrhythmia, and it leads to significant morbidity and mortality, predominantly from ischemic stroke. Vitamin K antagonists, mainly warfarin, have been used for decades to prevent ischemic stroke in AF, but their use is limited due to interactions with food and other drugs, as well as the requirement for regular monitoring of the international normalized ratio. Rivaroxaban, a direct factor Xa inhibitor and the most commonly used non-vitamin K oral anticoagulant, avoids many of these challenges and is being prescribed with increasing frequency for stroke prevention in non-valvular AF. Randomized controlled trial (RCT) 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 have shown rivaroxaban to be non-inferior to warfarin in preventing ischemic stroke and systemic embolism and to have comparable overall bleeding rates. Applicability of the RCT data to real-world practice can sometimes be limited by complex clinical scenarios or multiple comorbidities not adequately represented in the trials. Available real-world evidence in non-valvular AF patients with comorbidities – including renal impairment, acute coronary syndrome, diabetes mellitus, malignancy, or old age – supports the use of rivaroxaban as safe and effective in preventing ischemic stroke in these subgroups, though with some important considerations required to reduce bleeding risk. Patient perspectives on rivaroxaban use are also considered. Real-world evidence indicates superior rates of drug adherence with rivaroxaban when compared with vitamin K antagonists and with alternative non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants – perhaps, in part, due to its once-daily dosing regimen. Furthermore, self-reported quality of life scores are highest among patients compliant with rivaroxaban therapy. The generally high levels of patient satisfaction with rivaroxaban therapy contribute to overall favorable clinical outcomes.

Aims The very long-term outcome of patients who survive the first few years after receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has not been well described thus far. We aimed to provide long-term outcomes, especially with regard to the occurrence of sudden cardiac death (SCD), in CRT patients without (CRT-P) and with defibrillator (CRT-D). Methods and results A total of 1775 patients, with ischaemic or non-ischaemic dilated cardiomyopathy, who were alive 5 years after CRT implantation, were enrolled in this multicentre European observational cohort study. Overall long-term mortality rates and specific causes of death were assessed, with a focus on late SCD. Over a mean follow-up of 30 months (interquartile range 10–42 months) beyond the first 5 years, we observed 473 deaths. The annual age-standardized mortality rates of CRT-D and CRT-P patients were 40.4 [95% confidence interval (CI) 35.3–45.5] and 97.2 (95% CI 85.5–109.9) per 1000 patient-years, respectively. The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for all-cause mortality was 0.99 (95% CI 0.79–1.22). Twenty-nine patients in total died of late SCD (14 with CRT-P, 15 with CRT-D), corresponding to 6.1% of all causes of death in both device groups. Specific annual SCD rates were 8.5 and 5.8 per 1000 patient-years in CRT-P and CRT-D patients, respectively, with no significant difference between groups (adjusted HR 1.0, 95% CI 0.45–2.44). Death due to progressive heart failure represented the principal cause of death (42.8% in CRT-P patients and 52.6% among CRT-D recipients), whereas approximately one-third of deaths in both device groups were due to non-cardiovascular death. Conclusion In this first description of very long-term outcomes among CRT recipients, progressive heart failure death still represented the most frequent cause of death in patients surviving the first 5 years after CRT implant. In contrast, SCD represents a very low proportion of late mortality irrespective of the presence of a defibrillator.

Randomised trials have shown that direct stenting (DS) is associated with improved markers of reperfusion during primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) for ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). However, data evaluating its impact on long-term clinical outcomes are lacking. We set out to evaluate the effect of DS on mortality in a contemporary population of patients undergoing PPCI for STEMI.Consecutive patients undergoing PPCI for STEMI at two high-volume UK heart attack centres between September 2008- December 2010 (n=1562) were included in the analysis. Local databases were analysed for patient demographics, as well as details on PPCI strategy, including use of DS versus predilatation (PD) followed by stenting, manual thrombus aspiration (MT) and glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPIs). National databases were interrogated for in-hospital, 30-day and one-year mortality. To determine the impact of PPCI strategy on one-year survival, multivariate logistic analysis was performed.Altogether 489 patients underwent DS (31.3%) and 1073 (68.7%) received PD prior to stenting. Patients receiving DS had reduced mortality at 30 days (2.04 versus 4.66%, p=0.01) and one year (3.27 versus 8.48%, p=0.0001). After multivariate adjustment, PD remained an independent predictor of one-year mortality (odds ratio 2.42, 95% confidence interval 1.08-5.45, p=0.032) along with age, cardiogenic shock, number of diseased vessels, and left main or proximal left anterior descending artery intervention. However, neither GPI use nor MT improved survival in either univariate or multivariate analyses.In a contemporary, unselected population of patients undergoing PPCI for STEMI, DS - when compared with stenting after PD - is independently predictive of improved 30-day and one-year survival.