Search

Background: Cardiac autonomic neuropathy (CAN) in diabetes mellitus (DM) is independently associated with cardiovascular (CV) events and CV death. Diagnosis of this complication of DM is time-consuming and not routinely performed in the clinical practice, in contrast to fundus retinal imaging which is accessible and routinely performed. Whether artificial intelligence (AI) utilizing retinal images collected through diabetic eye screening can provide an efficient diagnostic method for CAN is unknown. Methods: This was a single center, observational study in a cohort of patients with DM as a part of the Cardiovascular Disease in Patients with Diabetes: The Silesia Diabetes-Heart Project (NCT05626413). To diagnose CAN, we used standard CV autonomic reflex tests. In this analysis we implemented AI-based deep learning techniques with non-mydriatic 5-field color fundus imaging to identify patients with CAN. Two experiments have been developed utilizing Multiple Instance Learning and primarily ResNet 18 as the backbone network. Models underwent training and validation prior to testing on an unseen image set. Results: In an analysis of 2275 retinal images from 229 patients, the ResNet 18 backbone model demonstrated robust diagnostic capabilities in the binary classification of CAN, correctly identifying 93% of CAN cases and 89% of non-CAN cases within the test set. The model achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUCROC) of 0.87 (95% CI 0.74–0.97). For distinguishing between definite or severe stages of CAN (dsCAN), the ResNet 18 model accurately classified 78% of dsCAN cases and 93% of cases without dsCAN, with an AUCROC of 0.94 (95% CI 0.86–1.00). An alternate backbone model, ResWide 50, showed enhanced sensitivity at 89% for dsCAN, but with a marginally lower AUCROC of 0.91 (95% CI 0.73–1.00). Conclusions: AI-based algorithms utilising retinal images can differentiate with high accuracy patients with CAN. AI analysis of fundus images to detect CAN may be implemented in routine clinical practice to identify patients at the highest CV risk. Trial registration: This is a part of the Silesia Diabetes-Heart Project (Clinical-Trials.gov Identifier: NCT05626413). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Epidemiological studies in atrial fibrillation (AF) illustrate that clinical complexity increase the risk of major adverse outcomes. We aimed to describe European AF patients' clinical phenotypes and analyse the differential clinical course.Methods: We performed a hierarchical cluster analysis based on Ward's Method and Squared Euclidean Distance using 22 clinical binary variables, identifying the optimal number of clusters. We investigated differences in clinical management, use of healthcare resources and outcomes in a cohort of European AF patients from a Europe-wide observational registry.Results: A total of 9363 were available for this analysis. We identified three clusters: Cluster 1 (n = 3634; 38.8%) characterized by older patients and prevalent non-cardiac comorbidities; Cluster 2 (n = 2774; 29.6%) characterized by younger patients with low prevalence of comorbidities; Cluster 3 (n = 2955;31.6%) characterized by patients' prevalent cardiovascular risk factors/comorbidities. Over a mean follow-up of 22.5 months, Cluster 3 had the highest rate of cardiovascular events, all-cause death, and the composite outcome (combining the previous two) compared to Cluster 1 and Cluster 2 (all P < .001). An adjusted Cox regression showed that compared to Cluster 2, Cluster 3 (hazard ratio (HR) 2.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.27-3.62; HR 3.42, 95%CI 2.72-4.31; HR 2.79, 95%CI 2.32-3.35), and Cluster 1 (HR 1.88, 95%CI 1.48-2.38; HR 2.50, 95%CI 1.98-3.15; HR 2.09, 95%CI 1.74-2.51) reported a higher risk for the three outcomes respectively.Conclusions: In European AF patients, three main clusters were identified, differentiated by differential presence of comorbidities. Both non-cardiac and cardiac comorbidities clusters were found to be associated with an increased risk of major adverse outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Current evidence from randomized controlled trials on statins for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in older people, especially those aged > 75 years, is still lacking. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies to extend the current evidence about the association of statin use in older people primary prevention group with risk of CVD and mortality.Methods: PubMed, Scopus, and Embase were searched from inception until March 18, 2021. We included observational studies (cohort or nested case-control) that compared statin use vs non-use for primary prevention of CVD in older people aged ≥ 65 years; provided that each of them reported the risk estimate on at least one of the following primary outcomes: all cause-mortality, CVD death, myocardial infarction (MI), and stroke. Risk estimates of each relevant outcome were pooled as a hazard ratio (HR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) using the random-effects meta-analysis model. The quality of the evidence was rated using the GRADE approach.Results: Ten observational studies (9 cohorts and one case-control study; n = 815,667) fulfilled our criteria. The overall combined estimate suggested that statin therapy was associated with a significantly lower risk of all-cause mortality (HR: 0.86 [95% CI 0.79 to 0.93]), CVD death (HR: 0.80 [95% CI 0.78 to 0.81]), and stroke (HR: 0.85 [95% CI 0.76 to 0.94]) and a non-significant association with risk of MI (HR 0.74 [95% CI 0.53 to 1.02]). The beneficial association of statins with the risk of all-cause mortality remained significant even at higher ages (> 75 years old; HR 0.88 [95% CI 0.81 to 0.96]) and in both men (HR: 0.75 [95% CI: 0.74 to 0.76]) and women (HR 0.85 [95% CI 0.72 to 0.99]). However, this association with the risk of all-cause mortality remained significant only in those with diabetes mellitus (DM) (HR 0.82 [95% CI 0.68 to 0.98]) but not in those without DM. The level of evidence of all the primary outcomes was rated as "very low."Conclusions: Statin therapy in older people (aged ≥ 65 years) without CVD was associated with a 14%, 20%, and 15% lower risk of all-cause mortality, CVD death, and stroke, respectively. The beneficial association with the risk of all-cause mortality remained significant even at higher ages (> 75 years old), in both men and women, and in individuals with DM, but not in those without DM. These observational findings support the need for trials to test the benefits of statins in those above 75 years of age. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The C2HEST score has been validated for predicting AF in the general population or post-stroke patients. We aimed to assess whether this risk score could predict incident AF and other clinical outcomes in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) patients.Methods: A total of 2202 HFpEF patients without baseline AF in the TOPCAT trial were stratified by baseline C2HEST score. Cox proportional hazard model and competing risk regression model was used to explore the relationship between C2HEST score and outcomes, including incident AF, stroke, all-cause death, cardiovascular death, any hospitalization, and HF hospitalization. The discriminative ability of the C2HEST score for various outcomes was assessed by calculating the area under the curve (AUC).Results: The incidence rates of incident AF, stroke, all-cause death, cardiovascular death, any hospitalization, and HF hospitalization were 1.79, 0.70, 3.81, 2.42, 15.50, and 3.32 per 100 person-years, respectively. When the C2HEST score was analyzed as a continuous variable, increased C2HEST score was associated with increased risk of incident AF (HR 1.50, 95% CI 1.29-1.75), as well as increased risks of all-cause death, cardiovascular death, any hospitalization, and HF hospitalization. The AUC for the C2HEST score in predicting incident AF (0.694, 95% CI 0.640-0.748) was higher than all-cause death, cardiovascular death, any hospitalization, or HF hospitalization.Conclusions: The C2HEST score could predict the risk of incident AF as well as death and hospitalization with moderately good predictive abilities in patients with HFpEF. Its simplicity may allow the possibility of quick risk assessments in busy clinical settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Robust data on the contemporary management of atrial fibrillation (AF) patients in China are limited. Importantly current practice in AF management has changing dramatically in recent years. Data from a large registry study will enable us to evaluate the uptake and outcomes with different therapies in a large Chinese AF population.Methods/design: The Chinese Atrial Fibrillation Registry study (CAFR) aims to enroll 20,000 consecutive atrial fibrillation (AF) patients from 32 tertiary and non-tertiary hospitals in Beijing, China, and follow up these patients every 6 months until 2020. Key data collected includes basic sociodemographic information, symptoms and signs, medical history, results of physical examination and laboratory test, details of treatments and personal insurance status. For patients who consent, 5 ml of blood sample will be stored at -80 °C for future analyses of biomarkers. At each 6 month follow up visit, data relating to clinical outcomes will be collected. Data from a randomly selected 10 % of patients will be internally validated with their raw source data. Ischemic stroke events will be adjudicated by an independent endpoint committee.Discussion: CAFR will be one of the largest registries of Asian AF patients (and the largest in Chinese AF patients), as well as providing the longest follow up. This study would provide a valuable opportunity for 'real world' clinical epidemiology with insights into the uptake (and outcomes) of contemporary AF management.Trial Registration: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR-OCH-13003729 . Registered 22 October 2013. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with a high risk of stroke are recommended anticoagulation with warfarin. However, the benefit of warfarin is dependent upon time spent within the target therapeutic range (TTR) of their international normalised ratio (INR) (2.0 to 3.0). AF patients possess limited knowledge of their disease and warfarin treatment and this can impact on INR control. Education can improve patients' understanding of warfarin therapy and factors which affect INR control. Methods/Design: Randomised controlled trial of an intensive educational intervention will consist of group sessions (between 2-8 patients) containing standardised information about the risks and benefits associated with OAC therapy, lifestyle interactions and the importance of monitoring and control of their International Normalised Ratio (INR). Information will be presented within an 'expert-patient' focussed DVD, revised educational booklet and patient worksheets. 200 warfarin-naïve patients who are eligible for warfarin will be randomised to either the intervention or usual care groups. All patients must have ECG-documented AF and be eligible for warfarin (according to the NICE AF guidelines). Exclusion criteria include: aged < 18 years old, contraindication(s) to warfarin, history of warfarin USE, valvular heart disease, cognitive impairment, are unable to speak/read English and disease likely to cause death within 12 months. Primary endpoint is time spent in TTR. Secondary endpoints include measures of quality of life (AF-QoL-18), anxiety and depression (HADS), knowledge of AF and anticoagulation, beliefs about medication (BMQ) and illness representations (IPQ-R). Clinical outcomes, including bleeding, stroke and interruption to anticoagulation will be recorded. All outcome measures will be assessed at baseline and 1, 2, 6 and 12 months post-intervention. Discussion: More data is needed on the clinical benefit of educational intervention with AF patients receiving warfarin. Trial registration: ISRCTN93952605 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aspirin is one of the 'cornerstone' drugs in our current management of cardiovascular disorders. However, despite the prescription of aspirin recurrent vascular events still occur in 10-20% of patients. These, data together with the observations of diminished antiaggregatory response to aspirin in some subjects have provided the basis of the current debate on the existence of so-called "aspirin resistance". Unfortunately, many of the tests employed to define 'aspirin resistance' lack sufficient sensitivity, specificity, and reproducibility. The prevalence of 'aspirin resistance' as defined by each test varies widely, and furthermore, the value of a single point estimate measure of aspirin resistance is questionable. The rate of 'aspirin resistance' is law if patients observed to ingest aspirin, with large proportion of patients to be pseudo-'aspirin resistant', due to non-compliance. What are the implications for clinical practice? Possible non-adherence to aspirin prescription should also be carefully considered before changing to higher aspirin doses, other antiplatelet drugs (e.g. clopidogrel) or even combination antiplatelet drug therapy. Given the multifactorial nature of atherothrombotic disease, it is not surprising that only about 25% of all cardiovascular complications can usually be prevented by any single medication. We would advocate against routine testing of platelet sensitivity to aspirin (as an attempt to look for 'aspirin resistance') but rather, to highlight the importance of clinicians and public attention to the problem of treatment non-compliance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]