Search

Objective: To determine whether stroke prevention strategy, comorbidity management, and clinical outcome risks differ across atrial fibrillation (AF) care specialties., Methods: Newly diagnosed non-valvular AF patients enrolled in the international, prospective GARFIELD-AF registry (enrolment: 2010-2016) were analysed. Prescription of oral anticoagulation (OAC) therapy and select comorbidities was assessed by baseline care specialty: cardiology, primary care, or other specialties (internist/neurologist/geriatrician). Associations between care specialty and 2-year clinical outcomes were evaluated using multivariable Cox frailty models to account for within-country homogeneity., Results: In 52,011 patients, 34,172 (65.7 %) were diagnosed and initially managed in cardiology care, 7396 (14.2 %) in primary care, and 10,443 (20.1 %) in other specialties. The inter-country care specialty distribution varied considerably. Non-vitamin K OAC (NOAC) therapy among CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc ≥2 patients was more common in cardiology care (31.0 %) than primary care (19.8 %) and other specialty care (24.9 %), but comorbidity management was similar across specialties. Compared to cardiology care, primary care was associated with greater non-cardiovascular mortality (1.21 [1.01-1.45]), major bleeding (1.31 [1.05-1.62]), and new/worsening heart failure risk (2.09 [1.69-2.59]). Care in other specialties was associated with greater all-cause (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.19 [95 % CI, 1.09-1.29]), cardiovascular (1.15 [1.01-1.31]), and non-cardiovascular mortality (1.29 [1.13-1.47]), as well as non-haemorrhagic stroke/systemic embolism (1.48 [1.26-1.73]), major bleeding (1.21 [1.02-1.43]), and new/worsening heart failure risk (1.45 [1.21-1.75]) than cardiology care., Conclusion: Comorbidity management was similar across AF care specialties, but patients outside of cardiology care had fewer NOAC prescriptions and greater risk for most clinical endpoints. Cardiology expertise may have important implications for AF prognosis., Clinical Trial Registration: URL: http://www., Clinicaltrials: gov. Unique identifier for GARFIELD-AF: NCT01090362., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest C Fielder Camm reports honoraria from Bayer. John W Eikelboom reports grant or in-kind support from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Janssen, Sanofi-Aventis and honoraria from Astra-Zeneca, Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol-Myer-Squibb, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eli-Lilly, Glaxo-Smith-Kline, Merck, Pfizer, Janssen, Sanofi-Aventis, Servier. Ali Oto reports grants from Pfizer and personal fees from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Daiichi, A. Menarini Research and Business Service GmbH, and Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals. Keith AA Fox reports grants and personal fees from Bayer/Janssen, and Astra Zeneca. AJ Camm reports institutional grants and personal fees from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer/BMS and Daiichi Sankyo, and personal fees from Portola. Karen S Pieper has consultancies with Johnson & Johnson, Element Science, Artivion, and Novartis. Shinya Goto was a recipient of personal fees from Jansen, Merck & Co., Inc., Amgen Inc., and Anthos, as well as fees from the American Heart Association as an Associate Editor for Circulation, and Steering Committee fees from TIMI Study group. Ajay K Kakkar received personal fees and grants from Bayer AG, Sanofi S.A. and Anthos Therapeutics Inc. All other authors report no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To assess the characteristics and clinical outcomes of patients with lower extremity peripheral artery disease (PAD) in XATOA receiving dual pathway inhibition (DPI) with rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily plus aspirin according to lower extremity revascularisation (LER) history., Methods: XATOA is an international, multicentre, prospective, single arm registry study. This subanalysis investigated patients with lower extremity PAD according to LER history. Patients with coronary artery disease, PAD, or both, receiving DPI were followed for 12 or more months. Baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes were assessed according to LER history. A time dependency analysis assessed outcomes by time between the most recent LER procedure and the start of DPI. A multivariable analysis assessed the influence of patient characteristics on clinical outcomes., Results: In XATOA (n = 5 532), 2 820 (51.0%) patients had lower extremity PAD, of whom 1 736 (61.6%) had prior LER and 1 084 (38.4%) had no prior LER. Baseline characteristics were generally similar between patients with or without prior LER. A higher proportion of patients with prior LER experienced any treatment emergency clinical events compared with those without prior LER (15.0% vs. 9.4%, respectively), with greater differences observed between incidence rates of limb events, including major adverse limb events (9.06 vs. 4.09 events per 100 patient years, respectively). Similar rates of myocardial infarction, stroke, and major bleeding were observed in both subgroups. Clinical event rates were generally higher in patients who had previous LER for six months or less compared with patients who had previous LET for more than six months before starting DPI, regardless of LER type. Multivariable analyses showed that prior LER was predictive of limb events., Conclusion: This subanalysis of XATOA found that prior LER was associated with increased rates of limb events, consistent with results of COMPASS and VOYAGER PAD. Rates of bleeding were also low regardless of LER history and consistent with the findings from these trials., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: The Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) 2.0 score was developed and validated in predominantly male patient populations. We aimed to assess its sex-specific performance in non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACS) and to develop an improved score (GRACE 3.0) that accounts for sex differences in disease characteristics., Methods: We evaluated the GRACE 2.0 score in 420 781 consecutive patients with NSTE-ACS in contemporary nationwide cohorts from the UK and Switzerland. Machine learning models to predict in-hospital mortality were informed by the GRACE variables and developed in sex-disaggregated data from 386 591 patients from England, Wales, and Northern Ireland (split into a training cohort of 309 083 [80·0%] patients and a validation cohort of 77 508 [20·0%] patients). External validation of the GRACE 3.0 score was done in 20 727 patients from Switzerland., Findings: Between Jan 1, 2005, and Aug 27, 2020, 400 054 patients with NSTE-ACS in the UK and 20 727 patients with NSTE-ACS in Switzerland were included in the study. Discrimination of in-hospital death by the GRACE 2.0 score was good in male patients (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC] 0·86, 95% CI 0·86-0·86) and notably lower in female patients (0·82, 95% CI 0·81-0·82; p<0·0001). The GRACE 2.0 score underestimated in-hospital mortality risk in female patients, favouring their incorrect stratification to the low-to-intermediate risk group, for which the score does not indicate early invasive treatment. Accounting for sex differences, GRACE 3.0 showed superior discrimination and good calibration with an AUC of 0·91 (95% CI 0·89-0·92) in male patients and 0·87 (95% CI 0·84-0·89) in female patients in an external cohort validation. GRACE 3·0 led to a clinically relevant reclassification of female patients to the high-risk group., Interpretation: The GRACE 2.0 score has limited discriminatory performance and underestimates in-hospital mortality in female patients with NSTE-ACS. The GRACE 3.0 score performs better in men and women and reduces sex inequalities in risk stratification., Funding: Swiss National Science Foundation, Swiss Heart Foundation, Lindenhof Foundation, Foundation for Cardiovascular Research, and Theodor-Ida-Herzog-Egli Foundation., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests SK received travel support from the European Atherosclerosis Society and equipment and materials from Roche Diagnostics, outside the submitted work. MR declares institutional research grants from Terumo, Biotronik, Medtronic, Cordis/Cardinal Health, and Boston Scientific, outside the submitted work. LR received funding from Abbott, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Sanofi, Regeneron, and Heartflow, consulting fees from Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Canon, NovoNordisk, Medtronic, Sanofi, Occlutech, and Vifor, payment or honoraria from Abbott and Occlutech, and travel support from AstraZeneca. MdB is Chair of the Data Monitoring and Ethics Committee of the UK GRIS Trial and part of the Steering Committee of the DAPA MI Trial. CW is the clinical lead of the MINAP registry. JD received consulting fees from GENinCode UK Ltd, honoraria or consulting fees from Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Pfizer, Aegerion, Novartis, Sanofi, Takeda, Novo Nordisk, and Bayer, and travel support from the Einstein Professorship Foundation (Berlin, Germany), outside the submitted work. JD holds unpaid leadership positions at Our Future Health and Public Health England. TFL declares institutional educational and research grants from Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daichi Sankyo, Novartis, and Vifor, and consulting fees from Daichi Sankyo, Philipps, Pfizer, and Ineeo Inc, outside the submitted work. TFL holds leadership positions at the European Society of Cardiology, Swiss Heart Foundation, and the Foundation for Cardiovascular Research—Zurich Heart House. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

The benefit and utility of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTn) in the diagnosis of myocardial infarction in patients with kidney impairment is unclear. Here, we describe implementation of hs-cTnI testing on the diagnosis, management, and outcomes of myocardial infarction in patients with and without kidney impairment. Consecutive patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome enrolled in a stepped-wedge, cluster-randomized controlled trial were included in this pre-specified secondary analysis. Kidney impairment was defined as an eGFR under 60mL/min/1.73m 2 . The index diagnosis and primary outcome of type 1 and type 4b myocardial infarction or cardiovascular death at one year were compared in patients with and without kidney impairment following implementation of hs-cTnI assay with 99th centile sex-specific diagnostic thresholds. Serum creatinine concentrations were available in 46,927 patients (mean age 61 years; 47% women), of whom 9,080 (19%) had kidney impairment. hs-cTnIs were over 99th centile in 46% and 16% of patients with and without kidney impairment. Implementation increased the diagnosis of type 1 infarction from 12.4% to 17.8%, and from 7.5% to 9.4% in patients with and without kidney impairment (both significant). Patients with kidney impairment and type 1 myocardial infarction were less likely to undergo coronary revascularization (26% versus 53%) or receive dual anti-platelets (40% versus 68%) than those without kidney impairment, and this did not change post-implementation. In patients with hs-cTnI above the 99th centile, the primary outcome occurred twice as often in those with kidney impairment compared to those without (24% versus 12%, hazard ratio 1.53, 95% confidence interval 1.31 to 1.78). Thus, hs-cTnI testing increased the identification of myocardial injury and infarction but failed to address disparities in management and outcomes between those with and without kidney impairment., (Copyright © 2022 International Society of Nephrology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Direct-acting oral anticoagulant use for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation is limited by bleeding concerns. Asundexian, a novel, oral small molecule activated coagulation factor XIa (FXIa) inhibitor, might reduce thrombosis with minimal effect on haemostasis. We aimed to determine the optimal dose of asundexian and to compare the incidence of bleeding with that of apixaban in patients with atrial fibrillation., Methods: In this randomised, double-blind, phase 2 dose-finding study, we compared asundexian 20 mg or 50 mg once daily with apixaban 5 mg twice daily in patients aged 45 years or older with atrial fibrillation, a CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score of at least 2 if male or at least 3 if female, and increased bleeding risk. The study was conducted at 93 sites in 14 countries, including 12 European countries, Canada, and Japan. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to a treatment group using an interactive web response system, with randomisation stratified by whether patients were receiving a direct-acting oral anticoagulant before the study start. Masking was achieved using a double-dummy design, with participants receiving both the assigned treatment and a placebo that resembled the non-assigned treatment. The primary endpoint was the composite of major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding according to International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis criteria, assessed in all patients who took at least one dose of study medication. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04218266, and EudraCT, 2019-002365-35., Findings: Between Jan 30, 2020, and June 21, 2021, 862 patients were enrolled. 755 patients were randomly assigned to treatment. Two patients (assigned to asundexian 20 mg) never took any study medication, resulting in 753 patients being included in the analysis (249 received asundexian 20 mg, 254 received asundexian 50 g, and 250 received apixaban). The mean age of participants was 73·7 years (SD 8·3), 309 (41%) were women, 216 (29%) had chronic kidney disease, and mean CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score was 3·9 (1·3). Asundexian 20 mg resulted in 81% inhibition of FXIa activity at trough concentrations and 90% inhibition at peak concentrations; asundexian 50 mg resulted in 92% inhibition at trough concentrations and 94% inhibition at peak concentrations. Ratios of incidence proportions for the primary endpoint were 0·50 (90% CI 0·14-1·68) for asundexian 20 mg (three events), 0·16 (0·01-0·99) for asundexian 50 mg (one event), and 0·33 (0·09-0·97) for pooled asundexian (four events) versus apixaban (six events). The rate of any adverse event occurring was similar in the three treatment groups: 118 (47%) with asundexian 20 mg, 120 (47%) with asundexian 50 mg, and 122 (49%) with apixaban., Interpretation: The FXIa inhibitor asundexian at doses of 20 mg and 50 mg once daily resulted in lower rates of bleeding compared with standard dosing of apixaban, with near-complete in-vivo FXIa inhibition, in patients with atrial fibrillation., Funding: Bayer., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests JPP is supported by R01AG074185 from the National Institute on Aging. He also receives grants for clinical research from Abbott, the American Heart Association, the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation, Bayer, Boston Scientific, iRhythm, and Philips, and serves as a consultant to Abbott, AbbVie, Ablacon, Altathera, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Bristol Myers Squibb, LivaNova, Medtronic, Milestone, ElectroPhysiology Frontiers, Pfizer, Sanofi, Philips, and Up-to-Date. VC has research grants from Boehringer Ingelheim and is an advisory board member or consultant to Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Bristol Myers Squibb/Pfizer. SJC has received consulting honoraria and is involved in research grants related to atrial fibrillation, anticoagulation, bleeding, or stroke prevention with the following: Abbott, AstraZeneca, Alexion, Atricure, Bayer, Boston Scientific, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Javelin, and Pfizer. MRP has research grants from Bayer, Janssen, Novartis, Heartflow, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the Moore Foundation, and Idorsia, and serves as an advisory board member or consultant to Bayer, Janssen, Novartis, and Medscape. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Oral anticoagulation (OAC) in atrial fibrillation (AF) reduces the risk of stroke/systemic embolism (SE). The impact of OAC discontinuation is less well documented., Objective: Investigate outcomes of patients prospectively enrolled in the Global Anticoagulant Registry in the Field-Atrial Fibrillation study who discontinued OAC., Methods: Oral anticoagulation discontinuation was defined as cessation of treatment for ≥7 consecutive days. Adjusted outcome risks were assessed in 23 882 patients with 511 days of median follow-up after discontinuation., Results: Patients who discontinued (n = 3114, 13.0%) had a higher risk (hazard ratio [95% CI]) of all-cause death (1.62 [1.25-2.09]), stroke/systemic embolism (SE) (2.21 [1.42-3.44]) and myocardial infarction (MI) (1.85 [1.09-3.13]) than patients who did not, whether OAC was restarted or not. This higher risk of outcomes after discontinuation was similar for patients treated with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) and direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) (p for interactions range = 0.145-0.778). Bleeding history (1.43 [1.14-1.80]), paroxysmal vs. persistent AF (1.15 [1.02-1.29]), emergency room care setting vs. office (1.37 [1.18-1.59]), major, clinically relevant nonmajor, and minor bleeding (10.02 [7.19-13.98], 2.70 [2.24-3.25] and 1.90 [1.61-2.23]), stroke/SE (4.09 [2.55-6.56]), MI (2.74 [1.69-4.43]), and left atrial appendage procedures (4.99 [1.82-13.70]) were predictors of discontinuation. Age (0.84 [0.81-0.88], per 10-year increase), history of stroke/transient ischemic attack (0.81 [0.71-0.93]), diabetes (0.88 [0.80-0.97]), weeks from AF onset to treatment (0.96 [0.93-0.99] per week), and permanent vs. persistent AF (0.73 [0.63-0.86]) were predictors of lower discontinuation rates., Conclusions: In GARFIELD-AF, the rate of discontinuation was 13.0%. Discontinuation for ≥7 consecutive days was associated with significantly higher all-cause mortality, stroke/SE, and MI risk. Caution should be exerted when considering any OAC discontinuation beyond 7 days., (© 2021 The Authors. Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis.)

Background The COMPASS (Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies) trial showed that rivaroxaban plus aspirin reduced major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with chronic coronary artery disease (CAD) and/or peripheral artery disease (PAD). We explored whether CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc or CHADS 2 scores, well-validated tools for assessing risk of thromboembolic events in atrial fibrillation, can identify vascular patients at highest risk of recurrent events who may derive greatest benefits of treatment. Methods Predictive accuracies of the CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc and CHADS 2 scores for MACE, were assessed in this analysis of the COMPASS trial. Kaplan-Meier estimates of cumulative risk were used to compare the effects of rivaroxaban plus aspirin (n = 9152) with aspirin alone (n = 9126) according to risk scores. Results High CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc (6-9) or CHADS 2 (3-6) scores were associated with over three times greater absolute risk of MACE compared with CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score of 1-2 or CHADS 2 score of 0. The effects of rivaroxaban plus aspirin compared with aspirin alone were consistent across CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc and CHADS 2 score categories for MACE, bleeding and net clinical benefit, with greatest reduction in MACE observed in patients treated for 30 months with highest CHADS 2 score (3-6) (hazard ratio = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.53-0.86, p = 0.0012, 25 events per 1000 patients prevented). Conclusion The CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc and CHADS 2 scores can be used in patients with chronic CAD and/or PAD to identify patients who are at highest risk of MACE. Those identified at highest risk by CHADS 2 scores had greatest benefit from dual pathway inhibition with rivaroxaban plus aspirin. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT01776424., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Background: The COMPASS trial assessed the impact of adding low dose rivaroxaban to aspirin in selected patients (pts). After an acute myocardial infarction (MI), when dual antiplatelet treatment is no longer needed, patients might be eligible for aspirin/rivaroxaban co-therapy. The characteristics and risks of such a population are unclear., Methods: Data were extracted from the FAST-MI 2005, 2010 and 2015 nationwide French registries. Characteristics and long-term mortality were compared according to COMPASS eligibility and between registry and trial populations., Results: Among 9954 patients alive and free of events at one year, 4402 (44%) were classified as COMPASS-Like (i.e. meeting COMPASS inclusion and without exclusion criteria), 1720 (17%) COMPASS-Excluded (i.e. meeting any exclusion criterion) and 3832 (39%) Non-COMPASS (i.e. meeting neither COMPASS inclusion nor exclusion criteria). COMPASS-Like patients were at higher risk and had higher 5-year mortality compared with Non-COMPASS patients. COMPASS-Excluded patients had the highest mortality. COMPASS enrichment criteria defined a population at increased risk of death: eligible pts. had 40% higher 5-year adjusted mortality (Hazard Ratio = 1.40 [1.15; 1.70]), while excluded pts. had 57% higher risk (Hazard Ratio = 1.57 [1.25; 1.97]). Patients meeting the COMPASS criteria one year after MI differed from those included in the randomized trial., Conclusions: Based on the population included in the French FAST-MI registries, enrichment criteria used in COMPASS defined a population representing 44% of the overall population of MI patients surviving to one year, and these patients are at high risk of 5-year mortality. They were at higher risk compared to chronic stable vascular patients enrolled in the trial. Registered with Clinicaltrials.gov under the number: NCT00673036., (Copyright © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: High-sensitivity cardiac troponin assays permit use of lower thresholds for the diagnosis of myocardial infarction, but whether this improves clinical outcomes is unknown. We aimed to determine whether the introduction of a high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I (hs-cTnI) assay with a sex-specific 99th centile diagnostic threshold would reduce subsequent myocardial infarction or cardiovascular death in patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome., Methods: In this stepped-wedge, cluster-randomised controlled trial across ten secondary or tertiary care hospitals in Scotland, we evaluated the implementation of an hs-cTnI assay in consecutive patients who had been admitted to the hospitals' emergency departments with suspected acute coronary syndrome. Patients were eligible for inclusion if they presented with suspected acute coronary syndrome and had paired cardiac troponin measurements from the standard care and trial assays. During a validation phase of 6-12 months, results from the hs-cTnI assay were concealed from the attending clinician, and a contemporary cardiac troponin I (cTnI) assay was used to guide care. Hospitals were randomly allocated to early (n=5 hospitals) or late (n=5 hospitals) implementation, in which the high-sensitivity assay and sex-specific 99th centile diagnostic threshold was introduced immediately after the 6-month validation phase or was deferred for a further 6 months. Patients reclassified by the high-sensitivity assay were defined as those with an increased hs-cTnI concentration in whom cTnI concentrations were below the diagnostic threshold on the contemporary assay. The primary outcome was subsequent myocardial infarction or death from cardiovascular causes at 1 year after initial presentation. Outcomes were compared in patients reclassified by the high-sensitivity assay before and after its implementation by use of an adjusted generalised linear mixed model. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01852123., Findings: Between June 10, 2013, and March 3, 2016, we enrolled 48 282 consecutive patients (61 [SD 17] years, 47% women) of whom 10 360 (21%) patients had cTnI concentrations greater than those of the 99th centile of the normal range of values, who were identified by the contemporary assay or the high-sensitivity assay. The high-sensitivity assay reclassified 1771 (17%) of 10 360 patients with myocardial injury or infarction who were not identified by the contemporary assay. In those reclassified, subsequent myocardial infarction or cardiovascular death within 1 year occurred in 105 (15%) of 720 patients in the validation phase and 131 (12%) of 1051 patients in the implementation phase (adjusted odds ratio for implementation vs validation phase 1·10, 95% CI 0·75 to 1·61; p=0·620)., Interpretation: Use of a high-sensitivity assay prompted reclassification of 1771 (17%) of 10 360 patients with myocardial injury or infarction, but was not associated with a lower subsequent incidence of myocardial infarction or cardiovascular death at 1 year. Our findings question whether the diagnostic threshold for myocardial infarction should be based on the 99th centile derived from a normal reference population., Funding: The British Heart Foundation., (Copyright © 2018 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Aims: The aim of this study was to determine the net clinical benefit (NCB) of rivaroxaban compared with warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation., Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of 14,236 patients included in ROCKET AF who received at least one dose of study drug. We analyzed NCB using four different methods: (1) composite of death, stroke, systemic embolism, myocardial infarction, and major bleeding; (2) method 1 with fatal or critical organ bleeding substituted for major bleeding; (3) difference between the rate of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism minus 1.5 times the difference between the rate of intracranial hemorrhage; and (4) weighted sum of differences between rates of death, ischemic stroke or systemic embolism, intracranial hemorrhage, and major bleeding., Results: Rivaroxaban was associated with a lower risk of the composite outcome of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or systemic embolism (rate difference per 10,000 patient-years [RD]=-86.8 [95% CI -143.6 to -30.0]) and fatal or critical organ bleeding (-41.3 [-68 to -14.7]). However, rivaroxaban was associated with a higher risk of major bleeding other than fatal or critical organ bleeding (55.9 [14.7 to 97.2]). Method 1 showed no difference between treatments (-35.5 [-108.4 to 37.3]). Methods 2-4 favored treatment with rivaroxaban (2: -96.8 [-157.0 to -36.8]; 3: -65.2 [-112.3 to -17.8]; 4: -54.8 [-96.0 to -10.2])., Conclusions: Rivaroxaban was associated with favorable NCB compared with warfarin. The NCB was attributable to lower rates of ischemic events and fatal or critical organ bleeding., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This study sought to assess whether there were significant interactions of procedural access strategies and lesion characteristics with bleeding and ischemic events among atrial fibrillation (AF) patients anticoagulated with rivaroxaban or warfarin following a percutaneous coronary intervention., Background: Among stented AF patients, the impact of procedural access strategies or lesion characteristics on antithrombotic safety and efficacy outcomes is unclear., Methods: In the PIONEER AF-PCI (An Open-label, Randomized, Controlled, Multicenter Study Exploring Two Treatment Strategies of Rivaroxaban and a Dose-Adjusted Oral Vitamin K Antagonist Treatment Strategy in Subjects With Atrial Fibrillation Who Undergo Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) trial, 2,124 patients were randomized to 3 groups and followed for 12 months: 1) rivaroxaban 15 mg once daily plus a P2Y 12 inhibitor (n = 709); 2) rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice a day plus dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) (n = 709); and 3) dose-adjusted warfarin plus DAPT (n = 706). Kaplan-Meier rates of clinically significant bleeding and major adverse cardiovascular events were compared between treatments stratified by subgroups of procedure type and lesion characteristics., Results: Compared with warfarin, both rivaroxaban regimens consistently reduced clinically significant bleeding across subgroups of radial versus femoral arterial access and by vascular closure device use. Treatment effect of rivaroxaban on major adverse cardiovascular events did not vary when stratified by ischemia-driven revascularization, urgency of revascularization, location of culprit artery, presence of bifurcation lesion, presence of thrombus, type, and length of stent or number of stents (interaction p > 0.05 for all subgroups)., Conclusions: Among stented AF patients requiring long-term oral anticoagulation, there was no effect modification by procedure or lesion characteristics of either clinically significant bleeding or major adverse cardiovascular events. Rivaroxaban-based therapy was superior to warfarin plus DAPT in bleeding outcomes regardless of the type of stent or arterial access during the index coronary revascularization. (A Study Exploring Two Strategies of Rivaroxaban [JNJ39039039; BAY-59-7939] and One of Oral Vitamin K Antagonist in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Who Undergo Percutaneous Coronary Intervention [PIONEER AF-PCI]; NCT01830543)., (Copyright © 2018 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Patients with peripheral artery disease have an increased risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Antiplatelet agents are widely used to reduce these complications., Methods: This was a multicentre, double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial for which patients were recruited at 602 hospitals, clinics, or community practices from 33 countries across six continents. Eligible patients had a history of peripheral artery disease of the lower extremities (previous peripheral bypass surgery or angioplasty, limb or foot amputation, intermittent claudication with objective evidence of peripheral artery disease), of the carotid arteries (previous carotid artery revascularisation or asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis of at least 50%), or coronary artery disease with an ankle-brachial index of less than 0·90. After a 30-day run-in period, patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive oral rivaroxaban (2·5 mg twice a day) plus aspirin (100 mg once a day), rivaroxaban twice a day (5 mg with aspirin placebo once a day), or to aspirin once a day (100 mg and rivaroxaban placebo twice a day). Randomisation was computer generated. Each treatment group was double dummy, and the patient, investigators, and central study staff were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction or stroke; the primary peripheral artery disease outcome was major adverse limb events including major amputation. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01776424, and is closed to new participants., Findings: Between March 12, 2013, and May 10, 2016, we enrolled 7470 patients with peripheral artery disease from 558 centres. The combination of rivaroxaban plus aspirin compared with aspirin alone reduced the composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (126 [5%] of 2492 vs 174 [7%] of 2504; hazard ratio [HR] 0·72, 95% CI 0·57-0·90, p=0·0047), and major adverse limb events including major amputation (32 [1%] vs 60 [2%]; HR 0·54 95% CI 0·35-0·82, p=0·0037). Rivaroxaban 5 mg twice a day compared with aspirin alone did not significantly reduce the composite endpoint (149 [6%] of 2474 vs 174 [7%] of 2504; HR 0·86, 95% CI 0·69-1·08, p=0·19), but reduced major adverse limb events including major amputation (40 [2%] vs 60 [2%]; HR 0·67, 95% CI 0·45-1·00, p=0·05). The median duration of treatment was 21 months. The use of the rivaroxaban plus aspirin combination increased major bleeding compared with the aspirin alone group (77 [3%] of 2492 vs 48 [2%] of 2504; HR 1·61, 95% CI 1·12-2·31, p=0·0089), which was mainly gastrointestinal. Similarly, major bleeding occurred in 79 (3%) of 2474 patients with rivaroxaban 5 mg, and in 48 (2%) of 2504 in the aspirin alone group (HR 1·68, 95% CI 1·17-2·40; p=0·0043)., Interpretation: Low-dose rivaroxaban taken twice a day plus aspirin once a day reduced major adverse cardiovascular and limb events when compared with aspirin alone. Although major bleeding was increased, fatal or critical organ bleeding was not. This combination therapy represents an important advance in the management of patients with peripheral artery disease. Rivaroxaban alone did not significantly reduce major adverse cardiovascular events compared with asprin alone, but reduced major adverse limb events and increased major bleeding., Funding: Bayer AG., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Coronary artery disease is a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide, and is a consequence of acute thrombotic events involving activation of platelets and coagulation proteins. Factor Xa inhibitors and aspirin each reduce thrombotic events but have not yet been tested in combination or against each other in patients with stable coronary artery disease., Methods: In this multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, outpatient trial, patients with stable coronary artery disease or peripheral artery disease were recruited at 602 hospitals, clinics, or community centres in 33 countries. This paper reports on patients with coronary artery disease. Eligible patients with coronary artery disease had to have had a myocardial infarction in the past 20 years, multi-vessel coronary artery disease, history of stable or unstable angina, previous multi-vessel percutaneous coronary intervention, or previous multi-vessel coronary artery bypass graft surgery. After a 30-day run in period, patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive rivaroxaban (2·5 mg orally twice a day) plus aspirin (100 mg once a day), rivaroxaban alone (5 mg orally twice a day), or aspirin alone (100 mg orally once a day). Randomisation was computer generated. Each treatment group was double dummy, and the patients, investigators, and central study staff were masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome of the COMPASS trial was the occurrence of myocardial infarction, stroke, or cardiovascular death. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01776424, and is closed to new participants., Findings: Between March 12, 2013, and May 10, 2016, 27 395 patients were enrolled to the COMPASS trial, of whom 24 824 patients had stable coronary artery disease from 558 centres. The combination of rivaroxaban plus aspirin reduced the primary outcome more than aspirin alone (347 [4%] of 8313 vs 460 [6%] of 8261; hazard ratio [HR] 0·74, 95% CI 0·65-0·86, p<0·0001). By comparison, treatment with rivaroxaban alone did not significantly improve the primary outcome when compared with treatment with aspirin alone (411 [5%] of 8250 vs 460 [6%] of 8261; HR 0·89, 95% CI 0·78-1·02, p=0·094). Combined rivaroxaban plus aspirin treatment resulted in more major bleeds than treatment with aspirin alone (263 [3%] of 8313 vs 158 [2%] of 8261; HR 1·66, 95% CI 1·37-2·03, p<0·0001), and similarly, more bleeds were seen in the rivaroxaban alone group than in the aspirin alone group (236 [3%] of 8250 vs 158 [2%] of 8261; HR 1·51, 95% CI 1·23-1·84, p<0·0001). The most common site of major bleeding was gastrointestinal, occurring in 130 [2%] patients who received combined rivaroxaban plus aspirin, in 84 [1%] patients who received rivaroxaban alone, and in 61 [1%] patients who received aspirin alone. Rivaroxaban plus aspirin reduced mortality when compared with aspirin alone (262 [3%] of 8313 vs 339 [4%] of 8261; HR 0·77, 95% CI 0·65-0·90, p=0·0012)., Interpretation: In patients with stable coronary artery disease, addition of rivaroxaban to aspirin lowered major vascular events, but increased major bleeding. There was no significant increase in intracranial bleeding or other critical organ bleeding. There was also a significant net benefit in favour of rivaroxaban plus aspirin and deaths were reduced by 23%. Thus, addition of rivaroxaban to aspirin has the potential to substantially reduce morbidity and mortality from coronary artery disease worldwide., Funding: Bayer AG., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Although there are sex differences in management and outcome of acute coronary syndromes (ACS), sex is not a component of Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) risk score (RS) for in-hospital mortality prediction. We sought to determine the prognostic utility of GRACE RS in men and women, and whether its predictive accuracy would be augmented through sex-based modification of its components., Methods: Canadian men and women enrolled in GRACE and Canadian Registry of Acute Coronary Events were stratified as ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) or non-ST-segment elevation ACS (NSTE-ACS). GRACE RS was calculated as per original model. Discrimination and calibration were evaluated using the c-statistic and Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test, respectively. Multivariable logistic regression was undertaken to assess potential interactions of sex with GRACE RS components., Results: For the overall cohort (n=14,422), unadjusted in-hospital mortality rate was higher in women than men (4.5% vs. 3.0%, p<0.001). Overall, GRACE RS c-statistic and goodness-of-fit test p-value were 0.85 (95% CI 0.83-0.87) and 0.11, respectively. While the RS had excellent discrimination for all subgroups (c-statistics >0.80), discrimination was lower for women compared to men with STEMI [0.80 (0.75-0.84) vs. 0.86 (0.82-0.89), respectively, p<0.05]. The goodness-of-fit test showed good calibration for women (p=0.86), but suboptimal for men (p=0.031). No significant interaction was evident between sex and RS components (all p>0.25)., Conclusions: The GRACE RS is a valid predictor of in-hospital mortality for both men and women with ACS. The lack of interaction between sex and RS components suggests that sex-based modification is not required., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Long-term aspirin prevents vascular events but is only modestly effective. Rivaroxaban alone or in combination with aspirin might be more effective than aspirin alone for vascular prevention in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) or peripheral artery disease (PAD). Rivaroxaban as well as aspirin increase upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding and this might be prevented by proton pump inhibitor therapy., Methods: Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) is a double-blind superiority trial comparing rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily combined with aspirin 100 mg once daily or rivaroxaban 5 mg twice daily vs aspirin 100 mg once daily for prevention of myocardial infarction, stroke, or cardiovascular death in patients with stable CAD or PAD. Patients not taking a proton pump inhibitor were also randomized, using a partial factorial design, to pantoprazole 40 mg once daily or placebo. The trial was designed to have at least 90% power to detect a 20% reduction in each of the rivaroxaban treatment arms compared with aspirin and to detect a 50% reduction in upper GI complications with pantoprazole compared with placebo., Results: Between February 2013 and May 2016, we recruited 27,395 participants from 602 centres in 33 countries; 17,598 participants were included in the pantoprazole vs placebo comparison. At baseline, the mean age was 68.2 years, 22.0% were female, 90.6% had CAD, and 27.3% had PAD., Conclusions: COMPASS will provide information on the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban, alone or in combination with aspirin, in the long-term management of patients with stable CAD or PAD, and on the efficacy and safety of pantoprazole in preventing upper GI complications in patients receiving antithrombotic therapy., (Copyright © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aims: Although circulating microRNA (miRNAs) have emerged as biomarkers predicting mortality in acute coronary syndrome (ACS), more data are needed to understand these mechanisms. Mapping miRNAs to high-risk traits may identify miRNAs involved in pathways conferring risk for poor outcome in ACS. We aim to investigate the relationship between circulating miRNAs and high-risk traits in non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS)., Methods: Whole-genome miRNA sequencing was performed on RNA extracted from whole blood of 199 patients with NSTE-ACS. Generalized linear models were used to test associations of miRNAs and 13 high-risk clinical traits, including the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) score, a widely validated risk score for mortality in NSTE-ACS., Results: There were 205 nominally significant miRNA-risk factor associations (p < 0.05) observed. Significant associations occurred most frequently with chronic heart failure (HF) (43 miRs), GRACE risk score (30 miRs), and renal function (32 miRs). In hierarchical cluster analysis, chronic HF and GRACE risk score clustered most tightly together, sharing 14 miRNAs with matching fold-change direction. Controlling for a false discovery rate of 5%, chronic HF was significantly associated with lower circulating levels of miR-3135b (p < 0.0006), miR-126-5p (p < 0.0001), miR-142-5p (p = 0.0004) and miR-144-5p (p = 0.0007), while increasing GRACE risk score inversely correlated with levels of miR-3135b (p < 0.0001) and positively correlated with levels of miR-28-3p (p = 0.0002)., Conclusions: Circulating miRs clustered around two powerful traits for mortality risk in NSTE-ACS. MiR-3135b, which was under-expressed in chronic HF and increasing GRACE risk score, and miR-28-3p, which has no known association with cardiovascular disease, warrant further investigation., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)