Search

Since the 1960s, cardiologists have adopted several binary classification systems for acute myocardial infarction (MI) that facilitated improved patient management. Conversely, for chronic stable manifestations of myocardial ischemia, various classifications have emerged over time, often with conflicting terminology--eg, "stable coronary artery disease" (CAD), "stable ischemic heart disease," and "chronic coronary syndromes" (CCS). While the 2019 European guidelines introduced CCS to impart symmetry with "acute coronary syndromes" (ACS), the 2023 American guidelines endorsed the alternative term "chronic coronary disease." An unintended consequence of these competing classifications is perpetuation of the restrictive terms "coronary" and 'disease', often connoting only a singular obstructive CAD mechanism. It is now important to advance a more broadly inclusive terminology for both obstructive and non-obstructive causes of angina and myocardial ischemia that fosters conceptual clarity and unifies dyssynchronous nomenclatures across guidelines. We, therefore, propose a new binary classification of "acute myocardial ischemic syndromes" and "non-acute myocardial ischemic syndromes," which comprises both obstructive epicardial and non-obstructive pathogenetic mechanisms, including microvascular dysfunction, vasospastic disorders, and non-coronary causes. We herein retain accepted categories of ACS, ST-segment elevation MI, and non-STsegment elevation MI, as important subsets for which revascularization is of proven clinical benefit, as well as new terms like ischemia and MI with non-obstructive coronary arteries. Overall, such a more encompassing nomenclature better aligns, unifies, and harmonizes different pathophysiologic causes of myocardial ischemia and should result in more refined diagnostic and therapeutic approaches targeted to the multiple pathobiological precipitants of angina pectoris, ischemia, and infarction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular trials often use a composite end point and a time-to-first event model. We sought to compare edoxaban versus warfarin using the win ratio, which offers data complementary to time-to-first event analysis, emphasizing the most severe clinical events. METHODS: ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 (Effective Anticoagulation With Factor Xa Next Generation in Atrial Fibrillation-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 48) was a double-blind, randomized trial in which patients with atrial fibrillation were assigned 1:1:1 to a higher dose edoxaban regimen (60/30 mg daily), a lower dose edoxaban regimen (30/15 mg daily), or warfarin. In an exploratory analysis, we analyzed the trial outcomes using an unmatched win ratio approach. The win ratio for each edoxaban regimen was the total number of edoxaban wins divided by the number of warfarin wins for the following ranked clinical outcomes: 1: death; 2: hemorrhagic stroke; 3: ischemic stroke/systemic embolic event/epidural or subdural bleeding; 4: noncerebral International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis major bleeding; and 5: cardiovascular hospitalization. RESULTS: 21 105 patients were randomized to higher dose edoxaban regimen (N=7035), lower dose edoxaban regimen (N=7034), or warfarin (N=7046), yielding >49 million pairs for each treatment comparison. The median age was 72 years, 38% were women, and 59% had prior vitamin K antagonist use. The win ratio was 1.11 (95% CI, 1.05-1.18) for higher dose edoxaban regimen versus warfarin and 1.11 (95% CI, 1.05-1.18) for lower dose edoxaban regimen versus warfarin. The favorable impacts of edoxaban on death (34% of wins) and cardiovascular hospitalization (41% of wins) were the major contributors to the win ratio. Results consistently favored edoxaban in subgroups based on creatine clearance and dose reduction at baseline, with heightened benefit among those without prior vitamin K antagonist use. CONCLUSIONS: In a win ratio analysis of the ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 trial, both dose regimens of edoxaban were superior to warfarin for the net clinical outcome incorporating ischemic and bleeding events. As the win ratio emphasizes the most severe clinical events, this analysis supports the superiority of edoxaban over warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Cockcroft-Gault formula is recommended to determine a renal indication for dose reduction of dabigatran, edoxaban, and rivaroxaban. Nephrology guidelines now recommend the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD) and Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) formulae as more accurate estimates of glomerular filtration rate.Methods: We analyzed anticoagulated patients with atrial fibrillation who were enrolled in the Prevention of Thromboembolic Events - European Registry in Atrial Fibrillation (PREFER in AF). The proportion of patients with dissimilar renal dosing indications was assessed when applying Cockcroft-Gault, MDRD, or CKD-EPI. Thromboembolic and major bleeding events at 1 year were compared in patients in whom Cockcroft-Gault and CKD-EPI provided concordant or discordant results around a threshold of 50 mL/minute.Results: Out of 1288 patients with atrial fibrillation with chronic kidney disease in whom Cockcroft-Gault suggested a dose reduction of dabigatran, edoxaban, or rivaroxaban (creatinine clearance ≤50 mL/minutes), 19% and 16% were reclassified to the respective higher doses, and 24% and 23% to the respective lower doses by applying the MDRD and CKD-EPI formulae, respectively. In patients potentially receiving a different dose of dabigatran, edoxaban, or rivaroxaban when using CKD-EPI, we observed an excess of thromboembolic events (4.1% versus 0.8%; odds ratio, 5.5 [95% CI, 1.5-20.8]; P=0.01). Major bleeding rates were nonsignificantly different in the discordance versus concordance group (5.7% versus 2.7%; odds ratio, 2.2 [95% CI, 0.9-5.6]; P=0.09).Conclusions: The MDRD and CKD-EPI formulae suggest a different dosing in up to a quarter of anticoagulated patients with atrial fibrillation. This seems to impact hard outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

[Figure: see text]. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Atrial fibrillation (AF) and valvular heart disease (VHD) frequently coexist and independently increase mortality1. Bioprosthetic valve implantation (surgical or transcatheter), is a common, increasingly utilized treatment for VHD2. Patients with AF and bioprosthetic valves require anticoagulation to prevent thromboembolic events. Non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) are safe and efficacious alternatives to vitamin K antagonists for anticoagulation in AF. However, guidelines recommend against NOACs in patients with bioprosthetic valves, citing a lack of supporting data. Only one of the first three warfarin-controlled pivotal NOAC trials in AF included patients with bioprosthetic valves (n>80)3. The Effective Anticoagulation with Factor Xa Next Generation in Atrial Fibrillation Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 48 (ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48) trial, which compared edoxaban (a direct oral factor Xa inhibitor) to warfarin in AF patients4, did not exclude patients with bioprosthetic valves, thus providing an opportunity to analyze this high-risk subgroup. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses a study which examined the influence of the amount of myocardium subtended by a stenosis on fractional flow reserve (FFR), especially in relation to quantitative coronary angiography. The study assessed the severity of each lesion and evaluated the amount of jeopardized myocardium using three validates scores. Results revealed concomitant collateralized chronic total occlusion and the correlation of FFR values to minimal lumen diameter, diameter stenosis and the scores.