Search

Optimal antithrombotic pharmacotherapy in patients affected by diabetes mellitus (DM) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention is unclear. We sought to evaluate the safety and efficacy of bivalirudin compared with heparin plus a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor (GPI) in patients with DM undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. We pooled patient-level data from the Randomized Evaluation of PCI Linking Angiomax to Reduced Clinical Events-2, Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage strategy, and Harmonizing Outcomes with Revascularization and Stents in Acute Myocardial Infarction trials. The primary efficacy end point was the incidence of major adverse cardiac events, defined as the composite of death, myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization at 30 days. The primary safety end point was the incidence of 30-day non-coronary artery bypass graft-related major bleeding. All-cause mortality was reported at 30 days and 1 year. Of the 14,737 patients included in the pooled database, 3,641 (24.7%) had DM. Patients with DM had higher rates of 30-day major bleeding and 30-day and 1-year all-cause mortality. There were no differences in 30-day major adverse cardiac events between bivalirudin versus heparin plus GPI in patients with DM (6.9% vs 7.8%; relative risk [RR] 0.89, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.12) or without DM (7.5% vs 6.7%; RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.27; pinteraction = 0.10). Bivalirudin treatment was associated with reduced risk of major bleeding in similar magnitude in patients with DM (4.3% vs 6.6% RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.89) or without DM (3.2% vs 6.1%; RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.61; pinteraction = 0.15). The hemorrhagic benefit of bivalirudin was noted for both access site- and non-access site-related bleeding. Overall, bivalirudin treatment was associated with a significant 1-year mortality benefit (2.7% vs 3.3%; RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.98; p = 0.03), which was consistent between patients with or without DM (pinteraction = 0.30). In conclusion, compared with heparin plus GPI, bivalirudin was associated with similar 30-day antithrombotic efficacy and better 30-day freedom from bleeding and 1-year mortality, irrespective of diabetic status., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background/purpose: Family history of coronary artery disease (CAD) is a well-established risk factor of future cardiovascular events. The authors sought to examine the relationship between family history of CAD and clinical profile and prognosis of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)., Materials/methods: Baseline features and clinical outcomes at 30 days and at 3 years from 3601 patients with STEMI enrolled in the HORIZONS-AMI trial were compared in patients with and without family history of premature CAD, which was present in 1059 patients (29.4%)., Results: These patients were younger (median 56.7 vs. 62.1years, P<0.0001) and more often current smokers (52.4% vs. 43.5%, P<0.0001), had more dyslipidemia (47.7% vs. 41.1%, P=0.0003), less diabetes mellitus (14.1% vs. 17.5%, P=0.01) and had shorter symptom onset to balloon times (median 213 vs. 225 min, P=0.02). Patients with a family history of premature CAD had higher rates of final TIMI 3 flow (93.8% vs. 90.6%, P=0.002), and myocardial blush grade 2 or 3 (83.2% vs. 78.0% P=0.0008), and fewer procedural complications. Although the unadjusted 30-day and 3-year mortality rates were lower in patients with a family history of premature CAD (1.8% vs. 3.0%, P=0.046 and 4.8% vs. 7.7%, P=0.002, respectively), by multivariable analysis the presence of a family history of premature CAD was not an independent predictor of death at 3 years (HR [95%CI]=1.00 [0.70, 1.44], P=0.98)., Conclusions: A family history of premature CAD is not an independent predictor of higher mortality., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Thrombotic cardiovascular disease (myocardial infarction [MI], stroke, and venous thromboembolism [VTE]) remains a major cause of death and disability. Sulodexide is an oral glycosaminoglycan containing heparan sulfate and dermatan sulfate. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the cardiovascular efficacy, and safety of sulodexide versus control in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for RCTs reporting cardiovascular outcomes in patients receiving sulodexide versus control (placebo or no treatment). Outcomes included all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, MI, stroke, deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism, and bleeding. We used inverse variance random-effects models with odds ratio (OR) as the effect measure. After screening 360 records, 6 RCTs including 7,596 patients (median follow-up duration: 11.6 months) were included. Patients were enrolled for history of MI, VTE, peripheral arterial disease, or cardiovascular risk factors plus nephropathy. Use of sulodexide compared with control was associated with reduced odds of all-cause mortality (OR 0.67, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.52–0.85, p  = 0.001), cardiovascular mortality (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.22–0.89, p  = 0.02), and MI (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.51–0.96, p  = 0.03), and nonsignificantly reduced odds of stroke (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.45–1.35, p  = 0.38). Sulodexide was associated with significantly reduced odds of VTE (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.24–0.81, p  = 0.008), including DVT (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.26–0.65, p  < 0.001), but not pulmonary embolism (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.40–2.15, p  = 0.86). Bleeding events were not significantly different in the two groups (OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.47–2.74, p  = 0.48). In six RCTs across a variety of clinical indications, use of sulodexide compared with placebo or no treatment was associated with reduced odds of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, MI, and DVT, without a significant increase in bleeding. Additional studies with this agent are warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Combining patient-level data from clinical trials can connect rare phenomena with clinical endpoints, but statistical techniques applied to a single trial may become problematical when trials are pooled. Estimating the hazard of a binary variable unevenly distributed across trials showcases a common pooled database issue. We studied how an unevenly distributed binary variable can compromise the integrity of fixed and random effects Cox proportional hazards (cph) models. We compared fixed effect and random effects cph models on a set of simulated datasets inspired by a 17-trial pooled database of patients presenting with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non-STEMI undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. An unevenly distributed covariate can bias hazard ratio estimates, inflate standard errors, raise type I error, and reduce power. While uneveness causes problems for all cph models, random effects suffer least. Compared to fixed effect models, random effects suffer lower bias and trade inflated type I errors for improved power. Contrasting hazard rates between trials prevent accurate estimates from both fixed and random effects models. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]