Search

Aims Patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) are at risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and major adverse limb events (MALE). There are limited data regarding dietary patterns and the risk of recurrent MACE and MALE in CAD and PAD patients. We aimed to identify dietary patterns associated with MACE and MALE in patients with CAD and/or PAD. Methods and results We analysed data collected from patients enrolled into the Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) trial, in which diet was assessed by a short food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) at baseline. Two dietary pattern scores, the modified Alternate Healthy Eating Index (mAHEI) and Mediterranean Diet Score (mMDS), were calculated. We tested the association between mAHEI and mMDS and the incidence of MACE and/or MALE. The mean mAHEI score was 23.0 ± 7.7 (out of 70) overall and was similar comparing CAD and PAD patients. The incidence of MACE or MALE was 6.3% in the lowest diet quality quartile (as assessed by mAHEI) compared with 4.2% in the highest quartile over 30 months. In the fully adjusted model, the hazard ratio of a low diet quality (Quartile 1) compared with the highest (Quartile 4) for MACE or MALE was 1.27 (95% CI: 1.08–1.49; P = 0.004, Q1 vs. Q4). This excess hazard was primarily driven by higher MACE in both the CAD and PAD cohorts. Conclusions Poor diet quality as assessed by the mAHEI is independently associated with a higher risk of recurrent MACE and MALE in patients with chronic CAD and/or PAD.

Introduction: In clinical trials, event adjudication is a process to review and confirm the accuracy of outcomes reported by site investigators. Despite efforts to automate the communication between a clinical-data-and-coordination center and an event adjudication committee, the review and confirmation of outcomes, as the core function of the process, still fully rely on human labor. To address this issue, we present an automated event adjudication system and its application in two randomized controlled trials. Methods: Centrally executed by a clinical-data-and-coordination center, the automated event adjudication system automatedly assessed and classified outcomes in a clinical data management system. By checking clinically predefined criteria, the automated event adjudication system either confirmed or unconfirmed an outcome and automatedly updated its status in the database. It also served as a management tool to assist staff to oversee the process of event adjudication. The system has been applied in: (1) the Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) trial and (2) the New Approach riVaroxaban Inhibition of Factor Xa in a Global trial versus Aspirin to prevenT Embolism in Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source (NAVIGATE ESUS) trial. The automated event adjudication system first screened outcomes reported on a case report form and confirmed those with data matched to preset definitions. For selected primary efficacy, secondary, and safety outcomes, the unconfirmed cases were referred to a human event adjudication committee for a final decision. In the New Approach riVaroxaban Inhibition of Factor Xa in a Global trial versus Aspirin to prevenT Embolism in Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source (NAVIGATE ESUS) trial, human adjudicators were given priority to review cases, while the automated event adjudication system took the lead in the Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) trial. Results: Outcomes that were adjudicated in a hybrid model are discussed here. The COMPASS automated event adjudication system adjudicated 3283 primary efficacy outcomes and confirmed 1652 (50.3%): 132 (21.1%) strokes, 522 (53%) myocardial infarctions, and 998 (59.7%) causes of deaths. The NAVIGATE ESUS one adjudicated 737 cases of selected outcomes and confirmed 383 (52%): 219 (51.5%) strokes, 34 (42.5%) myocardial infarctions, 73 (54.9%) causes of deaths, and 57 (57.6%) major bleedings. After one deducts the time needed for migrating the system to a new study, the automated event adjudication system helped to reduce the time required for human review from approximately 1303 to 716.5 h for the Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies trial and from 387 to 196 h for the New Approach riVaroxaban Inhibition of Factor Xa in a Global trial versus Aspirin to prevenT Embolism in Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source trial. Conclusion: The automated event adjudication system in combination with human adjudicators provides a streamlined and efficient approach to event adjudication in clinical trials. To immediately apply automated event adjudication, one can first consider the automated event adjudication system and involve human assistance for cases unconfirmed by the former.

Hypervolemia and vitamin D deficiency occur frequently in patients receiving peritoneal dialysis and may contribute to left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy. The effect of bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA)-guided volume management or vitamin D supplementation on LV mass among those receiving peritoneal dialysis is uncertain.Two-by-two factorial randomized controlled trial.Sixty-five patients receiving maintenance peritoneal dialysis.BIA-guided volume management versus usual care and oral cholecalciferol 50,000 U weekly for 8 weeks followed by 10,000 U weekly for 44 weeks or matching placebo.Change in LV mass at 1 year measured by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging.Total body water decreased by 0.9 + 2.4 (SD) L in the BIA group compared with a 1.5 ± 3.4 L increase in the usual care group (adjusted between-group difference: -2.4 [95% CI, -4.1 to -0.68] L, P = 0.01). LV mass increased by 1.3 ± 14.3 g in the BIA group and decreased by 2.4 ± 37.7 g in the usual care group (between-group difference: +2.2 [95% CI, -13.9 to 18.3] g, P = 0.8). Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D concentration increased by a mean of 17.2 ± 30.8 nmol/L in the cholecalciferol group and declined by 8.2 ± 24.3 nmol/L in the placebo group (between-group difference: 28.3 [95% CI, 17.2-39.4] nmol/L, P 0.001). LV mass decreased by 3.0 ± 28.1 g in the cholecalciferol group and increased by 2.0 ± 31.2 g in the placebo group (between-group difference: -4.5 [95% CI, -20.4 to 11.5] g, P = 0.6).Relatively small sample size with larger than expected variation in change in LV mass.BIA-guided volume management had a modest impact on volume status with no effect on the change in LV mass. Vitamin D supplementation increased serum vitamin D concentration but had no effect on LV mass.Unrestricted Baxter International extramural grant and the Kidney Foundation of Canada.Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with study number NCT01045980.

BackgroundBetter understanding of global variation in simple tests of cognition and function would aid the delivery and interpretation of multi-national studies of the prevention of dementia and functional decline.MethodsWe aim to describe the variation in simple measures of cognition and function by world region, study, recruitment centre or individual level factors. In six RCTs that measured cognition with the mini-mental state examination (MMSE), Montreal cognitive assessment (MoCA), and instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) with the Standardised Assessment of Everyday Global Activities (SAGEA), we estimated average scores by global region with multilevel mixed-effects models. We estimated the proportion of participants with cognitive or functional impairment with previously defined thresholds (MMSE≤24 or MoCA≤25, SAGEA≥7), and with a country-standardised z-score threshold of cognitive or functional score of ≤-1.ResultsIn 91,396 participants (mean age 66.6±7.8 years, 31% females) from seven world regions, all global regions differed significantly in estimated cognitive function (z-score differences 0.11–0.45, pConclusionsAccounting for country-level factors reduced large differences between world regions in estimates of cognitive impairment. Measures of IADL were less variable across world regions, and could be used to better estimate dementia incidence in large studies.Impact statementWe certify that this work is novel. After analysing data from a large cohort of participants with a history of cardiovascular disease or cardiovascular risk factors, who were recruited in six international randomised controlled trials (RCTs) we found that accounting for country-level factors reduced large differences between world regions in estimates of cognitive impairment, while measures of functional impairment were less variable across world regions.Key PointsCognitive and functional test scores in randomized controlled clinical trial cohorts vary widely across world regions.The difference in cognitive test performance was large in comparison to difference in measures of activities of daily living (ADLs). Accounting for country-level factors reduced the differences between world regions in estimates of cognitive impairment.Cognitive test measures were less variable and could be used to better estimate dementia incidence in international studies.Why this study matters?We found that cognitive and functional test scores in RCT cohorts varied widely across world regions. The difference in cognitive test performance was large in comparison to difference in measures of activities of daily living. The impact of differences on the performance of cognitive tests, which were developed in high-income countries, creates challenges for harmonized studies of cognitive decline prevention in different world regions. Future studies using the same test around the world could standardise cognitive score by country, and consider using in addition measures of instrumental and basic activities of daily living, where there is less variation across world regions.

Background Different instruments have been used to assess ability to perform everyday functional activities, such as activities of daily living (ADL) and instrumental activities of daily living (IADL). No measures of functional activity have been validated in cardiac surgery. We assessed the reliability and validity of the Standardized Assessment of Global activities in the Elderly (SAGE) scale. Methods We undertook an observational sub-study of VISION Cardiac Surgery. Patients were assessed post-discharge after cardiac surgery using SAGE and comparator measures to determine convergent validity. A blinded independent assessor administered SAGE by phone within 7 days to determine test–retest reliability. We sought to demonstrate a correlation of ≥0.5 between SAGE and each corresponding measure. We also sought to define the SAGE score corresponding to severe functional disability, defined using the World Health Organisation Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS). Results There were 152 patients included. Inter-rater reliability was excellent (intra-class correlation coefficient=0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.98–0.99). Convergent validity was evident, ranging from adequate for the overall SAGE score (0.54; 95% CI, 0.42–0.65) to very good for the SAGE mobility sub-score (0.80; 95% CI, 0.73–0.85). SAGE was initially poorly correlated with the IADL index (–0.24) but increased to –0.60 after post-hoc adjustment of SAGE scoring. A SAGE score ≥7 was associated with severe functional disability and occurred in 42/152 (27.6%) of patients. Conclusion These results demonstrate the reliability and validity of the SAGE scale as a measure of global function in patients discharged home after cardiac surgery. Clinical trial registration NCT01842568.

Background: The greatest mortality and disability from stroke occurs in low- and middle-income countries. A significant barrier to implementation of best stroke care practices in these settings is limited availability of specialized healthcare training. We conducted a systematic review to determine the most effective methods for the provision of speciality stroke care education for hospital-based healthcare professionals in low-resource settings. Methods: We followed the PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews and searched PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus for original clinical research articles that described or evaluated stroke care education for hospital-based healthcare professionals in low-resource settings. Two reviewers screened titles/abstracts and then full text articles. Three reviewers critically appraised the articles selected for inclusion. Results: A total of 1,182 articles were identified and eight were eligible for inclusion in this review; three were randomized controlled trials, four were non-randomized studies, and one was a descriptive study. Most studies used several approaches to education. A “train-the-trainer” approach to education was found to have the most positive clinical outcomes (lower overall complications, lengths of stay in hospital, and clinical vascular events). When used for quality improvement, the “train-the-trainer” approach increased patient reception of eligible performance measures. When technology was used to provide stroke education there was an increased frequency in diagnosis of stroke and use of antithrombotic treatment, reduced door-to-needle times, and increased support for decision making in medication prescription was reported. Task-sharing workshops for non-neurologists improved knowledge of stroke and patient care. Multidimensional education demonstrated an overall care quality improvement and increased prescriptions for evidence-based therapies although there were no significant differences in secondary prevention efforts, stroke reoccurrence, or mortality rates. Discussion: The “train the trainer” approach is likely the most effective strategy for specialist stroke education, while technology is also useful if resources are available to support its development and use. If resources are limited, basic knowledge education should be considered at a minimum, and multidimensional training may not be as beneficial. Communities of practice, led by those in similar settings, may be helpful to develop educational initiatives with relevance to local contexts.

Digital, Background and Purpose: The HOPE-3 trial (Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation–3) found that antihypertensive therapy combined with a statin reduced first stroke among people at intermediate cardiovascular risk. We report secondary analyses of stroke outcomes by stroke subtype, predictors, treatment effects in key subgroups. Methods: Using a 2-by-2 factorial design, 12 705 participants from 21 countries with vascular risk factors but without overt cardiovascular disease were randomized to candesartan 16 mg plus hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg daily or placebo and to rosuvastatin 10 mg daily or placebo. The effect of the interventions on stroke subtypes was assessed. Results: Participants were 66 years old and 46% were women. Baseline blood pressure (138/82 mm Hg) was reduced by 6.0/3.0 mm Hg and LDL-C (low-density lipoprotein cholesterol; 3.3 mmol/L) was reduced by 0.90 mmol/L on active treatment. During 5.6 years of follow-up, 169 strokes occurred (117 ischemic, 29 hemorrhagic, 23 undetermined). Blood pressure lowering did not significantly reduce stroke (hazard ratio [HR], 0.80 [95% CI, 0.59–1.08]), ischemic stroke (HR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.55–1.15]), hemorrhagic stroke (HR, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.34–1.48]), or strokes of undetermined origin (HR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.41–2.08]). Rosuvastatin significantly reduced strokes (HR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.52–0.95]), with reductions mainly in ischemic stroke (HR, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.37–0.78]) but did not significantly affect hemorrhagic (HR, 1.22 [95% CI, 0.59–2.54]) or strokes of undetermined origin (HR, 1.29 [95% CI, 0.57–2.95]). The combination of both interventions compared with double placebo substantially and significantly reduced strokes (HR, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.36–0.87]) and ischemic strokes (HR, 0.41 [95% CI, 0.23–0.72]). Conclusions: Among people at intermediate cardiovascular risk but without overt cardiovascular disease, rosuvastatin 10 mg daily significantly reduced first stroke. Blood pressure lowering combined with rosuvastatin reduced ischemic stroke by 59%. Both therapies are safe and generally well tolerated., Correction to: Antihypertensives and Statin Therapy for Primary Stroke Prevention: A Secondary Analysis of the HOPE-3 Trial, Ciencias Médicas y de la Salud

The large number of patients worldwide infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus has overwhelmed health-care systems globally. The Anti-Coronavirus Therapies (ACT) outpatient trial aimed to evaluate anti-inflammatory therapy with colchicine and antithrombotic therapy with aspirin for prevention of disease progression in community patients with COVID-19.The ACT outpatient, open-label, 2 × 2 factorial, randomised, controlled trial, was done at 48 clinical sites in 11 countries. Patients in the community aged 30 years and older with symptomatic, laboratory confirmed COVID-19 who were within 7 days of diagnosis and at high risk of disease progression were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive colchicine 0·6 mg twice daily for 3 days and then 0·6 mg once daily for 25 days versus usual care, and in a second (1:1) randomisation to receive aspirin 100 mg once daily for 28 days versus usual care. Investigators and patients were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was assessed at 45 days in the intention-to-treat population; for the colchicine randomisation it was hospitalisation or death, and for the aspirin randomisation it was major thrombosis, hospitalisation, or death. The ACT outpatient trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324463 and is ongoing.Between Aug 27, 2020, and Feb 10, 2022, 3917 patients were randomly assigned to colchicine or control and to aspirin or control; after excluding 36 patients due to administrative reasons 3881 individuals were included in the analysis (n=1939 colchicine vs n=1942 control; n=1945 aspirin vs 1936 control). Follow-up was more than 99% complete. Overall event rates were 5 (0·1%) of 3881 for major thrombosis, 123 (3·2%) of 3881 for hospitalisation, and 23 (0·6%) of 3881 for death; 66 (3·4%) of 1939 patients allocated to colchicine and 65 (3·3%) of 1942 patients allocated to control experienced hospitalisation or death (hazard ratio [HR] 1·02, 95% CI 0·72-1·43, p=0·93); and 59 (3·0%) of 1945 of patients allocated to aspirin and 73 (3·8%) of 1936 patients allocated to control experienced major thrombosis, hospitalisation, or death (HR 0·80, 95% CI 0·57-1·13, p=0·21). Results for the primary outcome were consistent in all prespecified subgroups, including according to baseline vaccination status, timing of randomisation in relation to onset of symptoms (post-hoc analysis), and timing of enrolment according to the phase of the pandemic (post-hoc analysis). There were more serious adverse events with colchicine than with control (34 patients [1·8%] of 1939 vs 27 [1·4%] of 1942) but none in either group that led to discontinuation of study interventions. There was no increase in serious adverse events with aspirin versus control (31 [1·6%] vs 31 [1·6%]) and none that led to discontinuation of study interventions.The results provide no support for the use of colchicine or aspirin to prevent disease progression or death in outpatients with COVID-19.Canadian Institutes for Health Research, Bayer, Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton Health Sciences Research Institute, and Thistledown Foundation.For the Portuguese, Russian and Spanish translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Digital, Background: Effective treatments for COVID-19 are urgently needed, but conducting randomized trials during the pandemic has been challenging.Methods: The Anti-Coronavirus Therapy (ACT) trials are parallel factorial international trials that aimed to enroll 3500 outpatients and 2500 inpatients with symptomatic COVID-19. The outpatient trial is evaluating colchicine vs usual care, and aspirin vs usual care. The primary outcome for the colchicine randomization is hospitalization or death, and for the aspirin randomization, it is major thrombosis, hospitalization, or death. The inpatient trial is evaluating colchicine vs usual care, and the combination of rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily and aspirin 100 mg once daily vs usual care. The primary outcome for the colchicine randomization is need for high-flow oxygen, need for mechanical ventilation, or death, and for the rivaroxaban plus aspirin randomization, it is major thrombotic events, need for high-flow oxygen, need for mechanical ventilation, or death. Results: At the completion of enrollment on February 10, 2022, the outpatient trial had enrolled 3917 patients, and the inpatient trial had enrolled 2611 patients. Challenges encountered included lack of preliminary data about the interventions under evaluation, uncertainties related to the expected event rates, delays in regulatory and ethics approvals, and in obtaining study interventions, as well as the changing pattern of the COVID-19 pandemic. Conclusions: The ACT trials will determine the efficacy of antiinflammatory therapy with colchicine, and antithrombotic therapy with aspirin given alone or in combination with rivaroxaban, across the spectrum of mild, moderate, and severe COVID-19. Lessons learned from the conduct of these trials will inform planning of future trials., Contexte : Il est urgent de mettre au point des traitements efficaces contre la COVID-19, mais il n’est pas facile de realiser des essais à repartition aleatoire dans un contexte pandemique.Methodologie : Les essais internationaux factoriels ACT (Anti-Coronavirus Therapy) avaient un objectif d’inscription de 3 500 patients externes et de 2 500 patients hospitalises presentant une COVID-19 symptomatique. L’essai mene auprès de patients externes visait à evaluer la colchicine par rapport aux soins habituels, et l’aspirine par rapport aux soins habituels. Le paramètre d’evaluation principal au terme de la repartition aleatoire des patients etait l’hospitalisation ou le decès dans le groupe traite par la colchicine, et la thrombose majeure, l’hospitalisation ou le decès dans le groupe traite par l’aspirine. L’essai mene auprès de patients hospitalises visant à evaluer la colchicine par rapport aux soins habituels, et un traitement associant le rivaroxaban à 2,5 mg deux fois par jour et l’aspirine à 100 mg une fois par jour par rapport aux soins habituels. Le paramètre d’evaluation principal au terme de la repartition aleatoire des patients etait le recours à l’oxygenotherapie à haut debit ou à la ventilation mecanique ou le decès dans le groupe traite par la colchicine, et la survenue de manifestations thrombotiques majeures, le recours à l’oxyg enotherapie à haut debit ou à la ventilation m ecanique ou le decès dans le groupe traite par l’association rivaroxaban-aspirine. Resultats : À la fin de la periode d’inscription, le 10 fevrier 2022, 3 917 patients externes et 2 611 patients hospitalises formaient la population des essais. Certains aspects se sont reveles problematiques, notamment le manque de donnees preliminaires sur les interventions à evaluer, les incertitudes liees aux taux d´evenements prevus, les retards touchant les approbations reglementaires et ethiques et les interventions de recherche, de même que l’evolution de la pandemie de COVID-19. Conclusions : Les essais ACT d etermineront l’efficacite du traitement anti-inflammatoire par la colchicine et du traitement antithrombotique par l’aspirine, administree seule ou en association avec le rivaroxaban, contre la COVID-19 legère, moderee ou sevère. Les leçons tirees de ces essais orienteront la planification d’essais ulterieurs., Ciencias Médicas y de la Salud

The burden of stroke is higher in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) than in high-income countries and is rising. Even though there are global policies and guidelines for implementing stroke care, there are many challenges in setting up stroke services in LMICs. Despite these challenges, there are many models of stroke care available in LMICs-eg, multidisciplinary team care led by a stroke neurologist, specialist-led care by neurologists, physician-led care, hub and spoke models incorporating stroke telemedicine (ie, telestroke), and task sharing involving community health workers. Alternative strategies have been developed, such as reorganising the existing hospital infrastructure by training health professionals to implement protocol-driven care. The future challenge is to identify what elements of organised stroke care can be implemented to make the largest gain. Simple interventions such as swallowing assessments, bowel and bladder care, mobility assessments, and consistent secondary prevention can prove to be key elements to improving post-discharge morbidity and mortality in LMICs.

Function describes an individual’s ability to perform everyday activities. In the context of cardiac surgery, functional changes quantify the effect of surgery on one’s day-to-day life. Decreases in regional cerebral oxygen saturation (rScO2) measured using near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) has been associated with postoperative cognitive decline but its relationship with function has not been studied. We sought to determine the feasibility of conducting a large observational study examining the relationship between decreases in rScO2 during cardiac surgery and postoperative functional decline. We undertook a single-centre, pilot sub-study of the NeuroVISION-Cardiac Surgery pilot study, which included adults undergoing isolated coronary artery bypass grafting on cardiopulmonary bypass; all patients enrolled in NeuroVISION-Cardiac Surgery were included. Function was evaluated at baseline, 30 days, and three months using the Standardized Assessment of Global activities in the Elderly (SAGE) scale. Blinded NIRS monitors were affixed for the duration of surgery. Our feasibility outcomes were to recruit one patient per week, obtain complete NIRS data in ≥ 90%, obtain SAGE at all time-points in ≥ 90%, and determine the time required for NIRS data to be transcribed into case report forms. 49/50 patients enrolled in NeuroVISION-Cardiac Surgery were recruited over 48 weeks (1.02 patients/week). Of the 49 included patients, 49 (100%) had complete NIRS data and 44 (90%) had complete SAGE data. The time required for NIRS data collection was a mean (standard deviation) of 5.5 (1.8) min per patient. This pilot study shows the feasibility of conducting a large observational study examining the relationship between decreases in cerebral saturation during cardiac surgery and postoperative functional decline. www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04241289); registered 27 January 2020.

ObjectiveSubdural hematomas (SDHs) are an uncommon, but important, complication of anticoagulation therapy. We hypothesized that the risks of SDH would be similar during treatment with oral factor Xa inhibitors compared with aspirin.MethodsWe assessed the frequency and the effects of antithrombotic treatments on SDHs in the recent international Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) randomized trial comparing aspirin 100 mg daily, rivaroxaban 5 mg twice daily, and rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily plus aspirin. A systematic review/meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing oral factor Xa inhibitors vs aspirin on SDH risk was undertaken.ResultsAmong 27,395 COMPASS participants, 28 patients with SDHs were identified (mean age 72 years). SDH-associated mortality was 7%. Incidence was 0.06 per 100 patient-years (11 SDH/17,492 years observation) during the mean 23-month follow-up among aspirin-assigned patients and did not differ significantly between treatments. Three additional randomized controlled trials including 16,177 participants reported a total of 14 SDHs with an incidence ranging from 0.06 to 0.1 per 100 patient-years. Factor Xa inhibitor use was not associated with an increased risk of SDH compared to aspirin (odds ratio, 0.97; 95% confidence interval, 0.52–1.81; I2 = 0%).ConclusionThe frequency of SDH was similar in all 3 treatment arms of the COMPASS trial. The COMPASS trial results markedly increase the available evidence from randomized comparisons of oral factor Xa inhibitors with aspirin regarding SDH. From available, albeit limited, evidence from 4 randomized trials, therapeutic dosages of factor Xa inhibitors do not appear to increase the risk of SDH compared with aspirin.Clinical trial identifier number:NCT01776424.

Background: Patients with established coronary artery disease or peripheral artery disease often have diabetes mellitus. These patients are at high risk of future vascular events. Methods: In a prespecified analysis of the COMPASS trial (Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies), we compared the effects of rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) plus aspirin (100 mg daily) versus placebo plus aspirin in patients with diabetes mellitus versus without diabetes mellitus in preventing major vascular events. The primary efficacy end point was the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. Secondary end points included all-cause mortality and all major vascular events (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or major adverse limb events, including amputation). The primary safety end point was a modification of the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis criteria for major bleeding. Results: There were 10 341 patients with diabetes mellitus and 17 054 without diabetes mellitus in the overall trial. A consistent and similar relative risk reduction was seen for benefit of rivaroxaban plus aspirin (n=9152) versus placebo plus aspirin (n=9126) in patients both with (n=6922) and without (n=11 356) diabetes mellitus for the primary efficacy end point (hazard ratio, 0.74, P =0.002; and hazard ratio, 0.77, P =0.005, respectively, P interaction =0.77) and all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.81, P =0.05; and hazard ratio, 0.84, P =0.09, respectively; P interaction =0.82). However, although the absolute risk reductions appeared numerically larger in patients with versus without diabetes mellitus, both subgroups derived similar benefit (2.3% versus 1.4% for the primary efficacy end point at 3 years, Gail-Simon qualitative P interaction P interaction =0.02; 2.7% versus 1.7% for major vascular events, P interaction P interaction =0.001). Conclusions: In stable atherosclerosis, the combination of aspirin plus rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily provided a similar relative degree of benefit on coronary, cerebrovascular, and peripheral end points in patients with and without diabetes mellitus. Given their higher baseline risk, the absolute benefits appeared larger in those with diabetes mellitus, including a 3-fold greater reduction in all-cause mortality. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT01776424.

Background Myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery (MINS) is common and of prognostic importance. Little is known about MINS in orthopaedic surgery. The diagnostic criterion for MINS was a level of ≥0.03 ng/mL on a non-high-sensitivity troponin T (TnT) assay due to myocardial ischemia. Methods We undertook an international, prospective study of 15,103 patients ≥45 years of age who had inpatient noncardiac surgery; 3,092 underwent orthopaedic surgery. Non-high-sensitivity TnT assays were performed on postoperative days 0, 1, 2, and 3. Among orthopaedic patients, we determined (1) the prognostic relevance of the MINS diagnostic criteria, (2) the 30-day mortality rate for those with and without MINS, and (3) the probable proportion of MINS cases that would go undetected without troponin monitoring because of a lack of an ischemic symptom. Results Three hundred and sixty-seven orthopaedic patients (11.9%) had MINS. MINS was associated independently with 30-day mortality including among those who had had orthopaedic surgery. Orthopaedic patients without and with MINS had a 30-day mortality rate of 1.0% and 9.8%, respectively (odds ratio [OR], 11.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 6.72 to 18.92). The 30-day mortality rate was increased for patients with MINS who had an ischemic feature (i.e., symptoms, or evidence of ischemia on electrocardiography or imaging) (OR, 18.25; 95% CI, 10.06 to 33.10) and for those who did not have an ischemic feature (OR, 7.35; 95% CI, 3.37 to 16.01). The proportion of orthopaedic patients with MINS who were asymptomatic and in whom the myocardial injury would have probably gone undetected without TnT monitoring was 81.3% (95% CI, 76.3% to 85.4%). Conclusions One in 8 orthopaedic patients in our study had MINS, and MINS was associated with a higher mortality rate regardless of symptoms. Troponin levels should be measured after surgery in at-risk patients because most MINS cases (>80%) are asymptomatic and would go undetected without routine measurements. Level of evidence Prognostic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

OBJECTIVE To determine whether ACE inhibitors reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes using a Mendelian randomization (MR) approach. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS A two-sample MR analysis included 17 independent genetic variants associated with ACE serum concentration in 4,147 participants from the Outcome Reduction with Initial Glargine INtervention (ORIGIN) (clinical trial reg. no. NCT00069784) trial, and their effects on type 2 diabetes risk were estimated from 18 studies of the DIAbetes Genetics Replication And Meta-analysis (DIAGRAM) consortium. A genetic risk score (GRS) underpinning lower ACE concentration was then tested for association with type 2 diabetes prevalence in 341,872 participants, including 16,320 with type 2 diabetes, from the UK Biobank. MR estimates were compared after standardization for blood pressure change, with the estimate obtained from a randomized controlled trial (RCT) meta-analysis of ACE inhibitors versus placebo (n = 31,200). RESULTS Genetically lower ACE concentrations were associated with a lower risk of type 2 diabetes (odds ratio [OR] per SD 0.92 [95% CI 0.89–0.95]; P = 1.79 × 10−7). This result was replicated in the UK Biobank (OR per SD 0.97 [0.96–0.99]; P = 8.73 × 10−4). After standardization, the ACE GRS was associated with a larger decrease in type 2 diabetes risk per 2.4-mmHg lower mean arterial pressure (MAP) compared with that obtained from an RCT meta-analysis (OR per 2.4-mmHg lower MAP 0.19 [0.07–0.51] vs. 0.76 [0.60–0.97], respectively; P = 0.007 for difference). CONCLUSIONS These results support the causal protective effect of ACE inhibitors on type 2 diabetes risk and may guide therapeutic decision making in clinical practice.

Aims To determine the characteristics of patients with coronary artery disease (CAD), peripheral artery disease (PAD), or both, initiating dual pathway inhibition (DPI) using rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily plus aspirin, and to report their clinical outcomes and bleeding rates in clinical practice compared to the COMPASS randomized trial, which provided the basis for using DPI in this patient population. Methods and results XATOA is a prospective registry of 5532 patients: of which, 72.7% had CAD, 58.9% had PAD, and 31.6% had both. The mean age of patients was 68 years and 25.5% were women. The mean follow-up period was 15 months. The most frequently reported reason for initiating DPI was the presence of existing, worsening or newly diagnosed risk characteristics (n = 4753, 85.9%). Before initiating DPI, 75.3% received a single antiplatelet and 18.3% received various antiplatelet combinations. The incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), major adverse limb events (MALE) and acute or severe limb ischaemia was 2.26, 3.57, and 1.54 per 100 patient-years, respectively, among the 5532 patients in XATOA. Corresponding rates in COMPASS were 2.18, 0.19, and 0.12 per 100 patient-years, respectively. Major bleeding rates were 0.95 and 1.67 per 100 patient-years in XATOA and COMPASS, respectively. Conclusion High-risk vascular patients are prioritized for DPI in clinical practice, and rates of MACE are similar to COMPASS, but MALE rates are higher in XATOA, consistent with the greater proportion of PAD patients. Major bleeding rates were lower in XATOA. The findings provide support for favourable net clinical benefit of DPI in high-risk vascular patients. One-sentence summary The characteristics of patients initiated on dual pathway inhibition (DPI: rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily plus aspirin) have not previously been defined in clinical practice and the XATOA registry findings demonstrate patient outcomes are consistent with those of the COMPASS trial, despite geographic differences in recruitment and the higher proportion of PAD patients.

Aims It is unknown whether Asian and non-Asian patients with atherosclerotic vascular disease derive similar benefits from long-term antithrombotic therapy. Methods and results In patients with chronic coronary artery disease (CAD) and/or peripheral artery disease (PAD) enrolled in The Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies trial, the effects of rivaroxaban 2.5 mg b.i.d. plus aspirin 100 mg o.d. were compared with those of aspirin 100 mg o.d. in Asian vs. non-Asian patients (race was self-identified). Asians (n = 4269) vs. non-Asians (n = 23 126) had similar rates of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) (4.85% vs. 4.83%, P = 0.30) and modified International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH) major bleeding (2.72% vs. 2.58%, P = 0.22), but higher rates of intracranial haemorrhage (ICH) (0.63% vs. 0.29%, P = 0.01) and minor bleeding (13.61% vs. 6.49%, P Conclusion Asian compared with non-Asian patients with chronic CAD and/or PAD have higher rates of ICH and minor bleeding. The combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin vs. aspirin alone produces similar effects for MACE, modified ISTH major bleeding, and net clinical outcome but may be associated with higher rates of ICH in Asian patients.

Function is an important outcome after stroke; traditional assessments may not capture functional deficits important to patients. We examined the validity of the Standard Assessment of Global Everyday Activities (SAGEA), a patient-reported outcome that assesses activities important to patients and for use in international clinical trials.The NAVIGATE-ESUS trial evaluated rivaroxaban compared to aspirin in preventing recurrent stroke in 7213 participants. The Modified Rankin Scale (mRS), the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS), and the SAGEA were collected at entry. Chi square tests were used to compare proportions and Spearman rank correlations were used to compare between measures. SAGEA was compared to the Modified Frailty Index (MFI) and the occurrence of infarct to examine criterion validity RESULTS: Participants were 67 years, 2/3 were male, and at baseline 30% had no disability and 58% had slight disability according to mRS scores. SAGEA was weakly correlated with the mRS (r=0.37), the NIHSS (r=0.29) and the MFI (r=0.30). Of the 2154 with an mRS score of 0, 61% reported difficulty on the SAGEA. The largest discrepancies between SAGEA and other measures were because of cognitive functional deficits detected by the SAGEA that were not identified on other assessments. A larger number of MRI identified infarcts (acute and covert) were associated with a higher SAGEA score (p=0.007).The SAGEA is a simple, globally applicable measure of cognitive and functional abilities that identifies issues that other commonly used assessments of disability and function do not capture.

ImportanceIn the Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) trial, there was a significant reduction in the adjudicated primary outcome among patients with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease randomized to dual pathway inhibition (rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily plus aspirin 100 mg daily) vs aspirin monotherapy, but not with rivaroxaban 5 mg twice daily vs aspirin monotherapy. Whether the results are similar without adjudication is unknown.ObjectiveTo examine the impact of dual pathway inhibition (with rivaroxaban plus aspirin) or rivaroxaban monotherapy compared with aspirin monotherapy on investigator-reported CV events and to understand the extent of concordance between investigator-reported and centrally adjudicated clinical events.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis is a secondary analysis of the COMPASS trial, an international, double-blind, double-dummy, randomized clinical trial with a 3-by-2 partial factorial design that evaluated participants with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease receiving rivaroxaban plus aspirin, rivaroxaban monotherapy, or aspirin monotherapy. End points were collected by blinded site investigators and adjudicated by a blinded clinical end point committee. Data were analyzed from March 2013 through February 2017.InterventionsParticipants received dual inhibition pathway (2.5 mg rivaroxaban twice daily plus 100 mg aspirin once daily), rivaroxaban monotherapy (5 mg twice daily), or aspirin monotherapy (100 mg once daily).Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary efficacy outcome was a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death, stroke, or myocardial infarction (MI). Adjudicated and investigator-reported end points were compared.ResultsA total of 27 395 patients (mean [SD] age, 68.2 [7.9] years; 78.0% men) were assessed, including 9152 patients randomized to dual pathway inhibition, 9117 patients randomized to rivaroxaban monotherapy, and 9126 patients randomized to aspirin monotherapy. Adjudication reduced the number of events by 10% to 15% for most end points. Among investigator-reported end points, dual pathway inhibition significantly reduced the rate of the primary efficacy outcome compared with aspirin alone (411 patients [4.5%] vs 542 patients [5.9%]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.75 [95% CI, 0.66-0.85]; P P P = .04) compared with adjudicated events (448 patients [4.9%] vs 496 patients [5.4%]; HR, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.79-1.03]; P = .12).Conclusions and RelevanceThis secondary analysis of the COMPASS trial found that whether assessed by blinded site investigators or adjudicators, dual pathway inhibition significantly reduced CV events among patients with stable atherosclerotic disease compared with aspirin plus placebo. These findings suggest that using investigator-reported events in blinded clinical trials may be a more efficient alternative to adjudication.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01776424

Aims Secondary prevention in patients with coronary artery disease and peripheral artery disease involves antithrombotic therapy and optimal control of cardiovascular risk factors. In the Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) study, adding low-dose rivaroxaban on top of aspirin lowered cardiovascular events, but there is limited data about risk factor control in secondary prevention. We studied the association between risk factor status and outcomes, and the impact of risk factor status on the treatment effect of rivaroxaban, in a large contemporary population of patients with coronary artery disease or peripheral artery disease. Methods and results We reported ischemic events (cardiovascular death, stroke, or myocardial infarction) in participants from the randomized, double-blind COMPASS study by individual risk factor (blood pressure, smoking status, cholesterol level, presence of diabetes, body mass index, and level of physical activity), and by number of risk factors. We compared rates and hazard ratios of patients treated with rivaroxaban plus aspirin vs aspirin alone within each risk factor category and tested for interaction between risk factor status and antithrombotic regimen. Complete baseline risk factor status was available in 27,117 (99%) patients. Status and number of risk factors were both associated with increased risk of ischemic events. Rates of ischemic events (hazard ratio 2.2; 95% confidence interval 1.8–2.6) and cardiovascular death (hazard ratio 2.0; 1.5–2.7) were more than twofold higher in patients with 4–6 compared with 0–1 risk factors ( p Conclusion More favorable risk factor status and low-dose rivaroxaban were independently associated with lower risk of cardiovascular events.

Background: Patients with chronic coronary artery disease or peripheral artery disease and history of heart failure (HF) are at high risk for major adverse cardiovascular events. We explored the effects of rivaroxaban with or without aspirin in these patients. Methods: The COMPASS trial (Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies) randomized 27 395 participants with chronic coronary artery disease or peripheral artery disease to rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily plus aspirin 100 mg daily, rivaroxaban 5 mg twice daily alone, or aspirin 100 mg alone. Patients with New York Heart Association functional class III or IV HF or left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) Results: Of the 5902 participants (22%) with a history of HF, 4971 (84%) had EF recorded at baseline, and 12% had EF P for interaction 0.28) but larger absolute risk reduction in those with HF (HF absolute risk reduction 2.4%, number needed to treat=42; no HF absolute risk reduction 1.0%, number needed to treat=103). The primary major adverse cardiovascular events outcome was not statistically different between those with EF P for interaction 0.36). The excess hazard for major bleeding was not different in participants with HF (2.5% versus 1.8%; HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 0.88–2.09) than in those without HF (3.3% versus 1.9%; HR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.45–2.21; P for interaction 0.26). There were no significant differences in the primary outcomes with rivaroxaban alone. Conclusions: In patients with chronic coronary artery disease or peripheral artery disease and a history of mild or moderate HF, combination rivaroxaban and aspirin compared with aspirin alone produces similar relative but larger absolute benefits than in those without HF. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01776424.

Background The COMPASS (Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies) trial showed that the combination of low-dose rivaroxaban and aspirin reduced major vascular events in patients with stable vascular disease. Objectives The purpose of this study was to identify subsets of patients at higher risk of recurrent vascular events, which may help focus the use of rivaroxaban and aspirin therapy. Methods COMPASS patients with vascular disease were risk stratified using 2 methods: the REACH (REduction of Atherothrombosis for Continued Health) atherothrombosis risk score and CART (Classification and Regression Tree) analysis. The absolute risk differences for rivaroxaban with aspirin were compared to aspirin alone over 30 months for the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, acute limb ischemia, or vascular amputation; for severe bleeding; and for the net clinical benefit. Results High-risk patients using the REACH score were those with 2 or more vascular beds affected, history of heart failure (HF), or renal insufficiency, and by CART analysis were those with ≥2 vascular beds affected, history of HF, or diabetes. Rivaroxaban and aspirin combination reduced the serious vascular event incidence by 25% (4.48% vs. 5.95%, hazard ratio: 0.75; 95% confidence interval: 0.66 to 0.85), equivalent to 23 events prevented per 1,000 patients treated for 30 months, at the cost of a nonsignificant 34% increase in severe bleeding (1.34; 95% confidence interval: 0.95 to 1.88), or 2 events caused per 1,000 patients treated. Among patients with ≥1 high-risk feature identified from the CART analysis, rivaroxaban and aspirin prevented 33 serious vascular events, whereas in lower-risk patients, rivaroxaban and aspirin treatment led to the avoidance of 10 events per 1,000 patients treated for 30 months. Conclusions In patients with vascular disease, further risk stratification can identify higher-risk patients (≥2 vascular beds affected, HF, renal insufficiency, or diabetes). The net clinical benefit remains favorable for most patients treated with rivaroxaban and aspirin compared with aspirin.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text., Background: Patients with chronic coronary artery disease or peripheral artery disease and history of heart failure (HF) are at high risk for major adverse cardiovascular events. We explored the effects of rivaroxaban with or without aspirin in these patients. Methods: The COMPASS trial (Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies) randomized 27 395 participants with chronic coronary artery disease or peripheral artery disease to rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily plus aspirin 100 mg daily, rivaroxaban 5 mg twice daily alone, or aspirin 100 mg alone. Patients with New York Heart Association functional class III or IV HF or left ventricular ejection fraction (EF)

Purpose: To establish proof-of-concept of a novel rehabilitation self-management program that aims to optimize walking recovery after stroke through engaging patients in independent walking-related...

The impact of insulin or omega-3 supplements on the incidence and progression of peripheral artery disease (PAD) in patients with dysglycaemia has not been well studied. The Outcome Reduction with an Initial Glargine INtervention (ORIGIN) trial randomized participants with dysglycaemia and cardiovascular risk factors to titrated insulin glargine vs standard care, and to either 1 g of omega-3 per day or placebo. We assessed incident PAD, defined as the composite of either asymptomatic or symptomatic PAD according to the randomized interventions in the 11 119 ORIGIN participants whose baseline ankle-brachial index (ABI) was >0.9 (no PAD), and PAD progression in the 971 ORIGIN participants whose baseline ABI was ≤0.9. Hazard ratios (HR) were adjusted for confounders. During a 6.2-year follow-up period, allocation to insulin glargine vs standard care had a neutral effect on the composite of PAD incidence (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.86-1.15) and progression (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.63-1.22). Similar findings were noted for allocation to omega-3 vs placebo for PAD incidence (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.89-1.18) and progression (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.67-1.28). In this large study, neither insulin glargine nor omega-3 affected the incidence or progression of PAD.

ObjectiveTo assess whether long-term treatment with candesartan/hydrochlorothiazide, rosuvastatin, or their combination can slow cognitive decline in older people at intermediate cardiovascular risk.MethodsThe Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation-3 (HOPE-3) study was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial using a 2 × 2 factorial design. Participants without known cardiovascular disease or need for treatment were randomized to candesartan (16 mg) plus hydrochlorothiazide (12.5 mg) or placebo and to rosuvastatin (10 mg) or placebo. Participants who were ≥70 years of age completed the Digit Symbol Substitution Test (DSST), the modified Montreal Cognitive Assessment, and the Trail Making Test Part B at baseline and study end.ResultsCognitive assessments were completed by 2,361 participants from 228 centers in 21 countries. Compared with placebo, candesartan/hydrochlorothiazide reduced systolic blood pressure by 6.0 mm Hg, and rosuvastatin reduced low-density lipoprotein cholesterol by 24.8 mg/dL. Participants were followed up for 5.7 years (median), and 1,626 completed both baseline and study-end assessments. Mean participant age was 74 years (SD ±3.5 years); 59% were women; 45% had hypertension; and 24% had ≥12 years of education. The mean difference in change in DSST scores was −0.91 (95% confidence interval [CI] −2.25 to 0.42) for candesartan/hydrochlorothiazide compared with placebo, −0.54 (95% CI −1.88 to 0.80) for rosuvastatin compared with placebo, and −1.43 (95% CI −3.37 to 0.50) for combination therapy vs double placebo. No significant differences were found for other measures.ConclusionsLong-term blood pressure lowering with candesartan plus hydrochlorothiazide, rosuvastatin, or their combination did not significantly affect cognitive decline in older people.ClinicalTrials.gov identifierNCT00468923.Classification of evidenceThis study provides Class II evidence that for older people, candesartan plus hydrochlorothiazide, rosuvastatin, or their combination does not significantly affect cognitive decline.

Background: Strokes were significantly reduced by the combination of rivaroxaban plus aspirin in comparison with aspirin in the COMPASS trial (Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies). We present detailed analyses of stroke by type, predictors, and antithrombotic effects in key subgroups. Methods: Participants had stable coronary artery or peripheral artery disease and were randomly assigned to receive aspirin 100 mg once daily (n=9126), rivaroxaban 5 mg twice daily (n=9117), or rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily plus aspirin (n=9152). Patients who required anticoagulation or had a stroke within 1 month, previous lacunar stroke, or intracerebral hemorrhage were excluded. Results: During a mean follow-up of 23 months, fewer patients had strokes in the rivaroxaban plus aspirin group than in the aspirin group (83 [0.9% per year] versus 142 [1.6% per year]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.58; 95% CI, 0.44–0.76; P P P =0.01). Independent predictors of stroke were prior stroke, hypertension, systolic blood pressure at baseline, age, diabetes mellitus, and Asian ethnicity. Prior stroke was the strongest predictor of incident stroke (HR, 3.63; 95% CI, 2.65–4.97; P Conclusions: Low-dose rivaroxaban plus aspirin is an important new antithrombotic option for primary and secondary stroke prevention in patients with clinical atherosclerosis. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01776424.

The most common causes of ischaemic stroke are represented by carotid artery atherosclerotic disease (CAAD) and atrial fibrillation. While oral anticoagulants substantially reduce the incidence of thromboembolic stroke (< 1%/year), the rate of ischaemic stroke and other cardiovascular disease events in patients with CAAD remains high, ranging from 8.4 to 18.1 events per 100 patient-years. Similar to any other atherosclerotic disease, anti-thrombotic therapies are proposed for CAAD to reduce stroke and other cardiovascular events. The 2017 European Society of Cardiology (ESC)/European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) guidelines recommend for patients with asymptomatic CAAD ≥60% the use of aspirin 75 to 100 mg once daily or clopidogrel 75 mg once daily at the exception of patient at very high bleeding risk. For patients with symptomatic CAAD ≥50%, the use of aspirin 75 to 100 mg once daily or clopidogrel 75 mg once daily is recommended. New perspectives for anti-thrombotic therapy for the treatment of patients with CAAD come from the novel dual pathway strategy combining a low-dose anticoagulant (i.e. rivaroxaban) and aspirin that may help reduce long-term ischaemic complications in patients with CAAD. This review summarizes current evidence and recommendations for the anti-thrombotic management of patients with symptomatic or asymptomatic CAAD or those undergoing carotid revascularization.

Background Patients with recent coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery are at risk for early graft failure, which is associated with a risk of myocardial infarction and death. In the COMPASS (Cardiovascular OutcoMes for People Using Anticoagulation StrategieS) trial, rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily plus aspirin 100 mg once daily compared with aspirin 100 mg once daily reduced the primary major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) outcome of cardiovascular death, stroke, or myocardial infarction. Rivaroxaban 5 mg twice daily alone did not significantly reduce MACE. Objectives This pre-planned substudy sought to determine whether the COMPASS treatments are more effective than aspirin alone for preventing graft failure and MACE after CABG surgery. Methods The substudy randomized 1,448 COMPASS trial patients 4 to 14 days after CABG surgery to receive the combination of rivaroxaban plus aspirin, rivaroxaban alone, or aspirin alone. The primary outcome was graft failure, diagnosed by computed tomography angiogram 1 year after surgery. Results The combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin and the regimen of rivaroxaban alone did not reduce the graft failure rates compared with aspirin alone (combination vs. aspirin: 113 [9.1%] vs. 91 [8.0%] failed grafts; odds ratio [OR]: 1.13; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.82 to 1.57; p = 0.45; rivaroxaban alone vs. aspirin: 92 [7.8%] vs. 92 [8.0%] failed grafts; OR: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.67 to 1.33; p = 0.75). Compared with aspirin, the combination was associated with fewer MACE (12 [2.4%] vs. 16 [3.5%]; hazard ratio [HR]: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.33 to 1.47; p = 0.34), whereas rivaroxaban alone was not (16 [3.3%] vs. 16 [3.5%]; HR: 0.99, CI: 0.50 to 1.99; p = 0.98). There was no fatal bleeding or tamponade within 30 days of randomization. Conclusions The combination of rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily plus aspirin or rivaroxaban 5 mg twice daily alone compared with aspirin alone did not reduce graft failure in patients with recent CABG surgery, but the combination of rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily plus aspirin was associated with similar reductions in MACE, as observed in the larger COMPASS trial. (Cardiovascular OutcoMes for People Using Anticoagulation StrategieS [COMPASS]; NCT01776424)

Background and design There are limited data on the effects of blood pressure and cholesterol lowering in Asians at intermediate risk and no cardiovascular disease. We report an analysis of the effects of blood pressure and cholesterol lowering in Asians enrolled in the Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation 3 (HOPE 3) trial. Methods We randomly assigned 6241 Asians and 6464 non-Asians at intermediate risk without cardiovascular disease to candesartan 16 mg/hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg or placebo and rosuvastatin 10 mg or placebo. The first co-primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular disease death, myocardial infarction and stroke. The second co-primary outcome additionally included heart failure, cardiac arrest and revascularisation. Median follow-up was 5.6 years. Results Reduction in systolic blood pressure was less among Asians (4.3 vs. 7.7 mmHg for non-Asians, P interaction interaction = 0021. Conclusions Candesartan/hydrochlorothiazide had fewer effects in reducing blood pressure in Chinese and rosuvastatin reduced low-density lipoprotein cholesterol to a lesser extent in Asians compared with non-Asians. There was no overall reduction in clinical events with lowering blood pressure in either Asians or non-Asians, whereas there were clear and consistent benefits with lipid lowering in both. Despite extensive analyses, we have no obvious explanation for the observed findings. Future studies need to include larger numbers of individuals from different regions of the world to ensure that the results of trials are applicable globally.

Aims To analyse whether the benefits and risks of rivaroxaban plus aspirin vary in patients with comorbidities and receiving multiple drugs. In patients with coronary or peripheral artery disease, adding low-dose rivaroxaban to aspirin reduces cardiovascular events and mortality. Polypharmacy and multimorbidity are frequent in such patients. Methods and results We describe ischaemic events (cardiovascular death, stroke, or myocardial infarction) and major bleeding in participants from the randomized, double-blind COMPASS study by number of cardiovascular medications and concomitant medical conditions. We compared event rates and hazard ratios (HRs) for rivaroxaban plus aspirin vs. aspirin alone by the number of medications and concomitant conditions, and tested for interaction between polypharmacy or multimorbidity and the antithrombotic regimen. The risk of ischaemic events was higher in patients with more concomitant drugs (HR 1.7, 95% confidence interval 1.5–2.1 for >4 vs. 0–2) and with more comorbidities (HR 2.3, 1.8–2.1 for >3 vs. 0–1). Multimorbidity, but not polypharmacy, was associated with a higher risk of major bleeding. The relative efficacy, safety, and net clinical benefit of rivaroxaban were not affected by the number of drugs or comorbidities. Patients taking more concomitant medications derived the largest absolute reduction in the net clinical outcome with added rivaroxaban (1.1% vs. 0.4% reduction with >4 vs. 0–2 cardiovascular drugs, number needed to treat 91 vs. 250). Conclusion Adding low-dose rivaroxaban to aspirin resulted in benefits irrespective of the number of concomitant drugs or comorbidities. Multiple comorbidities and/or polypharmacy should not dissuade the addition of rivaroxaban to aspirin in otherwise eligible patients.