Acute Coronary Syndromes

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Michelle L. O’Donoghue, MD, MPH: Hi. This is Dr. Michelle O’Donoghue reporting for Medscape. Joining me today is Dr. Sahil Parikh, who’s a cardiologist and an interventionalist at Columbia University. He’s an associate professor of medicine.

We’ll be discussing two interesting trials that were presented at the ESC Congress here in Amsterdam. They do have the potential to be very practice-changing, so I think it’s worth talking about.
 

The FIRE trial

The first trial we’ll be talking about is the FIRE trial. Perhaps setting the stage, Sahil, I’d love to get your thoughts. We’ve had data in this space to suggest that, for patients with STEMI [ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction], a strategy of complete revascularization – and not only treating the culprit lesion but also treating additional lesions – may be of benefit. Where does that lead us in terms of what we didn’t know?

Sahil A. Parikh, MD: I think that the practice has moved, at least in the United States, over the past two decades, from staging percutaneous coronary interventions over 30 days from index to intervention to now trying to do patients in the same hospitalization whenever possible to achieve complete revascularization.

I think these data support not only that complete revascularization is compulsory now in these patients, but also doing it sooner rather than later, and that the benefit applies to most of the patients that we see in clinical practice. In the earlier data, the patients were relatively youthful – under Medicare age, less than 65 – and now this dataset has a median age of 80. This is more like the real-world clinical practice that most of us are encountering, and it extends the benefit, perhaps, greater than we’ve ever seen before.

O’Donoghue: The FIRE trial is interesting. As you say, it enrolled patients who were over the age of 75, where I think that some proceduralists are probably a little bit hesitant to think about complete revascularization due to concerns about any additional contrast load on their kidneys and other types of comorbidities. Of course, for any trial, there’s going to be some patient selection.

I think it’s very reassuring that even in this older patient group, a strategy of treating all the lesions – and not only in STEMI but also in non-STEMI patients – reduced cardiovascular events and mortality. I was really quite impressed by the mortality benefit.

Parikh: The mortality curve is almost surprising to me. On the other hand, it emboldens us now that we can treat these patients more completely and earlier in their clinical presentation. Certainly, we worried about contrast exposure and the duration of procedures in this older population, but it seems that the benefit that’s derived, which we saw in younger patients where we had a natural inclination to be more aggressive, extends also to this older population.
 

MULTISTARS AMI

O’Donoghue: To the question of timing, as you mentioned, prior to this, we had a study presented earlier this year, the BIOVASC trial, which also was suggestive that maybe earlier complete revascularization was better. But it wasn’t a significant difference, at least for the primary outcome. Now we have MULTISTARS AMI, which is very supportive of what we saw earlier this year, suggesting that complete revascularization really at the time that you’re treating the culprit may be the way to go.

Parikh: All of us, as interventionalists, are circumspect about what we might do in the middle of the night versus what we would do in the light of day. Certainly it seems clear, particularly if it’s straightforward anatomy, that taking care of it in the index procedure is not only saving contrast and fluoroscopy time, but it’s also providing a clinical benefit to the patients. That’s something that will also impact how clinicians interpret these data. Previously, there was always a question about whether we should just do it in the same hospitalization or do it at the same time. I think now, increasingly, we’re emboldened to do more in the index procedure.

O’Donoghue: When you’re thinking about nonculprit lesions and which ones to treat, do you always make that determination based on physiologic guidance of some kind? Are you using instantaneous wave-free ratio? What’s your practice?

Parikh: In the acute setting, imaging is superior for at least the assessment of which is a culprit. If you see a ruptured atherothrombotic situation on optical coherence tomography, for example, that’s fairly convincing and definitive. In the absence of that physiology, we are taught to avoid in the infarct-related artery because of potential spuriously false-negative findings.

In this situation, certainly, an imaging subgroup probably would be helpful because some of the benefit is almost certainly derived from identifying the infarct-related artery by accident – in other words, doing what you thought was the nonculprit artery, which is, in fact, the culprit. I think that probably is part of this. As somebody who uses imaging in the overwhelming number of my cases, I think that imaging would be an important surrogate to this.
 

Index procedure versus staged

O’Donoghue: For the operator who is coming in to do their STEMI case at 2:00 in the morning, would these data now push you toward doing complete revascularization at that time of night, or do you think that there is wiggle room in terms of interpreting these results regarding timing, where as long as you were doing it before hospital discharge and not, let’s say, 30 days out, that you may be able to derive the same benefit? What are some of the pros and cons?

Parikh: There’s definitely a fatigue factor in the middle of the night if it’s a particularly arduous intervention for the index infarct-related artery. I think there’s a human element where it may make sense just to stop and then bring the patient back in the same hospitalization. It’s clear, though, that doing complete revascularization is better and doing it sooner is better. How soon one actually does it is a judgment call, as ever.

In our practice, we’ve been pushing ourselves to get most of the patients done in their index hospitalization. If you have a left-sided culprit, the left anterior descending artery, for example, and there’s a high-grade stenosis in the circumflex, it may make sense to take care of that in the same index procedure. If, on the other hand, it’s in the right coronary artery where you have to put a new guide in and spend more time, that may be a patient whom you stage. I think those nuances will come up as interventionalists look at the subgroup analysis data more carefully.

O’Donoghue: Those are great points, and I think they also underscore that we always need to think about what type of patient was enrolled in these studies. Certainly, if you have somebody with renal dysfunction, there might be more concern about giving them a large contrast load all in one sitting, albeit hard to know whether they do or not. But spacing that out by just a couple of days would really have a big impact.

Parikh: Very often in the STEMI patient, you don’t have the benefit of knowing the creatinine. The patient will come in immediately, if not directly from the ambulance to the cath lab, and there are no laboratories at all to work with. If the patient has never been seen in the system before, you won’t know. Again, in those situations, one may have pause, particularly if it’s an older patient. I think what’s reassuring, though, is that the data are supportive of being more aggressive earlier, and certainly this is the dataset that we were looking for.

O’Donoghue: To summarize, the two key takeaways are that, one, we now have more data to support a complete revascularization strategy and even extending that now to non-STEMI patients. Two, sooner appears to be better, so ideally, all done at the time of the index procedure. I think this is very interesting science and we’ll see how it changes practice.

Thanks for joining me today. Signing off for Medscape, this is Dr. Michelle O’Donoghue.

Michelle O’Donoghue is a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and senior investigator with the TIMI Study Group.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Michelle L. O’Donoghue, MD, MPH: Hi. This is Dr. Michelle O’Donoghue reporting for Medscape. Joining me today is Dr. Sahil Parikh, who’s a cardiologist and an interventionalist at Columbia University. He’s an associate professor of medicine.

We’ll be discussing two interesting trials that were presented at the ESC Congress here in Amsterdam. They do have the potential to be very practice-changing, so I think it’s worth talking about.
 

The FIRE trial

The first trial we’ll be talking about is the FIRE trial. Perhaps setting the stage, Sahil, I’d love to get your thoughts. We’ve had data in this space to suggest that, for patients with STEMI [ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction], a strategy of complete revascularization – and not only treating the culprit lesion but also treating additional lesions – may be of benefit. Where does that lead us in terms of what we didn’t know?

Sahil A. Parikh, MD: I think that the practice has moved, at least in the United States, over the past two decades, from staging percutaneous coronary interventions over 30 days from index to intervention to now trying to do patients in the same hospitalization whenever possible to achieve complete revascularization.

I think these data support not only that complete revascularization is compulsory now in these patients, but also doing it sooner rather than later, and that the benefit applies to most of the patients that we see in clinical practice. In the earlier data, the patients were relatively youthful – under Medicare age, less than 65 – and now this dataset has a median age of 80. This is more like the real-world clinical practice that most of us are encountering, and it extends the benefit, perhaps, greater than we’ve ever seen before.

O’Donoghue: The FIRE trial is interesting. As you say, it enrolled patients who were over the age of 75, where I think that some proceduralists are probably a little bit hesitant to think about complete revascularization due to concerns about any additional contrast load on their kidneys and other types of comorbidities. Of course, for any trial, there’s going to be some patient selection.

I think it’s very reassuring that even in this older patient group, a strategy of treating all the lesions – and not only in STEMI but also in non-STEMI patients – reduced cardiovascular events and mortality. I was really quite impressed by the mortality benefit.

Parikh: The mortality curve is almost surprising to me. On the other hand, it emboldens us now that we can treat these patients more completely and earlier in their clinical presentation. Certainly, we worried about contrast exposure and the duration of procedures in this older population, but it seems that the benefit that’s derived, which we saw in younger patients where we had a natural inclination to be more aggressive, extends also to this older population.
 

MULTISTARS AMI

O’Donoghue: To the question of timing, as you mentioned, prior to this, we had a study presented earlier this year, the BIOVASC trial, which also was suggestive that maybe earlier complete revascularization was better. But it wasn’t a significant difference, at least for the primary outcome. Now we have MULTISTARS AMI, which is very supportive of what we saw earlier this year, suggesting that complete revascularization really at the time that you’re treating the culprit may be the way to go.

Parikh: All of us, as interventionalists, are circumspect about what we might do in the middle of the night versus what we would do in the light of day. Certainly it seems clear, particularly if it’s straightforward anatomy, that taking care of it in the index procedure is not only saving contrast and fluoroscopy time, but it’s also providing a clinical benefit to the patients. That’s something that will also impact how clinicians interpret these data. Previously, there was always a question about whether we should just do it in the same hospitalization or do it at the same time. I think now, increasingly, we’re emboldened to do more in the index procedure.

O’Donoghue: When you’re thinking about nonculprit lesions and which ones to treat, do you always make that determination based on physiologic guidance of some kind? Are you using instantaneous wave-free ratio? What’s your practice?

Parikh: In the acute setting, imaging is superior for at least the assessment of which is a culprit. If you see a ruptured atherothrombotic situation on optical coherence tomography, for example, that’s fairly convincing and definitive. In the absence of that physiology, we are taught to avoid in the infarct-related artery because of potential spuriously false-negative findings.

In this situation, certainly, an imaging subgroup probably would be helpful because some of the benefit is almost certainly derived from identifying the infarct-related artery by accident – in other words, doing what you thought was the nonculprit artery, which is, in fact, the culprit. I think that probably is part of this. As somebody who uses imaging in the overwhelming number of my cases, I think that imaging would be an important surrogate to this.
 

Index procedure versus staged

O’Donoghue: For the operator who is coming in to do their STEMI case at 2:00 in the morning, would these data now push you toward doing complete revascularization at that time of night, or do you think that there is wiggle room in terms of interpreting these results regarding timing, where as long as you were doing it before hospital discharge and not, let’s say, 30 days out, that you may be able to derive the same benefit? What are some of the pros and cons?

Parikh: There’s definitely a fatigue factor in the middle of the night if it’s a particularly arduous intervention for the index infarct-related artery. I think there’s a human element where it may make sense just to stop and then bring the patient back in the same hospitalization. It’s clear, though, that doing complete revascularization is better and doing it sooner is better. How soon one actually does it is a judgment call, as ever.

In our practice, we’ve been pushing ourselves to get most of the patients done in their index hospitalization. If you have a left-sided culprit, the left anterior descending artery, for example, and there’s a high-grade stenosis in the circumflex, it may make sense to take care of that in the same index procedure. If, on the other hand, it’s in the right coronary artery where you have to put a new guide in and spend more time, that may be a patient whom you stage. I think those nuances will come up as interventionalists look at the subgroup analysis data more carefully.

O’Donoghue: Those are great points, and I think they also underscore that we always need to think about what type of patient was enrolled in these studies. Certainly, if you have somebody with renal dysfunction, there might be more concern about giving them a large contrast load all in one sitting, albeit hard to know whether they do or not. But spacing that out by just a couple of days would really have a big impact.

Parikh: Very often in the STEMI patient, you don’t have the benefit of knowing the creatinine. The patient will come in immediately, if not directly from the ambulance to the cath lab, and there are no laboratories at all to work with. If the patient has never been seen in the system before, you won’t know. Again, in those situations, one may have pause, particularly if it’s an older patient. I think what’s reassuring, though, is that the data are supportive of being more aggressive earlier, and certainly this is the dataset that we were looking for.

O’Donoghue: To summarize, the two key takeaways are that, one, we now have more data to support a complete revascularization strategy and even extending that now to non-STEMI patients. Two, sooner appears to be better, so ideally, all done at the time of the index procedure. I think this is very interesting science and we’ll see how it changes practice.

Thanks for joining me today. Signing off for Medscape, this is Dr. Michelle O’Donoghue.

Michelle O’Donoghue is a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and senior investigator with the TIMI Study Group.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Michelle L. O’Donoghue, MD, MPH: Hi. This is Dr. Michelle O’Donoghue reporting for Medscape. Joining me today is Dr. Sahil Parikh, who’s a cardiologist and an interventionalist at Columbia University. He’s an associate professor of medicine.

We’ll be discussing two interesting trials that were presented at the ESC Congress here in Amsterdam. They do have the potential to be very practice-changing, so I think it’s worth talking about.
 

The FIRE trial

The first trial we’ll be talking about is the FIRE trial. Perhaps setting the stage, Sahil, I’d love to get your thoughts. We’ve had data in this space to suggest that, for patients with STEMI [ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction], a strategy of complete revascularization – and not only treating the culprit lesion but also treating additional lesions – may be of benefit. Where does that lead us in terms of what we didn’t know?

Sahil A. Parikh, MD: I think that the practice has moved, at least in the United States, over the past two decades, from staging percutaneous coronary interventions over 30 days from index to intervention to now trying to do patients in the same hospitalization whenever possible to achieve complete revascularization.

I think these data support not only that complete revascularization is compulsory now in these patients, but also doing it sooner rather than later, and that the benefit applies to most of the patients that we see in clinical practice. In the earlier data, the patients were relatively youthful – under Medicare age, less than 65 – and now this dataset has a median age of 80. This is more like the real-world clinical practice that most of us are encountering, and it extends the benefit, perhaps, greater than we’ve ever seen before.

O’Donoghue: The FIRE trial is interesting. As you say, it enrolled patients who were over the age of 75, where I think that some proceduralists are probably a little bit hesitant to think about complete revascularization due to concerns about any additional contrast load on their kidneys and other types of comorbidities. Of course, for any trial, there’s going to be some patient selection.

I think it’s very reassuring that even in this older patient group, a strategy of treating all the lesions – and not only in STEMI but also in non-STEMI patients – reduced cardiovascular events and mortality. I was really quite impressed by the mortality benefit.

Parikh: The mortality curve is almost surprising to me. On the other hand, it emboldens us now that we can treat these patients more completely and earlier in their clinical presentation. Certainly, we worried about contrast exposure and the duration of procedures in this older population, but it seems that the benefit that’s derived, which we saw in younger patients where we had a natural inclination to be more aggressive, extends also to this older population.
 

MULTISTARS AMI

O’Donoghue: To the question of timing, as you mentioned, prior to this, we had a study presented earlier this year, the BIOVASC trial, which also was suggestive that maybe earlier complete revascularization was better. But it wasn’t a significant difference, at least for the primary outcome. Now we have MULTISTARS AMI, which is very supportive of what we saw earlier this year, suggesting that complete revascularization really at the time that you’re treating the culprit may be the way to go.

Parikh: All of us, as interventionalists, are circumspect about what we might do in the middle of the night versus what we would do in the light of day. Certainly it seems clear, particularly if it’s straightforward anatomy, that taking care of it in the index procedure is not only saving contrast and fluoroscopy time, but it’s also providing a clinical benefit to the patients. That’s something that will also impact how clinicians interpret these data. Previously, there was always a question about whether we should just do it in the same hospitalization or do it at the same time. I think now, increasingly, we’re emboldened to do more in the index procedure.

O’Donoghue: When you’re thinking about nonculprit lesions and which ones to treat, do you always make that determination based on physiologic guidance of some kind? Are you using instantaneous wave-free ratio? What’s your practice?

Parikh: In the acute setting, imaging is superior for at least the assessment of which is a culprit. If you see a ruptured atherothrombotic situation on optical coherence tomography, for example, that’s fairly convincing and definitive. In the absence of that physiology, we are taught to avoid in the infarct-related artery because of potential spuriously false-negative findings.

In this situation, certainly, an imaging subgroup probably would be helpful because some of the benefit is almost certainly derived from identifying the infarct-related artery by accident – in other words, doing what you thought was the nonculprit artery, which is, in fact, the culprit. I think that probably is part of this. As somebody who uses imaging in the overwhelming number of my cases, I think that imaging would be an important surrogate to this.
 

Index procedure versus staged

O’Donoghue: For the operator who is coming in to do their STEMI case at 2:00 in the morning, would these data now push you toward doing complete revascularization at that time of night, or do you think that there is wiggle room in terms of interpreting these results regarding timing, where as long as you were doing it before hospital discharge and not, let’s say, 30 days out, that you may be able to derive the same benefit? What are some of the pros and cons?

Parikh: There’s definitely a fatigue factor in the middle of the night if it’s a particularly arduous intervention for the index infarct-related artery. I think there’s a human element where it may make sense just to stop and then bring the patient back in the same hospitalization. It’s clear, though, that doing complete revascularization is better and doing it sooner is better. How soon one actually does it is a judgment call, as ever.

In our practice, we’ve been pushing ourselves to get most of the patients done in their index hospitalization. If you have a left-sided culprit, the left anterior descending artery, for example, and there’s a high-grade stenosis in the circumflex, it may make sense to take care of that in the same index procedure. If, on the other hand, it’s in the right coronary artery where you have to put a new guide in and spend more time, that may be a patient whom you stage. I think those nuances will come up as interventionalists look at the subgroup analysis data more carefully.

O’Donoghue: Those are great points, and I think they also underscore that we always need to think about what type of patient was enrolled in these studies. Certainly, if you have somebody with renal dysfunction, there might be more concern about giving them a large contrast load all in one sitting, albeit hard to know whether they do or not. But spacing that out by just a couple of days would really have a big impact.

Parikh: Very often in the STEMI patient, you don’t have the benefit of knowing the creatinine. The patient will come in immediately, if not directly from the ambulance to the cath lab, and there are no laboratories at all to work with. If the patient has never been seen in the system before, you won’t know. Again, in those situations, one may have pause, particularly if it’s an older patient. I think what’s reassuring, though, is that the data are supportive of being more aggressive earlier, and certainly this is the dataset that we were looking for.

O’Donoghue: To summarize, the two key takeaways are that, one, we now have more data to support a complete revascularization strategy and even extending that now to non-STEMI patients. Two, sooner appears to be better, so ideally, all done at the time of the index procedure. I think this is very interesting science and we’ll see how it changes practice.

Thanks for joining me today. Signing off for Medscape, this is Dr. Michelle O’Donoghue.

Michelle O’Donoghue is a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and senior investigator with the TIMI Study Group.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

AMSTERDAM – For patients hospitalized for acute heart failure, initiating treatment with the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) before hospital discharge was safe, it appeared to improve diuresis and natriuresis while reducing the administered diuretic dose, and it meant quicker initiation of guideline-directed therapy in a controlled study of 238 patients.

Treatment with dapagliflozin was begun for people with heart failure on their first day of hospitalization for an acute episode. Such treatment “can be safely started to optimize a key medication,” Zachary Cox, PharmD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. It improved fluid removal, as evidenced in the “totality of diuretic measures,” it resulted in reduced doses of IV diuretics, and it shortened length of stay in the hospital.

In current U.S. practice, about 80% of people hospitalized with heart failure do not initially receive treatment with a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor during their hospital stay when they are not already taking an agent from the class, noted Dr. Cox, professor of pharmacy at Lipscomb University College of Pharmacy in Nashville, Tenn.

Physicians are often uncomfortable changing a patient’s medications on the first day of a hospitalization, he noted. “Our results should embolden physicians” to begin treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor early during hospitalization and to then continue it chronically, Dr. Cox said in a press briefing.

“Despite the messaging [from guidelines], we still see hesitancy. We hope more evidence of safety will improve uptake.” The study’s “key message is to start guideline-directed medical therapy early,” prior to hospital discharge, Dr. Cox concluded.
 

“Some support” for SGLT2 inhibitors

The study results “provide some support for SGLT2 inhibitors facilitating decongestion and hospital discharge without observed safety issues,” said Stephen D. Wiviott, MD, designated discussant for the report and a cardiologist and professor at Harvard Medical School in Boston.

While initiation of an SGLT2 inhibitor during an acute heart failure hospitalization received endorsement as a top management priority in both the 2023 heart failure guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology and in 2022 U.S. guidelines, evidence of the safety and efficacy of this approach has been scanty, Dr. Wiviott noted.

Two prior studies addressed the issue. The SOLOIST-WHF trial tested the combined SGLT1 and SGLT2 inhibitor sotagliflozin (Inpefa, Lexicon) for patients recently hospitalized for heart failure, but only 142 of the 596 participants who were randomly assigned to receive sotagliflozin began receiving it at least a day before hospital discharge; for the remaining 454, treatment with sotagliflozin began on their discharge day, noted Dr. Wiviott.

In the EMPULSE trial, 530 people hospitalized for acute heart failure were randomly assigned to initially receive empagliflozin (Jardiance, Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly) or placebo during hospitalization. The primary endpoint was largely driven by an improvement in the patient-reported outcome, as assessed on the basis of the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Total Symptom Score, Dr. Wiviott added.

The DICTATE-AHF study included 238 adults who were within 24 hours of first presenting to any of six participating U.S. hospitals with hypervolemic acute heart failure. All patients underwent a standard treatment protocol with IV loop diuretics, and half received additional, open-label treatment with a daily 10-mg dose of dapagliflozin.

The average age of the patients was 65 years, 71% had type 2 diabetes (the study excluded people with type 1 diabetes), and about half had a left ventricular ejection fraction of 40% or less.
 

Similar weight loss with lower diuretics dose

The study’s primary outcome was a measure of diuretic efficiency, calculated as a person’s cumulative weight change divided by the cumulative dose of loop diuretics.

Both treatment arms experienced nearly identical weight loss, but for the people who received dapagliflozin, this occurred with a lower cumulative dose of diuretics. The diuretic efficiency with dapagliflozin produced comparable weight loss with a 35% lower amount of loop diuretic dose, a difference that fell just short of significance (P = .06).

However, treatment with dapagliflozin also significantly boosted 24-hour natriuresis and 24-hour diuresis, and it significantly shortened the time to stopping treatment with IV diuretics and to hospital discharge, Dr. Cox reported. Dapagliflozin initiation and ongoing treatment was also safe and well tolerated compared with usual care.

The fact that the primary endpoint fell short of significance was “largely related” to the study’s relatively small size, Dr. Wiviott suggested. He noted that the DAPA ACT HF-TIMI 68 study, which is a much larger and potentially more definitive study of the safety and efficacy of dapagliflozin in comparison with usual care for patients with acute heart failure, is in progress. The study includes about 2,400 patients.

The primary outcome is the combined rate of cardiovascular death or worsening heart failure during the 2 months following randomization. Results are expected in 2024.

DICTATE-AHF was sponsored by AstraZeneca, the company that markets dapagliflozin (Farxiga). Dr. Cox has received research funding from AstraZeneca and has been a consultant to Roche and Translational Catalyst. Dr. Wiviott has received research funding from AstraZeneca and from Merck and has been a consultant to Icon Clinical and Novo Nordisk.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

AMSTERDAM – For patients hospitalized for acute heart failure, initiating treatment with the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) before hospital discharge was safe, it appeared to improve diuresis and natriuresis while reducing the administered diuretic dose, and it meant quicker initiation of guideline-directed therapy in a controlled study of 238 patients.

Treatment with dapagliflozin was begun for people with heart failure on their first day of hospitalization for an acute episode. Such treatment “can be safely started to optimize a key medication,” Zachary Cox, PharmD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. It improved fluid removal, as evidenced in the “totality of diuretic measures,” it resulted in reduced doses of IV diuretics, and it shortened length of stay in the hospital.

In current U.S. practice, about 80% of people hospitalized with heart failure do not initially receive treatment with a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor during their hospital stay when they are not already taking an agent from the class, noted Dr. Cox, professor of pharmacy at Lipscomb University College of Pharmacy in Nashville, Tenn.

Physicians are often uncomfortable changing a patient’s medications on the first day of a hospitalization, he noted. “Our results should embolden physicians” to begin treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor early during hospitalization and to then continue it chronically, Dr. Cox said in a press briefing.

“Despite the messaging [from guidelines], we still see hesitancy. We hope more evidence of safety will improve uptake.” The study’s “key message is to start guideline-directed medical therapy early,” prior to hospital discharge, Dr. Cox concluded.
 

“Some support” for SGLT2 inhibitors

The study results “provide some support for SGLT2 inhibitors facilitating decongestion and hospital discharge without observed safety issues,” said Stephen D. Wiviott, MD, designated discussant for the report and a cardiologist and professor at Harvard Medical School in Boston.

While initiation of an SGLT2 inhibitor during an acute heart failure hospitalization received endorsement as a top management priority in both the 2023 heart failure guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology and in 2022 U.S. guidelines, evidence of the safety and efficacy of this approach has been scanty, Dr. Wiviott noted.

Two prior studies addressed the issue. The SOLOIST-WHF trial tested the combined SGLT1 and SGLT2 inhibitor sotagliflozin (Inpefa, Lexicon) for patients recently hospitalized for heart failure, but only 142 of the 596 participants who were randomly assigned to receive sotagliflozin began receiving it at least a day before hospital discharge; for the remaining 454, treatment with sotagliflozin began on their discharge day, noted Dr. Wiviott.

In the EMPULSE trial, 530 people hospitalized for acute heart failure were randomly assigned to initially receive empagliflozin (Jardiance, Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly) or placebo during hospitalization. The primary endpoint was largely driven by an improvement in the patient-reported outcome, as assessed on the basis of the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Total Symptom Score, Dr. Wiviott added.

The DICTATE-AHF study included 238 adults who were within 24 hours of first presenting to any of six participating U.S. hospitals with hypervolemic acute heart failure. All patients underwent a standard treatment protocol with IV loop diuretics, and half received additional, open-label treatment with a daily 10-mg dose of dapagliflozin.

The average age of the patients was 65 years, 71% had type 2 diabetes (the study excluded people with type 1 diabetes), and about half had a left ventricular ejection fraction of 40% or less.
 

Similar weight loss with lower diuretics dose

The study’s primary outcome was a measure of diuretic efficiency, calculated as a person’s cumulative weight change divided by the cumulative dose of loop diuretics.

Both treatment arms experienced nearly identical weight loss, but for the people who received dapagliflozin, this occurred with a lower cumulative dose of diuretics. The diuretic efficiency with dapagliflozin produced comparable weight loss with a 35% lower amount of loop diuretic dose, a difference that fell just short of significance (P = .06).

However, treatment with dapagliflozin also significantly boosted 24-hour natriuresis and 24-hour diuresis, and it significantly shortened the time to stopping treatment with IV diuretics and to hospital discharge, Dr. Cox reported. Dapagliflozin initiation and ongoing treatment was also safe and well tolerated compared with usual care.

The fact that the primary endpoint fell short of significance was “largely related” to the study’s relatively small size, Dr. Wiviott suggested. He noted that the DAPA ACT HF-TIMI 68 study, which is a much larger and potentially more definitive study of the safety and efficacy of dapagliflozin in comparison with usual care for patients with acute heart failure, is in progress. The study includes about 2,400 patients.

The primary outcome is the combined rate of cardiovascular death or worsening heart failure during the 2 months following randomization. Results are expected in 2024.

DICTATE-AHF was sponsored by AstraZeneca, the company that markets dapagliflozin (Farxiga). Dr. Cox has received research funding from AstraZeneca and has been a consultant to Roche and Translational Catalyst. Dr. Wiviott has received research funding from AstraZeneca and from Merck and has been a consultant to Icon Clinical and Novo Nordisk.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

AMSTERDAM – For patients hospitalized for acute heart failure, initiating treatment with the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga, AstraZeneca) before hospital discharge was safe, it appeared to improve diuresis and natriuresis while reducing the administered diuretic dose, and it meant quicker initiation of guideline-directed therapy in a controlled study of 238 patients.

Treatment with dapagliflozin was begun for people with heart failure on their first day of hospitalization for an acute episode. Such treatment “can be safely started to optimize a key medication,” Zachary Cox, PharmD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology. It improved fluid removal, as evidenced in the “totality of diuretic measures,” it resulted in reduced doses of IV diuretics, and it shortened length of stay in the hospital.

In current U.S. practice, about 80% of people hospitalized with heart failure do not initially receive treatment with a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor during their hospital stay when they are not already taking an agent from the class, noted Dr. Cox, professor of pharmacy at Lipscomb University College of Pharmacy in Nashville, Tenn.

Physicians are often uncomfortable changing a patient’s medications on the first day of a hospitalization, he noted. “Our results should embolden physicians” to begin treatment with an SGLT2 inhibitor early during hospitalization and to then continue it chronically, Dr. Cox said in a press briefing.

“Despite the messaging [from guidelines], we still see hesitancy. We hope more evidence of safety will improve uptake.” The study’s “key message is to start guideline-directed medical therapy early,” prior to hospital discharge, Dr. Cox concluded.
 

“Some support” for SGLT2 inhibitors

The study results “provide some support for SGLT2 inhibitors facilitating decongestion and hospital discharge without observed safety issues,” said Stephen D. Wiviott, MD, designated discussant for the report and a cardiologist and professor at Harvard Medical School in Boston.

While initiation of an SGLT2 inhibitor during an acute heart failure hospitalization received endorsement as a top management priority in both the 2023 heart failure guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology and in 2022 U.S. guidelines, evidence of the safety and efficacy of this approach has been scanty, Dr. Wiviott noted.

Two prior studies addressed the issue. The SOLOIST-WHF trial tested the combined SGLT1 and SGLT2 inhibitor sotagliflozin (Inpefa, Lexicon) for patients recently hospitalized for heart failure, but only 142 of the 596 participants who were randomly assigned to receive sotagliflozin began receiving it at least a day before hospital discharge; for the remaining 454, treatment with sotagliflozin began on their discharge day, noted Dr. Wiviott.

In the EMPULSE trial, 530 people hospitalized for acute heart failure were randomly assigned to initially receive empagliflozin (Jardiance, Boehringer Ingelheim and Lilly) or placebo during hospitalization. The primary endpoint was largely driven by an improvement in the patient-reported outcome, as assessed on the basis of the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Total Symptom Score, Dr. Wiviott added.

The DICTATE-AHF study included 238 adults who were within 24 hours of first presenting to any of six participating U.S. hospitals with hypervolemic acute heart failure. All patients underwent a standard treatment protocol with IV loop diuretics, and half received additional, open-label treatment with a daily 10-mg dose of dapagliflozin.

The average age of the patients was 65 years, 71% had type 2 diabetes (the study excluded people with type 1 diabetes), and about half had a left ventricular ejection fraction of 40% or less.
 

Similar weight loss with lower diuretics dose

The study’s primary outcome was a measure of diuretic efficiency, calculated as a person’s cumulative weight change divided by the cumulative dose of loop diuretics.

Both treatment arms experienced nearly identical weight loss, but for the people who received dapagliflozin, this occurred with a lower cumulative dose of diuretics. The diuretic efficiency with dapagliflozin produced comparable weight loss with a 35% lower amount of loop diuretic dose, a difference that fell just short of significance (P = .06).

However, treatment with dapagliflozin also significantly boosted 24-hour natriuresis and 24-hour diuresis, and it significantly shortened the time to stopping treatment with IV diuretics and to hospital discharge, Dr. Cox reported. Dapagliflozin initiation and ongoing treatment was also safe and well tolerated compared with usual care.

The fact that the primary endpoint fell short of significance was “largely related” to the study’s relatively small size, Dr. Wiviott suggested. He noted that the DAPA ACT HF-TIMI 68 study, which is a much larger and potentially more definitive study of the safety and efficacy of dapagliflozin in comparison with usual care for patients with acute heart failure, is in progress. The study includes about 2,400 patients.

The primary outcome is the combined rate of cardiovascular death or worsening heart failure during the 2 months following randomization. Results are expected in 2024.

DICTATE-AHF was sponsored by AstraZeneca, the company that markets dapagliflozin (Farxiga). Dr. Cox has received research funding from AstraZeneca and has been a consultant to Roche and Translational Catalyst. Dr. Wiviott has received research funding from AstraZeneca and from Merck and has been a consultant to Icon Clinical and Novo Nordisk.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

AMSTERDAM – A short course of the interleukin-1 receptor antagonist, anakinra, appeared safe but did not reduce complications of acute myocarditis in the ARAMIS trial.

The trial was presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

Lead investigator, Mathieu Kerneis, MD, Pitie Salpetriere APHP University Hospital, Paris, said this was the largest randomized controlled trial of patients with acute myocarditis and probably the first ever study in the acute setting of myocarditis patients diagnosed with cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging, not on biopsy, who are mostly at low risk for events.

He suggested that one of the reasons for the neutral result could have been the low-risk population involved and the low complication rate. “We enrolled an all-comer acute myocarditis population diagnosed with CMR, who were mostly at a low risk of complications,” he noted.

“I don’t think the story of anti-inflammatory drugs in acute myocarditis is over. This is just the beginning. This was the first trial, and it was just a phase 2 trial. We need further randomized trials to explore the potential benefit of an anti-inflammatory strategy in acute myocarditis patients at higher risk of complications. In addition, larger studies are needed to evaluate prolonged anti-inflammatory strategies in acute myocarditis patients at low-to-moderate risk of complications,” Dr. Kerneis concluded.

“It is very challenging to do a trial in high-risk patients with myocarditis as these patients are quite rare,” he added.
 

Inflammation of the myocardium

Dr. Kerneis explained that acute myocarditis is an inflammation of the myocardium that can cause permanent damage to the heart muscle and lead to myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, arrhythmias, and death. The condition can occur in individuals of all ages but is most frequent in young people. There is no specific treatment, but patients are generally treated with beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, and sometimes steroids.

Anakinra is an interleukin-1 receptor antagonist that works by targeting the interleukin-1β innate immune pathway. Anakinra is used for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and has shown efficacy in pericarditis. Dr. Kerneis noted that there have been several case reports of successful treatment with anakinra in acute myocarditis.

The ARAMIS trial – conducted at six academic centers in France – was the first randomized study to evaluate inhibition of the interleukin-1β innate immune pathway in myocarditis patients. The trial enrolled 120 hospitalized, symptomatic patients with chest pain, increased cardiac troponin, and acute myocarditis diagnosed using CMR. More than half had had a recent bacterial or viral infection.

Patients were randomized within 72 hours of hospital admission to a daily subcutaneous dose of anakinra 100 mg or placebo until hospital discharge. Patients in both groups received standard-of-care treatments, including an ACE inhibitor, for at least 1 month. Consistent with prior data, the median age of participants was 28 years and 90% were men.

The primary endpoint was the number of days free of myocarditis complications (heart failure requiring hospitalization, chest pain requiring medication, left ventricular ejection fraction less than 50%, and ventricular arrhythmias) within 28 days postdischarge.

There was no significant difference in this endpoint between the two arms, with a median of 30 days for anakinra versus 31 days for placebo.

Overall, the rate of the composite endpoint of myocarditis complications occurred in 13.7% of patients, and there was a numerical reduction in the number of patients with these myocarditis complications with anakinra – 6 patients (10.5%) in the anakinra group versus 10 patients (16.5%) in the placebo group (odds ratio, 0.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.19-1.78). This was driven by fewer patients with chest pain requiring new medication (two patients versus six patients).

The safety endpoint was the number of serious adverse events within 28 days postdischarge. This endpoint occurred in seven patients (12.1%) in the anakinra arm and six patients (10.2%) in the placebo arm, with no significant difference between groups. Cases of severe infection within 28 days postdischarge were reported in both arms.
 

Low-risk population

Designated discussant of the study at the ESC Hotline session, Enrico Ammirati, MD, PhD, University of Milano-Bicocca, Monza, Italy, said that patients involved in ARAMIS fit the profile of acute myocarditis and that the CMR diagnosis was positive in all the patients enrolled.

Dr. Ammirati agreed with Dr. Kerneis that the neutral results of the study were probably caused by the low-risk population. “If we look at retrospective registries, at 30 days there are zero cardiac deaths or heart transplants at 30 days in patients with a low-risk presentation.

“The ARAMIS trial has shown the feasibility of conducting studies in the setting of acute myocarditis, and even if the primary endpoint was neutral, some important data are still missing, such as change in ejection fraction and troponin levels,” he noted.

“In terms of future perspective, we are moving to assessing efficacy of anakinra or other immunosuppressive drugs from acute low risk patients to higher risk patients with heart failure and severe dysfunction,” he said.  

Dr. Ammirati is the lead investigator of another ongoing study in such a higher-risk population; the MYTHS trial is investigating the use of intravenous steroids in patients with suspected acute myocarditis complicated by acute heart failure or cardiogenic shock, and an ejection fraction below 41%.

“So, we will have more results on the best treatment in this higher risk group of patients,” he concluded.

The ARAMIS trial was an academic study funded by the French Health Ministry and coordinated by the ACTION Group. Dr. Kerneis reports having received consulting fees from Kiniksa, Sanofi, and Bayer, and holds a patent for use of abatacept in immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)–induced myocarditis.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

AMSTERDAM – A short course of the interleukin-1 receptor antagonist, anakinra, appeared safe but did not reduce complications of acute myocarditis in the ARAMIS trial.

The trial was presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

Lead investigator, Mathieu Kerneis, MD, Pitie Salpetriere APHP University Hospital, Paris, said this was the largest randomized controlled trial of patients with acute myocarditis and probably the first ever study in the acute setting of myocarditis patients diagnosed with cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging, not on biopsy, who are mostly at low risk for events.

He suggested that one of the reasons for the neutral result could have been the low-risk population involved and the low complication rate. “We enrolled an all-comer acute myocarditis population diagnosed with CMR, who were mostly at a low risk of complications,” he noted.

“I don’t think the story of anti-inflammatory drugs in acute myocarditis is over. This is just the beginning. This was the first trial, and it was just a phase 2 trial. We need further randomized trials to explore the potential benefit of an anti-inflammatory strategy in acute myocarditis patients at higher risk of complications. In addition, larger studies are needed to evaluate prolonged anti-inflammatory strategies in acute myocarditis patients at low-to-moderate risk of complications,” Dr. Kerneis concluded.

“It is very challenging to do a trial in high-risk patients with myocarditis as these patients are quite rare,” he added.
 

Inflammation of the myocardium

Dr. Kerneis explained that acute myocarditis is an inflammation of the myocardium that can cause permanent damage to the heart muscle and lead to myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, arrhythmias, and death. The condition can occur in individuals of all ages but is most frequent in young people. There is no specific treatment, but patients are generally treated with beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, and sometimes steroids.

Anakinra is an interleukin-1 receptor antagonist that works by targeting the interleukin-1β innate immune pathway. Anakinra is used for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and has shown efficacy in pericarditis. Dr. Kerneis noted that there have been several case reports of successful treatment with anakinra in acute myocarditis.

The ARAMIS trial – conducted at six academic centers in France – was the first randomized study to evaluate inhibition of the interleukin-1β innate immune pathway in myocarditis patients. The trial enrolled 120 hospitalized, symptomatic patients with chest pain, increased cardiac troponin, and acute myocarditis diagnosed using CMR. More than half had had a recent bacterial or viral infection.

Patients were randomized within 72 hours of hospital admission to a daily subcutaneous dose of anakinra 100 mg or placebo until hospital discharge. Patients in both groups received standard-of-care treatments, including an ACE inhibitor, for at least 1 month. Consistent with prior data, the median age of participants was 28 years and 90% were men.

The primary endpoint was the number of days free of myocarditis complications (heart failure requiring hospitalization, chest pain requiring medication, left ventricular ejection fraction less than 50%, and ventricular arrhythmias) within 28 days postdischarge.

There was no significant difference in this endpoint between the two arms, with a median of 30 days for anakinra versus 31 days for placebo.

Overall, the rate of the composite endpoint of myocarditis complications occurred in 13.7% of patients, and there was a numerical reduction in the number of patients with these myocarditis complications with anakinra – 6 patients (10.5%) in the anakinra group versus 10 patients (16.5%) in the placebo group (odds ratio, 0.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.19-1.78). This was driven by fewer patients with chest pain requiring new medication (two patients versus six patients).

The safety endpoint was the number of serious adverse events within 28 days postdischarge. This endpoint occurred in seven patients (12.1%) in the anakinra arm and six patients (10.2%) in the placebo arm, with no significant difference between groups. Cases of severe infection within 28 days postdischarge were reported in both arms.
 

Low-risk population

Designated discussant of the study at the ESC Hotline session, Enrico Ammirati, MD, PhD, University of Milano-Bicocca, Monza, Italy, said that patients involved in ARAMIS fit the profile of acute myocarditis and that the CMR diagnosis was positive in all the patients enrolled.

Dr. Ammirati agreed with Dr. Kerneis that the neutral results of the study were probably caused by the low-risk population. “If we look at retrospective registries, at 30 days there are zero cardiac deaths or heart transplants at 30 days in patients with a low-risk presentation.

“The ARAMIS trial has shown the feasibility of conducting studies in the setting of acute myocarditis, and even if the primary endpoint was neutral, some important data are still missing, such as change in ejection fraction and troponin levels,” he noted.

“In terms of future perspective, we are moving to assessing efficacy of anakinra or other immunosuppressive drugs from acute low risk patients to higher risk patients with heart failure and severe dysfunction,” he said.  

Dr. Ammirati is the lead investigator of another ongoing study in such a higher-risk population; the MYTHS trial is investigating the use of intravenous steroids in patients with suspected acute myocarditis complicated by acute heart failure or cardiogenic shock, and an ejection fraction below 41%.

“So, we will have more results on the best treatment in this higher risk group of patients,” he concluded.

The ARAMIS trial was an academic study funded by the French Health Ministry and coordinated by the ACTION Group. Dr. Kerneis reports having received consulting fees from Kiniksa, Sanofi, and Bayer, and holds a patent for use of abatacept in immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)–induced myocarditis.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

AMSTERDAM – A short course of the interleukin-1 receptor antagonist, anakinra, appeared safe but did not reduce complications of acute myocarditis in the ARAMIS trial.

The trial was presented at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

Lead investigator, Mathieu Kerneis, MD, Pitie Salpetriere APHP University Hospital, Paris, said this was the largest randomized controlled trial of patients with acute myocarditis and probably the first ever study in the acute setting of myocarditis patients diagnosed with cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging, not on biopsy, who are mostly at low risk for events.

He suggested that one of the reasons for the neutral result could have been the low-risk population involved and the low complication rate. “We enrolled an all-comer acute myocarditis population diagnosed with CMR, who were mostly at a low risk of complications,” he noted.

“I don’t think the story of anti-inflammatory drugs in acute myocarditis is over. This is just the beginning. This was the first trial, and it was just a phase 2 trial. We need further randomized trials to explore the potential benefit of an anti-inflammatory strategy in acute myocarditis patients at higher risk of complications. In addition, larger studies are needed to evaluate prolonged anti-inflammatory strategies in acute myocarditis patients at low-to-moderate risk of complications,” Dr. Kerneis concluded.

“It is very challenging to do a trial in high-risk patients with myocarditis as these patients are quite rare,” he added.
 

Inflammation of the myocardium

Dr. Kerneis explained that acute myocarditis is an inflammation of the myocardium that can cause permanent damage to the heart muscle and lead to myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, arrhythmias, and death. The condition can occur in individuals of all ages but is most frequent in young people. There is no specific treatment, but patients are generally treated with beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, and sometimes steroids.

Anakinra is an interleukin-1 receptor antagonist that works by targeting the interleukin-1β innate immune pathway. Anakinra is used for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and has shown efficacy in pericarditis. Dr. Kerneis noted that there have been several case reports of successful treatment with anakinra in acute myocarditis.

The ARAMIS trial – conducted at six academic centers in France – was the first randomized study to evaluate inhibition of the interleukin-1β innate immune pathway in myocarditis patients. The trial enrolled 120 hospitalized, symptomatic patients with chest pain, increased cardiac troponin, and acute myocarditis diagnosed using CMR. More than half had had a recent bacterial or viral infection.

Patients were randomized within 72 hours of hospital admission to a daily subcutaneous dose of anakinra 100 mg or placebo until hospital discharge. Patients in both groups received standard-of-care treatments, including an ACE inhibitor, for at least 1 month. Consistent with prior data, the median age of participants was 28 years and 90% were men.

The primary endpoint was the number of days free of myocarditis complications (heart failure requiring hospitalization, chest pain requiring medication, left ventricular ejection fraction less than 50%, and ventricular arrhythmias) within 28 days postdischarge.

There was no significant difference in this endpoint between the two arms, with a median of 30 days for anakinra versus 31 days for placebo.

Overall, the rate of the composite endpoint of myocarditis complications occurred in 13.7% of patients, and there was a numerical reduction in the number of patients with these myocarditis complications with anakinra – 6 patients (10.5%) in the anakinra group versus 10 patients (16.5%) in the placebo group (odds ratio, 0.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.19-1.78). This was driven by fewer patients with chest pain requiring new medication (two patients versus six patients).

The safety endpoint was the number of serious adverse events within 28 days postdischarge. This endpoint occurred in seven patients (12.1%) in the anakinra arm and six patients (10.2%) in the placebo arm, with no significant difference between groups. Cases of severe infection within 28 days postdischarge were reported in both arms.
 

Low-risk population

Designated discussant of the study at the ESC Hotline session, Enrico Ammirati, MD, PhD, University of Milano-Bicocca, Monza, Italy, said that patients involved in ARAMIS fit the profile of acute myocarditis and that the CMR diagnosis was positive in all the patients enrolled.

Dr. Ammirati agreed with Dr. Kerneis that the neutral results of the study were probably caused by the low-risk population. “If we look at retrospective registries, at 30 days there are zero cardiac deaths or heart transplants at 30 days in patients with a low-risk presentation.

“The ARAMIS trial has shown the feasibility of conducting studies in the setting of acute myocarditis, and even if the primary endpoint was neutral, some important data are still missing, such as change in ejection fraction and troponin levels,” he noted.

“In terms of future perspective, we are moving to assessing efficacy of anakinra or other immunosuppressive drugs from acute low risk patients to higher risk patients with heart failure and severe dysfunction,” he said.  

Dr. Ammirati is the lead investigator of another ongoing study in such a higher-risk population; the MYTHS trial is investigating the use of intravenous steroids in patients with suspected acute myocarditis complicated by acute heart failure or cardiogenic shock, and an ejection fraction below 41%.

“So, we will have more results on the best treatment in this higher risk group of patients,” he concluded.

The ARAMIS trial was an academic study funded by the French Health Ministry and coordinated by the ACTION Group. Dr. Kerneis reports having received consulting fees from Kiniksa, Sanofi, and Bayer, and holds a patent for use of abatacept in immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)–induced myocarditis.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

AMSTERDAM – A simple, low-cost 5-day course of dietary inorganic nitrate has shown apparent overwhelming benefit in preventing contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) and reducing subsequent renal and cardiovascular outcomes.

In the NITRATE-CIN Study, non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients at risk of renal injury from coronary angiography who received dietary inorganic nitrates had a 70% reduction in CIN compared with those given placebo.

The nitrate group also showed an impressive reduction in periprocedural myocardial infarction (MI) and improved renal function at 3 months, as well as a halving of major adverse cardiovascular events and major adverse kidney events at 1 year.

The trial was presented by Dan Jones, MD, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

“Currently, aside from intravenous hydration, there is no proven treatment that reduces contrast-induced nephropathy. We feel that dietary inorganic nitrate shows huge promise in this study, and these findings could have important implications in reducing this serious complication of coronary angiography,” Dr. Jones concluded.

He explained that the product used was a formulation of dietary inorganic nitrates given as potassium nitrate capsules, which the study investigators produced specifically for this trial.

At this point, “the only way to get inorganic nitrate is in the diet – specifically by consuming beetroot juice or green leafy vegetables such as spinach and rocket. From a clinician perspective, while these results suggest this is an effective therapy and has great potential, it is not currently possible to prescribe the medication we used in our study, although we are working on producing a commercial product,” he said in an interview.

However, Dr. Jones noted that it is possible to buy beetroot shots, which contain 7 mmol of potassium nitrate in each shot, from health food shops and websites, and two such shots per day for 5 days would give a dose similar to that used in this study, starting the day before angiography.

“While we need a larger multicenter study to confirm these results, studies so far suggest no signal at all that there is any harm in this approach, and there could be a great deal of benefit in taking a couple of beetroot shots prior to and for a few days after an angiogram,” he said.
 

Dietary nitrates “make sense”

Designated discussant of the NITRATE-CIN trial at the ESC Hotline session, Roxanna Mehran, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said the study was well designed, and the “interesting and plausible” hypothesis to raise nitric oxide levels by dietary nitrates “makes sense.”

On the main findings of a major significant 50% reduction in acute kidney injury, Dr. Mehran said, “It is difficult to imagine such a reduction is possible.”

She pointed out that the large reduction in major adverse cardiac events and major adverse kidney events at 1 year also suggests that there is a sustained benefit in protecting the kidney.

“We’re all going to get on beet juice after this,” she quipped.

Still, Dr. Mehran questioned whether the results were “too good to be true,” adding that a larger trial actually powered for longer term outcome events is needed, as well as a better understanding of whether CIN has a causative role in mortality.

Responding to questions about whether such a large effect could actually be achieved with dietary nitrates, Dr. Jones said he thought there would definitely be some benefits, but maybe not quite as large as those seen in this study.

“From our pilot data we thought nitrate may be effective in preventing CIN,” he said in an interview. “We recruited a higher risk group than we thought, which is why the control event rates were higher than we expected, but the acute kidney injury reduction is roughly what we had estimated, and makes sense biologically.”

Dr. Jones acknowledged that the large reductions in long-term major adverse cardiovascular and kidney events were unexpected.

“The trial was not powered to see reductions in these outcomes, so we need to see if those event reductions can be replicated in larger multicenter trials,” he said. “But this was a double-blind placebo-controlled trial so in this trial the effects are real, and I think the effect size in this trial is too large for there not to be a beneficial effect.

“But I’m not so sure that we would see the same magnitude of effect when we have a larger study with tighter confidence intervals but perhaps a 20%-25% reduction in cardiovascular and kidney may be more realistic, which would still be amazing for such an easy and cost-effective intervention,” Dr. Jones added.

A larger trial is now being planned.

The researchers are also working on the development of a commercial form of dietary inorganic nitrate that would be needed for larger multicenter studies and would then be generally available. “We want this to be a low-cost product that would be available to all,” Dr. Jones said.

He noted that other studies have shown that dietary inorganic nitrates in the form of beetroot juice lower blood pressure; there are suggestions it may also lower cholesterol and prevent stent restenosis, and athletes sometimes take it to increase their aerobic capacity.

“There appears to be many benefits of dietary nitrates, and the one thing we can do at this time is to encourage people to increase their dietary nitrate consumption by eating large quantities of green leafy vegetables and beetroot,” Dr. Jones said.
 

Replacing lost nitric oxide

In his presentation, Dr. Jones noted that CIN is a serious complication after coronary angiography and is associated with longer hospital stays, worse long-term kidney function, and increased risk of MI and death.

The incidence varies depending on patient risk and definitions used, but it can affect up to 50% of high-risk ACS patients – older patients and/or those with heart failure, chronic kidney disease, or diabetes.

“We don’t really understand the mechanisms that cause CIN, but multiple proposed mechanisms exist, and we know from previous studies that a deficiency of nitric oxide is crucial to the development of CIN,” he explained. “We also know that [nitric oxide] is crucial for normal renal hemostasis. Therefore, a potential therapeutic target to prevent CIN would be to replace this lost nitric oxide.”

The inorganic nitrate evaluated in this trial is found in the diet, is produced endogenously, and is different from medicinally synthesized organic nitrates such as isosorbide mononitrate, he said.

“Isosorbide mononitrate/dinitrate tablets contain organic nitrates and while they are good for angina, we know that they do not have the same beneficial effects on the sustained generation of nitric oxide as inorganic nitrates,” Dr. Jones added.
 

NITRATE-CIN study

NITRATE-CIN was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial conducted at Queen Mary University of London and St. Bartholomew’s Hospital in London, which tested the effectiveness of inorganic nitrate in preventing contrast-induced nephropathy in 640 patients with non-ST elevation ACS referred for invasive coronary angiography.

To be eligible for the trial, patients had to be at risk of contrast-induced nephropathy with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) less than 60 mL/min per 1.73 m² or have two of the following significant risk factors: diabetes, liver failure, over 70 years of age, exposure to contrast within 7 days, heart failure, or on concomitant renally acting drugs.

Patients were randomly assigned to a formulation of potassium nitrate (12 mmol/744 mg nitrate) per day given as capsules for a 5-day course with the first dose administered prior to angiography or to a control group that received potassium chloride with a matched potassium concentration.

The patient population had a mean age of 71 years, 73% were male, 75% were White, 46% had diabetes, and 56% had chronic kidney disease. There was a 13% loss to follow-up, which was attributed to the COVID pandemic.

The amount of contrast administration was 180 mL in the placebo and 170 mL in the nitrate arm, with 50% of patients undergoing some sort of revascularization.

The primary endpoint was the incidence of CIN as defined by KDIGO criteria – a series of stages of acute kidney injury defined by changes in serum creatinine within 72 hours and up to 1 week.

Results showed that this primary CIN endpoint was reduced significantly from 30% in the placebo arm to 9.1% in the nitrate group, a 70% relative risk reduction (P < .0001). The majority (90%) of this CIN was stage 1, but 10% was stage 2.

Consistent results were seen when an alternative definition of CIN (Mehran) was used, although the rates in both arms were lower than when the KDIGO definition was used.

The benefit was seen across prespecified subgroups including diabetes status, troponin positivity, and Mehran risk. But the benefit seemed to be attenuated in patients on preexisting organic nitrate therapy, although the numbers in these groups were too small to draw definitive conclusions.

As would be expected, there were significant elevations in both systemic nitrate and nitrite levels both up to 72 hours after the procedure, which was consistent with the 5-day course. This was associated with reductions in systolic and diastolic blood pressure, but not associated with any adverse events, Dr. Jones reported.

Rates of procedural MI, a prespecified secondary endpoint, were reduced from 12.5% to 4.1% in those on inorganic nitrates (P = .003).

Looking at longer term outcomes, kidney function was improved at 3 months as measured by change in eGFR, which showed a 10% relative improvement of 5.2 mL/min per 1.73 m² (10%) in the nitrate group vs. the placebo group. Serum creatinine levels were also significantly increased in the nitrate group.

At 12 months, there was a significant 50% relative reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events – including all-cause mortality, recurrent MI, and recurrent revascularization – which were reduced from 18.1% in the placebo group to 9.1% in the nitrate group, with a reduction in all three of the constituent components of the composite endpoint including all-cause mortality.

Major adverse kidney events (all-cause mortality, renal replacement therapy, or persistent renal dysfunction) were also reduced at 12 months from 28.4% in the placebo group to 10.7% in the nitrate group (P < .0001), a 60% relative reduction. This was driven by lower rates of all-cause mortality and persistent renal dysfunction.

While Dr. Jones said these results on major cardiovascular and kidney outcomes should be viewed as hypothesis-generating at the present time, he said there were biological mechanisms that could explain these benefits.

“We saw a reduction in procedural MI, and we know there is a lot of similar biology in preventing procedural MI and subsequent cardiac events in the acute phase. This, in combination with the large reduction in acute kidney injury, could explain why there’s improved outcomes out to 12 months.”

In her comments, Dr. Mehran congratulated the investigators on having conducted the first study to have shown benefit in the prevention of contrast-associated acute kidney injury as well as major adverse cardiovascular and kidney events associated with the condition.

She used the term “contrast-associated acute kidney injury” rather than “contrast-induced nephropathy” because, she said, it has not been proven that the acute kidney injury seen after angiography is actually caused by the contrast and “so many other things are occurring during procedures when these patients are presenting with different syndromes.”

Dr. Mehran pointed out some weaknesses in the NITRATE-CIN study including the single-center design, the large volume of contrast administered, 13% of patients missing the primary endpoint blood draw, and an imbalance in relevant baseline characteristics despite randomization.

The NITRATE-CIN study was funded by Heart Research UK. Dr. Jones has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

AMSTERDAM – A simple, low-cost 5-day course of dietary inorganic nitrate has shown apparent overwhelming benefit in preventing contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) and reducing subsequent renal and cardiovascular outcomes.

In the NITRATE-CIN Study, non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients at risk of renal injury from coronary angiography who received dietary inorganic nitrates had a 70% reduction in CIN compared with those given placebo.

The nitrate group also showed an impressive reduction in periprocedural myocardial infarction (MI) and improved renal function at 3 months, as well as a halving of major adverse cardiovascular events and major adverse kidney events at 1 year.

The trial was presented by Dan Jones, MD, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

“Currently, aside from intravenous hydration, there is no proven treatment that reduces contrast-induced nephropathy. We feel that dietary inorganic nitrate shows huge promise in this study, and these findings could have important implications in reducing this serious complication of coronary angiography,” Dr. Jones concluded.

He explained that the product used was a formulation of dietary inorganic nitrates given as potassium nitrate capsules, which the study investigators produced specifically for this trial.

At this point, “the only way to get inorganic nitrate is in the diet – specifically by consuming beetroot juice or green leafy vegetables such as spinach and rocket. From a clinician perspective, while these results suggest this is an effective therapy and has great potential, it is not currently possible to prescribe the medication we used in our study, although we are working on producing a commercial product,” he said in an interview.

However, Dr. Jones noted that it is possible to buy beetroot shots, which contain 7 mmol of potassium nitrate in each shot, from health food shops and websites, and two such shots per day for 5 days would give a dose similar to that used in this study, starting the day before angiography.

“While we need a larger multicenter study to confirm these results, studies so far suggest no signal at all that there is any harm in this approach, and there could be a great deal of benefit in taking a couple of beetroot shots prior to and for a few days after an angiogram,” he said.
 

Dietary nitrates “make sense”

Designated discussant of the NITRATE-CIN trial at the ESC Hotline session, Roxanna Mehran, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said the study was well designed, and the “interesting and plausible” hypothesis to raise nitric oxide levels by dietary nitrates “makes sense.”

On the main findings of a major significant 50% reduction in acute kidney injury, Dr. Mehran said, “It is difficult to imagine such a reduction is possible.”

She pointed out that the large reduction in major adverse cardiac events and major adverse kidney events at 1 year also suggests that there is a sustained benefit in protecting the kidney.

“We’re all going to get on beet juice after this,” she quipped.

Still, Dr. Mehran questioned whether the results were “too good to be true,” adding that a larger trial actually powered for longer term outcome events is needed, as well as a better understanding of whether CIN has a causative role in mortality.

Responding to questions about whether such a large effect could actually be achieved with dietary nitrates, Dr. Jones said he thought there would definitely be some benefits, but maybe not quite as large as those seen in this study.

“From our pilot data we thought nitrate may be effective in preventing CIN,” he said in an interview. “We recruited a higher risk group than we thought, which is why the control event rates were higher than we expected, but the acute kidney injury reduction is roughly what we had estimated, and makes sense biologically.”

Dr. Jones acknowledged that the large reductions in long-term major adverse cardiovascular and kidney events were unexpected.

“The trial was not powered to see reductions in these outcomes, so we need to see if those event reductions can be replicated in larger multicenter trials,” he said. “But this was a double-blind placebo-controlled trial so in this trial the effects are real, and I think the effect size in this trial is too large for there not to be a beneficial effect.

“But I’m not so sure that we would see the same magnitude of effect when we have a larger study with tighter confidence intervals but perhaps a 20%-25% reduction in cardiovascular and kidney may be more realistic, which would still be amazing for such an easy and cost-effective intervention,” Dr. Jones added.

A larger trial is now being planned.

The researchers are also working on the development of a commercial form of dietary inorganic nitrate that would be needed for larger multicenter studies and would then be generally available. “We want this to be a low-cost product that would be available to all,” Dr. Jones said.

He noted that other studies have shown that dietary inorganic nitrates in the form of beetroot juice lower blood pressure; there are suggestions it may also lower cholesterol and prevent stent restenosis, and athletes sometimes take it to increase their aerobic capacity.

“There appears to be many benefits of dietary nitrates, and the one thing we can do at this time is to encourage people to increase their dietary nitrate consumption by eating large quantities of green leafy vegetables and beetroot,” Dr. Jones said.
 

Replacing lost nitric oxide

In his presentation, Dr. Jones noted that CIN is a serious complication after coronary angiography and is associated with longer hospital stays, worse long-term kidney function, and increased risk of MI and death.

The incidence varies depending on patient risk and definitions used, but it can affect up to 50% of high-risk ACS patients – older patients and/or those with heart failure, chronic kidney disease, or diabetes.

“We don’t really understand the mechanisms that cause CIN, but multiple proposed mechanisms exist, and we know from previous studies that a deficiency of nitric oxide is crucial to the development of CIN,” he explained. “We also know that [nitric oxide] is crucial for normal renal hemostasis. Therefore, a potential therapeutic target to prevent CIN would be to replace this lost nitric oxide.”

The inorganic nitrate evaluated in this trial is found in the diet, is produced endogenously, and is different from medicinally synthesized organic nitrates such as isosorbide mononitrate, he said.

“Isosorbide mononitrate/dinitrate tablets contain organic nitrates and while they are good for angina, we know that they do not have the same beneficial effects on the sustained generation of nitric oxide as inorganic nitrates,” Dr. Jones added.
 

NITRATE-CIN study

NITRATE-CIN was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial conducted at Queen Mary University of London and St. Bartholomew’s Hospital in London, which tested the effectiveness of inorganic nitrate in preventing contrast-induced nephropathy in 640 patients with non-ST elevation ACS referred for invasive coronary angiography.

To be eligible for the trial, patients had to be at risk of contrast-induced nephropathy with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) less than 60 mL/min per 1.73 m² or have two of the following significant risk factors: diabetes, liver failure, over 70 years of age, exposure to contrast within 7 days, heart failure, or on concomitant renally acting drugs.

Patients were randomly assigned to a formulation of potassium nitrate (12 mmol/744 mg nitrate) per day given as capsules for a 5-day course with the first dose administered prior to angiography or to a control group that received potassium chloride with a matched potassium concentration.

The patient population had a mean age of 71 years, 73% were male, 75% were White, 46% had diabetes, and 56% had chronic kidney disease. There was a 13% loss to follow-up, which was attributed to the COVID pandemic.

The amount of contrast administration was 180 mL in the placebo and 170 mL in the nitrate arm, with 50% of patients undergoing some sort of revascularization.

The primary endpoint was the incidence of CIN as defined by KDIGO criteria – a series of stages of acute kidney injury defined by changes in serum creatinine within 72 hours and up to 1 week.

Results showed that this primary CIN endpoint was reduced significantly from 30% in the placebo arm to 9.1% in the nitrate group, a 70% relative risk reduction (P < .0001). The majority (90%) of this CIN was stage 1, but 10% was stage 2.

Consistent results were seen when an alternative definition of CIN (Mehran) was used, although the rates in both arms were lower than when the KDIGO definition was used.

The benefit was seen across prespecified subgroups including diabetes status, troponin positivity, and Mehran risk. But the benefit seemed to be attenuated in patients on preexisting organic nitrate therapy, although the numbers in these groups were too small to draw definitive conclusions.

As would be expected, there were significant elevations in both systemic nitrate and nitrite levels both up to 72 hours after the procedure, which was consistent with the 5-day course. This was associated with reductions in systolic and diastolic blood pressure, but not associated with any adverse events, Dr. Jones reported.

Rates of procedural MI, a prespecified secondary endpoint, were reduced from 12.5% to 4.1% in those on inorganic nitrates (P = .003).

Looking at longer term outcomes, kidney function was improved at 3 months as measured by change in eGFR, which showed a 10% relative improvement of 5.2 mL/min per 1.73 m² (10%) in the nitrate group vs. the placebo group. Serum creatinine levels were also significantly increased in the nitrate group.

At 12 months, there was a significant 50% relative reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events – including all-cause mortality, recurrent MI, and recurrent revascularization – which were reduced from 18.1% in the placebo group to 9.1% in the nitrate group, with a reduction in all three of the constituent components of the composite endpoint including all-cause mortality.

Major adverse kidney events (all-cause mortality, renal replacement therapy, or persistent renal dysfunction) were also reduced at 12 months from 28.4% in the placebo group to 10.7% in the nitrate group (P < .0001), a 60% relative reduction. This was driven by lower rates of all-cause mortality and persistent renal dysfunction.

While Dr. Jones said these results on major cardiovascular and kidney outcomes should be viewed as hypothesis-generating at the present time, he said there were biological mechanisms that could explain these benefits.

“We saw a reduction in procedural MI, and we know there is a lot of similar biology in preventing procedural MI and subsequent cardiac events in the acute phase. This, in combination with the large reduction in acute kidney injury, could explain why there’s improved outcomes out to 12 months.”

In her comments, Dr. Mehran congratulated the investigators on having conducted the first study to have shown benefit in the prevention of contrast-associated acute kidney injury as well as major adverse cardiovascular and kidney events associated with the condition.

She used the term “contrast-associated acute kidney injury” rather than “contrast-induced nephropathy” because, she said, it has not been proven that the acute kidney injury seen after angiography is actually caused by the contrast and “so many other things are occurring during procedures when these patients are presenting with different syndromes.”

Dr. Mehran pointed out some weaknesses in the NITRATE-CIN study including the single-center design, the large volume of contrast administered, 13% of patients missing the primary endpoint blood draw, and an imbalance in relevant baseline characteristics despite randomization.

The NITRATE-CIN study was funded by Heart Research UK. Dr. Jones has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

AMSTERDAM – A simple, low-cost 5-day course of dietary inorganic nitrate has shown apparent overwhelming benefit in preventing contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) and reducing subsequent renal and cardiovascular outcomes.

In the NITRATE-CIN Study, non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients at risk of renal injury from coronary angiography who received dietary inorganic nitrates had a 70% reduction in CIN compared with those given placebo.

The nitrate group also showed an impressive reduction in periprocedural myocardial infarction (MI) and improved renal function at 3 months, as well as a halving of major adverse cardiovascular events and major adverse kidney events at 1 year.

The trial was presented by Dan Jones, MD, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

“Currently, aside from intravenous hydration, there is no proven treatment that reduces contrast-induced nephropathy. We feel that dietary inorganic nitrate shows huge promise in this study, and these findings could have important implications in reducing this serious complication of coronary angiography,” Dr. Jones concluded.

He explained that the product used was a formulation of dietary inorganic nitrates given as potassium nitrate capsules, which the study investigators produced specifically for this trial.

At this point, “the only way to get inorganic nitrate is in the diet – specifically by consuming beetroot juice or green leafy vegetables such as spinach and rocket. From a clinician perspective, while these results suggest this is an effective therapy and has great potential, it is not currently possible to prescribe the medication we used in our study, although we are working on producing a commercial product,” he said in an interview.

However, Dr. Jones noted that it is possible to buy beetroot shots, which contain 7 mmol of potassium nitrate in each shot, from health food shops and websites, and two such shots per day for 5 days would give a dose similar to that used in this study, starting the day before angiography.

“While we need a larger multicenter study to confirm these results, studies so far suggest no signal at all that there is any harm in this approach, and there could be a great deal of benefit in taking a couple of beetroot shots prior to and for a few days after an angiogram,” he said.
 

Dietary nitrates “make sense”

Designated discussant of the NITRATE-CIN trial at the ESC Hotline session, Roxanna Mehran, MD, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said the study was well designed, and the “interesting and plausible” hypothesis to raise nitric oxide levels by dietary nitrates “makes sense.”

On the main findings of a major significant 50% reduction in acute kidney injury, Dr. Mehran said, “It is difficult to imagine such a reduction is possible.”

She pointed out that the large reduction in major adverse cardiac events and major adverse kidney events at 1 year also suggests that there is a sustained benefit in protecting the kidney.

“We’re all going to get on beet juice after this,” she quipped.

Still, Dr. Mehran questioned whether the results were “too good to be true,” adding that a larger trial actually powered for longer term outcome events is needed, as well as a better understanding of whether CIN has a causative role in mortality.

Responding to questions about whether such a large effect could actually be achieved with dietary nitrates, Dr. Jones said he thought there would definitely be some benefits, but maybe not quite as large as those seen in this study.

“From our pilot data we thought nitrate may be effective in preventing CIN,” he said in an interview. “We recruited a higher risk group than we thought, which is why the control event rates were higher than we expected, but the acute kidney injury reduction is roughly what we had estimated, and makes sense biologically.”

Dr. Jones acknowledged that the large reductions in long-term major adverse cardiovascular and kidney events were unexpected.

“The trial was not powered to see reductions in these outcomes, so we need to see if those event reductions can be replicated in larger multicenter trials,” he said. “But this was a double-blind placebo-controlled trial so in this trial the effects are real, and I think the effect size in this trial is too large for there not to be a beneficial effect.

“But I’m not so sure that we would see the same magnitude of effect when we have a larger study with tighter confidence intervals but perhaps a 20%-25% reduction in cardiovascular and kidney may be more realistic, which would still be amazing for such an easy and cost-effective intervention,” Dr. Jones added.

A larger trial is now being planned.

The researchers are also working on the development of a commercial form of dietary inorganic nitrate that would be needed for larger multicenter studies and would then be generally available. “We want this to be a low-cost product that would be available to all,” Dr. Jones said.

He noted that other studies have shown that dietary inorganic nitrates in the form of beetroot juice lower blood pressure; there are suggestions it may also lower cholesterol and prevent stent restenosis, and athletes sometimes take it to increase their aerobic capacity.

“There appears to be many benefits of dietary nitrates, and the one thing we can do at this time is to encourage people to increase their dietary nitrate consumption by eating large quantities of green leafy vegetables and beetroot,” Dr. Jones said.
 

Replacing lost nitric oxide

In his presentation, Dr. Jones noted that CIN is a serious complication after coronary angiography and is associated with longer hospital stays, worse long-term kidney function, and increased risk of MI and death.

The incidence varies depending on patient risk and definitions used, but it can affect up to 50% of high-risk ACS patients – older patients and/or those with heart failure, chronic kidney disease, or diabetes.

“We don’t really understand the mechanisms that cause CIN, but multiple proposed mechanisms exist, and we know from previous studies that a deficiency of nitric oxide is crucial to the development of CIN,” he explained. “We also know that [nitric oxide] is crucial for normal renal hemostasis. Therefore, a potential therapeutic target to prevent CIN would be to replace this lost nitric oxide.”

The inorganic nitrate evaluated in this trial is found in the diet, is produced endogenously, and is different from medicinally synthesized organic nitrates such as isosorbide mononitrate, he said.

“Isosorbide mononitrate/dinitrate tablets contain organic nitrates and while they are good for angina, we know that they do not have the same beneficial effects on the sustained generation of nitric oxide as inorganic nitrates,” Dr. Jones added.
 

NITRATE-CIN study

NITRATE-CIN was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial conducted at Queen Mary University of London and St. Bartholomew’s Hospital in London, which tested the effectiveness of inorganic nitrate in preventing contrast-induced nephropathy in 640 patients with non-ST elevation ACS referred for invasive coronary angiography.

To be eligible for the trial, patients had to be at risk of contrast-induced nephropathy with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) less than 60 mL/min per 1.73 m² or have two of the following significant risk factors: diabetes, liver failure, over 70 years of age, exposure to contrast within 7 days, heart failure, or on concomitant renally acting drugs.

Patients were randomly assigned to a formulation of potassium nitrate (12 mmol/744 mg nitrate) per day given as capsules for a 5-day course with the first dose administered prior to angiography or to a control group that received potassium chloride with a matched potassium concentration.

The patient population had a mean age of 71 years, 73% were male, 75% were White, 46% had diabetes, and 56% had chronic kidney disease. There was a 13% loss to follow-up, which was attributed to the COVID pandemic.

The amount of contrast administration was 180 mL in the placebo and 170 mL in the nitrate arm, with 50% of patients undergoing some sort of revascularization.

The primary endpoint was the incidence of CIN as defined by KDIGO criteria – a series of stages of acute kidney injury defined by changes in serum creatinine within 72 hours and up to 1 week.

Results showed that this primary CIN endpoint was reduced significantly from 30% in the placebo arm to 9.1% in the nitrate group, a 70% relative risk reduction (P < .0001). The majority (90%) of this CIN was stage 1, but 10% was stage 2.

Consistent results were seen when an alternative definition of CIN (Mehran) was used, although the rates in both arms were lower than when the KDIGO definition was used.

The benefit was seen across prespecified subgroups including diabetes status, troponin positivity, and Mehran risk. But the benefit seemed to be attenuated in patients on preexisting organic nitrate therapy, although the numbers in these groups were too small to draw definitive conclusions.

As would be expected, there were significant elevations in both systemic nitrate and nitrite levels both up to 72 hours after the procedure, which was consistent with the 5-day course. This was associated with reductions in systolic and diastolic blood pressure, but not associated with any adverse events, Dr. Jones reported.

Rates of procedural MI, a prespecified secondary endpoint, were reduced from 12.5% to 4.1% in those on inorganic nitrates (P = .003).

Looking at longer term outcomes, kidney function was improved at 3 months as measured by change in eGFR, which showed a 10% relative improvement of 5.2 mL/min per 1.73 m² (10%) in the nitrate group vs. the placebo group. Serum creatinine levels were also significantly increased in the nitrate group.

At 12 months, there was a significant 50% relative reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events – including all-cause mortality, recurrent MI, and recurrent revascularization – which were reduced from 18.1% in the placebo group to 9.1% in the nitrate group, with a reduction in all three of the constituent components of the composite endpoint including all-cause mortality.

Major adverse kidney events (all-cause mortality, renal replacement therapy, or persistent renal dysfunction) were also reduced at 12 months from 28.4% in the placebo group to 10.7% in the nitrate group (P < .0001), a 60% relative reduction. This was driven by lower rates of all-cause mortality and persistent renal dysfunction.

While Dr. Jones said these results on major cardiovascular and kidney outcomes should be viewed as hypothesis-generating at the present time, he said there were biological mechanisms that could explain these benefits.

“We saw a reduction in procedural MI, and we know there is a lot of similar biology in preventing procedural MI and subsequent cardiac events in the acute phase. This, in combination with the large reduction in acute kidney injury, could explain why there’s improved outcomes out to 12 months.”

In her comments, Dr. Mehran congratulated the investigators on having conducted the first study to have shown benefit in the prevention of contrast-associated acute kidney injury as well as major adverse cardiovascular and kidney events associated with the condition.

She used the term “contrast-associated acute kidney injury” rather than “contrast-induced nephropathy” because, she said, it has not been proven that the acute kidney injury seen after angiography is actually caused by the contrast and “so many other things are occurring during procedures when these patients are presenting with different syndromes.”

Dr. Mehran pointed out some weaknesses in the NITRATE-CIN study including the single-center design, the large volume of contrast administered, 13% of patients missing the primary endpoint blood draw, and an imbalance in relevant baseline characteristics despite randomization.

The NITRATE-CIN study was funded by Heart Research UK. Dr. Jones has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) without ST-segment elevation who were transported to the nearest hospital emergency department had outcomes similar to those of patients transported to specialist cardiac arrest centers, in the ARREST trial.

Both groups had the same 30-day survival, the primary outcome, as well as 3-month survival and neurologic outcomes.

“The take-home message is that this trial does not support transporting cardiac arrest patients direct to a cardiac arrest center in London; they would fare better going to their nearest emergency department,” senior author Simon R. Redwood, MD, principal investigator of ARREST, from Guy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Trust Hospitals and King’s College, London, said during a press briefing. “These results may allow better resource allocation elsewhere.”

Importantly, this study excluded patients who clearly had myocardial infarction (MI), he stressed. Cardiac arrest can result from cardiac causes or from other events, including trauma, overdose, drowning, or electrocution, he noted.

On the other hand, patients with MI “will benefit from going straight to a heart attack center and having an attempt at reopening the artery,” he emphasized.

Tiffany Patterson, PhD, clinical lead of ARREST, with the same affiliations as Dr. Redwood, presented the trial findings at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology in Amsterdam, on Aug. 27. The study was simultaneously published online in The Lancet.

Observational studies of registry data suggest that postarrest care for patients resuscitated after cardiac arrest, without ST-segment elevation, may be best delivered in a specialized center, she noted.

The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation called for a randomized clinical trial of patients resuscitated after cardiac arrest without ST-segment elevation to clarify this.

In the ARREST trial, among 800 patients with return of spontaneous circulation following OHCA without ST-segment elevation who were randomly assigned to be transported to specialized centers or an emergency department, there was no survival benefit, she summarized.

ARREST was “not simply a negative trial, but a new evidence-based starting point,” according to the trial discussant Lia Crotti, MD, PhD, IRCCS Istituto Auxologico Italiano and University Milano-Bicocca, Italy. 

She drew attention to two findings: First, among the 862 patients who were enrolled, whom paramedics judged as being without an obvious noncardiac cause of the cardiac arrest, “only 60% ended up having a cardiac cause for their cardiac arrest and only around one quarter of the total had coronary artery disease.”

The small number of patients who could have benefited from early access to a catheterization laboratory probably contributed to the negative result obtained in this trial, with the loss of statistical power, she said.

Second, London is a dense urban area with high-quality acute care hospitals, so the standard of care in the nearest emergency department may be not so different from that in cardiac arrest centers, she noted. Furthermore, four of the seven cardiac arrest centers have an emergency department, and some of the standard care patients may have been transported there.

“If the clinical trial would be extended to the entire country, including rural areas, maybe the result would be different,” she said.

The study authors acknowledge that the main limitation of this study was that “it was done across London with a dense population in a small geographic area,” and “the London Ambulance Service has rapid response times and short transit times and delivers high quality prehospital care, which could limit generalizability.”

Asked during the press conference here why the results were so different from the registry study findings, Dr. Redwood said, “We’ve seen time and time again that registry data think they are telling us the answer. They’re actually not.”

The session cochairs, Rudolf de Boer, MD, PhD, of Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, and Faiez Zannad, MD, PhD, from University of Lorraine–Vandoeuvre-lès-Nancy, France, each congratulated the researchers on a well-done study.

Dr. de Boer wanted to know whether, for example, 100% of these resuscitated OHCA patients without ST-segment elevation  had a cardiac cause, “Would results differ? Or is this just real life?” he asked. Dr. Patterson replied that the paramedics excluded obvious noncardiac causes and the findings were based on current facilities.

“Does this trial provide a definitive answer?” Dr. de Boer asked. Dr. Patterson replied that for the moment, subgroup analysis did not identify any subgroup that might benefit from expedited transport to a cardiac arrest center.

Dr. Zannad wanted to know how informed consent was obtained. Dr. Patterson noted that they have an excellent ethical committee that allowed them to undertake this research in vulnerable patients. Written informed consent was obtained from the patient once the initial emergency had passed if they had regained capacity.
 

Rationale and trial findings

“It’s very well established that early bystander CPR [cardiopulmonary resuscitation], early defibrillation, and advanced in-hospital care improves survival,” Dr. Redwood noted. “Despite this, only 1 in 10 survive to leave the hospital.”

Therefore, “a cardiac arrest center has been proposed as a way of improving outcome.” These centers have a catheterization laboratory, open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, advanced critical care including advanced ventilation, temperature management of the patient, hemodynamic support, and neuroprognostication and rehab “because often these patients will have brain injury.

“There’s quite overwhelming registry data to suggest that these cardiac arrest centers improve outcome,” he said, “but these are limited by bias.”

Between January 2018 and December 2022, London Ambulance paramedics randomly assigned 862 patients who were successfully resuscitated and without a confirmed MI to be transported the nearest hospital emergency department or the catheterization laboratory in a cardiac arrest center.

Data were available for 822 participants. They had a mean age of 63 years, and 68% were male.

The primary endpoint, 30-day mortality, occurred in 258 (63%) of 411 participants in the cardiac arrest center group and in 258 (63%) of 412 in the standard care group (unadjusted risk ratio for survival, 1.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90-1.11; P = 0.96).

Mortality at 3 months was similar in both groups: 64% in the standard care group and 65% in the cardiac arrest center group.

Neurologic outcomes at discharge and 3 months were similar in both groups.

Eight (2%) of 414 patients in the cardiac arrest center group and three (1%) of 413 in the standard care group had serious adverse events, none of which were deemed related to the trial intervention.

A cardiac cause of arrest was identified in roughly 60% of patients in each group, and of these, roughly 42% were coronary causes, 33% were arrhythmia, and 17% were cardiomyopathy.

The median time from cardiac arrest to hospital arrival was 84 minutes in the cardiac arrest center group and 77 minutes in the standard care group.
 

“Surprising and important RCT evidence”

In an accompanying editorial, Carolina Malta Hansen, MD, PhD, University of Copenhagen, and colleagues wrote that “this study provides randomized trial evidence that in urban settings such as London, there is no survival advantage of a strategy of transporting patients who have been resuscitated to centres with specialty expertise in care of cardiac arrest.
“This result is surprising and important, since this complex and critically ill population would be expected to benefit from centres with more expertise.”

However, “it would be a mistake to conclude that the trial results apply to regions where local hospitals provide a lower quality of care than those in this trial,” they cautioned.

“Where does this leave the medical community, researchers, and society in general?” they asked rhetorically. “Prioritising a minimum standard of care at local hospitals caring for this population is at least as important as ensuring high-quality care or advanced treatment at tertiary centres.

“This trial also calls for more focus on the basics, including efforts to increase bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation and early defibrillation, aspects of care that are currently being assessed in two ongoing clinical trials (NCT04660526 and NCT03835403) and are most strongly associated with improved survival, when coupled with high-quality prehospital care with trained staff and short response times,” they concluded.

The study was fully funded by the British Heart Foundation. The authors reported that they have no relevant financial disclosures. The financial disclosures of the editorialists are listed with the editorial.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) without ST-segment elevation who were transported to the nearest hospital emergency department had outcomes similar to those of patients transported to specialist cardiac arrest centers, in the ARREST trial.

Both groups had the same 30-day survival, the primary outcome, as well as 3-month survival and neurologic outcomes.

“The take-home message is that this trial does not support transporting cardiac arrest patients direct to a cardiac arrest center in London; they would fare better going to their nearest emergency department,” senior author Simon R. Redwood, MD, principal investigator of ARREST, from Guy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Trust Hospitals and King’s College, London, said during a press briefing. “These results may allow better resource allocation elsewhere.”

Importantly, this study excluded patients who clearly had myocardial infarction (MI), he stressed. Cardiac arrest can result from cardiac causes or from other events, including trauma, overdose, drowning, or electrocution, he noted.

On the other hand, patients with MI “will benefit from going straight to a heart attack center and having an attempt at reopening the artery,” he emphasized.

Tiffany Patterson, PhD, clinical lead of ARREST, with the same affiliations as Dr. Redwood, presented the trial findings at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology in Amsterdam, on Aug. 27. The study was simultaneously published online in The Lancet.

Observational studies of registry data suggest that postarrest care for patients resuscitated after cardiac arrest, without ST-segment elevation, may be best delivered in a specialized center, she noted.

The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation called for a randomized clinical trial of patients resuscitated after cardiac arrest without ST-segment elevation to clarify this.

In the ARREST trial, among 800 patients with return of spontaneous circulation following OHCA without ST-segment elevation who were randomly assigned to be transported to specialized centers or an emergency department, there was no survival benefit, she summarized.

ARREST was “not simply a negative trial, but a new evidence-based starting point,” according to the trial discussant Lia Crotti, MD, PhD, IRCCS Istituto Auxologico Italiano and University Milano-Bicocca, Italy. 

She drew attention to two findings: First, among the 862 patients who were enrolled, whom paramedics judged as being without an obvious noncardiac cause of the cardiac arrest, “only 60% ended up having a cardiac cause for their cardiac arrest and only around one quarter of the total had coronary artery disease.”

The small number of patients who could have benefited from early access to a catheterization laboratory probably contributed to the negative result obtained in this trial, with the loss of statistical power, she said.

Second, London is a dense urban area with high-quality acute care hospitals, so the standard of care in the nearest emergency department may be not so different from that in cardiac arrest centers, she noted. Furthermore, four of the seven cardiac arrest centers have an emergency department, and some of the standard care patients may have been transported there.

“If the clinical trial would be extended to the entire country, including rural areas, maybe the result would be different,” she said.

The study authors acknowledge that the main limitation of this study was that “it was done across London with a dense population in a small geographic area,” and “the London Ambulance Service has rapid response times and short transit times and delivers high quality prehospital care, which could limit generalizability.”

Asked during the press conference here why the results were so different from the registry study findings, Dr. Redwood said, “We’ve seen time and time again that registry data think they are telling us the answer. They’re actually not.”

The session cochairs, Rudolf de Boer, MD, PhD, of Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, and Faiez Zannad, MD, PhD, from University of Lorraine–Vandoeuvre-lès-Nancy, France, each congratulated the researchers on a well-done study.

Dr. de Boer wanted to know whether, for example, 100% of these resuscitated OHCA patients without ST-segment elevation  had a cardiac cause, “Would results differ? Or is this just real life?” he asked. Dr. Patterson replied that the paramedics excluded obvious noncardiac causes and the findings were based on current facilities.

“Does this trial provide a definitive answer?” Dr. de Boer asked. Dr. Patterson replied that for the moment, subgroup analysis did not identify any subgroup that might benefit from expedited transport to a cardiac arrest center.

Dr. Zannad wanted to know how informed consent was obtained. Dr. Patterson noted that they have an excellent ethical committee that allowed them to undertake this research in vulnerable patients. Written informed consent was obtained from the patient once the initial emergency had passed if they had regained capacity.
 

Rationale and trial findings

“It’s very well established that early bystander CPR [cardiopulmonary resuscitation], early defibrillation, and advanced in-hospital care improves survival,” Dr. Redwood noted. “Despite this, only 1 in 10 survive to leave the hospital.”

Therefore, “a cardiac arrest center has been proposed as a way of improving outcome.” These centers have a catheterization laboratory, open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, advanced critical care including advanced ventilation, temperature management of the patient, hemodynamic support, and neuroprognostication and rehab “because often these patients will have brain injury.

“There’s quite overwhelming registry data to suggest that these cardiac arrest centers improve outcome,” he said, “but these are limited by bias.”

Between January 2018 and December 2022, London Ambulance paramedics randomly assigned 862 patients who were successfully resuscitated and without a confirmed MI to be transported the nearest hospital emergency department or the catheterization laboratory in a cardiac arrest center.

Data were available for 822 participants. They had a mean age of 63 years, and 68% were male.

The primary endpoint, 30-day mortality, occurred in 258 (63%) of 411 participants in the cardiac arrest center group and in 258 (63%) of 412 in the standard care group (unadjusted risk ratio for survival, 1.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90-1.11; P = 0.96).

Mortality at 3 months was similar in both groups: 64% in the standard care group and 65% in the cardiac arrest center group.

Neurologic outcomes at discharge and 3 months were similar in both groups.

Eight (2%) of 414 patients in the cardiac arrest center group and three (1%) of 413 in the standard care group had serious adverse events, none of which were deemed related to the trial intervention.

A cardiac cause of arrest was identified in roughly 60% of patients in each group, and of these, roughly 42% were coronary causes, 33% were arrhythmia, and 17% were cardiomyopathy.

The median time from cardiac arrest to hospital arrival was 84 minutes in the cardiac arrest center group and 77 minutes in the standard care group.
 

“Surprising and important RCT evidence”

In an accompanying editorial, Carolina Malta Hansen, MD, PhD, University of Copenhagen, and colleagues wrote that “this study provides randomized trial evidence that in urban settings such as London, there is no survival advantage of a strategy of transporting patients who have been resuscitated to centres with specialty expertise in care of cardiac arrest.
“This result is surprising and important, since this complex and critically ill population would be expected to benefit from centres with more expertise.”

However, “it would be a mistake to conclude that the trial results apply to regions where local hospitals provide a lower quality of care than those in this trial,” they cautioned.

“Where does this leave the medical community, researchers, and society in general?” they asked rhetorically. “Prioritising a minimum standard of care at local hospitals caring for this population is at least as important as ensuring high-quality care or advanced treatment at tertiary centres.

“This trial also calls for more focus on the basics, including efforts to increase bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation and early defibrillation, aspects of care that are currently being assessed in two ongoing clinical trials (NCT04660526 and NCT03835403) and are most strongly associated with improved survival, when coupled with high-quality prehospital care with trained staff and short response times,” they concluded.

The study was fully funded by the British Heart Foundation. The authors reported that they have no relevant financial disclosures. The financial disclosures of the editorialists are listed with the editorial.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) without ST-segment elevation who were transported to the nearest hospital emergency department had outcomes similar to those of patients transported to specialist cardiac arrest centers, in the ARREST trial.

Both groups had the same 30-day survival, the primary outcome, as well as 3-month survival and neurologic outcomes.

“The take-home message is that this trial does not support transporting cardiac arrest patients direct to a cardiac arrest center in London; they would fare better going to their nearest emergency department,” senior author Simon R. Redwood, MD, principal investigator of ARREST, from Guy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Trust Hospitals and King’s College, London, said during a press briefing. “These results may allow better resource allocation elsewhere.”

Importantly, this study excluded patients who clearly had myocardial infarction (MI), he stressed. Cardiac arrest can result from cardiac causes or from other events, including trauma, overdose, drowning, or electrocution, he noted.

On the other hand, patients with MI “will benefit from going straight to a heart attack center and having an attempt at reopening the artery,” he emphasized.

Tiffany Patterson, PhD, clinical lead of ARREST, with the same affiliations as Dr. Redwood, presented the trial findings at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology in Amsterdam, on Aug. 27. The study was simultaneously published online in The Lancet.

Observational studies of registry data suggest that postarrest care for patients resuscitated after cardiac arrest, without ST-segment elevation, may be best delivered in a specialized center, she noted.

The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation called for a randomized clinical trial of patients resuscitated after cardiac arrest without ST-segment elevation to clarify this.

In the ARREST trial, among 800 patients with return of spontaneous circulation following OHCA without ST-segment elevation who were randomly assigned to be transported to specialized centers or an emergency department, there was no survival benefit, she summarized.

ARREST was “not simply a negative trial, but a new evidence-based starting point,” according to the trial discussant Lia Crotti, MD, PhD, IRCCS Istituto Auxologico Italiano and University Milano-Bicocca, Italy. 

She drew attention to two findings: First, among the 862 patients who were enrolled, whom paramedics judged as being without an obvious noncardiac cause of the cardiac arrest, “only 60% ended up having a cardiac cause for their cardiac arrest and only around one quarter of the total had coronary artery disease.”

The small number of patients who could have benefited from early access to a catheterization laboratory probably contributed to the negative result obtained in this trial, with the loss of statistical power, she said.

Second, London is a dense urban area with high-quality acute care hospitals, so the standard of care in the nearest emergency department may be not so different from that in cardiac arrest centers, she noted. Furthermore, four of the seven cardiac arrest centers have an emergency department, and some of the standard care patients may have been transported there.

“If the clinical trial would be extended to the entire country, including rural areas, maybe the result would be different,” she said.

The study authors acknowledge that the main limitation of this study was that “it was done across London with a dense population in a small geographic area,” and “the London Ambulance Service has rapid response times and short transit times and delivers high quality prehospital care, which could limit generalizability.”

Asked during the press conference here why the results were so different from the registry study findings, Dr. Redwood said, “We’ve seen time and time again that registry data think they are telling us the answer. They’re actually not.”

The session cochairs, Rudolf de Boer, MD, PhD, of Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, the Netherlands, and Faiez Zannad, MD, PhD, from University of Lorraine–Vandoeuvre-lès-Nancy, France, each congratulated the researchers on a well-done study.

Dr. de Boer wanted to know whether, for example, 100% of these resuscitated OHCA patients without ST-segment elevation  had a cardiac cause, “Would results differ? Or is this just real life?” he asked. Dr. Patterson replied that the paramedics excluded obvious noncardiac causes and the findings were based on current facilities.

“Does this trial provide a definitive answer?” Dr. de Boer asked. Dr. Patterson replied that for the moment, subgroup analysis did not identify any subgroup that might benefit from expedited transport to a cardiac arrest center.

Dr. Zannad wanted to know how informed consent was obtained. Dr. Patterson noted that they have an excellent ethical committee that allowed them to undertake this research in vulnerable patients. Written informed consent was obtained from the patient once the initial emergency had passed if they had regained capacity.
 

Rationale and trial findings

“It’s very well established that early bystander CPR [cardiopulmonary resuscitation], early defibrillation, and advanced in-hospital care improves survival,” Dr. Redwood noted. “Despite this, only 1 in 10 survive to leave the hospital.”

Therefore, “a cardiac arrest center has been proposed as a way of improving outcome.” These centers have a catheterization laboratory, open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, advanced critical care including advanced ventilation, temperature management of the patient, hemodynamic support, and neuroprognostication and rehab “because often these patients will have brain injury.

“There’s quite overwhelming registry data to suggest that these cardiac arrest centers improve outcome,” he said, “but these are limited by bias.”

Between January 2018 and December 2022, London Ambulance paramedics randomly assigned 862 patients who were successfully resuscitated and without a confirmed MI to be transported the nearest hospital emergency department or the catheterization laboratory in a cardiac arrest center.

Data were available for 822 participants. They had a mean age of 63 years, and 68% were male.

The primary endpoint, 30-day mortality, occurred in 258 (63%) of 411 participants in the cardiac arrest center group and in 258 (63%) of 412 in the standard care group (unadjusted risk ratio for survival, 1.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90-1.11; P = 0.96).

Mortality at 3 months was similar in both groups: 64% in the standard care group and 65% in the cardiac arrest center group.

Neurologic outcomes at discharge and 3 months were similar in both groups.

Eight (2%) of 414 patients in the cardiac arrest center group and three (1%) of 413 in the standard care group had serious adverse events, none of which were deemed related to the trial intervention.

A cardiac cause of arrest was identified in roughly 60% of patients in each group, and of these, roughly 42% were coronary causes, 33% were arrhythmia, and 17% were cardiomyopathy.

The median time from cardiac arrest to hospital arrival was 84 minutes in the cardiac arrest center group and 77 minutes in the standard care group.
 

“Surprising and important RCT evidence”

In an accompanying editorial, Carolina Malta Hansen, MD, PhD, University of Copenhagen, and colleagues wrote that “this study provides randomized trial evidence that in urban settings such as London, there is no survival advantage of a strategy of transporting patients who have been resuscitated to centres with specialty expertise in care of cardiac arrest.
“This result is surprising and important, since this complex and critically ill population would be expected to benefit from centres with more expertise.”

However, “it would be a mistake to conclude that the trial results apply to regions where local hospitals provide a lower quality of care than those in this trial,” they cautioned.

“Where does this leave the medical community, researchers, and society in general?” they asked rhetorically. “Prioritising a minimum standard of care at local hospitals caring for this population is at least as important as ensuring high-quality care or advanced treatment at tertiary centres.

“This trial also calls for more focus on the basics, including efforts to increase bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation and early defibrillation, aspects of care that are currently being assessed in two ongoing clinical trials (NCT04660526 and NCT03835403) and are most strongly associated with improved survival, when coupled with high-quality prehospital care with trained staff and short response times,” they concluded.

The study was fully funded by the British Heart Foundation. The authors reported that they have no relevant financial disclosures. The financial disclosures of the editorialists are listed with the editorial.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A strategy of complete revascularization (CR) achieved superior 1-year outcomes, compared with the culprit lesion–only approach in older patients with acute myocardial infarction and multivessel disease (MVD) in a large, randomized trial.

In the study with more than 1,400 patients, CR was guided by assessments of the functional effect of coronary lesions other than the MI culprit, a process that selects or excludes the lesions, regardless of angiographic profile, as targets for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

Such physiology-guided CR led to a significant 27% drop in risk for a composite primary endpoint over 1 year in the trial, called FIRE (Functional Assessment in Elderly MI Patients with Multivessel Disease), compared with the culprit-only approach. The endpoint included death, MI, stroke, or ischemia-driven revascularization.

Risk for cardiovascular (CV) death or MI fell by 36% in the trial, and all-cause mortality declined 30%. The differences were significant, although the study wasn’t powered for those secondary endpoints. Safety outcomes were similar for the two revascularization approaches.

FIRE was noteworthy for entering only patients with ST-segment elevation or non–ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI or NSTEMI) who were age 75 years or older, a higher-risk age group poorly represented in earlier CR trials. Such patients in practice are usually managed with the culprit lesion–only approach because of a lack of good evidence supporting CR, observed Simone Biscaglia, MD, the study’s principal investigator.

“This is the first trial actually showing a benefit” from physiology-guided CR in older patients with acute MI that is similar to what the strategy can offer younger patients, said Dr. Biscaglia, from Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria S. Anna, Ferrara, Italy.

Biscaglia made the comments at a media briefing on FIRE held during the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, where he presented the study. He is also lead author on its publication in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“This is a remarkable trial that adds substantially to prior studies that examined the topic of complete versus culprit-only revascularization,” Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, MPH, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview.

It shows “quite clearly” that physiology-guided CR is superior to the culprit-only approach in patients with acute MI, said Dr. Bhatt, who is also director of Mount Sinai Heart at Mount Sinai Hospital and not connected to FIRE.

The primary findings applied to a range of different patient subgroups, including those older than 80. That’s important, he said, because “it is sometimes incorrectly assumed that patients who are older may not benefit from complete revascularization in this setting.”

And the trial’s finding of reduced risk for CV death or MI in the CR group “really should make the complete revascularization approach the standard of care in MI patients without contraindications,” Dr. Bhatt said. And certainly, “age per se should no longer be considered a contraindication.”

“First and foremost, the FIRE trial confirms the benefit of complete revascularization that has been observed in previous trials and provides additional evidence for this approach in older patients,” wrote the author of an editorial accompanying the published report.

The mortality reduction with CR at 1 years “is particularly notable” and underscores that CR should be considered in all patients with acute MI, “regardless of age,” wrote Shamir R. Mehta, MD, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., and Hamilton Health Sciences.

Dr. Mehta was principal investigator for the 2019 COMPLETE trial, which made the case for CR, guided by standard angiography, in patients with MVD and STEMI; their age averaged about 62 years.

FIRE definitely ought to sway practice toward greater use of physiology-guided CR regardless of age, observed Vijay Kunadian, MBBS, MD, invited discussant for the Biscaglia presentation. “My oldest patient is 98,” she said, “and it is beneficial without a doubt.”

But Dr. Kunadian, from Newcastle (England) University, said that the trial results can’t be generalized to all older patients. That’s because their outcomes after CR could vary depending on, for example, their different frailties or comorbidities, cognition, or CV history. “So, there is an absolute need to individualize care.”

FIRE enrolled patients 75 years or older with MVD, about 64% male, who had been admitted with acute STEMI or NSTEMI at 34 sites in Italy, Spain, and Poland. All underwent successful culprit-lesion PCI using, as “strongly” recommended, the same model of sirolimus-eluting stent.

Patients were randomly assigned to physiology-guided CR of nonculprit lesions, at the same session or at least during the same hospitalization, or to no further revascularization: 720 and 725 patients, respectively.

The hazard ratio for the composite primary outcome, CR versus culprit-only PCI was 0.73 (95% confidence interval, 0.57-0.93; P = .01). The benefit was driven by reductions in three individual components of the primary endpoint: death, MI, and revascularization, but not stroke.

The HR for CV death or MI was 0.64 (95% CI, 0.47-0.88) and for death from any cause was 0.70 (95% CI, 0.51-0.96).

There was no significant difference in the primary safety outcome, a composite of contrast-related acute kidney injury, stroke, or Bleeding Academic Research Consortium grade 3 to 5 bleeding at 1 year. The rates were 22.5% in those assigned to CR and 20.4% in the culprit-only group.

The functional effect of individual lesions was assessed by either of two methods, crossing them with a standard “pressure wire” or by angiographic derivation of their quantitative flow ratio.

The choice was “left to operator discretion,” Dr. Biscaglia said in an interview, “because we wanted to mirror clinical practice at the participating centers.” Still, the CR primary benefit was independent of the physiology-guidance method.

FIRE’s sponsor – the nonprofit Consorzio Futuro in Ricerca, Italy – received grant support from Sahajanand Medical Technologies, Medis Medical Imaging systems, Eukon, Siemens Healthineers, General Electric Healthcare, and Insight Lifetech. Dr. Biscaglia had no other disclosures. Dr. Mehta reported receiving grants from Abbott Vascular and personal fees from Amgen, Janssen, and Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr. Bhatt reported numerous disclosures with various companies and organizations. Dr. Kunadian had no disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A strategy of complete revascularization (CR) achieved superior 1-year outcomes, compared with the culprit lesion–only approach in older patients with acute myocardial infarction and multivessel disease (MVD) in a large, randomized trial.

In the study with more than 1,400 patients, CR was guided by assessments of the functional effect of coronary lesions other than the MI culprit, a process that selects or excludes the lesions, regardless of angiographic profile, as targets for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

Such physiology-guided CR led to a significant 27% drop in risk for a composite primary endpoint over 1 year in the trial, called FIRE (Functional Assessment in Elderly MI Patients with Multivessel Disease), compared with the culprit-only approach. The endpoint included death, MI, stroke, or ischemia-driven revascularization.

Risk for cardiovascular (CV) death or MI fell by 36% in the trial, and all-cause mortality declined 30%. The differences were significant, although the study wasn’t powered for those secondary endpoints. Safety outcomes were similar for the two revascularization approaches.

FIRE was noteworthy for entering only patients with ST-segment elevation or non–ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI or NSTEMI) who were age 75 years or older, a higher-risk age group poorly represented in earlier CR trials. Such patients in practice are usually managed with the culprit lesion–only approach because of a lack of good evidence supporting CR, observed Simone Biscaglia, MD, the study’s principal investigator.

“This is the first trial actually showing a benefit” from physiology-guided CR in older patients with acute MI that is similar to what the strategy can offer younger patients, said Dr. Biscaglia, from Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria S. Anna, Ferrara, Italy.

Biscaglia made the comments at a media briefing on FIRE held during the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, where he presented the study. He is also lead author on its publication in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“This is a remarkable trial that adds substantially to prior studies that examined the topic of complete versus culprit-only revascularization,” Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, MPH, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview.

It shows “quite clearly” that physiology-guided CR is superior to the culprit-only approach in patients with acute MI, said Dr. Bhatt, who is also director of Mount Sinai Heart at Mount Sinai Hospital and not connected to FIRE.

The primary findings applied to a range of different patient subgroups, including those older than 80. That’s important, he said, because “it is sometimes incorrectly assumed that patients who are older may not benefit from complete revascularization in this setting.”

And the trial’s finding of reduced risk for CV death or MI in the CR group “really should make the complete revascularization approach the standard of care in MI patients without contraindications,” Dr. Bhatt said. And certainly, “age per se should no longer be considered a contraindication.”

“First and foremost, the FIRE trial confirms the benefit of complete revascularization that has been observed in previous trials and provides additional evidence for this approach in older patients,” wrote the author of an editorial accompanying the published report.

The mortality reduction with CR at 1 years “is particularly notable” and underscores that CR should be considered in all patients with acute MI, “regardless of age,” wrote Shamir R. Mehta, MD, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., and Hamilton Health Sciences.

Dr. Mehta was principal investigator for the 2019 COMPLETE trial, which made the case for CR, guided by standard angiography, in patients with MVD and STEMI; their age averaged about 62 years.

FIRE definitely ought to sway practice toward greater use of physiology-guided CR regardless of age, observed Vijay Kunadian, MBBS, MD, invited discussant for the Biscaglia presentation. “My oldest patient is 98,” she said, “and it is beneficial without a doubt.”

But Dr. Kunadian, from Newcastle (England) University, said that the trial results can’t be generalized to all older patients. That’s because their outcomes after CR could vary depending on, for example, their different frailties or comorbidities, cognition, or CV history. “So, there is an absolute need to individualize care.”

FIRE enrolled patients 75 years or older with MVD, about 64% male, who had been admitted with acute STEMI or NSTEMI at 34 sites in Italy, Spain, and Poland. All underwent successful culprit-lesion PCI using, as “strongly” recommended, the same model of sirolimus-eluting stent.

Patients were randomly assigned to physiology-guided CR of nonculprit lesions, at the same session or at least during the same hospitalization, or to no further revascularization: 720 and 725 patients, respectively.

The hazard ratio for the composite primary outcome, CR versus culprit-only PCI was 0.73 (95% confidence interval, 0.57-0.93; P = .01). The benefit was driven by reductions in three individual components of the primary endpoint: death, MI, and revascularization, but not stroke.

The HR for CV death or MI was 0.64 (95% CI, 0.47-0.88) and for death from any cause was 0.70 (95% CI, 0.51-0.96).

There was no significant difference in the primary safety outcome, a composite of contrast-related acute kidney injury, stroke, or Bleeding Academic Research Consortium grade 3 to 5 bleeding at 1 year. The rates were 22.5% in those assigned to CR and 20.4% in the culprit-only group.

The functional effect of individual lesions was assessed by either of two methods, crossing them with a standard “pressure wire” or by angiographic derivation of their quantitative flow ratio.

The choice was “left to operator discretion,” Dr. Biscaglia said in an interview, “because we wanted to mirror clinical practice at the participating centers.” Still, the CR primary benefit was independent of the physiology-guidance method.

FIRE’s sponsor – the nonprofit Consorzio Futuro in Ricerca, Italy – received grant support from Sahajanand Medical Technologies, Medis Medical Imaging systems, Eukon, Siemens Healthineers, General Electric Healthcare, and Insight Lifetech. Dr. Biscaglia had no other disclosures. Dr. Mehta reported receiving grants from Abbott Vascular and personal fees from Amgen, Janssen, and Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr. Bhatt reported numerous disclosures with various companies and organizations. Dr. Kunadian had no disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A strategy of complete revascularization (CR) achieved superior 1-year outcomes, compared with the culprit lesion–only approach in older patients with acute myocardial infarction and multivessel disease (MVD) in a large, randomized trial.

In the study with more than 1,400 patients, CR was guided by assessments of the functional effect of coronary lesions other than the MI culprit, a process that selects or excludes the lesions, regardless of angiographic profile, as targets for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

Such physiology-guided CR led to a significant 27% drop in risk for a composite primary endpoint over 1 year in the trial, called FIRE (Functional Assessment in Elderly MI Patients with Multivessel Disease), compared with the culprit-only approach. The endpoint included death, MI, stroke, or ischemia-driven revascularization.

Risk for cardiovascular (CV) death or MI fell by 36% in the trial, and all-cause mortality declined 30%. The differences were significant, although the study wasn’t powered for those secondary endpoints. Safety outcomes were similar for the two revascularization approaches.

FIRE was noteworthy for entering only patients with ST-segment elevation or non–ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI or NSTEMI) who were age 75 years or older, a higher-risk age group poorly represented in earlier CR trials. Such patients in practice are usually managed with the culprit lesion–only approach because of a lack of good evidence supporting CR, observed Simone Biscaglia, MD, the study’s principal investigator.

“This is the first trial actually showing a benefit” from physiology-guided CR in older patients with acute MI that is similar to what the strategy can offer younger patients, said Dr. Biscaglia, from Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria S. Anna, Ferrara, Italy.

Biscaglia made the comments at a media briefing on FIRE held during the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, where he presented the study. He is also lead author on its publication in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“This is a remarkable trial that adds substantially to prior studies that examined the topic of complete versus culprit-only revascularization,” Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, MPH, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said in an interview.

It shows “quite clearly” that physiology-guided CR is superior to the culprit-only approach in patients with acute MI, said Dr. Bhatt, who is also director of Mount Sinai Heart at Mount Sinai Hospital and not connected to FIRE.

The primary findings applied to a range of different patient subgroups, including those older than 80. That’s important, he said, because “it is sometimes incorrectly assumed that patients who are older may not benefit from complete revascularization in this setting.”

And the trial’s finding of reduced risk for CV death or MI in the CR group “really should make the complete revascularization approach the standard of care in MI patients without contraindications,” Dr. Bhatt said. And certainly, “age per se should no longer be considered a contraindication.”

“First and foremost, the FIRE trial confirms the benefit of complete revascularization that has been observed in previous trials and provides additional evidence for this approach in older patients,” wrote the author of an editorial accompanying the published report.

The mortality reduction with CR at 1 years “is particularly notable” and underscores that CR should be considered in all patients with acute MI, “regardless of age,” wrote Shamir R. Mehta, MD, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., and Hamilton Health Sciences.

Dr. Mehta was principal investigator for the 2019 COMPLETE trial, which made the case for CR, guided by standard angiography, in patients with MVD and STEMI; their age averaged about 62 years.

FIRE definitely ought to sway practice toward greater use of physiology-guided CR regardless of age, observed Vijay Kunadian, MBBS, MD, invited discussant for the Biscaglia presentation. “My oldest patient is 98,” she said, “and it is beneficial without a doubt.”

But Dr. Kunadian, from Newcastle (England) University, said that the trial results can’t be generalized to all older patients. That’s because their outcomes after CR could vary depending on, for example, their different frailties or comorbidities, cognition, or CV history. “So, there is an absolute need to individualize care.”

FIRE enrolled patients 75 years or older with MVD, about 64% male, who had been admitted with acute STEMI or NSTEMI at 34 sites in Italy, Spain, and Poland. All underwent successful culprit-lesion PCI using, as “strongly” recommended, the same model of sirolimus-eluting stent.

Patients were randomly assigned to physiology-guided CR of nonculprit lesions, at the same session or at least during the same hospitalization, or to no further revascularization: 720 and 725 patients, respectively.

The hazard ratio for the composite primary outcome, CR versus culprit-only PCI was 0.73 (95% confidence interval, 0.57-0.93; P = .01). The benefit was driven by reductions in three individual components of the primary endpoint: death, MI, and revascularization, but not stroke.

The HR for CV death or MI was 0.64 (95% CI, 0.47-0.88) and for death from any cause was 0.70 (95% CI, 0.51-0.96).

There was no significant difference in the primary safety outcome, a composite of contrast-related acute kidney injury, stroke, or Bleeding Academic Research Consortium grade 3 to 5 bleeding at 1 year. The rates were 22.5% in those assigned to CR and 20.4% in the culprit-only group.

The functional effect of individual lesions was assessed by either of two methods, crossing them with a standard “pressure wire” or by angiographic derivation of their quantitative flow ratio.

The choice was “left to operator discretion,” Dr. Biscaglia said in an interview, “because we wanted to mirror clinical practice at the participating centers.” Still, the CR primary benefit was independent of the physiology-guidance method.

FIRE’s sponsor – the nonprofit Consorzio Futuro in Ricerca, Italy – received grant support from Sahajanand Medical Technologies, Medis Medical Imaging systems, Eukon, Siemens Healthineers, General Electric Healthcare, and Insight Lifetech. Dr. Biscaglia had no other disclosures. Dr. Mehta reported receiving grants from Abbott Vascular and personal fees from Amgen, Janssen, and Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr. Bhatt reported numerous disclosures with various companies and organizations. Dr. Kunadian had no disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) and shock are often put on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support before heading to the catheterization laboratory. But the practice, done routinely, doesn’t have much backing from randomized trials. Now it’s being challenged by one of the largest such studies to explore the issue.

In a new multicenter trial, there was no survival advantage at 30 days to early use of ECMO in such patients with cardiogenic shock, compared with a usual-care medical approach. ECMO-managed patients, moreover, had sharply increased risks for moderate and severe bleeding and vascular complications.
 

A challenge to common practice

The results undercut guidelines that promote mechanical circulatory support in MI-related cardiogenic shock primarily based on observational data, and they argue against what’s become common practice, said Holger Thiele, MD, Heart Center Leipzig, University of Leipzig, Germany.

Such use of ECMO could well offer some type of advantage in MI-related shock, but the data so far don’t show it, Dr. Thiele said at a press conference on the new study, called ECLS-SHOCK, at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology in Amsterdam. He formally presented the trial at the meeting and is lead author on its simultaneous publication in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Almost half of the trial’s patients died, whether or not they had been put on ECMO. All-cause mortality at 30 days, the primary endpoint, was about the same, at 47.8% and 49.0% for the ECMO and usual-care groups, respectively.

Meanwhile, Dr. Thiele reported, risks for moderate or severe bleeding more than doubled and serious peripheral vascular complications almost tripled with addition of ECMO support.

The findings, he noted, are consistent with a new meta-analysis of trials testing ECMO in MI-related shock that also showed increases in bleeding with survival gains using the devices. Dr. Thiele is senior author on that report, published in The Lancet to coincide with his ECLS-SHOCK presentation.
 

Would any subgroups benefit?

Importantly, he said in an interview, ECMO’s failure to improve 30-day survival in the trial probably applies across the spectrum of patients with MI-related shock. Subgroup analyses in both ECLS-SHOCK and the meta-analysis didn’t identify any groups that benefit, Dr. Thiele observed.

For example, there were no significant differences for the primary outcome by age, sex, whether the MI was ST-segment elevation MI or non–ST-segment elevation MI or anterior or nonanterior, or whether the patient had diabetes.

If there is a subgroup in MI-related shock that is likely to benefit from the intervention with lower mortality, he said, “it’s less than 1%, if you ask me.”

An accompanying editorial essentially agreed, arguing that ECLS-SHOCK contests the intervention’s broad application in MI-related shock without shedding light on any selective benefits.

“Will the results of the ECLS-SHOCK trial change current clinical practice? If the goal of [ECMO] is to improve 30-day mortality, these data should steer interventional and critical care cardiologists away from its early routine implementation for all or even most patients with myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock,” the editorialists say.

“There will be some patients in this population for whom [ECMO] is necessary and lifesaving, but the results of the ECLS-SHOCK trial do not tell us which ones,” write Jane A. Leopold, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and Darren B. Taichman, MD, PhD, Penn Presbyterian Medical Center, Philadelphia.

“For now, the best course may be to reserve the early initiation of [ECMO] for those patients with infarct-related cardiogenic shock in whom the likely benefits more clearly outweigh the potential harms. We need further studies to tell us who they are,” write Dr. Leopold and Dr. Taichman, who are deputy editors with The New England Journal of Medicine.

ECLS-SHOCK randomly assigned 420 patients with acute MI complicated by shock and slated for coronary revascularization to receive standard care with or without early ECMO at 44 centers in Germany and Slovenia. Their median age was 63 years, and about 81% were men.

The relative risk for death from any cause, ECMO vs. usual care, was flatly nonsignificant at 0.98 (95% confidence interval, 0.80-1.19; P = .81).

ECMO came at the cost of significantly more cases of the primary safety endpoint, moderate or severe bleeding by Bleeding Academic Research Consortium criteria. That endpoint was met by 23.4% of ECMO patients and 9.6% of the control group, for an RR of 2.44 (95% CI, 1.50-3.95).

Rates of stroke or systemic embolization were nonsignificantly different at 3.8% and 2.9%, respectively (RR, 1.33; 95% CI, 0.47-3.76).

Speaking with this news organization, Sripal Bangalore, MD, MHA, pointed out that only 5.8% of the ECMO group but about 32% of those managed with usual care received some form of left ventricular (LV) unloading therapy.

Such measures can include atrial septostomy or the addition of an intra-aortic balloon pump or percutaneous LV-assist pump.

Given that ECMO increases afterload, “which is physiologically detrimental in patients with an ongoing MI, one is left to wonder if the results would have been different with greater use of LV unloading,” said Dr. Bangalore, of NYU Langone Health, New York, who isn’t associated with ECLS-SHOCK.

Also, he pointed out, about 78% of the trial’s patients had experienced some degree of cardiopulmonary resuscitation despite exclusion of anyone who had undergone it for more than 45 minutes. That may make the study more generalizable but also harder to show a benefit from ECMO. “The overall prognosis of that subset of patients despite heroic efforts is bleak at best.”

Dr. Thiele had no disclosures; statements for the other authors can be found at nejm.org. Dr. Bangalore has previously disclosed financial relationships with Abbott Vascular, Amgen, Biotronik, Inari, Pfizer, Reata, and Truvic. Dr. Leopold reports grants from Astellas and personal fees from United Therapeutics, Abbott Vascular, and North America Thrombosis Forum. Dr. Leopold and Dr. Taichman both report employment by The New England Journal of Medicine.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) and shock are often put on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support before heading to the catheterization laboratory. But the practice, done routinely, doesn’t have much backing from randomized trials. Now it’s being challenged by one of the largest such studies to explore the issue.

In a new multicenter trial, there was no survival advantage at 30 days to early use of ECMO in such patients with cardiogenic shock, compared with a usual-care medical approach. ECMO-managed patients, moreover, had sharply increased risks for moderate and severe bleeding and vascular complications.
 

A challenge to common practice

The results undercut guidelines that promote mechanical circulatory support in MI-related cardiogenic shock primarily based on observational data, and they argue against what’s become common practice, said Holger Thiele, MD, Heart Center Leipzig, University of Leipzig, Germany.

Such use of ECMO could well offer some type of advantage in MI-related shock, but the data so far don’t show it, Dr. Thiele said at a press conference on the new study, called ECLS-SHOCK, at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology in Amsterdam. He formally presented the trial at the meeting and is lead author on its simultaneous publication in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Almost half of the trial’s patients died, whether or not they had been put on ECMO. All-cause mortality at 30 days, the primary endpoint, was about the same, at 47.8% and 49.0% for the ECMO and usual-care groups, respectively.

Meanwhile, Dr. Thiele reported, risks for moderate or severe bleeding more than doubled and serious peripheral vascular complications almost tripled with addition of ECMO support.

The findings, he noted, are consistent with a new meta-analysis of trials testing ECMO in MI-related shock that also showed increases in bleeding with survival gains using the devices. Dr. Thiele is senior author on that report, published in The Lancet to coincide with his ECLS-SHOCK presentation.
 

Would any subgroups benefit?

Importantly, he said in an interview, ECMO’s failure to improve 30-day survival in the trial probably applies across the spectrum of patients with MI-related shock. Subgroup analyses in both ECLS-SHOCK and the meta-analysis didn’t identify any groups that benefit, Dr. Thiele observed.

For example, there were no significant differences for the primary outcome by age, sex, whether the MI was ST-segment elevation MI or non–ST-segment elevation MI or anterior or nonanterior, or whether the patient had diabetes.

If there is a subgroup in MI-related shock that is likely to benefit from the intervention with lower mortality, he said, “it’s less than 1%, if you ask me.”

An accompanying editorial essentially agreed, arguing that ECLS-SHOCK contests the intervention’s broad application in MI-related shock without shedding light on any selective benefits.

“Will the results of the ECLS-SHOCK trial change current clinical practice? If the goal of [ECMO] is to improve 30-day mortality, these data should steer interventional and critical care cardiologists away from its early routine implementation for all or even most patients with myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock,” the editorialists say.

“There will be some patients in this population for whom [ECMO] is necessary and lifesaving, but the results of the ECLS-SHOCK trial do not tell us which ones,” write Jane A. Leopold, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and Darren B. Taichman, MD, PhD, Penn Presbyterian Medical Center, Philadelphia.

“For now, the best course may be to reserve the early initiation of [ECMO] for those patients with infarct-related cardiogenic shock in whom the likely benefits more clearly outweigh the potential harms. We need further studies to tell us who they are,” write Dr. Leopold and Dr. Taichman, who are deputy editors with The New England Journal of Medicine.

ECLS-SHOCK randomly assigned 420 patients with acute MI complicated by shock and slated for coronary revascularization to receive standard care with or without early ECMO at 44 centers in Germany and Slovenia. Their median age was 63 years, and about 81% were men.

The relative risk for death from any cause, ECMO vs. usual care, was flatly nonsignificant at 0.98 (95% confidence interval, 0.80-1.19; P = .81).

ECMO came at the cost of significantly more cases of the primary safety endpoint, moderate or severe bleeding by Bleeding Academic Research Consortium criteria. That endpoint was met by 23.4% of ECMO patients and 9.6% of the control group, for an RR of 2.44 (95% CI, 1.50-3.95).

Rates of stroke or systemic embolization were nonsignificantly different at 3.8% and 2.9%, respectively (RR, 1.33; 95% CI, 0.47-3.76).

Speaking with this news organization, Sripal Bangalore, MD, MHA, pointed out that only 5.8% of the ECMO group but about 32% of those managed with usual care received some form of left ventricular (LV) unloading therapy.

Such measures can include atrial septostomy or the addition of an intra-aortic balloon pump or percutaneous LV-assist pump.

Given that ECMO increases afterload, “which is physiologically detrimental in patients with an ongoing MI, one is left to wonder if the results would have been different with greater use of LV unloading,” said Dr. Bangalore, of NYU Langone Health, New York, who isn’t associated with ECLS-SHOCK.

Also, he pointed out, about 78% of the trial’s patients had experienced some degree of cardiopulmonary resuscitation despite exclusion of anyone who had undergone it for more than 45 minutes. That may make the study more generalizable but also harder to show a benefit from ECMO. “The overall prognosis of that subset of patients despite heroic efforts is bleak at best.”

Dr. Thiele had no disclosures; statements for the other authors can be found at nejm.org. Dr. Bangalore has previously disclosed financial relationships with Abbott Vascular, Amgen, Biotronik, Inari, Pfizer, Reata, and Truvic. Dr. Leopold reports grants from Astellas and personal fees from United Therapeutics, Abbott Vascular, and North America Thrombosis Forum. Dr. Leopold and Dr. Taichman both report employment by The New England Journal of Medicine.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) and shock are often put on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support before heading to the catheterization laboratory. But the practice, done routinely, doesn’t have much backing from randomized trials. Now it’s being challenged by one of the largest such studies to explore the issue.

In a new multicenter trial, there was no survival advantage at 30 days to early use of ECMO in such patients with cardiogenic shock, compared with a usual-care medical approach. ECMO-managed patients, moreover, had sharply increased risks for moderate and severe bleeding and vascular complications.
 

A challenge to common practice

The results undercut guidelines that promote mechanical circulatory support in MI-related cardiogenic shock primarily based on observational data, and they argue against what’s become common practice, said Holger Thiele, MD, Heart Center Leipzig, University of Leipzig, Germany.

Such use of ECMO could well offer some type of advantage in MI-related shock, but the data so far don’t show it, Dr. Thiele said at a press conference on the new study, called ECLS-SHOCK, at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology in Amsterdam. He formally presented the trial at the meeting and is lead author on its simultaneous publication in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Almost half of the trial’s patients died, whether or not they had been put on ECMO. All-cause mortality at 30 days, the primary endpoint, was about the same, at 47.8% and 49.0% for the ECMO and usual-care groups, respectively.

Meanwhile, Dr. Thiele reported, risks for moderate or severe bleeding more than doubled and serious peripheral vascular complications almost tripled with addition of ECMO support.

The findings, he noted, are consistent with a new meta-analysis of trials testing ECMO in MI-related shock that also showed increases in bleeding with survival gains using the devices. Dr. Thiele is senior author on that report, published in The Lancet to coincide with his ECLS-SHOCK presentation.
 

Would any subgroups benefit?

Importantly, he said in an interview, ECMO’s failure to improve 30-day survival in the trial probably applies across the spectrum of patients with MI-related shock. Subgroup analyses in both ECLS-SHOCK and the meta-analysis didn’t identify any groups that benefit, Dr. Thiele observed.

For example, there were no significant differences for the primary outcome by age, sex, whether the MI was ST-segment elevation MI or non–ST-segment elevation MI or anterior or nonanterior, or whether the patient had diabetes.

If there is a subgroup in MI-related shock that is likely to benefit from the intervention with lower mortality, he said, “it’s less than 1%, if you ask me.”

An accompanying editorial essentially agreed, arguing that ECLS-SHOCK contests the intervention’s broad application in MI-related shock without shedding light on any selective benefits.

“Will the results of the ECLS-SHOCK trial change current clinical practice? If the goal of [ECMO] is to improve 30-day mortality, these data should steer interventional and critical care cardiologists away from its early routine implementation for all or even most patients with myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock,” the editorialists say.

“There will be some patients in this population for whom [ECMO] is necessary and lifesaving, but the results of the ECLS-SHOCK trial do not tell us which ones,” write Jane A. Leopold, MD, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and Darren B. Taichman, MD, PhD, Penn Presbyterian Medical Center, Philadelphia.

“For now, the best course may be to reserve the early initiation of [ECMO] for those patients with infarct-related cardiogenic shock in whom the likely benefits more clearly outweigh the potential harms. We need further studies to tell us who they are,” write Dr. Leopold and Dr. Taichman, who are deputy editors with The New England Journal of Medicine.

ECLS-SHOCK randomly assigned 420 patients with acute MI complicated by shock and slated for coronary revascularization to receive standard care with or without early ECMO at 44 centers in Germany and Slovenia. Their median age was 63 years, and about 81% were men.

The relative risk for death from any cause, ECMO vs. usual care, was flatly nonsignificant at 0.98 (95% confidence interval, 0.80-1.19; P = .81).

ECMO came at the cost of significantly more cases of the primary safety endpoint, moderate or severe bleeding by Bleeding Academic Research Consortium criteria. That endpoint was met by 23.4% of ECMO patients and 9.6% of the control group, for an RR of 2.44 (95% CI, 1.50-3.95).

Rates of stroke or systemic embolization were nonsignificantly different at 3.8% and 2.9%, respectively (RR, 1.33; 95% CI, 0.47-3.76).

Speaking with this news organization, Sripal Bangalore, MD, MHA, pointed out that only 5.8% of the ECMO group but about 32% of those managed with usual care received some form of left ventricular (LV) unloading therapy.

Such measures can include atrial septostomy or the addition of an intra-aortic balloon pump or percutaneous LV-assist pump.

Given that ECMO increases afterload, “which is physiologically detrimental in patients with an ongoing MI, one is left to wonder if the results would have been different with greater use of LV unloading,” said Dr. Bangalore, of NYU Langone Health, New York, who isn’t associated with ECLS-SHOCK.

Also, he pointed out, about 78% of the trial’s patients had experienced some degree of cardiopulmonary resuscitation despite exclusion of anyone who had undergone it for more than 45 minutes. That may make the study more generalizable but also harder to show a benefit from ECMO. “The overall prognosis of that subset of patients despite heroic efforts is bleak at best.”

Dr. Thiele had no disclosures; statements for the other authors can be found at nejm.org. Dr. Bangalore has previously disclosed financial relationships with Abbott Vascular, Amgen, Biotronik, Inari, Pfizer, Reata, and Truvic. Dr. Leopold reports grants from Astellas and personal fees from United Therapeutics, Abbott Vascular, and North America Thrombosis Forum. Dr. Leopold and Dr. Taichman both report employment by The New England Journal of Medicine.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

For comatose adult survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA), controlling body temperature to less than 37.5° C is a “reasonable and evidence-based approach,” a new American Heart Association (AHA) scientific advisory suggests.

On the basis of data from recent trials, the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation and other organizations have altered their treatment recommendations for temperature management after cardiac arrest.

The AHA will present guidelines on this topic in a focused update to be published later in the year. Meanwhile, AHA’s Emergency Cardiovascular Care Committee convened a writing group to review the Hypothermia Versus Normothermia After Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest (TTM2) trial in the context of other recent evidence and rendered an expert opinion on how the trial may influence clinical practice. These findings will be incorporated into the upcoming guidelines.

“Many centers have already moved toward controlled normothermia for post-arrest patients, so we think this guidance will be welcomed by many,” said Sarah Perman, MD, of the Yale University, and Kate Berg, MD, of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, who are both members of the AHA Emergency Cardiovascular Care Committee that authored the advisory.

“For those who continue to favor temperatures in the 32° to 36° range for some or even all patients, the guidance that we have drafted leaves room for clinicians to make patient-centered decisions,” they told this news organization.

“Certainly, a finite guideline that recommends one temperature for all would be easier to apply,” the authors acknowledged. “However, cardiac arrest is a heterogeneous event and brain injury is variable, and definitive evidence that one temperature in the range of 32-37.5 is superior to another is lacking. We hope that clinicians find that this guidance supports and informs their practice.”

The advisory was published online in Circulation.
 

TTM2 key

The new guidance is based largely on findings from the TTM2 trial, a multicenter, randomized clinical trial of temperature management for neuroprotection after cardiac arrest that included 1,900 unresponsive adult patients successfully resuscitated from OHCA.

Patients were randomly assigned to receive hypothermia, defined as a target temperature of 33° C for 28 hours, followed by gradual rewarming to 37° C, or normothermia, defined as a target temperature < 37.8° C, with early treatment of fever.

No significant between-group difference was seen in the primary outcome of death at 6 months, nor were there any significant differences by subgroups of sex, age, time to return of spontaneous circulation, initial rhythm, or circulatory shock on admission.

Although it’s still not clear whether certain patients might benefit from lower target temperatures, the authors noted, major international organizations now suggest a target post–cardiac arrest temperature of less than 37.5° C.

By contrast, current AHA guidelines endorse targeting a temperature between 32° C and 36° C for 24 hours.

Between now and the forthcoming formal guidance in the “2023 American Heart Association Focused Update on Advanced Cardiovascular Life Support,” the scientific advisory writing group agreed: “For unresponsive post–cardiac arrest adult patients with characteristics similar to those of individuals included in the TTM2 trial (OHCA of cardiac or unknown cause, excluding those with unwitnessed asystole), controlling patient temperature to < 37.5° C is a reasonable and evidence-based approach.

“For the broader group of patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest or OHCA of noncardiac (other medical) cause, evidence for the ideal approach to temperature management after return of spontaneous circulation is less certain; whether some of these patients might benefit from temperature control at temperatures between 33° C and 37.5° C remains unclear.”

Unless a catastrophic brain injury results from OHCA, the group wrote, “strictly preventing fever with continuous temperature monitoring, providing comprehensive critical care support, and deploying multimodal evidence-based strategies for neuroprognostication at a minimum of 72 hours after normothermia remain essential ...”

Dr. Perman and Dr. Berg concluded, “We hope that this guidance continues to encourage aggressive post-arrest care that includes focus on temperature control as well as the other major contributors to post-arrest bundles of care including hemodynamic optimization and guideline concordant neuroprognostication.”

No funding was reported. Dr. Berg has received grant support from AHA/ILCOR, and Dr. Perman, from NIH/NHLBI.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

For comatose adult survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA), controlling body temperature to less than 37.5° C is a “reasonable and evidence-based approach,” a new American Heart Association (AHA) scientific advisory suggests.

On the basis of data from recent trials, the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation and other organizations have altered their treatment recommendations for temperature management after cardiac arrest.

The AHA will present guidelines on this topic in a focused update to be published later in the year. Meanwhile, AHA’s Emergency Cardiovascular Care Committee convened a writing group to review the Hypothermia Versus Normothermia After Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest (TTM2) trial in the context of other recent evidence and rendered an expert opinion on how the trial may influence clinical practice. These findings will be incorporated into the upcoming guidelines.

“Many centers have already moved toward controlled normothermia for post-arrest patients, so we think this guidance will be welcomed by many,” said Sarah Perman, MD, of the Yale University, and Kate Berg, MD, of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, who are both members of the AHA Emergency Cardiovascular Care Committee that authored the advisory.

“For those who continue to favor temperatures in the 32° to 36° range for some or even all patients, the guidance that we have drafted leaves room for clinicians to make patient-centered decisions,” they told this news organization.

“Certainly, a finite guideline that recommends one temperature for all would be easier to apply,” the authors acknowledged. “However, cardiac arrest is a heterogeneous event and brain injury is variable, and definitive evidence that one temperature in the range of 32-37.5 is superior to another is lacking. We hope that clinicians find that this guidance supports and informs their practice.”

The advisory was published online in Circulation.
 

TTM2 key

The new guidance is based largely on findings from the TTM2 trial, a multicenter, randomized clinical trial of temperature management for neuroprotection after cardiac arrest that included 1,900 unresponsive adult patients successfully resuscitated from OHCA.

Patients were randomly assigned to receive hypothermia, defined as a target temperature of 33° C for 28 hours, followed by gradual rewarming to 37° C, or normothermia, defined as a target temperature < 37.8° C, with early treatment of fever.

No significant between-group difference was seen in the primary outcome of death at 6 months, nor were there any significant differences by subgroups of sex, age, time to return of spontaneous circulation, initial rhythm, or circulatory shock on admission.

Although it’s still not clear whether certain patients might benefit from lower target temperatures, the authors noted, major international organizations now suggest a target post–cardiac arrest temperature of less than 37.5° C.

By contrast, current AHA guidelines endorse targeting a temperature between 32° C and 36° C for 24 hours.

Between now and the forthcoming formal guidance in the “2023 American Heart Association Focused Update on Advanced Cardiovascular Life Support,” the scientific advisory writing group agreed: “For unresponsive post–cardiac arrest adult patients with characteristics similar to those of individuals included in the TTM2 trial (OHCA of cardiac or unknown cause, excluding those with unwitnessed asystole), controlling patient temperature to < 37.5° C is a reasonable and evidence-based approach.

“For the broader group of patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest or OHCA of noncardiac (other medical) cause, evidence for the ideal approach to temperature management after return of spontaneous circulation is less certain; whether some of these patients might benefit from temperature control at temperatures between 33° C and 37.5° C remains unclear.”

Unless a catastrophic brain injury results from OHCA, the group wrote, “strictly preventing fever with continuous temperature monitoring, providing comprehensive critical care support, and deploying multimodal evidence-based strategies for neuroprognostication at a minimum of 72 hours after normothermia remain essential ...”

Dr. Perman and Dr. Berg concluded, “We hope that this guidance continues to encourage aggressive post-arrest care that includes focus on temperature control as well as the other major contributors to post-arrest bundles of care including hemodynamic optimization and guideline concordant neuroprognostication.”

No funding was reported. Dr. Berg has received grant support from AHA/ILCOR, and Dr. Perman, from NIH/NHLBI.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

For comatose adult survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA), controlling body temperature to less than 37.5° C is a “reasonable and evidence-based approach,” a new American Heart Association (AHA) scientific advisory suggests.

On the basis of data from recent trials, the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation and other organizations have altered their treatment recommendations for temperature management after cardiac arrest.

The AHA will present guidelines on this topic in a focused update to be published later in the year. Meanwhile, AHA’s Emergency Cardiovascular Care Committee convened a writing group to review the Hypothermia Versus Normothermia After Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest (TTM2) trial in the context of other recent evidence and rendered an expert opinion on how the trial may influence clinical practice. These findings will be incorporated into the upcoming guidelines.

“Many centers have already moved toward controlled normothermia for post-arrest patients, so we think this guidance will be welcomed by many,” said Sarah Perman, MD, of the Yale University, and Kate Berg, MD, of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, who are both members of the AHA Emergency Cardiovascular Care Committee that authored the advisory.

“For those who continue to favor temperatures in the 32° to 36° range for some or even all patients, the guidance that we have drafted leaves room for clinicians to make patient-centered decisions,” they told this news organization.

“Certainly, a finite guideline that recommends one temperature for all would be easier to apply,” the authors acknowledged. “However, cardiac arrest is a heterogeneous event and brain injury is variable, and definitive evidence that one temperature in the range of 32-37.5 is superior to another is lacking. We hope that clinicians find that this guidance supports and informs their practice.”

The advisory was published online in Circulation.
 

TTM2 key

The new guidance is based largely on findings from the TTM2 trial, a multicenter, randomized clinical trial of temperature management for neuroprotection after cardiac arrest that included 1,900 unresponsive adult patients successfully resuscitated from OHCA.

Patients were randomly assigned to receive hypothermia, defined as a target temperature of 33° C for 28 hours, followed by gradual rewarming to 37° C, or normothermia, defined as a target temperature < 37.8° C, with early treatment of fever.

No significant between-group difference was seen in the primary outcome of death at 6 months, nor were there any significant differences by subgroups of sex, age, time to return of spontaneous circulation, initial rhythm, or circulatory shock on admission.

Although it’s still not clear whether certain patients might benefit from lower target temperatures, the authors noted, major international organizations now suggest a target post–cardiac arrest temperature of less than 37.5° C.

By contrast, current AHA guidelines endorse targeting a temperature between 32° C and 36° C for 24 hours.

Between now and the forthcoming formal guidance in the “2023 American Heart Association Focused Update on Advanced Cardiovascular Life Support,” the scientific advisory writing group agreed: “For unresponsive post–cardiac arrest adult patients with characteristics similar to those of individuals included in the TTM2 trial (OHCA of cardiac or unknown cause, excluding those with unwitnessed asystole), controlling patient temperature to < 37.5° C is a reasonable and evidence-based approach.

“For the broader group of patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest or OHCA of noncardiac (other medical) cause, evidence for the ideal approach to temperature management after return of spontaneous circulation is less certain; whether some of these patients might benefit from temperature control at temperatures between 33° C and 37.5° C remains unclear.”

Unless a catastrophic brain injury results from OHCA, the group wrote, “strictly preventing fever with continuous temperature monitoring, providing comprehensive critical care support, and deploying multimodal evidence-based strategies for neuroprognostication at a minimum of 72 hours after normothermia remain essential ...”

Dr. Perman and Dr. Berg concluded, “We hope that this guidance continues to encourage aggressive post-arrest care that includes focus on temperature control as well as the other major contributors to post-arrest bundles of care including hemodynamic optimization and guideline concordant neuroprognostication.”

No funding was reported. Dr. Berg has received grant support from AHA/ILCOR, and Dr. Perman, from NIH/NHLBI.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) consisting of aspirin plus a P2Y₁₂ inhibitor has been the standard of care to prevent thrombotic events in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

A new pilot study suggests that aspirin can be discontinued on the day after the PCI, and colchicine, an anti-inflammatory agent, could be added to reduce the risk for ischemic events in these patients, while mitigating the increased bleeding risk associated with aspirin.

Investigators conducted a pilot trial in ACS patients treated with drug-eluting stents (DES) who received low-dose colchicine the day after PCI, together with P2Y₁₂ inhibitor (ticagrelor or prasugrel) maintenance therapy. Aspirin use was discontinued.

At 3 months, only 1% of the patients experienced stent thrombosis, and only 1 patient showed high platelet reactivity. Moreover, at 1 month, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) and platelet reactivity both decreased, pointing to reduced inflammation.

“In ACS patients undergoing PCI, it is feasible to discontinue aspirin therapy and administer low-dose colchicine on the day after PCI in addition to ticagrelor or prasugrel P2Y₁₂ inhibitors,” write Seung-Yul Lee, MD, CHA Bundang Medical Center, CHA University, Seongnam, South Korea, and colleagues. “This approach is associated with favorable platelet function and inflammatory profiles.”

The study was published online in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.
 

Safety without compromised efficacy

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently approved colchicine 0.5-mg tablets (Lodoco, Agepha Pharma) as the first anti-inflammatory drug shown to reduce the risk for myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary revascularization, and cardiovascular death in adult patients with either established atherosclerotic disease or multiple risk factors for cardiovascular disease. It targets residual inflammation as an underlying cause of cardiovascular events.

Patients after PCI are generally treated using DAPT, but given the risk for increased bleeding associated with aspirin – especially when used long-term – there is a “need to identify strategies associated with a more favorable safety profile without compromising efficacy,” the authors write.

Previous research has yielded mixed results in terms of the discontinuation of aspirin therapy after 1-3 months and maintenance on P2Y₁₂ inhibitor monotherapy. But one trial found colchicine to be effective in reducing recurrent ischemia, and its benefits may be more beneficial with early initiation in the hospital.

In this new study, researchers tested a “strategy that substitutes aspirin with colchicine during the acute phase to maximize the treatment effect of reducing recurrent ischemia and bleeding,” they write. The Mono Antiplatelet and Colchicine Therapy (MACT) single-arm, open-label proof-of-concept study was designed to investigate this approach.

The researchers studied 200 patients with non–ST-segment elevation ACS and ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) who underwent PCI with DES (mean [SD] age, 61.4 [10.7] years; 90% male; 100% of Asian ethnicity), who were receiving either ticagrelor or prasugrel plus a loading dose of aspirin.

On the day after PCI, aspirin was discontinued, and low-dose colchicine (0.6 mg once daily) was administered in addition to the P2Y₁₂ inhibitor. In the case of staged PCI, it was performed under the maintenance of colchicine and ticagrelor or prasugrel.

No other antiplatelet or anticoagulant agents were permitted.

Patients underwent platelet function testing using the VerifyNow P2Y₁₂ assay before discharge. Levels of hs-CRP were measured at admission, at 24 and 48 hours after PCI, and at 1-month follow-up. Clinical follow-up was performed at 1 and at 3 months.

The primary outcome was stent thrombosis within 3 months of follow-up. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, MI, revascularization, major bleeding, a composite of cardiac death, target vessel MI, or target lesion revascularization, P2Y₁₂ reaction units (PRUs), and change in hs-CRP levels between 24 hours post-PCI and 1-month follow-up.
 

The role of inflammation

Of the original 200 patients, 190 completed the full protocol and were available for follow-up.

The primary outcome occurred in only two patients. It turned out that one of the patients had not been adherent with antiplatelet medications.

“Although bleeding occurred in 36 patients, major bleeding occurred in only 1 patient,” the authors report.

The level of platelet reactivity at discharge was 27 ± 42 PRUs. Most patients (91%) met the criteria for low platelet reactivity, while only 0.5% met the criteria for high platelet reactivity. Platelet reactivity was similar, regardless of which P2Y₁₂ inhibitor (ticagrelor or prasugrel) the patients were taking.

In all patients, the level of inflammation was “reduced considerably” over time: After 1 month, the hs-CRP level decreased from 6.1 mg/L (interquartile range [IQR], 2.6-15.9 mg/L) at 24 hours after PCI to 0.6 mg/L (IQR, 0.4-1.2 mg/L; P < .001).

The prevalence of high-inflammation criteria, defined as hs-CRP ≥ 2 mg/L, decreased significantly, from 81.8% at 24 hours after PCI to 11.8% at 1 month (P < .001).

Major bleeding was rare, they report, with a 3-month incidence of 0.5%.

“Inflammation plays a fundamental role in the development and progression of the atherothrombotic process,” the authors explain. A series of factors also trigger “an intense inflammatory response” in the acute phase of MI, which may lead to adverse myocardial remodeling. In the present study, inflammatory levels were rapidly reduced.

They noted several limitations. For example, all enrolled patients were Asian and were at relatively low bleeding and ischemic risk. “Although ticagrelor or prasugrel is effective regardless of ethnicity, clinical data supporting this de-escalation strategy are limited,” they state. Additionally, there was no control group for comparison.

The findings warrant further investigation, they conclude.
 

Promising but preliminary

Commenting for this news organization, Francesco Costa, MD, PhD, interventional cardiologist and assistant professor, University of Messina, Sicily, Italy, said he thinks it’s “too early for extensive clinical translation of these findings.”

Rather, larger and more extensive randomized trials are “on their way to give more precise estimates regarding the risks and benefits of early aspirin withdrawal in ACS.”

However, added Dr. Costa, who was not involved with the current research, “in this setting, adding colchicine early looks very promising to mitigate potential thrombotic risk without increasing bleeding risk.”

In the meantime, the study “provides novel insights on early aspirin withdrawal and P2Y₁₂ monotherapy in an unselected population, including [those with] STEMI,” said Dr. Costa, also the coauthor of an accompanying editorial. The findings “could be of particular interest for those patients at extremely high bleeding risk or who are truly intolerant to aspirin, a scenario in which options are limited.”

This study was supported by the Cardiovascular Research Center, Seoul, South Korea. Dr. Lee reports no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original paper. Dr. Costa has served on an advisory board for AstraZeneca and has received speaker fees from Chiesi Farmaceutici. His coauthor reports no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) consisting of aspirin plus a P2Y₁₂ inhibitor has been the standard of care to prevent thrombotic events in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

A new pilot study suggests that aspirin can be discontinued on the day after the PCI, and colchicine, an anti-inflammatory agent, could be added to reduce the risk for ischemic events in these patients, while mitigating the increased bleeding risk associated with aspirin.

Investigators conducted a pilot trial in ACS patients treated with drug-eluting stents (DES) who received low-dose colchicine the day after PCI, together with P2Y₁₂ inhibitor (ticagrelor or prasugrel) maintenance therapy. Aspirin use was discontinued.

At 3 months, only 1% of the patients experienced stent thrombosis, and only 1 patient showed high platelet reactivity. Moreover, at 1 month, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) and platelet reactivity both decreased, pointing to reduced inflammation.

“In ACS patients undergoing PCI, it is feasible to discontinue aspirin therapy and administer low-dose colchicine on the day after PCI in addition to ticagrelor or prasugrel P2Y₁₂ inhibitors,” write Seung-Yul Lee, MD, CHA Bundang Medical Center, CHA University, Seongnam, South Korea, and colleagues. “This approach is associated with favorable platelet function and inflammatory profiles.”

The study was published online in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.
 

Safety without compromised efficacy

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently approved colchicine 0.5-mg tablets (Lodoco, Agepha Pharma) as the first anti-inflammatory drug shown to reduce the risk for myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary revascularization, and cardiovascular death in adult patients with either established atherosclerotic disease or multiple risk factors for cardiovascular disease. It targets residual inflammation as an underlying cause of cardiovascular events.

Patients after PCI are generally treated using DAPT, but given the risk for increased bleeding associated with aspirin – especially when used long-term – there is a “need to identify strategies associated with a more favorable safety profile without compromising efficacy,” the authors write.

Previous research has yielded mixed results in terms of the discontinuation of aspirin therapy after 1-3 months and maintenance on P2Y₁₂ inhibitor monotherapy. But one trial found colchicine to be effective in reducing recurrent ischemia, and its benefits may be more beneficial with early initiation in the hospital.

In this new study, researchers tested a “strategy that substitutes aspirin with colchicine during the acute phase to maximize the treatment effect of reducing recurrent ischemia and bleeding,” they write. The Mono Antiplatelet and Colchicine Therapy (MACT) single-arm, open-label proof-of-concept study was designed to investigate this approach.

The researchers studied 200 patients with non–ST-segment elevation ACS and ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) who underwent PCI with DES (mean [SD] age, 61.4 [10.7] years; 90% male; 100% of Asian ethnicity), who were receiving either ticagrelor or prasugrel plus a loading dose of aspirin.

On the day after PCI, aspirin was discontinued, and low-dose colchicine (0.6 mg once daily) was administered in addition to the P2Y₁₂ inhibitor. In the case of staged PCI, it was performed under the maintenance of colchicine and ticagrelor or prasugrel.

No other antiplatelet or anticoagulant agents were permitted.

Patients underwent platelet function testing using the VerifyNow P2Y₁₂ assay before discharge. Levels of hs-CRP were measured at admission, at 24 and 48 hours after PCI, and at 1-month follow-up. Clinical follow-up was performed at 1 and at 3 months.

The primary outcome was stent thrombosis within 3 months of follow-up. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, MI, revascularization, major bleeding, a composite of cardiac death, target vessel MI, or target lesion revascularization, P2Y₁₂ reaction units (PRUs), and change in hs-CRP levels between 24 hours post-PCI and 1-month follow-up.
 

The role of inflammation

Of the original 200 patients, 190 completed the full protocol and were available for follow-up.

The primary outcome occurred in only two patients. It turned out that one of the patients had not been adherent with antiplatelet medications.

“Although bleeding occurred in 36 patients, major bleeding occurred in only 1 patient,” the authors report.

The level of platelet reactivity at discharge was 27 ± 42 PRUs. Most patients (91%) met the criteria for low platelet reactivity, while only 0.5% met the criteria for high platelet reactivity. Platelet reactivity was similar, regardless of which P2Y₁₂ inhibitor (ticagrelor or prasugrel) the patients were taking.

In all patients, the level of inflammation was “reduced considerably” over time: After 1 month, the hs-CRP level decreased from 6.1 mg/L (interquartile range [IQR], 2.6-15.9 mg/L) at 24 hours after PCI to 0.6 mg/L (IQR, 0.4-1.2 mg/L; P < .001).

The prevalence of high-inflammation criteria, defined as hs-CRP ≥ 2 mg/L, decreased significantly, from 81.8% at 24 hours after PCI to 11.8% at 1 month (P < .001).

Major bleeding was rare, they report, with a 3-month incidence of 0.5%.

“Inflammation plays a fundamental role in the development and progression of the atherothrombotic process,” the authors explain. A series of factors also trigger “an intense inflammatory response” in the acute phase of MI, which may lead to adverse myocardial remodeling. In the present study, inflammatory levels were rapidly reduced.

They noted several limitations. For example, all enrolled patients were Asian and were at relatively low bleeding and ischemic risk. “Although ticagrelor or prasugrel is effective regardless of ethnicity, clinical data supporting this de-escalation strategy are limited,” they state. Additionally, there was no control group for comparison.

The findings warrant further investigation, they conclude.
 

Promising but preliminary

Commenting for this news organization, Francesco Costa, MD, PhD, interventional cardiologist and assistant professor, University of Messina, Sicily, Italy, said he thinks it’s “too early for extensive clinical translation of these findings.”

Rather, larger and more extensive randomized trials are “on their way to give more precise estimates regarding the risks and benefits of early aspirin withdrawal in ACS.”

However, added Dr. Costa, who was not involved with the current research, “in this setting, adding colchicine early looks very promising to mitigate potential thrombotic risk without increasing bleeding risk.”

In the meantime, the study “provides novel insights on early aspirin withdrawal and P2Y₁₂ monotherapy in an unselected population, including [those with] STEMI,” said Dr. Costa, also the coauthor of an accompanying editorial. The findings “could be of particular interest for those patients at extremely high bleeding risk or who are truly intolerant to aspirin, a scenario in which options are limited.”

This study was supported by the Cardiovascular Research Center, Seoul, South Korea. Dr. Lee reports no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original paper. Dr. Costa has served on an advisory board for AstraZeneca and has received speaker fees from Chiesi Farmaceutici. His coauthor reports no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) consisting of aspirin plus a P2Y₁₂ inhibitor has been the standard of care to prevent thrombotic events in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

A new pilot study suggests that aspirin can be discontinued on the day after the PCI, and colchicine, an anti-inflammatory agent, could be added to reduce the risk for ischemic events in these patients, while mitigating the increased bleeding risk associated with aspirin.

Investigators conducted a pilot trial in ACS patients treated with drug-eluting stents (DES) who received low-dose colchicine the day after PCI, together with P2Y₁₂ inhibitor (ticagrelor or prasugrel) maintenance therapy. Aspirin use was discontinued.

At 3 months, only 1% of the patients experienced stent thrombosis, and only 1 patient showed high platelet reactivity. Moreover, at 1 month, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) and platelet reactivity both decreased, pointing to reduced inflammation.

“In ACS patients undergoing PCI, it is feasible to discontinue aspirin therapy and administer low-dose colchicine on the day after PCI in addition to ticagrelor or prasugrel P2Y₁₂ inhibitors,” write Seung-Yul Lee, MD, CHA Bundang Medical Center, CHA University, Seongnam, South Korea, and colleagues. “This approach is associated with favorable platelet function and inflammatory profiles.”

The study was published online in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions.
 

Safety without compromised efficacy

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration recently approved colchicine 0.5-mg tablets (Lodoco, Agepha Pharma) as the first anti-inflammatory drug shown to reduce the risk for myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary revascularization, and cardiovascular death in adult patients with either established atherosclerotic disease or multiple risk factors for cardiovascular disease. It targets residual inflammation as an underlying cause of cardiovascular events.

Patients after PCI are generally treated using DAPT, but given the risk for increased bleeding associated with aspirin – especially when used long-term – there is a “need to identify strategies associated with a more favorable safety profile without compromising efficacy,” the authors write.

Previous research has yielded mixed results in terms of the discontinuation of aspirin therapy after 1-3 months and maintenance on P2Y₁₂ inhibitor monotherapy. But one trial found colchicine to be effective in reducing recurrent ischemia, and its benefits may be more beneficial with early initiation in the hospital.

In this new study, researchers tested a “strategy that substitutes aspirin with colchicine during the acute phase to maximize the treatment effect of reducing recurrent ischemia and bleeding,” they write. The Mono Antiplatelet and Colchicine Therapy (MACT) single-arm, open-label proof-of-concept study was designed to investigate this approach.

The researchers studied 200 patients with non–ST-segment elevation ACS and ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) who underwent PCI with DES (mean [SD] age, 61.4 [10.7] years; 90% male; 100% of Asian ethnicity), who were receiving either ticagrelor or prasugrel plus a loading dose of aspirin.

On the day after PCI, aspirin was discontinued, and low-dose colchicine (0.6 mg once daily) was administered in addition to the P2Y₁₂ inhibitor. In the case of staged PCI, it was performed under the maintenance of colchicine and ticagrelor or prasugrel.

No other antiplatelet or anticoagulant agents were permitted.

Patients underwent platelet function testing using the VerifyNow P2Y₁₂ assay before discharge. Levels of hs-CRP were measured at admission, at 24 and 48 hours after PCI, and at 1-month follow-up. Clinical follow-up was performed at 1 and at 3 months.

The primary outcome was stent thrombosis within 3 months of follow-up. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, MI, revascularization, major bleeding, a composite of cardiac death, target vessel MI, or target lesion revascularization, P2Y₁₂ reaction units (PRUs), and change in hs-CRP levels between 24 hours post-PCI and 1-month follow-up.
 

The role of inflammation

Of the original 200 patients, 190 completed the full protocol and were available for follow-up.

The primary outcome occurred in only two patients. It turned out that one of the patients had not been adherent with antiplatelet medications.

“Although bleeding occurred in 36 patients, major bleeding occurred in only 1 patient,” the authors report.

The level of platelet reactivity at discharge was 27 ± 42 PRUs. Most patients (91%) met the criteria for low platelet reactivity, while only 0.5% met the criteria for high platelet reactivity. Platelet reactivity was similar, regardless of which P2Y₁₂ inhibitor (ticagrelor or prasugrel) the patients were taking.

In all patients, the level of inflammation was “reduced considerably” over time: After 1 month, the hs-CRP level decreased from 6.1 mg/L (interquartile range [IQR], 2.6-15.9 mg/L) at 24 hours after PCI to 0.6 mg/L (IQR, 0.4-1.2 mg/L; P < .001).

The prevalence of high-inflammation criteria, defined as hs-CRP ≥ 2 mg/L, decreased significantly, from 81.8% at 24 hours after PCI to 11.8% at 1 month (P < .001).

Major bleeding was rare, they report, with a 3-month incidence of 0.5%.

“Inflammation plays a fundamental role in the development and progression of the atherothrombotic process,” the authors explain. A series of factors also trigger “an intense inflammatory response” in the acute phase of MI, which may lead to adverse myocardial remodeling. In the present study, inflammatory levels were rapidly reduced.

They noted several limitations. For example, all enrolled patients were Asian and were at relatively low bleeding and ischemic risk. “Although ticagrelor or prasugrel is effective regardless of ethnicity, clinical data supporting this de-escalation strategy are limited,” they state. Additionally, there was no control group for comparison.

The findings warrant further investigation, they conclude.
 

Promising but preliminary

Commenting for this news organization, Francesco Costa, MD, PhD, interventional cardiologist and assistant professor, University of Messina, Sicily, Italy, said he thinks it’s “too early for extensive clinical translation of these findings.”

Rather, larger and more extensive randomized trials are “on their way to give more precise estimates regarding the risks and benefits of early aspirin withdrawal in ACS.”

However, added Dr. Costa, who was not involved with the current research, “in this setting, adding colchicine early looks very promising to mitigate potential thrombotic risk without increasing bleeding risk.”

In the meantime, the study “provides novel insights on early aspirin withdrawal and P2Y₁₂ monotherapy in an unselected population, including [those with] STEMI,” said Dr. Costa, also the coauthor of an accompanying editorial. The findings “could be of particular interest for those patients at extremely high bleeding risk or who are truly intolerant to aspirin, a scenario in which options are limited.”

This study was supported by the Cardiovascular Research Center, Seoul, South Korea. Dr. Lee reports no relevant financial relationships. The other authors’ disclosures are listed on the original paper. Dr. Costa has served on an advisory board for AstraZeneca and has received speaker fees from Chiesi Farmaceutici. His coauthor reports no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients reporting moderate or extreme pain a year after a myocardial infarction (MI) – even pain due to other health conditions – are more likely to die within the next 8 years than those without post-MI pain, new research suggests.

In the analysis of post-MI health data for more than 18,300 Swedish adults, those with moderate pain were 35% more likely to die from any cause during follow-up, compared with those with no pain, and those with extreme pain were more than twice as likely to die.

Furthermore, pain was a stronger predictor of mortality than smoking.

“For a long time, pain has been regarded as merely a symptom of disease rather than a disease” in its own right, Linda Vixner, PT, PhD, of Dalarna University in Falun, Sweden, said in an interview.

Updated definitions of chronic pain in the ICD-11, as well as a recent study using data from the UK Biobank showing that chronic pain is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, prompted the current study, which looks at the effect of pain on long-term survival after an MI.

“We did not expect that pain would have such a strong impact on the risk of death, and it also surprised us that the risk was more pronounced than that of smoking,” Dr. Vixner said. “Clinicians should consider pain an important cardiovascular risk factor.”

The study was published online in the Journal of the American Heart Association.
 

‘Experienced pain’ prognostic

The investigators analyzed data from the SWEDEHEART registry of 18,376 patients who had an MI in 2004-2013. The mean age of patients was 62 years and 75% were men. Follow-up time was 8.5 years (median, 3.37).

Self-reported levels of experienced pain according to the EuroQol five-dimension instrument were recorded 12 months after hospital discharge.

Moderate pain was reported by 38.2% of patients and extreme pain by 4.5%.

In the extreme pain category, women were overrepresented (7.5% vs. 3.6% of men), as were current smokers, and patients with diabetes, previous MI, previous stroke, previous percutaneous coronary intervention, non-ST-segment–elevation MI, and any kind of chest pain. Patients classified as physically inactive also were overrepresented in this category.

In addition, those with extreme pain had a higher body mass index and waist circumference 12 months after hospital discharge.

Most (73%) of the 7,889 patients who reported no pain at the 2-month follow-up after MI were also pain-free at the 12-month follow-up, and 65% of those experiencing pain at 2 months were also experiencing pain at 12 months.

There were 1,067 deaths. The adjusted hazard ratio was 1.35 for moderate pain and 2.06 for extreme pain.

As noted, pain was a stronger mortality predictor than smoking: C-statistics for pain were 0.60, and for smoking, 0.55.

“Clinicians managing patients after MI should recognize the need to consider experienced pain as a prognostic factor comparable to persistent smoking and to address this when designing individually adjusted [cardiac rehabilitation] and secondary prevention treatments,” the authors write.

Pain should be assessed at follow-up after MI, they add, and, as Dr. Vixner suggested, it should be “acknowledged as an important risk factor.”
 

Managing risks

“These findings parallel prior studies and my own clinical experience,” American Heart Association volunteer expert Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, interim chief of the division of cardiology at the University of California, Los Angeles, and director, Ahmanson-UCLA Cardiomyopathy Center, told this news organization.

“There are many potential causes for patient-reported pain in the year after a heart attack,” he said, including a greater cardiovascular risk burden, more comorbid conditions, less physical activity, and chronic use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications or opioids for pain control – all of which can contribute to the increased risk of mortality.

Factors beyond those evaluated and adjusted for in the observational study may contribute to the observed associations, he added. “Socioeconomic factors were not accounted for [and] there was no information on the types, doses, and frequency of pain medication use.”

“Clinicians managing patients with prior MI should carefully assess experienced pain and utilize this information to optimize risk factor control recommendations, inform treatment decisions, and consider in terms of prognosis,” he advised.

Further studies should evaluate whether the associations hold true for other patient populations, Dr. Fonarow said. “In addition, intervention trials could evaluate if enhanced management strategies in these higher-risk patients with self-reported pain can successfully lower the mortality risk.”

Dr. Vixner sees a role for physical activity in lowering the mortality risk.

“One of the core treatments for chronic pain is physical activity,” she said. “It positively influences quality of life, activities of daily living, pain intensity, and overall physical function, and reduces the risk of social isolation” and cardiovascular diseases.

Her team recently developed the “eVISualisation of physical activity and pain” (eVIS) intervention, which aims to promote healthy physical activity levels in persons living with chronic pain. The intervention is currently being evaluated in an ongoing registry-based, randomized controlled trial.

The study was supported by Svenska Försäkringsföreningen, Dalarna University, Region Dalarna. Dr. Vixner and coauthors have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fonarow has disclosed consulting for Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Cytokinetics, Eli Lilly, Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic, Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients reporting moderate or extreme pain a year after a myocardial infarction (MI) – even pain due to other health conditions – are more likely to die within the next 8 years than those without post-MI pain, new research suggests.

In the analysis of post-MI health data for more than 18,300 Swedish adults, those with moderate pain were 35% more likely to die from any cause during follow-up, compared with those with no pain, and those with extreme pain were more than twice as likely to die.

Furthermore, pain was a stronger predictor of mortality than smoking.

“For a long time, pain has been regarded as merely a symptom of disease rather than a disease” in its own right, Linda Vixner, PT, PhD, of Dalarna University in Falun, Sweden, said in an interview.

Updated definitions of chronic pain in the ICD-11, as well as a recent study using data from the UK Biobank showing that chronic pain is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, prompted the current study, which looks at the effect of pain on long-term survival after an MI.

“We did not expect that pain would have such a strong impact on the risk of death, and it also surprised us that the risk was more pronounced than that of smoking,” Dr. Vixner said. “Clinicians should consider pain an important cardiovascular risk factor.”

The study was published online in the Journal of the American Heart Association.
 

‘Experienced pain’ prognostic

The investigators analyzed data from the SWEDEHEART registry of 18,376 patients who had an MI in 2004-2013. The mean age of patients was 62 years and 75% were men. Follow-up time was 8.5 years (median, 3.37).

Self-reported levels of experienced pain according to the EuroQol five-dimension instrument were recorded 12 months after hospital discharge.

Moderate pain was reported by 38.2% of patients and extreme pain by 4.5%.

In the extreme pain category, women were overrepresented (7.5% vs. 3.6% of men), as were current smokers, and patients with diabetes, previous MI, previous stroke, previous percutaneous coronary intervention, non-ST-segment–elevation MI, and any kind of chest pain. Patients classified as physically inactive also were overrepresented in this category.

In addition, those with extreme pain had a higher body mass index and waist circumference 12 months after hospital discharge.

Most (73%) of the 7,889 patients who reported no pain at the 2-month follow-up after MI were also pain-free at the 12-month follow-up, and 65% of those experiencing pain at 2 months were also experiencing pain at 12 months.

There were 1,067 deaths. The adjusted hazard ratio was 1.35 for moderate pain and 2.06 for extreme pain.

As noted, pain was a stronger mortality predictor than smoking: C-statistics for pain were 0.60, and for smoking, 0.55.

“Clinicians managing patients after MI should recognize the need to consider experienced pain as a prognostic factor comparable to persistent smoking and to address this when designing individually adjusted [cardiac rehabilitation] and secondary prevention treatments,” the authors write.

Pain should be assessed at follow-up after MI, they add, and, as Dr. Vixner suggested, it should be “acknowledged as an important risk factor.”
 

Managing risks

“These findings parallel prior studies and my own clinical experience,” American Heart Association volunteer expert Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, interim chief of the division of cardiology at the University of California, Los Angeles, and director, Ahmanson-UCLA Cardiomyopathy Center, told this news organization.

“There are many potential causes for patient-reported pain in the year after a heart attack,” he said, including a greater cardiovascular risk burden, more comorbid conditions, less physical activity, and chronic use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications or opioids for pain control – all of which can contribute to the increased risk of mortality.

Factors beyond those evaluated and adjusted for in the observational study may contribute to the observed associations, he added. “Socioeconomic factors were not accounted for [and] there was no information on the types, doses, and frequency of pain medication use.”

“Clinicians managing patients with prior MI should carefully assess experienced pain and utilize this information to optimize risk factor control recommendations, inform treatment decisions, and consider in terms of prognosis,” he advised.

Further studies should evaluate whether the associations hold true for other patient populations, Dr. Fonarow said. “In addition, intervention trials could evaluate if enhanced management strategies in these higher-risk patients with self-reported pain can successfully lower the mortality risk.”

Dr. Vixner sees a role for physical activity in lowering the mortality risk.

“One of the core treatments for chronic pain is physical activity,” she said. “It positively influences quality of life, activities of daily living, pain intensity, and overall physical function, and reduces the risk of social isolation” and cardiovascular diseases.

Her team recently developed the “eVISualisation of physical activity and pain” (eVIS) intervention, which aims to promote healthy physical activity levels in persons living with chronic pain. The intervention is currently being evaluated in an ongoing registry-based, randomized controlled trial.

The study was supported by Svenska Försäkringsföreningen, Dalarna University, Region Dalarna. Dr. Vixner and coauthors have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fonarow has disclosed consulting for Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Cytokinetics, Eli Lilly, Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic, Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients reporting moderate or extreme pain a year after a myocardial infarction (MI) – even pain due to other health conditions – are more likely to die within the next 8 years than those without post-MI pain, new research suggests.

In the analysis of post-MI health data for more than 18,300 Swedish adults, those with moderate pain were 35% more likely to die from any cause during follow-up, compared with those with no pain, and those with extreme pain were more than twice as likely to die.

Furthermore, pain was a stronger predictor of mortality than smoking.

“For a long time, pain has been regarded as merely a symptom of disease rather than a disease” in its own right, Linda Vixner, PT, PhD, of Dalarna University in Falun, Sweden, said in an interview.

Updated definitions of chronic pain in the ICD-11, as well as a recent study using data from the UK Biobank showing that chronic pain is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, prompted the current study, which looks at the effect of pain on long-term survival after an MI.

“We did not expect that pain would have such a strong impact on the risk of death, and it also surprised us that the risk was more pronounced than that of smoking,” Dr. Vixner said. “Clinicians should consider pain an important cardiovascular risk factor.”

The study was published online in the Journal of the American Heart Association.
 

‘Experienced pain’ prognostic

The investigators analyzed data from the SWEDEHEART registry of 18,376 patients who had an MI in 2004-2013. The mean age of patients was 62 years and 75% were men. Follow-up time was 8.5 years (median, 3.37).

Self-reported levels of experienced pain according to the EuroQol five-dimension instrument were recorded 12 months after hospital discharge.

Moderate pain was reported by 38.2% of patients and extreme pain by 4.5%.

In the extreme pain category, women were overrepresented (7.5% vs. 3.6% of men), as were current smokers, and patients with diabetes, previous MI, previous stroke, previous percutaneous coronary intervention, non-ST-segment–elevation MI, and any kind of chest pain. Patients classified as physically inactive also were overrepresented in this category.

In addition, those with extreme pain had a higher body mass index and waist circumference 12 months after hospital discharge.

Most (73%) of the 7,889 patients who reported no pain at the 2-month follow-up after MI were also pain-free at the 12-month follow-up, and 65% of those experiencing pain at 2 months were also experiencing pain at 12 months.

There were 1,067 deaths. The adjusted hazard ratio was 1.35 for moderate pain and 2.06 for extreme pain.

As noted, pain was a stronger mortality predictor than smoking: C-statistics for pain were 0.60, and for smoking, 0.55.

“Clinicians managing patients after MI should recognize the need to consider experienced pain as a prognostic factor comparable to persistent smoking and to address this when designing individually adjusted [cardiac rehabilitation] and secondary prevention treatments,” the authors write.

Pain should be assessed at follow-up after MI, they add, and, as Dr. Vixner suggested, it should be “acknowledged as an important risk factor.”
 

Managing risks

“These findings parallel prior studies and my own clinical experience,” American Heart Association volunteer expert Gregg C. Fonarow, MD, interim chief of the division of cardiology at the University of California, Los Angeles, and director, Ahmanson-UCLA Cardiomyopathy Center, told this news organization.

“There are many potential causes for patient-reported pain in the year after a heart attack,” he said, including a greater cardiovascular risk burden, more comorbid conditions, less physical activity, and chronic use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications or opioids for pain control – all of which can contribute to the increased risk of mortality.

Factors beyond those evaluated and adjusted for in the observational study may contribute to the observed associations, he added. “Socioeconomic factors were not accounted for [and] there was no information on the types, doses, and frequency of pain medication use.”

“Clinicians managing patients with prior MI should carefully assess experienced pain and utilize this information to optimize risk factor control recommendations, inform treatment decisions, and consider in terms of prognosis,” he advised.

Further studies should evaluate whether the associations hold true for other patient populations, Dr. Fonarow said. “In addition, intervention trials could evaluate if enhanced management strategies in these higher-risk patients with self-reported pain can successfully lower the mortality risk.”

Dr. Vixner sees a role for physical activity in lowering the mortality risk.

“One of the core treatments for chronic pain is physical activity,” she said. “It positively influences quality of life, activities of daily living, pain intensity, and overall physical function, and reduces the risk of social isolation” and cardiovascular diseases.

Her team recently developed the “eVISualisation of physical activity and pain” (eVIS) intervention, which aims to promote healthy physical activity levels in persons living with chronic pain. The intervention is currently being evaluated in an ongoing registry-based, randomized controlled trial.

The study was supported by Svenska Försäkringsföreningen, Dalarna University, Region Dalarna. Dr. Vixner and coauthors have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Fonarow has disclosed consulting for Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Cytokinetics, Eli Lilly, Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic, Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.