Bivalirudin versus heparin in non-ST and ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction-a registry-based randomized clinical trial in the SWEDEHEART registry (the VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART trial)

Bivalirudin versus heparin in ST and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction-Outcomes at two years

BACKGROUND

The registry-based randomized VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART trial (NCT02311231) compared bivalirudin vs. heparin in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for myocardial infarction (MI). It showed no difference in the composite primary endpoint of death, MI, or major bleeding at 180 days. Here, we report outcomes at two years.

METHODS

Analysis of primary and secondary endpoints at two years of follow-up was prespecified in the study protocol. We report the study results for the extended follow-up time here.

RESULTS

In total, 6006 patients were enrolled, 3005 with ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) and 3001 with Non-STEMI (NSTEMI), representing 70 % of all eligible patients with these diagnoses during the study. The primary endpoint occurred in 14.0 % (421 of 3004) in the bivalirudin group compared with 14.3 % (429 of 3002) in the heparin group (hazard ratio [HR] 0.97; 95 % confidence interval [CI], 0.85-1.11; P = 0.70) at one year and in 16.7 % (503 of 3004) compared with 17.1 % (514 of 3002), (HR 0.97; 95 % CI, 0.96-1.10; P = 0.66) at two years. The results were consistent in patients with STEMI and NSTEMI and across major subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

Until the two-year follow-up, there were no differences in endpoints between patients with MI undergoing PCI and allocated to bivalirudin compared with those allocated to heparin.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov; Unique identifier: NCT02311231.

Data quality and auditing within the Netherlands Heart Registration: using the PCI registry as an example

AIM

The aim of this article is to present the method and results of the data quality control system and audit within the Netherlands Heart Registration (NHR) using data of patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the Netherlands as an example.

METHODS

The NHR is a Dutch nationwide registry of all cardiac interventions, comprising data from all 71 hospitals, of which 30 are cardiac intervention or heart centres. Each year, within the NHR, data validation and verification is performed by standard quality controls and monitoring visits (audits). For the audit in 2019, a sample of 50-100 medical records of patients treated with PCI in 2016 and 2017 were reviewed in each hospital by an independent auditor. The data received by the NHR were compared with the information in the hospitals' medical records. In total 12 patient characteristics, 5 intervention variables and 3 outcome variables were screened. The value of a variable was considered discrepant if more than 10% of the medical records reviewed regarding this variable were not consistent with the reported data received by the NHR.

RESULTS

For all variables together, the consistency was high, 97.6%. All variables, except multivessel disease (9.3% discrepancy in the 2622 medical records reviewed), had an accuracy above 95%.

CONCLUSION

The results of the audit of the PCI medical records show that the overall quality of the data is high. For variables such as multivessel disease it is important to improve knowledge of the definitions and to train all those involved in the registration process.

Prognostic value of early sustained ventricular arrhythmias in ST-elevation myocardial infarction treated by primary percutaneous coronary intervention: a sub-study of VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART trial

Background

Prognostic assessment of ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF) in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is based mainly on distinguishing between early (<48 hours) and late arrhythmias, and does not take into account its time distribution with regard to reperfusion, or type of arrhythmia.

Objective

We analyzed the prognostic value of early ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) in STEMI with regard to their type and timing.

Methods

The prespecified analysis of the multicenter prospective Bivalirudin versus Heparin in ST-Segment and Non-ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarctionin Patients on Modern Antiplatelet Therapy in the Swedish Web System for Enhancement and Development of Evidence-based Care in Heart Disease evaluated according to Recommended Therapies Registry Trial included 2886 STEMI patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). VA episodes were characterized regarding their type and timing. Survival status at 180 days was assessed through the population registry.

Results

Nonmonomorphic VT or VF was observed in 97 (3.4%) and monomorphic VT in 16 (0.5%) patients. Only 3 (2.7%) early VA episodes occurred after 24 hours from symptom onset. VA was associated with higher risk of death (hazard ratio 3.59; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.01-6.42) after adjustment for age, sex, and STEMI localization. VA after PCI was associated with an increased mortality compared with VA before PCI (hazard ratio 6.68; 95% CI 2.90-15.41). Early VA was associated with in-hospital mortality (odds ratio 7.39; 95% CI 3.68-14.83) but not with long-term prognosis in patients discharged alive. The type of VA was not associated with mortality.

Conclusion

VA after PCI was associated with an increased mortality compared with VA before PCI. Long-term prognosis did not differ between patients with monomorphic VT and nonmonomorphic VT or VF, but events were few. VA incidence during 24 to 48 hours of STEMI is negligibly low, thus precluding assessment of its prognostic importance.

Features of Parenteral Anticoagulant Therapy in Patients With Myocardial Infarction According to the Russian Register of Acute Myocardial Infarction – REGION-IM

Aim      To study specific features of the parenteral anticoagulant therapy for acute myocardial infarction (MI) in the Russian Federation and to evaluate the consistency of the prescribed parenteral anticoagulant therapy with the effective clinical guidelines.

Material and methods  REGION-MI, the Russian rEGIstry for acute myOcardial iNfarction, is a multicenter observational study. This registry includes all patients admitted to hospitals with a documented diagnosis of ST-elevation acute MI (STEMI) and non-ST-elevation acute MI (NSTEMI) based on the criteria of the Forth Universal Definition of MI of the European Society of Cardiology. Risk of bleeding was assessed with the Academic Research Consortium for High Bleeding Risk (ARC-HBR) scale, and risk of major bleeding in patients with NSTEMI was additionally assessed with the CRUSADE scale.

Results From November 01, 2020 through April 03, 2022, 5025 patients were included into the REGION-MI registry. At primary vascular departments, 70.5% of patients were administered unfractionated heparin (NFH); at regional vascular centers, 37.1 % of patients were administered NFH, 29.6 % enoxaparin, 20,2% NFH in combination with enoxaparin, 6.8 % fondaparinux, 4.2 % NFH in combination with fondaparinux, and 1.9 % nadroparin. At the prehospital stage, NFH was used as an anticoagulant support for the thrombolytic therapy (TLT) in 84% of patients, and low-molecular heparins (LMH) were used in 16 %. At the hospital stage, UFH was administered to 64.4 % of patients, and enoxaparin was administered to 23.9 % of patients. Among the patients who had undergone primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), 40 % received NFH, 25 % enoxaparin, 22 % NFH in combination with enoxaparin, 7 % fondaparinux, and 4 % NFH in combination with fondaparinux. In conservative and invasive tactics of therapy for NSTEMI, NFH was also administered more frequently (43 and 43 %, respectively), followed by (according to frequency of administration) enoxaparin (36 and 34 %, respectively), NFH in combination with enoxaparin (10 and 16 %, respectively), fondaparinux (7 and 6 %, respectively), and NFH in combination with fondaparinux (3 and 1 %, respectively).

Conclusion      According to the Russian registry of acute MI, REGION-MI, with all strategies for the treatment of MI, parenteral anticoagulants are not prescribed in full consistency with clinical guidelines. The most frequently used parenteral anticoagulant is NFH. Despite the high efficacy and safety of fondaparinux, the frequency of its administration remains unjustifiably low not only in the Russian Federation but also in other countries. The same can be said about the administration of enoxaparin to patients who had received TLT. Attention should be paid to physicians’ awareness of recent clinical guidelines, to minimize the prehospital treatment with parenteral anticoagulants, to limit this treatment to the TLT support, and to provide continuity between all stages of medical care.

Bivalirudin Versus Heparin Monotherapy in ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction

BACKGROUND

Bivalirudin was not superior to unfractionated heparin in patients with myocardial infarction (MI) treated with percutaneous coronary intervention and no planned use of GPI (glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors) in contemporary clinical practice of radial access and potent P2Y₁₂-inhibitors in the VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART randomized clinical trial (Bivalirudin Versus Heparin in STEMI and NSTEMI Patients on Modern Antiplatelet Therapy-Swedish Web-System for Enhancement and Development of Evidence-Based Care in Heart Disease Evaluated According to Recommended Therapies Registry).

METHODS

In this prespecified separately powered subgroup analysis, we included patients with ST-segment-elevation MI undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention with the primary composite end point of all-cause death, MI, or major bleeding event within 180 days.

RESULTS

Among the 6006 patients enrolled in the trial, 3005 patients with ST-segment-elevation MI were randomized to receive bivalirudin or heparin. The mean age was 66.8 years. According to protocol recommendations, 87% were treated with potent oral P2Y₁₂-inhibitors before start of angiography and radial access was used in 90%. GPI was used in 51 (3.4%) and 74 (4.9%) of patients randomized to receive bivalirudin and heparin, respectively. The primary end point occurred in 12.5% (187 of 1501) and 13.0% (196 of 1504; hazard ratio [HR], 0.95 [95% CI, 0.78-1.17], P=0.64) with consistent results in all major subgroups. All-cause death occurred in 3.9% versus 3.9% (HR, 1.00 [0.70-1.45], P=0.98), MI in 1.7% versus 2.2% (HR, 0.76 [0.45-1.28], P=0.30), major bleeding in 8.3% versus 8.0% (HR, 1.04 [0.81-1.33], P=0.78), and definite stent thrombosis in 0.5% versus 1.3% (HR, 0.42 [0.18-0.96], P=0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with ST-segment-elevation MI undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention with radial access and receiving current recommended treatments with potent P2Y₁₂-inhibitors rate of the composite of all-cause death, MI, or major bleeding was not lower in those randomized to receive bivalirudin as compared with heparin. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02311231.

Reperfusion After Fibrinolytic Therapy (RAFT): An open-label, multi-centre, randomised controlled trial of bivalirudin versus heparin in rescue percutaneous coronary intervention

BACKGROUND

The safety and efficacy profile of bivalirudin has not been examined in a randomised controlled trial of patients undergoing rescue PCI.

OBJECTIVES

We conducted an open-label, multi-centre, randomised controlled trial to compare bivalirudin with heparin ± glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPIs) in patients undergoing rescue PCI.

METHODS

Between 2010-2015, we randomly assigned 83 patients undergoing rescue PCI to bivalirudin (n = 42) or heparin ± GPIs (n = 41). The primary safety endpoint was any ACUITY (Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage Strategy) bleeding at 90 days. The primary efficacy endpoint was infarct size measured by peak troponin levels as a multiple of the local upper reference limit (Tn/URL). Secondary endpoints included periprocedural change in haemoglobin adjusted for red cells transfused, TIMI (Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction) bleeding, ST-segment recovery and infarct size determined by the Selvester QRS score.

RESULTS

The trial was terminated due to slow recruitment and futility after an interim analysis of 83 patients. The primary safety endpoint occurred in 6 (14%) patients in the bivalirudin group (4.8% GPIs) and 3 (7.3%) in the heparin ± GPIs group (54% GPIs) (risk ratio, 1.95, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.52-7.3, P = 0.48). Infarct size was similar between the two groups (mean Tn/URL, 730 [±675] for bivalirudin, versus 984 [±1585] for heparin ± GPIs, difference, 254, 95% CI, -283-794, P = 0.86). There was a smaller decrease in the periprocedural haemoglobin level with bivalirudin than heparin ± GPIs (-7.5% [±15] versus -14% [±17], difference, -6.5%, 95% CI, -0.83-14, P = 0.0067). The rate of complete (≥70%) ST-segment recovery post-PCI was higher in patients randomised to heparin ± GPIs compared with bivalirudin.

CONCLUSIONS

Whether bivalirudin compared with heparin ± GPI reduces bleeding in rescue PCI could not be determined. Slow recruitment and futility in the context of lower-than-expected bleeding event rates led to the termination of this trial (ANZCTR.org.au, ACTRN12610000152022).

Assessing the external validity of the VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART trial

Aims:

The VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART trial was a registry-based randomized trial comparing bivalirudin and heparin in patients with acute myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. It showed no differences in mortality at 30 or 180 days. This study examines how well the trial population results may generalize to the population of all screened patients with fulfilled inclusion criteria in regard to mortality at 30 and 180 days.

Methods:

The standardized difference in the mean propensity score for trial inclusion between trial population and the screened not-enrolled with fulfilled inclusion criteria was calculated as a metric of similarity. Propensity scores were then used in an inverse-probability weighted Cox regression analysis using the trial population only to estimate the difference in mortality as it would have been had the trial included all screened patients with fulfilled inclusion criteria. Patients who were very likely to be included were weighted down and those who had a very low probability of being in the trial were weighted up.

Results:

The propensity score difference was 0.61. There were no significant differences in mortality between bivalirudin and heparin in the inverse-probability weighted analysis (hazard ratio 1.11, 95% confidence interval (0.73, 1.68)) at 30 days or 180 days (hazard ratio 0.98, 95% confidence interval (0.70, 1.36)).

Conclusion:

The propensity score difference demonstrated that the screened not-enrolled with fulfilled inclusion criteria and trial population were not similar. The inverse-probability weighted analysis showed no significant differences in mortality. From this, we conclude that the VALIDATE results may be generalized to the screened not-enrolled with fulfilled inclusion criteria.

The SWEDEHEART secondary prevention and cardiac rehabilitation registry (SWEDEHEART CR registry)

AIMS

The quality registry SWEDEHEART covers data across the patient pathway after an acute myocardial infarction (MI), from hospital care to secondary prevention. Although cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is strongly recommended after an MI, there is still heterogeneity regarding standards, uptake, and adherence rates. The aim of the SWEDEHEART-CR registry is to provide continuous information on secondary prevention and CR performance to support the audit and development of evidence-based practice. To facilitate quality improvement and research initiatives, a description of the characteristics and development of the SWEDEHEART-CR registry is needed.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The SWEDEHEART-CR registry starts with data obtained during hospital care and then collects data at out-patient visits 2 months and 1-year after discharge, and at start and end of an exercise-based CR programme. The registry data covers comorbidities, biochemistry, blood pressure, anthropometric variables, medication, psychosocial- and lifestyle variables, readmissions, patient-reported outcome measures, attendance in CR-related programmes, and physical fitness variables. Over 100 000 patients with MI have been included in the SWEDEHEART-CR registry since its start in 2005. From initially covering 35 centres (47%) and 2200 patients annually (27%), SWEDEHEART-CR has developed to a nation-wide registry with 75 centres (100%) and 8800 patients annually (80%) in 2020.

CONCLUSION

The SWEDEHEART-CR registry includes a high proportion of the national MI population entering a CR programme and is a powerful tool for quality audit, improvement, and research. The registry provides insights into the characteristics, treatment, and outcomes of evidence-based secondary preventive practice, ultimately leading to better cardiovascular health.

Influenza Vaccination to Reduce Cardiovascular Morbidity and Mortality in Patients With COVID-19: JACC State-of-the-Art Review

Viral respiratory infections are risk factors for cardiovascular disease (CVD). Underlying CVD is also associated with an increased risk of complications following viral respiratory infections, including increased morbidity, mortality, and health care utilization. Globally, these phenomena are observed with seasonal influenza and with the current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Persons with CVD represent an important target population for respiratory virus vaccines, with capacity developed within 3 large ongoing influenza vaccine cardiovascular outcomes trials to determine the potential cardioprotective effects of influenza vaccines. In the context of COVID-19, these international trial networks may be uniquely positioned to redeploy infrastructure to study therapies for primary and secondary prevention of COVID-19. Here, we describe mechanistic links between influenza and COVID-19 infection and the risk of acute cardiovascular events, summarize the data to date on the potential cardioprotective effects of influenza vaccines, and describe the ongoing influenza vaccine cardiovascular outcomes trials, highlighting important lessons learned that are applicable to COVID-19.

Association of Pretreatment With P2Y12 Receptor Antagonists Preceding Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Non-ST-Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndromes With Outcomes

IMPORTANCE

Pretreatment of patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) with P2Y12 receptor antagonists is a common practice despite the lack of definite evidence for its benefit.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the association of P2Y12 receptor antagonist pretreatment vs no pretreatment with mortality, stent thrombosis, and in-hospital bleeding in patients with NSTE-ACS undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cohort study used prospective data from the Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry of 64 857 patients who underwent procedures between 2010 and 2018. All patients who underwent PCI owing to NSTE-ACS in Sweden were stratified by whether they were pretreated with P2Y12 receptor antagonists. Associations of pretreatment with P2Y12 receptor antagonists with the risks of adverse outcomes were investigated using instrumental variable analysis and propensity score matching. Data were analyzed from March to June 2019.

EXPOSURES

Pretreatment with P2Y12 receptor antagonists.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary end point was all-cause mortality within 30 days. Secondary end points were 1-year mortality, stent thrombosis within 30 days, and in-hospital bleeding.

RESULTS

In total, 64 857 patients (mean [SD] age, 64.7 [10.9] years; 46 809 [72.2%] men) were included. A total of 59 894 patients (92.4%) were pretreated with a P2Y12 receptor antagonist, including 27 867 (43.7%) pretreated with clopidogrel, 34 785 (54.5%) pretreated with ticagrelor, and 1148 (1.8%) pretreated with prasugrel. At 30 days, there were 971 deaths (1.5%) and 101 definite stent thromboses (0.2%) in the full cohort. Pretreatment was not associated with better survival at 30 days (odds ratio [OR], 1.17; 95% CI, 0.66-2.11; P = .58), survival at 1 year (OR, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.77-2.34; P = .30), or decreased stent thrombosis (OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.42-1.55; P = .52). However, pretreatment was associated with increased risk of in-hospital bleeding (OR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.06-2.12; P = .02).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This cohort study found that pretreatment of patients with NSTE-ACS with P2Y12 receptor antagonists was not associated with improved clinical outcomes but was associated with increased risk of bleeding. These findings support the argument that pretreatment with P2Y12 receptor antagonists should not be routinely used in patients with NSTE-ACS.

Design and rationale of DUTCH-AF: a prospective nationwide registry programme and observational study on long-term oral antithrombotic treatment in patients with atrial fibrillation

INTRODUCTION

Anticoagulation therapy is pivotal in the management of stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF). Prospective registries, containing longitudinal data are lacking with detailed information on anticoagulant therapy, treatment adherence and AF-related adverse events in practice-based patient cohorts, in particular for non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOAC). With the creation of DUTCH-AF, a nationwide longitudinal AF registry, we aim to provide clinical data and answer questions on the (anticoagulant) management over time and of the clinical course of patients with newly diagnosed AF in routine clinical care. Within DUTCH-AF, our current aim is to assess the effect of non-adherence and non-persistence of anticoagulation therapy on clinical adverse events (eg, bleeding and stroke), to determine predictors for such inadequate anticoagulant treatment, and to validate and refine bleeding prediction models. With DUTCH-AF, we provide the basis for a continuing nationwide AF registry, which will facilitate subsequent research, including future registry-based clinical trials.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The DUTCH-AF registry is a nationwide, prospective registry of patients with newly diagnosed 'non-valvular' AF. Patients will be enrolled from primary, secondary and tertiary care practices across the Netherlands. A target of 6000 patients for this initial cohort will be followed for at least 2 years. Data on thromboembolic and bleeding events, changes in antithrombotic therapy and hospital admissions will be registered. Pharmacy-dispensing data will be obtained to calculate parameters of adherence and persistence to anticoagulant treatment, which will be linked to AF-related outcomes such as ischaemic stroke and major bleeding. In a subset of patients, anticoagulation adherence and beliefs about drugs will be assessed by questionnaire.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study protocol was approved as exempt for formal review according to Dutch law by the Medical Ethics Committee of the Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, the Netherlands. Results will be disseminated by publications in peer-reviewed journals and presentations at scientific congresses.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Trial NL7467, NTR7706 (https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/7464).

Patient experience of the informed consent process during acute myocardial infarction: a sub-study of the VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART trial

Objective

We aimed to assess the patient experience of informed consent (IC) during acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in a sub-study of the VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART trial. The original trial compared two anticoagulant agents in patients undergoing coronary intervention. A witnessed oral IC was required prior to randomization in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, which was subsequently complemented with a written IC after percutaneous coronary intervention. Written consent was obtained before angiography in patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.

Background

The IC process in patients with AMI is under debate. Earlier trials in this population have required prospective consent before randomization. A trial published some years ago used deferred consent, but the patient experience of this process is poorly studied.

Methods

A total of 414 patients who participated in the main trial were enrolled and asked the following questions: (1) Do you remember being asked to participate in a study? (2) How was your experience of being asked to participate; do you remember it being positive or negative? (3) Would you have liked more information about the study? (4) Do you think it would have been better if you were included in the study without being informed until a later time?

Results

Of these patients, 94% remembered being included; 85% of them experienced this positively, 12% were neutral and 3% negative. Regarding more information, 88% did not want further information, and 68% expressed that they wanted to be consulted before inclusion. Of the patients, 5% thought it would have been better to have study inclusion without consent, and 27% considered it of no importance.

Conclusion

It is reasonable to ask patients for verbal IC in the acute phase of AMI. Most patients felt positively about being asked to participate and had knowledge of being enrolled in a scientific study. In addition they objected to providing IC after randomization and treatment.

Trial registration

VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART European Union Clinical Trials Register: 2012-005260-10. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02311231. Registered on 8 Dec 2014.

Impact of Baseline Anemia in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Prespecified Analysis From the VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART Trial

Background

The impact of baseline anemia in a contemporary acute coronary syndrome (ACS) population undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention in the era of predominant radial artery access, potent P2Y12 inhibition, and rare use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors has not been adequately studied.

Methods and Results

ACS patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention between 2014 and 2016 in the VALIDATE‐SWEDEHEART (Bivalirudin Versus Heparin in ST‐Segment and Non–ST‐Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction in Patients on Modern Antiplatelet Therapy in the Swedish Web System for Enhancement and Development of Evidence‐Based Care in Heart Disease Evaluated According to Recommended Therapies Registry) trial without missing values for hemoglobin were included (n=5482). Mortality, myocardial reinfarction, and major bleeding at 180 days were assessed using Cox regression models and propensity score matching. All studied comorbidities were more common in ACS patients who had anemia (n=792). ACS patients with anemia had higher rates of 180‐day mortality (6.9% versus 2.1%; hazard ratio, 1.9; 95% CI, 1.3–2.7; P<0.001), myocardial reinfarction (4.3% versus 1.9%; hazard ratio, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.1–2.7; P=0.013), and major bleeding (13.4% versus 8.2%; hazard ratio, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.0–1.6; P=0.041). The results were most evident in patients with a hemoglobin value <100 g/L, who had a nearly 10 times higher mortality rate.

Conclusions

Baseline anemia in ACS patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, treated according to current practice including routine radial artery access, constitutes a high‐risk feature for both ischemic events, bleeding events, and mortality. A multidisciplinary approach is warranted to maximize benefit and minimize patient risk.

Clinical Trial Registration

URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02311231.

Relationship between degree of heparin anticoagulation and clinical outcome in patients receiving potent P2Y12-inhibitors with no planned glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor during percutaneous coronary intervention in acute myocardial infarction: a VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART substudy

Aims

Heparin is the preferred choice of anticoagulant in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute myocardial infarction (MI). An established dosage of heparin has not yet been determined, but treatment may be optimized through monitoring of activated clotting time (ACT). The aim of this study was to determine the relationship between heparin dose or ACT with a composite outcome of death, MI, or bleeding using data from the registry-based, randomized, controlled, and open-label VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART trial, although patients were not randomized to heparin dose in this substudy.

Methods and results

Patients with MI undergoing PCI and receiving treatment with a potent P2Y12-inhibitor and anticoagulation with heparin, without the planned use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor (GPI), were enrolled in this substudy. The primary endpoint was a composite endpoint of death, MI, and bleeding at 30 days. The individual components and stent thrombosis were analysed separately. We divided patients into groups according to the initial dose of unfractionated heparin during PCI (&lt;70 U/kg, 70–100 U/kg, and &gt;100 U/kg) or ACT (ACT &lt;250 s, 250–350 s, and &gt;350 s) as well as investigating them as continuous variables in Cox proportional hazards models using univariable and multivariable analyses. No major differences were noted between heparin stratified in groups (P = 0.22) or heparin as a continuous variable in relation to the primary composite endpoint hazard ratio (HR) 1.0 confidence interval (CI) (0.99–1.01) for heparin dose/kg. No differences were found between ACT stratified in groups (P = 0.453) or ACT in seconds HR 1.0 CI (0.99–1.00) regarding the primary endpoint. The individual components of death, MI, major bleeding, and stent thrombosis were not significantly different across heparin doses or ACT levels either.

Conclusion

We found no association between heparin dose or ACT levels and death, MI bleeding complications, or stent thrombosis. Therefore, there is no strong support for a specific heparin dose or mandatory ACT monitoring in patients treated with potent P2Y12-inhibitors with no planned GPI.

Sex differences in characteristics and outcome in acute coronary syndrome patients in the Netherlands

Background

Sex differences in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) have been reported, but little is known about the situation in the Netherlands.

Methods

This registry is a merge of available data on ACS patients in the electronic data capture systems of 11 centres with 24/7 interventional cardiology services. We included patients >18 years undergoing a cardiac catheterisation between 2010–2012. We evaluated sex differences in clinical and procedural characteristics and 1‑year mortality.

Results

A total of 29,265 ACS patients (8,720 women and 20,545 men) were registered. Women were on average 4.5 years older (68.5 vs 63.0 years, p < 0.001) and had a higher prevalence of hypertension (62.7 vs 49.8%, p < 0.001) and insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (9.6 vs 6.8%, p < 0.001) than men. Women less often presented with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (43.7% vs 47.6%, p < 0.001) and appeared to have less extensive coronary artery disease than men. Women less often underwent coronary angiography by radial access (52.5 vs 55.9%, p < 0.001). One-year mortality was higher in women than in men (7.3% and 5.6%, p < 0.001). More specific, the relationship between sex and mortality was age-dependent and showed higher mortality in women ≤71 years, but lower mortality in older women compared with men (p-interaction <0.001).

Conclusion

We found differences in clinical and procedural characteristics and outcome between women and men admitted for ACS, which are in line with other Western countries. The limitations of our registry, based on existing local databases, can be overcome by the use of the prospective Netherlands Heart Registry that is currently in development.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s12471-019-1271-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

When do we need clinical endpoint adjudication in clinical trials?

Clinical endpoint adjudication (CEA) is a standardized process for assessment of safety and efficacy of pharmacologic or device therapies in clinical trials. CEA plays a key role in many large clinical trials with the aim of achieving consistency and accuracy of the study results, by applying independent and blinded evaluation of suspected clinical events reported by investigators. However, due to high costs there are different opinions regarding the use of central adjudication versus more simplified strategies or site-based assessments and whether the final results differ significantly. There is a lack of scientific evaluation of different adjudication strategies, and more knowledge is needed on the optimal adjudication process and how to achieve the best cost-effectiveness. New methodologies using national registry data and artificial intelligence may challenge the traditional adjudication strategy and could potentially reduce cost considerably with a similar result. Further research and evidence in this field of clinical trials methodology are essential.

Bivalirudin versus heparin monotherapy in non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND

The optimal anti-coagulation strategy for patients with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction treated with percutaneous coronary intervention is unclear in contemporary clinical practice of radial access and potent P2Y12-inhibitors. The aim of this study was to investigate whether bivalirudin was superior to heparin monotherapy in patients with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction without routine glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor use.

METHODS

In a large pre-specified subgroup of the multicentre, prospective, randomised, registry-based, open-label clinical VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART trial we randomised patients with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, treated with ticagrelor or prasugrel, to bivalirudin or heparin monotherapy with no planned use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors during percutaneous coronary intervention. The primary endpoint was the rate of a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction or major bleeding within 180 days.

RESULTS

A total of 3001 patients with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction, were enrolled. The primary endpoint occurred in 12.1% (182 of 1503) and 12.5% (187 of 1498) of patients in the bivalirudin and heparin groups, respectively (hazard ratio of bivalirudin compared to heparin treatment 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.78-1.18, p=0.69). The results were consistent in all major subgroups. All-cause death occurred in 2.0% versus 1.7% (hazard ratio 1.15, 0.68-1.94, p=0.61), myocardial infarction in 2.3% versus 2.5% (hazard ratio 0.91, 0.58-1.45, p=0.70), major bleeding in 8.9% versus 9.1% (hazard ratio 0.97, 0.77-1.24, p=0.82) and definite stent thrombosis in 0.3% versus 0.2% (hazard ratio 1.33, 0.30-5.93, p=0.82).

CONCLUSION

Bivalirudin as compared to heparin during percutaneous coronary intervention for non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction did not reduce the composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction or major bleeding in non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients receiving current recommended treatments with modern P2Y12-inhibitors and predominantly radial access.

Re-inventing the randomized controlled trial in medical oncology: The registry-based trial

Substantial progress has recently been made in optimizing the management of cancer patients, resulting in major gains in survival and quality of life. Much of this progress has resulted from the serial testing of promising treatment strategies, typically using prospective randomized controlled trials to compare outcomes achieved with the new approach versus the current standard(s) of care. However, there is an ever-expanding list of important questions that are difficult to investigate, particularly with respect to determining the optimal sequencing and combination of proven active agents. With the rapidly growing list of clinical, pathologic and molecular characteristics that promise to predict treatment benefit and/or risk for defined patient subsets, many new questions regarding how best to personalize our approach to treatment selection are emerging. These questions can be investigated in the context of registry-based randomized clinical trials. Recently, the potential of registry-based randomized clinical trials was demonstrated in cardiology, highlighting the ability to rapidly recruit large numbers of patients to a trial addressing an important clinical question, with minimal cost and high external validity. In this review, we discuss the challenges and limitations of conventional clinical trials in multidisciplinary cancer care, describe the potential advantages of registry-based randomized trials, and highlight several registry-based oncology studies that are already underway to demonstrate the feasibility of this approach.

Bivalirudin versus Heparin Monotherapy in Myocardial Infarction

BACKGROUND

The comparative efficacy of various anticoagulation strategies has not been clearly established in patients with acute myocardial infarction who are undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) according to current practice, which includes the use of radial-artery access for PCI and administration of potent P2Y₁₂ inhibitors without the planned use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors.

METHODS

In this multicenter, randomized, registry-based, open-label clinical trial, we enrolled patients with either ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) or non-STEMI (NSTEMI) who were undergoing PCI and receiving treatment with a potent P2Y₁₂ inhibitor (ticagrelor, prasugrel, or cangrelor) without the planned use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors. The patients were randomly assigned to receive bivalirudin or heparin during PCI, which was performed predominantly with the use of radial-artery access. The primary end point was a composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, or major bleeding during 180 days of follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 6006 patients (3005 with STEMI and 3001 with NSTEMI) were enrolled in the trial. At 180 days, a primary end-point event had occurred in 12.3% of the patients (369 of 3004) in the bivalirudin group and in 12.8% (383 of 3002) in the heparin group (hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83 to 1.10; P=0.54). The results were consistent between patients with STEMI and those with NSTEMI and across other major subgroups. Myocardial infarction occurred in 2.0% of the patients in the bivalirudin group and in 2.4% in the heparin group (hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.60 to 1.19; P=0.33), major bleeding in 8.6% and 8.6%, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.19; P=0.98), definite stent thrombosis in 0.4% and 0.7%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.27 to 1.10; P=0.09), and death in 2.9% and 2.8%, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.41; P=0.76).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients undergoing PCI for myocardial infarction, the rate of the composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, or major bleeding was not lower among those who received bivalirudin than among those who received heparin monotherapy. (Funded by the Swedish Heart-Lung Foundation and others; VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART ClinicalTrialsRegister.eu number, 2012-005260-10 ; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02311231 .).

Design and rationale for the Influenza vaccination After Myocardial Infarction (IAMI) trial. A registry-based randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Registry studies and case-control studies have demonstrated that the risk of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is increased following influenza infection. Small randomized trials, underpowered for clinical end points, indicate that future cardiovascular events can be reduced following influenza vaccination in patients with established cardiovascular disease. Influenza vaccination is recommended by international guidelines for patients with cardiovascular disease, but uptake is varying and vaccination is rarely prioritized during hospitalization for AMI.

METHODS/DESIGN

The Influenza vaccination After Myocardial Infarction (IAMI) trial is a double-blind, multicenter, prospective, registry-based, randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trial. A total of 4,400 patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) or non-STEMI undergoing coronary angiography will randomly be assigned either to in-hospital influenza vaccination or to placebo. Baseline information is collected from national heart disease registries, and follow-up will be performed using both registries and a structured telephone interview. The primary end point is a composite of time to all-cause death, a new AMI, or stent thrombosis at 1 year.

IMPLICATIONS

The IAMI trial is the largest randomized trial to date to evaluate the effect of in-hospital influenza vaccination on death and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with STEMI or non-STEMI. The trial is expected to provide highly relevant clinical data on the efficacy of influenza vaccine as secondary prevention after AMI.

Sweden: coronary and structural heart interventions from 2010 to 2015

Sparsely populated and with wide non-urbanised areas, Sweden faces specific challenges in providing publicly financed, high-quality and equal healthcare to all parts of the country. As a result, a decentralised organisation for acute coronary care has been developed with coronary care units and catheterisation laboratories in several small- and medium-sized city areas. In contrast, highly specialised non-emergent interventional procedures are centralised to a few high-volume centres, mainly located at university hospitals in large city areas. Nationwide quality registries with nearly complete coverage facilitate healthcare quality improvement and form a basis for clinical research. In this report, we present an overview of demographics, healthcare organisation, quality registries and procedural data for coronary and structural heart interventions in Sweden over the past six years.

Streamlining cardiovascular clinical trials to improve efficiency and generalisability

Controlled trials provide the most valid determination of the efficacy and safety of an intervention, but large cardiovascular clinical trials have become extremely costly and complex, making it difficult to study many important clinical questions. A critical question, and the main objective of this review, is how trials might be simplified while maintaining randomisation to preserve scientific integrity and unbiased efficacy assessments. Experience with alternative approaches is accumulating, specifically with registry-based randomised controlled trials that make use of data already collected. This approach addresses bias concerns while still capitalising on the benefits and efficiencies of a registry. Several completed or ongoing trials illustrate the feasibility of using registry-based controlled trials to answer important questions relevant to daily clinical practice. Randomised trials within healthcare organisation databases may also represent streamlined solutions for some types of investigations, although data quality (endpoint assessment) is likely to be a greater concern in those settings. These approaches are not without challenges, and issues pertaining to informed consent, blinding, data quality and regulatory standards remain to be fully explored. Collaboration among stakeholders is necessary to achieve standards for data management and analysis, to validate large data sources for use in randomised trials, and to re-evaluate ethical standards to encourage research while also ensuring that patients are protected. The rapidly evolving efforts to streamline cardiovascular clinical trials have the potential to lead to major advances in promoting better care and outcomes for patients with cardiovascular disease.

The Rise and Fall of Anticoagulation with Bivalirudin During Percutaneous Coronary Interventions: A Review Article

Bivalirudin is a direct thrombin inhibitor used during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Treatment with bivalirudin compared to heparin plus glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPI) reduced bleeding complications, but resulted in higher rates of ischemic events, including acute stent thrombosis in ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients. Thus, it may be considered a reasonable alternative antithrombotic agent in patients at high risk of bleeding undergoing PCI. However its superiority over heparin alone is questioned particularly in the era of novel antiplatelet agents and transradial PCI.