Explore the vast range of titles available.

Objective Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) lowering constitutes a cornerstone of secondary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD), yet a considerable number of patients do not achieve guideline-recommended LDL‑C targets. The 2016 European guidelines recommended titration of LDL‑C lowering medication in a set number of steps, starting with oral medication. We aimed to investigate the effects of this stepwise approach in post-acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients. Methods In a multicentre, prospective, non-randomised trial, we evaluated a three-step strategy aiming to reduce LDL‑C to ≤ 1.8 mmol/l in post-ACS patients with prior ASCVD and/or diabetes mellitus. Steps, undertaken every 4–6 weeks, included: 1) start high-intensity statin (HIST); 2) addition of ezetimibe; 3) addition of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitors (PCSK9i). The primary outcome was the proportion of patients achieving LDL-C ≤ 1.8 mmol/l after Steps 1 and 2 (using oral medications alone). Secondary outcomes examined the prevalence of meeting the target throughout all steps ( https://onderzoekmetmensen.nl/nl/trial/21157 ). Results Out of 999 patients, 84% (95% confidence intervals (CI): 81–86) achieved the LDL‑C target using only statin and/or ezetimibe. In an intention-to-treat analysis, the percentages of patients meeting the LDL‑C target after each step were 69% (95% CI: 67–72), 84% (95% CI: 81–86), and 87% (95% CI: 85–89), respectively. There were protocol deviations for 23, 38 and 23 patients at each respective step. Conclusion Through stepwise intensification of lipid-lowering therapy, 84% of very high-risk post-ACS patients achieved an LDL‑C target of ≤ 1.8 mmol/l with oral medications alone. Addition of PCSK9i further increased this rate to 87% (95% CI: 85–89).

Device-detected subclinical atrial fibrillation (AF) refers to infrequent, short-lasting, asymptomatic AF that is detected only with long-term continuous monitoring. Subclinical AF is common and associated with an increased risk of stroke; however, the risk of stroke with subclinical AF is lower than for clinical AF, and very few patients with subclinical AF alone have been included in large AF anticoagulation trials. The net benefit of anticoagulation in patients with subclinical AF is unknown. ARTESiA is a prospective, multicenter, double-blind, randomized controlled trial, recruiting patients with subclinical AF detected by an implanted pacemaker, defibrillator, or cardiac monitor, and who have additional risk factors for stroke. Patients with clinical AF documented by surface electrocardiogram will be excluded from the study. Participants will be randomized to receive either apixaban (according to standard AF dosing) or aspirin 81mg daily. The primary outcome is the composite of stroke, transient ischemic attack with diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging evidence of cerebral infarction, and systemic embolism. Approximately 4,000 patients will be enrolled from around 230 clinical sites, with an anticipated mean follow-up of 36months until 248 adjudicated primary outcome events have occurred. ARTESiA will determine whether oral anticoagulation therapy with apixaban compared with aspirin reduces the risk of stroke or systemic embolism in patients with subclinical AF and additional risk factors.

Effectiveness and safety of warfarin is associated with the time in therapeutic range (TTR) with an international normalised ratio (INR) of 2·0–3·0. In the Randomised Evaluation of Long-term Anticoagulation Therapy (RE-LY) trial, dabigatran versus warfarin reduced both stroke and haemorrhage. We aimed to investigate the primary and secondary outcomes of the RE-LY trial in relation to each centre's mean TTR (cTTR) in the warfarin population. In the RE-LY trial, 18 113 patients at 951 sites were randomly assigned to 110 mg or 150 mg dabigatran twice daily versus warfarin dose adjusted to INR 2·0–3·0. Median follow-up was 2·0 years. For 18 024 patients at 906 sites, the cTTR was estimated by averaging TTR for individual warfarin-treated patients calculated by the Rosendaal method. We compared the outcomes of RE-LY across the three treatment groups within four groups defined by the quartiles of cTTR. RE-LY is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00262600. The quartiles of cTTR for patients in the warfarin group were: less than 57·1%, 57·1–65·5%, 65·5–72·6%, and greater than 72·6%. There were no significant interactions between cTTR and prevention of stroke and systemic embolism with either 110 mg dabigatran (interaction p=0·89) or 150 mg dabigatran (interaction p=0·20) versus warfarin. Neither were any significant interactions recorded with cTTR with regards to intracranial bleeding with 110 mg dabigatran (interaction p=0·71) or 150 mg dabigatran (interaction p=0·89) versus warfarin. There was a significant interaction between cTTR and major bleeding when comparing 150 mg dabigatran with warfarin (interaction p=0·03), with less bleeding events at lower cTTR but similar events at higher cTTR, whereas rates of major bleeding were lower with 110 mg dabigatran than with warfarin irrespective of cTTR. There were significant interactions between cTTR and effects of both 110 mg and 150 mg dabigatran versus warfarin on the composite of all cardiovascular events (interaction p=0·036 and p=0·0006, respectively) and total mortality (interaction p=0·066 and p=0·052, respectively) with reduced event rates at low cTTR, and similar rates at high cTTR. The benefits of 150 mg dabigatran at reducing stroke, 110 mg dabigatran at reducing bleeding, and both doses at reducing intracranial bleeding versus warfarin were consistent irrespective of centres' quality of INR control. For all vascular events, non-haemorrhagic events, and mortality, advantages of dabigatran were greater at sites with poor INR control than at those with good INR control. Overall, these results show that local standards of care affect the benefits of use of new treatment alternatives. Boehringer Ingelheim.

In the ARISTOTLE trial, the rate of stroke or systemic embolism was reduced by apixaban compared with warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Patients with AF and previous stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TIA) have a high risk of stroke. We therefore aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of apixaban compared with warfarin in prespecified subgroups of patients with and without previous stroke or TIA. Between Dec 19, 2006, and April 2, 2010, patients were enrolled in the ARISTOTLE trial at 1034 clinical sites in 39 countries. 18 201 patients with AF or atrial flutter were randomly assigned to receive apixaban 5 mg twice daily or warfarin (target international normalised ratio 2·0–3·0). The median duration of follow-up was 1·8 years (IQR 1·4–2·3). The primary efficacy outcome was stroke or systemic embolism, analysed by intention to treat. The primary safety outcome was major bleeding in the on-treatment population. All participants, investigators, and sponsors were masked to treatment assignments. In this subgroup analysis, we estimated event rates and used Cox models to compare outcomes in patients with and without previous stroke or TIA. The ARISTOTLE trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NTC00412984. Of the trial population, 3436 (19%) had a previous stroke or TIA. In the subgroup of patients with previous stroke or TIA, the rate of stroke or systemic embolism was 2·46 per 100 patient-years of follow-up in the apixaban group and 3·24 in the warfarin group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·76, 95% CI 0·56 to 1·03); in the subgroup of patients without previous stroke or TIA, the rate of stroke or systemic embolism was 1·01 per 100 patient-years of follow-up with apixaban and 1·23 with warfarin (HR 0·82, 95% CI 0·65 to 1·03; p for interaction=0·71). The absolute reduction in the rate of stroke and systemic embolism with apixaban versus warfarin was 0·77 per 100 patient-years of follow-up (95% CI −0·08 to 1·63) in patients with and 0·22 (−0·03 to 0·47) in those without previous stroke or TIA. The difference in major bleeding with apixaban compared with warfarin was 1·07 per 100 patient-years (95% CI 0·09–2·04) in patients with and 0·93 (0·54–1·32) in those without previous stroke or TIA. The effects of apixaban versus warfarin were consistent in patients with AF with and without previous stroke or TIA. Owing to the higher risk of these outcomes in patients with previous stroke or TIA, the absolute benefits of apixaban might be greater in this population. Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer.

Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) are prone to cardiovascular events and anticoagulation-related bleeding complications. We hypothesized that patients with anemia are at increased risk for these outcomes. We performed a post hoc analysis of the ARISTOTLE trial, which included >18,000 patients with AF randomized to warfarin (target international normalized ratio, 2.0-3.0) or apixaban 5 mg twice daily. Multivariable Cox regression analysis was used to determine if anemia (defined as hemoglobin <13.0 in men and <12.0 g/dL in women) was associated with future stroke, major bleeding, or mortality. Anemia was present at baseline in 12.6% of the ARISTOTLE population. Patients with anemia were older, had higher mean CHADS2 and HAS-BLED scores, and were more likely to have experienced previous bleeding events. Anemia was associated with major bleeding (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.92; 95% CI, 1.62-2.28; P<.0001) and all-cause mortality (adjusted HR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.46-1.93; P<.0001) but not stroke or systemic embolism (adjusted HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.70-1.21). The benefits of apixaban compared with warfarin on the rates of stroke, mortality, and bleeding events were consistent in patients with and without anemia. Chronic anemia is associated with a higher incidence of bleeding complications and mortality, but not of stroke, in anticoagulated patients with AF. Apixaban is an attractive anticoagulant for stroke prevention in patients with AF with or without anemia.

This study aimed to validate trial patient eligibility screening and baseline data collection using text-mining in electronic healthcare records (EHRs), comparing the results to those of an international trial. In three medical centers with different EHR vendors, EHR-based text-mining was used to automatically screen patients for trial eligibility and extract baseline data on nineteen characteristics. First, the yield of screening with automated EHR text-mining search was compared with manual screening by research personnel. Second, the accuracy of extracted baseline data by EHR text mining was compared to manual data entry by research personnel. Of the 92,466 patients visiting the out-patient cardiology departments, 568 (0.6%) were enrolled in the trial during its recruitment period using manual screening methods. Automated EHR data screening of all patients showed that the number of patients needed to screen could be reduced by 73,863 (79.9%). The remaining 18,603 (20.1%) contained 458 of the actual participants (82.4% of participants). In trial participants, automated EHR text-mining missed a median of 2.8% (Interquartile range [IQR] across all variables 0.4–8.5%) of all data points compared to manually collected data. The overall accuracy of automatically extracted data was 88.0% (IQR 84.7–92.8%). Automatically extracting data from EHRs using text-mining can be used to identify trial participants and to collect baseline information.

Stroke prevention with oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation predisposes for bleeding. As a result, in select patient groups anticoagulation is withheld because of a perceived unfavorable risk-benefit ratio. Reasons for withholding anticoagulation can vary greatly between clinicians, often leading to discussion in daily clinical practice on the best approach. To guide clinical decision-making, we have reviewed available evidence on the most frequently reported reasons for withholding anticoagulation: previous bleeding, frailty and age, and an overall high bleeding risk.

Current standard of care for patients with recent-onset atrial fibrillation (AF) in the emergency department aims at urgent restoration of sinus rhythm, although paroxysmal AF is a condition that resolves spontaneously within 24 hours in more than 70% of the cases. A wait-and-see approach with rate-control medication only and when needed cardioversion within 48 hours of onset of symptoms is hypothesized to be noninferior, safe, and cost-effective as compared with current standard of care and to lead to a higher quality of life. The ACWAS trial (NCT02248753) is an investigator-initiated, randomized, controlled, 2-arm noninferiority trial that compares a wait-and-see approach to the standard of care. Consenting adults with recent-onset symptomatic AF in the emergency department without urgent need for cardioversion are eligible for participation. A total of 437 patients will be randomized to either standard care (pharmacologic or electrical cardioversion) or the wait-and-see approach, consisting of symptom reduction through rate control medication until spontaneous conversion is achieved, with the possibility of cardioversion within 48 hours after onset of symptoms. Primary end point is the presence of sinus rhythm on 12-lead electrocardiogram at 4 weeks; main secondary outcomes are adverse events, total medical and societal costs, quality of life, and cost-effectiveness for 1 year. The ACWAS trial aims at providing evidence for the use of a wait-and-see approach for patients with recent-onset symptomatic AF in the emergency department.

This clinical trial of outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation showed that lenient rate control (resting heart rate, <110 beats per minute) was not inferior to strict rate control (resting heart rate, <80 beats per minute). On the basis of the results, strict rate control may be abandoned as a therapeutic strategy in many patients with permanent atrial fibrillation. In patients with atrial fibrillation, lenient rate control (resting heart rate, <110 beats per minute) was not inferior to strict rate control (resting heart rate, <80 beats per minute). Atrial fibrillation is not a benign condition. 1 It may cause symptoms and is associated with stroke and heart failure. Previous studies have established that the rates of complications and death were similar in patients with atrial fibrillation receiving rate-control therapy and in those receiving rhythm-control therapy. 2 , 3 Therefore, rate control has become front-line therapy in the management of atrial fibrillation. The optimal level of heart-rate control, however, is unknown, as is whether strict rate control is associated with an improved prognosis as compared with a more lenient approach. 2 – 6 Guidelines, though empirical and not evidence-based, recommend the use of strict . . .