Prognóstico Relacionado à Terapia de Reperfusão Pós-Síndrome Coronariana Aguda na Atenção Secundária: Análise de Sobrevida em Longo Prazo na Estratégia ERICO / Prognosis Related to Reperfusion Therapy Post-Acute Coronary Syndrome in Secondary Care: Long-Term Survival Analysis in the ERICO Study

Resumo Fundamento A relação entre terapia de reperfusão após a síndrome coronariana aguda (SCA) e mortalidade na atenção secundária não é bem conhecida. Objetivos Avaliar o impacto de três estratégias terapêuticas: (1) terapia medicamentosa exclusiva, (2) Angioplastia Transluminal percutânea coronaria (ATPC) e (3) revascularização do miocárdio (RM) na sobrevida em longo prazo de participantes da Estratégia de Registro de Insuficiência Coronariana Aguda (ERICO). Métodos Análises de sobrevida para mortalidade por todas as causas, mortalidade por doença cardiovascular (DCV) e mortalidade por doença arterial coronariana (DAC) foram realizadas de acordo com três estratégias terapêuticas (tratamento clínico exclusivo, ATPC ou RM). Modelos de regressão de Cox foram usados para estimar o hazard ratio (HR) com intervalo de confiança de 95% (IC95%) de 180 dias a quatro anos de acompanhamento após a SCA. Os modelos são apresentados como modelo sem ajuste ou ajustado quanto à idade, sexo e DAC prévia, tipo de SCA, tabagismo, hipertensão, dislipidemia, fração de ejeção do ventrículo esquerdo e de acordo com o número de artérias coronárias principais obstruídas (≥50%). Resultados Entre os 800 participantes, as piores taxas de sobrevida (mortalidade por todas as causas e DCV) foram detectadas entre os indivíduos que se submeteram a RM. Houve correlação entre RM e DAC [HR: 2,19 (IC95% 1,05-4,55)], mas o risco perdeu significância no modelo multivariado. A ATPC foi associada a uma menor probabilidade de eventos fatais durante os quatro anos de acompanhamento: mortalidade por todas as causas [HR, análise multivariada: 0,42 (IC95% 0,26-0,70)], por DCV [HR: 0,39 (95% CI: 0,20-0,73)] e DAC [HR, análise multivariada: 0,24 (IC95% 0,09-0,63)] em comparação aos submetidos ao tratamento clínico exclusivo. Conclusão No ERICO, a ATPC após a SCA foi associada a um melhor prognóstico, principalmente sobrevida por DAC.

Abstract Background Relationship between reperfusion therapy post-acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and mortality in secondary care is not well-known. Objectives To evaluate the impact of three therapeutic strategies: (1) exclusive medical therapy, (2) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and (3) coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) on long-term survival of participants in the Strategy of Registry of Acute Coronary Syndrome (ERICO) study. Methods Survival analyses for all-cause, cardiovascular (CVD) and coronary artery disease (CAD) mortality were performed according to three therapeutic strategies (exclusive medical therapy, PCI or CABG). Cox regression models were used to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) with respective 95% confidence interval (95%CI) from 180 days to four years of follow-up after ACS. Models are presented as crude, age-sex adjusted and further adjusted for previous CAD, ACS subtype, smoking, hypertension, dyslipidemia, left ventricular ejection fraction and according to the number of obstructed (≥ 50%) major coronary arteries. Results Among 800 participants, the lowest crude survival rates were detected among individuals who underwent CABG (all-cause and CVD). CABG was correlated to CAD (HR: 2.19 [95% CI: 1.05-4.55]). However, this risk lost significance in the full model. PCI was associated to lower probability of fatal events during four-year follow-up: all-cause [multivariate HR: 0.42 (95% CI: 0.26-0.70)], CVD [HR: 0.39 (95% CI: 0.20-0.73)] and CAD [multivariate HR: 0.24 (95% CI: 0.09-0.63)] compared to those submitted to exclusive medical therapy. Conclusion In the ERICO study, PCI after ACS was associated to better prognosis, particularly CAD survival.

Chronic inflammatory diseases, subclinical atherosclerosis, and cardiovascular diseases: Design, objectives, and baseline characteristics of a prospective case-cohort study ‒ ELSA-Brasil

Abstract Objectives This analysis describes the protocol of a study with a case-cohort to design to prospectively evaluate the incidence of subclinical atherosclerosis and Cardiovascular Disease (CVD) in Chronic Inflammatory Disease (CID) participants compared to non-diseased ones. Methods A high-risk group for CID was defined based on data collected in all visits on self-reported medical diagnosis, use of medicines, and levels of high-sensitivity C-Reactive Protein >10 mg/L. The comparison group is the Aleatory Cohort Sample (ACS): a group with 10% of participants selected at baseline who represent the entire cohort. In both groups, specific biomarkers for DIC, markers of subclinical atherosclerosis, and CVD morbimortality will be tested using weighted Cox. Results The high-risk group (n = 2,949; aged 53.6 ± 9.2; 65.5% women) and the ACS (n=1543; 52.2±8.8; 54.1% women) were identified. Beyond being older and mostly women, participants in the high-risk group present low average income (29.1% vs. 24.8%, p < 0.0001), higher BMI (Kg/m2) (28.1 vs. 26.9, p < 0.0001), higher waist circumference (cm) (93.3 vs. 91, p < 0.0001), higher frequencies of hypertension (40.2% vs. 34.5%, p < 0.0001), diabetes (20.7% vs. 17%, p = 0.003) depression (5.8% vs. 3.9%, p = 0.007) and higher levels of GlycA a new inflammatory marker (p < 0.0001) compared to the ACS. Conclusions The high-risk group selected mostly women, older, lower-income/education, higher BMI, waist circumference, and of hypertension, diabetes, depression, and higher levels of GlycA when compared to the ACS. The strategy chosen to define the high-risk group seems adequate given that multiple sociodemographic and clinical characteristics are compatible with CID.

Risco Cardiovascular e Elegibilidade Para Estatina na Prevenção Primária: Comparação Entre a Diretriz Brasileira e a Diretriz da AHA/ACC / Cardiovascular Risk and Statin Eligibility in Primary Prevention: A Comparison between the Brazilian and the AHA/ACC Guidelines

Resumo Fundamento Diferenças entre as versões atualizadas da Diretriz Brasileira de Dislipidemias e da Diretriz de Colesterol da American Heart Association (AHA)/American College of Cardiology (ACC) quanto à estratificação de risco cardiovascular e à elegibilidade para a terapia com estatina não são conhecidas. Objetivos Comparar a categorização de risco cardiovascular e a elegibilidade à terapia com estatina estabelecidas segundo a diretriz brasileira ou a diretriz da AHA/ACC em pacientes em prevenção primária. Métodos Nós avaliamos retrospectivamente indivíduos com idade entre 40 e 74 anos sem condições de alto risco, com LDL-c 70 -< 190 mg/dL, sem tratamento com agentes hipolipemiantes, e que passaram por avaliação clínica de rotina. O risco cardiovascular foi estratificado de acordo com a diretriz brasileira e a da AHA/ACC. Os indivíduos foram considerados elegíveis para estatina se os níveis de LDL-c estivessem no mínimo 30 mg/dL acima da meta para o risco cardiovascular (diretriz brasileira) ou se o risco em 10 anos para doença cardiovascular aterosclerótica fosse ≥ 7,5% (diretriz da AHA/ACC). Um valor de p < 0,05 foi considerado estatisticamente significativo. Resultados A amostra do estudo consistiu 18525 indivíduos (69% homens, idade 48 ± 6 anos). Entre os indivíduos considerados de risco intermediário ou alto segundo a diretriz brasileira, mais de 80% seriam classificados em uma categoria de risco mais baixo segundo a diretriz da AHA/ACC. Entre os homens, 45% e 16% seriam considerados elegíveis para a terapia com estatina segundo as diretrizes brasileira e da AHA/ACC, respectivamente (p < 0,001). Entre as mulheres, as respectivas proporções seriam 16% e 1% (p < 0,001). Oitenta e dois porcento das mulheres e 57% dos homens elegíveis para estatina com base no critério da diretriz brasileira não seriam considerados elegíveis para estatina segundo o critério da AHA/ACC. Conclusões Em comparação à diretriz da AHA/ACC, a diretriz brasileira classifica uma maior proporção dos pacientes em prevenção primária em categorias de risco mais alto e aumenta substancialmente a elegibilidade para estatina. (Arq Bras Cardiol. 2020; 115(3):440-449)

Abstract Background Differences between the updated versions of the Brazilian Guideline on Dyslipidemias and the American Heart Association (AHA)/American College of Cardiology (ACC) Cholesterol Guideline regarding cardiovascular risk stratification and statin eligibility are unknown. Objectives To compare cardiovascular risk categorization and statin eligibility based on the Brazilian guideline with those based on the AHA/ACC guideline in primary prevention patients. Methods We retrospectively analyzed individuals aged 40-74 years without high-risk conditions, with LDL-c 70 to < 190 mg/dL, not on lipid-lowering drugs, who underwent routine clinical assessment. Cardiovascular risk was stratified according to the Brazilian and the AHA/ACC guidelines. Subjects were considered eligible for statin therapy if LDL-c was at least 30 mg/dL above the target for the cardiovascular risk (Brazilian guideline) or the 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk was ≥7.5% (AHA/ACC guideline). A p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results The study sample consisted of 18,525 subjects (69% male, age 48 ± 6 years). Among subjects considered at intermediate or high risk by the Brazilian guideline, over 80% would be in a lower risk category by the AHA/ACC guideline. Among men, 45% and 16% would be statin eligible by the Brazilian and the AHA/ACC guidelines criteria, respectively (p < 0.001). Among women, the respective proportions would be 16% and 1% (p < 0.001). Eighty-two percent of women and 57% of men eligible for statins based on the Brazilian guideline criterion would not be eligible according to the AHA/ACC guideline criterion. Conclusions Compared with the AHA/ACC guideline, the Brazilian guideline classifies a larger proportion of primary prevention patients into higher-risk categories and substantially increases statin eligibility. (Arq Bras Cardiol. 2020; 115(3):440-449)

Cardiovascular Risk Stratification and Statin Eligibility Based on the Brazilian vs. North American Guidelines on Blood Cholesterol Management / Estratificação de Risco Cardiovascular e Elegibilidade para Estatina com Base na Diretriz Brasileira vs. Norte-Americana para Manejo do Colesterol

Abstract Background: The best way to select individuals for lipid-lowering treatment in the population is controversial. Objective: In healthy individuals in primary prevention: to assess the relationship between cardiovascular risk categorized according to the V Brazilian Guideline on Dyslipidemia and the risk calculated by the pooled cohort equations (PCE); to compare the proportion of individuals eligible for statins, according to different criteria. Methods: In individuals aged 40-75 years consecutively submitted to routine health assessment at one single center, four criteria of eligibility for statin were defined: BR-1, BR-2 (LDL-c above or at least 30 mg/dL above the goal recommended by the Brazilian Guideline, respectively), USA-1 and USA-2 (10-year risk estimated by the PCE ≥ 5.0% or ≥ 7.5%, respectively). Results: The final sample consisted of 13,947 individuals (48 ± 6 years, 71% men). Most individuals at intermediate or high risk based on the V Brazilian Guideline had a low risk calculated by the PCE, and more than 70% of those who were considered at high risk had this categorization because of the presence of aggravating factors. Among women, 24%, 17%, 4% and 2% were eligible for statin use according to the BR-1, BR-2, USA-1 and USA-2 criteria, respectively (p < 0.01). The respective figures for men were 75%, 58%, 31% and 17% (p < 0.01). Eighty-five percent of women and 60% of men who were eligible for statin based on the BR-1 criterion would not be candidates for statin based on the USA-1 criterion. Conclusions: As compared to the North American Guideline, the V Brazilian Guideline considers a substantially higher proportion of the population as eligible for statin use in primary prevention. This results from discrepancies between the risk stratified by the Brazilian Guideline and that calculated by the PCE, particularly because of the risk reclassification based on aggravating factors.

Resumo Fundamento: Existe controvérsia sobre a melhor forma de selecionar indivíduos para tratamento hipolipemiante na população. Objetivos: Em indivíduos saudáveis em prevenção primária: avaliar a relação entre o risco cardiovascular segundo a V Diretriz Brasileira de Dislipidemias e o risco calculado pelas pooled cohort equations (PCE); comparar a proporção de indivíduos elegíveis para estatinas, de acordo com diferentes critérios. Métodos: Em indivíduos de 40 a 75 anos submetidos consecutivamente a avaliação rotineira de saúde em um único centro, quatro critérios de elegibilidade para estatina foram definidos: BR-1, BR-2 (LDL-c acima ou pelo menos 30 mg/dL acima da meta preconizada pela diretriz brasileira, respectivamente), EUA-1 e EUA-2 (risco estimado pelas PCE em 10 anos ≥ 5,0% ou ≥ 7,5%, respectivamente). Resultados: Foram estudados 13.947 indivíduos (48 ± 6 anos, 71% homens). A maioria dos indivíduos de risco intermediário ou alto pela V Diretriz apresentou risco calculado pelas PCE baixo e mais de 70% daqueles considerados de alto risco o foram devido à presença de fator agravante. Foram elegíveis para estatina 24%, 17%, 4% e 2% das mulheres pelos critérios BR-1, BR-2, EUA-1 e EUA-2, respectivamente (p < 0,01). Os respectivos valores para os homens foram 75%, 58%, 31% e 17% (p < 0,01). Oitenta e cinco por cento das mulheres e 60% dos homens elegíveis para estatina pelo critério BR-1 não seriam candidatos pelo critério EUA-1. Conclusões: Comparada à diretriz norte-americana, a V Diretriz Brasileira considera uma proporção substancialmente maior da população como elegível para estatina em prevenção primária. Isso se relaciona com discrepâncias entre o risco estratificado pela diretriz brasileira e o calculado pelas PCE, particularmente devido à reclassificação de risco baseada em fatores agravantes.

The Expected Cardiovascular Benefit of Plasma Cholesterol Lowering with or Without LDL-C Targets in Healthy Individuals at Higher Cardiovascular Risk / Benefício Cardiovascular Esperado pela Redução do Colesterol Plasmático com ou sem Metas de LDL-C em Indivíduos Saudáveis de Risco Cardiovascular mais Elevado

Abstract Background: There is controversy whether management of blood cholesterol should be based or not on LDL-cholesterol (LDL-c) target concentrations. Objectives: To compare the estimated impact of different lipid-lowering strategies, based or not on LDL-c targets, on the risk of major cardiovascular events in a population with higher cardiovascular risk. Methods: We included consecutive individuals undergoing a routine health screening in a single center who had a 10-year risk for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) ≥ 7.5% (pooled cohort equations, ACC/AHA, 2013). For each individual, we simulated two strategies based on LDL-c target (≤ 100 mg/dL [Starget-100] or ≤ 70 mg/dL [Starget-70]) and two strategies based on percent LDL-c reduction (30% [S30%] or 50% [S50%]). Results: In 1,897 subjects (57 ± 7 years, 96% men, 10-year ASCVD risk 13.7 ± 7.1%), LDL-c would be lowered from 141 ± 33 mg/dL to 99 ± 23 mg/dL in S30%, 71 ± 16 mg/dL in S50%, 98 ± 9 mg/dL in Starget-100, and 70 ± 2 mg/dL in Starget-70. Ten-year ASCVD risk would be reduced to 8.8 ± 4.8% in S50% and 8.9 ± 5.2 in Starget-70. The number of major cardiovascular events prevented in 10 years per 1,000 individuals would be 32 in S30%, 31 in Starget-100, 49 in S50%, and 48 in Starget-70. Compared with Starget-70, S50% would prevent more events in the lower LDL-c tertile and fewer events in the higher LDL-c tertile. Conclusions: The more aggressive lipid-lowering approaches simulated in this study, based on LDL-c target or percent reduction, may potentially prevent approximately 50% more hard cardiovascular events in the population compared with the less intensive treatments. Baseline LDL-c determines which strategy (based or not on LDL-c target) is more appropriate at the individual level.

Resumo Fundamentos: Há controvérsias sobre se o controle do colesterol plasmático deve ou não se basear em metas de concentração de colesterol LDL (LDL-c). Objetivos: Comparar o impacto estimado de diferentes estratégias hipolipemiantes, baseadas ou não em metas de LDL-c, sobre o risco de eventos cardiovasculares maiores em uma população de risco cardiovascular mais elevado. Métodos: Foram incluídos indivíduos consecutivamente submetidos a uma avaliação rotineira de saúde em um único centro e que apresentavam um risco em 10 anos de doença cardiovascular aterosclerótica (DCVAS) ≥ 7,5% ("pooled cohort equations", ACC/AHA, 2013). Para cada indivíduo, foram simuladas duas estratégias baseadas em meta de LDL-c (≤ 100 mg/dL [Emeta-100] ou ≤ 70 mg/dL [Emeta-70]) e duas estratégias baseadas em redução percentual do LDL-c (30% [E30%] ou 50% [E50%]). Resultados: Em 1.897 indivíduos (57 ± 7 anos, 96% homens, risco em 10 anos de DCVAS 13,7 ± 7,1%), o LDL-c seria reduzido de 141 ± 33 mg/dL para 99 ± 23 mg/dL na E30%, 71 ± 16 mg/dL na E50%, 98 ± 9 mg/dL na Emeta-100 e 70 ± 2 mg/dL na Emeta-70. O risco em 10 anos de DCVAS seria reduzido para 8,8 ± 4,8% na E50% e para 8,9 ± 5,2 na Emeta-70. O número de eventos cardiovasculares maiores prevenidos em 10 anos por 1.000 indivíduos seria de 32 na E30%, 31 na Emeta-100, 49 na E50% e 48 na Emeta-70. Em comparação com a Emeta-70, a E50% evitaria mais eventos no tercil inferior de LDL-c e menos eventos no tercil superior de LDL-c. Conclusões: As abordagens hipolipemiantes mais agressivas simuladas neste estudo, com base em meta de LDL-c ou redução percentual, podem potencialmente prevenir cerca de 50% mais eventos cardiovasculares graves na população em comparação com os tratamentos menos intensivos. Os níveis basais de LDL-c determinam qual estratégia (baseada ou não em meta de LDL-c) é mais apropriada para cada indivíduo.

Design and baseline characteristics of a coronary heart disease prospective cohort: two-year experience from the strategy of registry of acute coronary syndrome study (ERICO study)

OBJECTIVES: To describe the ERICO study (Strategy of Registry of Acute Coronary Syndrome), a prospective cohort to investigate the epidemiology of acute coronary syndrome. METHODS: The ERICO study, which is being performed at a secondary general hospital in São Paulo, Brazil, is enrolling consecutive acute coronary syndrome patients who are 35 years old or older. The sociodemographic information, medical assessments, treatment data and blood samples are collected at admission. After 30 days, the medical history is updated, and additional blood and urinary samples are collected. In addition, a retinography, carotid intima-media thickness, heart rate variability and pulse-wave velocity are performed. Questionnaires about food frequency, physical activity, sleep apnea and depression are also applied. At six months and annually after an acute event, information is collected by telephone. RESULTS: From February 2009 to September 2011, 738 patients with a diagnosis of an acute coronary syndrome were enrolled. Of these, 208 (28.2%) had ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), 288 (39.0%) had non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) and 242 (32.8%) had unstable angina (UA). The mean age was 62.7 years, 58.5% were men and 77.4% had 8 years or less of education. The most common cardiovascular risk factors were hypertension (76%) and sedentarism (73.4%). Only 29.2% had a prior history of coronary heart disease. Compared with the ST-elevation myocardial infarction subgroup, the unstable angina and non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients had higher frequencies of hypertension, diabetes, prior coronary heart disease (p<0.001) and dyslipidemia (p = 0.03). Smoking was more frequent in the ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients (p = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with other hospital registries, our findings revealed a higher burden of CV risk factors and less frequent prior CHD history.