Diagnostic Performance of Coronary Angiography Derived Computational Fractional Flow Reserve.

BACKGROUND: Computational fluid dynamics can compute fractional flow reserve (FFR) accurately. However, existing models are limited by either the intravascular hemodynamic phenomarkers that can be captured or the fidelity of geometries that can be modeled. METHODS AND RESULTS: This study aimed to validate a new coronary angiography-based FFR framework, FFRHARVEY, and examine intravascular hemodynamics to identify new biomarkers that could augment FFR in discerning unrevascularized patients requiring intervention. A 2-center cohort was used to examine diagnostic performance of FFRHARVEY compared with reference wire-based FFR (FFRINVASIVE). Additional biomarkers, longitudinal vorticity, velocity, and wall shear stress, were evaluated for their ability to augment FFR and indicate major adverse cardiac events. A total of 160 patients with 166 lesions were investigated. FFRHARVEY was compared with FFRINVASIVE by investigators blinded to the invasive FFR results with a per-stenosis area under the curve of 0.91, positive predictive value of 90.2%, negative predictive value of 89.6%, sensitivity of 79.3%, and specificity of 95.4%. The percentage ofdiscrepancy for continuous values of FFR was 6.63%. We identified a hemodynamic phenomarker, longitudinal vorticity, as a metric indicative of major adverse cardiac events in unrevascularized gray-zone cases. CONCLUSIONS: FFRHARVEY had high performance (area under the curve: 0.91, positive predictive value: 90.2%, negative predictive value: 89.6%) compared with FFRINVASIVE. The proposed framework provides a robust and accurate way to compute a complete set of intravascular phenomarkers, in which longitudinal vorticity was specifically shown to differentiate vessels predisposed to major adverse cardiac events.

Concordance With Screening and Treatment Guidelines for Chronic Kidney Disease in Type 2 Diabetes.

Importance: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is an often-asymptomatic complication of type 2 diabetes (T2D) that requires annual screening to diagnose. Patient-level factors linked to inadequate screening and treatment can inform implementation strategies to facilitate guideline-recommended CKD care. Objective: To identify risk factors for nonconcordance with guideline-recommended CKD screening and treatment in patients with T2D. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study was performed at 20 health care systems contributing data to the US National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network. To evaluate concordance with CKD screening guidelines, adults with an outpatient clinician visit linked to T2D diagnosis between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2020, and without known CKD were included. A separate analysis reviewed prescription of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors in adults with CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] of 30-90 mL/min/1.73 m2 and urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio [UACR] of 200-5000 mg/g) and an outpatient clinician visit for T2D between October 1, 2019, and December 31, 2020. Data were analyzed from July 8, 2022, through June 22, 2023. Exposures: Demographics, lifestyle factors, comorbidities, medications, and laboratory results. Main Outcomes and Measures: Screening required measurement of creatinine levels and UACR within 15 months of the index visit. Treatment reflected prescription of ACEIs or ARBs and SGLT2 inhibitors within 12 months before or 6 months following the index visit. Results: Concordance with CKD screening guidelines was assessed in 316 234 adults (median age, 59 [IQR, 50-67] years), of whom 51.5% were women; 21.7%, Black; 10.3%, Hispanic; and 67.6%, White. Only 24.9% received creatinine and UACR screening, 56.5% received 1 screening measurement, and 18.6% received neither. Hispanic ethnicity was associated with lack of screening (relative risk [RR], 1.16 [95% CI, 1.14-1.18]). In contrast, heart failure, peripheral arterial disease, and hypertension were associated with a lower risk of nonconcordance. In 4215 patients with CKD and albuminuria, 3288 (78.0%) received an ACEI or ARB; 194 (4.6%), an SGLT2 inhibitor; and 885 (21.0%), neither therapy. Peripheral arterial disease and lower eGFR were associated with lack of CKD treatment, while diuretic or statin prescription and hypertension were associated with treatment. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of patients with T2D, fewer than one-quarter received recommended CKD screening. In patients with CKD and albuminuria, 21.0% did not receive an SGLT2 inhibitor or an ACEI or an ARB, despite compelling indications. Patient-level factors may inform implementation strategies to improve CKD screening and treatment in people with T2D.

Case Volumes and Outcomes Among Early-Career Interventional Cardiologists in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the procedural characteristics, case volumes, and mortality rates for early- vs non-early-career interventional cardiologists in the United States. OBJECTIVES: This study examined operator-level data for patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) between April 2018 and June 2022. METHODS: Data were collected from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI Registry, American Board of Internal Medicine certification database, and National Plan and Provider Enumeration System database. Early-career operators were within 5 years of the end of training. Annual case volume, expected mortality and bleeding risk, and observed/predicted mortality and bleeding outcomes were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 1,451 operators were early career; 1,011 changed their career status during the study; and 6,251 were non-early career. Overall, 514,540 patients were treated by early-career and 2,296,576 patients by non-early-career operators. The median annual case volume per operator was 59 (Q1-Q3: 31-97) for early-career and 57 (Q1-Q3: 28-100) for non-early-career operators. Early-career operators were more likely to treat patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and urgent indications for PCI (both P < 0.001). The median predicted mortality risk was 2.0% (Q1-Q3: 1.5%-2.7%) for early-career and 1.8% (Q1-Q3: 1.2%-2.4%) for non-early-career operators. The median predicted bleeding risk was 4.9% (Q1-Q3: 4.2%-5.7%) for early-career and 4.4% (Q1-Q3: 3.7%-5.3%) for non-early-career operators. After adjustment, an increased risk of mortality (OR: 1.08; 95% CI: 1.05-1.17; P < 0.0001) and bleeding (OR: 1.08; 95% CI: 1.05-1.12; P < 0.0001) were associated with early-career status. CONCLUSIONS: Early-career operators are caring for patients with more acute presentations and higher predicted risk of mortality and bleeding compared with more experienced colleagues, with modestly worse outcomes. These data should inform institutional practices to support the development of early-career proceduralists.

Framework of the strengths and challenges of clinically integrated trials: An expert panel report.

The limitations of the explanatory clinical trial framework include the high expense of implementing explanatory trials, restrictive entry criteria for participants, and redundant logistical processes. These limitations can result in slow evidence generation that is not responsive to population health needs, yielding evidence that is not generalizable. Clinically integrated trials, which integrate clinical research into routine care, represent a potential solution to this challenge and an opportunity to support learning health systems. The operational and design features of clinically integrated trials include a focused scope, simplicity in design and requirements, the leveraging of existing data structures, and patient participation in the entire trial process. These features are designed to minimize barriers to participation and trial execution and reduce additional research burdens for participants and clinicians alike. Broad adoption and scalability of clinically integrated trials are dependent, in part, on continuing regulatory, healthcare system, and payer support. This analysis presents a framework of the strengths and challenges of clinically integrated trials and is based on a multidisciplinary expert "Think Tank" panel discussion that included representatives from patient populations, academia, non-profit funding agencies, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and industry.

2024 ACC/AHA/AACVPR/APMA/ABC/SCAI/SVM/SVN/SVS/SIR/VESS Guideline for the Management of Lower Extremity Peripheral Artery Disease: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: The "2024 ACC/AHA/AACVPR/APMA/ABC/SCAI/SVM/SVN/SVS/SIR/VESS Guideline for the Management of Lower Extremity Peripheral Artery Disease" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with lower extremity peripheral artery disease across its multiple clinical presentation subsets (ie, asymptomatic, chronic symptomatic, chronic limb-threatening ischemia, and acute limb ischemia). METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from October 2020 to June 2022, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that was published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINHL Complete, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2023 during the peer review process, were also considered by the writing committee and added to the evidence tables where appropriate. STRUCTURE: Recommendations from the "2016 AHA/ACC Guideline on the Management of Patients With Lower Extremity Peripheral Artery Disease" have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing comprehensive care for patients with peripheral artery disease have been developed.

2024 ACC/AHA/AACVPR/APMA/ABC/SCAI/SVM/SVN/SVS/SIR/VESS Guideline for the Management of Lower Extremity Peripheral Artery Disease: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: The "2024 ACC/AHA/AACVPR/APMA/ABC/SCAI/SVM/SVN/SVS/SIR/VESS Guideline for the Management of Lower Extremity Peripheral Artery Disease" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with lower extremity peripheral artery disease across its multiple clinical presentation subsets (ie, asymptomatic, chronic symptomatic, chronic limb-threatening ischemia, and acute limb ischemia). METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from October 2020 to June 2022, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that was published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINHL Complete, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2023 during the peer review process, were also considered by the writing committee and added to the evidence tables where appropriate. STRUCTURE: Recommendations from the "2016 AHA/ACC Guideline on the Management of Patients With Lower Extremity Peripheral Artery Disease" have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing comprehensive care for patients with peripheral artery disease have been developed.

Left Ventricular Function, Congestion, and Effect of Empagliflozin on Heart Failure Risk After Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: Empagliflozin reduces the risk of heart failure (HF) hospitalizations but not all-cause mortality when started within 14 days of acute myocardial infarction (AMI). OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate the association of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), congestion, or both, with outcomes and the impact of empagliflozin in reducing HF risk post-AMI. METHODS: In the EMPACT-MI (Trial to Evaluate the Effect of Empagliflozin on Hospitalization for Heart Failure and Mortality in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction) trial, patients were randomized within 14 days of an AMI complicated by either newly reduced LVEF<45%, congestion, or both, to empagliflozin (10 mg daily) or placebo and were followed up for a median of 17.9 months. RESULTS: Among 6,522 patients, the mean baseline LVEF was 41 ± 9%; 2,648 patients (40.6%) presented with LVEF <45% alone, 1,483 (22.7%) presented with congestion alone, and 2,181 (33.4%) presented with both. Among patients in the placebo arm of the trial, multivariable adjusted risk for each 10-point reduction in LVEF included all-cause death or HF hospitalization (HR: 1.49; 95% CI: 1.31-1.69; P < 0.0001), first HF hospitalization (HR: 1.64; 95% CI: 1.37-1.96; P < 0.0001), and total HF hospitalizations (rate ratio [RR]: 1.89; 95% CI: 1.51-2.36; P < 0.0001). The presence of congestion was also associated with a significantly higher risk for each of these outcomes (HR: 1.52, 1.94, and RR: 2.03, respectively). Empagliflozin reduced the risk for first (HR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.60-0.98) and total (RR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.50-0.89) HF hospitalizations, irrespective of LVEF or congestion, or both. The safety profile of empagliflozin was consistent across baseline LVEF and irrespective of congestion status. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with AMI, the severity of left ventricular dysfunction and the presence of congestion was associated with worse outcomes. Empagliflozin reduced first and total HF hospitalizations across the range of LVEF with and without congestion. (Trial to Evaluate the Effect of Empagliflozin on Hospitalization for Heart Failure and Mortality in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction [EMPACT-MI]; NCT04509674).

Effect of Empagliflozin on Heart Failure Outcomes After Acute Myocardial Infarction: Insights From the EMPACT-MI Trial.

BACKGROUND: Empagliflozin reduces the risk of heart failure (HF) events in patients with type 2 diabetes at high cardiovascular risk, chronic kidney disease, or prevalent HF irrespective of ejection fraction. Whereas the EMPACT-MI trial (Effect of Empagliflozin on Hospitalization for Heart Failure and Mortality in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction) showed that empagliflozin does not reduce the risk of the composite of hospitalization for HF and all-cause death, the effect of empagliflozin on first and recurrent HF events after myocardial infarction is unknown. METHODS: EMPACT-MI was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, event-driven trial that randomized 6522 patients hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction at risk for HF on the basis of newly developed left ventricular ejection fraction of <45% or signs or symptoms of congestion to receive empagliflozin 10 mg daily or placebo within 14 days of admission. In prespecified secondary analyses, treatment groups were analyzed for HF outcomes. RESULTS: Over a median follow-up of 17.9 months, the risk for first HF hospitalization and total HF hospitalizations was significantly lower in the empagliflozin compared with the placebo group (118 [3.6%] versus 153 [4.7%] patients with events; hazard ratio, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.60, 0.98]; P=0.031, for first HF hospitalization; 148 versus 207 events; rate ratio, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.51, 0.89]; P=0.006, for total HF hospitalizations). Subgroup analysis showed consistency of empagliflozin benefit across clinically relevant patient subgroups for first and total HF hospitalizations. The need for new use of diuretics, renin-angiotensin modulators, or mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists after discharge was less in patients randomized to empagliflozin versus placebo (all P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Empagliflozin reduced the risk of HF in patients with left ventricular dysfunction or congestion after acute myocardial infarction. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04509674.

Empagliflozin after Acute Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: Empagliflozin improves cardiovascular outcomes in patients with heart failure, patients with type 2 diabetes who are at high cardiovascular risk, and patients with chronic kidney disease. The safety and efficacy of empagliflozin in patients who have had acute myocardial infarction are unknown. METHODS: In this event-driven, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, we assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, patients who had been hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction and were at risk for heart failure to receive empagliflozin at a dose of 10 mg daily or placebo in addition to standard care within 14 days after admission. The primary end point was a composite of hospitalization for heart failure or death from any cause as assessed in a time-to-first-event analysis. RESULTS: A total of 3260 patients were assigned to receive empagliflozin and 3262 to receive placebo. During a median follow-up of 17.9 months, a first hospitalization for heart failure or death from any cause occurred in 267 patients (8.2%) in the empagliflozin group and in 298 patients (9.1%) in the placebo group, with incidence rates of 5.9 and 6.6 events, respectively, per 100 patient-years (hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76 to 1.06; P = 0.21). With respect to the individual components of the primary end point, a first hospitalization for heart failure occurred in 118 patients (3.6%) in the empagliflozin group and in 153 patients (4.7%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.98), and death from any cause occurred in 169 (5.2%) and 178 (5.5%), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.19). Adverse events were consistent with the known safety profile of empagliflozin and were similar in the two trial groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients at increased risk for heart failure after acute myocardial infarction, treatment with empagliflozin did not lead to a significantly lower risk of a first hospitalization for heart failure or death from any cause than placebo. (Funded by Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly; EMPACT-MI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04509674.).

Shorter Dual Antiplatelet Therapy for Older Adults After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

Importance: The optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) for older adults after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is uncertain because they are simultaneously at higher risk for both ischemic and bleeding events. Objective: To investigate the association of abbreviated DAPT with adverse clinical events among older adults after PCI. Data Sources: The Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched from inception to August 9, 2023. Study Selection: Randomized clinical trials comparing any 2 of 1, 3, 6, and 12 months of DAPT were included if they reported results for adults aged 65 years or older or 75 years or older. Data Extraction and Synthesis: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline was used to abstract data and assess data quality. Risk ratios for each duration of DAPT were calculated with alternation of the reference group. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome of interest was net adverse clinical events (NACE). Secondary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and bleeding. Results: In 14 randomized clinical trials comprising 19 102 older adults, no differences were observed in the risks of NACE or MACE for 1, 3, 6, and 12 months of DAPT. However, 3 months of DAPT was associated with a lower risk of bleeding compared with 6 months of DAPT (relative risk [RR], 0.50 [95% CI, 0.29-0.84]) and 12 months of DAPT (RR, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.45-0.71]) among older adults. One month of DAPT was also associated with a lower risk of bleeding compared with 6 months of DAPT (RR, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.54-0.86]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this systematic review and meta-analysis of different durations of DAPT for older adults after PCI, an abbreviated DAPT duration was associated with a lower risk of bleeding without any concomitant increase in the risk of MACE or NACE despite the concern for higher-risk coronary anatomy and comorbidities among older adults. This study, which represents the first network meta-analysis of this shortened treatment for older adults, suggests that clinicians may consider abbreviating DAPT for older adults.

Age and Aspirin Dosing in Secondary Prevention of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease.

BACKGROUND: In patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, increasing age is concurrently associated with higher risks of ischemic and bleeding events. The objectives are to determine the impact of aspirin dose on clinical outcomes according to age in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. METHODS AND RESULTS: In the ADAPTABLE (Aspirin Dosing: A Patient-Centric Trial Assessing Benefits and Long-Term Effectiveness) trial, patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease were randomized to daily aspirin doses of 81 mg or 325 mg. The primary effectiveness end point was death from any cause, hospitalization for myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for stroke. The primary safety end point was hospitalization for bleeding requiring transfusion. A total of 15 076 participants were randomized to aspirin 81 mg (n=7540) or 325 mg (n=7536) daily (median follow-up: 26.2 months; interquartile range: 19.0-34.9 months). Median age was 67.6 years (interquartile range: 60.7-73.6 years). Among participants aged <65 years (n=5841 [38.7%]), a primary end point occurred in 226 (7.54%) in the 81 mg group, and in 191 (6.80%) in the 325 mg group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.23 [95% CI, 1.01-1.49]). Among participants aged ≥65 years (n=9235 [61.3%]), a primary end point occurred in 364 (7.12%) in the 81 mg group, and in 378 (7.96%) in the 325 mg group (adjusted HR, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.82-1.10]). The age-dose interaction was not significant (P=0.559). There was no significant interaction between age and the randomized aspirin dose for the secondary effectiveness and the primary safety bleeding end points (P>0.05 for all). CONCLUSIONS: Age does not modify the impact of aspirin dosing (81 mg or 325 mg daily) on clinical end points in secondary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

Outcomes of peripheral artery disease and polyvascular disease in patients with end-stage kidney disease.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) and end-stage kidney disease are a high-risk population, and concomitant atherosclerosis in coronary arteries (CAD) or cerebral arteries (CVD) is common. The aim of the study was to assess long-term outcomes of PAD and the impact of coexistent CAD and CVD on outcomes. METHODS: The United States Renal Data System was used to identify patients with PAD within 6 months of incident dialysis. Four groups were formed: PAD alone, PAD with CAD, PAD with CVD, and PAD with CAD and CVD. PAD-specific outcomes (chronic limb-threatening ischemia, major amputation, percutaneous/surgical revascularization, and their composite, defined as major adverse limb events [MALE]) as well as all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke were studied. RESULTS: The study included 106,567 patients (mean age, 71.2 years; 40.8% female) with a median follow-up of 546 days (interquartile range, 214-1096 days). Most patients had PAD and CAD (49.8%), 25.8% had PAD alone, and 19.2% had all three territories involved. MALE rate in patients with PAD was 22.3% and 35.0% at 1 and 3 years, respectively. In comparison to PAD alone, the coexistence of both CAD and CVD (ie, polyvascular disease) was associated with a higher adjusted rates of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 1.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.24-1.31), myocardial infarction (HR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.69-1.88), stroke (HR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.52,1.80), and MALE (HR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.04-1.11). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with end-stage kidney disease have a high burden of PAD with poor long-term outcomes, which worsen, in an incremental fashion, with the involvement of each additional diseased arterial bed.

Comparative Effectiveness of Aspirin Dosing in Cardiovascular Disease and Diabetes Mellitus: A Subgroup Analysis of the ADAPTABLE Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) and concomitant atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) must be on the most effective dose of aspirin to mitigate risk of future adverse cardiovascular events. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: ADAPTABLE, an open-label, pragmatic study, randomized patients with stable, chronic ASCVD to 81 mg or 325 mg of daily aspirin. The effects of aspirin dosing was assessed on the primary effectiveness outcome, a composite of all-cause death, hospitalization for myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for stroke, and the primary safety outcome of hospitalization for major bleeding. In this prespecified analysis, we used Cox proportional hazards models to compare aspirin dosing in patients with and without DM for the primary effectiveness and safety outcome. RESULTS: Of 15,076 patients, 5,676 (39%) had DM of whom 2,820 (49.7%) were assigned to 81 mg aspirin and 2,856 (50.3%) to 325 mg aspirin. Patients with versus without DM had higher rates of the composite cardiovascular outcome (9.6% vs. 5.9%; P < 0.001) and bleeding events (0.78% vs. 0.50%; P < 0.001). When comparing 81 mg vs. 325 mg of aspirin, patients with DM had no difference in the primary effectiveness outcome (9.3% vs. 10.0%; hazard ratio [HR] 0.98 [95% CI 0.83-1.16]; P = 0.265) or safety outcome (0.87% vs. 0.69%; subdistribution HR 1.25 [95% CI 0.72-2.16]; P = 0.772). CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms the inherently higher risk of patients with DM irrespective of aspirin dosing. Our findings suggest that a higher dose of aspirin yields no added clinical benefit, even in a more vulnerable population.

Effectiveness and Safety of Enteric-Coated vs Uncoated Aspirin in Patients With Cardiovascular Disease: A Secondary Analysis of the ADAPTABLE Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Clinicians recommend enteric-coated aspirin to decrease gastrointestinal bleeding in secondary prevention of coronary artery disease even though studies suggest platelet inhibition is decreased with enteric-coated vs uncoated aspirin formulations. Objective: To assess whether receipt of enteric-coated vs uncoated aspirin is associated with effectiveness or safety outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: This is a post hoc secondary analysis of ADAPTABLE (Aspirin Dosing: A Patient-Centric Trial Assessing Benefits and Long-term Effectiveness), a pragmatic study of 15 076 patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease having data in the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network. Patients were enrolled from April 19, 2016, through June 30, 2020, and randomly assigned to receive high (325 mg) vs low (81 mg) doses of daily aspirin. The present analysis assessed the effectiveness and safety of enteric-coated vs uncoated aspirin among those participants who reported aspirin formulation at baseline. Data were analyzed from November 11, 2019, to July 3, 2023. Intervention: ADAPTABLE participants were regrouped according to aspirin formulation self-reported at baseline, with a median (IQR) follow-up of 26.2 (19.8-35.4) months. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary effectiveness end point was the cumulative incidence of the composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, or death from any cause, and the primary safety end point was major bleeding events (hospitalization for a bleeding event with use of a blood product or intracranial hemorrhage). Cumulative incidence at median follow-up for primary effectiveness and primary safety end points was compared between participants taking enteric-coated or uncoated aspirin using unadjusted and multivariable Cox proportional hazards models. All analyses were conducted for the intention-to-treat population. Results: Baseline aspirin formulation used in ADAPTABLE was self-reported for 10 678 participants (median [IQR] age, 68.0 [61.3-73.7] years; 7285 men [68.2%]), of whom 7366 (69.0%) took enteric-coated aspirin and 3312 (31.0%) took uncoated aspirin. No significant difference in effectiveness (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR], 0.94; 95% CI, 0.80-1.09; P = .40) or safety (AHR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.49-1.37; P = .46) outcomes between the enteric-coated aspirin and uncoated aspirin cohorts was found. Within enteric-coated aspirin and uncoated aspirin, aspirin dose had no association with effectiveness (enteric-coated aspirin AHR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.88-1.45 and uncoated aspirin AHR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.83-1.18; interaction P = .41) or safety (enteric-coated aspirin AHR, 2.37; 95% CI, 1.02-5.50 and uncoated aspirin AHR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.49-1.64; interaction P = .07). Conclusions and Relevance: In this post hoc secondary analysis of the ADAPTABLE randomized clinical trial, enteric-coated aspirin was not associated with significantly higher risk of myocardial infarction, stroke, or death or with lower bleeding risk compared with uncoated aspirin, regardless of dose, although a reduction in bleeding with enteric-coated aspirin cannot be excluded. More research is needed to confirm whether enteric-coated aspirin formulations or newer formulations will improve outcomes in this population. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02697916.

Rivaroxaban Plus Aspirin Versus Aspirin Alone After Endovascular Revascularization for Symptomatic PAD: Insights From VOYAGER PAD.

BACKGROUND: Rivaroxaban plus aspirin compared with aspirin alone reduced major cardiac and ischemic limb events after lower extremity revascularization (LER) in the VOYAGER PAD (Vascular Outcomes Study of ASA Along With Rivaroxaban in Endovascular or Surgical Limb Revascularization for Peripheral Artery Disease) trial. The effect has not been described in patients undergoing endovascular LER. METHODS: The VOYAGER PAD trial randomized 6564 patients with symptomatic peripheral artery disease to a double-blinded treatment with 2.5 mg of rivaroxaban BID or matching placebo and 100 mg of aspirin daily. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of acute limb ischemia, major amputation of a vascular pathogenesis, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, or cardiovascular death. The principal safety end point was Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction major bleeding. A prespecified subgroup of patients who underwent endovascular revascularization was included. RESULTS: Endovascular LER occurred in 4379 (66.7%) patients and surgical LER in 2185 (33.3%). Over a 3-year follow-up, rivaroxaban reduced the risk of the primary outcome by 15% (hazard ratio [HR], 0.85 [95% CI, 0.76-0.96]) with an absolute risk reduction of 0.92% at 6 months and 1.04% at 3 years and a consistent benefit in those receiving endovascular (HR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.76-1.03]) or surgical LER (HR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.67-0.98]; P interaction=0.43). For endovascular-treated patients, rivaroxaban reduced the risk of acute limb ischemia or major amputation of a vascular pathogenesis by 30% (HR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.54-0.90]; P=0.005) with an absolute risk reduction of 1.0% at 6 months and 2.0% at 3 years compared with aspirin alone. Among endovascular-treated patients, the median duration of concomitant dual antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel treatment was 31 days (interquartile range, 30-58). There was a consistent benefit for rivaroxaban regardless of background clopidogrel. Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction major bleeding was significantly higher for the rivaroxaban and aspirin group for the endovascular cohort (HR, 1.66 [95% CI, 1.06-2.59]) with an absolute risk increase of 0.9% at 3 years with no increase in intracranial or fatal bleeding observed (HR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.40-1.87]; P=0.71). Mortality with rivaroxaban was higher in the endovascular-treated patients (HR, 1.24 [95% CI, 1.02-1.52]), although this finding was isolated to specific regions. CONCLUSIONS: Rivaroxaban added to aspirin or dual antiplatelet therapy after LER for peripheral artery disease reduces ischemic risk and increases major bleeding without an increased risk of intracranial or fatal bleeding. These benefits are consistent in those treated with endovascular and surgical approaches with significant benefits for major adverse limb events. These data support the use of rivaroxaban in addition to aspirin or dual antiplatelet therapy after endovascular intervention for symptomatic peripheral artery disease.

Aspirin Dosing for Secondary Prevention of Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease in Patients Treated With P2Y12 Inhibitors.

Background The ADAPTABLE (Aspirin Dosing: A Patient-Centric Trial Assessing Benefits and Long-Term Effectiveness) was a large, pragmatic, randomized controlled trial that found no difference between high- versus low-dose aspirin for secondary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Whether concomitant P2Y12 inhibitor therapy modifies the effect of aspirin dose on clinical events remains unclear. Methods and Results Participants in ADAPTABLE were stratified according to baseline use of clopidogrel or prasugrel (P2Y12 group). The primary effectiveness end point was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke; and the primary safety end point was major bleeding requiring blood transfusions. We used multivariable Cox regression to compare the relative effectiveness and safety of aspirin dose within P2Y12 and non-P2Y12 groups. Of 13 815 (91.6%) participants with available data, 3051 (22.1%) were receiving clopidogrel (2849 [93.4%]) or prasugrel (203 [6.7%]) at baseline. P2Y12 inhibitor use was associated with higher risk of the primary effectiveness end point (10.86% versus 6.31%; adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.40 [95% CI, 1.22-1.62]) but was not associated with bleeding (0.95% versus 0.53%; adjusted HR, 1.42 [95% CI, 0.91-2.22]). We found no interaction in the relative effectiveness and safety of high- versus low-dose aspirin by P2Y12 inhibitor use. Overall, dose switching or discontinuation was more common in the high-dose compared with low-dose aspirin group, but the pattern was not modified by P2Y12 inhibitor use. Conclusions In this prespecified analysis of ADAPTABLE, we found that the relative effectiveness and safety of high- versus low-dose aspirin was not modified by baseline P2Y12 inhibitor use. Registration https://www.clinical.trials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02697916.

Baseline characteristics of patients enrolled in the EMPACT-MI trial.

AIMS: Empagliflozin has been shown to reduce the risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes and in those with heart failure. The impact of empagliflozin in post-acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Study to Test the Effect of Empagliflozin on Hospitalization for Heart Failure and Mortality in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction (EMPACT-MI) trial screened 6610 participants with AMI and randomized 6522 to empagliflozin or placebo in addition to standard of care. The median (interquartile) age was 64 (56-71) years and 75.1% of patients were male. Major comorbidities included hypertension (69.1%), type 2 diabetes (31.7%), prior myocardial infarction (13.0%), and atrial fibrillation (10.9%). The majority (74.3%) of patients presented with an ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Overall, 56.9% of patients had acute signs or symptoms of congestion requiring treatment and 78.3% had left ventricular systolic dysfunction with ejection fraction <45%. Clinical characteristics, including baseline demographics, rates of revascularization, and cardiovascular medications at discharge were largely comparable to recent trials of the post-AMI population. CONCLUSION: The EMPACT-MI trial will establish the benefit and risks of empagliflozin treatment in patients with AMI.