Risk of Bleeding Among Cangrelor-Treated Patients Administered Upstream P2Y12 Inhibitor Therapy: The CAMEO Registry.

Background: Little is known about the bleeding risk associated with cangrelor use in patients with myocardial infarction (MI) who are exposed to an oral P2Y12 inhibitor before coronary angiography. Methods: Cangrelor in Acute MI: Effectiveness and Outcomes (CAMEO) is an observational registry studying platelet inhibition for patients with MI. Upstream oral P2Y12 inhibition was defined as receipt of an oral P2Y12 inhibitor within 24 hours before hospitalization or in-hospital before angiography. Among cangrelor-treated patients, we compared bleeding after cangrelor use through 7 days postdischarge between patients with and without upstream oral P2Y12 inhibitor exposure. Results: Among 1802 cangrelor-treated patients with MI, 385 (21.4%) received upstream oral P2Y12 inhibitor treatment. Of these, 101 patients (33.8%) started cangrelor within 1 hour, 103 (34.4%) between 1 and 3 hours, and 95 (31.8%), >3 hours after in-hospital oral P2Y12 inhibitor administration; the remaining received an oral P2Y12 inhibitor before hospitalization. There was no statistically significant difference in rates of bleeding among cangrelor-treated patients with and without upstream oral P2Y12 inhibitor exposure (6.5% vs 8.8%; adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.62; 95% CI, 0.38-1.01). Bleeding was observed in 5.0%, 10.7%, and 3.2% of patients treated with cangrelor <1, 1 to 3, and >3 hours after the last oral PY12 inhibitor dose, respectively; bleeding rates were not statistically different between groups (1-3 hours vs <1 hour: adjusted OR, 2.70; 95% CI, 0.87-8.32; >3 hours vs <1 hour: adjusted OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.15-2.85). Conclusions: Bleeding risk was not observed to be significantly higher after cangrelor treatment in patients with and without upstream oral P2Y12 inhibitor exposure.

When cardiovascular medicines should be discontinued.

An integral component of the practice of medicine is focused on the initiation of medications, based on clinical practice guidelines and underlying trial evidence, which usually test the addition of novel medications intended for life-long use in short-term clinical trials. Much less attention is given to the question of medication discontinuation, especially after a lengthy period of treatment, during which patients age gets older and diseases may either progress or new diseases may emerge. Given the paucity of data, clinical practice guidelines offer little to no guidance on when and how to deprescribe cardiovascular medications. Such decisions are often left to the discretion of clinicians, who, together with their patients, express concern of potential adverse effects of medication discontinuation. Even in the absence of adverse effects, the continuation of medications without any proven effect may cause harm due to drug-drug interactions, the emergence of polypharmacy, and additional preventable spending to already strained health systems. Herein, several cardiovascular medications or medication classes are discussed that in the opinion of this author group should generally be discontinued, either for the prevention of potential harm, for a lack of benefit, or for the availability of better alternatives.

Apixaban for Patients With Atrial Fibrillation on Hemodialysis: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: There are no randomized data evaluating the safety or efficacy of apixaban for stroke prevention in patients with end-stage kidney disease on hemodialysis and with atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS: The RENAL-AF trial (Renal Hemodialysis Patients Allocated Apixaban Versus Warfarin in Atrial Fibrillation) was a prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded-outcome evaluation (PROBE) of apixaban versus warfarin in patients receiving hemodialysis with AF and a CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥2. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to 5 mg of apixaban twice daily (2.5 mg twice daily for patients ≥80 years of age, weight ≤60 kg, or both) or dose-adjusted warfarin. The primary outcome was time to major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding. Secondary outcomes included stroke, mortality, and apixaban pharmacokinetics. Pharmacokinetic sampling was day 1, day 3, and month 1. RESULTS: From January 2017 through January 2019, 154 patients were randomly assigned to apixaban (n=82) or warfarin (n=72). The trial stopped prematurely because of enrollment challenges. Time in therapeutic range (international normalized ratio, 2.0-3.0) for warfarin-treated patients was 44% (interquartile range, 23%-59%). The 1-year rates for major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding were 32% and 26% in apixaban and warfarin groups, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.20 [95% CI, 0.63-2.30]), whereas 1-year rates for stroke or systemic embolism were 3.0% and 3.3% in apixaban and warfarin groups, respectively. Death was the most common major event in the apixaban (21 patients [26%]) and warfarin (13 patients [18%]) arms. The pharmacokinetic substudy enrolled the target 50 patients. Median steady-state 12-hour area under the curve was 2475 ng/mL×h (10th to 90th percentiles, 1342-3285) for 5 mg of apixaban twice daily and 1269 ng/mL×h (10th to 90th percentiles, 615-1946) for 2.5 mg of apixaban twice daily. There was substantial overlap between minimum apixaban blood concentration, 12-hour area under the curve, and maximum apixaban blood concentration for patients with and without a major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding event. CONCLUSIONS: There was inadequate power to draw any conclusion regarding rates of major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding comparing apixaban and warfarin in patients with AF and end-stage kidney disease on hemodialysis. Clinically relevant bleeding events were ≈10-fold more frequent than stroke or systemic embolism among this population on anticoagulation, highlighting the need for future randomized studies evaluating the risks versus benefits of anticoagulation among patients with AF and end-stage kidney disease on hemodialysis. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT02942407.

Cangrelor Use Patterns and Transition to Oral P2Y12 Inhibitors Among Patients With Myocardial Infarction: Initial Results From the CAMEO Registry.

Background In clinical trials, cangrelor has been shown to reduce percutaneous coronary intervention-related ischemic complications without increasing major bleeding. This study was performed to examine cangrelor use and transition to oral P2Y12 inhibitors in routine clinical practice. Methods and Results The CAMEO (Cangrelor in Acute Myocardial Infarction: Effectiveness and Outcomes) registry is a multicenter, retrospective observational study of platelet inhibition strategies for patients with myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. In phase 1, data were collected on consecutive patients with myocardial infarction (n=482) treated with any P2Y12 inhibitor to understand cangrelor use by hospital. In phase 2, data were collected in a 2:1 (cangrelor-: non-cangrelor-treated) ratio of patients with myocardial infarction (n=873). In phase 1, cangrelor use varied across hospitals (overall, 50.4% [range, 6.0%-100%]). Of patients receiving cangrelor in both phases (n=819), 3.3% received either the bolus or infusion only. Cangrelor was infused for a median of 121 (76-196) minutes; and 38.3% received an infusion for <2 hours. Most patients transitioned from cangrelor to ticagrelor (ticagrelor, 85.3%; clopidogrel, 9.5%; prasugrel, 5.2%). Many patients (16.4%) had a >1-hour gap between cangrelor cessation and oral P2Y12 inhibitor initiation; this was highest among those transitioned to clopidogrel (56.6% versus 34.5% prasugrel versus 10.8% ticagrelor; P<0.001). Only 27.3% were dosed with cangrelor and transitioned to an oral P2Y12 inhibitor in a fashion consistent with the pivotal trials and US Food and Drug Administration label. Conclusions This multicenter registry demonstrated interhospital variability in how cangrelor was administered and transitioned to an oral P2Y12 inhibitor. These findings highlight opportunities for optimization of cangrelor dosing, infusion duration, and transition of care from the catheterization laboratory to the ward setting.

Bridging Antiplatelet Therapy After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: JACC Review Topic of the Week.

Patients undergoing early surgery after coronary stent implantation are at increased risk for mortality from ischemic and hemorrhagic complications. The optimal antiplatelet strategy in patients who cannot discontinue dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) before surgery is unclear. Current guidelines, based on surgical and clinical characteristics, provide risk stratification for bridging therapy with intravenous antiplatelet agents, but management is guided primarily by expert opinion. This review summarizes perioperative risk factors to consider before discontinuing DAPT and reviews the data for intravenous bridging therapies. Published reports have included bridging options such as small molecule glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (eptifibatide or tirofiban) and cangrelor, an intravenous P2Y12 inhibitor. However, optimal management of these complex patients remains unclear in the absence of randomized controlled data, without which an argument can be made both for and against the use of perioperative intravenous bridging therapy after discontinuing oral P2Y12 inhibitors. Multidisciplinary risk assessment remains a critical component of perioperative care.

Prevention of Complications in the Cardiac Intensive Care Unit: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

Contemporary cardiac intensive care units (CICUs) have an increasing prevalence of noncardiovascular comorbidities and multisystem organ dysfunction. However, little guidance exists to support the development of best-practice principles specific to the CICU. This scientific statement evaluates strategies to avoid the potentially preventable complications encountered within contemporary CICUs, focusing on those that are most applicable to the CICU environment. This scientific statement reviews evidence-based practices derived in non-CICU populations, assesses their relevance to CICU practice, and highlights key knowledge gaps warranting further investigation to attenuate patient risk.

Patterns of amiodarone use and outcomes in clinical practice for atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Amiodarone is the most effective antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) for atrial fibrillation (AF), but it has a high incidence of adverse effects. METHODS: Using the ORBIT AF registry, patients with AF on amiodarone at enrollment, prescribed amiodarone during follow-up, or never on amiodarone were analyzed for the proportion treated with a guideline-based indication for amiodarone, the variability in amiodarone use across sites, and the outcomes (mortality, hospitalization, and stroke) among patients treated with amiodarone. Hierarchical logistic regression modeling with site-specific random intercepts compared rates of amiodarone use across 170 sites. A logistic regression model for propensity to receive amiodarone created a propensity-matched cohort. Cox proportional hazards modeling, stratified by matched pairs evaluated the association between amiodarone and outcomes. RESULTS: Among 6,987 AF patients, 867 (12%) were on amiodarone at baseline and 451 (6%) started on incident amiodarone during the 3-year follow-up. Use of amiodarone varied among sites from 3% in the lowest tertile to 21% in the highest (p<0.0001). Among those treated, 32% had documented contraindications to other AADs or had failed another AAD in the past. Mortality, cardiovascular hospitalization, and stroke were similar among matched patients on and not on amiodarone at baseline, while incident amiodarone use in matched patients was associated with higher all-cause mortality (adjusted HR 2.06, 95% CI 1.35-3.16). CONCLUSIONS: Use of amiodarone among AF patients in community practice is highly variable. More than 2 out of 3 patients treated with amiodarone appeared to be eligible for a different AAD.

Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Taking Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs and Oral Anticoagulants in the ARISTOTLE Trial.

BACKGROUND: The use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) with oral anticoagulants has been associated with an increased risk of bleeding. We investigated the risk of bleeding and major cardiovascular outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation taking NSAIDs and apixaban or warfarin. METHODS: The ARISTOTLE trial (Apixaban for Reduction in Stroke and Other Thromboembolic Events in Atrial Fibrillation; n=18 201) compared apixaban with warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation at an increased risk of stroke. Patients in ARISTOTLE without severe renal (creatine clearance ≤30 mL/min) or liver disease were included in this analysis (n=17 423). NSAID use at baseline, NSAID use during the trial (incident NSAID use), and never users were described. The primary outcome was major bleeding. Secondary outcomes included clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding, gastrointestinal bleeding, heart failure hospitalization, stroke or systemic embolism, and all-cause mortality. NSAID use during the trial, and the interaction between randomized treatment, was analyzed using time-dependent Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: Those with baseline NSAID use (n=832 [4.8%]), incident NSAID use (n=2185 [13.2%]), and never users were similar in median age (age [25th, 75th]; 70 [64, 77] versus 70 [63, 75] versus 70 [62, 76]). Those with NSAID use at baseline and incident NSAID use were more likely to have a history of bleeding than never users (24.5% versus 21.0% versus 15.6%, respectively). During a median follow-up (25th, 75th) of 1.8 (1.4, 2.3) years and when excluding those taking NSAID at baseline, we found that incident NSAID use was associated with an increased risk of major bleeding (hazard ratio [HR], 1.61 [95% CI, 1.11-2.33]) and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding (HR, 1.70 [95% CI, 1.16-2.48]), but not gastrointestinal bleeding. No significant interaction was observed between NSAID use and randomized treatment for any outcome. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial number of patients in the ARISTOTLE trial took NSAIDs. Incident NSAID use was associated with major and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding, but not with gastrointestinal bleeding. The safety and efficacy of apixaban versus warfarin appeared not significantly to be altered by NSAID use. This study warrants more investigation of the effect of NSAIDs on the outcomes of patients treated with apixaban. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00412984.

Interacting medication use and the treatment effects of apixaban versus warfarin: results from the ARISTOTLE Trial.

Warfarin is dependent on multiple hepatic enzymes for metabolism while apixaban is a substrate for P-glycoprotein (P-gp) transport and hepatic CYP3A4 metabolism. The aim of this analysis was to assess the impact of interacting medication use on the treatment effects of apixaban versus warfarin. Outcomes were compared between apixaban and warfarin using Cox proportional hazards modeling according to the use of interacting medications at randomization in ARISTOTLE (n = 18,201). Interacting medications for apixaban were identified as combined P-gp and 3A4 inhibitors or inducers while interacting medications for warfarin were defined as those highly probable for warfarin potentiation or inhibition. At randomization, 5547 (30.5%) patients were on an interacting medication, including 2722 on apixaban and 2825 on warfarin. Patients using an interacting medication were more likely to be female, taking aspirin, and have a history of prior bleeding and were less likely to have a prior stroke or transient ischemic attack. No significant differences were observed on the treatment effect of apixaban compared with warfarin in patients on and off interacting medications for outcomes including the primary efficacy outcome of stroke or systemic embolism (P for interaction = 0.79) or the primary safety outcome of major bleeding (P for interaction = 0.75). Use of interacting medications with anticoagulants occurs often in patients with atrial fibrillation. Despite the potential for altered exposure, interacting medication use was not associated with a significant change in the efficacy or safety of apixaban compared with warfarin in the ARISTOTLE trial.Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00412984.