Outcomes among patients with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction on chronic anticoagulation: Insights from the National Inpatient Sample.

BACKGROUND: Chronic systemic anticoagulation use is prevalent for various thromboembolic conditions. Anticoagulation (usually through heparin products) is also recommended for the initial management of non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI). AIMS: To evaluate the in-hospital outcomes of patients with NSTEMI who have been on chronic anticoagulation. METHODS: Using the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) years 2016-2020, NSTEMI patients and patients with chronic anticoagulation were identified using the appropriate International Classification of Diseases, 10th version (ICD-10) appropriate codes. The primary outcome was all-cause in-hospital mortality while the secondary outcomes included major bleeding, ischemic cerebrovascular accident (CVA), early percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (i.e., within 24 h of admission), coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) during hospitalization, length of stay (LOS), and total charges. Multivariate logistic or linear regression analyses were performed after adjusting for patient-level and hospital-level factors. RESULTS: Among 2,251,914 adult patients with NSTEMI, 190,540 (8.5%) were on chronic anticoagulation. Chronic anticoagulation use was associated with a lower incidence of in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 0.69, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.65-0.73, p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in major bleeding (aOR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.88-1.0, p = 0.15) or ischemic CVA (aOR: 0.23, 95% CI: 0.03-1.69, p = 0.15). Chronic anticoagulation use was associated with a lower incidence of early PCI (aOR: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.76-0.80, p < 0.001) and CABG (aOR: 0.43, 95% CI: 0.41-0.45, p < 0.001). Chronic anticoagulation was also associated with decreased LOS and total charges (adjusted mean difference [aMD]: -0.8 days, 95% CI: -0.86 to -0.75, p < 0.001) and (aMD: $-19,340, 95% CI: -20,692 to -17,988, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients admitted with NSTEMI, chronic anticoagulation use was associated with lower in-hospital mortality, LOS, and total charges, with no difference in the incidence of major bleeding.

Intravitreal Infliximab for the Treatment of Proliferative Vitreoretinopathy (FIXER): A Randomized Controlled Phase II Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To study the safety and efficacy of intravitreal infliximab administered at the conclusion of pars plana vitrectomy (PPV) in the treatment of proliferative vitreoretinopathy (PVR) associated with rhegmatogenous retinal detachment (RRD). DESIGN: Randomized controlled phase II clinical trial. SUBJECTS: Patients with primary RRD and grade C PVR, according to the updated Retina Society Classification. METHODS: Sixty-six patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to undergo PPV and silicone oil (SO) injection with or without intravitreal injection of 1 mg/0.05 mL of infliximab in the air-filled globe before SO injection at PPV conclusion. Surgeons were masked to treatment allocation until PPV conclusion. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was anatomic success (defined as complete retinal reattachment without a tamponade at 6 months post SO removal). Secondary outcome measures were final best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), single-operation success rate (SOSR), rate of recurrent detachment, central macular thickness (CMT) by macular OCT, macular function by multifocal electroretinogram, and macular vascular density (VD) by OCT angiography. RESULTS: Sixty eyes of 60 patients, 30 eyes in each group, completed the study. At baseline, there were no differences regarding age, gender, history of trauma, lens status, duration of RRD, BCVA, intraocular pressure (IOP), intraocular inflammation (IOI), detachment extent in clock hours, number/size of breaks, presence of vitreous hemorrhage, axial length, or grade/extent of PVR between both groups. For the outcome measures, 30 eyes in the infliximab group achieved anatomic success vs. 29 eyes in the control group. The SOSR was higher in the infliximab group (26) vs. the control (23), but this was not statistically significant (P = 0.317). Final logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution BCVA was better in the infliximab group (mean, 0.96; standard deviation [SD], 0.4; Snellen equivalent ≈ 20/180) vs. the control (mean, 1.14; SD, 0.4); Snellen equivalent ≈ 20/280; P = 0.044). There were no differences regarding IOP, IOI, time of SO removal, macular function, CMT, or VD. CONCLUSIONS: Pars plana vitrectomy with SO tamponade with or without intravitreal infliximab is effective in treating PVR-associated RRD. Infliximab may be associated with modest improvement in final visual outcomes but not anatomic outcomes. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): The authors have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.

Safety outcomes of SGLT2i in the heart failure trials: A systematic review and Meta-analysis.

AIMS: Sodium-glucose co-transporter inhibitors (SGLT2i) are emerging as a new treatment for heart failure (HF) after demonstrating favorable clinical outcomes in several randomized controlled trials (RCTs). In this meta-analysis, we assessed the safety of SGLT2i in the trials that prespecified heart failure in their inclusion criteria. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched the databases for RCTs comparing SGLT2i to placebo in heart failure patients. The primary outcome was the incidence of serious adverse events (SAEs). A sensitivity analysis according to the class of HF was also performed. RESULTS: The incidence of SAEs was significantly lower in the SGLT2i group (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.77-0.92; P, 0.0002) and SAEs remained significantly lower after performing the sensitivity analysis (OR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.75-0.89; P, <0.00001). Genital infections, urinary tract infections (UTIs), and hypotension were significantly higher in the SGLT2i group. CONCLUSIONS: SGLT2i remain a safe option for patients with HF with a lower incidence of SAEs. However, since they increase the risk of genital infection, UTIs and hypotension, the risks vs benefits in each patient should be weighed when making a prescribing decision.

The benefit of GLP-1RA in different age groups in the cardiovascular outcome trials.

There may be hesitancy in prescribing GLP-1RA in older adults. On pooling results from the CVOTs comparing GLP-1RA to placebo, there was a significantly lower incidence of MACE favoring GLP-1RA in both younger and older adults. GLP-1RA should be considered in high risk patients regardless of age.