Myocardial viability and long-term outcomes in ischemic cardiomyopathy

BACKGROUND: The role of assessment of myocardial viability in identifying patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy who might benefit from surgical revascularization remains controversial. Furthermore, although improvement in left ventricular function is one of the goals of revascularization, its relationship to subsequent outcomes is unclear. METHODS: Among 601 patients who had coronary artery disease that was amenable to coronaryartery bypass grafting (CABG) and who had a left ventricular ejection fraction of 35% or lower, we prospectively assessed myocardial viability using single-photonemission computed tomography, dobutamine echocardiography, or both. Patients were randomly assigned to undergo CABG and receive medical therapy or to receive medical therapy alone. Left ventricular ejection fraction was measured at baseline and after 4 months of follow-up in 318 patients. The primary end point was death from any cause. The median duration of follow-up was 10.4 years. RESULTS: CABG plus medical therapy was associated with a lower incidence of death from any cause than medical therapy alone (182 deaths among 298 patients in the CABG group vs. 209 deaths among 303 patients in the medical-therapy group; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.60 to 0.90). However, no significant interaction was observed between the presence or absence of myocardial viability and the beneficial effect of CABG plus medical therapy over medical therapy alone (P=0.34 for interaction). An increase in left ventricular ejection fraction was observed only among patients with myocardial viability, irrespective of treatment assignment. There was no association between changes in left ventricular ejection fraction and subsequent death. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study do not support the concept that myocardial viability is associated with a long-term benefit of CABG in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy. The presence of viable myocardium was associated with improvement in left ventricular systolic function, irrespective of treatment, but such improvement was not related to long-term survival. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health; STICH ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00023595.). (AU)

Apixaban in patients with atrial fibrillation

Background Vitamin K antagonists have been shown to prevent stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation. However, many patients are not suitable candidates for or are unwilling to receive vitamin K antagonist therapy, and these patients have a high risk of stroke. Apixaban, a novel factor Xa inhibitor, may be an alternative treatment for such patients.Methods In a double-blind study, we randomly assigned 5599 patients with atrial fibrillation who were at increased risk for stroke and for whom vitamin K antagonist therapy was unsuitable to receive apixaban (at a dose of 5 mg twice daily) or aspirin (81 to 324 mgper day), to determine whether apixaban was superior. The mean follow up period was 1.1 years. The primary outcome was the occurrence of stroke or systemic embolism.Results Before enrollment, 40% of the patients had used a vitamin K antagonist. The data and safety monitoring board recommended early termination of the study because of a clear benefit in favor of apixaban. There were 51 primary outcome events (1.6% per year) among patients assigned to apixaban and 113 (3.7% per year) among those assigned to aspirin (hazard ratio with apixaban, 0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI],0.32 to 0.62; P<0.001). The rates of death were 3.5% per year in the apixaban group and 4.4% per year in the aspirin group (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.62 to 1.02; P = 0.07).There were 44 cases of major bleeding (1.4% per year) in the apixaban group and 39 (1.2% per year) in the aspirin group (hazard ratio with apixaban, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.75; P = 0.57); there were 11 cases of intracranial bleeding with apixaban and 13 with aspirin. The risk of a first hospitalization for cardiovascular causes was reduced with apixaban as compared with aspirin (12.6% per year vs. 15.9% per year, P<0.001). The treatment effects were consistent among important subgroups...