Quality of anticoagulation with warfarin in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation in the community setting.

BACKGROUND: The benefit of oral anticoagulation therapy with warfarin for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF) is directly dependent on the quality of anticoagulation (QoA), which in the US is provided predominantly in the community setting. With the emergence of new oral anticoagulation agents, the current QoA needs to be assessed. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of our study is to define the QoA with warfarin in patients with nonvalvular AF who are managed exclusively in community practices, and to compare the quality in the community setting with the quality demonstrated in the recent large randomized control trials. In addition, this study will assess the differences in the QoA based on cardiology vs primary care practices. METHODS: This is a retrospective, observational, multi-center study of 392 patients with AF in the community who were initiated on anticoagulation with warfarin for stroke prevention. International Normalized Ratio (INR) values were collected over a one-year period and the QoA was expressed as time in therapeutic range (TTR) calculated by the linear interpolation method. RESULTS: One hundred patients from cardiology practices and 292 patients from primary care were studied. During the one-year period, the overall mean TTR was 56.7%. The TTR in the primary care vs cardiology practices was 55.3% vs. 60.8% (p=0.02). Both practices had similar percent of time below therapeutic range, 29.8% vs. 29.2%. However, the primary care practice patients were above the therapeutic range 15% of the time vs. 10% in cardiology (p<0.001). There were one death secondary to intracranial bleed and one major bleed in the primary care group. There were no strokes during the study period in either group. CONCLUSION: The QoA with warfarin, as assessed by TTR, in the current community setting remains suboptimal, and there has been little to no improvement in current clinical practices. TTR should be considered when assessing the recent comparative studies evaluating novel pharmacologic agents to warfarin for the treatment of AF. SUBJECT AREAS: Arrhythmias, preventive cardiology, anticoagulation, thromboembolism, cardiovascular disease risk factors.

Evaluation of a bifurcation drug-eluting stent system versus provisional T-stenting in a perfused synthetic coronary artery model.

BACKGROUND: Provisional T-stenting is a widely used strategy for the treatment of coronary artery bifurcation lesions. However, the use of conventional stents in this setting is limited by multiple factors; this includes technical considerations such as wire wrap when accessing the involved vessel, and stent overlap at or near the carina of the lesion. In addition, current slotted tube stent technology tends to be associated with gaps in the coverage of the side branch ostium, which may result in restenosis in that segment of the lesion. The Pathfinder device, now more commonly referred to as the Xience Side Branch Access System (Xience SBA) is a drug-eluting stent (DES) designed specifically to assist in the treatment of bifurcation lesions by allowing wire access into the side branch, irrespective of the treatment strategy to be employed. METHODS: The Xience SBA drug-eluting stent was compared with the standard Vision coronary stent system using a provisional T-stenting strategy in a perfused synthetic model of the coronary vasculature with side branch angulations of 30 degrees , 50 degrees , 70 degrees , and 90 degrees . Stent delivery was performed under fluoroscopic guidance. Following the procedure, high-resolution 2D Faxitron imaging was used to evaluate deployment accuracy of the side branch stent relative to the main branch stent. RESULTS: Deployment of the Xience SBA was accomplished in the same total time as the standard stents in a provisional T-stenting approach (14.9 vs. 14.6 minutes). However, the time required to achieve stent deployment in the main branch was less with the Xience SBA (4.0 vs. 6.6 minutes), and as a result, total contrast usage (49.4 vs. 69.4 cm(3)) and fluoroscopy time (5.1 vs. 6.2 minutes) was lower. Additionally, the Xience SBA had a lower incidence of wire wrap (22% vs. 89%) and less distal protrusion of the side branch stent into the main branch (0.54 vs. 1.21 mm). Significant gaps in ostial side branch coverage were not seen in either group. CONCLUSIONS: The Xience Side Branch Access DES is a viable device for consistently accessing coronary bifurcation lesions; it allows for easy wire access into the side branch. This may assist the operator in overcoming those well-recognized limitations associated with use of standard one- or two-stent strategies. In this perfused synthetic coronary model, Xience SBA deployment required less contrast usage and shorter fluoroscopy times. Further testing of this device is warranted.

Randomized dose-ranging controlled trial of AQ-13, a candidate antimalarial, and chloroquine in healthy volunteers.

OBJECTIVES: To determine: (1) the pharmacokinetics and safety of an investigational aminoquinoline active against multidrug-resistant malaria parasites (AQ-13), including its effects on the QT interval, and (2) whether it has pharmacokinetic and safety profiles similar to chloroquine (CQ) in humans. DESIGN: Phase I double-blind, randomized controlled trials to compare AQ-13 and CQ in healthy volunteers. Randomizations were performed at each step after completion of the previous dose. SETTING: Tulane-Louisiana State University-Charity Hospital General Clinical Research Center in New Orleans. PARTICIPANTS: 126 healthy adults 21-45 years of age. INTERVENTIONS: 10, 100, 300, 600, and 1,500 mg oral doses of CQ base in comparison with equivalent doses of AQ-13. OUTCOME MEASURES: Clinical and laboratory adverse events (AEs), pharmacokinetic parameters, and QT prolongation. RESULTS: No hematologic, hepatic, renal, or other organ toxicity was observed with AQ-13 or CQ at any dose tested. Headache, lightheadedness/dizziness, and gastrointestinal (GI) tract-related symptoms were the most common AEs. Although symptoms were more frequent with AQ-13, the numbers of volunteers who experienced symptoms with AQ-13 and CQ were similar (for AQ-13 and CQ, respectively: headache, 17/63 and 10/63, p = 0.2; lightheadedness/dizziness, 11/63 and 8/63, p = 0.6; GI symptoms, 14/63 and 13/63; p = 0.9). Both AQ-13 and CQ exhibited linear pharmacokinetics. However, AQ-13 was cleared more rapidly than CQ (respectively, median oral clearance 14.0-14.7 l/h versus 9.5-11.3 l/h; p < or = 0.03). QTc prolongation was greater with CQ than AQ-13 (CQ: mean increase of 28 ms; 95% confidence interval [CI], 18 to 38 ms, versus AQ-13: mean increase of 10 ms; 95% CI, 2 to 17 ms; p = 0.01). There were no arrhythmias or other cardiac AEs with either AQ-13 or CQ. CONCLUSIONS: These studies revealed minimal differences in toxicity between AQ-13 and CQ, and similar linear pharmacokinetics.

Therapeutic angiogenesis with recombinant fibroblast growth factor-2 for intermittent claudication (the TRAFFIC study): a randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Recombinant fibroblast growth factor-2 (rFGF-2) improves perfusion in models of myocardial and hindlimb ischaemia. We investigated whether one or two doses of intra-arterial rFGF-2 improves exercise capacity in patients with moderate-to-severe intermittent claudication. METHODS: 190 patients with intermittent claudication caused by infra-inguinal atherosclerosis were randomly assigned (1:1:1) bilateral intra-arterial infusions of placebo on days 1 and 30 (n=63); rFGF-2 (30 microg/kg) on day 1 and placebo on day 30 (single-dose, n=66); or rFGF-2 (30 microg/kg) on days 1 and 30 (double-dose, n=61). Primary outcome was 90-day change in peak walking time. Secondary outcomes included ankle-brachial pressure index and safety. The main analysis was per protocol. FINDINGS: Before 90 days, six patients had undergone peripheral revascularisation and were excluded, and ten withdrew or had missing data. 174 were therefore assessed for primary outcome. Peak walking time at 90 days was increased by 0.60 min with placebo, by 1.77 min with single-dose, and by 1.54 min with double-dose. By ANOVA, the difference between groups was p=0.075. In a secondary intention-to-treat analysis, in which all 190 patients were included, the difference was p=0.034. Pairwise comparison showed a significant difference between placebo and single-dose (p=0.026) but placebo and double-dose did not differ by much (p=0.45). Serious adverse events were similar in all groups. INTERPRETATION: Intra-arterial rFGF-2 resulted in a significant increase in peak walking time at 90 days; repeat infusion at 30 days was no better than one infusion. The findings of TRAFFIC provide evidence of clinical therapeutic angiogenesis by intra-arterial infusion of an angiogenic protein.