Open access
Open access
Powered by Google Translator Translator

Cardiology (all articles)

Non-inferiority RCT: Reduced-Dose vs Full-Dose Direct Oral Anticoagulants for Extended VTE Treatment

8 Mar, 2025 | 17:46h | UTC

Background: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) carries a high risk of recurrence once anticoagulation is stopped, particularly in those with unprovoked events or persistent risk factors. Extended anticoagulation is therefore recommended for patients at high risk, but optimal dosing remains uncertain. Reduced-dose direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) may lower bleeding risk compared with full-dose regimens. However, prior trials that tested reduced-dose anticoagulation enrolled patients with less definitive indications for continuation and were not powered for head-to-head efficacy comparisons.

Objective: The RENOVE trial aimed to determine whether reduced-dose DOACs (apixaban 2.5 mg twice daily or rivaroxaban 10 mg once daily) are non-inferior to full-dose DOACs (apixaban 5 mg twice daily or rivaroxaban 20 mg once daily) in preventing VTE recurrence during extended treatment, while potentially reducing bleeding risk.

Methods: RENOVE was a non-inferiority, multicenter, randomized, open-label, blinded-endpoint trial conducted in 47 French hospitals. It included adult patients (n=2768) who had completed 6–24 months of uninterrupted full-dose anticoagulation for symptomatic pulmonary embolism or proximal deep vein thrombosis and were deemed at high risk for recurrence. Participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to a reduced-dose or a full-dose DOAC regimen. The primary outcome was symptomatic recurrent VTE (non-fatal or fatal). The main secondary outcomes included major bleeding or clinically relevant non-major bleeding, and a net clinical benefit composite of recurrent VTE plus major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding.

Results: After a median follow-up of 37.1 months, the primary outcome occurred in 19/1383 patients (5-year cumulative incidence 2.2%) in the reduced-dose arm and 15/1385 (1.8%) in the full-dose arm (adjusted HR 1.32; 95% CI 0.67–2.60; p=0.23 for non-inferiority). Major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding was significantly lower in the reduced-dose group (9.9% vs 15.2% at 5 years; HR 0.61; 95% CI 0.48–0.79). Major bleeding was 2.1% vs 4.0%, respectively. Net clinical benefit (recurrent VTE or clinically relevant bleeding) was 11.8% in the reduced-dose group versus 16.5% in the full-dose group (HR 0.67; 95% CI 0.53–0.86). Mortality and arterial events were similar between groups.

Conclusions: Reduced-dose DOACs did not meet the formal non-inferiority criterion for preventing VTE recurrence in patients requiring extended anticoagulation. Nonetheless, absolute recurrence rates were low in both arms. The reduced-dose strategy substantially lowered the risk of clinically relevant bleeding without increasing all-cause mortality. Although full-dose anticoagulation remains an option, these findings suggest that reduced-dose regimens may be clinically reasonable for many patients who need ongoing therapy.

Implications for Practice: Clinicians could consider a reduced-dose DOAC regimen for extended VTE treatment, especially in individuals at high bleeding risk, given the observed safety benefits. Treatment decisions should still account for patient-specific factors (e.g., obesity, history of severe VTE) where full-dose regimens might remain preferable.

Study Strengths and Limitations: Major strengths include the large sample size, well-defined endpoints adjudicated by a blinded committee, and extended follow-up. Limitations include the open-label design and the low rate of recurrence, which led to a sample size increase mid-study. Subgroup analyses may be underpowered to detect meaningful differences in specific populations.

Future Research: Further trials or pooled analyses are needed to clarify whether certain high-risk subgroups (e.g., those with severe obesity or active malignancy) might benefit more from continuing a full-dose regimen. Additional prospective studies could refine criteria for safe dose reductions.

Reference:

  1. Couturaud F, Schmidt J, Sanchez O, et al. Extended treatment of venous thromboembolism with reduced-dose versus full-dose direct oral anticoagulants in patients at high risk of recurrence: a non-inferiority, multicentre, randomised, open-label, blinded endpoint trial. The Lancet. 2025;405(10480). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(24)02842-3
  2. Middeldorp S, Leentjens J. Anticoagulation for extended venous thromboembolism treatment: less is really more. The Lancet. 2025;405(10480). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(25)00099-6

 

2025 ACC/AHA/ Guideline for the Management of Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes

3 Mar, 2025 | 18:02h | UTC

Introduction:

This summary highlights the key points from the 2025 ACC/AHA/ACEP/NAEMSP/SCAI Clinical Practice Guideline on the management of acute coronary syndromes (ACS). It covers both ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non–ST-segment elevation ACS (NSTE-ACS), emphasizing timely diagnosis, reperfusion strategies, risk stratification, and secondary prevention. The primary aim is to help clinicians provide evidence-based and up-to-date care to reduce mortality, complications, and long-term adverse outcomes in patients with ACS.

Key Recommendations:

  • Early and Accurate Diagnosis

    • Obtain and interpret a 12-lead ECG within 10 minutes of first medical contact in suspected ACS.
    • Use high-sensitivity troponin testing to accelerate ruling in/out myocardial infarction.

  • Reperfusion in STEMI

    • Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) is the preferred strategy if it can be performed within 90 minutes (or 120 minutes for transfers).
    • In patients with anticipated long delays, fibrinolytic therapy is recommended if there are no contraindications and the patient presents within 12 hours of symptom onset.

  • Routine Invasive vs. Selective Invasive Strategy in NSTE-ACS

    • Patients at intermediate or high ischemic risk benefit from an invasive strategy during hospitalization.
    • Low-risk patients may undergo a selective invasive approach, incorporating noninvasive testing to guide the need for angiography.

  • Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease Management

    • For hemodynamically stable STEMI patients with nonculprit lesions, complete revascularization (either during the index procedure or staged) lowers future events.
    • In NSTE-ACS, complete revascularization decisions (PCI vs. CABG) depend on anatomical complexity and comorbidities.

  • Antithrombotic Therapy

    • Initiate dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin plus a P2Y12 inhibitor (ticagrelor or prasugrel preferred over clopidogrel for most) for at least 12 months in patients without high bleeding risk.
    • To reduce bleeding risk in patients with ACS several strategies are available:
      a) in patients at risk for gastrointestinal bleeding, a proton pump inhibitor is recommended;
      b) in patients who have tolerated dual antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor, transition to ticagrelor monotherapy is recommended ≥1 month after PCI;
      c) in patients who require long-term anticoagulation, aspirin discontinuation is recommended 1 to 4 weeks after PCI with continued use of a P2Y12 inhibitor (preferably clopidogrel).

  • Parenteral Anticoagulation

    • All ACS patients should receive an anticoagulant (e.g., unfractionated heparin, low-molecular-weight heparin, bivalirudin) depending on the clinical scenario and planned strategy (PCI, CABG, or medical management).

  • Lipid Management

    • High-intensity statin therapy is recommended in all ACS patients.
    • Add a nonstatin agent (e.g., ezetimibe, PCSK9 inhibitor) if LDL cholesterol remains ≥70 mg/dL on maximally tolerated statin.

  • Heart Failure and Cardiogenic Shock

    • In acute MI with cardiogenic shock, immediate revascularization of the culprit lesion is indicated.
    • Selected patients with STEMI-related cardiogenic shock may benefit from a short-term microaxial flow pump if they fit specific criteria; close attention to vascular complications and renal failure is required.

  • In-Hospital Care and Complications

    • Use telemetry for rhythm monitoring in unstable patients and evaluate left ventricular ejection fraction prior to discharge.
    • Mechanical complications (e.g., ventricular septal rupture) require rapid surgical consultation; short-term mechanical circulatory support devices may be a bridge to surgery.

  • Secondary Prevention and Discharge

    • Refer all patients to a cardiac rehabilitation program to reduce rehospitalizations and improve functional status. A home-based program is acceptable when center-based options are not feasible.
    • Repeat lipid panel 4 to 8 weeks postdischarge to confirm adequate LDL-lowering.
    • Annual influenza vaccination is recommended to reduce cardiovascular events and mortality.
    • Consider low-dose colchicine in certain post-ACS patients to reduce the risk of recurrent ischemic events if there are no contraindications.
    • Based on one trial, red blood cell transfusion to maintain hemoglobin of 10 g/dL may be reasonable in patients with ACS and acute or chronic anemia who are not actively bleeding.

Conclusion:
Adherence to these recommendations can significantly improve in-hospital and postdischarge outcomes for patients with acute coronary syndromes. By focusing on rapid identification, prompt reperfusion, tailored antithrombotic therapies, aggressive risk factor modification, and ongoing follow-up (including cardiac rehabilitation), clinicians can lower morbidity, mortality, and readmissions. The guideline also underscores the need to balance bleeding and ischemic risks, use high-intensity lipid-lowering strategies, and provide a structured discharge plan for long-term secondary prevention.

Reference:
Rao SV, O’Donoghue ML, Ruel M, et al. 2025 ACC/AHA/ACEP/NAEMSP/SCAI Guideline for the Management of Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. In Press, Corrected Proof. Available online 27 February 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2024.11.009

Introducing Our Free WhatsApp Channels for Daily Internal Medicine Articles!

28 Jan, 2025 | 00:54h | UTC

We’re pleased to share our new WhatsApp channels, designed to provide daily articles in Internal Medicine. Whether you’re a busy healthcare professional or an enthusiast keen to stay updated on the latest research, these channels might be just what you need.

Why Join Our WhatsApp Channels?

  • Concise Summaries, Straight to Your Phone: Each morning, you’ll receive a brief overview of a noteworthy Internal Medicine article.
  • LinksMedicus Summary: Looking for more detail? Click the link to explore an extended write-up on LinksMedicus.com.
  • Original Source Links: We also include direct links to the original research, so you can review the full study at your own pace.

How to Join

Simply choose your preferred language, and you’ll be all set to receive our Internal Medicine Article of the Day.

Follow Us on Twitter (X) Too!

For those who prefer social media updates, follow our official account on Twitter (X):
@Links_Medicus

We’ll share the same daily article summaries there, ensuring you can stay informed wherever you are.

 

Review: Type 2 Myocardial Infarction

29 Jan, 2025 | 10:00h | UTC

Introduction: Type 2 myocardial infarction (MI) is defined by an imbalance in myocardial oxygen supply and demand without atherothrombosis, though it may involve non-atherothrombotic coronary pathologies (e.g., coronary embolism, vasospasm, spontaneous dissection). Challenges in diagnosis and treatment arise from its heterogeneous aetiologies (e.g., sepsis, hypoxia, arrhythmias, or coronary emboli) and frequent overlap with underlying coronary artery disease (CAD). No approaches to investigation or treatments have yet been shown to definitively improve outcomes, and most recommendations remain theoretical strategies in need of validation.

Key Recommendations:

  1. Identify and Correct Underlying Triggers:
    • Recognize that Type 2 MI often occurs in the context of acute illness (e.g., sepsis, hypoxia, anemia, or tachyarrhythmias).
    • Address precipitating factors (e.g., treat infection, restore blood pressure, correct anemia) to reduce further myocardial ischemia.
  2. Distinguish from Type 1 MI When Uncertain:
    • Use intracoronary imaging (OCT/IVUS) primarily to exclude plaque rupture or thrombosis if clinically indicated, especially when symptoms and ECG changes persist, recognizing that its utility in routine practice for Type 2 MI is not yet proven.
    • Carefully re-evaluate patients who remain unstable or have recurrent symptoms after correction of potential triggers, as up to 5% of cases may be reclassified as Type 1 MI.
  3. Risk Stratification and Etiology-Specific Prognosis:
    • Evaluate the likelihood of obstructive coronary artery disease, which is present in ~68% of Type 2 MI cases (e.g., DEMAND-MI study), particularly in older patients or those with risk factors.
    • Perform echocardiography to identify left ventricular dysfunction or valvular abnormalities.
    • Recognize that patients with Type 2 MI due to hypoxia or anemia have approximately double the 1-year mortality risk compared to those with tachyarrhythmia-triggered events.
    • Note that cardiovascular event rates can be similar to those in Type 1 MI, suggesting that future risk is at least as high.
  4. Consider Secondary Prevention in the Context of Limited Evidence:
    • If coronary atherosclerosis is confirmed, single antiplatelet therapy and high-intensity lipid-lowering therapy may be considered; however, there are no dedicated trials validating these approaches exclusively in Type 2 MI.
    • For patients with confirmed left ventricular dysfunction and signs of heart failure, adapt guideline-directed medical therapy carefully, paying close attention to hemodynamic stability.
  5. Monitor Long-Term Outcomes and Address Comorbidities:
    • Recognize that patients with Type 2 MI have poor overall prognosis and high rates of non-cardiovascular mortality, yet they also face substantial cardiovascular risk.
    • Manage chronic comorbidities aggressively (e.g., hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemia) to minimize recurrent ischemic events.
    • Follow up with echocardiographic or other imaging evaluations where indicated, particularly for patients whose clinical course suggests underlying structural disease.

Conclusion:
Type 2 MI presents significant challenges due to its heterogeneous subtypes (e.g., coronary embolism, spontaneous coronary artery dissection, systemic hypoxia) and frequent diagnostic reclassification. While evidence-based guidance remains limited and no proven interventions have definitively improved outcomes, thorough clinical assessment, targeted imaging to rule out Type 1 MI, and individualized management of comorbidities can potentially improve patient care in this complex condition.

Reference:
Chapman AR, Taggart C, Boeddinghaus J, Mills NL, Fox KAA. Type 2 myocardial infarction: challenges in diagnosis and treatment. European Heart Journal. Published 10 December 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehae803

 

RCT: Sodium Zirconium Cyclosilicate Improves Spironolactone Uptitration in HFrEF but Raises Concern for Increased HF Events

28 Jan, 2025 | 10:00h | UTC

Background: Hyperkalemia remains a major barrier to optimal use of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). While MRAs significantly reduce morbidity and mortality, real-world data show that fears surrounding hyperkalemia often lead to MRA down-titration or discontinuation. Sodium zirconium cyclosilicate (SZC), a newer oral potassium binder, has shown promise in managing hyperkalemia. However, its impact on MRA optimization and clinical outcomes in HFrEF has not been fully established.

Objective: To determine whether SZC can enable optimal dosing of spironolactone (≥25 mg/day) by preventing hyperkalemia in patients with symptomatic HFrEF, and to assess potential effects on heart failure outcomes.

Methods: This prospective, double-blind, randomized-withdrawal trial (REALIZE-K) enrolled adult patients with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40% (NYHA class II-IV), on guideline-directed medical therapy but not on a full-dose MRA due to either prevalent hyperkalemia (serum potassium [K⁺] 5.1-5.9 mEq/L) or high hyperkalemia risk. During an open-label run-in, spironolactone was up-titrated (target 50 mg/day), and participants with hyperkalemia received SZC. Only those who achieved normokalemia (3.5-5.0 mEq/L) on spironolactone ≥25 mg/day continued into a 6-month randomized-withdrawal phase (SZC vs placebo). The primary endpoint was maintenance of normokalemia while on ≥25 mg/day spironolactone without rescue therapy for hyperkalemia. Key secondary outcomes included the time to first hyperkalemia event, time to spironolactone dose reduction/discontinuation due to hyperkalemia, and changes in health-related quality of life (Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire–Clinical Summary Score).

Results: A total of 203 participants were randomized (SZC: n=102; placebo: n=101). SZC significantly increased the proportion of participants who maintained normokalemia on ≥25 mg/day spironolactone (71% vs 36%; OR: 4.45; 95% CI: 2.89-6.86; p<0.001). Rates of hyperkalemia were also lower with SZC (HR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.37-0.71; p<0.001), and fewer patients required spironolactone down-titration or discontinuation (HR: 0.37; 95% CI: 0.17-0.73; p=0.006). There was no difference in KCCQ-Clinical Summary Score between groups (p=0.72). Notably, more participants in the SZC arm had adjudicated heart failure events (10 vs 2 in placebo) over the 6-month period, although the trial was not powered to detect differences in clinical outcomes.

Conclusions: In patients with symptomatic HFrEF and prevalent or incident hyperkalemia, sodium zirconium cyclosilicate (SZC) successfully enabled higher spironolactone doses by maintaining potassium levels in the normal range. However, the increased rate of heart failure (HF) events in the SZC group raises concern, particularly given the study’s limited power for clinical outcomes and baseline imbalances favoring higher HF risk in the SZC group (older age, lower eGFR, higher NT-proBNP). Although these findings do not establish a definitive causal relationship, they underscore a possible risk of fluid retention and the importance of cautious use in higher-risk populations. Larger, event-driven trials are crucial to confirm whether SZC-related sodium exchange may exacerbate HF decompensation despite the benefits of more effective MRA therapy.

Implications for Practice: SZC offers clinicians a means to sustain or escalate spironolactone dosing in hyperkalemia-prone HFrEF patients who would otherwise face MRA discontinuation. Still, the unexpected signal of increased HF events highlights the need for vigilant patient selection, fluid status monitoring, and regular follow-up. Clinicians should balance the advantages of maintaining guideline-recommended MRA doses against potential costs, the patient’s baseline HF severity, and possible sodium retention. Individualized care, particularly in older patients or those with high NT-proBNP levels, remains critical until more robust outcome data are available.

Study Strengths and Limitations: Strengths include strict definitions of hyperkalemia, a rigorous protocol for titrating spironolactone and SZC, and high rates of concurrent guideline-directed therapies. Limitations encompass the modest sample size, short follow-up period, and imbalance in baseline risk factors favoring the placebo group. Also, the study was not powered for major clinical events, limiting interpretability of the heart failure outcome signals.

Future Research: Further large-scale, long-term investigations are needed to clarify whether the higher incidence of HF events seen with SZC reflects underlying population differences or a genuine treatment-related risk. Such studies should prioritize hard clinical endpoints (eg, HF hospitalization, cardiovascular mortality), capture real-world tolerability data, and incorporate cost-effectiveness analyses. Research into the mechanisms of sodium exchange in compromised HF patients may also help identify subgroups that stand to gain the most from potassium-binding strategies or, conversely, experience undue risk.

Reference: Kosiborod MN, Cherney DZI, Desai AS, et al. “Sodium Zirconium Cyclosilicate for Management of Hyperkalemia During Spironolactone Optimization in Patients With Heart Failure.” Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2025; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2024.11.014

 

Phase 2b RCT: Abelacimab Significantly Reduces Bleeding Events Compared with Rivaroxaban in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation

27 Jan, 2025 | 11:00h | UTC

Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) elevates stroke risk roughly fivefold, necessitating anticoagulation therapy to reduce embolic events. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have replaced vitamin K antagonists as the preferred agents, given their comparable efficacy and lower risk of intracranial hemorrhage. However, significant bleeding—especially gastrointestinal bleeding—still occurs with DOACs, prompting ongoing efforts to develop safer anticoagulants. Abelacimab, a fully human monoclonal antibody targeting factor XI (and its active form, XIa), is hypothesized to “uncouple” thrombosis from hemostasis, potentially lowering bleeding risk. Early data in knee arthroplasty prevention suggested reduced venous thromboembolism (VTE) without increased bleeding. This trial (AZALEA–TIMI 71) aimed to compare the bleeding rates of monthly subcutaneous abelacimab with once-daily rivaroxaban in patients with AF and moderate-to-high stroke risk.

Objective: To evaluate whether subcutaneous abelacimab at two doses (150 mg or 90 mg monthly) leads to fewer major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding events than rivaroxaban (20 mg or 15 mg daily) in patients with AF.

Methods: In this phase 2b, parallel-group, partially blind, randomized trial, 1287 adults with AF (CHA2_2DS2_2-VASc ≥3–4 and moderate/high stroke risk) were assigned 1:1:1 to abelacimab 150 mg, abelacimab 90 mg, or open-label rivaroxaban. Treatment continued for a median of 2.1 years. The primary endpoint was major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding, adjudicated by a blinded events committee. Levels of free factor XI were measured to gauge abelacimab’s pharmacodynamics. The trial was halted early based on a recommendation from the independent data monitoring committee due to unexpectedly large reductions in bleeding with abelacimab.

Results: Median age was 74 years, and 44% of participants were female. In the final analysis of the complete dataset, major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding occurred at rates of 3.2 and 2.6 events per 100 person-years for abelacimab 150 mg and 90 mg, respectively, versus 8.4 per 100 person-years for rivaroxaban. Corresponding hazard ratios were 0.38 (95% CI, 0.24–0.60) for the 150-mg dose and 0.31 (95% CI, 0.19–0.51) for the 90-mg dose (P<0.001 for both comparisons). The incidence of major gastrointestinal bleeding was notably lower with abelacimab (0.5% in both arms) compared with rivaroxaban (4.2%). Although not powered for stroke prevention, ischemic stroke rates were numerically higher with abelacimab, underscoring the need for larger efficacy trials.

Conclusions: Monthly abelacimab led to substantial and sustained reduction of free factor XI and demonstrated significantly lower bleeding rates than rivaroxaban in patients with AF. While these findings suggest a potentially safer profile for abelacimab, definitive conclusions about stroke prevention require phase 3 studies.

Implications for Practice: Should abelacimab maintain efficacy in preventing thromboembolism in forthcoming trials, it may offer an alternative to existing DOACs, particularly for patients at elevated bleeding risk (e.g., gastrointestinal). However, clinicians must consider real-world factors such as possible high drug cost, insurance coverage, and the logistics of monthly subcutaneous injections. Abelacimab is investigational and not yet approved; its role will depend on phase 3 efficacy and cost-effectiveness outcomes.

Study Strengths and Limitations: Strengths include randomized design, relatively long follow-up (median 2.1 years), and direct comparison to an established DOAC. The major limitation is that the trial was not sufficiently powered to evaluate stroke or systemic embolism. Moreover, the open-label design between abelacimab and rivaroxaban could introduce bias, partly mitigated by blinded dose assignments for abelacimab and blinded endpoint adjudication. The predominantly White population may limit generalizability.

Future Research: Ongoing phase 3 studies (e.g., LILAC–TIMI 76) will clarify abelacimab’s efficacy and safety in larger cohorts, particularly regarding stroke prevention. Comparative cost analyses, real-world adherence, and exploration of subcutaneous administration logistics will be crucial in determining abelacimab’s long-term clinical value. Additional investigations into factor XIa inhibitors (e.g., small molecules, antisense oligonucleotides) may further expand this therapeutic class.

Reference:

  1. Ruff CT, Patel SM, Giugliano RP, Morrow DA, Hug B, Kuder JF, et al. “Abelacimab versus Rivaroxaban in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation.” New England Journal of Medicine. 2025;392:361–371. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2406674
  2. Angiolillo DJ, Capodanno D. “Uncoupling Thrombosis and Hemostasis by Inhibiting Factor XI.” New England Journal of Medicine. 2025;392:400–403. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMe2414209
  3. Mandrola JM. “Factor XI Inhibitors May Not Be Dead.” This Week in Cardiology Podcast. January 24, 2025. https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/1002184#vp_3

 

2024 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Management of Lower Extremity Peripheral Artery Disease

21 Jan, 2025 | 12:44h | UTC

Introduction:
This summary highlights key points from the 2024 ACC/AHA guideline on managing patients with lower extremity peripheral artery disease (PAD). It addresses diagnosis, risk stratification, and treatment strategies to reduce major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and major adverse limb events (MALE), focusing on four clinical subsets of PAD—asymptomatic PAD, chronic symptomatic PAD, chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI), and acute limb ischemia (ALI). Its overarching goal is to optimize cardiovascular risk reduction, preserve limb function, and improve quality of life (QOL).

Key Recommendations:

  1. Clinical Assessment and Diagnosis
    • Perform a thorough history and physical examination in patients at risk of PAD (e.g., older adults, those with diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, smokers, or known atherosclerosis).
    • Measure the ankle-brachial index (ABI) to establish the diagnosis of PAD; use toe-brachial index (TBI) for patients with noncompressible arteries.
    • Obtain imaging (e.g., duplex ultrasound, CT angiography, MR angiography) when planning revascularization or in cases with inconclusive ABI.
  2. Risk Factor Management (Guideline-Directed Medical Therapy)
    • Antiplatelet and Antithrombotic Therapy:
      • Recommend single antiplatelet therapy (e.g., aspirin or clopidogrel) for symptomatic PAD to reduce MACE.
      • Consider low-dose rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) plus low-dose aspirin in patients at low bleeding risk to reduce MALE.
    • Lipid-Lowering Therapy:
      • Initiate high-intensity statin therapy in all patients with PAD to reduce cardiovascular and limb events.
      • Add ezetimibe or a PCSK9 inhibitor if LDL-C levels remain above target (≥70 mg/dL).
    • Blood Pressure Control:
      • Target a systolic blood pressure <130 mm Hg in patients with PAD; ACE inhibitors or angiotensin-receptor blockers can further reduce cardiovascular risk.
    • Diabetes Management:
      • Optimize glycemic control, especially in CLTI; newer agents (e.g., SGLT2 inhibitors, GLP-1 receptor agonists) can reduce cardiovascular risk in PAD with type 2 diabetes.
    • Smoking Cessation:
      • Strongly advise cessation of all forms of tobacco and nicotine; offer pharmacotherapy (e.g., varenicline, bupropion, nicotine replacement) and behavioral counseling.
  3. Exercise Therapy
    • Supervised Exercise Therapy (SET):
      • A cornerstone of care for patients with claudication to improve walking performance and quality of life.
      • Generally performed 3 times per week for at least 12 weeks in a supervised setting (e.g., cardiac rehab facility).
    • Structured Community-Based (Home-Based) Programs:
      • Include regularly prescribed walking regimens, with periodic clinical follow-up and coaching to promote adherence.
  4. Revascularization for Chronic Symptomatic PAD
    • Initial Approach:
      • Offer revascularization (endovascular, surgical, or hybrid) if patients have functionally limiting claudication that fails to improve with medical therapy and structured exercise.
    • Endovascular vs. Surgical:
      • Select a strategy based on lesion characteristics, availability of adequate vein conduit, and patient comorbidities.
      • Combining revascularization with supervised exercise generally yields better functional outcomes.
    • Common Femoral Disease:
      • Surgical endarterectomy remains a highly durable option.
      • Endovascular approaches can be considered for select cases, particularly where surgical risk is high or anatomy is favorable.
  5. Management of Chronic Limb-Threatening Ischemia (CLTI)
    • Team-Based Care:
      • Collaborate with vascular specialists, podiatrists, wound-care experts, and other clinicians for optimal outcomes.
    • Revascularization Goals:
      • Prevent amputation, heal wounds, and reduce rest pain.
      • Both endovascular and surgical methods can be effective; selection depends on anatomy, available vein conduit, and patient risk profile (e.g., the BEST-CLI and BASIL-2 trials guide decisions).
    • Adjunctive Wound Care:
      • Use local wound management (e.g., debridement, negative pressure therapy, offloading) to facilitate healing.
      • Treat infection aggressively; urgent revascularization plus antibiotics is essential.
    • Pressure Offloading:
      • Custom footwear and casts/shoes reduce plantar pressure and help prevent or heal foot ulcers.
  6. Acute Limb Ischemia (ALI)
    • Immediate Recognition:
      • Suspect ALI in patients with sudden onset of pain, pallor, pulselessness, paresthesia, and paralysis.
      • Determine limb viability (categories I–III) rapidly.
    • Treatment:
      • Begin anticoagulation (e.g., IV unfractionated heparin) unless contraindicated.
      • Urgent revascularization (surgical embolectomy, catheter-directed thrombolysis, or mechanical thrombectomy) for salvageable limbs.
      • Monitor for compartment syndrome and consider fasciotomy if needed.
  7. Preventive Foot Care
    • Educate patients on self-inspection, daily hygiene, and protective footwear.
    • Screen regularly for high-risk conditions (neuropathy, calluses, deformities, infection).
    • Promptly address any foot lesions to avoid progression to ulceration, infection, or gangrene.
  8. Longitudinal Follow-Up
    • Schedule regular visits to monitor:
      • Cardiovascular risk factor control (lipids, blood pressure, glycemic targets, smoking).
      • Lower extremity symptoms, functional status, and foot health.
      • Need for repeat ABI, duplex ultrasound, or imaging after revascularization to detect restenosis.
    • Reinforce adherence to structured exercise, medication regimens, and foot care strategies.

Conclusion:
These recommendations underscore the importance of personalized, multidisciplinary care that addresses both cardiovascular and limb-related outcomes in patients with lower extremity PAD. A combination of comprehensive risk-factor modification, supervised or structured exercise programs, and strategic use of revascularization can significantly reduce the risk of major limb loss, improve symptoms, and enhance QOL. Ongoing follow-up is critical to detect disease progression, optimize therapy, and maintain patient engagement in preventative care.

Reference:
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. Circulation. 2024; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0000000000001251

 

Management of Cervical Artery Dissection: Key Points From the AHA Scientific Statement

21 Jan, 2025 | 11:05h | UTC

Introduction:
This document summarizes the American Heart Association (AHA) scientific statement on cervical artery dissection (CAD), an important cause of ischemic stroke, especially in younger and middle-aged adults. Cervical artery dissection often presents with nonspecific symptoms—such as headache, neck pain, or partial Horner syndrome—but can lead to serious neurological deficits. Early recognition, targeted imaging, appropriate acute treatment, and well-informed decisions on antithrombotic therapy are essential to optimize patient outcomes.

Key Recommendations:

  • Epidemiology and Risk Factors
    • CAD accounts for up to 25% of ischemic strokes in adults under 50 years of age, with a slightly higher incidence in men but lower peak age in women.
    • Risk factors include genetic predispositions (eg, connective tissue disorders), anatomic variants (elongated styloid process, vascular tortuosity), minor cervical trauma, and comorbidities such as hypertension or fibromuscular dysplasia.
  • Diagnosis and Imaging
    1. Clinical Suspicion
      • Suspect CAD in younger adults with new or worsening neck pain, headache, pulsatile tinnitus, partial Horner syndrome, or cranial nerve involvement, especially if there is a history of recent minor neck trauma or manipulation.
      • Up to 8%–12% of patients may have isolated neck or head pain with no initial ischemic signs.
    2. Imaging Modalities
      • Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)/Magnetic Resonance Angiography (MRA): High-resolution, fat-suppressed T1-weighted sequences are useful for detecting intramural hematoma.
      • Computed Tomography Angiography (CTA): Good sensitivity and specificity for luminal abnormalities and can detect intraluminal thrombus. Avoid false positives by distinguishing imaging artifacts from true double lumens or intimal flaps.
      • Conventional Digital Subtraction Angiography (DSA): Historically the gold standard but reserved for equivocal cases because of procedure-related risks (eg, iatrogenic dissection).
      • Ultrasound with Color Doppler: Operator-dependent but helpful for serial follow-up of vessel remodeling.
    3. Additional Diagnostic Testing
      • Connective Tissue Disorders: Consider genetic counseling if physical exam, family history, or recurrent dissections suggest a monogenic disorder (eg, vascular Ehlers-Danlos).
      • Screening for Fibromuscular Dysplasia (FMD): Patients with CAD, especially those with hypertension or evidence of FMD in other vascular beds, may warrant renal artery imaging.
      • Aortic and Intracranial Imaging: Aortic root dilation and cerebral aneurysms may be more prevalent in CAD; consider advanced imaging (eg, MRA) based on clinical judgment.
  • Hyperacute and Acute Stroke Management
    1. Intravenous Thrombolysis (IVT):
      • IVT (alteplase or tenecteplase) remains reasonable for otherwise eligible acute ischemic stroke patients, with no specific evidence of higher hemorrhagic risk in CAD. Caution is advised if there is intracranial extension of the dissection or other significant bleeding risk factors.
    2. Mechanical Thrombectomy:
      • Recommended for large-vessel occlusion in CAD patients who meet standard thrombectomy criteria. Tandem lesions (extracranial dissection and intracranial occlusion) can be addressed via retrograde (intracranial first) or antegrade (extracranial first) approach, with similar overall outcomes reported.
    3. Acute or Subacute Stenting:
      • May be considered in selected cases of severe flow-limiting stenosis leading to distal hypoperfusion or in persistent ischemia despite optimal medical therapy. Stenting in tandem occlusions can improve reperfusion but carries added risks (in-stent restenosis, stent thrombosis, or need for dual antiplatelet therapy).
  • Antithrombotic Therapy for Secondary Stroke Prevention
    1. Rationale for Early Treatment:
      • Artery-to-artery embolization underpins most CAD-related ischemic events. Early initiation of antithrombotics (ideally within the first 24–72 hours) reduces further embolic risk.
    2. Choice of Agent: Antiplatelet vs Anticoagulant
      • When to Prefer Anticoagulation:
        • Patients with high-risk imaging features: severe stenosis (>50%–70%), intraluminal thrombus, occlusion, multiple or early recurrent dissections.
        • Traditional option is heparin bridging to Vitamin K antagonist (target INR ≈2–3), but direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) can be considered based on patient profile and preference.
      • When to Prefer Antiplatelet Therapy:
        • Patients with lower stroke risk (no significant stenosis, no intraluminal thrombus) or higher bleeding risk (large infarct, hemorrhagic transformation, intradural extension).
        • Aspirin monotherapy is typical; a short course of dual antiplatelet therapy (aspirin + clopidogrel) for 21–90 days can be considered if minor stroke/TIA criteria apply and bleeding risk is acceptable.
    3. Practical Start-Up and Monitoring:
      • Begin therapy as soon as deemed safe, ideally after hemorrhagic complications are excluded.
      • For VKA: bridge with heparin (IV unfractionated or low–molecular-weight) for at least 5 days until INR is therapeutic for ≥24 hours.
      • Regularly monitor clinical response and, if relevant, INR in anticoagulated patients.
    4. Duration of Therapy:
      • Minimum 3–6 months of antithrombotics, with vessel imaging at follow-up (eg, 3 or 6 months) to assess for healing or persistent dissection.
      • Decisions to extend antithrombotic therapy past the 6-month mark may be considered in the context of an individual’s overall vascular risk factor profile and in the context of neuroimaging features as remodeling occurs.
      • Consider extended or indefinite therapy (often antiplatelet) if persistent stenosis, high-risk anatomic factors, or recurrent dissections occur.
  • Risk of Recurrent Dissection and Lifestyle Precautions
    • Recurrence rates range from 1% to 2% per year but are higher in the first few months post-dissection. Fibromuscular dysplasia and younger age are associated with increased recurrence risk.
    • It is reasonable to advise patients to avoid high-risk neck activities (eg, contact sports, extreme neck manipulation) for 1–6 months or until imaging confirms vessel healing. In those with a known connective tissue disorder or recurrent dissection, lifelong caution is appropriate.
  • Follow-Up Imaging and Management of Dissecting Aneurysms
    • Recanalization most often occurs by 6–12 months; persistent occlusions or stenoses beyond 12 months rarely recanalize further.
    • Dissecting aneurysms form or enlarge in some cases but seldom rupture. Antithrombotic choice does not appear to affect aneurysm resolution rates.
    • Endovascular or surgical interventions are reserved for enlarging or symptomatic aneurysms causing compression or other complications.

Conclusion: Cervical artery dissection warrants vigilant clinical recognition, prompt imaging, and individualized treatment strategies. Early antithrombotic therapy—whether anticoagulation or antiplatelet—plays a critical role in preventing stroke. Decisions should reflect both the patient’s hemorrhagic risk and the presence of imaging features predictive of stroke. Mechanical thrombectomy and, in selected cases, stenting are viable acute interventions for high-risk presentations. Although recurrences are uncommon, thoughtful follow-up imaging, patient education, and avoidance of high-risk neck activities are central to minimizing future dissections and optimizing outcomes.

Reference: Yaghi S, Engelter S, Del Brutto VJ, Field TS, Jadhav AP, Kicielinski K, Madsen TE, Mistry EA, Salehi Omran S, Pandey A, Raz E, on behalf of the American Heart Association Stroke Council; Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing; Council on Clinical Cardiology; and Council on Peripheral Vascular Disease. Treatment and Outcomes of Cervical Artery Dissection in Adults: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association. Stroke. 2024;55(3). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/STR.0000000000000457

 

Network Meta-Analysis: Distinct Benefit–Risk Profiles of GLP-1 Receptor Agonists, DPP-4 Inhibitors, and SGLT2 Inhibitors

19 Jan, 2025 | 12:27h | UTC

Background: Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is a global health challenge due to its high prevalence and associated risks for cardiovascular (CV) and renal complications. Newer glucose-lowering drug (GLD) classes—dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP4i), glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs), and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i)—offer unique benefits and safety profiles. Although many large randomized outcome trials have demonstrated their efficacy, the benefit–risk balance among these agents remains incompletely understood, especially regarding non-traditional outcomes such as psychiatric disorders and neurodegenerative diseases. Given their generally higher costs and frequent industry sponsorship of the trials, it is critical to evaluate these classes in a systematic and impartial manner.

Objective: To systematically compare the benefits and risks of DPP4i, GLP-1RAs, and SGLT2i in adults with T2D, heart failure, or chronic kidney disease, focusing on 21 outcomes spanning macrovascular and microvascular events, infections, psychiatric outcomes, and cancer risk.

Methods: Researchers searched PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL through November 2023 for randomized placebo-controlled cardiovascular and kidney outcome trials of DPP4i, GLP-1RAs, or SGLT2i in adults with T2D, heart failure, or chronic kidney disease. Twenty-six trials (N=198,177 participants) met inclusion criteria. A novel PAtient-centered treatment ranking via Large-scale Multivariate network meta-analysis (PALM) approach was used to synthesize population-averaged odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). This approach allowed for the simultaneous evaluation of multiple outcomes and the generation of weighted origami plots to visualize treatment rankings across different disease categories. Heterogeneity (I²) and publication bias (Egger’s test) were also assessed.

Results:

  • Macrovascular: GLP-1RAs reduced major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) versus placebo (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.79–0.92) and DPP4i. GLP-1RAs also lowered stroke risk (OR range 0.82–0.85 vs comparators). SGLT2i yielded the largest reduction in hospitalization for heart failure (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.64–0.73 vs placebo). DPP4i had a lower amputation risk relative to SGLT2i (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.75–0.95).
  • Microvascular: SGLT2i most effectively reduced renal composite outcomes versus DPP4i and placebo (OR ~0.67). However, DPP4i was linked to higher neuropathy risk (OR 1.10, 95% CI 1.02–1.18 vs placebo).
  • Psychiatric and Neurodegenerative: DPP4i was associated with a reduced risk of depression, suicide, and alcohol use disorder compared to placebo. A lower Parkinson’s disease risk (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.32–0.92) was also noted. GLP-1RAs showed a possible increased risk of suicidal ideation vs DPP4i, though evidence remains inconclusive.
  • Infections/Inflammation: SGLT2i substantially increased genital infections (OR 3.11, 95% CI 2.15–4.50 vs placebo). DPP4i had higher pancreatitis risk vs all comparators.
  • Cancer: GLP-1RAs were linked to increased thyroid cancer risk (OR range 1.58–2.70), though overall cancer risk and pancreatic cancer did not differ significantly across treatments.

Conclusions: Each newer GLD class offers specific advantages along with distinct safety considerations. GLP-1RAs appear particularly effective for macrovascular endpoints but carry a signal for thyroid malignancy. SGLT2i provide notable cardioprotective and renoprotective effects, offset by risk of genital infections and an increased risk of amputation compared to DPP4i. DPP4i tend to have neutral CV/renal outcomes yet may protect against certain psychiatric issues and neurodegenerative conditions, balanced by increased pancreatitis risk. Personalized treatment strategies, with attention to comorbidities and adverse event profiles, remain essential—particularly given the generally elevated costs of these newer agents. It is important to note that these findings are largely based on indirect comparisons in the absence of head-to-head trials, which is a limitation.

Implications for Practice: Clinicians should weigh cardiovascular risk, kidney function, mental health status, and potential malignancy when prescribing GLDs. SGLT2i may be favored in patients with heart failure or chronic kidney disease, while GLP-1RAs may be ideal for those with high atherosclerotic CV risk. DPP4i could be considered in patients with psychiatric or neurologic comorbidities but require caution regarding pancreatitis. Cost considerations and access may also influence real-world use.

Study Strengths and Limitations: Strengths include a large number of participants, broad outcome coverage, and a multivariate network meta-analysis that accommodates indirect comparisons. Limitations arise from underreported outcomes (e.g., psychiatric, neurodegenerative), heterogeneous trial populations, potential publication bias for some outcomes, and possible off-target influences not fully captured. Furthermore, sponsor involvement in all included trials warrants cautious interpretation of benefit–risk claims.

Future Research: Head-to-head trials comparing newer GLDs for psychiatric and neurologic endpoints, along with detailed reporting of rare adverse events (e.g., pancreatitis, cancer subtypes), are needed. Studies on real-world cost-effectiveness and access issues could clarify how to optimize therapy in routine practice. Additional investigations into long-term safety signals (including suicidality and thyroid malignancies) would further guide clinical decision-making.

Reference: Tang H, Zhang B, Lu Y, Donahoo WT, Singh Ospina N, Kotecha P, Lu Y, Tong J, Smith SM, et al. “Assessing the benefit–risk profile of newer glucose-lowering drugs: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized outcome trials.” Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism. First published: 26 December 2024. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/dom.16147

RCT: High-Flow Nasal Oxygen Noninferior to Noninvasive Ventilation for Most Acute Respiratory Failure Causes

13 Jan, 2025 | 13:11h | UTC

Background: Acute respiratory failure (ARF) arises from diverse etiologies and can manifest as hypoxemic or hypercapnic events. High-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) are common noninvasive respiratory support modalities, but robust comparative data in various ARF subgroups have been limited. Prior research suggests NIV may benefit chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations and acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema (ACPE), yet for hypoxemic failure (including COVID-19 and immunocompromised populations), HFNO is often favored for its comfort and physiological advantages. The RENOVATE trial was designed to assess whether HFNO is noninferior to NIV for preventing intubation or death among five distinct groups of patients with ARF.

Objective: To determine if HFNO is noninferior to NIV in terms of the composite outcome of endotracheal intubation or death within seven days in patients with ARF, categorized into five subgroups: (1) nonimmunocompromised with hypoxemic ARF, (2) immunocompromised with hypoxemic ARF, (3) COPD exacerbation with respiratory acidosis, (4) ACPE, and (5) hypoxemic COVID-19.

Methods: This multicenter, adaptive, noninferiority randomized clinical trial enrolled 1800 hospitalized adults across 33 Brazilian centers. Patients were stratified by ARF etiology and randomized 1:1 to receive either HFNO or NIV. Treatment protocols allowed HFNO escalation to NIV (particularly for COPD or ACPE) if needed. The primary outcome was defined using a Bayesian hierarchical model with dynamic borrowing across subgroups; noninferiority was met if the posterior probability for an odds ratio (OR) below 1.55 reached ≥0.992. Predefined futility and superiority thresholds guided interim analyses, with a maximum sample size of 2000.

Results: Of 1800 randomized patients, 1766 completed the study (mean age 64 years; 40% women). The primary outcome (intubation or death by day 7) occurred in 39.0% (HFNO) vs 38.1% (NIV). HFNO was noninferior in four subgroups:

  • Nonimmunocompromised with hypoxemia: 32.5% vs 33.1% (OR 1.02; posterior probability of noninferiority 0.999).
  • COPD exacerbation with respiratory acidosis: 28.6% vs 26.2% (OR 1.05; probability 0.992).
  • ACPE: 10.3% vs 21.3% (OR 0.97; probability 0.997).
  • Hypoxemic COVID-19: 51.3% vs 47.0% (OR 1.13; probability 0.997).

The immunocompromised subgroup stopped enrollment early for futility; final results there did not confirm noninferiority (57.1% vs 36.4%; OR 1.07; probability 0.989). No significant differences in 28- or 90-day mortality emerged, although mortality rates were generally higher than in some previous trials. Comfort scores favored HFNO, and rates of serious adverse events were similar between groups.

Conclusions: In four of five ARF subgroups, HFNO met predefined noninferiority criteria compared with NIV regarding endotracheal intubation or death at seven days. However, immunocompromised patients with hypoxemic ARF remain an area of uncertainty, as do smaller subgroups (e.g., COPD) under non-borrowing analyses. Clinicians may consider HFNO as an alternative initial approach, recognizing that rescue NIV may still be necessary, particularly in COPD exacerbations.

Implications for Practice: These findings support using HFNO for a broad range of ARF etiologies as a first-line therapy. HFNO’s ease of use, patient comfort, and comparable safety profile may make it especially appealing. Nevertheless, clinicians should remain vigilant in immunocompromised patients and in COPD exacerbations when hypercapnia is pronounced. Potential cost variations between HFNO and NIV may influence real-world adoption, and local resources, staff expertise, and patient tolerance should guide final decisions.

Study Strengths and Limitations: Strengths include a large, diverse sample and a robust Bayesian adaptive design that allowed dynamic borrowing across subgroups. This approach increased precision but also introduced heterogeneity concerns. Some patient groups (particularly immunocompromised and COPD) were relatively small, limiting definitive conclusions in those strata. Additionally, early stopping for futility in immunocompromised patients curtailed full enrollment, and the trial compared HFNO only with face-mask NIV (rather than alternatives such as helmet CPAP).

Future Research: Further large-scale studies should refine whether HFNO can supplant NIV in COPD exacerbations and immunocompromised populations. Investigations on cost-effectiveness, patient-centered outcomes (comfort, quality of life), and comparative models (e.g., helmet NIV) are also warranted.

Reference:
• RENOVATE Investigators and the BRICNet Authors. High-Flow Nasal Oxygen vs Noninvasive Ventilation in Patients With Acute Respiratory Failure: The RENOVATE Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. Published online December 10, 2024. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2024.26244
• Frat JP, Le Pape S, Thille AW. Editorial: Is High-Flow Oxygen the Standard for All Patients With Acute Respiratory Failure? JAMA. Published online December 10, 2024. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2024.25906
• Freund Y, Vromant A. Editorial: Reevaluating Respiratory Support in Acute Respiratory Failure—Insights From the RENOVATE Trial and Implications for Practice. JAMA. Published online December 10, 2024. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2024.25869

 

SR: Lower BP Targets Reduce Stroke Risk and Cardiovascular Events in Older Adults

16 Jan, 2025 | 12:42h | UTC

Background: Hypertension is a prevalent condition in older adults and a major risk factor for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Despite widely accepted benefits of treating blood pressure (BP) above 160 mmHg in this population, the optimal BP target remains uncertain. Many guidelines recommend a systolic BP (SBP) goal of < 140 mmHg in all adults, including those aged ≥ 65 years. However, evidence suggests older, possibly frail individuals might experience different benefit–risk ratios with more relaxed BP targets. This Cochrane review updates the previous 2017 analysis to determine whether aiming for higher BP targets in older adults (e.g., < 150–160 mmHg systolic) confers comparable or better outcomes than standard or more aggressive targets (< 140 mmHg).

Objective: To assess the effects of a higher BP target (SBP < 150–160 mmHg or diastolic BP < 95–105 mmHg) versus a lower (conventional or more aggressive) BP target (< 140/90 mmHg or lower) on mortality, stroke, and serious cardiovascular events in hypertensive adults aged ≥ 65 years.

Methods:

  • Design and Searches: This is an updated Cochrane systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing higher vs lower BP targets in older adults with hypertension. Databases searched through June 2024 included MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, and ClinicalTrials.gov.
  • Inclusion Criteria: RCTs of ≥ 1 year’s duration enrolling participants aged ≥ 65 years with baseline systolic BP ≥ 140 mmHg or diastolic BP ≥ 90 mmHg. Trials had to compare a higher BP target range (SBP < 150–160/DBP < 95–105 mmHg) to a lower BP target (< 140/90 mmHg).
  • Outcomes: Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, stroke, institutionalization, and serious cardiovascular adverse events (including myocardial infarction, heart failure, and renal failure). Secondary outcomes included cardiovascular mortality, non-cardiovascular mortality, total serious adverse events, and withdrawals due to adverse effects.

Results:

  • Included Studies: Four open-label RCTs (N = 16,732) from Japan and China, with mean ages around 70 years (range 65–77). Mean follow-up ranged from 2 to 4 years.
  • Mortality: Lower BP targets may result in little to no difference in all-cause mortality (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.95–1.37; low-certainty).
  • Stroke Prevention: A lower BP target clearly reduced the risk of stroke (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.06–1.67; high-certainty), with an absolute reduction of approximately 6 stroke events per 1000 individuals treated over ~3 years.
  • Serious Cardiovascular Events: A lower BP target likely reduced total serious cardiovascular adverse events (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.09–1.45; moderate-certainty), equating to roughly 10 fewer cardiovascular events per 1000 people treated.
  • Adverse Effects: Lower BP targets likely did not increase withdrawals due to adverse effects (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.74–1.33; moderate-certainty). Data on other adverse events (e.g., hypotension) were limited but showed small absolute differences.

Conclusions: Treating older adults’ systolic BP to < 140 mmHg (vs < 150–160 mmHg) reduces stroke and likely reduces overall serious cardiovascular events without clearly affecting all-cause mortality or increasing dropouts due to adverse effects. While these findings support standard BP targets (< 140 mmHg) for many older patients, the absolute reduction in events is modest. Caution may be warranted in individuals aged ≥ 80 years or those who are frail, as the included studies had fewer such participants.

Implications for Practice: For most older adults, targeting SBP < 140 mmHg can prevent a modest but meaningful number of cardiovascular events, particularly stroke. Clinicians should balance these benefits against patient-specific concerns, such as frailty, multiple comorbidities, and polypharmacy. Monitoring for hypotension, renal function changes, and other adverse effects remains important.

Study Strengths and Limitations:

  • Strengths: Inclusion of four RCTs with low attrition rates; assessment of major vascular endpoints relevant to older adults.
  • Limitations: All trials were open-label, increasing risk of bias in subjective outcomes. Adverse event reporting was incomplete, and very elderly or frail individuals were often underrepresented. Most data originated from Asian populations, limiting generalizability to other regions.

Future Research: Further RCTs in populations aged ≥ 80 years, those with significant frailty, or living in nursing homes are essential to clarify optimal BP targets. Studies should capture quality-of-life measures and long-term safety outcomes, especially regarding adverse drug–drug interactions in complex older patients.

Reference: Falk JM, Froentjes L, Kirkwood JE, Heran BS, Kolber MR, Allan GM, Korownyk CS, Garrison SR. Higher blood pressure targets for hypertension in older adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2024; Issue 12. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD011575.pub3

 

Meta-Analysis: Beta-Blockers Show No Mortality Reduction in Myocardial Infarction with Preserved Ejection Fraction

15 Jan, 2025 | 13:06h | UTC

Background: Beta-blockers have been a cornerstone of care following myocardial infarction (MI), primarily benefiting patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). However, the evidence supporting their routine use in patients with a preserved LVEF remains inconsistent, especially in the context of current revascularization strategies and guideline-directed medical therapy.

Objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine whether beta-blockers confer mortality or cardiovascular event benefits among patients with MI and a preserved LVEF in the contemporary reperfusion era.

Methods: Researchers conducted a PRISMA-compliant search of PubMed and EMBASE, identifying randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared long-term beta-blocker therapy versus no beta-blocker therapy in patients with MI and LVEF ≥40%. Three RCTs (total n = 9512) were included. The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality and recurrent MI. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, MI, and stroke. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled using a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed via I² statistics. Risk of bias was evaluated with the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool, and the quality of evidence was reviewed according to GRADE recommendations.

Results: Across the three RCTs, beta-blockers did not significantly reduce the composite of all-cause mortality and MI (RR 0.97, 95% CI: 0.84–1.12; p = 0.671; I² = 0%). Secondary endpoints also showed no significant effect: all-cause mortality (RR 0.96, 95% CI: 0.79–1.17), cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.22, 95% CI: 0.87–1.72), recurrent MI (RR 0.97, 95% CI: 0.78–1.19), and stroke (RR 0.96, 95% CI: 0.66–1.38). Sensitivity analyses, including leave-one-out approaches, yielded consistent findings. There was minimal heterogeneity overall, suggesting stable results. Although one trial strictly excluded patients with LVEF <50%, others allowed mildly reduced LVEF (40–50%), highlighting variability in definitions of “preserved” function.

Conclusions: In contemporary patients with MI and preserved LVEF, beta-blockers did not lower overall mortality, recurrent MI, or stroke. These data suggest that, under current revascularization practices and adjunctive therapies, beta-blockers may not offer the same advantage observed in earlier trials among individuals without significant systolic dysfunction.

Implications for Practice: Clinicians managing MI in patients with preserved LVEF should carefully weigh potential side effects and the absence of clear mortality benefit when deciding on beta-blocker therapy. While widely prescribed, beta-blockers may not improve outcomes for this subgroup in modern practice. Guidelines that currently reflect broad beta-blocker use may need refinement to account for these latest findings.

Study Strengths and Limitations: Major strengths include a focus on contemporary, randomized evidence and rigorous risk-of-bias assessment. The analysis is limited by the small number of RCTs, variable definitions of “preserved” ejection fraction, and a predominantly male study population. Underrepresentation of women and patients with borderline LVEF reduces generalizability to broader clinical cohorts.

Future Research: Ongoing RCTs (such as REBOOT-CNIC, BETAMI, and DANBLOCK) will provide further insight into the impact of beta-blockers in patients with normal or mildly reduced LVEF, particularly regarding safety profiles (e.g., bradyarrhythmias, hypotension, respiratory exacerbations) and subgroup analyses by sex. These data may inform more nuanced guideline recommendations.

Reference: Sabina M, Shah S, Grimm M, Daher JC, Campillo P, Boozo MB, Al-Abdouh A, Abusnina W, D’Ascenzo F, Bizanti A. Beta-Blockers in Patients with Myocardial Infarction and Preserved Left Ventricular Ejection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2025;14(1):150. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14010150

 

RCT: Empagliflozin Lowers Urinary Supersaturation in Nondiabetic Adults With Calcium and Uric Acid Kidney Stones

15 Jan, 2025 | 12:03h | UTC

Background: Kidney stones represent a major health challenge worldwide, with calcium-based (calcium oxalate or phosphate) and uric acid (UA) stones accounting for most cases. Despite multiple preventive measures—including hydration, dietary modification, and, in certain cases, pharmacotherapy—recurrence rates remain high. Recent retrospective analyses suggest sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors may reduce stone episodes in patients with type 2 diabetes. These agents could theoretically lower stone risk by promoting urinary citrate excretion, altering urine pH, and enhancing UA clearance. However, prospective data are lacking in nondiabetic individuals. This phase 2, single-center, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study (SWEETSTONE) explored whether empagliflozin (25 mg daily) modifies urinary relative supersaturation ratios (RSRs)—a validated surrogate of stone risk—in adults without diabetes who have a history of either calcium or UA stones.

Objective: To determine if empagliflozin significantly reduces RSRs for calcium oxalate (CaOx), calcium phosphate (CaP), and UA in nondiabetic adults with recurrent kidney stones and to assess short-term safety.

Methods: A total of 53 participants (28 calcium stone formers, 25 UA stone formers) were randomized to empagliflozin 25 mg once daily or placebo for two weeks, followed by a 2–6-week washout, then crossed over to the alternative treatment. Primary outcomes were changes in RSR CaOx, RSR CaP, and RSR UA. Secondary measures included 24-hour urine pH, citrate, calcium, and UA, as well as key blood parameters. Analyses were performed separately for calcium and UA stone groups using a generalized linear mixed effects model. The per protocol set was used for the main analysis, with additional intention-to-treat assessments for confirmation.

Results: In calcium stone formers, empagliflozin lowered RSR CaP by 36% (95% CI −48% to −21%; p<0.001) compared with placebo but did not significantly change RSR CaOx. Uric acid supersaturation rose modestly, yet nonsignificantly. Among UA stone formers, empagliflozin reduced RSR UA by 30% (95% CI −44% to −12%; p=0.002), with no significant effect on RSR CaOx or RSR CaP. Both groups showed substantial increases in 24-hour urine citrate (60% for calcium stones, 40% for UA stones) and marked reductions in plasma UA levels. Urine calcium rose in some calcium stone formers, but no severe adverse events were reported during the study.

Conclusions: Short-term treatment with empagliflozin produced meaningful decreases in key urinary supersaturation indices among nondiabetic adults with calcium or UA stones, while exhibiting an acceptable safety profile. These favorable laboratory changes offer mechanistic promise but do not establish definitive evidence that long-term stone recurrence is reduced.

Implications for Practice: Although the pronounced improvement in urinary lithogenic profiles is encouraging, it remains unclear whether these shifts will translate into sustained reductions in actual stone formation. Consequently, clinicians should be cautious about recommending off-label SGLT2 inhibition for stone prevention solely on the basis of these short-term biochemical improvements. Larger, longer-duration trials with clinical endpoints (i.e., stone recurrence) are warranted before SGLT2 inhibitors can be broadly endorsed for this indication. In addition, practical considerations—such as cost, insurance coverage, and potential off-target effects—must be weighed in individualized clinical decisions.

Study Strengths and Limitations: Strengths include the randomized crossover design and distinct analyses for calcium and UA stone phenotypes. Nevertheless, the sample size was modest, and the treatment duration too brief to capture definitive impacts on stone recurrence. The predominance of white male participants also limits generalizability to more diverse populations.

Future Research: Extended follow-up is crucial to determine the long-term clinical effectiveness of empagliflozin in preventing stone events. Future work should also explore potential mechanisms in larger cohorts, assess cost-effectiveness in real-world settings, and evaluate whether other SGLT2 inhibitors elicit comparable effects.

Reference: Anderegg MA, Schietzel S, Bargagli M, et al. Empagliflozin in nondiabetic individuals with calcium and uric acid kidney stones: a randomized phase 2 trial. Nature Medicine (2025). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-024-03330-x

 

Comprehensive Glycemic Goals and Hypoglycemia Management in Diabetes: 2025 ADA Standards

13 Jan, 2025 | 12:39h | UTC

Introduction: This summary provides key points from the American Diabetes Association’s (ADA) 2025 guidance on glycemic targets, monitoring, and hypoglycemia management in type 1 and type 2 diabetes. It emphasizes individualized A1C goals, the clinical use of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM)—a system that measures interstitial glucose levels throughout the day—and the prevention and treatment of hypoglycemia. The main objective is to help clinicians optimize glucose control, reduce acute and chronic complications, and improve patient outcomes.

Key Recommendations:

  1. Individualized Glycemic Targets
    • An A1C goal of <7% (<53 mmol/mol) is generally appropriate for many nonpregnant adults without frequent or severe hypoglycemia.
    • Lower or higher A1C goals may be appropriate in specific situations. For example:
      • Comorbidities: Individuals with significant cardiovascular disease, kidney dysfunction, or other conditions may benefit from a more conservative A1C target (e.g., <8%), balancing the risks of intensive treatment (such as hypoglycemia) against the benefits of tighter control.
      • Hypoglycemia Risk: Those with a history of severe or frequent hypoglycemia might need to relax A1C targets to avoid life-threatening low glucose episodes. In contrast, highly motivated patients with robust hypoglycemia awareness and access to advanced monitoring tools could safely aim for A1C closer to 6%.
      • Life Expectancy: Younger, healthier individuals with fewer complications can pursue tighter A1C targets because they have time to benefit from reduced microvascular and macrovascular risks. Older adults or those with serious illnesses and limited life expectancy may adopt higher A1C goals to reduce treatment burden and prevent hypoglycemic events.
  2. Monitoring Glycemic Status
    • A1C Testing: Measure at least twice a year when glucose levels are stable and quarterly (or more often) when adjusting therapy or when targets are not met. If A1C is unreliable (e.g., hemoglobin variants), fructosamine or glycated albumin may be used.
    • Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM): CGM devices automatically measure glucose day and night, providing valuable data for clinical decision-making. Key CGM metrics include:
      • Time in Range (TIR): The percentage of readings between 70 and 180 mg/dL, with >70% as a common target in most nonpregnant adults.
      • Time Below Range: Ideal is <4% of readings under 70 mg/dL and <1% for older adults.
      • Time Above Range: Common goals are <25% for mild hyperglycemia and <5% for severe hyperglycemia, though this may vary with age and comorbidities.
    • When refining diabetes therapies, review CGM reports (e.g., ambulatory glucose profiles) to identify patterns of high or low glucose. This helps personalize adjustments to medications, diet, and exercise. For instance, consistent nocturnal hypoglycemia might prompt a reduction or timing change of basal insulin, while excessive morning hyperglycemia may require earlier medication dosing or lifestyle interventions.
  3. Hypoglycemia Prevention and Management
    • Classification: Level 1 (<70 mg/dL), Level 2 (<54 mg/dL), and Level 3 (severe, requiring assistance).
    • Assessment: At each visit, review hypoglycemia history, symptom awareness, and potential triggers (e.g., exercise, medication errors, missed meals).
    • Treatment: In conscious patients, use 15 g of fast-acting carbohydrates (glucose tablets or similar). Recheck glucose in 15 minutes and repeat if still low.
    • Glucagon Prescription: Recommended for anyone on insulin or otherwise high-risk. Ready-to-inject or nasal glucagon formulations are preferred for ease of use.
    • Therapeutic Adjustment: Deintensify or modify medications (insulin, sulfonylureas) if patients experience recurrent moderate or any severe hypoglycemia.
  4. Hyperglycemic Crises
    • DKA and HHS: Promptly recognize and treat diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) and hyperglycemic hyperosmolar state (HHS), especially in patients presenting with nausea, vomiting, dehydration, or altered mental status.
    • Prevention: Provide “sick day” advice on ketone checks, hydration, and insulin adjustments during illness. Recurrent crises often reflect limited access to medications or inadequate education; address these barriers to reduce re-hospitalizations.
  5. Long-Term Impact on Complications
    • Early intensive glycemic control significantly lowers the risk of microvascular complications (retinopathy, nephropathy, neuropathy) in both type 1 and type 2 diabetes.
    • Long-term studies in type 1 diabetes show that sustained glucose management can reduce cardiovascular events. In type 2 diabetes, the addition of newer agents (e.g., GLP-1 receptor agonists or SGLT2 inhibitors) can further decrease cardiovascular and kidney risks, independent of current A1C levels.

Conclusion: The 2025 ADA Standards reinforce the need for customized glycemic targets, informed by comorbidities, hypoglycemia risk, life expectancy, and patient preferences. Using a combination of A1C and CGM data provides a more complete picture of glucose patterns and helps clinicians fine-tune therapies. Preventing hypoglycemia through medication adjustments, structured self-management education, and tailored CGM strategies is paramount. Overall, consistent and individualized glucose control offers better long-term outcomes, fewer complications, and improved quality of life for individuals with diabetes.

Reference: American Diabetes Association Professional Practice Committee. 6. Glycemic Goals and Hypoglycemia: Standards of Care in Diabetes—2025. Diabetes Care 2025;48(Supplement_1):S128–S145.
https://doi.org/10.2337/dc25-S006

 

Review: Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction

9 Jan, 2025 | 11:42h | UTC

Introduction: This summary reviews the 2025 New England Journal of Medicine article by Antonio Cannata, M.D., and Theresa A. McDonagh, M.D., which addresses the clinical syndrome of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). The document describes its heterogeneous nature, diagnostic challenges, and emerging therapeutic approaches. Key objectives include emphasizing the importance of ruling out mimickers (e.g., respiratory disease or amyloidosis) and reviewing the evidence for guideline-directed therapies that reduce hospitalizations and improve quality of life.

Key Recommendations:

  • Diagnostic Steps:
    • Confirm an ejection fraction ≥50% and evidence of diastolic dysfunction or raised filling pressures.
    • Exclude confounding conditions (e.g., COPD, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, cardiac amyloidosis) through imaging (echocardiography, cardiac MRI) and relevant laboratory tests (natriuretic peptides).
    • Consider invasive hemodynamic assessment if the diagnosis remains unclear.
  • Initial Management:
    1. Diuretics: Use loop diuretics or thiazides to relieve congestion and peripheral edema. Titrate to the lowest effective dose once euvolemia is achieved.
    2. Blood Pressure and Comorbidity Control: Optimize antihypertensive therapy with agents such as renin–angiotensin–system (RAS) inhibitors or mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) to address underlying hypertension and other cardiovascular risk factors.
  • Specific Pharmacotherapies:
    • SGLT2 Inhibitors: Empagliflozin and dapagliflozin reduce the composite risk of cardiovascular death or heart-failure hospitalization, primarily by lowering hospitalization rates.
    • RAS Blockade (ACE Inhibitors/ARBs/ARNIs): Although large trials did not show a clear mortality benefit, some studies indicated fewer hospitalizations.
    • MRAs (e.g., Spironolactone, Finerenone): Evidence for HFpEF is mixed, though a recent trial (FINEARTS-HF) supports the potential role of finerenone in reducing hospitalization in patients with left ventricular ejection fraction ≥40%.
    • GLP-1 Receptor Agonists: Agents like semaglutide (and the dual GIP/GLP-1 agonist tirzepatide) showed improvements in weight reduction, exercise tolerance, and quality of life in patients with HFpEF and obesity, suggesting an emerging cardiometabolic strategy.
    • Beta-Blockers: Widespread use in HFpEF often relates to other comorbidities, but trials have not demonstrated significant outcome benefits specifically for preserved ejection fraction.
  • Adjunct Therapies and Devices:
    • Pulmonary Artery Pressure Monitoring (CardioMEMS): Can help guide diuretic adjustments and has shown reductions in hospitalizations for heart failure across ejection-fraction ranges.
    • Interatrial Shunt Devices: Trials so far have not shown conclusive benefits and may pose increased risk in patients with higher ejection fractions.
  • Lifestyle and Comorbidity Management:
    • Address obesity, type 2 diabetes, and physical inactivity through dietary and exercise interventions.
    • Evaluate for sleep-disordered breathing, as optimizing respiratory status can improve symptoms and reduce hospitalizations.

Conclusion: HFpEF is a complex syndrome often associated with obesity, hypertension, and other coexisting conditions that contribute to clinical variability. While no single agent has definitively reduced mortality, trials have shown meaningful reductions in hospitalizations and improvements in quality of life, especially with SGLT2 inhibitors and, in obese patients, GLP-1 receptor agonists. Ongoing research into pathophysiology-driven therapies may enhance future outcomes. For now, clinicians should employ a multimodal approach targeting volume status, cardiometabolic health, and comorbidity control to optimize management.

Reference:
Cannata A, McDonagh TA. Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction. New England Journal of Medicine. 2025;392:173–184.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMcp2305181

 

Observational Study Emulation: Denosumab vs. Oral Bisphosphonates in Dialysis-Dependent Patients Shows Reduced Fractures but Possible Elevated Cardiovascular Risk

8 Jan, 2025 | 11:55h | UTC

Background: Patients receiving dialysis have a markedly increased risk of osteoporotic fractures, yet management options in this population remain challenging. Although oral bisphosphonates are the usual first-line treatment for osteoporosis, safety concerns exist for those with severe chronic kidney disease (CKD). Denosumab, which is not cleared via the kidney, offers a potential alternative, but limited data compare its fracture-prevention benefit and cardiovascular (CV) safety against bisphosphonates in dialysis-dependent patients.

Objective: To estimate the risk for major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and the effectiveness in preventing fractures when using denosumab compared with oral bisphosphonates among patients undergoing dialysis.

Methods: This study emulated a target trial using an observational Japanese administrative claims database (April 2014 to October 2022). Adults aged 50 years or older, receiving dialysis and newly prescribed denosumab (60 mg subcutaneously) or oral bisphosphonates (alendronate, risedronate, ibandronate, or minodronate) were included. Exclusions involved recent acute myocardial infarction, stroke, or heart failure. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) based on propensity scores was used to balance baseline characteristics. The primary safety outcome was MACE (acute myocardial infarction, stroke, hospitalization for heart failure, or CV death), and the primary effectiveness outcome was all fractures. Three-year risks, risk differences, and risk ratios were estimated.

Results: Among 658 denosumab users and 374 oral bisphosphonate users (mean age, 74.5 years; 62.9% women) followed for up to 3 years, denosumab was associated with a higher weighted risk of MACE (3-year risk ratio, 1.36 [95% CI, 0.99 to 1.87]; risk difference, 8.2% [–0.2% to 16.7%]) compared with oral bisphosphonates. Although the point estimate suggests a notable increase, the 95% CI includes 1.0, indicating that statistical significance was not definitively achieved. Denosumab showed a significantly lower composite fracture risk (3-year risk ratio, 0.55 [0.28 to 0.93]; risk difference, –5.3% [–11.3% to –0.6%]). Individual fracture sites (e.g., hip, vertebral) had imprecise estimates but trended toward fewer nonvertebral fractures with denosumab. Mortality rates did not differ substantially between the groups.

Conclusions: In dialysis-dependent patients with osteoporosis, denosumab may reduce fracture risk while potentially elevating the likelihood of MACE. However, the higher MACE estimate did not surpass the conventional threshold for statistical significance, warranting cautious interpretation. Although these data suggest a clinically meaningful reduction in fractures, the findings regarding cardiovascular outcomes remain imprecise and require further confirmation.

Implications for Practice: Clinicians treating dialysis-dependent patients should weigh denosumab’s fracture-prevention advantage against its possible heightened CV risk. Oral bisphosphonates, though sometimes restricted in severe CKD, may confer lower risk of MACE. Careful monitoring of electrolyte levels, especially calcium, and CV status is essential when administering denosumab in end-stage kidney disease.

Study Strengths and Limitations: Strengths include a large, real-world cohort and the use of target trial emulation with robust propensity score weighting. Limitations involve potential residual confounding, reliance on claims-based definitions of outcomes, and absent lab data (e.g., serum calcium, glomerular filtration rate). Consequently, causality and generalizability should be interpreted with caution, especially outside Japan.

Future Research:
Prospective trials and additional observational studies using detailed clinical data (including renal function parameters and bone mineral density) are needed to clarify the relative net benefits of denosumab versus bisphosphonates in advanced CKD. Investigations into other safety outcomes, such as long-term renal function and hypocalcemia-related complications, would further inform clinical decision-making.

Reference: Masuda S, Fukasawa T, Matsuda S, Kawakami K. “Cardiovascular Safety and Fracture Prevention Effectiveness of Denosumab Versus Oral Bisphosphonates in Patients Receiving Dialysis: A Target Trial Emulation.” Annals of Internal Medicine. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7326/ANNALS-24-03237

 

Meta-Analysis: Tailored Hydration Strategies Decrease CI-AKI and MACE in Coronary Angiography

6 Jan, 2025 | 13:00h | UTC

Background: Contrast-induced acute kidney injury (CI-AKI) poses a considerable burden on patients undergoing coronary angiography or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Beyond the direct tubular toxicity of iodine contrast, several risk factors, including chronic kidney disease (CKD) and hemodynamic instability, further increase the likelihood of renal damage. Although guideline-based prevention strategies recommend peri-procedural intravenous hydration, the optimal volume and method remain unclear.

Objective: This meta-analysis aimed to determine whether patient-tailored intravenous fluid administration (using parameters other than body weight alone) can reduce the incidence of CI-AKI, as well as major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), compared with conventional non-tailored hydration protocols in patients undergoing coronary angiography and/or PCI.

Methods: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was performed, including 13 studies and 4,458 participants. Tailored hydration strategies encompassed left ventricular end-diastolic pressure (LVEDP)-guided infusion, diuresis-driven matched replacement (RenalGuard®), bioimpedance vector analysis, central venous pressure, or inferior vena cava ultrasound measurements. These were compared against standard non-tailored fluid protocols. The primary outcome was CI-AKI (variously defined but measured within 7 days), and secondary outcomes included MACE, all-cause mortality, and renal replacement therapy (RRT).

Results: Across 12 RCTs (n=3,669), tailored hydration significantly reduced CI-AKI rates (risk ratio 0.56, 95% CI [0.46–0.69], p<0.00001; I²=26%). Ten studies (n=3,377) revealed lower MACE incidence in the tailored hydration arm (RR=0.57, 95% CI [0.42–0.78], p=0.0005; I²=12%). A significant reduction in all-cause mortality (RR=0.57, 95% CI [0.35–0.94], p=0.03) and RRT requirement (RR=0.51, 95% CI [0.29–0.89], p=0.02) was also observed, with no significant increase in pulmonary edema. Subgroup analyses (e.g., CKD) supported the overall benefit of individualizing fluid regimens.

Conclusions: Tailored hydration strategies appear superior to standard approaches in lowering the risk of CI-AKI, MACE, mortality, and RRT after coronary angiography or PCI. Although LVEDP-guided protocols are simple to implement and effective, the RenalGuard® system may offer additional benefits in selected populations, albeit at higher cost and complexity.

Implications for Practice: Clinicians should consider personalized hydration based on physiological or hemodynamic parameters to optimize fluid volume, reduce renal injury, and potentially improve clinical outcomes. Nevertheless, practical challenges include access to specialized equipment and the need for close monitoring in some techniques.

Study Strengths and Limitations: This systematic review highlights consistent treatment effects across diverse RCTs and methods. However, potential biases due to lack of blinding, varying CI-AKI definitions, and limited head-to-head comparisons among tailored approaches constrain definitive conclusions. The small sample size of certain studies and underpowered subgroup analyses also limit the generalizability of findings.

Future Research: Further large-scale trials are warranted to compare various tailored protocols directly, focusing on cost-effectiveness, ease of implementation, and patient-centered endpoints. Ongoing investigations, such as the NEPTUNE trial, aim to clarify whether combining multiple parameters (like LVEDP and contrast volume/eGFR ratio) yields optimal renal protection.

Reference: Cossette F, Trifan A, Prévost-Marcotte G, et al. Tailored Hydration for the Prevention of Contrast-Induced Acute Kidney Injury After Coronary Angiogram or PCI: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. American Heart Journal. Published online January 4, 2025. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ahj.2025.01.002

RCT: Chlorthalidone Shows No Renal Advantage Over Hydrochlorothiazide Under Equivalent Dosing in Older Adults With Hypertension

3 Jan, 2025 | 09:00h | UTC

Background: Hypertension is a critical factor in chronic kidney disease (CKD) progression and cardiovascular risk. Thiazide-type diuretics, such as chlorthalidone and hydrochlorothiazide, are first-line antihypertensive treatments. However, whether one agent confers stronger renal protection remains contested, especially at doses considered pharmacologically comparable. Prior observational studies suggested potential discrepancies in kidney outcomes and hypokalemia incidence. This secondary analysis of the Diuretic Comparison Project (DCP) further clarifies the comparative effectiveness of chlorthalidone versus hydrochlorothiazide on renal endpoints.

Objective: To evaluate whether chlorthalidone (12.5–25 mg/day) prevents CKD progression more effectively than hydrochlorothiazide (25–50 mg/day) in adults ≥65 years with hypertension and no pre-specified exclusion by renal function.

Methods: The DCP is a pragmatic, open-label randomized clinical trial embedded in Veterans Affairs (VA) facilities across the United States. Between June 1, 2016, and December 31, 2023, patients already receiving hydrochlorothiazide (25 or 50 mg/day) for hypertension were randomized either to continue that medication or switch to chlorthalidone (12.5–25 mg/day), reflecting equivalent potency.
The prespecified primary kidney outcome was a composite of doubling of serum creatinine, a terminal estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <15 mL/min, or dialysis initiation. Secondary measures included ≥40% eGFR decline, incident CKD (new eGFR <60 mL/min), eGFR slope, and relevant adverse events. Laboratory data were obtained through usual clinical care rather than protocol-driven testing.

Results: Among 13,523 randomized participants, 12,265 had analyzable renal data (mean [SD] age, 71 [4] years; 96.8% male). The mean (SD) follow-up was 3.9 (1.3) years. Chlorthalidone did not demonstrate superiority over hydrochlorothiazide for the composite kidney endpoint (6.0% vs 6.4%; hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.81–1.08; P=.37). Additional analyses showed no differences in CKD incidence, ≥40% eGFR decline, or eGFR slope. Hypokalemia occurred more frequently in chlorthalidone users (overall ~2% higher rate of low potassium measurements), and hospitalizations for hypokalemia also trended higher.

Conclusions: Under dosing regimens designed to achieve equivalent antihypertensive potency, chlorthalidone provided no measurable renal benefit over hydrochlorothiazide but posed a modestly elevated risk of hypokalemia. These findings reinforce the clinical interchangeability of both agents for long-term blood pressure management in older adults, provided serum potassium is monitored.

Implications for Practice: Clinicians can confidently employ either chlorthalidone or hydrochlorothiazide in older patients with hypertension, including those with mild or moderate CKD, since renal deterioration rates did not differ significantly. Importantly, the trial used half the milligram amount of chlorthalidone (12.5–25 mg/day) to match the usual doses of hydrochlorothiazide (25–50 mg/day). Recognizing this equivalence helps guide therapy transitions and dosing decisions. Vigilant monitoring of electrolytes remains essential, particularly when prescribing chlorthalidone, given the slightly higher incidence of hypokalemia.

Study Strengths and Limitations: Strengths include the randomized design, broad participant inclusion, and pragmatic structure that mirrors real-world prescribing. Limitations involve potential underestimation or overestimation of renal events due to reliance on routine (rather than scheduled) lab tests. Also, nearly all participants had prior hydrochlorothiazide exposure, which may have influenced tolerance and adherence patterns.

Future Research: Further clinical trials focusing on more advanced CKD stages, distinct comorbidities, or combination regimens (e.g., with potassium-sparing agents) would expand our understanding of how thiazide-type diuretics influence long-term kidney outcomes. Extended follow-up or additional subgroup analyses could also shed light on the interplay of dose-response effects in highly vulnerable populations.

Reference: Ishani A, Hau C, Raju S, et al. “Chlorthalidone vs Hydrochlorothiazide and Kidney Outcomes in Patients With Hypertension: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.” JAMA Netw Open. 2024;7(12):e2449576. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.49576

 

Dose-Response Meta-Analysis: At Least 150 Weekly Minutes of Aerobic Exercise Needed for Significant Waist and Fat Reduction

2 Jan, 2025 | 09:30h | UTC

Background: Elevated body weight and adiposity remain major public health concerns worldwide, with overweight and obesity affecting nearly half of the adult population. Although various guidelines advocate for aerobic exercise as a core strategy in weight management, robust meta-analyses exploring dose-response relationships are scarce.

Objective: To clarify how different doses and intensities of supervised aerobic exercise affect body weight, waist circumference, and body fat in adults with overweight or obesity.

Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis encompassed 116 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) including a total of 6880 participants (mean [SD] age, 46 [13] years). All studies involved supervised continuous aerobic interventions (e.g., walking or running) for at least 8 weeks. Comparisons were made against sedentary or usual-activity controls. Frequency, duration (minutes per week), and intensity (moderate, vigorous, or combined) of aerobic sessions were extracted.

Results: Across all trials, each additional 30 minutes per week of aerobic exercise was linked to a mean reduction of 0.52 kg in body weight (95% CI, −0.61 to −0.44), 0.56 cm in waist circumference, and 0.37 percentage points in body fat. Body weight and waist circumference showed largely linear decreases with increasing weekly exercise, whereas body fat percentage displayed a pattern suggesting that at least 150 minutes per week may be required to achieve clinically meaningful reductions (>2% reduction in body fat). Aerobic training was generally well tolerated, although a modest increase in mild musculoskeletal complaints was noted (risk difference, 2 more events per 100 participants).

Conclusions: Engaging in up to 300 minutes per week of aerobic exercise was associated with progressively greater benefits for weight control, waist circumference, and body fat. While even small doses yielded modest improvements, these findings suggest that an intensity of at least moderate level and a duration of at least 150 minutes per week may be necessary to achieve clinically important reductions in central obesity and fat percentage.

Implications for Practice: Clinicians managing patients with overweight or obesity can recommend a minimum of 150 minutes per week of moderate-to-vigorous aerobic training to achieve significant anthropometric changes. Gradual progression is essential to balance effectiveness and safety, especially in individuals with musculoskeletal constraints.

Study Strengths and Limitations: Strengths include the large number of RCTs, robust dose-response analyses, and consistent directions of effects. However, high heterogeneity, publication bias for certain fat measures, and limited data on medication use and health-related quality of life in longer trials were noted.

Future Research: Further trials should explore additional subgroup analyses (e.g., older adults, individuals with chronic comorbidities), longer durations of follow-up, and the integration of resistance training to optimize cardiometabolic outcomes.

Reference: Jayedi A, Soltani S, Emadi A, et al. Aerobic Exercise and Weight Loss in Adults: A Systematic Review and Dose-Response Meta-Analysis. JAMA Network Open. 2024;7(12):e2452185. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.52185

 

2025 ASA Practice Advisory for the Perioperative Care of Older Adults Undergoing Inpatient Surgery

23 Dec, 2024 | 20:27h | UTC

Introduction: This summary outlines the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) 2025 advisory on optimizing perioperative care for older adults (age 65 years or older) undergoing inpatient surgery. It focuses on preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative measures to mitigate cognitive complications, especially delirium and longer-term cognitive decline, in a population that is highly vulnerable to functional deterioration and loss of independence. The recommendations are based on systematic reviews and meta-analyses, supplemented by expert consensus where evidence is limited. Although not intended as strict standards of care, these advisory statements provide practical guidance that can be adapted to local contexts and patient-specific needs.

Key Recommendations:

  1. Expanded Preoperative Evaluation:
    • Incorporate frailty assessment, cognitive screening, and psychosocial or nutritional evaluations into routine preoperative workups for older patients.
    • Patients identified with frailty or cognitive deficits should receive targeted interventions, such as geriatric co-management, deprescribing when indicated, and early family education about delirium risks.
    • Evidence suggests a modest decrease in postoperative delirium when such evaluations are included.
  2. Choice of Primary Anesthetic (Neuraxial vs. General):
    • Current studies do not demonstrate a clear advantage of neuraxial over general anesthesia in reducing postoperative delirium risk.
    • Both approaches are acceptable; individualize decisions based on patient factors, surgical requirements, and preference-sensitive discussions.
  3. Maintenance of General Anesthesia (Total Intravenous vs. Inhaled Agents):
    • Data are inconclusive regarding delirium prevention, with no significant difference between total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) and inhaled volatile agents.
    • Some low-level evidence indicates TIVA might reduce short-term cognitive decline, but this effect is inconsistent over longer follow-up.
  4. Dexmedetomidine for Delirium Prophylaxis:
    • Moderate-level evidence supports dexmedetomidine for reducing delirium incidence in older patients, yet its use may increase bradycardia and hypotension.
    • Optimal dosing and timing remain uncertain, and baseline patient vulnerability should inform decisions.
  5. Medications with Potential Central Nervous System Effects:
    • Drugs such as benzodiazepines, antipsychotics, anticholinergics, ketamine, and gabapentinoids warrant careful risk-benefit analysis.
    • Current findings are inconclusive, suggesting neither a firm endorsement nor outright disapproval; preexisting conditions and polypharmacy should guide individualized treatment plans.

Conclusion: Preserving cognitive function and independence in older adults undergoing inpatient surgery is a growing priority. These recommendations highlight the importance of comprehensive preoperative screenings (frailty, cognition, and psychosocial domains), shared decision-making when choosing anesthetic techniques, and thoughtful use of pharmacologic agents. While dexmedetomidine shows promise in mitigating delirium, vigilance regarding hypotension and bradycardia is essential. Ultimately, these strategies aim to reduce anesthesia-related complications in older patients by addressing the multifaceted determinants of postoperative cognitive outcomes.

Reference: Sieber F, McIsaac DI, Deiner S, et al. 2025 American Society of Anesthesiologists Practice Advisory for Perioperative Care of Older Adults Scheduled for Inpatient Surgery. Anesthesiology. 2025;142(1):22–51. https://doi.org/10.1097/ALN.0000000000005172

 

Review: Nonsurgical Management of Chronic Venous Insufficiency

19 Dec, 2024 | 16:45h | UTC

Introduction: This summary highlights key points from a recent review on the nonsurgical management of chronic venous insufficiency, a condition characterized by persistent venous hypertension leading to edema, skin changes, and venous ulcers. Chronic venous insufficiency is influenced by both structural factors (e.g., venous reflux, obstruction) and functional elements (e.g., obesity, impaired calf-muscle pump). While interventional procedures may improve symptoms in patients with significant structural abnormalities, most cases require comprehensive nonsurgical strategies targeting venous hypertension and improving quality of life.

Key Recommendations:

  1. Comprehensive Assessment: Distinguish between structural and functional components of venous disease. Structural issues may warrant endovenous procedures, whereas functional insufficiency (e.g., due to obesity, weak calf muscles) requires behavioral and medical interventions.
  2. Compression Therapy (Class 1A for Venous Ulcers): Use tailored compression stockings or wraps to reduce venous pressure, alleviate swelling, and aid ulcer healing. Compression levels above 30 mm Hg can facilitate healing, but lower levels (20–30 mm Hg) may improve adherence.
  3. Lifestyle Modifications: Implement weight reduction measures in obese patients to lower central venous pressure and improve venous return. Consider evaluating and managing obstructive sleep apnea or cardiac dysfunction that may elevate venous pressure.
  4. Exercise and Leg Elevation: Encourage exercises that strengthen calf and foot muscles, thereby enhancing the venous pump function and reducing stasis. Advise regular leg elevation to alleviate edema and discomfort.
  5. Medication Review: Assess current medications (e.g., calcium-channel blockers, gabapentinoids) that may cause edema and consider alternatives. Avoid unnecessary diuretics unless true volume overload is confirmed.
  6. Venous Interventions for Structural Lesions (Class IB for Varicose Veins): In patients with symptomatic varicose veins and axial reflux, procedural interventions (e.g., endovenous ablation, sclerotherapy, or surgical stripping) can be more effective than long-term compression alone. Early intervention may expedite ulcer healing in selected cases.
  7. Cautious Use of Venoactive Agents: Although certain supplements (e.g., flavonoids, horse chestnut) are widely available, current guidelines provide only weak recommendations, with limited evidence for clinically meaningful outcomes.

Conclusion: Nonsurgical management of chronic venous insufficiency emphasizes reducing venous hypertension, improving calf muscle pump function, and addressing central factors such as obesity and cardiac conditions. By combining compression therapy, exercise, weight reduction, and appropriate medication adjustments, clinicians can alleviate symptoms, enhance patient comfort, and potentially improve wound healing. Procedural interventions remain essential adjuncts for selected structural abnormalities, but long-term functional management is key to sustained clinical benefit.

Reference: Fukaya E, Kolluri R. Nonsurgical Management of Chronic Venous Insufficiency. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2024;391:2350–2359. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMcp2310224

 

Review: Management of Atrial Fibrillation

18 Dec, 2024 | 14:22h | UTC

Introduction: This summary of a comprehensive review on atrial fibrillation (AF) focuses on an increasingly prevalent arrhythmia affecting more than 10 million adults in the United States. AF significantly elevates the risks of stroke, heart failure (HF), cognitive decline, and mortality. This guideline-based overview examines the pathophysiology, detection, prevention, and treatment strategies for AF, emphasizing risk factor modification, appropriate anticoagulation, and early rhythm control interventions to improve clinical outcomes and quality of life.

Key Recommendations:

  1. Risk Factor and Lifestyle Modification: Implement weight reduction, regular exercise, optimal blood pressure control, smoking cessation, and reduced alcohol intake at all AF stages to prevent new-onset AF, reduce recurrences, and mitigate complications.
  2. Screening and Diagnosis: Consider AF screening in high-risk patients using wearable devices or implantable loop recorders. Confirm suspected AF with electrocardiography and extended rhythm monitoring in those with cryptogenic stroke.
  3. Stroke Prevention: Assess stroke risk using CHA2DS2-VASc. For patients with annual stroke risk ≥2%, initiate oral anticoagulation (preferably direct oral anticoagulants over warfarin) to lower stroke risk by up to 80%. Avoid aspirin monotherapy for AF-related stroke prevention due to inferior efficacy.
  4. Early Rhythm Control: Begin rhythm control within one year of AF diagnosis, particularly in symptomatic patients or those with HF and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Early use of antiarrhythmic drugs or catheter ablation can improve symptoms, cardiac function, and reduce hospitalizations.
  5. Catheter Ablation: Utilize ablation as a first-line therapy in symptomatic paroxysmal AF to maintain sinus rhythm and prevent progression. In patients with AF and HFrEF, ablation enhances quality of life, improves left ventricular function, and lowers mortality and HF hospitalization rates.
  6. Rate Control Strategies: For patients who are not candidates for rhythm control, use beta-blockers or nondihydropyridine calcium channel blockers to achieve satisfactory ventricular rate control. Consider atrioventricular nodal ablation plus pacemaker implantation if pharmacologic therapy is inadequate.
  7. Staging and Long-Term Management: Recognize four AF stages (at risk, pre-AF, clinically apparent AF, and permanent AF) to tailor management. After ablation, continue anticoagulation for at least three months, then reassess stroke risk before considering discontinuation.
  8. Addressing Inequities: Improve access to guideline-directed AF therapies, including ablation and specialized care, and address social determinants of health that influence disparities in diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes.

Conclusion: Guideline-directed AF management, encompassing comprehensive risk factor modification, appropriate anticoagulation, and timely rhythm control strategies, can reduce stroke incidence, improve HF outcomes, and prolong life. Catheter ablation is a key intervention for appropriate patients, especially those with symptomatic paroxysmal AF or HFrEF, while striving for equitable and evidence-based care across diverse populations remains a critical priority.

Reference: Ko D, Chung MK, Evans PT, et al. Atrial Fibrillation: A Review. JAMA. Published online December 16, 2024. doi: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2024.22451

 

Retrospective Cohort Study: As-Needed Blood Pressure Medications Associated With Increased AKI and Other Adverse Outcomes in Hospitalized Veterans

8 Dec, 2024 | 21:34h | UTC

Background: Inpatient asymptomatic blood pressure (BP) elevations are common, and clinicians frequently use as-needed BP medications to rapidly lower BP values. However, there is limited evidence supporting this practice, and abrupt BP reductions may increase the risk of ischemic events, including acute kidney injury (AKI).

Objective: To examine whether as-needed BP medication use during hospitalization is associated with increased risk of AKI and other adverse outcomes compared to no as-needed use.

Methods: This retrospective cohort study used a target trial emulation and propensity score matching. Adults hospitalized for ≥3 days in non-ICU VA hospital wards from 2015-2020, who received at least one scheduled BP medication within the first 24 hours and had at least one systolic BP reading >140 mm Hg, were included. Patients were categorized into two groups: those receiving at least one as-needed BP medication (oral or IV) and those receiving only scheduled BP medications. The primary outcome was time-to-first AKI event. Secondary outcomes included a >25% drop in systolic BP within 3 hours and a composite of myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, or death.

Results: Among 133,760 veterans (mean age 71.2 years; 96% male), 21% received as-needed BP medications. As-needed BP medication use was associated with a 23% higher risk of AKI (HR=1.23; 95% CI, 1.18-1.29). The IV route showed a particularly pronounced AKI risk (HR=1.64). Secondary analyses indicated a 1.5-fold increased risk of rapid BP reduction and a 1.69-fold higher rate of the composite outcome (MI, stroke, death) among as-needed users.

Conclusions: In a large, national cohort of hospitalized veterans, as-needed BP medication use was associated with increased AKI risk and other adverse outcomes. These findings suggest that routine as-needed BP medication use for asymptomatic BP elevations may be harmful.

Implications for Practice: Clinicians should carefully reconsider the use of as-needed BP medications in the inpatient setting, especially in older individuals or those with significant cardiovascular risk. Given the lack of clear benefit and potential for harm, greater caution and potentially more conservative approaches are warranted.

Study Strengths and Limitations: Strengths include a large, nationally representative sample and robust analytic methods. Limitations include the retrospective design, potential residual confounding, and limited generalizability to non-veteran or surgical populations. While causal inferences cannot be made, the findings strongly support the need to question current practice.

Future Research: Prospective, randomized trials are needed to determine the optimal management of asymptomatic inpatient hypertension and to assess whether avoiding or reducing as-needed BP medication use improves clinical outcomes.

Reference: Canales MT, Yang S, Westanmo A, et al. As-Needed Blood Pressure Medication and Adverse Outcomes in VA Hospitals. JAMA Internal Medicine. Published online November 25, 2024. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2024.6213

 

RCT: FFR-Guided PCI Plus TAVI is Non-inferior and Superior to SAVR Plus CABG in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis and Complex Coronary Disease

8 Dec, 2024 | 21:22h | UTC

Background: Patients with severe aortic stenosis frequently present with concomitant complex coronary artery disease. Current guidelines recommend combined surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) as first-line therapy. However, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have emerged as alternative treatments. Assessing their efficacy compared to SAVR plus CABG has been an unmet need.

Objective: To determine whether FFR-guided PCI plus TAVI is non-inferior and, if demonstrated, superior to SAVR plus CABG in patients with severe aortic stenosis and complex or multivessel coronary disease.

Methods: This international, multicenter, prospective, open-label, non-inferiority randomized controlled trial included patients aged ≥70 years with severe aortic stenosis and complex coronary disease who were deemed suitable for either percutaneous or surgical treatment by a Heart Team. Participants were randomized (1:1) to FFR-guided PCI plus TAVI or SAVR plus CABG. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, disabling stroke, clinically driven target-vessel revascularization, valve reintervention, and life-threatening or disabling bleeding at 1 year.

Results: Among 172 enrolled patients, 91 were assigned to FFR-guided PCI plus TAVI and 81 to SAVR plus CABG. At 1 year, the primary endpoint occurred in 4% of patients in the PCI/TAVI group versus 23% in the SAVR/CABG group (risk difference –18.5%; 90% CI –27.8 to –9.7; p<0.001 for non-inferiority; p<0.001 for superiority). The difference was driven mainly by lower all-cause mortality (0% vs 10%, p=0.0025) and reduced life-threatening bleeding (2% vs 12%, p=0.010).

Conclusions: In patients with severe aortic stenosis and complex coronary artery disease, FFR-guided PCI plus TAVI was non-inferior and in fact superior to SAVR plus CABG at 1 year, predominantly due to lower mortality and serious bleeding events.

Implications for Practice: These findings suggest that a percutaneous strategy may be a viable and potentially preferable alternative to surgery in selected patients. Nevertheless, given this is the first trial of its kind, cautious interpretation is advised, and routine adoption should await further corroboration.

Study Strengths and Limitations: Strengths include a randomized, multicenter design and standardized endpoint assessment. Limitations involve early trial termination resulting in a smaller sample size and the use of a single TAVI device type, limiting generalizability.

Future Research: Larger trials with longer follow-up, evaluation of other TAVI prostheses, and broader patient populations are needed to validate these findings and determine the optimal patient selection criteria.

Reference: Kedhi E, et al. TransCatheter aortic valve implantation and fractional flow reserve-guided percutaneous coronary intervention versus conventional surgical aortic valve replacement and coronary bypass grafting for treatment of patients with aortic valve stenosis and complex or multivessel coronary disease: The Lancet. 2024. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(24)02100-7

 

Prospective Cohort: Combined CRP, LDL Cholesterol, and Lipoprotein(a) Levels Predict 30-Year Cardiovascular Risk in Women

8 Dec, 2024 | 20:58h | UTC

Background: Current 10-year risk models do not fully capture lifetime cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. Inflammation, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, and lipoprotein(a) are distinct pathways associated with atherosclerosis. While their value in predicting 5- to 10-year cardiovascular risk is established, data on their combined long-term predictive utility, particularly over three decades in women, are limited.

Objective: To determine whether a single baseline measurement of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (CRP), LDL cholesterol, and lipoprotein(a) provides additive and independent predictive value for 30-year cardiovascular outcomes in initially healthy women.

Methods: This prospective cohort study included 27,939 initially healthy U.S. women (mean age, 54.7 years) from the Women’s Health Study, enrolled between 1992 and 1995. Baseline levels of high-sensitivity CRP, LDL cholesterol, and lipoprotein(a) were measured. Participants were followed for 30 years for a first major adverse cardiovascular event (myocardial infarction, coronary revascularization, stroke, or cardiovascular death). Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for each biomarker’s quintiles were estimated, as well as combined models including all three biomarkers simultaneously.

Results: Over 30 years, 3,662 first major cardiovascular events occurred. Higher baseline quintiles of CRP, LDL cholesterol, and lipoprotein(a) were each associated with elevated 30-year risk. Compared to the lowest quintile, adjusted HRs for the top quintile were 1.70 (95% CI, 1.52–1.90) for CRP, 1.36 (95% CI, 1.23–1.52) for LDL cholesterol, and 1.33 (95% CI, 1.21–1.47) for lipoprotein(a). Each marker contributed independently, and models incorporating all three showed the greatest risk discrimination. Participants with all three biomarkers in the highest quintile had a HR of 2.63 (95% CI, 2.16–3.19) for the primary endpoint.

Conclusions: A single combined baseline assessment of high-sensitivity CRP, LDL cholesterol, and lipoprotein(a) strongly predicted CVD events over 30 years. These findings suggest extending beyond traditional 10-year estimates to identify long-term risk, reinforcing the need for early prevention strategies addressing multiple biological pathways.

Implications for Practice: Measuring these three biomarkers early may inform more personalized, prolonged preventive efforts. While lowering LDL cholesterol remains foundational, addressing inflammation and lipoprotein(a) could further optimize long-term CVD prevention. Nonetheless, caution is advised before embracing new interventions lacking robust long-term data.

Study Strengths and Limitations: Strengths include the extended 30-year follow-up, a large, well-characterized cohort, and standardized biomarker assessments. Limitations include a predominantly White, female population, limiting generalizability. Single-time-point biomarker measurements and evolving statin use over time add complexity. Despite these constraints, the study underscores the multifactorial nature of long-term CVD risk.

Future Research: Further investigations should evaluate targeted interventions on inflammation and lipoprotein(a), potentially through long-term clinical trials and more diverse populations. Such research could clarify the benefits of a multimodal risk-reduction strategy.

Reference: Ridker PM, Moorthy MV, Cook NR, Rifai N, Lee I-M, Buring JE. Inflammation, Cholesterol, Lipoprotein(a), and 30-Year Cardiovascular Outcomes in Women. N Engl J Med 2024;391:2087-2097. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2405182

 

Stay Updated in Your Specialty

Telegram Channels
Free

WhatsApp alerts 10-day free trial

No spam, just news.