RESUMEN
Phase 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), while the gold standard for treatment efficacy and safety, are not always feasible, are expensive, can be prolonged and can be limited in generalizability. Other under-recognized sources of evidence can also help advance drug development. Basic science, proof-of-concept studies and early-phase RCTs can provide evidence regarding the potential for clinical benefit. Real-world evidence generated from registries or observational datasets can provide insights into the treatment of rare diseases that often pose a challenge for trial recruitment. Pragmatic trials embedded in healthcare systems can assess the treatment effects in clinical settings among patient populations sometimes excluded from trials. This Perspective discusses potential sources of evidence that may be used to complement explanatory phase 3 RCTs and to speed the development of new cardiovascular medications. Content is derived from the 19th Global Cardiovascular Clinical Trialists meeting (December 2022), involving clinical trialists, patients, clinicians, regulators, funders and industry representatives.
Asunto(s)
Desarrollo de Medicamentos , Humanos , Desarrollo de Medicamentos/métodos , Fármacos Cardiovasculares/uso terapéutico , Fármacos Cardiovasculares/efectos adversos , Ensayos Clínicos Fase III como Asunto , Ensayos Clínicos Pragmáticos como Asunto/métodos , Proyectos de Investigación/normas , Enfermedades Cardiovasculares/tratamiento farmacológico , Medicina Basada en la Evidencia/métodos , Resultado del Tratamiento , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto/métodos , Estudios Observacionales como Asunto/métodosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Physician underprescribing and patient nonadherence are major barriers to the benefits of guideline-directed medical therapy. An important contributor to both underprescribing and patient nonadherence is concern about medication-related side effects. Yet, there are few to no data on approaches used by physicians to: (1) elicit medication-related side effects, (2) attribute these side effects to specific medications, and (3) take appropriate action. METHODS AND RESULTS: The authors conducted semistructured interviews with physicians to identify facilitators and barriers to each critical step of heart failure medication management: elicitation of side effects, attribution of side effects to a medication, and action in response to attributed side effects. Interviews were transcribed and coded using directed content analysis. For elicitation of potential side effects, limited patient communication and family discordance in reporting were key barriers, whereas guiding questions, measurement, and open channels of communication were key facilitators. For attribution of side effects, confounding from other medications, limited time for clinical encounters, and nonspecific symptoms were key barriers, whereas time-limited medication discontinuation trials and medication rechallenges were key facilitators. For taking action, challenges with weighing risks and benefits and physician fear about causing harm or interfering with other clinicians were barriers, whereas patient-physician communication and the results of a medication discontinuation trials and medication rechallenge were facilitators. CONCLUSIONS: This study generated key facilitators and barriers to 3 key aspects of heart failure medication management related to side effects that should drive future work to improve heart failure medication management.
Asunto(s)
Insuficiencia Cardíaca , Cumplimiento de la Medicación , Relaciones Médico-Paciente , Humanos , Insuficiencia Cardíaca/tratamiento farmacológico , Femenino , Masculino , Pautas de la Práctica en Medicina , Fármacos Cardiovasculares/efectos adversos , Fármacos Cardiovasculares/uso terapéutico , Actitud del Personal de Salud , Persona de Mediana Edad , Entrevistas como Asunto , Efectos Colaterales y Reacciones Adversas Relacionados con Medicamentos/epidemiología , Conocimientos, Actitudes y Práctica en Salud , Cardiólogos , ComunicaciónRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: In patients with in-stent restenosis (ISR) bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) provide similar results to drug-coated balloons (DCBs) but are inferior to drug-eluting stents (DES) at 1 year. However, the long-term efficacy of BVS in these patients remains unknown. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to assess the long-term safety and efficacy of BVS in patients with ISR. METHODS: RIBS VI (Restenosis Intrastent: Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds Treatment; NCT02672878) and RIBS VI Scoring (Restenosis Intrastent: Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds Treatment With Scoring Balloon; NTC03069066) are prospective multicenter studies designed to evaluate the results of BVS in patients with ISR (N = 220). The inclusion and exclusion criteria were identical to those used in the RIBS IV (ISR of DES) (Restenosis Intra-stent of Drug-eluting Stents: Drug-eluting Balloon vs Everolimus-eluting Stent; NCT01239940) and RIBS V (ISR of bare-metal stents) (Restenosis Intra-stent of Bare Metal Stents: Paclitaxel-eluting Balloon vs Everolimus-eluting Stent; NCT01239953) randomized trials (including 249 ISR patients treated with DCBs and 249 ISR patients treated with DES). A prespecified comparison of the long-term results obtained with these treatment modalities (ie, DES, DCBs, and BVS) was performed. RESULTS: Clinical follow-up at 3 years was obtained in all (100%) 718 patients. The 3-year target lesion revascularization rate after BVS was 14.1% (vs 12.9% after DCBs [not significant], and 5.2% after DES [HR: 2.80; 95% CI: 1.47-5.36; P = 0.001]). In a landmark analysis (>1 year), the target lesion revascularization rate after BVS was higher than after DES (adjusted HR: 3.41; 95% CI: 1.15-10.08) and DCBs (adjusted HR: 3.33; 95% CI: 1.14-9.70). Very late vessel thrombosis was also more frequent with BVS (BVS: 1.8%, DCBs: 0.4%, DES: 0%; P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ISR, late clinical results of DES are superior to those obtained with DCBs and BVS. Beyond the first year, DCBs are safer and more effective than BVS.
Asunto(s)
Implantes Absorbibles , Reestenosis Coronaria , Diseño de Prótesis , Humanos , Factores de Tiempo , Masculino , Resultado del Tratamiento , Femenino , Estudios Prospectivos , Reestenosis Coronaria/etiología , Reestenosis Coronaria/diagnóstico por imagen , Reestenosis Coronaria/terapia , Persona de Mediana Edad , Anciano , Factores de Riesgo , Angioplastia Coronaria con Balón/instrumentación , Angioplastia Coronaria con Balón/efectos adversos , Fármacos Cardiovasculares/administración & dosificación , Fármacos Cardiovasculares/efectos adversos , Stents , Intervención Coronaria Percutánea/instrumentación , Intervención Coronaria Percutánea/efectos adversos , Enfermedad de la Arteria Coronaria/terapia , Enfermedad de la Arteria Coronaria/diagnóstico por imagen , Materiales Biocompatibles Revestidos , Stents Liberadores de Fármacos , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como AsuntoRESUMEN
ABSTRACT: Heart rate (HR) stands as a prognostic indicator of cardiovascular disease and a modifiable risk factor in heart failure (HF). Medication intolerance can curtail the application of conventional HR-lowering ß-blockers to the optimum target dose. Ivabradine (IVA), a specific negative-chronotropic agent, selectively inhibits I f current in pacemaker cells of the sinoatrial node without depressing myocardial contractility or comprising hemodynamics. This review summarized ivabradine's clinical labeled and off-label uses and mechanism of action focusing on the clinical outcomes. PubMed was searched up to January 2024 using the main keywords of IVA, coronary artery disease (CAD), HF, postural tachycardia syndrome (POTS), and tachyarrhythmia. To comprehensively review IVA's clinical indications, mechanisms, and therapeutic effects, all studies investigating treatment with IVA in humans were included, comprising different types of studies such as randomized controlled trials and longitudinal prospective observational studies. After screening, 141 studies were included in our review. A large number of reviewed articles were allocated to heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and CAD, suggesting IVA as an alternative to ß-blockers in case of contraindications or intolerance. The beneficial effects of IVA as premedication for coronary computed tomography angiography, HR lowering in POTS, and inappropriate sinus tachycardia constituted most studies among off-label uses. The promising results have been reported on the efficacy of IVA in controlling HR, especially in patients with inappropriate sinus tachycardia or POTS. Owing to the unique mechanism of action, IVA has the potential to be used more frequently in future clinical practice.
Asunto(s)
Fármacos Cardiovasculares , Frecuencia Cardíaca , Ivabradina , Ivabradina/uso terapéutico , Ivabradina/efectos adversos , Humanos , Frecuencia Cardíaca/efectos de los fármacos , Fármacos Cardiovasculares/uso terapéutico , Fármacos Cardiovasculares/efectos adversos , Resultado del Tratamiento , Uso Fuera de lo Indicado , Insuficiencia Cardíaca/tratamiento farmacológico , Insuficiencia Cardíaca/fisiopatología , Animales , Potenciales de Acción/efectos de los fármacosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that drug-coated balloons may benefit in-stent restenosis (ISR) treatment. However, the efficacy of new-generation sirolimus-coated balloon (SCB) compared with the latest generation drug-eluting stents (DESs) has not been studied in this setting. METHODS: All patients in the EASTBORNE (The All-Comers Sirolimus-Coated Balloon European Registry) and DEB-DRAGON (DEB vs Thin-DES in DES-ISR: Long Term Outcomes) registries undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for DES-ISR were included in the study. The primary study end point was target lesion revascularization at 24 months. Secondary end points were major adverse cardiovascular events, all-cause death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization at 24 months. Our goal was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of SCB versus thin-struts DES in ISR at long-term follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 1545 patients with 1679 ISR lesions were included in the pooled analysis, of whom 621 (40.2%) patients with 621 lesions were treated with thin-strut DES and 924 (59.8%) patients with 1045 lesions were treated with SCB. The unmatched cohort showed no differences in the incidence of target lesion revascularization (10.8% versus 11.8%; P=0.568); however, there was a trend toward lower rates of myocardial infarction (7.4% versus 5.0%; P=0.062) and major adverse cardiovascular events (20.8% versus 17.1%; P=0.072) in the SCB group. After propensity score matching (n=335 patients per group), there were no significant differences in the rates of target lesion revascularization (11.6% versus 11.8%; P=0.329), target vessel revascularization (14.0% versus 13.1%; P=0.822), myocardial infarction (7.2% versus 4.5%; P=0.186), all-cause death (5.7% versus 4.2%; P=0.476), and major adverse cardiovascular event (21.5% versus 17.6%; P=0.242) between DES and SCB treatment. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ISR, angioplasty with SCB compared with thin-struts DES is associated with comparable rates of target lesion revascularization, target vessel revascularization, myocardial infarction, all-cause death, and major adverse cardiovascular events at 2 years.
Asunto(s)
Fármacos Cardiovasculares , Materiales Biocompatibles Revestidos , Reestenosis Coronaria , Stents Liberadores de Fármacos , Sistema de Registros , Sirolimus , Humanos , Masculino , Femenino , Sirolimus/administración & dosificación , Sirolimus/efectos adversos , Anciano , Persona de Mediana Edad , Resultado del Tratamiento , Reestenosis Coronaria/etiología , Reestenosis Coronaria/diagnóstico por imagen , Reestenosis Coronaria/mortalidad , Reestenosis Coronaria/terapia , Factores de Tiempo , Fármacos Cardiovasculares/administración & dosificación , Fármacos Cardiovasculares/efectos adversos , Factores de Riesgo , Angioplastia Coronaria con Balón/instrumentación , Angioplastia Coronaria con Balón/efectos adversos , Angioplastia Coronaria con Balón/mortalidad , Intervención Coronaria Percutánea/efectos adversos , Intervención Coronaria Percutánea/instrumentación , Intervención Coronaria Percutánea/mortalidad , Diseño de Prótesis , Europa (Continente) , Infarto del Miocardio/mortalidad , Infarto del Miocardio/etiología , Catéteres Cardíacos , Enfermedad de la Arteria Coronaria/terapia , Enfermedad de la Arteria Coronaria/mortalidad , Enfermedad de la Arteria Coronaria/diagnóstico por imagenAsunto(s)
Angioplastia Coronaria con Balón , Reestenosis Coronaria , Intervención Coronaria Percutánea , Sirolimus , Humanos , Reestenosis Coronaria/diagnóstico por imagen , Reestenosis Coronaria/etiología , Sirolimus/administración & dosificación , Sirolimus/efectos adversos , Angioplastia Coronaria con Balón/instrumentación , Angioplastia Coronaria con Balón/efectos adversos , Intervención Coronaria Percutánea/instrumentación , Intervención Coronaria Percutánea/efectos adversos , Materiales Biocompatibles Revestidos , Stents Liberadores de Fármacos , Resultado del Tratamiento , Fármacos Cardiovasculares/administración & dosificación , Fármacos Cardiovasculares/efectos adversos , Catéteres CardíacosRESUMEN
Cardiovascular disease exacts a heavy toll on health and quality of life and is the leading cause of death among people ≥65 years of age. Although medical, surgical, and device therapies can certainly prolong a life span, disease progression from chronic to advanced to end stage is temporally unpredictable, uncertain, and marked by worsening symptoms that result in recurrent hospitalizations and excessive health care use. Compared with other serious illnesses, medication management that incorporates a palliative approach is underused among individuals with cardiovascular disease. This scientific statement describes palliative pharmacotherapy inclusive of cardiovascular drugs and essential palliative medicines that work synergistically to control symptoms and enhance quality of life. We also summarize and clarify available evidence on the utility of guideline-directed and evidence-based medical therapies in individuals with end-stage heart failure, pulmonary arterial hypertension, coronary heart disease, and other cardiomyopathies while providing clinical considerations for de-escalating or deprescribing. Shared decision-making and goal-oriented care are emphasized and considered quintessential to the iterative process of patient-centered medication management across the spectrum of cardiovascular disease.
Asunto(s)
American Heart Association , Fármacos Cardiovasculares , Enfermedades Cardiovasculares , Cuidados Paliativos , Calidad de Vida , Humanos , Fármacos Cardiovasculares/uso terapéutico , Fármacos Cardiovasculares/efectos adversos , Enfermedades Cardiovasculares/tratamiento farmacológico , Enfermedades Cardiovasculares/diagnóstico , Estados Unidos , Resultado del Tratamiento , Consenso , Toma de Decisiones Conjunta , Toma de Decisiones ClínicasRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The efficacy of optimal medical therapy (OMT) with or without revascularization therapy in patients with stable coronary artery disease (SCAD) remains controversial. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared OMT with or without revascularization therapy for SCAD patients. METHODS: Studies were searched in PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials from January 1, 2005, to December 30, 2023. The main efficacy outcome was a composite of all-cause death, myocadiac infarction, revascularization, and cerebrovascular accident. Results were pooled using random effects model and fixed effects model and are presented as odd ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: Ten studies involving 12,790 participants were included. The arm of OMT with revascularization compared with OMT alone was associated with decreased risks for MACCE (OR 0.55 [95% CI 0.38-0.80], I²=93%, P = 0.002), CV death (OR 0.84 [95% CI 0.73-0.97], I²=36%, P = 0.02), revascularization (OR 0.32 [95% CI 0.20-0.50], I²=92%, P < 0.001), and MI (OR 0.85 [95% CI 0.76-0.96], I²=45%, P = 0.007). While there was no significant difference between OMT with revascularization and OMT alone in the odds of all-cause death (OR 0.94 [95% CI 0.84-1.05], I²=0%, P = 0.30). CONCLUSIONS: The current updated meta-analysis of 10 RCTs shows that in patients with SCAD, OMT with revascularization would reduce the risk for MACCE, cardiovascular death, and MI. However, the invasive strategy does not decrease the risks for all-cause mortality when comparing with OMT alone.
Asunto(s)
Enfermedad de la Arteria Coronaria , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Humanos , Enfermedad de la Arteria Coronaria/mortalidad , Enfermedad de la Arteria Coronaria/terapia , Enfermedad de la Arteria Coronaria/diagnóstico por imagen , Resultado del Tratamiento , Factores de Riesgo , Femenino , Masculino , Anciano , Persona de Mediana Edad , Fármacos Cardiovasculares/uso terapéutico , Fármacos Cardiovasculares/efectos adversos , Intervención Coronaria Percutánea/efectos adversos , Intervención Coronaria Percutánea/mortalidad , Medición de Riesgo , Revascularización Miocárdica/efectos adversos , Revascularización Miocárdica/mortalidad , Factores de TiempoRESUMEN
Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is one of the leading causes of death worldwide, and its internal medicine treatments are mostly single/few-target chemical drugs. Long-term use of cardiovascular drugs for complex chronic diseases may lead to serious adverse drug reactions. Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) has been used to treat heart diseases for thousands of years, helping to ease symptoms and prolong patients' lifespan in ancient China. TCM has the pharmacological characteristics of being multi-component, multi-target and multi-pathway, and the combined application of TCM and western medicine can be an alternative treatment for chronic and intractable diseases with high safety levels. This article reviewed the interactions and synergistic effect of TCM and cardiovascular drugs. In the treatment of arrhythmia, TCM combined with western medicine can more effectively regulate patients' cardiac electrophysiological characteristics, reduce the onsets of premature beat and heart rate variability, lower the levels of QT interval dispersion and serum inflammatory factors, alleviate clinical symptoms and TCM syndromes, and improve cardiac function with good safety levels. In the treatment of hypertension, integrative medicine can more steadily reduce blood pressure and levels of serum inflammatory factors and improve hemodynamic indexes and exercise tolerance, and it has high safety levels, especially for pregnant women. As for coronary heart disease, the combination of TCM and antiplatelet drugs may promote the absorption of each other. However, the interaction risk of pharmacokinetic mechanism between them is low at the dose of efficacy. Integrative medicine can reduce the level of N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide, delay cardiac remodeling and improve heart function and quality of life for patients with heart failure with high safety levels.
Asunto(s)
Fármacos Cardiovasculares , Enfermedades Cardiovasculares , Medicamentos Herbarios Chinos , Medicina Tradicional China , Humanos , Medicina Tradicional China/métodos , Fármacos Cardiovasculares/farmacocinética , Fármacos Cardiovasculares/efectos adversos , Fármacos Cardiovasculares/farmacología , Medicamentos Herbarios Chinos/efectos adversos , Medicamentos Herbarios Chinos/uso terapéutico , Medicamentos Herbarios Chinos/farmacología , Medicamentos Herbarios Chinos/farmacocinética , Enfermedades Cardiovasculares/tratamiento farmacológico , Interacciones de Hierba-Droga , Animales , Interacciones FarmacológicasRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) represent a significant barrier to achieve optimal treatment outcomes. Cardiovascular drugs, including antihypertensive drugs, lipid-lowering drugs, and antithrombotic drugs, are among the most prescribed medications in the primary care setting. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the prevalence of cardiovascular drug-related ADRs consultations in United Kingdom (UK) primary care and identify risk factors of these ADRs. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study of cardiovascular drug users between 2000-2019 using UK IQVIA Medical Research Data. ADRs consultations were identified using database screening method employing standardised designated codes. The overall and annual age-standardised prevalence was estimated using direct standardisation method using 2019 mid-year UK population. Risk factors of ADRs consultations were estimated using logistic regression model stratified by therapeutic areas. RESULTS: The standardised prevalence of consultations related to cardiovascular drugs ADRs was 10.60 (95% CI. 10.46, 10.75) per 1000 patients. Patients aged 70-79 years had the highest occurrence of ADRs consultations. The most frequently drug classes implicated in the ADRs consultations were statins (n = 9,993 events, 27.09%), beta-blockers (n = 8,538 events, 23.15%), ACEIs/ARBs (n = 8,345 events, 22.62%), and aspirin (n = 6,482 events, 17.57%). Risk factors of ADRs consultations were previous history of cardiovascular diseases, e.g., myocardial infarction and stroke; advanced age, comorbidities; diabetes and dyslipidaemia; and polypharmacy. CONCLUSIONS: The burden of cardiovascular drug-related ADRs consultations in primary care was considerable. Statins, beta-blockers, ACEIs/ARBs, and aspirin were the most frequently implicated drug classes. Closer clinical monitoring should be performed for patients affected by the ADRs to mitigate the risk of suboptimal treatment outcomes.
Asunto(s)
Fármacos Cardiovasculares , Efectos Colaterales y Reacciones Adversas Relacionados con Medicamentos , Atención Primaria de Salud , Humanos , Reino Unido/epidemiología , Masculino , Anciano , Femenino , Estudios Transversales , Atención Primaria de Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Persona de Mediana Edad , Prevalencia , Efectos Colaterales y Reacciones Adversas Relacionados con Medicamentos/epidemiología , Adulto , Fármacos Cardiovasculares/efectos adversos , Fármacos Cardiovasculares/uso terapéutico , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Derivación y Consulta , Factores de Riesgo , Enfermedades Cardiovasculares/epidemiología , Enfermedades Cardiovasculares/inducido químicamente , Adolescente , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining the outcomes with limus drug-coated balloons (DCBs) vs paclitaxel DCBs were small and underpowered for clinical endpoints. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare the angiographic and clinical outcomes with limus DCBs vs paclitaxel DCBs for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS: An electronic search of Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases was performed through January 2024 for RCTs comparing limus DCBs vs paclitaxel DCBs for PCI. The primary endpoint was clinically driven target lesion revascularization (TLR). The secondary endpoints were late angiographic findings. Summary estimates were constructed using a random effects model. RESULTS: Six RCTs with 821 patients were included; 446 patients received a limus DCB, and 375 patients received a paclitaxel DCB. There was no difference between limus DCBs and paclitaxel DCBs in the incidence of TLR at a mean of 13.4 months (10.3% vs 7.8%; risk ratio [RR]: 1.32; 95% CI: 0.84-2.08). Subgroup analysis suggested no significant interaction among studies for de novo coronary lesions vs in-stent restenosis (Pinteraction = 0.58). There were no differences in the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events, cardiac mortality, or target vessel myocardial infarction between groups. However, limus DCBs were associated with a higher risk of binary restenosis (RR: 1.89; 95% CI: 1.14-3.12), late lumen loss (mean difference = 0.16; 95% CI: 0.03-0.28), and a smaller minimum lumen diameter (mean difference = -0.12; 95% CI: -0.22 to -0.02) at late follow-up. In addition, late lumen enlargement occurred more frequently (50% vs 27.5%; RR: 0.59; 95% CI: 0.45-0.77) with paclitaxel DCBs. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing DCB-only PCI, there were no differences in the risk of clinically driven TLR and other clinical outcomes between limus DCBs and paclitaxel DCBs. However, paclitaxel DCBs were associated with better late angiographic outcomes. These findings support the need for future trials to establish the role of new-generation limus DCBs for PCI.
Asunto(s)
Angioplastia Coronaria con Balón , Catéteres Cardíacos , Fármacos Cardiovasculares , Materiales Biocompatibles Revestidos , Enfermedad de la Arteria Coronaria , Paclitaxel , Intervención Coronaria Percutánea , Anciano , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Angioplastia Coronaria con Balón/instrumentación , Angioplastia Coronaria con Balón/efectos adversos , Angioplastia Coronaria con Balón/mortalidad , Fármacos Cardiovasculares/administración & dosificación , Fármacos Cardiovasculares/efectos adversos , Angiografía Coronaria , Enfermedad de la Arteria Coronaria/terapia , Enfermedad de la Arteria Coronaria/diagnóstico por imagen , Enfermedad de la Arteria Coronaria/mortalidad , Reestenosis Coronaria/etiología , Paclitaxel/administración & dosificación , Paclitaxel/efectos adversos , Intervención Coronaria Percutánea/instrumentación , Intervención Coronaria Percutánea/efectos adversos , Intervención Coronaria Percutánea/mortalidad , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Factores de Riesgo , Factores de Tiempo , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Drug-coated balloon (DCB) angioplasty seems a safe and effective option for specific de novo coronary lesions. However, the beneficial effect of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)-guided DCB angioplasty in de novo lesions remains uncertain. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess the benefits of IVUS guidance over angiography guidance during DCB angioplasty in de novo coronary lesions. METHODS: A total of 260 patients with high bleeding risk who had a de novo coronary lesion (reference vessel diameter 2.0-4.0 mm, and lesion length ≤15 mm) were randomly assigned to either an IVUS-guided or an angioplasty-guided DCB angioplasty group. The primary endpoint was in-segment late lumen loss (LLL) at 7 months after procedure. The secondary endpoint was target vessel failure at 6 months. RESULTS: A total of 2 patients in the angiography-guided group and 7 patients in the IVUS-guided group underwent bailout stent implantation (P = 0.172). The primary endpoint of 7-month LLL was 0.03 ± 0.52 mm with angiography guidance vs -0.10 ± 0.34 mm with IVUS guidance (mean difference 0.14 mm; 95% CI: 0.02-0.26; P = 0.025). IVUS guidance was also associated with a larger 7-month minimal lumen diameter (2.06 ± 0.62 mm vs 1.75 ± 0.63 mm; P < 0.001) and a smaller diameter stenosis (28.15% ± 13.88% vs 35.83% ± 17.69%; P = 0.001) compared with angiography guidance. Five target vessel failures occurred at 6 months, with 4 (3.1%) in the angiography-guided group and 1 (0.8%) in the IVUS-guided group (P = 0.370). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that IVUS-guided DCB angioplasty is associated with a lower LLL in patients with a de novo coronary lesion compared with angiography guidance. (Intravascular Ultrasound Versus Angiography Guided Drug-Coated Balloon [ULTIMATE-III]; NCT04255043).
Asunto(s)
Angioplastia Coronaria con Balón , Catéteres Cardíacos , Fármacos Cardiovasculares , Materiales Biocompatibles Revestidos , Angiografía Coronaria , Enfermedad de la Arteria Coronaria , Valor Predictivo de las Pruebas , Ultrasonografía Intervencional , Humanos , Masculino , Femenino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Anciano , Angioplastia Coronaria con Balón/instrumentación , Angioplastia Coronaria con Balón/efectos adversos , Resultado del Tratamiento , Factores de Tiempo , Enfermedad de la Arteria Coronaria/terapia , Enfermedad de la Arteria Coronaria/diagnóstico por imagen , Fármacos Cardiovasculares/administración & dosificación , Fármacos Cardiovasculares/efectos adversos , Estudios Prospectivos , Factores de Riesgo , ChinaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Sirolimus-coated balloons (SCB) for the treatment of femoropopliteal (FP) lesions have not been systematically studied, but initial outcomes from early studies are promising. OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the SELUTION SLR SCB, composed of proprietary microreservoir technology combining sirolimus and biodegradable polymer, when used to treat mild-to-moderate FP disease in a Japanese population. METHODS: This multicenter, prospective, single-arm study (SELUTION SFA JAPAN) enrolled 134 patients with FP disease. It was independently adjudicated by an imaging core laboratory and clinical events committee. The primary endpoint was 12-month primary patency, defined as peak systolic velocity ratio ≥2.5 by duplex ultrasound and compared against a prespecified performance goal of 60% based on established angioplasty data. RESULTS: The mean age was 73.8 ± 6.9 years, and 60.3% of patients had diabetes mellitus. The mean lesion length was 127.4 ± 59.7 mm, 17.2% were chronic total occlusions, and 47.8% involved the popliteal artery. Data on 12-month restenosis were available in 127 patients (94.8%). The 12-month primary patency rate was 87.9%, and the freedom from clinically driven target lesion revascularization (CD-TLR) was 97.0% per Kaplan-Meier estimate. The major adverse event rate was 6.7%, driven by 4 CD-TLRs and 5 deaths, none of which were related to the device or procedure. Ankle-brachial index data improved significantly from 0.73 ± 0.16 at baseline to 0.96 ± 0.14 at 30 days postprocedure and was sustained through 12 months (0.94 ± 0.13). CONCLUSIONS: The SELUTION SFA JAPAN trial demonstrated that a novel SELUTION SCB is a safe and effective treatment option for FP disease in symptomatic patients.
Asunto(s)
Angioplastia de Balón , Fármacos Cardiovasculares , Materiales Biocompatibles Revestidos , Arteria Femoral , Enfermedad Arterial Periférica , Arteria Poplítea , Sirolimus , Dispositivos de Acceso Vascular , Grado de Desobstrucción Vascular , Humanos , Arteria Poplítea/fisiopatología , Arteria Poplítea/diagnóstico por imagen , Anciano , Masculino , Femenino , Arteria Femoral/fisiopatología , Arteria Femoral/diagnóstico por imagen , Enfermedad Arterial Periférica/terapia , Enfermedad Arterial Periférica/fisiopatología , Enfermedad Arterial Periférica/diagnóstico por imagen , Estudios Prospectivos , Japón , Fármacos Cardiovasculares/administración & dosificación , Fármacos Cardiovasculares/efectos adversos , Angioplastia de Balón/instrumentación , Angioplastia de Balón/efectos adversos , Factores de Tiempo , Sirolimus/administración & dosificación , Sirolimus/efectos adversos , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Recurrencia , Resultado del Tratamiento , Diseño de Equipo , Factores de Riesgo , Persona de Mediana EdadRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Right ventricular impairment is common among patients undergoing transcatheter edge-to-edge repair for secondary mitral regurgitation (SMR). Adherence to guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) for heart failure is poor in these patients. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of GDMT on long-term survival in this patient cohort. METHODS: Within the EuroSMR (European Registry of Transcatheter Repair for Secondary Mitral Regurgitation) international registry, we selected patients with SMR and right ventricular impairment (tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion ≤17 mm and/or echocardiographic right ventricular-to-pulmonary artery coupling <0.40 mm/mm Hg). Titrated guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMTtit) was defined as a coprescription of 3 drug classes with at least one-half of the target dose at the latest follow-up. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 6 years. RESULTS: Among 1,213 patients with SMR and right ventricular impairment, 852 had complete data on medical therapy. The 123 patients who were on GDMTtit showed a significantly higher long-term survival vs the 729 patients not on GDMTtit (61.8% vs 36.0%; P < 0.00001). Propensity score-matched analysis confirmed a significant association between GDMTtit and higher survival (61.0% vs 43.1%; P = 0.018). GDMTtit was an independent predictor of all-cause mortality (HR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.39-0.93; P = 0.02 for patients on GDMTtit vs those not on GDMTtit). Its association with better outcomes was confirmed among all subgroups analyzed. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with right ventricular impairment undergoing transcatheter edge-to-edge repair for SMR, titration of GDMT to at least one-half of the target dose is associated with a 40% lower risk of all-cause death up to 6 years and should be pursued independent of comorbidities.
Asunto(s)
Cateterismo Cardíaco , Fármacos Cardiovasculares , Adhesión a Directriz , Insuficiencia de la Válvula Mitral , Guías de Práctica Clínica como Asunto , Sistema de Registros , Disfunción Ventricular Derecha , Función Ventricular Derecha , Humanos , Femenino , Masculino , Insuficiencia de la Válvula Mitral/fisiopatología , Insuficiencia de la Válvula Mitral/diagnóstico por imagen , Insuficiencia de la Válvula Mitral/mortalidad , Anciano , Resultado del Tratamiento , Factores de Tiempo , Disfunción Ventricular Derecha/fisiopatología , Disfunción Ventricular Derecha/mortalidad , Disfunción Ventricular Derecha/etiología , Disfunción Ventricular Derecha/diagnóstico por imagen , Disfunción Ventricular Derecha/terapia , Factores de Riesgo , Cateterismo Cardíaco/efectos adversos , Cateterismo Cardíaco/mortalidad , Fármacos Cardiovasculares/uso terapéutico , Fármacos Cardiovasculares/efectos adversos , Europa (Continente) , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Medición de Riesgo , Ecocardiografía Transesofágica , Válvula Mitral/fisiopatología , Válvula Mitral/diagnóstico por imagen , Válvula Mitral/cirugía , Persona de Mediana Edad , Recuperación de la FunciónRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: With advancements in chronic total coronary occlusion (CTO) recanalization techniques and concepts, the success rate of recanalization has been steadily increasing. However, the current data are too limited to draw any reliable conclusions about the efficacy and safety of drug-coated balloons (DCBs) in CTO percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Herein, we conducted a meta-analysis to confirm the efficacy of DCB in CTO PCI. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science and Embase from inception to July 25, 2023. The primary outcome was major advent cardiovascular events (MACE), including cardiac death, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), target lesion revascularization (TLR), and target vessel revascularization (TVR). The follow-up angiographic endpoints were late lumen enlargement (LLE), reocclusion and restenosis. RESULTS: Five studies with a total of 511 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Across studies, patients were predominantly male (72.9-85.7%) and over fifty years old. The summary estimate rate of MACE was 13.0% (95% CI 10.1%-15.9%, I2 = 0%, p = 0.428). The summary estimate rates of cardiac death and MI were 2.2% (95% CI 0.7%-3.7%, I2 = 0%, p = 0.873) and 1.2% (95% CI -0.2-2.6%, I2 = 13.7%, p = 0.314), respectively. Finally, the pooled incidences of TLR and TVR were 10.1% (95% CI 5.7%-14.5%, I2 = 51.7%, p = 0.082) and 7.1% (95% CI 3.0%-11.2%, I2 = 57.6%, p = 0.070), respectively. Finally, the summary estimate rates of LLE, reocclusion and restenosis were 59.4% (95% CI 53.5-65.3%, I2 = 0%, p = 0.742), 3.3% (95% CI 1.1-5.4%, I2 = 0%, p = 0.865) and 17.5% (95% CI 12.9-22.0%, I2 = 0%, p = 0.623), respectively. CONCLUSION: Accordingly, DCB has the potential to be used as a treatment for CTO in suitable patients.
Asunto(s)
Angioplastia Coronaria con Balón , Catéteres Cardíacos , Materiales Biocompatibles Revestidos , Oclusión Coronaria , Humanos , Oclusión Coronaria/diagnóstico por imagen , Oclusión Coronaria/mortalidad , Oclusión Coronaria/terapia , Resultado del Tratamiento , Enfermedad Crónica , Angioplastia Coronaria con Balón/instrumentación , Angioplastia Coronaria con Balón/efectos adversos , Angioplastia Coronaria con Balón/mortalidad , Factores de Riesgo , Anciano , Femenino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Masculino , Fármacos Cardiovasculares/administración & dosificación , Fármacos Cardiovasculares/efectos adversos , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Medición de Riesgo , Factores de Tiempo , Diseño de Equipo , Reestenosis Coronaria/etiología , Reestenosis Coronaria/diagnóstico por imagen , Reestenosis Coronaria/mortalidadRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with primary stenting, which stands for stent implantation regardless of obtaining satisfactory results with balloon angioplasty, has superseded conventional plain old balloon angioplasty with provisional stenting. With drug-coated balloon (DCB), primary DCB angioplasty with provisional stenting has shown non-inferiority to primary stenting for de novo coronary small vessel disease. However, the long-term efficacy and safety of such a strategy to the primary stenting on clinical endpoints in de novo lesions without vessel diameter restrictions remain uncertain. STUDY DESIGN: The REC-CAGEFREE I is an investigator-initiated, multicenter, randomized, open-label trial aimed to enroll 2270 patients with acute or chronic coronary syndrome from 43 interventional cardiology centers in China to evaluate the non-inferiority of primary paclitaxel-coated balloons angioplasty to primary stenting for the treatment of de novo, non-complex lesions without vessel diameter restrictions. Patients who fulfill all the inclusion and exclusion criteria and have achieved a successful lesion pre-dilatation will be randomly assigned to the two arms in a 1:1 ratio. Protocol-guided DCB angioplasty and bailout stenting after unsatisfactory angioplasty are mandatory in the primary DCB angioplasty group. The second-generation sirolimus-eluting stent will be used as a bailout stent in the primary DCB angioplasty group and the treatment device in the primary stenting group. The primary endpoint is the incidence of Device-oriented Composite Endpoint (DoCE) within 24 months after randomization, including cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically and physiologically indicated target lesion revascularization. DISCUSSION: The ongoing REC-CAGEFREE I trial is the first randomized trial with a clinical endpoint to assess the efficacy and safety of primary DCB angioplasty for the treatment of de novo, non-complex lesions without vessel diameter restrictions. If non-inferiority is shown, PCI with primary DCB angioplasty could be an alternative treatment option to primary stenting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered on clinicaltrial.gov (NCT04561739).
Asunto(s)
Angioplastia Coronaria con Balón , Catéteres Cardíacos , Fármacos Cardiovasculares , Materiales Biocompatibles Revestidos , Enfermedad de la Arteria Coronaria , Paclitaxel , Humanos , Angioplastia Coronaria con Balón/instrumentación , Angioplastia Coronaria con Balón/efectos adversos , Angioplastia Coronaria con Balón/mortalidad , Resultado del Tratamiento , Fármacos Cardiovasculares/administración & dosificación , Fármacos Cardiovasculares/efectos adversos , China , Paclitaxel/administración & dosificación , Paclitaxel/efectos adversos , Enfermedad de la Arteria Coronaria/terapia , Enfermedad de la Arteria Coronaria/diagnóstico por imagen , Enfermedad de la Arteria Coronaria/mortalidad , Factores de Tiempo , Femenino , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Estudios Multicéntricos como Asunto , Stents , Anciano , Stents Liberadores de Fármacos , Estudios de Equivalencia como Asunto , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como AsuntoRESUMEN
An integral component of the practice of medicine is focused on the initiation of medications, based on clinical practice guidelines and underlying trial evidence, which usually test the addition of novel medications intended for life-long use in short-term clinical trials. Much less attention is given to the question of medication discontinuation, especially after a lengthy period of treatment, during which patients age gets older and diseases may either progress or new diseases may emerge. Given the paucity of data, clinical practice guidelines offer little to no guidance on when and how to deprescribe cardiovascular medications. Such decisions are often left to the discretion of clinicians, who, together with their patients, express concern of potential adverse effects of medication discontinuation. Even in the absence of adverse effects, the continuation of medications without any proven effect may cause harm due to drug-drug interactions, the emergence of polypharmacy, and additional preventable spending to already strained health systems. Herein, several cardiovascular medications or medication classes are discussed that in the opinion of this author group should generally be discontinued, either for the prevention of potential harm, for a lack of benefit, or for the availability of better alternatives.
Asunto(s)
Fármacos Cardiovasculares , Enfermedades Cardiovasculares , Humanos , Fármacos Cardiovasculares/efectos adversos , Fármacos Cardiovasculares/uso terapéutico , Enfermedades Cardiovasculares/prevención & control , Enfermedades Cardiovasculares/inducido químicamente , Deprescripciones , Interacciones Farmacológicas , PolifarmaciaRESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: Fall-risk-increasing drugs (FRIDs)-psychotropics and cardiovascular disease (CVD) drugs-may elevate the risk of falling, with strong evidence observed in psychotropic FRIDs, whereas findings from cardiovascular disease (CVD) FRIDs remain inconclusive. Existing studies on FRIDs and falls are often hampered by methodologic limitations. Leveraging longitudinal observational data, we aimed to determine the long-term patterns of FRID use and their association with falls in residential aged care (RAC) homes. DESIGN: A retrospective longitudinal cohort study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 4207 permanent residents newly admitted to 27 RAC homes in Sydney, Australia. METHOD: The outcomes were incidence of all and injurious falls. We measured exposure to each FRID over 60 months using the Proportion of Days Covered (PDC) metric. We used group-based multitrajectory modeling to determine concurrent usage patterns of psychotropics and CVD FRIDs and applied negative binomial regression to assess their associations with the outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 83.6% (n = 3516) and 77.3% (n = 3254) residents used psychotropic and CVD FRIDs, respectively. The PDC values ranged from 67.3% (opioids) to 86.9% (antidepressants) for specific psychotropics and 79.0% (α-adrenoceptor antagonists) to 89.6% (ß blockers) for CVD FRIDs. We identified 4 groups: group 1, low psychotropics-low CVDs use (16.7%, n = 701); group 2, low psychotropics-high CVDs (25.0%, n = 1054); group 3, high psychotropics-high CVDs (41.0%, n = 1723); and group 4, high psychotropics-low CVDs (17.3%, n = 729). Group 4 had a significantly higher rate of falls than the other groups for both outcomes, including relative to group 3, in which exposure to both FRID classes was high. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Our findings reveal concerningly high FRID use in RAC homes and highlight a critical difference in the impact of the 2 major FRID classes on falls. Psychotropics were strongly associated with falls, whereas the studied CVD FRIDs did not elevate risk of falling.