June 7th, 2010
Allopurinol May Be Beneficial in Stable Angina
Larry Husten, PHD
Allopurinol May Be Beneficial in Stable Angina: In addition to its well established role in treating gout, allopurinol may turn out to have beneficial effects in patients with chronic stable angina, according to a new study published online in the Lancet. In a double-blind, randomized, crossover trial, Awsan Noman and colleagues compared allopurinol with placebo in 65 stable angina patients. From a baseline of 232 s, the median time to ST depression was increased to 298 s with allopurinol and 249 s with placebo. The difference between the groups was highly significant. Compared to placebo, allopurinol also significantly increased median total exercise time and time to chest pain. Allopurinol was well tolerated throughout the trial.
In an accompanying comment, Renjith Antony and Henry Dargie write that the treatment effect of the study drug was similar to other established angina drugs, although it had no effect on hemodynamics. One possible mechanism of action, they say, is that allopurinol may prevent “deleterious effects of oxidative stress on endothelial dysfunction and energy supply.” They conclude: “Although further work is needed to confirm allopurinol’s putative anti-ischaemic effects and to better understand its mechanism of action, allopurinol joins a growing list of compounds that tests the conventional wisdom on what constitutes antianginal therapy. Although prevention of coronary artery disease remains important, protecting the myocyte from ischaemia is a logical and pragmatic approach to a disabling condition for which several mechanisms might be responsible.”
June 4th, 2010
Composite Endpoints and the CREST Trial
davidrind
CardioExchange welcomes this guest post reprinted with permission from Dr. David Rind, an academic primary care physician and medical editor in Boston. This piece originally appeared on his blog, Evidence in Medicine. For more on the CREST trial, see the NEJM article and editorial, the Journal Watch summary by Dr. Howard Herrmann, and an Interventional Cardiology blog by Dr. Richard Lange.
In recent years, a common practice in clinical trials is to make the primary endpoint a composite endpoint. That is, the primary endpoint is a combination of various clinical events that might happen, such as heart attack or death or stroke, where any one of those events would count as part of the composite endpoint.
There can be good reasons for composite endpoints. If a single therapy is likely to have similar effects on a number of different related endpoints (such as cardiovascular events), creating a composite can help achieve adequate power. For instance, if statins decrease nonfatal strokes, nonfatal MIs, and cardiac deaths by about 25%, then creating these endpoints as a composite may make it possible to run an adequately powered trial with fewer patients. Additionally, there may be situations where a therapy might decrease an outcome by killing patients off before they can reach that outcome, and so a composite may be a way of evaluating safety.
Composites can quickly get you into trouble, though, if you combine events of very different importance to patients. Sometimes this appears to have been done with the intention of obscuring the real outcome of a trial or to make a therapy look far better than it really is. The primary outcome of DREAM, for instance, was “the development of diabetes or death”. DREAM was a randomized trial that looked at the effects of rosiglitazone in patients at high risk for developing diabetes. The article states in the Discussion:
This large, prospective, blinded international clinical trial shows that 8 mg of rosiglitazone daily, together with lifestyle recommendations, substantially reduces the risk of diabetes or death by 60% in individuals at high risk for diabetes.
A reasonable person reading this might conclude that rosiglitazone had had a rather dramatic and important effect on the risk of death in patients in the DREAM trial. In reality, however, the study found no effect of rosiglitazone on mortality (and was always much too small to find any difference), and the primary outcome was driven entirely by development of diabetes.
Additionally, since development of diabetes was assessed while patients were taking rosiglitazone (a drug that reduces blood sugar), it was virtually certain that the arm taking rosiglitazone would appear to have a lower rate of “diabetes and death” simply because development of diabetes is based on blood sugar and A1c measurements. Even if rosiglitazone had no effect on the natural history of diabetes, it could be counted on to reduce blood sugar and A1c during the time patients were taking it, and thus appear to delay the onset of laboratory-diagnosed diabetes. Worse, rosiglitzaone has harmful cardiac effects that could be minimized by focusing on a dramatic reduction of a primary endpoint that included the word “death.”
It hardly seems fair or true to conclude that rosiglitazone decreased “diabetes and death,” but by making that the primary composite endpoint, the trial can claim that this is the only statistically fair way to report the results.
With this in mind, we are now faced with the CREST trial, published online in the New England Journal of Medicine. CREST was a randomized trial that compared two methods of dealing with carotid vascular disease: carotid endarterectomy and carotid stenting. The primary endpoint was a composite of periprocedural stroke, myocardial infarction, or death, or ipsilateral stroke in the following four years.
CREST found no difference between the procedures in the primary endpoint, but this obscures what really happened. Unsurprisingly, patients treated with stenting, a less invasive procedure, had lower rates of periprocedural MI than those treated with endarterectomy (1.1% versus 2.3%). But they also had higher rates of periprocedural stroke ( 4.1% versus 2.3%), as well as a trend toward higher mortality.
I suspect most people undergoing a procedure to avoid having a stroke (the rationale behind both endarterectomy and stenting) would hesitate to accept a 1.2% gain in the form of a lower risk of MI in return for a 1.8% loss in the form of a higher rate of stroke. As such, the apparent equivalence on the primary endpoint obscures the importance of the underlying components of the composite.
The article was much more upfront about these individual outcomes than the DREAM article, but this did not alter a general buzz in the press (presumably traceable back, in some fashion, to the way the results were promoted) that CREST had shown equivalence between stenting and endarterectomy, and that stenting had now proven itself in a randomized trial.
Hopefully, though, when doctors talk to patients about the choice between carotid endarterectomy and carotid stenting, they will focus on the comparative risks of stroke and MI, and not on the composite outcome, since I suspect very few patients would consider a stroke and an MI to be outcomes that could be fairly equated and thus lumped into a single basket.
June 4th, 2010
Carotid Stenosis: Stent, Remove or Don’t Touch?
Richard A. Lange, MD, MBA
The Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy vs. Stenting Trial (CREST) compared carotid stenting with endarterectomy in patients with symptomatic or asymptomatic carotid stenoses. The risk of the composite primary outcome — stroke, MI, or death — was similar for both treatments over the 2.5 years of follow-up.
What’s the nitty gritty?
Periprocedural stroke was more likely after stenting, and periprocedural MI was more likely after endarterectomy; but stroke had a greater impact on quality of life than MI.
Given that neither CREST nor other recent trials have compared revascularization (by either stenting or endarterectomy) with optimal medical therapy in asymptomatic patients, the finding that rates of ipsilateral and contralateral stroke in these patients were similar (≈1%/yr) after the perioprocedural period could mean that (a) revascularization is durable (i.e., prevented cerebrovascular events) or (b) asymptomatic carotid stenosis is benign if treated medically.
Get off the fence….
If YOU had asymptomatic 90% carotid stenosis, would you opt for medical therapy alone or request revascularization too? If so, how?
Would you want additional risk stratification (i.e., transcranial Doppler) before making the decision?
June 3rd, 2010
• CANOE Paddles Into the Avandia Storm
• Ticagrelor NDA Scheduled for July FDA Panel
Larry Husten, PHD
CANOE Paddles Into the Avandia Storm: Rosiglitazone is effective in preventing progression to diabetes, but very public concerns have been raised about its cardiovascular safety. Investigators in Canada sought to assess the efficacy of a low-dose regimen, in the hopes that adverse effects would be reduced. The CANOE (CAnadian Normoglycemia Outcomes Evaluation) trial randomized 207 patients with impaired glucose tolerance to low-dose combination therapy with rosiglitazone and metformin or matching placebo. After 3.9 years, diabetes occurred in 39% of the control group compared with 14% of the combination-therapy group (P<0.0001). In addition, more patients in the treatment group achieved normal glucose tolerance: 80% versus 53% in the placebo group (P=0.0002).
“These results lend support to the notion of use of low-dose combination therapies as an effective means to manage complex metabolic disorders,” the investigators write in their online report in the Lancet. But they acknowledge that the trial “was not designed nor powered to establish long-term effects on cardiovascular safety. CANOE cannot provide additional definitive data for the controversy relating to the specific cardiovascular safety of rosiglitazone.” In an accompanying comment, Thomas Buchanan and Anny Xiang write that “the larger issues that have cast doubt on use of drugs to prevent diabetes are not addressed by the CANOE trial” and that successful prevention of diabetes will require treatments that halt the deterioration of β-cell function.
Ticagrelor NDA Scheduled for July FDA Panel: The FDA Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee will meet on July 28 to consider the new drug application for ticagrelor (Brilinta, AstraZeneca) “for the proposed indication for use in acute coronary syndrome (including heart attacks and any of a group of signs and symptoms, such as chest pain or shortness of breath, that are consistent with blockages in the blood vessels that supply the heart).” (FDA Meeting Announcement)
June 3rd, 2010
What are the Dangers of Shorter Hospital Stays for HF Patients?
Héctor Bueno, MD, PhD
CardioExchange welcomes Dr. Héctor Bueno to answer questions about his recent paper in JAMA, which found that shorter hospital stays for heart-failure patients have resulted in fewer deaths in the hospital, but at the cost of more readmissions, leading researchers to speculate that “because length of stay has substantially decreased, improvement is less than what might be suggested by in-hospital mortality.” Bueno and colleagues (including senior author Harlan Krumholz, editor-in-chief of CardioExchange) analyzed Medicare data from nearly 7 million heart-failure hospitalizations from 1993 until 2006. They conclude that heart-failure patients “may benefit from more attention to the care and outcomes in the early transition period after hospital discharge.” We invite members to ask their own questions in the comments section.
Your study highlights the tension between reducing the cost of care while providing quality care and you suggest that premature hospital discharge is a large factor contributing to the higher readmission and post-discharge mortality rates. What would you recommend to CMS as a policy change to improve the quality of care? Would you:
(A) increase the DRG for heart failure so that patients can be treated more optimally in the hospital
(B) increase the penalty for 30-day readmission rates
(C) do both?
(B) I am not a big fan of using penalties for improving quality, but in this particular case I think it would help managers and physicians to understand that the management of heart failure is a continuous process in which hospitals are just one step that must be very well coordinated with other levels of health-care delivery. The real problem is not that the quality of hospital care may have been reduced due to pressure to shorten the length of stay, it is the disconnection between hospitals and other health providers after discharge. I do not know if the DRG is appropriate for the real cost of the hospital management of heart failure, but I am skeptical that increasing its value would have a big impact on improving quality. I´d rather recommend that CMS incorporate incentives for increasing communication and cooperation between hospitals and primary care for heart-failure patients to improve transitional care which, in my view, should be the main target.
Do you have any information on other factors that might influence readmission rates such as (1) time from discharge to first follow-up visit, and (2) availability/timing of heart-failure nurse contact?
The transition between hospital discharge and resumption of usual care is a period of high vulnerability for chronic patients in general and for heart-failure patients in particular. There is evidence to suggest that early readmissions may be more strongly related to the failure of transitional care than to the quality of hospital care. Patients, families, caregivers, and health-care providers may have difficulty learning or understanding changes in lifestyle and medical treatments, or identifying secondary effects or new complications that require special attention before they become important enough to require a new hospitalization. Therefore, early interventions to educate patients and caregivers on new therapeutic measures, signs of alert, potential complications, and how to respond would be helpful. Discharge plans shared by the hospital team and GPs, medicine reconciliation, early follow-up visits, and contact persons for problem solving are measures that can help reduce readmissions.
Can patients be safely discharged earlier if they receive the best care? Or, alternatively, are there measures that can be taken that will reduce the risk of readmission following early discharge?
I think patients may be discharged earlier and receive the best care, but this is not easy, and perhaps not possible, in the type of hospital-centered, health-care systems that we currently have. Only with a fluid coordination between all levels of care that ensures continuity of care across different settings and disease stages could this be possible. A sophisticated interaction between the different care settings — hospitals, day hospitals, outpatient specialized care, heart-failure offices, heart-failure nurses, and GPs that took into consideration all the measures that I mentioned previously — would be needed to reduce days in the hospital with high-quality care.
June 2nd, 2010
• Heart Failure Monitoring Finds a CHAMPION
• Oxygen After Cardiac Arrest: More May Not Be Better
Larry Husten, PHD
Heart Failure Monitoring Finds a CHAMPION: Results of the phase III CHAMPION (CardioMEMS Heart Sensor Allows Monitoring of Pressure to Improve Outcomes in NYHA Class III Heart Failure Patients) Trial were presented by William Abraham at the Heart Failure Congress 2010 earlier this week in Berlin, Germany. Some 550 NYHA Class III HF patients were randomized to receive either traditional therapy or the new device, which is about the size of a paper clip and monitors pulmonary artery pressure. At 6 months, there were 83 HF hospitalizations in the device group versus 120 in the control group (31% vs. 44%, P<0.001). “This study represents the first major breakthrough in the management of heart failure in nearly a decade,” said Abraham, in a press release issued by the European Society of Cardiology. “For the first time instead of managing symptoms or weight gain the device allows us to directly manage patient’s pulmonary pressures.”
Oxygen After Cardiac Arrest — More May Not Be Better: Kilgannon and colleagues studied 6,326 patients who had undergone cardiopulmonary resuscitation following cardiac arrest and who were enrolled in the Project IMPACT critical care database. They found that 18% of the population had hyperoxia upon first arterial blood gas determination, and these patients had significantly higher in-hospital mortality (63%) compared to the normoxia group (45%) and the hypoxia group (57%). The study appears in JAMA. In an accompanying editorial, Patrick Kochanek and Hulya Bayir write: “Given the rather conservative definition of hyperoxia (PaO2 ≥300 mm Hg), the true incidence of more moderate levels of hyperoxia is likely to be quite high…. this finding underscores the possibility that further meaningful improvements in outcome might result from careful attention to appropriately titrating basic aspects of extracerebral physiology at the bedside, such as prevention of hyperoxia.”
June 1st, 2010
• Shorter Hospital Stays Not Necessarily Better
• Shorter Delays to Reperfusion Are Better
• Better Use of Bleeding Avoidance Strategies in PCI
Larry Husten, PHD
Shorter Hospital Stays Not Necessarily Better: Shorter hospital stays for heart failure patients have resulted in fewer deaths in the hospital, but at the cost of more readmissions, leading researchers to speculate that “because length of stay has substantially decreased, improvement is less than what might be suggested by in-hospital mortality.” Writing in JAMA, Hector Bueno and colleagues (including senior author Harlan Krumholz, who is the editor-in-chief of CardioExchange) analyzed Medicare data from nearly 7 million heart failure hospitalizations from 1993 until 2006. They conclude that heart failure patients “may benefit from more attention to the care and outcomes in the early transition period after hospital discharge.”
Shorter Delays to Reperfusion Are Better: To assess the impact of time to reperfusion, Laurie Lambert and colleagues analyzed data from nearly all STEMI patients treated in Quebec for 6 months. Of the patients who underwent reperfusion, 78.6% received PCI and 21.4% fibrinolysis. When both treatment groups were combined, treatment beyond the recommended time limit was associated with a significantly higher risk for death at 30 days and a similar trend at 1 year when compared to timely treatment. In their paper in JAMA, the authors write that “at the regional level, after adjustment, each 10 percent increase in patients treated within the recommended time was associated with a decrease in the region-level odds of overall 30-day mortality.” In an accompanying editorial, Deepak Bhatt writes that “barring contraindications, prompt fibrinolysis (and transfer to a PCI center) would be preferred in many patients if the alternative is untimely primary PCI.”
Better Use of Bleeding Avoidance Strategies in PCI: Steven Marso and colleagues analyzed data from 1.5 million PCI patients from hospitals enrolled in the NCDR (National Cardiovascular Data Registry) to examine the use of bleeding avoidance strategies. Manual compression was used in 35% of cases, closure devices in 24%, bivalirudin in 23%, and the combination of a closure device and bivalirudin in 18%. The rate of bleeding was 2.8% for manual compression, 2.1% for closure devices, 1.6% for bivalirudin, and 0.9% for combination therapy. The investigators reported an unusual paradox— patients at high risk for bleeding were less likely to receive combination therapy. In their JAMA paper, they write that their findings “emphasize the opportunity to improve the safety of PCI and to further explore cost efficacy by directing such strategies to those patients most likely to benefit from them.”
May 28th, 2010
• Enrollment in Eplerenone Trial Stopped Early
• Aspirin Recommended for Primary Prevention in High-Risk Diabetics
• TCD Stratifies Risk in Asymptomatic C
Larry Husten, PHD
Enrollment in Eplerenone Trial Stopped Early: The Data Safety Monitoring Committee has ended enrollment in the EMPHASIS-HF trial after determining that the trial had met its primary efficacy endpoint. According to a press release issued by Pfizer, the trial was testing eplerenone versus placebo in patients with established mild-to-moderate heart failure who were also at risk for sudden death. The primary endpoint was the first occurrence of either cardiovascular death or heart failure hospitalization. It had been anticipated that the trial would last until 2011.
Aspirin Recommended for Primary Prevention in High-Risk Diabetics: In a joint statement from the American College of Cardiology Foundation, the American Diabetes Association, and the American Heart Association, low-dose aspirin is deemed “a reasonable measure” to prevent a first cardiovascular event in diabetics who also have a high risk for heart disease. “Because the relative risk reduction appears to be modest, the panel felt that we are on strongest ground recommending aspirin for those at increased cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk, defined by the age categories and risk factors mentioned or by a calculation of CVD risk,” said the lead author of the statement, Michael Pignone, in an AHA press release.
Transcranial Doppler Stratifies Risk in Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis: People with asymptomatic carotid stenosis of at least 70% who had embolic signals on transcranial doppler (TCD) were two and a half times more likely to have an ipsilateral stroke or TIA than those without embolic signals, according to results of the Asymptomatic Carotid Emboli Study (ACES) presented at the European Stroke Conference in Barcelona and published online in Lancet Neurology. The authors concluded that “ACES shows that detection of embolic signals by TCD can identify groups of patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis who are at low or high risk of future stroke. This technique might be a useful risk predictor for identifying those patients who might benefit from intervention with carotid endarterectomy.”
May 27th, 2010
The Tests Say Intervene, but the Patient Feels Fine
Anju Nohria, MD and James Fang, MD
A 58-year-old asymptomatic man with hypertension and hyperlipidemia was noted to have an abnormal electrocardiogram during his routine annual physical examination. His primary care physician ordered a treadmill stress test.
The patient exercised for 6 minutes and 39 seconds of a standard Bruce protocol, achieving 8.1 METs. He stopped because of dyspnea. His heart rate increased from 63 bpm at rest to 133 bpm at peak exercise; his blood pressure changed from 176/86 to 164/90 mm Hg, respectively. An electrocardiogram showed 3.5-mm horizontal ST-segment depressions — in leads I, II, III, aVF, and V3-6 — that began 5 minutes into the test and resolved 8 minutes into recovery. During exercise, the patient had isolated premature ventricular contractions but no other arrhythmias.
A subsequent myocardial perfusion scan revealed a resting LV ejection fraction of 65% that decreased to 55% during exercise. No regional perfusion defects consistent with scar or ischemia were found.
Cardiac catheterization revealed 3-vessel coronary artery disease with 50% distal left-main disease, 60% ostial and 90% mid left-anterior-descending artery stenoses, an occluded first obtuse marginal branch, 70% proximal right coronary artery disease, and an occluded posterior descending artery. Extensive left-to-left and left-to-right collaterals were identified.
After being referred to a cardiologist, who recommended coronary artery bypass, the patient refused surgery because he was asymptomatic during his routine daily activities. He was treated with aspirin, a beta-blocker, an ACE inhibitor, and a statin.
At re-evaluation 1 year later, the patient reports excellent functional status and no new symptoms of chest pain or dyspnea. Results of a repeat stress test and echocardiogram are essentially identical to the year-old findings.
The patient wants to know whether this is good news or bad news. In other words, have the medications kept him stable and made surgery unnecessary, or is revascularization still advisable because there’s been no improvement?
Questions:
- As the patient asks, are the results of his 1-year evaluation good news or bad news?
- If you recommend revascularization, would you advise surgery or high-risk angioplasty?
Response:
James Fang, MD
Medical therapy and lifestyle changes are generally the primary management strategy for chronic coronary artery disease, and multiple trials have attested to their effectiveness, particularly when symptoms are modest. For example, the COURAGE trial provides reasonable evidence that chronic ischemic heart disease can be managed as successfully with aggressive medical therapy as with revascularization — and the FAME trial indicated that when disease appears intermediate on angiography, ischemic burden is more important than “percent” stenosis in guiding therapy. However, the question in my mind is whether this patient can really be considered asymptomatic. While I might not go so far as to tell the patient his clinical course to date is “bad news,” I would argue that his functional capacity was, in fact, reduced at baseline compared to men his age (given his dyspnea–limited stress test) — and that his burden of ischemia remains significant (as indicated by the decrease in EF with exercise), even after a full year of good medical management. For this reason, I would recommend revascularization.
In terms of the specific procedure, I would recommend surgery over angioplasty, because of the chronically occluded anatomy in more than one vascular territory and the resulting uncertainty about whether “complete” revascularization could be achieved with PCI. Alternatively, I would consider performing only LAD revascularization (PCI), since the effect of the chronically occluded anatomy is attenuated by collateralization. However, I cannot make definitive recommendations about the revascularization strategy without personally reviewing the results of the angiogram. The importance of such a review is exemplified by the fact that many patients did not qualify for randomized trials of CABG versus PCI because their anatomy — when reviewed by both surgeon and interventionalist — clearly indicated one procedure over the other. That said, multiple randomized clinical studies have demonstrated that there are no survival differences between surgery and multivessel PCI, although it should be recognized that both therapeutic strategies continued to improve during the conduct of these trials. Even left main coronary disease is no longer treated exclusively with bypass surgery, although practice patterns differ widely in the U.S. and even more so worldwide.
The two strategies have clear trade-offs that must be considered both in the clinical context and in light of the patient’s preferences. For example, the modest but real risk for early morbidity and mortality with cardiac surgery must be balanced against the crossover rate and need for multiple follow-up procedures with PCI. Furthermore, although continued pharmacologic therapy is a cornerstone of both strategies, absolute compliance with dual-antiplatelet therapy becomes paramount with multiple coronary stents. Whenever possible, patients and their families should be counseled about the risks and benefits of surgery versus PCI. Further risk stratification may be possible based on the recent SYNTAX trial, but formal “SYNTAX scoring” is unlikely to catch on, much in the same way that “TIMI scoring” is rarely done formally in clinical practice when managing NSTEMI.
Follow-Up:
Anju Nohria, MD
The patient was counseled that although it was good news that he had not worsened over the past year, it was bad news that he continued to have a modest exercise capacity and, more importantly, a reduction in his EF with activity, suggesting diminished contractile reserve. The cardiologist once again urged the patient to consider surgery and offered angioplasty if the patient was afraid to undergo a surgical intervention. For the time being, however, the patient has opted to pursue medical therapy unless he experiences symptoms that limit him in his daily activities.
May 27th, 2010
Should We Aim For FAME?
L. David Hillis, MD
In patients with multivessel CAD suitable for PCI, what’s the best way to determine whether a stent should be placed? Researchers in the Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation (FAME) study compared outcomes when PCI with drug-eluting stents was guided by angiography alone versus angiography plus measurement of FFR. At 2 years of follow-up, routine measurement of FFR significantly reduced mortality and myocardial infarction (by 35%) when compared with angiography-guided PCI.
Still, I am skeptical that the FAME results are applicable to the “real world.” Although FFR measurements were attainable quickly in >90% of subjects, I believe that some — maybe even many — interventionalists are uncomfortable and/or inexperienced in doing them, thereby making the results difficult to trust.
Are you convinced that the addition of FFR to angiography prevents unnecessary stenting (and improves outcomes)? If so, why is it so seldom used?
