• Amarin Corporation close

This study sought to assess the relationship between central pressure profiles and cardiovascular events (CVEs) in a large community-based sample.Experimental and physiologic data mechanistically implicate wave reflections in the pathogenesis of left ventricular failure and cardiovascular disease, but their association with these outcomes in the general population is unclear.Aortic pressure waveforms were derived from a generalized transfer function applied to the radial pressure waveform recorded noninvasively from 5,960 participants in the Multiethnic Study of Atherosclerosis. The central pressure waveform was separated into forward and reflected waves using a physiologic flow waveform. Reflection magnitude (RM = [Reflected/Forward wave amplitude] × 100), augmentation index ([Second/First systolic peak] × 100) and pulse pressure amplification ([Radial/aortic pulse pressure] × 100) were assessed as predictors of CVEs and congestive heart failure (CHF) during a median follow-up of 7.61 years.After adjustment for established risk factors, aortic AIx independently predicted hard CVEs (hazard ratio [HR] per 10% increase: 1.08; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.01 to 1.14; p = 0.016), whereas PPA independently predicted all CVEs (HR per 10% increase: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.70 to 0.96; p = 0.012). RM was independently predictive of all CVEs (HR per 10% increase: 1.34; 95% CI: 1.08 to 1.67; p = 0.009) and hard CVEs (HR per 10% increase: 1.46; 95% CI: 1.12 to 1.90; p = 0.006) and was strongly predictive of new-onset CHF (HR per 10% increase: 2.69; 95% CI: 1.79 to 4.04; p0.0001), comparing favorably to other risk factors for CHF as per various measures of model performance, reclassification, and discrimination. In a fully adjusted model, compared to nonhypertensive subjects with low RM, the HRs (95% CI) for hypertensive subjects with low RM, nonhypertensive subjects with high RM, and hypertensive subjects with high RM were 1.81 (0.85 to 3.86), 2.16 (1.07 to 5.01), and 3.98 (1.96 to 8.05), respectively.Arterial wave reflections represent a novel strong risk factor for CHF in the general population.

Abstract Aims This study aims to provide an overview on contemporary gender differences in the risk factor control of coronary heart disease (CHD) patients. Methods and results Analyses were based on the cross-sectional ESC (European Society of Cardiology) EORP (EurObservational Research Programme) EUROASPIRE V (European Survey of Cardiovascular Disease Prevention and Diabetes) survey including data on CHD patients across 27 European countries. Men and women between 18 and 80 years old, hospitalized for a first or recurrent coronary event were included in the study. Data were available for 8261 patients of which 25.8% women. Overall, women had a worse risk factor control compared with men. Whereas women were more likely to be non-smokers (79.3% vs. 87.2%; P < 0.001), they were less likely to reach recommended levels of physical activity (36.8% vs. 27.5%; P < 0.001), and they were less likely to be non-obese (65.1% vs. 54.3%; P < 0.001). There is indication that risk factors such as smoking behaviour and obesity differed depending on country income level. No gender differences could be observed in blood pressure on target (P > 0.05). Moreover, a lower proportion of women reached low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) target levels (31.4% vs. 22.1%; P < 0.001), and they were less likely to reach glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) targets if having self-reported diabetes (56.7% vs. 48.6%; P < 0.001). Conclusion The risk factor control of CHD women is substantial worse compared with men despite little gender differences in cardiovascular medication intake. Further actions are needed to increase the awareness of the worse risk factor control in female CHD patients.

This study sought to examine the relationship between niacin treatment, lipoproteins, and cardiovascular (CV) outcomes in this secondary analysis of the AIM-HIGH (Atherothrombosis Intervention in Metabolic Syndrome With Low HDL/High Triglycerides and Impact on Global Health Outcomes) trial.During a 3-year follow-up in 3,414 patients with established CV disease and low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) levels, combined niacin + low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C)-lowering therapy did not reduce CV events compared with LDL-C-lowering therapy alone.Subjects taking simvastatin and/or ezetimibe were randomized to receive extended-release (ER) niacin 1,500 to 2,000 mg or minimal immediate-release niacin (≤ 150 mg) as placebo at bedtime. LDL-C levels in both groups were maintained from 40 to 80 mg/dl. Hazard ratios were estimated by using Cox proportional hazards models for relationships between lipoproteins and the composite endpoint of CV death, myocardial infarction, acute coronary syndrome, ischemic stroke, or symptom-driven revascularization.CV outcomes were not associated with ER niacin in any baseline lipoprotein tertile. In a subset of patients in both the highest triglyceride (≥ 198 mg/dl) and lowest HDL-C (33 mg/dl) tertiles, ER niacin showed a trend toward benefit (hazard ratio: 0.74, p = 0.073). In-trial LDL-C levels, non-HDL-C levels, and the total cholesterol/HDL-C ratio were positively associated with CV events in the control group, but these relationships were absent in the ER niacin group.Baseline lipoprotein tertiles did not predict differential benefit or harm with ER niacin added to LDL-C-lowering therapy, but a small dyslipidemic subgroup may benefit. ER niacin attenuated expected relationships of lipoprotein risk factors with CV events, raising the possibility that nonlipoprotein actions of niacin could affect risk. (Niacin Plus Statin to Prevent Vascular Events [AIM-HIGH]; NCT00120289).

AbstractAimsMost patients with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (CVD) are at very high risk for developing recurrent events. Since this risk varies a lot between patients there is a need to identify those in whom an even more intensive secondary prevention strategy should be envisaged. Using data from the EUROASPIRE IV and V cohorts of coronary heart disease (CHD) patients from 27 European countries, we aimed at developing and internally and externally validating a risk model predicting recurrent CVD events in patients aged < 75 years.Methods and resultsProspective data were available for 12 484 patients after a median follow-up time of 1.7 years. The primary endpoint, a composite of fatal CVD or new hospitalizations for non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, heart failure, coronary artery bypass graft, or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), occurred in 1424 patients. The model was developed based on data from 8000 randomly selected patients in whom the association between potential risk factors and the incidence of the primary endpoint was investigated. This model was then validated in the remaining 4484 patients. The final multivariate model revealed a higher risk for the primary endpoint with increasing age, a previous hospitalization for stroke, heart failure or PCI, a previous diagnosis of peripheral artery disease, self-reported diabetes and its glycaemic control, higher non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, reduced renal function, symptoms of depression and anxiety and living in a higher risk country. The model demonstrated excellent internal validity and proved very adequate in the validation cohort. Regarding external validity, the model demonstrated good discriminative ability in 20 148 MI patients participating in the SWEDEHEART register. Finally, we developed a risk calculator to estimate risks at 1 and 2 years for patients with stable CHD.ConclusionIn patients with CHD, fatal and non-fatal rates of recurrent CVD events are high. However, there are still opportunities to optimize their management in order to prevent further disease or death. The EUROASPIRE Risk Calculator may be of help to reach this goal.

AbstractAimNon‐randomized studies on bariatric surgery have reported large reductions in mortality within 6‐12 months after surgery compared with non‐surgical patients. It is unclear whether these findings are the result of bias.Study Design and SettingWe searched PubMed to identify all non‐randomized studies investigating the effect of bariatric surgery on all‐cause mortality compared with non‐surgical patients. We assessed these studies for potential confounding and time‐related biases. We conducted bias analyses to quantify the effect of these biases.ResultsWe identified 21 cohort studies that met our inclusion criteria. Among those, 11 were affected by immortal time bias resulting from the misclassification or exclusion of relevant follow‐up time. Five studies were subject to potential confounding bias because of a lack of adjustment for body mass index (BMI). All studies used an inadequate comparator group that lacked indications for bariatric surgery. Bias analyses to correct for potential confounding from BMI shifted the effect estimates towards the null [reported hazard ratio (HR): 0.78 vs. bias‐adjusted HR: 0.92]. Bias analyses to correct for the presence of immortal time also shifted the effect estimates towards the null (adjustment for 2‐year wait time: reported HR: 0.57 vs. bias‐adjusted HR: 0.81).ConclusionSeveral important sources of bias were identified in non‐randomized studies of the effectiveness of bariatric surgery versus non‐surgical comparators on mortality. Future studies should ensure that confounding by BMI is accounted for, considering the choice of the comparator group, and that the design or analysis avoids immortal time bias from the misclassification or exclusion.