Open Heart最新文献

Background: Amiodarone is an established treatment for atrial fibrillation (AF) but might interfere with the metabolism of apixaban or warfarin. Therefore, the aim was to investigate the occurrence of major bleeding among patients with AF treated with amiodarone in combination with apixaban or warfarin.

Methods: Retrospective observational study using Swedish health registers. All patients with AF in the National Patient Register and the National Dispensed Drug Register with concomitant use of amiodarone and warfarin or apixaban between 1 June 2013 and 31 December 2018 were included. Propensity score matching was performed, and matched cohorts were compared using Cox proportional HRs. The primary outcome was major bleeding resulting in hospitalisation based on International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10 codes. Secondary outcomes included intracranial bleeding, gastrointestinal bleeding and other bleeding. Exploratory outcomes included ischaemic stroke/systemic embolism and all-cause/cardiovascular (CV) mortality.

Results: A total of 12 103 patients met the inclusion criteria and 8686 patients were included after propensity score matching. Rates of major bleeding were similar in the apixaban (4.3/100 patient-years) and warfarin cohort (4.5/100 patient-years) (HR: 1.03; 95% CI: 0.76 to 1.39) during median follow-up of 4.4 months. Similar findings were observed for secondary outcomes including gastrointestinal bleeding and other bleeding, and exploratory outcomes including ischaemic stroke/systemic embolism and all-cause/CV mortality.

Conclusions: Among patients treated with amiodarone in combination with apixaban or warfarin, major bleeding and thromboembolic events were rare and with no significant difference between the treatment groups.

Eupas registry number: EUPAS43681.

Introduction: Hypertension is the leading modifiable risk factor for cardiovascular disease and is implicated in half of all strokes and myocardial infarctions. One-third of the adults in Scotland have hypertension yet only a quarter of them have their blood pressure (BP) controlled to target (<140/90 mm Hg). Empowering patients to have a better understanding of their condition and becoming actively involved in the monitoring and management of hypertension may lead to improved patient satisfaction, improved BP control and health outcomes and reduction in the use of primary/secondary care hypertension clinics.

Methods and analysis: OPTIMA-BP is a randomised parallel group pilot study comparing the use of home BP monitoring accompanied by access to the web-based cardiovascular educational portal (Kvatchii) and home BP monitoring (HBPM) alone in 200 patients with hypertension attending the Glasgow Blood Pressure Clinic, Queen Elizabeth University Hospital, Glasgow. Consented participants will be asked to complete surveys on lifestyle factors, medication adherence, quality of life and hypertension knowledge, understanding and home monitoring. The intervention group will be asked to complete a survey to help evaluate the Kvatchii portal. At 6 and 12 months, the surveys will be repeated via the CASTOR EDC. Both groups will input their HBPM results at 2-month intervals into a CASTOR-EDC survey. OPTIMA-BP will follow-up with participants over 12 months with the study running over 24 months. The primary outcome is HBPM systolic BP area under the curve between baseline and 6 months ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: OPTIMA-BP was approved by the North of Scotland Research Ethics Committee 2 (22/NS/0095). Current protocol version 1.2 date 6 June 2023. Written informed consent will be provided by all study participants. Study findings will be submitted to international peer-reviewed journals and will be presented at national and international scientific meetings.

Trial registration number: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05575453. Registered 12 October 2022. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05575453.

Objectives: The clinical outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in patients with aortic stenosis (AS) and concomitant active cancer remain insufficiently explored. This study aimed to assess the midterm outcomes of TAVR in patients diagnosed with AS and active cancer.

Methods: Data from the OCEAN-TAVI, a prospective Japanese registry of TAVR procedures, was analysed to compare prognoses and clinical outcomes in patients with and without active cancer at the time of TAVR.

Results: Of the 2336 patients who underwent TAVR from October 2013 to July 2017, 89 patients (3.8%) had active cancer, whereas 2247 did not. Among patients with active cancer, 49 had limited-stage cancer (stage 1 or 2). The prevalent cancers identified before TAVR were colon (21%), prostate (18%), lung (15%), liver (11%) and breast (9%). Although the periprocedural complications and 30-day mortality rates were comparable between the groups, the 3-year survival rate after TAVR was notably lower in patients with active cancer (64.7%) than in those without active cancer (74.7%; p=0.016). Nevertheless, the 3-year survival rate of patients with limited-stage cancer (stage 1 or 2) did not significantly differ from those without cancer (70.6% vs 74.7%, p=0.50).

Conclusions: The patients with active cancer exhibited significantly reduced midterm survival rates. However, no distinct disparity existed in those with limited-stage cancer (stage 1 or 2). Although TAVR is a viable treatment in patients with AS with active cancer, the type and stage of cancer and prognosis should be carefully weighed in the decision-making process.