American Journal of Cardiovascular Drugs最新文献

Background

Atrial fibrillation (AF) and/or atrial flutter (AFL) with rapid ventricular response (RVR) is a condition that often requires urgent treatment. Although guidelines have recommendations regarding chronic rate control therapy, recommendations on the best choice for acute heart rate (HR) control in RVR are unclear.

Methods

A systematic search across multiple databases was performed for studies evaluating the outcome of HR control (defined as HR less than 110 bpm and/or 20% decrease from baseline HR). Included studies evaluated AF and/or AFL with RVR in a hospital setting, with direct comparison between intravenous (IV) diltiazem and metoprolol and excluded cardiac surgery and catheter ablation patients. Hypotension (defined as systolic blood pressure less than 90 mmHg) was measured as a secondary outcome. Two authors performed full-text article review and extracted data, with a third author mediating disagreements. Random effects models utilizing inverse variance weighting were used to calculate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Heterogeneity was assessed using the I² test.

Results

A total of 563 unique titles were identified through the systematic search, of which 16 studies (7 randomized and 9 observational) were included. In our primary analysis of HR control by study type, IV diltiazem was found to be more effective than IV metoprolol for HR control in randomized trials (OR 4.75, 95% CI 2.50–9.04 with I² = 14%); however, this was not found for observational studies (OR 1.26, 95% CI 0.89–1.80 with I² = 55%). In an analysis of observational studies, there were no significant differences between the two drugs in odds of hypotension (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.51–2.45 with I² = 18%).

Conclusion

While there was a trend toward improved HR control with IV diltiazem compared with IV metoprolol in randomized trials, this was not seen in observational studies, and there was no observed difference in hypotension between the two drugs.

Background

We previously conducted a retrospective cohort study using chart review of oral anticoagulant-naïve Japanese patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) that assessed the risk of major bleeding and stroke/systemic embolism (SE) events of apixaban versus warfarin.

Methods

In this subgroup analysis, we compared the risk of major bleeding and stroke/SE events by stratifying patients into four subgroups matched 1:1 using propensity score matching (PSM) according to baseline creatinine clearance (CrCl; mL/min): ≥ 15 to < 30, ≥ 30 to < 50, ≥ 50 to < 80, and ≥ 80.

Results

Of the 7074 patients in the apixaban group and 4998 in the warfarin group eligible for inclusion in the analysis, 4385 were included in each group after PSM. Incidence rates of major bleeding and stroke/SE events were generally lower with apixaban versus warfarin across the CrCl subgroups. When all patients with a CrCl change of < 0 mL/min per year during the study period (apixaban, n = 3871; warfarin, n = 2635) were stratified into four subgroups based on the magnitude of CrCl decline (median CrCl change [mL/min] per year: − 1.09, − 3.48, − 7.54, and − 36.92 for apixaban, and − 1.10, − 3.65, − 7.85, and − 40.40 for warfarin), the incidence rates of major bleeding and stroke/SE events generally increased with an increasing CrCl decline per year in both groups.

Conclusions

In Japanese patients with NVAF, the safety and effectiveness of apixaban and warfarin were consistent across different renal subgroups, including those with severe renal impairment. Our results highlight the importance of monitoring renal function variations over time in patients with NVAF.

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier

NCT03765242.

Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is associated with high morbidity and mortality worldwide. Although early reperfusion is the most effective strategy to salvage ischemic myocardium, reperfusion injury can develop with the restoration of blood flow. Therefore, it is important to identify protection mechanisms and strategies for the heart after myocardial infarction. Recent studies have shown that multiple intracellular molecules and signaling pathways are involved in cardioprotection. Meanwhile, device-based cardioprotective modalities such as cardiac left ventricular unloading, hypothermia, coronary sinus intervention, supersaturated oxygen (SSO₂), and remote ischemic conditioning (RIC) have become important areas of research. Herein, we review the molecular mechanisms of cardioprotection and cardioprotective modalities after ischemia–reperfusion injury (IRI) to identify potential approaches to reduce mortality and improve prognosis in patients with AMI.

Background

There is evidence to suggest that colchicine reduces the risk of recurrent atrial fibrillation (AF) after catheter ablation; however, the tolerability and safety of colchicine in routine practice is unknown.

Methods

Patients undergoing catheter ablation for AF who received colchicine after ablation were matched 1:1 to patients who did not by age, sex, and renal function. Recurrent AF was compared between groups categorically at 12 months and via propensity weighted Cox proportional hazards models with and without a 3-month blanking period.

Results

Overall, 180 patients (n = 90 colchicine and n = 90 matched controls) were followed for a median (Q1, Q3) of 10.3 (7.0, 12.0) months. Mean age was 65.3 ± 9.1 years, 33.9% were women, mean CHA₂DS₂-VASc score was 2.9 ± 1.5, and 51.1% had persistent AF. Most patients (70%) received colchicine 0.6 mg daily for a median of 30 days. In the colchicine group, 55 patients (61.1%) were receiving at least one known interacting medication with colchicine. After ablation, one patient required colchicine dose reduction and four patients required discontinuation. After adjusting for covariate imbalance using propensity weighting, no significant association between colchicine use and AF recurrence was identified (adjusted hazard ratio 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.48–1.85; p = 0.853). No significant association was found between colchicine use and all-cause hospitalizations (adjusted odds ratio 0.74, 95% CI 0.28–1.96; p = 0.548).

Conclusion

Despite the frequent presence of drug–drug interactions, a 30-day course of colchicine is well-tolerated after AF ablation; however, we did not observe any association between colchicine and lower rates of AF recurrence or hospitalization.

During the last decade, the landscape of type 2 diabetes (T2D) management has been completely transformed, moving from a glucose-centric perspective to a holistic approach that also takes into account weight control and organ protection. Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4i) are oral agents that have been used for the treatment of T2D for almost 20 years. Although they present an excellent safety profile, including the risk of hypoglycemia, they lack the spectacular cardiorenal benefits and weight-loss effects of the newer antidiabetic agents. This poses the question of whether they still deserve a place in the arsenal of drugs against T2D. In this article, we use a hypothetical case scenario to illustrate possible patient profiles where DPP4i could prove useful in the clinical setting. We discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the category, focusing on glycemic control, weight management, and cardiorenal protection, which are the pillars of modern T2D management, also considering its safety profile and cost-effectiveness. We conclude that in most cases, DPP4i present a more favorable risk–benefit ratio compared to sulfonylureas, which are still widely prescribed throughout the world. We also suggest that future research should clarify the reasons behind the contradictory findings between human and animal studies on cardiorenal effects of the class and identify subgroups of patients who would derive most benefit with DPP4i treatment.

Aim

Bempedoic acid has shown noteworthy progress in the prevention and management of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) in recent years. However, there has been a lack of high-quality evidence regarding the risk reduction of clinical events with bempedoic acid. Therefore, the aim of this article is to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the impact of bempedoic acid on the incidence of cardiovascular events.

Methods

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials pertaining to bempedoic acid was carried out. We conducted a systematic search across the Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases to identify relevant studies published from inception to 23 April 2023. A total of four trials comparing the clinical benefit achieved with bempedoic acid versus placebo were included.

Results

Our analysis comprised four trials that encompassed a total of 17,323 patients. In comparison to the placebo, bempedoic acid showed a significant reduction in the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) [relative risk (RR), 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87–0.94]. Additionally, bempedoic acid substantially lowered the occurrence of fatal or nonfatal myocardial infarction (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.66–0.89), hospitalization for unstable angina (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.55–0.89), and coronary revascularization (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.73–0.92). There was also a similar reduction in MACE in patients on the maximally tolerated statin therapy.

Conclusion

Bempedoic acid may reduce the risk of cardiovascular events regardless of whether the patient is taking stains or not.

Registration: PROSPERO registration number CRD42023422932.

Arterial hypertension is the main preventable cause of premature mortality worldwide. Across Latin America, hypertension has an estimated prevalence of 25.5–52.5%, although many hypertensive patients remain untreated. Appropriate treatment, started early and continued for the remaining lifespan, significantly reduces the risk of complications and mortality. All international and most regional guidelines emphasize a central role for renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system inhibitors (RAASis) in antihypertensive treatment. The two main RAASi options are angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEis) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs). Although equivalent in terms of blood pressure reduction, ACEis are preferably recommended by some guidelines to manage other cardiovascular comorbidities, with ARBs considered as an alternative when ACEis are not tolerated. This review summarizes the differences between ACEis and ARBs and their place in the international guidelines. It provides a critical appraisal of the guidelines based on available evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses, especially considering that hypertensive patients in daily practice often have other comorbidities. The observed differences in cardiovascular and renal outcomes in RCTs may be attributed to the different mechanisms of action of ACEis and ARBs, including increased bradykinin levels, potentiated bradykinin response, and stimulated nitric oxide production with ACEis. It may therefore be appropriate to consider ACEis and ARBs as different antihypertensive drugs classes within the same RAASi group. Although guideline recommendations only differentiate between ACEis and ARBs in patients with cardiovascular comorbidities, clinical evidence suggests that ACEis provide benefits in many hypertensive patients, as well as those with other cardiovascular conditions.

Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) is a complicated, heterogeneous genetic condition that causes left ventricular hypertrophy, fibrosis, hypercontractility, and decreased compliance. Despite the advances made over the past 3 decades in understanding the molecular and cellular mechanisms aggravating HCM, the relationship between pathophysiological stress stimuli and distinctive myocyte growth profiles is still imprecise. Currently, mavacamten, a selective and reversible inhibitor of cardiac myosin ATPase, is the only drug approved by the US FDA for the treatment of HCM. Thus, there is an unmet need for developing novel disease-specific therapeutic approaches. This article provides an overview of emerging therapeutic targets for the treatment of HCM based on various molecular pathways and novel developments that are hopefully soon to enter the clinical study. These newly discovered targets include the dual specificity tyrosine-phosphorylation-regulated kinase 1B, the absence of the melanoma 1 inflammasome, the leucine-rich repeat kinase 2 enzyme, and the cluster of differentiation 147.

Graphical Abstract

Background

Prevention of ischemic stroke is an essential part of managing atrial fibrillation (AF). In recent years, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have emerged as an alternative to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs). Little is understood regarding the efficacy and safety of DOACs in AF patients with liver cirrhosis (LC).

Objective

This meta-analysis is designed to evaluate the benefits and risks of DOACs compared to VKAs in AF patients with concomitant LC.

Methods

A thorough search was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, and CNKI databases up to February 2023. A total of seven clinical studies including 7551 patients were analyzed in this meta-analysis. All data analyses were performed using Review Manager software version 5.3.

Results

Regarding efficacy outcomes, DOACs had comparable clinical benefit in reducing ischemic stroke/systemic thromboembolism (HR=0.79, 95% CI [0.59, 1.06], p = 0.12) to VKAs. The incidence of all-cause death was similar between the DOACs and VKAs group (HR 0.94, 95% CI [0.69, 1.28], p = 0.69). Regarding safety outcomes, DOACs were associated with a significantly lower risk of major bleeding (HR 0.61, 95% CI [0.50, 0.75], p < 0.00001), intracranial hemorrhage (HR 0.55, 95% CI [0.31, 0.98], p = 0.04) and major gastrointestinal bleeding (HR 0.66, 95% CI [0.51, 0.85], p = 0.001) than VKAs. Additional subgroup analysis of advanced cirrhosis revealed that DOACs were associated with a significantly lower risk of major bleeding (HR 0.59, 95% CI [0.39, 0.89], p = 0.01) than VKAs. There were no significant differences between the DOACs and VKAs group concerning the incidence of ischemic stroke/systemic thromboembolism (HR 1.38, 95% CI [0.75, 2.55], p = 0.31) and major gastrointestinal bleeding (HR 0.65, 95% CI [0.41, 1.04], p = 0.08).

Conclusion

DOACs are associated with more favorable safety outcomes and may be a feasible option of oral anticoagulant for individuals with atrial fibrillation and cirrhosis. Pending validation by randomized prospective studies, the findings of this study should be interpreted with caution.