Abstract/Text: BACKGROUND: Contemporary clinical risk stratification schemata for predicting stroke and thromboembolism (TE) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) are largely derived from risk factors identified from trial cohorts. Thus, many potential risk factors have not been included.
METHODS: We refined the 2006 Birmingham/National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) stroke risk stratification schema into a risk factor-based approach by reclassifying and/or incorporating additional new risk factors where relevant. This schema was then compared with existing stroke risk stratification schema in a real-world cohort of patients with AF (n = 1,084) from the Euro Heart Survey for AF.
RESULTS: Risk categorization differed widely between the different schemes compared. Patients classified as high risk ranged from 10.2% with the Framingham schema to 75.7% with the Birmingham 2009 schema. The classic CHADS(2) (Congestive heart failure, Hypertension, Age > 75, Diabetes, prior Stroke/transient ischemic attack) schema categorized the largest proportion (61.9%) into the intermediate-risk strata, whereas the Birmingham 2009 schema classified 15.1% into this category. The Birmingham 2009 schema classified only 9.2% as low risk, whereas the Framingham scheme categorized 48.3% as low risk. Calculated C-statistics suggested modest predictive value of all schema for TE. The Birmingham 2009 schema fared marginally better (C-statistic, 0.606) than CHADS(2). However, those classified as low risk by the Birmingham 2009 and NICE schema were truly low risk with no TE events recorded, whereas TE events occurred in 1.4% of low-risk CHADS(2) subjects. When expressed as a scoring system, the Birmingham 2009 schema (CHA(2)DS(2)-VASc acronym) showed an increase in TE rate with increasing scores (P value for trend = .003).
CONCLUSIONS: Our novel, simple stroke risk stratification schema, based on a risk factor approach, provides some improvement in predictive value for TE over the CHADS(2) schema, with low event rates in low-risk subjects and the classification of only a small proportion of subjects into the intermediate-risk category. This schema could improve our approach to stroke risk stratification in patients with AF.

Abstract/Text: OBJECTIVE: Despite extensive use of oral anticoagulation (OAC) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and the increased bleeding risk associated with such OAC use, no handy quantification tool for assessing this risk exists. We aimed to develop a practical risk score to estimate the 1-year risk for major bleeding (intracranial, hospitalization, hemoglobin decrease > 2 g/L, and/or transfusion) in a cohort of real-world patients with AF.
METHODS: Based on 3,978 patients in the Euro Heart Survey on AF with complete follow-up, all univariate bleeding risk factors in this cohort were used in a multivariate analysis along with historical bleeding risk factors. A new bleeding risk score termed HAS-BLED (Hypertension, Abnormal renal/liver function, Stroke, Bleeding history or predisposition, Labile international normalized ratio, Elderly (> 65 years), Drugs/alcohol concomitantly) was calculated, incorporating risk factors from the derivation cohort.
RESULTS: Fifty-three (1.5%) major bleeds occurred during 1-year follow-up. The annual bleeding rate increased with increasing risk factors. The predictive accuracy in the overall population using significant risk factors in the derivation cohort (C statistic 0.72) was consistent when applied in several subgroups. Application of the new bleeding risk score (HAS-BLED) gave similar C statistics except where patients were receiving antiplatelet agents alone or no antithrombotic therapy, with C statistics of 0.91 and 0.85, respectively.
CONCLUSION: This simple, novel bleeding risk score (HAS-BLED) provides a practical tool to assess the individual bleeding risk of real-world patients with AF, potentially supporting clinical decision making regarding antithrombotic therapy in patients with AF.

Abstract/Text: AIMS: Long-term randomized comparisons of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in left main coronary (LM) disease and/or three-vessel disease (3VD) patients have been limited. This analysis compares 3-year outcomes in LM and/or 3VD patients treated with CABG or PCI with TAXUS Express stents.
METHODS AND RESULTS: SYNTAX is an 85-centre randomized clinical trial (n= 1800). Prospectively screened, consecutive LM and/or 3VD patients were randomized if amenable to equivalent revascularization using either technique; if not, they were entered into a registry. Patients in the randomized cohort will continue to be followed for 5 years. At 3 years, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events [MACCE: death, stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), and repeat revascularization; CABG 20.2% vs. PCI 28.0%, P< 0.001], repeat revascularization (10.7 vs. 19.7%, P< 0.001), and MI (3.6 vs. 7.1%, P= 0.002) were elevated in the PCI arm. Rates of the composite safety endpoint (death/stroke/MI 12.0 vs. 14.1%, P= 0.21) and stroke alone (3.4 vs. 2.0%, P= 0.07) were not significantly different between treatment groups. Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event rates were not significantly different between arms in the LM subgroup (22.3 vs. 26.8%, P= 0.20) but were higher with PCI in the 3VD subgroup (18.8 vs. 28.8%, P< 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: At 3 years, MACCE was significantly higher in PCI- compared with CABG-treated patients. In patients with less complex disease (low SYNTAX scores for 3VD or low/intermediate terciles for LM patients), PCI is an acceptable revascularization, although longer follow-up is needed to evaluate these two revascularization strategies.

Abstract/Text: BACKGROUND: Optimal treatment for patients with both type 2 diabetes mellitus and stable ischemic heart disease has not been established.
METHODS: We randomly assigned 2368 patients with both type 2 diabetes and heart disease to undergo either prompt revascularization with intensive medical therapy or intensive medical therapy alone and to undergo either insulin-sensitization or insulin-provision therapy. Primary end points were the rate of death and a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (major cardiovascular events). Randomization was stratified according to the choice of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG) as the more appropriate intervention.
RESULTS: At 5 years, rates of survival did not differ significantly between the revascularization group (88.3%) and the medical-therapy group (87.8%, P=0.97) or between the insulin-sensitization group (88.2%) and the insulin-provision group (87.9%, P=0.89). The rates of freedom from major cardiovascular events also did not differ significantly among the groups: 77.2% in the revascularization group and 75.9% in the medical-treatment group (P=0.70) and 77.7% in the insulin-sensitization group and 75.4% in the insulin-provision group (P=0.13). In the PCI stratum, there was no significant difference in primary end points between the revascularization group and the medical-therapy group. In the CABG stratum, the rate of major cardiovascular events was significantly lower in the revascularization group (22.4%) than in the medical-therapy group (30.5%, P=0.01; P=0.002 for interaction between stratum and study group). Adverse events and serious adverse events were generally similar among the groups, although severe hypoglycemia was more frequent in the insulin-provision group (9.2%) than in the insulin-sensitization group (5.9%, P=0.003).
CONCLUSIONS: Overall, there was no significant difference in the rates of death and major cardiovascular events between patients undergoing prompt revascularization and those undergoing medical therapy or between strategies of insulin sensitization and insulin provision. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00006305.)

2009 Massachusetts Medical Society

Abstract/Text: BACKGROUND: The preferred initial treatment for patients with stable coronary artery disease is the best available medical therapy. We hypothesized that in patients with functionally significant stenoses, as determined by measurement of fractional flow reserve (FFR), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) plus the best available medical therapy would be superior to the best available medical therapy alone.
METHODS: In patients with stable coronary artery disease for whom PCI was being considered, we assessed all stenoses by measuring FFR. Patients in whom at least one stenosis was functionally significant (FFR, ≤0.80) were randomly assigned to FFR-guided PCI plus the best available medical therapy (PCI group) or the best available medical therapy alone (medical-therapy group). Patients in whom all stenoses had an FFR of more than 0.80 were entered into a registry and received the best available medical therapy. The primary end point was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or urgent revascularization.
RESULTS: Recruitment was halted prematurely after enrollment of 1220 patients (888 who underwent randomization and 332 enrolled in the registry) because of a significant between-group difference in the percentage of patients who had a primary end-point event: 4.3% in the PCI group and 12.7% in the medical-therapy group (hazard ratio with PCI, 0.32; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.19 to 0.53; P<0.001). The difference was driven by a lower rate of urgent revascularization in the PCI group than in the medical-therapy group (1.6% vs. 11.1%; hazard ratio, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.06 to 0.30; P<0.001); in particular, in the PCI group, fewer urgent revascularizations were triggered by a myocardial infarction or evidence of ischemia on electrocardiography (hazard ratio, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.04 to 0.43; P<0.001). Among patients in the registry, 3.0% had a primary end-point event.
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with stable coronary artery disease and functionally significant stenoses, FFR-guided PCI plus the best available medical therapy, as compared with the best available medical therapy alone, decreased the need for urgent revascularization. In patients without ischemia, the outcome appeared to be favorable with the best available medical therapy alone. (Funded by St. Jude Medical; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01132495.).