Management of stable angina: A commentary on the European Society of Cardiology guidelines

Acute coronary syndromes arise from coronary atherosclerosis with superimposed thrombosis. Since factor Xa plays a central role in thrombosis, the inhibition of factor Xa with low-dose rivaroxaban might improve cardiovascular outcomes in patients with a recent acute coronary syndrome. In this double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we randomly assigned 15,526 patients with a recent acute coronary syndrome to receive twice-daily doses of either 2.5 mg or 5 mg of rivaroxaban or placebo for a mean of 13 months and up to 31 months. The primary efficacy end point was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke. Rivaroxaban significantly reduced the primary efficacy end point, as compared with placebo, with respective rates of 8.9% and 10.7% (hazard ratio in the rivaroxaban group, 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74 to 0.96; P=0.008), with significant improvement for both the twice-daily 2.5-mg dose (9.1% vs. 10.7%, P=0.02) and the twice-daily 5-mg dose (8.8% vs. 10.7%, P=0.03). The twice-daily 2.5-mg dose of rivaroxaban reduced the rates of death from cardiovascular causes (2.7% vs. 4.1%, P=0.002) and from any cause (2.9% vs. 4.5%, P=0.002), a survival benefit that was not seen with the twice-daily 5-mg dose. As compared with placebo, rivaroxaban increased the rates of major bleeding not related to coronary-artery bypass grafting (2.1% vs. 0.6%, P<0.001) and intracranial hemorrhage (0.6% vs. 0.2%, P=0.009), without a significant increase in fatal bleeding (0.3% vs. 0.2%, P=0.66) or other adverse events. The twice-daily 2.5-mg dose resulted in fewer fatal bleeding events than the twice-daily 5-mg dose (0.1% vs. 0.4%, P=0.04). In patients with a recent acute coronary syndrome, rivaroxaban reduced the risk of the composite end point of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke. Rivaroxaban increased the risk of major bleeding and intracranial hemorrhage but not the risk of fatal bleeding. (Funded by Johnson & Johnson and Bayer Healthcare; ATLAS ACS 2-TIMI 51 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00809965.).

Many patients undergoing coronary angiography because of chest pain syndromes, believed to be indicative of obstructive atherosclerosis of the epicardial coronary arteries, are found to have normal angiograms. In the past two decades, a number of studies have reported that abnormalities in the function and structure of the coronary microcirculation may occur in patients without obstructive atherosclerosis, but with risk factors or with myocardial diseases as well as in patients with obstructive atherosclerosis; furthermore, coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD) can be iatrogenic. In some instances, CMD represents an epiphenomenon, whereas in others it is an important marker of risk or may even contribute to the pathogenesis of cardiovascular and myocardial diseases, thus becoming a therapeutic target. This review article provides an update on the clinical relevance of CMD in different clinical settings and also the implications for therapy.

Ivabradine specifically inhibits the I(f) current in the sinoatrial node to lower heart rate, without affecting other aspects of cardiac function. We aimed to test whether lowering the heart rate with ivabradine reduces cardiovascular death and morbidity in patients with coronary artery disease and left-ventricular systolic dysfunction. Between December, 2004, and December, 2006, we screened 12 473 patients at 781 centres in 33 countries. We enrolled 10 917 eligible patients who had coronary artery disease and a left-ventricular ejection fraction of less than 40% in a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group trial. 5479 patients received 5 mg ivabradine, with the intention of increasing to the target dose of 7.5 mg twice a day, and 5438 received matched placebo in addition to appropriate cardiovascular medication. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular death, admission to hospital for acute myocardial infarction, and admission to hospital for new onset or worsening heart failure. We analysed patients by intention to treat. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00143507. Mean heart rate at baseline was 71.6 (SD 9.9) beats per minute (bpm). Median follow-up was 19 months (IQR 16-24). Ivabradine reduced heart rate by 6 bpm (SE 0.2) at 12 months, corrected for placebo. Most (87%) patients were receiving beta blockers in addition to study drugs, and no safety concerns were identified. Ivabradine did not affect the primary composite endpoint (hazard ratio 1.00, 95% CI 0.91-1.1, p=0.94). 1233 (22.5%) patients in the ivabradine group had serious adverse events, compared with 1239 (22.8%) controls (p=0.70). In a prespecified subgroup of patients with heart rate of 70 bpm or greater, ivabradine treatment did not affect the primary composite outcome (hazard ratio 0.91, 95% CI 0.81-1.04, p=0.17), cardiovascular death, or admission to hospital for new-onset or worsening heart failure. However, it did reduce secondary endpoints: admission to hospital for fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction (0.64, 95% CI 0.49-0.84, p=0.001) and coronary revascularisation (0.70, 95% CI 0.52-0.93, p=0.016). Reduction in heart rate with ivabradine does not improve cardiac outcomes in all patients with stable coronary artery disease and left-ventricular systolic dysfunction, but could be used to reduce the incidence of coronary artery disease outcomes in a subgroup of patients who have heart rates of 70 bpm or greater.