2018 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization

We sought to develop a simple risk score of contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Although several risk factors for CIN have been identified, the cumulative risk rendered by their combination is unknown. A total of 8,357 patients were randomly assigned to a development and a validation dataset. The baseline clinical and procedural characteristics of the 5,571 patients in the development dataset were considered as candidate univariate predictors of CIN (increase >or=25% and/or >or=0.5 mg/dl in serum creatinine at 48 h after PCI vs. baseline). Multivariate logistic regression was then used to identify independent predictors of CIN with a p value 75 years, anemia, and volume of contrast) were assigned a weighted integer; the sum of the integers was a total risk score for each patient. The overall occurrence of CIN in the development set was 13.1% (range 7.5% to 57.3% for a low [ or=16] risk score, respectively); the rate of CIN increased exponentially with increasing risk score (Cochran Armitage chi-square, p < 0.0001). In the 2,786 patients of the validation dataset, the model demonstrated good discriminative power (c statistic = 0.67); the increasing risk score was again strongly associated with CIN (range 8.4% to 55.9% for a low and high risk score, respectively). The risk of CIN after PCI can be simply assessed using readily available information. This risk score can be used for both clinical and investigational purposes.

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.).

Optimal treatment for patients with both type 2 diabetes mellitus and stable ischemic heart disease has not been established. 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. 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). 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