Article

Comparative Determinants of 4-Year Cardiovascular Event Rates in Stable Outpatients at Risk of or With Atherothrombosis

VA Boston Healthcare System, Brigham and Women's Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02132, USA.
JAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association (Impact Factor: 30.39). 09/2010; 304(12):1350-7. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2010.1322
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Clinicians and trialists have difficulty with identifying which patients are highest risk for cardiovascular events. Prior ischemic events, polyvascular disease, and diabetes mellitus have all been identified as predictors of ischemic events, but their comparative contributions to future risk remain unclear.
To categorize the risk of cardiovascular events in stable outpatients with various initial manifestations of atherothrombosis using simple clinical descriptors.
Outpatients with coronary artery disease, cerebrovascular disease, or peripheral arterial disease or with multiple risk factors for atherothrombosis were enrolled in the global Reduction of Atherothrombosis for Continued Health (REACH) Registry and were followed up for as long as 4 years. Patients from 3647 centers in 29 countries were enrolled between 2003 and 2004 and followed up until 2008. Final database lock was in April 2009.
Rates of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke.
A total of 45,227 patients with baseline data were included in this 4-year analysis. During the follow-up period, a total of 5481 patients experienced at least 1 event, including 2315 with cardiovascular death, 1228 with myocardial infarction, 1898 with stroke, and 40 with both a myocardial infarction and stroke on the same day. Among patients with atherothrombosis, those with a prior history of ischemic events at baseline (n = 21,890) had the highest rate of subsequent ischemic events (18.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 17.4%-19.1%); patients with stable coronary, cerebrovascular, or peripheral artery disease (n = 15,264) had a lower risk (12.2%; 95% CI, 11.4%-12.9%); and patients without established atherothrombosis but with risk factors only (n = 8073) had the lowest risk (9.1%; 95% CI, 8.3%-9.9%) (P < .001 for all comparisons). In addition, in multivariable modeling, the presence of diabetes (hazard ratio [HR], 1.44; 95% CI, 1.36-1.53; P < .001), an ischemic event in the previous year (HR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.57-1.85; P < .001), and polyvascular disease (HR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.78-2.24; P < .001) each were associated with a significantly higher risk of the primary end point.
Clinical descriptors can assist clinicians in identifying high-risk patients within the broad range of risk for outpatients with atherothrombosis.

0 Followers
 · 
205 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Although nonadherence with evidence-based secondary prevention medications is common in patients with established atherothrombotic disease, long-term outcomes studies are scant. We assessed the prevalence and long-term outcomes of nonadherence to secondary prevention (antiplatelet agents, statins, and antihypertensive agents) medications in stable outpatients with established atherothrombosis (coronary, cerebrovascular, or peripheral artery disease) enrolled in the international REduction of Atherothrombosis for Continued Health registry.Methods Adherence with these medications in eligible patients at baseline and 1-year follow-up was assessed. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 4 years.ResultsA total of 37,154 patients with established atherothrombotic disease were included. Adherence rates with all evidence-based medications at baseline and 1 year were 46.7% and 48.2%, respectively. Nonadherence with any medication at baseline (hazard ratio, 1.18; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-1.25) and at 1 year (hazard ratio, 1.19; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-1.28) were both significantly associated with an increased risk of the primary end point. The risk of all-cause mortality was similarly elevated. Corresponding numbers needed to treat were 31 and 25 patients for the composite end point and total mortality, respectively. This also was true for each disease-specific subgroup. Patients who were fully adherent at both time points had the lowest incidence of adverse outcomes, whereas patients who were nonadherent at both time points had the worst outcomes (P < .01).Conclusions Our analysis of a large international registry demonstrates that nonadherence with evidence-based secondary prevention therapies in patients with established atherothrombosis is associated with a significant increase in long-term adverse events, including mortality.
    The American Journal of Medicine 08/2013; 126(8):693-700.e1. DOI:10.1016/j.amjmed.2013.01.033 · 5.30 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Both supervised exercise (SE) and stenting (ST) improve functional status, symptoms, and quality of life compared with optimal medical care (OMC) in patients with claudication. The relative cost‐effectiveness of these strategies is not well defined. Methods and Results The Claudication: Exercise Versus Endoluminal Revascularization (CLEVER) study randomized patients with claudication due to aortoiliac stenosis to a 6‐month SE program, to ST, or to OMC. Participants who completed 6‐month follow‐up (n=98) were included in a health economic analysis through 18 months. Costs were assessed using resource‐based methods and hospital billing data. Quality‐adjusted life‐years were estimated using the EQ‐5D. Markov modeling based on the in‐trial results was used to explore the impact of assumptions about the longer term durability of observed differences in quality of life. Through 18 months, mean healthcare costs were $5178, $9804, and $14 590 per patient for OMC, SE, and ST, respectively. Measured quality‐adjusted life‐years through 18 months were 1.04, 1.16, and 1.20. In our base case analysis, which assumed that observed differences in quality of life would dissipate after 5 years, the incremental cost‐effectiveness ratios were $24 070 per quality‐adjusted life‐year gained for SE versus OMC, $41 376 for ST versus OMC, and $122 600 for ST versus SE. If the treatment effect of ST was assumed to be more durable than that of SE, the incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio for ST versus SE became more favorable. Conclusions Both SE and ST are economically attractive by US standards relative to OMC for the treatment of claudication in patients with aortoiliac disease. ST is more expensive than SE, with uncertain incremental benefit. Clinical Trial Registration URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov, Unique identifier: NCT00132743.
    Journal of the American Heart Association 10/2014; 3(6). DOI:10.1161/JAHA.114.001233 · 2.88 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Macrophages are becoming increasingly significant in the progression of atherosclerosis (AS). Molecular imaging of macrophages may improve the detection and characterization of AS. In this study, dendrimer-entrapped gold nanoparticles (Au DENPs) with polyethylene glycol (PEG) and fluorescein isothiocyanate (FI) coatings were designed, tested, and applied as contrast agents for the enhanced computed tomography (CT) imaging of macrophages in atherosclerotic lesions. Cell counting kit-8 assay, fluorescence microscopy, silver staining, and transmission electron microscopy revealed that the FI-functionalized Au DENPs are noncytotoxic at high concentrations (3.0 μM) and can be efficiently taken up by murine macrophages in vitro. These nanoparticles were administered to apolipoprotein E knockout mice as AS models, which demonstrated that the macrophage burden in atherosclerotic areas can be tracked noninvasively and dynamically three-dimensionally in live animals using micro-CT. Our findings suggest that the designed PEGylated gold nanoparticles are promising biocompatible nanoprobes for the CT imaging of macrophages in atherosclerotic lesions and will provide new insights into the pathophysiology of AS and other concerned inflammatory diseases.
    International Journal of Nanomedicine 01/2014; 9:5575-5590. DOI:10.2147/IJN.S72819 · 4.20 Impact Factor