BMJ 2010; 340:b5526

To determine the association of non-invasive cardiac stress testing before elective intermediate to high risk non-cardiac surgery with survival and hospital stay.

Design
Population based retrospective cohort study.

Setting
Acute care hospitals in Ontario, Canada, between 1 April 1994 and 31 March 2004.

Participants
Patients aged 40 years or older who underwent specific elective intermediate to high risk non-cardiac surgical procedures.
Interventions Non-invasive cardiac stress testing performed within six months before surgery.

Main outcome measures
Postoperative one year survival and length of stay in hospital.

Results
Of the 271 082 patients in the entire cohort, 23 991 (8.9%) underwent stress testing. After propensity score methods were used to reduce important differences between patients who did or did not undergo preoperative stress testing and assemble a matched cohort (n=46 120), testing was associated with improved one year survival (hazard ratio (HR) 0.92, 95% CI 0.86 to 0.99; P=0.03) and reduced mean hospital stay (difference −0.24 days, 95% CI −0.07 to −0.43; P<0.001). In an analysis of subgroups defined by Revised Cardiac Risk Index (RCRI) class, testing was associated with harm in low risk patients (RCRI 0 points: HR 1.35, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.74), but with benefit in patients who were at intermediate risk (RCRI 1-2 points: 0.92, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.99) or high risk (RCRI 3-6 points: 0.80, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.97).

Conclusions
Preoperative non-invasive cardiac stress testing is associated with improved one year survival and length of hospital stay in patients undergoing elective intermediate to high risk non-cardiac surgery. These benefits principally apply to patients with risk factors for perioperative cardiac complications.

Lancet 2010;375:283-93

Variation in and irreversibility of platelet inhibition with clopidogrel has led to controversy about its optimum dose and timing of administration in patients with acute coronary syndromes. We compared ticagrelor, a more potent reversible P2Y12 inhibitor with clopidogrel in such patients.

Methods
At randomisation, an invasive strategy was planned for 13 408 (72.0%) of 18 624 patients hospitalised for acute coronary syndromes (with or without ST elevation). In a double-blind, double-dummy study, patients were randomly assigned in a one-to-one ratio to ticagrelor and placebo (180 mg loading dose followed by 90 mg twice a day), or to clopidogrel and placebo (300-600 mg loading dose or continuation with maintenance dose followed by 75 mg per day) for 6-12 months. All patients were given aspirin. The primary composite endpoint was cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00391872.

Findings
6732 patients were assigned to ticagrelor and 6676 to clopidogrel. The primary composite endpoint occurred in fewer patients in the ticagrelor group than in the clopidogrel group (569 [event rate at 360 days 9.0%] vs 668 [10.7%], hazard ratio 0.84, 95% CI 0.75-0.94; p=0.0025). There was no difference between clopidogrel and ticagrelor groups in the rates of total major bleeding (691 [11.6%] vs 689 [11.5%], 0.99 [0.89-1.10]; p=0.8803) or severe bleeding, as defined according to the Global Use of Strategies To Open occluded coronary arteries, (198 [3.2%] vs 185 [2.9%], 0.91 [0.74-1.12]; p=0.3785).

Interpretation
Ticagrelor seems to be a better option than clopidogrel for patients with acute coronary syndromes for whom an early invasive strategy is planned.

NEJM 2009; 361:1045-1057

Ticagrelor is an oral, reversible, direct-acting inhibitor of the adenosine diphosphate receptor P2Y12 that has a more rapid onset and more pronounced platelet inhibition than clopidogrel.

Methods
In this multicenter, double-blind, randomized trial, we compared ticagrelor (180-mg loading dose, 90 mg twice daily thereafter) and clopidogrel (300-to-600-mg loading dose, 75 mg daily thereafter) for the prevention of cardiovascular events in 18,624 patients admitted to the hospital with an acute coronary syndrome, with or without ST-segment elevation.

Results
At 12 months, the primary end point–a composite of death from vascular causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke–had occurred in 9.8% of patients receiving ticagrelor as compared with 11.7% of those receiving clopidogrel (hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.77 to 0.92; P<0.001). Predefined hierarchical testing of secondary end points showed significant differences in the rates of other composite end points, as well as myocardial infarction alone (5.8% in the ticagrelor group vs. 6.9% in the clopidogrel group, P=0.005) and death from vascular causes (4.0% vs. 5.1%, P=0.001) but not stroke alone (1.5% vs. 1.3%, P=0.22). The rate of death from any cause was also reduced with ticagrelor (4.5%, vs. 5.9% with clopidogrel; P<0.001). No significant difference in the rates of major bleeding was found between the ticagrelor and clopidogrel groups (11.6% and 11.2%, respectively; P=0.43), but ticagrelor was associated with a higher rate of major bleeding not related to coronary-artery bypass grafting (4.5% vs. 3.8%, P=0.03), including more instances of fatal intracranial bleeding and fewer of fatal bleeding of other types.

Conclusions
In patients who have an acute coronary syndrome with or without ST-segment elevation, treatment with ticagrelor as compared with clopidogrel significantly reduced the rate of death from vascular causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke without an increase in the rate of overall major bleeding but with an increase in the rate of non-procedure-related bleeding

Circulation 2010;122:1049-1052

Reduced renal function is associated with a poorer prognosis and increased bleeding risk in patients with acute coronary syndromes and may therefore alter the risk-benefit ratio with antiplatelet therapies. In the Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes (PLATO) trial, ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel reduced the primary composite end point of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke at 12 months but with similar major bleeding rates.

Methodes and results
Central laboratory serum creatinine levels were available in 15 202 (81.9%) acute coronary syndrome patients at baseline, and creatinine clearance, estimated by the Cockcroft Gault equation, was calculated. In patients with chronic kidney disease (creatinine clearance <60 mL/min; n=3237), ticagrelor versus clopidogrel significantly reduced the primary end point to 17.3% from 22.0% (hazard ratio [HR], 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65 to 0.90) with an absolute risk reduction greater than that of patients with normal renal function (n=11 965): 7.9% versus 8.9% (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.02). In patients with chronic kidney disease, ticagrelor reduced total mortality (10.0% versus 14.0%; HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.89). Major bleeding rates, fatal bleedings, and non-coronary bypass-related major bleedings were not significantly different between the 2 randomized groups (15.1% versus 14.3%; HR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.88 to 1.30; 0.34% versus 0.77%; HR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.15 to 1.54; and 8.5% versus 7.3%; HR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.97 to 1.68). The interactions between creatinine clearance and randomized treatment on any of the outcome variables were nonsignificant.

Conclusions
In acute coronary syndrome patients with chronic kidney disease, ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel significantly reduces ischemic end points and mortality without a significant increase in major bleeding but with numerically more non-procedure-related bleeding.

Coronary stent thrombosis is an uncommon but clinically devastating complication of coronary artery stenting that usually results in significant myocardial infarction or death. The pathophysiology of stent thrombosis is related to non-endothelialisation of the stent struts, often due to inadequate deployment or delayed healing in the case of drug eluting stents.

Approximately 40% of reported cases have occurred in the context of non-cardiac surgery (NCS) performed in patients with coronary artery stents, in whom dual antiplatelet therapy or clopidogrel alone has been ceased.

In patients with coronary disease cessation of aspirin or clopidogrel is associated with an approximate 2-3 fold increase in subsequent death or myocardial infarction. This risk is further elevated in patients with intracoronary stent and is of added concern because the dramatic consequences of stent occlusion. There is uncertainty regarding the risks of stent thrombosis in individual patients, and in particular how to balance this risk against that of surgical complications if antiplatelet therapy is continued throughout the perioperative period.

This guideline provides consensus advice regarding the use of antiplatelet therapy in patients with intracoronary stents for whom non-cardiac invasive procedures are planned. It is designed for cardiologists, anaesthetists, surgeons and dentists preparing patients for these procedures.

BJA 2010;104:285-291

Patients with a recently implanted coronary drug-eluting stent (DES) who need urgent surgery are at increased risk of surgical bleeding unless clopidogrel is discontinued beforehand, but clopidogrel discontinuation has been associated with a high rate of adverse events due to stent thrombosis. This pilot study tested the hypothesis that the i.v. perioperative administration of the short-acting antiplatelet agent tirofiban allows the safe withdrawal of clopidogrel without increasing the rate of surgical bleeding.

Methods
Phase II study with a Simon two-stage design.

Results
Thirty patients with a recently implanted DES [median (range) 4 (1–12) months] and high-risk characteristics for stent thrombosis underwent urgent major surgery or eye surgery. Clopidogrel was to be withdrawn 5 days before surgery, and tirofiban started 24 h later, continued until 4 h before surgery, and resumed 2 h after surgery until oral clopidogrel was resumed. The use of aspirin was decided by the surgeon. There were no cases of death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, or surgical re-exploration due to bleeding during the index admission, with a risk estimate of 0–11.6% (one-tail 97.5% CI). There was one case of thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) major and one of TIMI minor bleeding in the postoperative phase; another four patients were transfused without meeting the TIMI criteria for major or minor bleeding.

Conclusions
In patients with a recently implanted DES and high-risk characteristics for stent thrombosis needing urgent surgery, a ‘bridging strategy’ using i.v. tirofiban may allow temporary withdrawal of oral clopidogrel without increasing the risk of bleeding.

JACC 2009;54:969-984

Antithrombotic agents are an integral component of the medical regimens and interventional strategies currently recommended to reduce thrombotic complications in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS). Despite great advances with these therapies, associated high risks for thrombosis and hemorrhage remain as the result of complex interactions involving patient comorbidities, drug combinations, multifaceted dosing adjustments, and the intricacies of the care environment. As such, the optimal combinations of antithrombotic therapies, their timing, and appropriate targeted subgroups remain the focus of intense research. During the last several years a number of new antithrombotic treatments have been introduced, and new data regarding established therapies have come to light. Although treatment guidelines include the most current available data, subsequent findings can be challenging to integrate. This challenge is compounded by the complexity associated with different efficacy and safety measures and the variability in study populations, presenting syndromes, physician, and patient preferences. In this work we review recent data regarding clinically available antiplatelet and anticoagulation agents used in the treatment of patients with ACS. We address issues including relative efficacy, safety, and timing of therapies with respect to conservative and invasive treatment strategies. In specific cases we will highlight remaining questions and controversies and ongoing trials, which will hopefully shed light in these areas. In addition to reviewing existing agents, we take a look forward at the most promising new antithrombotics currently in late-stage clinical development and their potential role in the context of ACS management.

Arch Intern Med 2010;170:1024-1031

Statins have been shown to reduce the risk of all-cause mortality among individuals with clinical history of coronary heart disease. However, it remains uncertain whether statins have similar mortality benefit in a high-risk primary prevention setting. Notably, all systematic reviews to date included trials that in part incorporated participants with prior cardiovascular disease (CVD) at baseline. Our objective was to reliably determine if statin therapy reduces all-cause mortality among intermediate to high-risk individuals without a history of CVD.

Data sources
Trials were identified through computerized literature searches of MEDLINE and Cochrane databases (January 1970-May 2009) using terms related to statins, clinical trials, and cardiovascular end points and through bibliographies of retrieved studies.

Study selection
Prospective, randomized controlled trials of statin therapy performed in individuals free from CVD at baseline and that reported details, or could supply data, on all-cause mortality.

Data extraction
Relevant data including the number of patients randomized, mean duration of follow-up, and the number of incident deaths were obtained from the principal publication or by correspondence with the investigators.

Data synthesis
Data were combined from 11 studies and effect estimates were pooled using a random-effects model meta-analysis, with heterogeneity assessed with the I2 statistic. Data were available on 65 229 participants followed for approximately 244 000 person-years, during which 2793 deaths occurred. The use of statins in this high-risk primary prevention setting was not associated with a statistically significant reduction (risk ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.83-1.01) in the risk of all-cause mortality. There was no statistical evidence of heterogeneity among studies (I2 = 23%; 95% confidence interval, 0%-61% [P = .23]).

Conclusion
This literature-based meta-analysis did not find evidence for the benefit of statin therapy on all-cause mortality in a high-risk primary prevention set-up.

NEJM 2010;362:1663-1674

Previous studies have established the superiority of coronary everolimus-eluting stents over paclitaxel-eluting stents with respect to angiographic findings. However, these trials were not powered for superiority in clinical end points.

Methods
We randomly assigned 3687 patients at 66 U.S. sites to receive everolimus-eluting stents or paclitaxel-eluting stents without routine follow-up angiography. The primary end point was the 1-year composite rate of target-lesion failure (defined as cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target-lesion revascularization).

Results
Everolimus-eluting stents were superior to paclitaxel-eluting stents with respect to the primary end point of target-lesion failure (4.2% vs. 6.8%; relative risk, 0.62; 95% confidence interval, 0.46 to 0.82; P=0.001). Everolimus-eluting stents were also superior with respect to the major secondary end point of the 1-year rate of ischemia-driven target-lesion revascularization (P=0.001) and were noninferior with respect to the major secondary end point of the 1-year composite rate of cardiac death or target-vessel myocardial infarction (P<0.001 for noninferiority; P=0.09 for superiority). The 1-year rates of myocardial infarction and stent thrombosis were also lower with everolimus-eluting stents than with paclitaxel-eluting stents (1.9% vs. 3.1%, P=0.02 for myocardial infarction; 0.17% vs. 0.85%, P=0.004 for stent thrombosis). Target-lesion failure was consistently reduced with everolimus-eluting stents as compared with paclitaxel-eluting stents in 12 prespecified subgroups, except in the subgroup of patients with diabetes (6.4% vs. 6.9%, P=0.80).

Conclusions
Everolimus-eluting stents, as compared with paclitaxel-eluting stents, resulted in reduced rates of target-lesion failure at 1 year, results that were consistent in all patients except those with diabetes, in whom the results were nonsignificantly different.

Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions. Published Online on May 4,  2010

Noncardiac surgery performed after coronary stent implantation is associated with an increased risk of stent thrombosis, myocardial infarction, and death. The influence of stent type and period of risk still have to be defined.

Methods and results
We linked the Scottish Coronary Revascularisation Register with hospital admission data to undertake a Scotland-wide retrospective cohort study examining cardiac outcomes in all patients who received drug-eluting or bare-metal stents between April 2003 and March 2007 and subsequently underwent noncardiac surgery. Of 1953 patients, 570 (29%) were treated with at least 1 drug-eluting stent and 1383 (71%) with bare-metal stents only. There were no differences between drug-eluting and bare-metal stents in the primary end point of in-hospital mortality or ischemic cardiac events (14.6% versus 13.3%; P=0.3) or the secondary end points of in-hospital mortality (0.7% versus 0.6%; P=0.8) and acute myocardial infarction (1.2% versus 0.7%; P=0.3). Perioperative death and ischemic cardiac events occurred more frequently when surgery was performed within 42 days of stent implantation (42.4% versus 12.8% beyond 42 days; P<0.001), especially in patients revascularized after an acute coronary syndrome (65% versus 32%; P=0.037). There were no temporal differences in outcomes between the drug-eluting and bare-metal stent groups.

Conclusions
Patients undergoing noncardiac surgery after recent coronary stent implantation are at increased risk of perioperative myocardial ischemia, myocardial infarction, and death, particularly after an acute coronary syndrome. For at least 2 years after percutaneous coronary intervention, cardiac outcomes after noncardiac surgery are similar for both drug-eluting and bare-metal stents.

Circulation 2010;121:1322-1328

Amid recent efforts to reduce cardiovascular risk, whether rates of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in the United States have declined for elderly patients is unknown.

Methods and results
Medicare fee-for-service patients hospitalized in the United States with a principal discharge diagnosis of AMI were identified through the use of data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services from 2002 to 2007, a time period selected to reduce changes arising from the new definition of AMI. The Medicare beneficiary denominator file was used to determine the population at risk. AMI hospitalization rates were calculated annually per 100 000 beneficiary-years with Poisson regression analysis and stratified according to age, sex, and race. The annual AMI hospitalization rate in the fee-for-service Medicare population fell from 1131 per 100 000 beneficiary-years in 2002 to 866 in 2007, a relative 23.4% decline. After adjustment for age, sex, and race, the AMI hospitalization rate declined by 5.8%/y. From 2002 to 2007, white men experienced a 24.4% decrease in AMI hospitalizations, whereas black men experienced a smaller decline (18.0%; P<0.001 for interaction). Black women had a smaller decline in AMI hospitalization rate compared with white women (18.4% versus 23.3%, respectively; P<0.001 for interaction).

Conclusions
AMI hospitalization rates fell markedly in the Medicare fee-for-service population between 2002 and 2007. However, black men and women appeared to have had a slower rate of decline compared with their white counterparts.

JAMA. 2010;303:841-848

A low ankle brachial index (ABI) indicates atherosclerosis and an increased risk of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events. Screening for a low ABI can identify an asymptomatic higher risk group potentially amenable to preventive treatments.

Objective
To determine the effectiveness of aspirin in preventing events in people with a low ABI identified on screening the general population.

Design, setting and participants
The Aspirin for Asymptomatic Atherosclerosis trial was an intention-to-treat double-blind randomized controlled trial conducted from April 1998 to October 2008, involving 28 980 men and women aged 50 to 75 years living in central Scotland, free of clinical cardiovascular disease, recruited from a community health registry, and had an ABI screening test. Of those, 3350 with a low ABI (0.95) were entered into the trial, which was powered to detect a 25% proportional risk reduction in events.

Interventions
Once daily 100 mg aspirin (enteric coated) or placebo.

Main outcome measures
The primary end point was a composite of initial fatal or nonfatal coronary event or stroke or revascularization. Two secondary end points were (1) all initial vascular events defined as a composite of a primary end point event or angina, intermittent claudication, or transient ischemic attack; and (2) all-cause mortality.

Results
After a mean (SD) follow-up of 8.2 (1.6) years, 357 participants had a primary end point event (13.5 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval [CI], 12.2-15.0). No statistically significant difference was found between groups (13.7 events per 1000 person-years in the aspirin group vs 13.3 in the placebo group; hazard ratio [HR], 1.03; 95% CI, 0.84-1.27). A vascular event comprising the secondary end point occurred in 578 participants (22.8 per 1000 person-years; 95% CI, 21.0-24.8) and no statistically significant difference between groups (22.8 events per 1000 person-years in the aspirin group vs 22.9 in the placebo group; HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.85-1.17). There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality between groups (176 vs 186 deaths, respectively; HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.77-1.16). An initial event of major hemorrhage requiring admission to hospital occurred in 34 participants (2.5 per 1000 person-years) in the aspirin group and 20 (1.5 per 1000 person-years) in the  group (HR, 1.71; 95% CI, 0.99-2.97).

Conclusion
Among participants without clinical cardiovascular disease, identified with a low ABI based on screening a general population, the administration of aspirin compared with placebo did not result in a significant reduction in vascular events.

JAMA. 2008;300:197-208

Prediction models to identify healthy individuals at high risk of cardiovascular disease have limited accuracy. A low ankle brachial index (ABI) is an indicator of atherosclerosis and has the potential to improve prediction.

Objective
To determine if the ABI provides information on the risk of cardiovascular events and mortality independently of the Framingham risk score (FRS) and can improve risk prediction.

Data sources
Relevant studies were identified. A search of MEDLINE (1950 to February 2008) and EMBASE (1980 to February 2008) was conducted using common text words for the term ankle brachial index combined with text words and Medical Subject Headings to capture prospective cohort designs. Review of reference lists and conference proceedings, and correspondence with experts was conducted to identify additional published and unpublished studies.
Study Selection  Studies were included if participants were derived from a general population, ABI was measured at baseline, and individuals were followed up to detect total and cardiovascular mortality.

Data extraction
Prespecified data on individuals in each selected study were extracted into a combined data set and an individual participant data meta-analysis was conducted on individuals who had no previous history of coronary heart disease.

Results
Sixteen population cohort studies fulfilling the inclusion criteria were included. During 480 325 person-years of follow-up of 24 955 men and 23 339 women, the risk of death by ABI had a reverse J-shaped distribution with a normal (low risk) ABI of 1.11 to 1.40. The 10-year cardiovascular mortality in men with a low ABI (<0.90) was 18.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 13.3%-24.1%) and with normal ABI (1.11-1.40) was 4.4% (95% CI, 3.2%-5.7%) (hazard ratio [HR], 4.2; 95% CI, 3.3-5.4). Corresponding mortalities in women were 12.6% (95% CI, 6.2%-19.0%) and 4.1% (95% CI, 2.2%-6.1%) (HR, 3.5; 95% CI, 2.4-5.1). The HRs remained elevated after adjusting for FRS (2.9 [95% CI, 2.3-3.7] for men vs 3.0 [95% CI, 2.0-4.4] for women). A low ABI (<0.90) was associated with approximately twice the 10-year total mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and major coronary event rate compared with the overall rate in each FRS category. Inclusion of the ABI in cardiovascular risk stratification using the FRS would result in reclassification of the risk category and modification of treatment recommendations in approximately 19% of men and 36% of women.

Conclusion
Measurement of the ABI may improve the accuracy of cardiovascular risk prediction beyond the FRS.

Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol 2007; 21:241–256

Performing a surgical procedure on a patient undergoing anti-platelet therapy raises a dilemma: is it safer to withdraw the drugs and reduce the haemorrhagic risk, or to maintain them and reduce the risk of myocardial ischaemic events? Based on recent clinical data, this review concludes that the risk of coronary thrombosis on anti-platelet drugs withdrawal is much higher than the risk of surgical bleeding when maintaining them. In secondary prevention, aspirin is a lifelong therapy and should never be stopped. Clopidogrel is mandatory as long as the coronary stents are not fully endothelialized, which takes 6–24 weeks depending on the technique used, but might be required for a longer period

NEJM 2009;361:1427-1436

The rate of death, including sudden cardiac death, is highest early after a myocardial infarction. Yet current guidelines do not recommend the use of an implantable cardioverter–defibrillator (ICD) within 40 days after a myocardial infarction for the prevention of sudden cardiac death. We tested the hypothesis that patients at increased risk who are treated early with an ICD will live longer than those who receive optimal medical therapy alone.

Methods
This randomized, prospective, open-label, investigator-initiated, multicenter trial registered 62,944 unselected patients with myocardial infarction. Of this total, 898 patients were enrolled 5 to 31 days after the event if they met certain clinical criteria: a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (<40%) and a heart rate of 90 or more beats per minute on the first available electrocardiogram (ECG) (criterion 1: 602 patients), nonsustained ventricular tachycardia (>150 beats per minute) during Holter monitoring (criterion 2: 208 patients), or both criteria (88 patients). Of the 898 patients, 445 were randomly assigned to treatment with an ICD and 453 to medical therapy alone.

Results
During a mean follow-up of 37 months, 233 patients died: 116 patients in the ICD group and 117 patients in the control group. Overall mortality was not reduced in the ICD group (hazard ratio, 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81 to 1.35; P=0.78). There were fewer sudden cardiac deaths in the ICD group than in the control group (27 vs. 60; hazard ratio, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.31 to 1.00; P=0.049), but the number of nonsudden cardiac deaths was higher (68 vs. 39; hazard ratio, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.29 to 2.84; P=0.001). Hazard ratios were similar among the three groups of patients categorized according to the enrollment criteria they met (criterion 1, criterion 2, or both).

Conclusions
Prophylactic ICD therapy did not reduce overall mortality among patients with acute myocardial infarction and clinical features that placed them at increased risk.

JACC 2009;54:997-998

Exactly 30 years ago, Hertzer et al. published the first in a series of reports on thousands of patients who underwent routine coronary angiography before major vascular surgery. Their landmark studies were the basis for our current recognition that vascular surgery patients have a high prevalence of significant coronary artery disease (CAD): 60% have 1 or more coronary arteries with >70% stenosis, 18% have severe triple-vessel disease, and 4% have left main disease. Subsequently, Hertzer et al. showed that selective pre-operative coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) in patients with severe CAD lowered the perioperative and long-term mortality relative to patients with similar degrees of CAD not treated with CABG…..

Lancet 2009;373:1849-1860.

Low-dose aspirin is of definite and substantial net benefit for many people who already have occlusive vascular disease. We have assessed the benefits and risks in primary prevention.

Methods
We undertook meta-analyses of serious vascular events (myocardial infarction, stroke, or vascular death) and major bleeds in six primary prevention trials (95,000 individuals at low average risk, 660,000 person-years, 3554 serious vascular events) and 16 secondary prevention trials (17,000 individuals at high average risk, 43,000 person-years, 3306 serious vascular events) that compared long-term aspirin versus control. We report intention-to-treat analyses of first events during the scheduled treatment period.

Findings
In the primary prevention trials, aspirin allocation yielded a 12% proportional reduction in serious vascular events (0.51% aspirin vs 0.57% control per year, p=0.0001), due mainly to a reduction of about a fifth in non-fatal myocardial infarction (0.18%vs 0.23% per year, p<0.0001). The net effect on stroke was not significant (0.20%vs 0.21% per year, p=0.4: haemorrhagic stroke 0.04%vs 0.03%, p=0.05; other stroke 0.16%vs 0.18% per year, p=0.08). Vascular mortality did not differ significantly (0.19%vs 0.19% per year, p=0.7). Aspirin allocation increased major gastrointestinal and extracranial bleeds (0.10%vs 0.07% per year, p<0.0001), and the main risk factors for coronary disease were also risk factors for bleeding. In the secondary prevention trials, aspirin allocation yielded a greater absolute reduction in serious vascular events (6.7%vs 8.2% per year, p<0.0001), with a non-significant increase in haemorrhagic stroke but reductions of about a fifth in total stroke (2.08%vs 2.54% per year, p=0.002) and in coronary events (4.3%vs 5.3% per year, p<0.0001). In both primary and secondary prevention trials, the proportional reductions in the aggregate of all serious vascular events seemed similar for men and women.

Interpretation
In primary prevention without previous disease, aspirin is of uncertain net value as the reduction in occlusive events needs to be weighed against any increase in major bleeds. Further trials are in progress.

JAMA. 2009;301:937-944

Prior mechanistic studies reported that omeprazole decreases the platelet inhibitory effects of clopidogrel, yet the clinical significance of these findings is not clear.

Objective
To assess outcomes of patients taking clopidogrel with or without a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) after hospitalization for acute coronary syndrome (ACS).

Design, setting, and patients
Retrospective cohort study of 8205 patients with ACS taking clopidogrel after discharge from 127 Veterans Affairs hospitals between October 1, 2003, and January 31, 2006. Vital status information was available for all patients through September 30, 2006.

Main outcome measures
All-cause mortality or rehospitalization for ACS.

Results
Of 8205 patients taking clopidogrel after discharge, 63.9% (n = 5244) were prescribed PPI at discharge, during follow-up, or both and 36.1% (n = 2961) were not prescribed PPI. Death or rehospitalization for ACS occurred in 20.8% (n = 615) of patients taking clopidogrel without PPI and 29.8% (n = 1561) of patients taking clopidogrel plus PPI. In multivariable analyses, use of clopidogrel plus PPI was associated with an increased risk of death or rehospitalization for ACS compared with use of clopidogrel without PPI (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11-1.41). Among patients taking clopidogrel after hospital discharge and prescribed PPI at any point during follow-up (n = 5244), periods of use of clopidogrel plus PPI (compared with periods of use of clopidogrel without PPI) were associated with a higher risk of death or rehospitalization for ACS (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.10-1.46). In analyses of secondary outcomes, patients taking clopidogrel plus PPI had a higher risk of hospitalizations for recurrent ACS compared with patients taking clopidogrel without PPI (14.6% vs 6.9%; AOR, 1.86 [95% CI, 1.57-2.20]) and revascularization procedures (15.5% vs 11.9%; AOR, 1.49 [95% CI, 1.30-1.71]), but not for all-cause mortality (19.9% vs 16.6%; AOR, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.80-1.05]). The association between use of clopidogrel plus PPI and increased risk of adverse outcomes also was consistent using a nested case-control study design (AOR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.14-1.54). In addition, use of PPI without clopidogrel was not associated with death or rehospitalization for ACS among patients not taking clopidogrel after hospital discharge (n = 6450) (AOR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.85-1.13).

Conclusion
Concomitant use of clopidogrel and PPI after hospital discharge for ACS was associated with an increased risk of adverse outcomes than use of clopidogrel without PPI, suggesting that use of PPI may be associated with attenuation of benefits of clopidogrel after ACS.

The Lancet, Early Online Publication, 20 March 2009

Coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are alternative treatments for multivessel coronary disease. Although the procedures have been compared in several randomised trials, their long-term effects on mortality in key clinical subgroups are uncertain. We undertook a collaborative analysis of data from randomised trials to assess whether the effects of the procedures on mortality are modified by patient characteristics.

Methods
We pooled individual patient data from ten randomised trials to compare the effectiveness of CABG with PCI according to patients’ baseline clinical characteristics. We used stratified, random effects Cox proportional hazards models to test the effect on all-cause mortality of randomised treatment assignment and its interaction with clinical characteristics. All analyses were by intention to treat.

Findings
Ten participating trials provided data on 7812 patients. PCI was done with balloon angioplasty in six trials and with bare-metal stents in four trials. Over a median follow-up of 5·9 years (IQR 5·0—10·0), 575 (15%) of 3889 patients assigned to CABG died compared with 628 (16%) of 3923 patients assigned to PCI (hazard ratio [HR] 0·91, 95% CI 0·82—1·02; p=0·12). In patients with diabetes (CABG, n=615; PCI, n=618), mortality was substantially lower in the CABG group than in the PCI group (HR 0·70, 0·56—0·87); however, mortality was similar between groups in patients without diabetes (HR 0·98, 0·86—1·12; p=0·014 for interaction). Patient age modified the effect of treatment on mortality, with hazard ratios of 1·25 (0·94—1·66) in patients younger than 55 years, 0·90 (0·75—1·09) in patients aged 55—64 years, and 0·82 (0·70—0·97) in patients 65 years and older (p=0·002 for interaction). Treatment effect was not modified by the number of diseased vessels or other baseline characteristics.

Interpretation
Long-term mortality is similar after CABG and PCI in most patient subgroups with multivessel coronary artery disease, so choice of treatment should depend on patient preferences for other outcomes. CABG might be a better option for patients with diabetes and patients aged 65 years or older because we found mortality to be lower in these subgroups.

N Engl J Med 2009; 360: 961–972

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) involving drug-eluting stents is increasingly used to treat complex coronary artery disease, although coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG) has been the treatment of choice historically. Our trial compared PCI and CABG for treating patients with previously untreated three-vessel or left main coronary artery disease (or both).

Methods
We randomly assigned 1800 patients with three-vessel or left main coronary artery disease to undergo CABG or PCI (in a 1:1 ratio). For all these patients, the local cardiac surgeon and interventional cardiologist determined that equivalent anatomical revascularization could be achieved with either treatment. A noninferiority comparison of the two groups was performed for the primary end point — a major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular event (i.e., death from any cause, stroke, myocardial infarction, or repeat revascularization) during the 12-month period after randomization. Patients for whom only one of the two treatment options would be beneficial, because of anatomical features or clinical conditions, were entered into a parallel, nested CABG or PCI registry.

Results
Most of the preoperative characteristics were similar in the two groups. Rates of major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events at 12 months were significantly higher in the PCI group (17.8%, vs. 12.4% for CABG; P=0.002), in large part because of an increased rate of repeat revascularization (13.5% vs. 5.9%, P<0.001); as a result, the criterion for noninferiority was not met. At 12 months, the rates of death and myocardial infarction were similar between the two groups; stroke was significantly more likely to occur with CABG (2.2%, vs. 0.6% with PCI; P=0.003).

Conclusions
CABG remains the standard of care for patients with three-vessel or left main coronary artery disease, since the use of CABG, as compared with PCI, resulted in lower rates of the combined end point of major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events at 1 year.