No abstract

Background: Oral factor XIa (FXIa) inhibitors may modulate coagulation to prevent thromboembolic events without significantly increasing bleeding. We explored the pharmacodynamics, safety, and efficacy of the oral FXIa inhibitor asundexian for secondary prevention after acute myocardial infarction (MI). Methods: We randomized 1601 patients with recent acute MI to oral asundexian 10, 20, or 50 mg or placebo once daily for 6–2 months in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2, dose-ranging trial. Patients were randomized within 5 days of their qualifying MI and received dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin plus a P2Y12 inhibitor. The effect of asundexian on factor XIa inhibition was assessed at 4 weeks. The prespecified main safety outcome was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding comparing all pooled asundexian doses with placebo. The prespecified efficacy outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, or stent thrombosis comparing pooled asundexian 20 and 50 mg doses with placebo. Results: The median age was 68 years, 23% were women, 51% had ST-elevation MI, 80% were treated with aspirin plus ticagrelor or prasugrel, and 99% underwent percutaneous coronary intervention before randomization. Asundexian caused dose-related inhibition of FXIa activity with 50 mg resulting in >90% inhibition. Over a median follow-up of 368 days, the main safety outcome occurred in 30 (7.6%), 32 (8.1%), 42 (10.5%), and 36 (9.0%) patients receiving asundexian 10, 20, 50 mg, and placebo (pooled asundexian vs. placebo: HR 0.98, 90% CI 0.71–1.35). The efficacy outcome occurred in 27 (6.8%), 24 (6.0%), 22 (5.5%), and 22 (5.5%) patients assigned asundexian 10, 20, 50 mg, and placebo (pooled asundexian 20 and 50 mg vs. placebo: HR 1.05, 90% CI 0.69–1.61). Conclusions: : In patients with recent acute MI, 3 doses of asundexian, when added to aspirin plus a P2Y12 inhibitor, resulted in dose-dependent, near-complete inhibition of FXIa activity without a significant increase in bleeding and a low rate of ischemic events. These data support the investigation of asundexian at a dose of 50 mg daily in an adequately powered clinical trial of patients following acute MI.

ObjectiveDeferred revascularisation based upon fractional flow reserve (FFR >0.80) is associated with a low incidence of target lesion failure (TLF). Whether deferred revascularisation is also as safe in diabetes mellitus (DM) patients is unknown.MethodsAll DM patients and the next consecutive Non-DM patients who underwent a FFR-assessment between 1/01/2010 and 31/12/2013 were included, and followed until 1/07/2015. Patients with lesions FFR >0.80 were analysed according to the presence vs. absence of DM, while patients who underwent index revascularisation in FFR-assessed or other lesions were excluded. The primary endpoint was the incidence of TLF; a composite of target lesion revascularisation (TLR) and target vessel myocardial infarction (TVMI).ResultsA total of 250 patients (122 DM, 128 non-DM) who underwent deferred revascularisation of all lesions (FFR >0.80) were compared. At a mean follow up of 39.8 ± 16.3 months, DM patients compared to non-DM had a higher TLF rate, 18.1 vs 7.5 %, logrank p ≤ 0.01, Cox regression-adjusted HR 3.65 (95 % CI 1.40–9.53, p < 0.01), which was largely driven by a higher incidence of TLR (17.2 vs. 7.5 %, HR 3.52, 95 % CI 1.34–9.30, p = 0.01), whilst a non-significant but numerically higher incidence of TVMI (6.1 vs. 2.0 %, HR 3.34, 95 % CI 0.64–17.30, p = 0.15) was observed.ConclusionsThis study, the largest to directly compare the clinical outcomes of FFR-guided deferred revascularisation in patients with and without DM, shows that DM patients are associated with a significantly higher TLF rate. Whether intravascular imaging, additional invasive haemodynamics or stringent risk factor modification may impact on this higher TLF rate remains unknown.

Background and Purpose: The frequency of ischemic stroke in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) varies in the current literature, and risk factors are unknown. We assessed the incidence, risk factors, and outcomes of acute ischemic stroke in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Methods: We included patients with a laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2) infection admitted in 16 Dutch hospitals participating in the international CAPACITY-COVID registry between March 1 and August 1, 2020. Patients were screened for the occurrence of acute ischemic stroke. We calculated the cumulative incidence of ischemic stroke and compared risk factors, cardiovascular complications, and in-hospital mortality in patients with and without ischemic stroke. Results: We included 2147 patients with COVID-19, of whom 586 (27.3%) needed treatment at an intensive care unit. Thirty-eight patients (1.8%) had an ischemic stroke. Patients with stroke were older but did not differ in sex or cardiovascular risk factors. Median time between the onset of COVID-19 symptoms and diagnosis of stroke was 2 weeks. The incidence of ischemic stroke was higher among patients who were treated at an intensive care unit (16/586; 2.7% versus nonintensive care unit, 22/1561; 1.4%; P =0.039). Pulmonary embolism was more common in patients with (8/38; 21.1%) than in those without stroke (160/2109; 7.6%; adjusted risk ratio, 2.08 [95% CI, 1.52–2.84]). Twenty-seven patients with ischemic stroke (71.1%) died during admission or were functionally dependent at discharge. Patients with ischemic stroke were at a higher risk of in-hospital mortality (adjusted risk ratio, 1.56 [95% CI, 1.13–2.15]) than patients without stroke. Conclusions: In this multicenter cohort study, the cumulative incidence of acute ischemic stroke in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 was ≈2%, with a higher risk in patients treated at an intensive care unit. The majority of stroke patients had a poor outcome. The association between ischemic stroke and pulmonary embolism warrants further investigation.

No abstract