The content of these European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Guidelines has been published for personal and educational use only. No commercial use is authorized. No part of the ESC Guidelines may be translated or reproduced in any form without written permission from the ESC. Permission can be obtained upon submission of a written request to Oxford University Press, the publisher of the European Heart Journal and the party authorized to handle such permissions on behalf of the ESC (journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org). Disclaimer. The ESC Guidelines represent the views of the ESC and were produced after careful consideration of the scientific and medical knowledge and the evidence available at the time of their publication. The ESC is not responsible in the event of any contradiction, discrepancy and/or ambiguity between the ESC Guidelines and any other official recommendations or guidelines issued by the relevant public health authorities, in particular in relation to good use of healthcare or therapeutic strategies. Health professionals are encouraged to take the ESC Guidelines fully into account when exercising their clinical judgment, as well as in the determination and the implementation of preventive, diagnostic or therapeutic medical strategies; however, the ESC Guidelines do not override, in any way whatsoever, the individual responsibility of health professionals to make appropriate and accurate decisions in consideration of each patient's health condition and in consultation with that patient and, where appropriate and/or necessary, the patient's caregiver. Nor do the ESC Guidelines exempt health professionals from taking into full and careful consideration the relevant official updated recommendations or guidelines issued by the competent public health authorities, in order to manage each patient's case in light of the scientifically accepted data pursuant to their respective ethical and professional obligations. It is also the health professional's responsibility to verify the applicable rules and regulations relating to drugs and medical devices at the time of prescription.

Among patients with unstable angina or myocardial infarction without ST-segment elevation, prasugrel did not significantly reduce the frequency of the primary end point, as compared with clopidogrel, and similar risks of bleeding were observed. (Funded by Eli Lilly and Daiichi Sankyo; TRILOGY ACS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00699998.).

BackgroundAtrial fibrillation is associated with higher mortality. Identification of causes of death and contemporary risk factors for all‐cause mortality may guide interventions.Methods and ResultsIn the Rivaroxaban Once Daily Oral Direct Factor Xa Inhibition Compared with Vitamin K Antagonism for Prevention of Stroke and Embolism Trial in Atrial Fibrillation (ROCKET AF) study, patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation were randomized to rivaroxaban or dose‐adjusted warfarin. Cox proportional hazards regression with backward elimination identified factors at randomization that were independently associated with all‐cause mortality in the 14 171 participants in the intention‐to‐treat population. The median age was 73 years, and the mean CHADS 2 score was 3.5. Over 1.9 years of median follow‐up, 1214 (8.6%) patients died. Kaplan–Meier mortality rates were 4.2% at 1 year and 8.9% at 2 years. The majority of classified deaths (1081) were cardiovascular (72%), whereas only 6% were nonhemorrhagic stroke or systemic embolism. No significant difference in all‐cause mortality was observed between the rivaroxaban and warfarin arms (P=0.15). Heart failure (hazard ratio 1.51, 95% CI 1.33–1.70, P<0.0001) and age ≥75 years (hazard ratio 1.69, 95% CI 1.51–1.90, P<0.0001) were associated with higher all‐cause mortality. Multiple additional characteristics were independently associated with higher mortality, with decreasing creatinine clearance, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, male sex, peripheral vascular disease, and diabetes being among the most strongly associated (model C‐index 0.677).ConclusionsIn a large population of patients anticoagulated for nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, ≈7 in 10 deaths were cardiovascular, whereas <1 in 10 deaths were caused by nonhemorrhagic stroke or systemic embolism. Optimal prevention and treatment of heart failure, renal impairment, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and diabetes may improve survival.Clinical Trial Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/. Unique identifier: NCT00403767.

In-hospital mortality of patients admitted for AMI in Europe is low. Although regional variations exist in their presentation and management, differences are limited and have only moderate impact on early outcomes.

6This 8-week, randomized, double-blind, controlled study compared efficacy and tolerability of telmisartan ⁄ amlodipine (T ⁄ A) single-pill combination (SPC) vs the respective monotherapies in 858 patients with severe hypertension (systolic ⁄ diastolic blood pressure [SBP ⁄ DBP] !180 ⁄ 95 mm Hg). At 8 weeks, T ⁄ A provided significantly greater reductions from baseline in seated trough cuff SBP ⁄ DBP ()47.5 mm Hg ⁄ )18.7 mm Hg) vs T (P<.0001) or A (P=.0002) monotherapy; superior reductions were also evident at 1, 2, 4, and 6 weeks. Blood pressure (BP) goal and response rates were consistently higher with T ⁄ A vs T or A. T ⁄ A was well tolerated, with less frequent treatmentrelated adverse events vs A (12.6% vs 16.4%) and a numerically lower incidence of peripheral edema and treatment discontinuation. In conclusion, treatment of patients with substantially elevated BP with T ⁄ A SPCs resulted in high and significantly greater BP reductions and higher BP goal and response rates than the respective monotherapies. T ⁄ A SPCs were well tolerated. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2012;14:206-215. Ó2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.Based on evidence from a number of large antihypertensive trials, 1-9 most guidelines acknowledge that combination therapy is needed to reduce blood pressure (BP) successfully to goal in the majority of patients; only a minority of patients achieve their BP goal with a single agent.10-14 Also, the Avoiding Cardiovascular Events Through Combination Therapy in Patients Living With Systolic Hypertension (ACCOMPLISH) study showed a significant reduction of cardiovascular (CV) events and death in hypertensive patients at high CV risk treated with a combination of an angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor and a calcium channel blocker (CCB).15 Nevertheless, despite rigorous and comprehensive guidelines, and a trend towards an increase in the use of combination therapy in treatment practice, 16 several studies have demonstrated the persistence of poor BP goal rates in treated patients. [17][18][19] The impact of poor BP control is compounded by the often high prevalence of other CV risk factors in hypertensive patients (eg, hypercholesterolemia, obesity, type 2 diabetes mellitus [T2DM], and smoking).13 Therefore, an urgent need still remains to improve the management of hypertension. One logical approach would be to use 2 drugs from different classes and complementary mechanisms of action in combination. Such combinations may result in additional BP decreases and improved goal rates, compared with either agent used alone. 20-23Furthermore, single-pill combinations (SPCs) are known to increase treatment adherence and reduce health care costs. [24][25][26][27] A combination of a CCB and an angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB) is a rational approach for managing hypertension and there is increasing evidence that this combination is effective. 11,13,28,29 The aim of the current study was to compare the efficacy and tolerability of the SPC of telmisartan 80 mg ⁄ amlodipine 10 mg (T80 ⁄ A10) with that of...