Background: To quantify the association between effects of interventions on carotid intimamedia thickness (cIMT) progression and their effects on cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk. Methods: We systematically collated data from randomized controlled trials. cIMT was assessed as the mean value at the common-carotid-artery; if unavailable, the maximum value at the common-carotid-artery or other cIMT measures were utilized. The primary outcome was a combined CVD endpoint defined as myocardial infarction, stroke, revascularization procedures, or fatal CVD. We estimated intervention effects on cIMT progression and incident CVD for each trial, before relating the two using a Bayesian meta-regression approach. Results: We analyzed data of 119 randomized controlled trials involving 100,667 patients (mean age 62 years, 42% female). Over an average follow-up of 3.7 years, 12,038 patients developed the combined CVD endpoint. Across all interventions, each 10 μm/year reduction of cIMT progression resulted in a relative risk for CVD of 0.91 (95% credible interval 0.87-0.94), with an additional relative risk for CVD of 0.92 (0.87-0.97) being achieved independent of cIMT progression. Taken together, we estimated that interventions reducing cIMT progression by 10, 20, 30, or 40 μm/year would yield relative risks of 0.84 (0.75-0.93), 0.76 (0.67-0.85), 0.69 (0.59-0.79), or 0.63 (0.52-0.74). Results were similar when grouping trials by type of intervention, time of conduct, time to ultrasound follow-up, availability of individual-participant data, primary vs. secondary prevention trials, type of cIMT measurement, and proportion of female patients. Conclusions: The extent of intervention effects on cIMT progression predicted the degree of CVD risk reduction. This provides a missing link supporting the usefulness of cIMT progression as a surrogate marker for CVD risk in clinical trials.

Background Prehospital delay is an important contributor to poor outcomes in both acute ischemic stroke (AIS) and acute myocardial infarction (AMI). We aimed to compare the prehospital delay and related factors between AIS and AMI. Methods and Results We identified patients with AIS and AMI who were admitted to the 11 Korean Regional Cardiocerebrovascular Centers via the emergency room between July 2016 and December 2018. Delayed arrival was defined as a prehospital delay of >3 hours, and the generalized linear mixed‐effects model was applied to explore the effects of potential predictors on delayed arrival. This study included 17 895 and 8322 patients with AIS and AMI, respectively. The median value of prehospital delay was 6.05 hours in AIS and 3.00 hours in AMI. The use of emergency medical services was the key determinant of delayed arrival in both groups. Previous history, 1‐person household, weekday presentation, and interhospital transfer had higher odds of delayed arrival in both groups. Age and sex had no or minimal effects on delayed arrival in AIS; however, age and female sex were associated with higher odds of delayed arrival in AMI. More severe symptoms had lower odds of delayed arrival in AIS, whereas no significant effect was observed in AMI. Off‐hour presentation had higher and prehospital awareness had lower odds of delayed arrival; however, the magnitude of their effects differed quantitatively between AIS and AMI. Conclusions The effects of some nonmodifiable and modifiable factors on prehospital delay differed between AIS and AMI. A differentiated strategy might be required to reduce prehospital delay.

No abstract

Author's summary There is a fundamental trade-off that exists between ischemic and bleeding risk that must be considered in deciding the optimal strategy of dual antiplatelet therapy. Prasugrel-based de-escalation decreased the risk of net adverse clinical event (NACE) due to a reduction in bleeding in the HOST-REDUCE-POLYTECH-ACS trial. In non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes patients, prasugrel-based dose de-escalation from one-month post-percutaneous coronary intervention reduced the risk of NACE. In ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), de-escalation showed no benefit for NACE and a statistically insignificant but numerically higher rate of ischemic events. Our data raises caution about prasugrel dose reduction in higher thrombotic conditions.

To evaluate the effect of clopidogrel vs. aspirin monotherapy on vascular function and hemostatic measurement. Background: Monotherapy with P2Y12 receptor inhibitor vs. aspirin can be a useful alterative to optimize clinical efficacy and safety in high-risk patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). Methods: We performed a randomized, open-label, two-period crossover study in stented patients receiving at least 6-month of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT). Thirty CAD patients with moderate-to-high ischemic risk were randomly assigned to receive either 75 mg of clopidogrel or 100 mg of aspirin daily for 4 weeks, and were crossed over to the other strategy for 4 weeks. Vascular function was evaluated with reactive hyperemia-peripheral arterial tonometry (RH-PAT) and brachial-ankle pulse wave velocity (baPWV). Hemostatic profiles were measured with VerifyNow and thromboelastography (TEG). The primary endpoint was the reactive hyperemia index (RHI) during clopidogrel or aspirin monotherapy. Results: Clopidogrel vs. aspirin monotherapy was associated with better endothelial function (RHI: 2.11 ± 0.77% vs. 1.87 ± 0.72%, p = 0.045), lower platelet reactivity (130 ± 64 vs. 214 ± 50 P2Y12 reaction unit [PRU], p < 0.001) and prolonged reaction time (TEG R: 5.5 ± 1.2 vs. 5.1 ± 1.1 min, p = 0.037). In multivariate analysis, normal endothelial function (RHI ≥ 2.1) was significantly associated with clot kinetics (TEG angle ≤ 68 degree) and ‘PRU ≤ 132’. ‘PRU ≤ 132’ was achieved in 46.2% vs. 3.8% during clopidogrel administration vs. aspirin monotherapy (odds ratio 21.4, 95% confidence interval 2.7 to 170.1, p < 0.001). Conclusions: In CAD patients, clopidogrel vs. aspirin monotherapy was associated with better endothelial function, greater platelet inhibition and lower coagulation activity, suggesting pleiotropic effects of clopidogrel on endothelial function and hemostatic profiles.

No abstract