No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

In 2016, the American College of Cardiology published the first expert consensus decision pathway (ECDP) on the role of non-statin therapies for low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol lowering in the management of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk. Since the publication of that document, additional evidence and perspectives have emerged from randomized clinical trials and other sources, particularly considering the longer-term efficacy and safety of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors in secondary prevention of ASCVD. Most notably, the FOURIER (Further Cardiovascular Outcomes Research with PCSK9 Inhibition in Subjects with Elevated Risk) trial and SPIRE-1 and -2 (Studies of PCSK9 Inhibition and the Reduction of Vascular Events), assessing evolocumab and bococizumab, respectively, have published final results of cardiovascular outcomes trials in patients with clinical ASCVD and in a smaller number of high-risk primary prevention patients. In addition, further evidence on the types of patients most likely to benefit from the use of ezetimibe in addition to statin therapy after acute coronary syndrome has been published. Based on results from these important analyses, the ECDP writing committee judged that it would be desirable to provide a focused update to help guide clinicians more clearly on decision making regarding the use of ezetimibe and PCSK9 inhibitors in patients with clinical ASCVD with or without comorbidities. In the following summary table, changes from the 2016 ECDP to the 2017 ECDP Focused Update are highlighted, and a brief rationale is provided. The content of the full document has been changed accordingly, with more extensive and detailed guidance regarding decision making provided both in the text and in the updated algorithms. Revised recommendations are provided for patients with clinical ASCVD with or without comorbidities on statin therapy for secondary prevention. The ECDP writing committee judged that these new data did not warrant changes to the decision pathways and algorithms regarding the use of ezetimibe or PCSK9 inhibitors in primary prevention patients with LDL-C <190 mg/dL with or without diabetes mellitus or patients without ASCVD and LDL-C ≥190 mg/dL not due to secondary causes. Based on feedback and further deliberation, the ECDP writing committee down-graded recommendations regarding bile acid sequestrant use, recommending bile acid sequestrants only as optional secondary agents for consideration in patients intolerant to ezetimibe. For clarification, the writing committee has also included new information on diagnostic categories of heterozygous and homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia, based on clinical criteria with and without genetic testing. Other changes to the original document were kept to a minimum to provide consistent guidance to clinicians, unless there was a compelling reason or new evidence, in which case justification is provided.

AimsThe mechanistic basis of the symptoms and signs of myocardial ischaemia in patients without obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) and evidence of coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD) is unclear. The aim of this study was to mechanistically test short-term late sodium current inhibition (ranolazine) in such subjects on angina, myocardial perfusion reserve index, and diastolic filling.Materials and resultsRandomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover, mechanistic trial in subjects with evidence of CMD [invasive coronary reactivity testing or non-invasive cardiac magnetic resonance imaging myocardial perfusion reserve index (MPRI)]. Short-term oral ranolazine 500–1000 mg twice daily for 2 weeks vs. placebo. Angina measured by Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) and SAQ-7 (co-primaries), diary angina (secondary), stress MPRI, diastolic filling, quality of life (QoL). Of 128 (96% women) subjects, no treatment differences in the outcomes were observed. Peak heart rate was lower during pharmacological stress during ranolazine (−3.55 b.p.m., P < 0.001). The change in SAQ-7 directly correlated with the change in MPRI (correlation 0.25, P = 0.005). The change in MPRI predicted the change in SAQ QoL, adjusted for body mass index (BMI), prior myocardial infarction, and site (P = 0.0032). Low coronary flow reserve (CFR <2.5) subjects improved MPRI (P < 0.0137), SAQ angina frequency (P = 0.027), and SAQ-7 (P = 0.041).ConclusionsIn this mechanistic trial among symptomatic subjects, no obstructive CAD, short-term late sodium current inhibition was not generally effective for SAQ angina. Angina and myocardial perfusion reserve changes were related, supporting the notion that strategies to improve ischaemia should be tested in these subjects.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01342029.

In women with angina, evidence of ischemia, and no obstructive CAD, this pilot randomized, controlled trial revealed that ranolazine improves angina. Myocardial ischemia may also improve, particularly among women with low CFR. These data document approach feasibility and provide outcome variability estimates for planning a definitive large clinical trial to evaluate the role of ranolazine in women with microvascular coronary dysfunction. (Microvascular Coronary Disease In Women: Impact Of Ranolazine; NCT00570089).

Beyond conventional risk factors for cardiovascular disease, women face an additional burden of sex-specific risk factors. Key stages of a woman’s reproductive history may influence or reveal short- and long-term cardiometabolic and cardiovascular trajectories. Early and late menarche, polycystic ovary syndrome, infertility, adverse pregnancy outcomes (eg, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, gestational diabetes, preterm delivery, and intrauterine growth restriction), and absence of breastfeeding are all associated with increased future cardiovascular disease risk. The menopause transition additionally represents a period of accelerated cardiovascular disease risk, with timing (eg, premature menopause), mechanism, and symptoms of menopause, as well as treatment of menopause symptoms, each contributing to this risk. Differences in conventional cardiovascular disease risk factors appear to explain some, but not all, of the observed associations between reproductive history and later-life cardiovascular disease; further research is needed to elucidate hormonal effects and unique sex-specific disease mechanisms. A history of reproductive risk factors represents an opportunity for comprehensive risk factor screening, refinement of cardiovascular disease risk assessment, and implementation of primordial and primary prevention to optimize long-term cardiometabolic health in women.