BACKGROUND It is unknown whether warfarin or aspirin therapy is superior for patients with heart failure who are in sinus rhythm. METHODS We designed this trial to determine whether warfarin (with a target international normalized ratio of 2.0 to 3.5) or aspirin (at a dose of 325 mg per day) is a better treatment for patients in sinus rhythm who have a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). We followed 2305 patients for up to 6 years (mean [±SD], 3.5±1.8). The primary outcome was the time to the first event in a composite end point of ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, or death from any cause. RESULTS The rates of the primary outcome were 7.47 events per 100 patient-years in the warfarin group and 7.93 in the aspirin group (hazard ratio with warfarin, 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79 to 1.10; P = 0.40). Thus, there was no significant overall difference between the two treatments. In a time-varying analysis, the hazard ratio changed over time, slightly favoring warfarin over aspirin by the fourth year of follow-up, but this finding was only marginally significant (P = 0.046). Warfarin, as compared with aspirin, was associated with a significant reduction in the rate of ischemic stroke throughout the follow-up period (0.72 events per 100 patient-years vs. 1.36 per 100 patient-years; hazard ratio, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.82; P = 0.005). The rate of major hemorrhage was 1.78 events per 100 patient-years in the warfarin group as compared with 0.87 in the aspirin group (P<0.001). The rates of intracerebral and intracranial hemorrhage did not differ significantly between the two treatment groups (0.27 events per 100 patient-years with warfarin and 0.22 with aspirin, P = 0.82). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with reduced LVEF who were in sinus rhythm, there was no significant overall difference in the primary outcome between treatment with warfarin and treatment with aspirin. A reduced risk of ischemic stroke with warfarin was offset by an increased risk of major hemorrhage. The choice between warfarin and aspirin should be individualized.

No abstract

Renarrowing after successful PTCA as determined with contrast angiography is a process that cannot be accurately predicted by simple clinical, morphological, and lesion characteristics.

In matched groups of patients, atherectomy induces a greater initial gain in minimal lumen diameter than does balloon angioplasty. However, the vascular wall injury induced by the device is of a different nature (debulking vs. dilating) that leads to more relative loss over the follow-up period in the atherectomy group.

The immediate result of percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty is influenced by both plastic and elastic changes of the vessel wall. To evaluate the amount of elastic recoil after coronary balloon angioplasty, the minimal luminal cross-sectional area of the largest balloon used at highest inflation pressure was compared with the minimal luminal vessel cross-sectional area directly after final balloon deflation in 607 lesions (526 patients). Elastic recoil was defined as the difference between balloon cross-sectional area and minimal luminal cross-sectional area of the dilated coronary segment immediately after balloon withdrawal. A videodensitometric analysis technique was used to avoid geometric assumptions on stenosis morphology directly after angioplasty. Mean balloon cross-sectional area was 5.3 +/- 1.6 mm2 and minimal luminal cross-sectional area after angioplasty was 2.8 +/- 1.4 mm2. Reference areas before and after angioplasty did not differ (6.0 +/- 2.6 and 6.2 +/- 2.6 mm2, respectively). Univariate analysis revealed that asymmetric lesions, lesions located in less angulated parts of the artery and lesions with a low plaque content showed more elastic recoil. Lesions located in distal parts of the coronary tree were also associated with more elastic recoil probably related to relative balloon oversizing in these distal lesions.

BACKGROUND Guidelines recommend nonstatin lipid-lowering agents in patients at very high risk for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) if low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) remains ≥70 mg/dL on maximum tolerated statin treatment. It is uncertain if this approach benefits patients with LDL-C near 70 mg/dL. Lipoprotein(a) levels may influence residual risk. OBJECTIVES In a post hoc analysis of the ODYSSEY Outcomes (Evaluation of Cardiovascular Outcomes After an Acute Coronary Syndrome During Treatment With Alirocumab) trial, the authors evaluated the benefit of adding the proprotein subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibitor alirocumab to optimized statin treatment in patients with LDL-C levels near 70 mg/dL. Effects were evaluated according to concurrent lipoprotein(a) levels. METHODS ODYSSEY Outcomes compared alirocumab with placebo in 18,924 patients with recent acute coronary syndromes receiving optimized statin treatment. In 4,351 patients (23.0%), screening or randomization LDL-C was <70 mg/dL (median 69.4 mg/dL; interquartile range: 64.3–74.0 mg/dL); in 14,573 patients (77.0%), both determinations were ≥70 mg/dL (median 94.0 mg/dL; interquartile range: 83.2–111.0 mg/dL). RESULTS In the lower LDL-C subgroup, MACE rates were 4.2 and 3.1 per 100 patient-years among placebo-treated patients with baseline lipoprotein(a) greater than or less than or equal to the median (13.7 mg/dL). Corresponding adjusted treatment hazard ratios were 0.68 (95% confidence interval [Cl]: 0.52–0.90) and 1.11 (95% Cl: 0.83–1.49), with treatment-lipoprotein(a) interaction on MACE ( P interaction = 0.017). In the higher LDL-C subgroup, MACE rates were 4.7 and 3.8 per 100 patient-years among placebo-treated patients with lipoprotein(a) >13.7 mg/dL or ≤13.7 mg/dL; corresponding adjusted treatment hazard ratios were 0.82 (95% Cl: 0.72–0.92) and 0.89 (95% Cl: 0.75–1.06), with P interaction = 0.43. CONCLUSIONS In patients with recent acute coronary syndromes and LDL-C near 70 mg/dL on optimized statin therapy, proprotein subtilisin/kexin type 9 inhibition provides incremental clinical benefit only when lipoprotein(a) concentration is at least mildly elevated. (ODYSSEY Outcomes: Evaluation of Cardiovascular Outcomes After an Acute Coronary Syndrome During Treatment With Alirocumab; NCT01663402 )

Little is known about the elastic behavior of the coronary vessel wall directly after percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA). Minimal luminal cross-sectional areas of 151 successfully dilated lesions were studied in 136 patients during balloon inflation and directly after withdrawal of the balloon. The circumvent geometric assumptions about the shape of the stenosis after PTCA, a videodensitometric analysis technique was used for the assessment of vascular cross-sectional areas. Elastic recoil was defined as the difference between balloon cross-sectional area of the largest balloon used at the highest pressure and minimal luminal cross-sectional area after PTCA. Mean balloon cross-sectional area was 5.2 +/- 1.6 mm2 with a mean minimal cross-sectional area of 2.8 +/- 1.4 mm2 immediately after inflation. Oversizing of the balloon (balloon artery ratio greater than 1) led to more recoil (0.8 +/- 0.3 vs 0.6 +/- 0.3 mm, p less than 0.001), suggestive of an elastic phenomenon. A difference in recoil of the 3 main coronary branches was observed: left anterior descending artery 2.7 +/- 1.3 mm2, circumflex artery 2.3 +/- 1.2 mm2 and right coronary artery 1.9 +/- 1.5 mm2 (p less than 0.025). The difference was still statistically significant if adjusted for reference area. Thus, nearly 50% of the theoretically achievable cross-sectional area (i.e., balloon cross-sectional area) is lost shortly after balloon deflation.

These data indicate that a successfully dilated coronary lesion with an angiographically visible dissection is no more likely to develop restenosis, and is not associated with a worse clinical outcome, at 6-month follow-up than is a dilated lesion without visible dissection on the post-balloon angioplasty angiogram.