Heart Rate in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease - the Lower the Better? An Analysis from the Treating to New Targets (TNT) trial

Similar documents
J-curve Revisited. An Analysis of Blood Pressure and Cardiovascular Events in the Treating to New Targets (TNT) Trial

When Conventional Heart Failure Therapy is not Enough: Angiotensin Receptor Blocker, Direct Renin Inhibitor or Aldosterone Antagonist?

DECLARATION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST. None

Cardiovascular Event Reduction Versus New-Onset Diabetes During Atorvastatin Therapy

The TNT Trial Is It Time to Shift Our Goals in Clinical

The Clinical Unmet need in the patient with Diabetes and ACS

Is Lower Better for LDL or is there a Sweet Spot

CETP inhibition: pros and cons. Philip Barter The Heart Research Institute Sydney, Australia

The JUPITER trial: What does it tell us? Alice Y.Y. Cheng, MD, FRCPC January 24, 2009

CARDIO-RENAL SYNDROME

LDL cholesterol and cardiovascular outcomes?

Rikshospitalet, University of Oslo

7 th Munich Vascular Conference

CLINICAL OUTCOME Vs SURROGATE MARKER

Clinical and Economic Value of Rivaroxaban in Coronary Artery Disease

Risk Stratification of ACS Patients. Frans Van de Werf, MD, PhD University of Leuven, Belgium

Long-term prognostic value of N-Terminal Pro-Brain Natriuretic Peptide (NT-proBNP) changes within one year in patients with coronary heart disease

Update on Dyslipidemia and Recent Data on Treating the Statin Intolerant Patient

Central pressures and prediction of cardiovascular events in erectile dysfunction patients

J. Michael Gaziano, M.D., M.P.H. European Society of Cardiology August 26 th 2018

Blood Pressure Targets in Diabetes

Subclinical atherosclerosis in CVD: Risk stratification & management Raul Santos, MD

CVD risk assessment using risk scores in primary and secondary prevention

Medication Adherence and Outcomes in High Risk Cardiovascular Patients in the ONTARGET Trial

Medication Adherence and Outcomes in High Risk Cardiovascular Patients in the ONTARGET Trial

Dyslipidemia in the light of Current Guidelines - Do we change our Practice?

Predictors of New-Onset Diabetes in Patients Treated With Atorvastatin

12 th Annual Biomarkers in Heart Failure and Acute Coronary Syndromes: Diagnosis, Treatment and Devices. Heart Rate as a Cardiovascular Biomarker

MS Sabatine, RP Giugliano, AC Keech, PS Sever, SA Murphy and TR Pedersen, for the FOURIER Steering Committee & Investigators

Does High-Intensity Pitavastatin Therapy Further Improve Clinical Outcomes?

Safety of Anacetrapib in Patients with or

Disclosures. Dr. Scirica has also served as a consultant for Lexicon, Arena, Gilead, and Eisai.

Beta-blockers in Patients with Mid-range Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction after AMI Improved Clinical Outcomes

Blood Pressure Treatment Goals

FOURIER: Enough Evidence to Justify Widespread Use? Did It fulfill Its Expectations?

JUPITER NEJM Poll. Panel Discussion: Literature that Should Have an Impact on our Practice: The JUPITER Study

2. If prasugrel is found to be both more costly and more effective than clopidogrel, to assess its costeffectiveness

Managing Dyslipidemia in Disclosures. Learning Objectives 03/05/2018. Speaker Disclosures

Macrovascular Residual Risk. What risk remains after LDL-C management and intensive therapy?

JAMA. 2011;305(24): Nora A. Kalagi, MSc

A.K. Gitt, F. Towae, C. Juenger, A. Papp, R. Zahn, U. Zeymer, J. Senges For the STAR-Study-Group Herzzentrum Ludwigshafen, Germany

Subsequent management and therapies

Case Presentation. Rafael Bitzur The Bert W Strassburger Lipid Center Sheba Medical Center Tel Hashomer

GALECTIN-3 PREDICTS LONG TERM CARDIOVASCULAR DEATH IN HIGH-RISK CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE PATIENTS

Post Hoc Analysis of the PARADIGM Heart Failure Trial:

Beyond LDL-Cholesterol

Body-Weight Fluctuations and Outcomes in Coronary Disease

2016 ESC/EAS Guideline in Dyslipidemias: Impact on Treatment& Clinical Practice

egfr > 50 (n = 13,916)

Blood Pressure Targets: Where are We Now?

AIM HIGH for SATURN and stay SHARP; COURAGE (v1.5)

Decline in CV-Mortality

Diabetes mellitus type 2 and angina pectoris : novel insights in diagnosis, prognosis and treatment Wiersma, J.J.

Review of guidelines for management of dyslipidemia in diabetic patients

Edoxaban in Atrial Fibrillation

Lifetime clinical and economic benefits of statin-based LDL lowering in the 20-year Followup of the West of Scotland Coronary Prevention Study

Trials Enrolled subjects Findings Fox et al. 2014, SIGNIFY 1

10-Year Mortality of Older Acute Myocardial Infarction Patients Treated in U.S. Community Practice

Supplement materials:

Disclosures. Speaker s bureau: Research grant: Advisory Board: Servier International, Bayer, Merck Serono, Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lupin

A: Epidemiology update. Evidence that LDL-C and CRP identify different high-risk groups

Cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibitors - what have we learnt? Philip Barter The Heart Research Institute Sydney, Australia

The Strategic Reperfusion Early After STEMI study Implications for clinical practice

Correlation of novel cardiac marker

Making War on Cholesterol with New Weapons: How Low Can We/Should We Go? Shaun Goodman

High-sensitivity Troponin T Predicts Recurrent Cardiovascular Events in Patients with Stable Coronary Heart Disease: KAROLA Study 8 Year FU

The ACCELERATE Trial

New evidences in heart failure: the GISSI-HF trial. Aldo P Maggioni, MD ANMCO Research Center Firenze, Italy

High Sensitivity Troponin Improves Management. But Not Yet

Management of LDL as a Risk Factor. Raul D. Santos MD, PhD Heart Institute-InCor University of Sao Paulo Brazil

Patients with type 2 diabetes are at

Novel Anticoagulants : Bleeding and Bridging

Evaluation of C-reactive protein prior to and on-treatment as a predictor of benefit

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL. Supplemental Methods. Duke CAD Index

Using DOACs in CAD Patients in Sinus Ryhthm Results of the ATLAS ACS 2, COMPASS and COMMANDER-HF Trials

Study design: multicenter, randomized, open-label trial following a PROBE design

Supplementary Online Content

Weigh the benefit of statin treatment: LDL & Beyond

The earlier BP control the better cardiovascular outcome. Jin Oh Na Cardiovascular center Korea University Medical College

Controversies in Cardiac Pharmacology

Preoperative Cardiac Evaluation:

Link between effectiveness and cost data The effectiveness and cost data came from the same sample of patients and were prospectively evaluated.

Inflammation as A Target for Therapy. Focus on Residual Inflammatory Risk

This clinical study synopsis is provided in line with Boehringer Ingelheim s Policy on Transparency and Publication of Clinical Study Data.

Disclosures (2013 to the present)

What have We Learned in Dyslipidemia Management Since the Publication of the 2013 ACC/AHA Guideline?

2013 Cholesterol Guidelines. Anna Broz MSN, RN, CNP, AACC Adult Certified Nurse Practitioner North Ohio Heart, Inc.

Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Made Practical

Clinical Controversies in Perioperative Medicine

Peri-operative Troponin Measurements - Pathophysiology and Prognosis

Industry Relationships and Institutional Affiliations

Pitavastatin 4 mg vs. Pravastatin 40 mg in HIV Dyslipidemia: Post- Hoc Analysis of the INTREPID Trial Based on the Independent CHD Risk Factor for Age

The Diabetes Link to Heart Disease

Should we prescribe aspirin and statins to all subjects over 65? (Or even all over 55?) Terje R.Pedersen Oslo University Hospital Oslo, Norway

STATINS FOR PAD Long - term prognosis

Does quality of life predict morbidity or mortality in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF)?

Alirocumab Treatment Effect Did Not Differ Between Patients With and Without Low HDL-C or High Triglyceride Levels in Phase 3 trials

Effective Treatment Options With Add-on or Combination Therapy. Christie Ballantyne (USA)

LEADER Liraglutide and cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes

Ischemic Heart and Cerebrovascular Disease. Harold E. Lebovitz, MD, FACE Kathmandu November 2010

Transcription:

Heart Rate in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease - the Lower the Better? An Analysis from the Treating to New Targets (TNT) trial Sripal Bangalore, MD, MHA, Chuan-Chuan Wun, PhD, David A DeMicco, PharmD, Andrei Breazna, PhD, Prakash Deedwania, MD, Franz H Messerli, MD, on behalf of the TNT Steering Committee and Investigators New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY [SB] Pfizer, New York, NY [CCW, DAD, AB] University of California at San Francisco School of Medicine, Fresno, California [PD] St. Luke s-roosevelt Hospital, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, NY [FHM]

Disclosure Information TNT trial was funded by Pfizer Inc. Sripal Bangalore: Advisory board- Daiichi Sankyo Chuan-Chuan Wun: Pfizer employee David A DeMicco: Pfizer employee Andrei Breazna: Pfizer employee Prakash Deedwania: None Franz H. Messerli: Consulting: Abbott, Novartis, Pfizer, Bayer, Forest, Daiichi-Sankyo, Sanofi, Medtronics and received research/grants from Servier, Forest, and Novartis,

Background You only get so many heartbeats... Samuel A. Levine, MD (1891-1966) Cook et al. Eur Heart J. 26 Oct;27(2):2387-93.

Post Myocardial Infarction In patients presenting with ACS, a reduction in heart rate (HR) of at least 15 beats/min during infarct evolution is associated with a reduction of infarct size between 25-3% Kjekshus et al. Am J Cardiol 1986;57:43F-9F

Post MI: HR and Re-infarction Kjekshus et al. Am J Cardiol 1986;57:43F-9F

Background In patients with coronary artery disease, a direct linear relationship has been shown between lower heart rate and improved longterm cardiovascular prognosis However, the data are limited and the cardiovascular prognosis at very low heart rates has not been fully explored

In-hospital death, non-fatal MI or stroke In-hospital death Bangalore et al. Eur Heart J. 21;31(5):552-56

PROVE-IT TIMI 22 Trial Bangalore et al. J Am Coll Cardiol. 21;55 (1A): A98.E924

Objectives To evaluate the relationship between achieved resting heart rate as a predictor of long-term cardiovascular events in patients with CAD enrolled in the Treating to New Targets (TNT) trial

TNT Trial 1,1 patients with stable coronary heart disease Age 35-75 years, LDL between 13 and 25 mg/dl Atorvastatin 8 mg n=4,995 Atorvastatin 1 mg n=5,6 Primary Endpoint: Major cardiovascular event defined as death from coronary disease, nonfatal MI, resuscitated cardiac arrest, and fatal or nonfatal stroke at a median follow-up of 4.9 years

Methods: Follow-up Patients were followed up at Week 12 and at Months 6, 9, and 12 during the first year and then every 6 months thereafter At each visit, vital signs, clinical end points, adverse events, and concurrent medication information were collected HR management was at the discretion of the treating physician For this analysis, the average follow-up HR were calculated for each patient by using all follow-up values, up to the last visit prior to the date of primary outcome or end of follow-up in those without events

Study Outcomes Primary outcome: Composite of death from coronary heart disease (CHD), non-fatal, nonprocedure-related MI, resuscitation after cardiac arrest, or fatal or non-fatal stroke Secondary outcomes: Individual outcomes of allcause mortality, CV mortality, nonfatal MI or stroke

Statistical Analyses HR values were categorized as 1 bpm increments for association with clinical outcomes Three models were tested: Model 1: Multivariable non-linear Cox proportional hazard analysis was performed including HR category as the major factor adjusting for baseline variables and treatment effect Model 2: Multivariable non-linear Cox proportional hazard analysis using HR as a time dependent variable Model 3: Multivariable Cox regression with restricted cubic splines including heart rate as a time-dependent covariate with three knots at 35, 55, and 75 bpm Nadir HR was calculated based on Delta method, which is equal to the coefficient of linear term divided by 2 * coefficient of quadratic term

Results: Baseline Characteristics Parameter < 5 bpm (n = 716) 5 - <6 bpm (n = 3465) 6 - < 7 bpm (n = 3514) 7-8 bpm (n = 1473) > 8 bpm (n = 434) p- value a Age (years) 61.9 ± 8.1 61.4 ± 8.6 6.6 ± 8.9 6.7 ± 9.2 61. ± 8.9.1 Men, n (%) 625 (87.3%) 2889 (83.4%) 2823 (8.3%) 1125 (76.4%) 328 (75.6%) <.1 Body Mass Index ( kg/m 2 ) 27.54 ± 3.86 28.4 ± 4.3 28.71 ± 4.43 29.24 ± 5.2 3.4 ± 5.5 <.1 Never smoked, n (%) 196 (27.4%) 843 (24.3%) 826 (23.5%) 3 (2.4%) 85 (19.6%).1 Hypertension, n (%) 395 (55.2%) 1847 (53.3%) 1866 (53.1%) 834 (56.6%) 25 (57.6%).75 Diabetes, m (%) 63 (8.8%) 374 (1.8%) 531 (15.1%) 323 (21.9%) 131 (3.2%) <.1 Myocardial infarction, n (%) 439 (61.3%) 242 (58.9%) 1989 (56.6%) 843 (57.2%) 267 (61.5%).4 Coronary heart disease, n (%) 29 (4.1%) 152 (4.4%) 178 (5.1%) 92 (6.3%) 34 (7.8%).3 Peripheral vascular disease, n (%) 71 (9.9%) 383 (11.1%) 385 (11.%) 212 (14.4%) 72 (16.6%) <.1 Congestive heart failure, n (%) 33 (4.6%) 184 (5.3%) 275 (7.8%) 159 (1.8%) 72 (16.6%) <.1 Arrhythmia, n (%) 13 (18.2%) 69 (17.6%) 627 (17.8%) 28 (19.%) 18 (24.9%).5 Heart rate: Change from baseline to Final visit (bpm).46 ± 8.41.85 ± 9.58 1.5 ± 1.53 2.14 ± 12.59 5.87 ± 15.35 <.1

Incidence of PO (%) Adjusted Hazard Ratio 2 15 1 5 Heart Rate & Primary Outcome Model 1 Adjusted Hazard Ratio Nadir = 54.1 bpm 3 2 1 <5 5 to 59 6 to 69 7 to 8 > 8 Heart Rate, bpm 716 3465 3514 1473 434 Primary outcome: Death from coronary heart disease (CHD), non-fatal, non-procedure-related MI, resuscitation after cardiac arrest, or fatal or non-fatal stroke

Adjusted Hazard Ratio Heart Rate & Primary Outcome Model 2 2,5 2 Adjusted Hazard Ratio Nadir = 51.6 bpm 1,5 1,5 <5 5 to 59 6 to 69 7 to 8 > 8 Heart Rate, bpm Primary outcome: Death from coronary heart disease (CHD), non-fatal, non-procedure-related MI, resuscitation after cardiac arrest, or fatal or non-fatal stroke

Heart Rate & Primary Outcome Model 3 Nadir = 51.6 bpm Primary outcome: Death from coronary heart disease (CHD), non-fatal, non-procedure-related MI, resuscitation after cardiac arrest, or fatal or non-fatal stroke

Incidence of Death (%) Adjusted Hazard Ratio 8 6 Heart Rate & CV Death Model 1 Adjusted Hazard Ratio Nadir = 37. bpm 8 6 4 4 2 2 <5 5 to 59 6 to 69 7 to 8 > 8 Heart Rate, bpm 716 3463 3525 147 431

Adjusted Hazard Ratio Heart Rate & CV Death Model 2 2,5 2 1,5 1,5 <5 5 to 59 6 to 69 7 to 8 > 8 Heart Rate, bpm

Heart Rate & CV Death Model 3

Incidence of Death (%) Heart Rate & Non Fatal MI Model 1 Adjusted Hazard Ratio 1 8 6 Adjusted Hazard Ratio Nadir = 57.7 bpm 3 2 4 2 1 <5 5 to 59 6 to 69 7 to 8 > 8 Heart Rate, bpm 716 3463 3525 147 431

Adjusted Hazard Ratio 2,5 2 Heart Rate & Non Fatal MI Model 2 Nadir = 58.6 bpm 1,5 1,5 <5 5 to 59 6 to 69 7 to 8 > 8 Heart Rate, bpm

Heart Rate & Non Fatal MI Model 3 Nadir = 58.6 bpm

Incidence of Stroke (%) Adjusted Hazard Ratio 6 Heart Rate & Stroke Model 1 Adjusted Hazard Ratio 3 4 Nadir = 57.6 bpm 2 2 1 <5 5 to 59 6 to 69 7 to 8 > 8 Heart Rate, bpm 716 3463 3525 147 431

Adjusted Hazard Ratio Heart Rate & Stroke Model 2 2,5 Nadir = 51.3 bpm 2 1,5 1,5 <5 5 to 59 6 to 69 7 to 8 > 8 Heart Rate, bpm

Heart Rate & Stroke Model 3 Nadir = 51.3 bpm

Limitations Post-hoc analysis that evaluated the relationship between HR and cardiovascular events in a CAD population with tight control of cholesterol levels and hence the results cannot be extrapolated to other populations We do not propose a causal relationship between low HR and risk of cardiovascular events We did not adjust our analyses for dosage of medications received

Conclusions In patients with CAD, the relationship between heart rate and the risk of future cardiovascular events follows a J-curve pattern. In contrast to the BP J-curve, there is no target organ heterogeneity with heart rate; the nadir for all outcomes is similar. Thus, lower is not always better for heart rate, and a target range of 5-59 bpm is optimal in patients with CAD.

Extra-Slides

Heart Block and Pacemaker use Parameter < 5 bpm (n = 716) 5 - <6 bpm (n = 3465) 6 - < 7 bpm (n = 3514) 7-8 bpm (n = 1473) > 8 bpm (n = 434) p- value a Heart block, n (%) (%) 3 (.9%) 12 (.34%) 4 (.27%) 3 (.69%).285* Pacemaker, n (%) 1 (.14%) 1 (.3%) 12 (.34%) 2 (.14%) 1 (.23%).413*

Incidence of Secondary Outcome (%) PROVE-IT TIMI 22 Trial: Secondary Outcome Adjusted Hazard Ratio 4 3 Adjusted Hazard Ratio Nadir = 7 bpm 4 3 2 2 1 1 Total Patients <5 5-59 6-69 7-79 8-89 >=9 Heart Rate, bpm 54 735 1961 117 262 43 Secondary outcome: Death from CHD, nonfatal MI, or revascularization after 3 days

Incidence of Mortality (%) Adjusted Hazard Ratio PROVE-IT TIMI 22 Trial: All-Cause Mortality 12 9 Adjusted Hazard Ratio 8 6 6 4 3 2 <5 5-59 6-69 7-79 8-89 >=9 Total Patients Heart Rate, bpm 54 735 1961 117 262 43

PROVE-IT TIMI 22 Trial: Cardiovascular Mortality Incidence of Cardiovascular Mortality (%) Adjusted Hazard Ratio 6 Adjusted Hazard Ratio 8 4 2 6 4 2 <5 5-59 6-69 7-79 8-89 >=9 Total Patients Heart Rate, bpm 54 735 1961 117 262 43

Incidence of Non-Fatal MI (%) PROVE-IT TIMI 22 Trial: Non-Fatal MI Adjusted Hazard Ratio 16 14 12 1 Adjusted Hazard Ratio Nadir = 65 bpm 6 5 4 8 3 6 4 2 2 1 <5 5-59 6-69 7-79 8-89 >=9 Total Patients Heart Rate, bpm 54 735 1961 117 262 43