Browsing by Author "Sherwood, Matthew W"

Now showing 1 - 5 of 5

Open Access
Early clopidogrel versus prasugrel use among contemporary STEMI and NSTEMI patients in the US: insights from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry.
(J Am Heart Assoc, 2014-04-14) Sherwood, Matthew W; Wiviott, Stephen D; Peng, S Andrew; Roe, Matthew T; Delemos, James; Peterson, Eric D; Wang, Tracy Y
BACKGROUND: P2Y12 antagonist therapy improves outcomes in acute myocardial infarction (MI) patients. Novel agents in this class are now available in the US. We studied the introduction of prasugrel into contemporary MI practice to understand the appropriateness of its use and assess for changes in antiplatelet management practices. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using ACTION Registry-GWTG (Get-with-the-Guidelines), we evaluated patterns of P2Y12 antagonist use within 24 hours of admission in 100 228 ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and 158 492 Non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) patients at 548 hospitals between October 2009 and September 2012. Rates of early P2Y12 antagonist use were approximately 90% among STEMI and 57% among NSTEMI patients. From 2009 to 2012, prasugrel use increased significantly from 3% to 18% (5% to 30% in STEMI; 2% to 10% in NSTEMI; P for trend <0.001 for all). During the same period, we observed a decrease in use of early but not discharge P2Y12 antagonist among NSTEMI patients. Although contraindicated, 3.0% of patients with prior stroke received prasugrel. Prasugrel was used in 1.9% of patients ≥75 years and 4.5% of patients with weight <60 kg. In both STEMI and NSTEMI, prasugrel was most frequently used in patients at the lowest predicted risk for bleeding and mortality. Despite lack of supporting evidence, prasugrel was initiated before cardiac catheterization in 18% of NSTEMI patients. CONCLUSIONS: With prasugrel as an antiplatelet treatment option, contemporary practice shows low uptake of prasugrel and delays in P2Y12 antagonist initiation among NSTEMI patients. We also note concerning evidence of inappropriate use of prasugrel, and inadequate targeting of this more potent therapy to maximize the benefit/risk ratio.
Open Access
High-sensitivity troponin assays: evidence, indications, and reasonable use.
(J Am Heart Assoc, 2014-01-27) Sherwood, Matthew W; Kristin Newby, L
Open Access
Individual Proton Pump Inhibitors and Outcomes in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease on Dual Antiplatelet Therapy: A Systematic Review.
(J Am Heart Assoc, 2015-10-29) Sherwood, Matthew W; Melloni, Chiara; Jones, W Schuyler; Washam, Jeffrey B; Hasselblad, Vic; Dolor, Rowena J
BACKGROUND: Observational studies evaluating the possible interaction between proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and clopidogrel have shown mixed results. We conducted a systematic review comparing the safety of individual PPIs in patients with coronary artery disease taking clopidogrel. METHODS AND RESULTS: Studies performed from January 1995 to December 2013 were screened for inclusion. Data were extracted, and study quality was graded for 34 potential studies. For those studies in which follow-up period, outcomes, and multivariable adjustment were comparable, meta-analysis was performed.The adjusted odds or hazard ratios for the composite of cardiovascular or all-cause death, myocardial infarction, and stroke at 1 year were reported in 6 observational studies with data on individual PPIs. Random-effects meta-analyses of the 6 studies revealed an increased risk for adverse cardiovascular events for those taking pantoprazole (hazard ratio 1.38; 95% CI 1.12-1.70), lansoprazole (hazard ratio 1.29; 95% CI 1.09-1.52), or esomeprazole (hazard ratio 1.27; 95% CI 1.02-1.58) compared with patients on no PPI. This association was not significant for omeprazole (hazard ratio 1.16; 95% CI 0.93-1.44). Sensitivity analyses for the coronary artery disease population (acute coronary syndrome versus mixed) and exclusion of a single study due to heterogeneity of reported results did not have significant influence on the effect estimates for any PPIs. CONCLUSIONS: Several frequently used PPIs previously thought to be safe for concomitant use with clopidogrel were associated with greater risk of adverse cardiovascular events. Although the data are observational, they highlight the need for randomized controlled trials to evaluate the safety of concomitant PPI and clopidogrel use in patients with coronary artery disease.
Open Access
Percutaneous coronary intervention outcomes in patients with stable coronary disease and left ventricular systolic dysfunction.
(ESC heart failure, 2019-12) DeVore, Adam D; Yow, Eric; Krucoff, Mitchell W; Sherwood, Matthew W; Shaw, Linda K; Chiswell, Karen; O'Connor, Christopher M; Ohman, Erik Magnus; Velazquez, Eric J
AIMS:We sought to better understand the role of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) and moderate or severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction. METHODS AND RESULTS:Using data from the Duke Databank for Cardiovascular Disease, we analysed patients who underwent coronary angiography at Duke University Medical Center (1995-2012) that had stable CAD amenable to PCI and left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35%. Patients with acute coronary syndrome or Canadian Cardiovascular Society class III or IV angina were excluded. We used propensity-matched Cox proportional hazards to evaluate the association of PCI with mortality and hospitalizations. Of 901 patients, 259 were treated with PCI and 642 with medical therapy. PCI propensity scores created from 24 variables were used to assemble a matched cohort of 444 patients (222 pairs) receiving PCI or medical therapy alone. Over a median follow-up of 7 years, 128 (58%) PCI and 125 (56%) medical therapy alone patients died [hazard ratio 0.87 (95% confidence interval 0.68, 1.10)]; there was also no difference in the rate of a composite endpoint of all-cause mortality or cardiovascular hospitalization [hazard ratio 1.18 (95% confidence interval 0.96, 1.44)] between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS:In this well-profiled, propensity-matched cohort of patients with stable CAD amenable to PCI and moderate or severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction, the addition of PCI to medical therapy did not improve long-term mortality, or the composite of mortality or cardiovascular hospitalization. The impact of PCI on other outcomes in these high-risk patients requires further study.
Open Access
Use and outcomes associated with bridging during anticoagulation interruptions in patients with atrial fibrillation: findings from the Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation (ORBIT-AF).
(Circulation, 2015-02-03) Steinberg, Benjamin A; Peterson, Eric D; Kim, Sunghee; Thomas, Laine; Gersh, Bernard J; Fonarow, Gregg C; Kowey, Peter R; Mahaffey, Kenneth W; Sherwood, Matthew W; Chang, Paul; Piccini, Jonathan P; Ansell, Jack; Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation Investigators and Patients
BACKGROUND: Temporary interruption of oral anticoagulation for procedures is often required, and some propose using bridging anticoagulation. However, the use and outcomes of bridging during oral anticoagulation interruptions in clinical practice are unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Outcomes Registry for Better Informed Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation (ORBIT-AF) registry is a prospective, observational registry study of US outpatients with atrial fibrillation. We recorded incident temporary interruptions of oral anticoagulation for a procedure, including the use and type of bridging therapy. Outcomes included multivariable-adjusted rates of myocardial infarction, stroke or systemic embolism, major bleeding, cause-specific hospitalization, and death within 30 days. Of 7372 patients treated with oral anticoagulation, 2803 overall interruption events occurred in 2200 patients (30%) at a median follow-up of 2 years. Bridging anticoagulants were used in 24% (n=665), predominantly low-molecular-weight heparin (73%, n=487) and unfractionated heparin (15%, n=97). Bridged patients were more likely to have had prior cerebrovascular events (22% versus 15%; P=0.0003) and mechanical valve replacements (9.6% versus 2.4%; P<0.0001); however, there was no difference in CHA2DS2-VASc scores (scores ≥ 2 in 94% versus 95%; P=0.5). Bleeding events were more common in bridged than nonbridged patients (5.0% versus 1.3%; adjusted odds ratio, 3.84; P<0.0001). The incidence of myocardial infarction, stroke or systemic embolism, major bleeding, hospitalization, or death within 30 days was also significantly higher in patients receiving bridging (13% versus 6.3%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.94; P=0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Bridging anticoagulation is used in one quarter of anticoagulation interruptions and is associated with higher risk for bleeding and adverse events. These data do not support the use of routine bridging, and additional data are needed to identify best practices concerning anticoagulation interruptions. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01165710.