Contribution of major cardiovascular risk factors to familial premature coronary artery disease : the GENECARD project

Résumé Objectifs: Cette étude relève la prévalence des principaux facteurs de risque cardiovasculaire dans les coronaropathies précoces (P-CAD) familiales, survenant chez au moins deux frères et/ou soeurs d'une même fratrie. Méthodes: Nous avons recruté 213 survivants atteints de P-CAD, issus de 103 fratries, diagnostiqués avant l'âge de 50 ans chez les hommes et 55 ans chez les femmes. La présence ou non d'hypertension, d'hypercholestérolémie, d'obésité et de tabagisme a été documentée au moment de l'événement chez 163 de ces patients (145 hommes et 18 femmes). Chaque patient a été comparé à deux individus de même âge et sexe, chez qui un diagnostic de P-CAD «sporadique» (non familiale) était posé, et à trois individus choisis au hasard parmi la population générale. Résultats: En comparaison de la population générale, les patients atteints de P-CAD sporadique avaient une prévalence supérieure pour l 'hypertension (29% vs. 14%, p<0.001), le cholestérol (54% vs. 33%, p<0.001), l'obésité (20% vs. 13%, p<0.001) et le tabagisme (76% vs. 39%, p<0.001). Ces facteurs de risque étaient de prévalences similaires, voire supérieures chez les patients atteints de P-CAD familiale (43% [p0.05 vs. P-CAD sporadiques], 58% [p=0.07], 21% et 72% respectivement). Seulement 7 (4%) des 163 patients atteints de P-CAD familiale et 22 (7%) des 326 patients atteints de P-CAD sporadique, ne présentaient aucun facteur de risque cardiovasculaire, comparés à 167 (34%) des 489 patients issus de la population générale. Conclusions: Les facteurs de risque cardiovasculaire classiques et réversibles ont une haute prévalence chez les patients atteints de P-CAD familiale. Ce fait rend improbable une contribution génétique prédominante, agissant en l'absence de facteurs de risque. Summary Objectives: This study was designed to assess the prevalence of major cardiovascular risk factors in familial premature coronary artery disease (P-CAD), affecting two or more siblings within one sibship. Background: Premature CAD has a genetic component. It remains to be established whether familial P-CAD is due to genes acting independently from major cardiovascular risk factors. Methods: We recruited 213 P-CAD survivors from 103 sibships diagnosed before age ?50 (men) or ?55 (women) years old. Hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, obesity, and smoking were documented at the time of the event in 163 patients (145 men and 18 women). Each patient was compared with two individuals of the same age and gender, diagnosed with sporadic (nonfamilial) P-CAD, and three individuals randomly sampled from the general population. Result: Compared with the general population, patients with sporadic P-CAD had a higher prevalence of hypertension (29% vs. 14%, p < 0.001), hypercholesterolemia (54% vs. 33%, p < 0.001), obesity (20% vs. 13%, p < 0.01), and smoking (76% vs. 39%, p < 0.001). These risk factors were equally or even more prevalent in patients with familial P-CAD (43% [p < 0.05 vs. sporadic P-CAD], 58% [p = 0.07], 21% and 72%, respectively). Overall, only 7 (4%) of 163 of patients with familial P-CAD and 22 (7%) of 326 of patients with sporadic P-CAD had none of these conditions, as compared with 167 (34%) of 489 patients in the general population. Conclusions: Classic, remediable risk factors are highly prevalent in patients with familial P-CAD. Accordingly, a major contribution of genes acting in the absence of these risk factors is unlikely.

Acetaminophen increases blood pressure in patients with coronary artery disease.

BACKGROUND: Because traditional nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs are associated with increased risk for acute cardiovascular events, current guidelines recommend acetaminophen as the first-line analgesic of choice on the assumption of its greater cardiovascular safety. Data from randomized clinical trials prospectively addressing cardiovascular safety of acetaminophen, however, are still lacking, particularly in patients at increased cardiovascular risk. Hence, the aim of this study was to evaluate the safety of acetaminophen in patients with coronary artery disease. METHODS AND RESULTS: The 33 patients with coronary artery disease included in this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study received acetaminophen (1 g TID) on top of standard cardiovascular therapy for 2 weeks. Ambulatory blood pressure, heart rate, endothelium-dependent and -independent vasodilatation, platelet function, endothelial progenitor cells, markers of the renin-angiotensin system, inflammation, and oxidative stress were determined at baseline and after each treatment period. Treatment with acetaminophen resulted in a significant increase in mean systolic (from 122.4±11.9 to 125.3±12.0 mm Hg P=0.02 versus placebo) and diastolic (from 73.2±6.9 to 75.4±7.9 mm Hg P=0.02 versus placebo) ambulatory blood pressures. On the other hand, heart rate, endothelial function, early endothelial progenitor cells, and platelet function did not change. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates for the first time that acetaminophen induces a significant increase in ambulatory blood pressure in patients with coronary artery disease. Thus, the use of acetaminophen should be evaluated as rigorously as traditional nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs and cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors, particularly in patients at increased cardiovascular risk. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00534651.

MR-IMPACT II: Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Myocardial Perfusion Assessment in Coronary artery disease Trial: perfusion-cardiac magnetic resonance vs. single-photon emission computed tomography for the detection of coronary artery disease: a comparative multicentre, multivendor trial.

Aims Perfusion-cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) has emerged as a potential alternative to single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) to assess myocardial ischaemia non-invasively. The goal was to compare the diagnostic performance of perfusion-CMR and SPECT for the detection of coronary artery disease (CAD) using conventional X-ray coronary angiography (CXA) as the reference standard. Methods and results In this multivendor trial, 533 patients, eligible for CXA or SPECT, were enrolled in 33 centres (USA and Europe) with 515 patients receiving MR contrast medium. Single-photon emission computed tomography and CXA were performed within 4 weeks before or after CMR in all patients. The prevalence of CAD in the sample was 49%. Drop-out rates for CMR and SPECT were 5.6 and 3.7%, respectively (P = 0.21). The primary endpoint was non-inferiority of CMR vs. SPECT for both sensitivity and specificity for the detection of CAD. Readers were blinded vs. clinical data, CXA, and imaging results. As a secondary endpoint, the safety profile of the CMR examination was evaluated. For CMR and SPECT, the sensitivity scores were 0.67 and 0.59, respectively, with the lower confidence level for the difference of +0.02, indicating superiority of CMR over SPECT. The specificity scores for CMR and SPECT were 0.61 and 0.72, respectively (lower confidence level for the difference: -0.17), indicating inferiority of CMR vs. SPECT. No severe adverse events occurred in the 515 patients. Conclusion In this large multicentre, multivendor study, the sensitivity of perfusion-CMR to detect CAD was superior to SPECT, while its specificity was inferior to SPECT. Cardiac magnetic resonance is a safe alternative to SPECT to detect perfusion deficits in CAD.

Non-invasive detection of coronary endothelial response to sequential handgrip exercise in coronary artery disease patients and healthy adults.

OBJECTIVES: Our objective is to test the hypothesis that coronary endothelial function (CorEndoFx) does not change with repeated isometric handgrip (IHG) stress in CAD patients or healthy subjects. BACKGROUND: Coronary responses to endothelial-dependent stressors are important measures of vascular risk that can change in response to environmental stimuli or pharmacologic interventions. The evaluation of the effect of an acute intervention on endothelial response is only valid if the measurement does not change significantly in the short term under normal conditions. Using 3.0 Tesla (T) MRI, we non-invasively compared two coronary artery endothelial function measurements separated by a ten minute interval in healthy subjects and patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). METHODS: Twenty healthy adult subjects and 12 CAD patients were studied on a commercial 3.0 T whole-body MR imaging system. Coronary cross-sectional area (CSA), peak diastolic coronary flow velocity (PDFV) and blood-flow were quantified before and during continuous IHG stress, an endothelial-dependent stressor. The IHG exercise with imaging was repeated after a 10 minute recovery period. RESULTS: In healthy adults, coronary artery CSA changes and blood-flow increases did not differ between the first and second stresses (mean % change ±SEM, first vs. second stress CSA: 14.8%±3.3% vs. 17.8%±3.6%, p = 0.24; PDFV: 27.5%±4.9% vs. 24.2%±4.5%, p = 0.54; blood-flow: 44.3%±8.3 vs. 44.8%±8.1, p = 0.84). The coronary vasoreactive responses in the CAD patients also did not differ between the first and second stresses (mean % change ±SEM, first stress vs. second stress: CSA: -6.4%±2.0% vs. -5.0%±2.4%, p = 0.22; PDFV: -4.0%±4.6% vs. -4.2%±5.3%, p = 0.83; blood-flow: -9.7%±5.1% vs. -8.7%±6.3%, p = 0.38). CONCLUSION: MRI measures of CorEndoFx are unchanged during repeated isometric handgrip exercise tests in CAD patients and healthy adults. These findings demonstrate the repeatability of noninvasive 3T MRI assessment of CorEndoFx and support its use in future studies designed to determine the effects of acute interventions on coronary vasoreactivity.

Validation of a clinical prediction score for ruling out coronary heart disease in primary care patients with chest pain.

Background: A patient's chest pain raises concern for the possibility of coronary heart disease (CHD). An easy to use clinical prediction rule has been derived from the TOPIC study in Lausanne. Our objective is to validate this clinical score for ruling out CHD in primary care patients with chest pain. Methods: This secondary analysis used data collected from a oneyear follow-up cohort study attending 76 GPs in Germany. Patients attending their GP with chest pain were questioned on their age, gender, duration of chest pain (1-60 min), sternal pain location, pain increases with exertion, absence of tenderness point at palpation, cardiovascular risks factors, and personal history of cardiovascular disease. Area under the curve (ROC), sensitivity and specificity of the Lausanne CHD score were calculated for patients with full data. Results: 1190 patients were included. Full data was available for 509 patients (42.8%). Missing data was not related to having CHD (p = 0.397) or having a cardiovascular risk factor (p = 0.275). 76 (14.9%) were diagnosed with a CHD. Prevalence of CHD were respectively of 68/344 (19.8%), 2/62 (3.2%), 6/103 (5.8%) in the high, intermediate and low risk category. ROC was of 72.9 (CI95% 66.8; 78.9). Ruling out patients with low risk has a sensitivity of 92.1% (CI95% 83.0; 96.7) and a specificity of 22.4% (CI95% 18.6%; 26.7%). Conclusion: The Lausanne CHD score shows reasonably good sensitivity and can be used to rule out coronary events in patients with chest pain. Patients at risk of CHD for other rarer reasons should nevertheless also be investigated.

A review of methods for assessment of coronary microvascular disease in both clinical and experimental settings.

Obstructive disease of the large coronary arteries is the prominent cause for angina pectoris. However, angina may also occur in the absence of significant coronary atherosclerosis or coronary artery spasm, especially in women. Myocardial ischaemia in these patients is often associated with abnormalities of the coronary microcirculation and may thus represent a manifestation of coronary microvascular disease (CMD). Elucidation of the role of the microvasculature in the genesis of myocardial ischaemia and cardiac damage-in the presence or absence of obstructive coronary atherosclerosis-will certainly result in more rational diagnostic and therapeutic interventions for patients with ischaemic heart disease. Specifically targeted research based on improved assessment modalities is needed to improve the diagnosis of CMD and to translate current molecular, cellular, and physiological knowledge into new therapeutic options.

Ruling out coronary artery disease in primary care: development and validation of a simple prediction rule.

BACKGROUND: Chest pain can be caused by various conditions, with life-threatening cardiac disease being of greatest concern. Prediction scores to rule out coronary artery disease have been developed for use in emergency settings. We developed and validated a simple prediction rule for use in primary care. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional diagnostic study in 74 primary care practices in Germany. Primary care physicians recruited all consecutive patients who presented with chest pain (n = 1249) and recorded symptoms and findings for each patient (derivation cohort). An independent expert panel reviewed follow-up data obtained at six weeks and six months on symptoms, investigations, hospital admissions and medications to determine the presence or absence of coronary artery disease. Adjusted odds ratios of relevant variables were used to develop a prediction rule. We calculated measures of diagnostic accuracy for different cut-off values for the prediction scores using data derived from another prospective primary care study (validation cohort). RESULTS: The prediction rule contained five determinants (age/sex, known vascular disease, patient assumes pain is of cardiac origin, pain is worse during exercise, and pain is not reproducible by palpation), with the score ranging from 0 to 5 points. The area under the curve (receiver operating characteristic curve) was 0.87 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.83-0.91) for the derivation cohort and 0.90 (95% CI 0.87-0.93) for the validation cohort. The best overall discrimination was with a cut-off value of 3 (positive result 3-5 points; negative result <or= 2 points), which had a sensitivity of 87.1% (95% CI 79.9%-94.2%) and a specificity of 80.8% (77.6%-83.9%). INTERPRETATION: The prediction rule for coronary artery disease in primary care proved to be robust in the validation cohort. It can help to rule out coronary artery disease in patients presenting with chest pain in primary care.

Coronary artery disease screening in diabetic patients: how good is guideline adherence?

INTRODUCTION: Diabetic patients are at high risk for coronary artery disease (CAD), which is the leading cause of death in this population. The Swiss Society of Endocrinology-Diabetology (SSED) recommends CAD screening for diabetic patients with > or = 2 additional cardiovascular risk factors (CVRF), by stress echocardiography (SE) or myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI). The aim of this study was to assess the application of these guidelines and the treatment of CVRF in the diabetes outpatient clinics of the five Swiss University Hospitals. METHODS: The study was initiated in Lausanne and the study questionnaires were circulated to the endocrinologists of the five Swiss University Hospitals. Practitioners were asked to include consecutive patients attending the diabetes outpatient clinics over one month. Prevalence of CAD, screening methods for CAD, prevalence of CVRF, biological analyses over the last 6 months and medical therapy were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 302 subjects were included. The mean age was 53 +/- 14 years, 68% had type 2 diabetes, 27% type 1 and 5% other types. Among T2DM with > or = 2 CVRF, 45% were screened for CAD according to SSED guidelines. In T2DM 25% had blood pressure < or = 130/80 mm Hg, 15% a lipid profile within target, 23% HbA1c < or = 7.0%. Overall, 2% achieved all 3 targets. CONCLUSIONS: Only 45% of T2DM with > or = 2 CVRF were screened for CAD according to SSED guidelines and 2% of T2DM had proper control over all CVRF. Efforts are still necessary to improve CAD prevention and screening of diabetic patients in Swiss University Hospitals.

Ruling out coronary heart disease in primary care: external validation of a clinical prediction rule.

BACKGROUND: The Marburg Heart Score (MHS) aims to assist GPs in safely ruling out coronary heart disease (CHD) in patients presenting with chest pain, and to guide management decisions. AIM: To investigate the diagnostic accuracy of the MHS in an independent sample and to evaluate the generalisability to new patients. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cross-sectional diagnostic study with delayed-type reference standard in general practice in Hesse, Germany. METHOD: Fifty-six German GPs recruited 844 males and females aged ≥ 35 years, presenting between July 2009 and February 2010 with chest pain. Baseline data included the items of the MHS. Data on the subsequent course of chest pain, investigations, hospitalisations, and medication were collected over 6 months and were reviewed by an independent expert panel. CHD was the reference condition. Measures of diagnostic accuracy included the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, and predictive values. RESULTS: The AUC was 0.84 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.80 to 0.88). For a cut-off value of 3, the MHS showed a sensitivity of 89.1% (95% CI = 81.1% to 94.0%), a specificity of 63.5% (95% CI = 60.0% to 66.9%), a positive predictive value of 23.3% (95% CI = 19.2% to 28.0%), and a negative predictive value of 97.9% (95% CI = 96.2% to 98.9%). CONCLUSION: Considering the diagnostic accuracy of the MHS, its generalisability, and ease of application, its use in clinical practice is recommended.