Background: The use of mobile technologies for data capture and transmission has the potential to streamline clinical trials, but researchers lack methods for collecting, processing, and interpreting data from these tools. Objectives: To assess the performance of a technical platform for collecting and transmitting data from six mobile technologies in the clinic and at home, to apply methods for comparing them to clinical standard devices, and to measure their usability, including how willing subjects were to use them on a regular basis. Methods: In part 1 of the study, conducted over 3 weeks in the clinic, we tested two device pairs (mobile vs. clinical standard blood pressure monitor and mobile vs. clinical standard spirometer) on 25 healthy volunteers. In part 2 of the study, conducted over 3 days both in the clinic and at home, we tested the same two device pairs as in part 1, plus four additional pairs (mobile vs. clinical standard pulse oximeter, glucose meter, weight scale, and activity monitor), on 22 healthy volunteers. Results: Data collection reliability was 98.1% in part 1 of the study and 95.8% in part 2 (the percentages exclude the wearable activity monitor, which collects data continuously). In part 1, 20 of 1,049 overall expected measurements were missing (1.9%), and in part 2, 45 of 1,083 were missing (4.2%). The most common reason for missing data was a single malfunctioning spirometer (13 of 20 total missed readings) in part 1, and that the subject did not take the measurement (22 of 45 total missed readings) in part 2. Also in part 2, a higher proportion of at-home measurements than in-clinic readings were missing (12.6 vs. 2.7%). The data from this experimental study were unable to establish repeatability or agreement for every mobile technology; only the pulse oximeter demonstrated repeatability, and only the weight scale demonstrated agreement with the clinical standard device. Most mobile technologies received high “willingness to use” ratings from the patients on the questionnaires. Conclusions: This study demonstrated that the wireless data transmission and processing platform was dependable. It also identified three critical areas of study for advancing the use of mobile technologies in clinical research: (1) if a mobile technology captures more than one type of endpoint (such as blood pressure and pulse), repeatability and agreement may need to be established for each endpoint to be included in a clinical trial; (2) researchers need to develop criteria for excluding invalid device readings (to be identified by algorithms in real time) for the population studied using ranges based on accumulated subject data and established norms; and (3) careful examination of a mobile technology’s performance (reliability, repeatability, and agreement with accepted reference devices) during pilot testing is essential, even for medical devices approved by regulators.

BACKGROUND The COGENT (Clopidogrel and the Optimization of Gastrointestinal Events Trial) showed that proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) safely reduced rates of gastrointestinal (GI) events in patients requiring dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT). However, utilization of appropriate prophylactic PPI therapy remains suboptimal, especially with low-dose aspirin.OBJECTIVES The authors investigated the safety and efficacy of PPI therapy in patients receiving DAPT in low- and high-dose aspirin subsets.METHODS Randomized patients with available aspirin dosing information in COGENT (N = 3,752) were divided into "low-dose" (<= 100 mg) and "high-dose" (>100 mg) aspirin groups. The primary GI and cardiovascular endpoints were composite upper GI events and major adverse cardiac events, respectively. All events were adjudicated by independent, blinded gastroenterologists and cardiologists.RESULTS Median duration of follow-up was 110 days. Low-dose aspirin users (n = 2,480; 66.1%) were more likely to be older, female, and have higher rates of peripheral artery disease, prior stroke, and hypertension, whereas high-dose aspirin users (n = 1,272; 33.9%) had higher rates of hyperlipidemia, smoking, a history of percutaneous coronary intervention, and were more than twice as likely to be enrolled from sites within the United States (80.4% vs. 39.8%). High-dose aspirin was associated with similar 180-day Kaplan-Meier estimates of adjudicated composite GI events (1.7% vs. 2.1%; adjusted hazard ratio: 0.88; 95% confidence interval: 0.46 to 1.66) and major adverse cardiac events (4.8% vs. 5.5%; adjusted hazard ratio: 0.73; 95% confidence interval: 0.48 to 1.11) compared with low-dose aspirin. Randomization to PPI therapy reduced 180-day Kaplan-Meier estimates of the primary GI endpoint in low-dose (1.2% vs. 3.1%) and high-dose aspirin subsets (0.9% vs. 2.6%; p for interaction = 0.80), and did not adversely affect the primary cardiovascular endpoint in either group.CONCLUSIONS Gastroprotection with PPI therapy should be utilized in appropriately selected patients with coronary artery disease requiring DAPT, even if the patients are on low-dose aspirin. (C) 2016 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.

We thank Dr. Atay for his interest in our work [(1)][1]. The COGENT (Clopidogrel and the Optimization of Gastrointestinal Events Trial; [NCT00557921][2]) trial demonstrated that omeprazole safely attenuated major gastrointestinal (GI) events at 180 days compared with placebo in patients with

BACKGROUND:Proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) have been demonstrated to reduce rates of gastrointestinal events in patients requiring dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT). Data are limited regarding the efficacy and safety of PPIs in high-risk cardiovascular subsets after acute coronary syndrome or percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS:All patients enrolled in COGENT (Clopidogrel and the Optimization of Gastrointestinal Events Trial) were initiated on DAPT (with aspirin and clopidogrel) for various indications within the prior 21 days. These post hoc analyses of the COGENT trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of omeprazole compared with placebo in subsets of patients requiring DAPT for the 2 most frequent indications: 1) patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (for any indication) within 14 days of randomization (n = 2676; 71.2%); and 2) patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome managed with or without percutaneous coronary intervention (n = 1573; 41.8%). Unadjusted Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate effect sizes through final follow-up. RESULTS:Median follow-up duration was 110 days (interquartile range 55-167). In percutaneous coronary intervention-treated patients, omeprazole significantly reduced rates of composite gastrointestinal events at 180 days (1.2% vs 2.7%; hazard ratio [HR] 0.43; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.22-0.85; P = .02) without increasing composite cardiovascular events (5.4% vs 6.3%; HR 1.00; 95% CI, 0.67-1.50; P = 1.00). Similarly, omeprazole lowered risk of the primary gastrointestinal endpoint at 180 days in patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome (1.1% vs 2.7%; HR 0.37; 95% CI, 0.13-1.01; P = .05) without a significant excess in cardiovascular events (5.6% vs 4.5%; HR 1.40; 95% CI, 0.77-2.53; P = .27). CONCLUSIONS:PPI therapy attenuates gastrointestinal bleeding risk without significant excess in major cardiovascular events in high-risk cardiovascular subsets, regardless of indication for DAPT. Future studies will be needed to clarify optimal gastroprotective strategies for higher-intensity and longer durations of DAPT.

BACKGROUNDGastrointestinal complications are an important problem of antithrombotic therapy. Proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) are believed to decrease the risk of such complications, though no randomized trial has proved this in patients receiving dual antiplatelet therapy. Recently, concerns have been raised about the potential for PPIs to blunt the efficacy of clopidogrel.METHODSWe randomly assigned patients with an indication for dual antiplatelet therapy to receive clopidogrel in combination with either omeprazole or placebo, in addition to aspirin. The primary gastrointestinal end point was a composite of overt or occult bleeding, symptomatic gastroduodenal ulcers or erosions, obstruction, or perforation. The primary cardiovascular end point was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, revascularization, or stroke. The trial was terminated prematurely when the sponsor lost financing.RESULTSWe planned to enroll about 5000 patients; a total of 3873 were randomly assigned and 3761 were included in analyses. In all, 51 patients had a gastrointestinal event; the event rate was 1.1% with omeprazole and 2.9% with placebo at 180 days (hazard ratio with omeprazole, 0.34, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.18 to 0.63; P<0.001). The rate of overt upper gastrointestinal bleeding was also reduced with omeprazole as compared with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.03 to 0.56; P = 0.001). A total of 109 patients had a cardiovascular event, with event rates of 4.9% with omeprazole and 5.7% with placebo (hazard ratio with omeprazole, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.44; P = 0.96); high-risk subgroups did not show significant heterogeneity. The two groups did not differ significantly in the rate of serious adverse events, though the risk of diarrhea was increased with omeprazole.CONCLUSIONSAmong patients receiving aspirin and clopidogrel, prophylactic use of a PPI reduced the rate of upper gastrointestinal bleeding. There was no apparent cardiovascular interaction between clopidogrel and omeprazole, but our results do not rule out a clinically meaningful difference in cardiovascular events due to use of a PPI. (Funded by Cogentus Pharmaceuticals; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00557921.).

BACKGROUND:Previous studies have shown the efficacy of AngioJet Rheolytic Thrombectomy (RT) in reducing thrombus burden and improving coronary flow in acute myocardial infarction (MI). No study has specifically evaluated the use of AngioJet RT in patients undergoing rescue percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for failed thrombolysis, a setting that may be particularly beneficial given the extensive thrombus burden. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of AngioJet RT during rescue PCI for failed thrombolysis.METHODS:214 consecutive patients were transferred to Good Samaritan Hospital to undergo rescue PCI for failed thrombolysis from January 2000 to October 2004. From this cohort, 32 patients (age 57 +/- 9, 30% male) undergoing AngioJet RT for rescue PCI (RT group) were identified and matched by initial thrombolysis in MI (TIMI) flow and infarct related artery (IRA) location to 32 patients (age 60 +/- 12, 24% male) undergoing rescue PCI without AngioJet RT (Control group). TIMI frame count and TIMI thrombus grade were assessed at initial and final angiography. Angiographic success (TIMI 3 flow, < 50% residual stenosis) and in-hospital clinical events, including bleeding complications and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) such as death, recurrent MI, target vessel revascularization and emergent bypass surgery were evaluated. Clinical success was defined as angiographic success in the absence of MACE.RESULTS:Baseline clinical characteristics were similar in both groups, except patients undergoing AngioJet RT were more likely to be males and less likely to be intubated on transfer. 30/32 (94%) patients achieved a TIMI thrombus grade of 0 in the RT group, compared to 22/32 (69%) in the Control group. Final IRA TIMI frame count was similar in the RT compared to the Control group (33 +/- 21 vs. 38 +/- 23, p NS, respectively). The occurrence of no reflow was significantly lower in the RT compared to the Control group (13% vs. 56%, p < 0.001, respectively). There was a trend for higher angiographic success in the RT compared to the control group (93% vs. 78%, p = 0.07, respectively). Clinical success was higher in the RT compared to the Control group (91% vs. 71%, p = 0.05, respectively). There were no differences in bleeding complications or MACE between the groups.CONCLUSION:AngioJet RT in high-risk patients undergoing rescue PCI for failed thrombolysis is safe and more effective in decreasing thrombus burden and preventing no reflow than conventional PCI.

Purpose: Risk factors for erectile dysfunction (ED) (hypertension, diabetes, smoking, lipid abnormality) are also risk factors for coronary artery disease. However, most cardiologists do not routinely ask about ED and patients often are reluctant or embarrassed to discuss it. We determined how common ED was in a group of patients with chronic stable coronary artery disease.Materials and Methods: We administered the validated Sexual Health Inventory for Men (SHIM) 5-item questionnaire, based on the International Index of Erectile Function questionnaire, to 76 men with chronic stable coronary artery disease during routine outpatient cardiology visits. Most of these men had not previously discussed ED with their cardiologist.Results: The mean patient age was 64 years (range 40 to 82). The questionnaire took about 5 minutes to complete. Of the patients 47% were on beta blockers, 92% statins, 28% diuretics. SHIM score was 21 or less in 53 men (70%), which is indicative of ED. Of the patients 75% had some difficulty achieving erections (question 2) and 67% had some difficulty maintaining an erection after penetration (question 3). The questionnaire reflected successful sildenafil treatment in 4 patients (SHIM scores 23 to 25). If these 4 men are included as having had ED then 57 of 76 (75%) had ED or recent history of ED.Conclusions: ED is extremely common in men with chronic coronary artery disease (affecting approximately 75%) yet most cardiologists do not ask about it. The SHIM is a useful, quick and inexpensive tool for discussion and diagnosis of ED in this population. Although it is well established that cardiovascular risk factors are associated with erectile dysfunction, once it is present there is mixed information on whether treating the risk factors will treat the ED. Problems appear to be that lifestyle modification in midlife may simply be too late to effect a change, and some antihypertensive and lipid lowering drugs may actually exacerbate ED. Oral therapy for ED, namely the PDE5 inhibitors, is effective and safe in most cardiac and hypertensive patients. Organic nitrates such as nitroglycerin remain a contraindication to the concomitant use of these drugs. Guidelines for treatment of ED in the cardiac patient issued by the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association and Princeton Guidelines may be useful in the approach to the cardiac patient with ED.

We determined estimated myocardial infarct size in elderly versus nonelderly patients from 2 large multi-center studies: I from the prethrombolytic era (Multicenter Investigation of the Limitation of Infarct Size [MILIS] study) and I from the thrombolytic era (Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction-4 [TIMI-4] study). In the MILIS study, enzymatically estimated myocardial infarct size was smaller in patients greater than or equal to65 years old versus patients <65 years old, whereas in the TIMI-4 study, there was no difference in infarct size between patients greater than or equal to65 years old and those <65 years old, suggesting that a worse outcome of myocardial infarction in the elderly is probably not related to larger infarct size.

This article describes clinical situations in which stunning occurs and updates previous reviews on the topic. Stunning following angioplasty, angina and exercise-induced ischemia, infarction, and after cardiac surgery are described. In addition, newer concepts regarding stunning, including neurogenic stunned myocardium, are discussed. Left atrial stunning following cardioversion is a recently recognized phenomenon with important clinical implications, but differs from the original concept of post-ischemic stunning.

Ischemic preconditioning is among the most consistent and powerful modes of reducing myocardial infarct size. Although several clinical studies have suggested that the human heart can be preconditioned, controversy exists in both the experimental and clinical literature as to whether the senescent heart can be preconditioned. The authors recently reported that older patients (> or = 60 years of age) in the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction-4 study appeared to benefit from a history of angina prior to acute myocardial infarction. This observation may lead to a clinical counterpart to successful preconditioning in the older heart.

Background The platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, although effective in reducing ischaemic complications of percutaneous coronary intervention. are used in few coronary stent implantation procedures. ESPRIT (Enhanced Suppression of the Platelet IIb/IIIa Receptor with Integrilin Therapy) is a randomised, placebo-controlled trial to assess whether a novel, double-bolus dose of eptifibatide could improve outcomes of patients undergoing coronary stenting.Methods We recruited 2064 patients undergoing stent implantation in a native coronary artery. Immediately before percutaneous coronary intervention, patients were randomly allocated to receive eptifibatide, given as two 180 mug/kg boluses 10 min apart and a continuous infusion of 2.0 mug/kg/min for 18-24 h, or placebo, in addition to aspirin, heparin, and a thienopyridine. The primary endpoint was the composite of death, myocardial infarction, urgent target vessel revascularisation, and thrombotic bailout glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor therapy within 48 h after randomisation. The key secondary endpoint was the composite of death, myocardial infarction, or urgent target vessel revascularisation at 30 days.Findings The trial was terminated early for efficacy. The primary endpoint was reduced from 10.5% (108 of 1024 patients on placebo [95% CI 8.7-12.4%]) to 6.6% (69 of 1040 [5.1-8.1%]) with treatment (p=0.0015). The key 30 day secondary endpoint was also reduced, from 10.5% (107 of 1024 patients on placebo [8.6-12.3%]) to 6.8% (71 of 1040 [5.3-8.4%]; p=0.0034). There was consistency in reduction of events across all components of the composite endpoint and among the major subgroups. Major bleeding was infrequent but arose more often with eptifibatide than placebo (1.3%, 13 of 1040 [0.7-2.1%]) vs 0.4%, 4 of 1024 [0.1-1.0%]; p=0.027).Interpretation Routine glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor pretreatment with eptifibatide substantially reduces ischaemic complications in coronary stent intervention and is better than a strategy of reserving treatment to the bailout situation.

There has been debate regarding the issue of whether ischemic preconditioning is effective in the aging and diseased heart. Therefore, we retrospectively analyzed the effect of preinfarction angina in patients less than versus greater than 60 years of age in the TIMI 4 study. Preinfarction angina was defined as an episode of typical angina pectoris that occurs prior to the time of index chest pain associated with the myocardial infarction itself. Patients who were 60 years and older had a higher rate of death and the combined endpoints of death, heart failure/shock, and/or reinfarction compared with younger patients. However, patients 60 years or older who had preinfarction angina had lower rates of the combined endpoints of death, heart failure/shock, and/or reinfarction (11%) compared with patients without angina (23%; P = 0.04). They also had lower creatine kinase (CK) values. Therefore, preinfarction angina was protective in patients 60 years or older in the TIMI 4 study.

Background —The timing of onset of angina before myocardial infarction in relation to outcome is unknown. Methods and Results —We prospectively determined the importance of the time of onset of preinfarction angina in relation to 30-day outcomes in the TIMI-9B study from standardized forms. Of the 3002 patients entered into the study, 425 reported angina before their myocardial infarction. Patients with angina onset within 24 hours of infarction had a lower 30-day cardiac event rate (mortality, recurrent myocardial infarction, heart failure, or shock) at 4% than those with onset of angina >24 hours (17%; P =.030). A history of any angina alone was not associated with reduced event rate. Peak creatine kinase levels tended to be lower in the group with angina within 24 hours. These benefits were not due to higher rates of use of antianginal medicines or aspirin and were not a consequence of differences in baseline characteristics or disease states (hypertension, hypercholesterolemia) among subgroups. Conclusions —These temporal observations are consistent with the concept of preconditioning by preinfarction angina but do not rule out other mechanisms.

Background Adverse cardiovascular events associated with thrombotic occlusion occur in 4% to 12.8% of patients after coronary angioplasty. Recently, potent antiplatelet agents have been used to reduce those thrombotic complications. Tirofiban is a highly selective, short-acting inhibitor of fibrinogen binding to platelet glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa that inhibits ex vivo platelet aggregation in response to a variety of agonists. Methods and Results The RESTORE trial (Randomized Efficacy Study of Tirofiban for Outcomes and REstenosis) was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of tirofiban in patients undergoing coronary interventions (balloon angioplasty or directional atherectomy) within 72 hours of presentation with an acute coronary syndrome (unstable angina pectoris or acute myocardial infarction). The end points of the study were death from any cause, myocardial infarction, coronary bypass surgery due to angioplasty failure or recurrent ischemia, repeat target-vessel angioplasty for recurrent ischemia, and insertion of a stent due to actual or threatened abrupt closure of the dilated artery, and the primary end point was a composite representing the occurrence of any of these events. The prespecified primary hypothesis of the study was that tirofiban, administered as a bolus of 10 μg/kg over a 3-minute period and followed by a 36-hour infusion of 0.15 μg · kg −1 · min −1 , would result in a reduction in the 30-day composite end point compared with placebo. Patients (n=2139) who were already receiving treatment with aspirin and heparin were randomized to receive tirofiban or placebo. The primary composite end point at 30 days was reduced from 12.2% in the placebo group to 10.3% in the tirofiban group, a 16% relative reduction ( P =.160). However, 2 days after angioplasty, the tirofiban group had a 38% relative reduction in the composite end point ( P ≤.005), and at 7 days there was a 27% relative reduction (P=.022), largely because of a reduction in nonfatal myocardial infarction and the need for repeat angioplasty. When repeat angioplasty or coronary artery bypass surgery procedures were included in the composite only if performed on an urgent or emergency basis, the composite 30-day event rates were 10.5% for the placebo group and 8.0% for the tirofiban group, a relative reduction of 24% ( P =.052). Major bleeding, including transfusion, was not significantly different between the two groups (3.7% in the placebo group and 5.3% in the tirofiban group; P =.096). When the Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) criteria for major bleeding were used, the incidence was 2.1% in the placebo group compared with 2.4% in the tirofiban group ( P =.662). Thrombocytopenia was similar in the placebo and tirofiban groups (0.9% for the placebo group versus 1.1% for the tirofiban group; P =.709). Conclusions In patients undergoing coronary angioplasty for acute coronary syndromes, tirofiban protects against early adverse cardiac events related to thrombotic closure. At 30 days, however, the reduction in adverse cardiac events was no longer statistically significant. The bleeding observed with tirofiban was not statistically different from that observed with placebo.

The use of bivariable selection (BVS) for selecting variables to be used in multivariable analysis is inappropriate despite its common usage in medical sciences. In BVS, if the statistical p value of a risk factor in bivariable analysis is greater than an arbitrary value (often p = 0.05), then this factor will not be allowed to compete for inclusion in multivariable analysis. This type of variable selection is inappropriate because the BVS method wrongly rejects potentially important variables when the relationship between an outcome and a risk factor is confounded by any confounder and when this confounder is not properly controlled. This article uses both hypothetical and actual data to show how a nonsignificant risk factor in bivariable analysis may actually be a significant risk factor in multivariable analysis if confounding is properly controlled. Furthermore, problems resulting from the automated forward and stepwise modeling with or without the presence of confounding are also addressed. To avoid these improper procedures and deficiencies, alternatives in performing multivariable analysis, including advantages and disadvantages of the BVS method and automated stepwise modeling, are reviewed and discussed.