Growing evidence associates blood pressure (BP) variability with cardiovascular events in hypertensive patients. Here we tested the existence of a relationship between awake BP variability and target-organ damage in subjects referred for suspected hypertension. Systolic and diastolic BP variability were assessed as the standard deviation of the mean out of 24-hour, awake and asleep BP recordings in 180 untreated subjects, referred for suspected hypertension. Measurements were done at 15-minute intervals during daytime and 30-minute intervals during nighttime. Left ventricular mass index (by echo), intima-media thickness (by carotid ultrasonography), and microalbuminuria were assessed as indices of cardiac, vascular and renal damage, respectively. Intima-media thickness and left ventricular mass index progressively increased across tertiles of awake systolic BP variability ( P for trend=0.001 and 0.003, respectively). Conversely, microalbuminuria was similar in the 3 tertiles ( P =NS). Multivariable analysis identified age ( P =0.0001), awake systolic BP ( P =0.001), awake systolic BP variability ( P =0.015) and diastolic BP load ( P =0.01) as independent predictors of intima-media thickness; age ( P =0.0001), male sex ( P =0.012), awake systolic ( P =0.0001) and diastolic BP ( P =0.035), and awake systolic BP variability ( P =0.028) as independent predictors of left ventricular mass index; awake systolic BP variability ( P =0.01) and diastolic BP load ( P =0.01) as independent predictors of microalbuminuria. Therefore, awake systolic BP variability by non-invasive ambulatory BP monitoring correlates with sub-clinical target-organ damage, independent of mean BP levels. Such relationship, found in subjects referred for recently suspected hypertension, likely appears early in the natural history of hypertension.

The use of non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) instead of vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and coexisting valvular heart disease (VHD) is of substantial interest. This study explored outcomes in patients with AF with and without VHD in the ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 (Effective Anticoagulation with factor Xa Next Generation in Atrial Fibrillation-Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction 48) trial, comparing edoxaban with warfarin. Valvular heart disease was defined as history or baseline echocardiography evidence of at least moderate aortic/mitral regurgitation, aortic stenosis, or prior valve surgery (bioprosthesis replacement, valve repair, valvuloplasty). Patients with moderate to severe mitral stenosis or mechanical heart valves were excluded from the trial. Comparisons were made of rates of stroke/systemic embolic event (SSEE), major bleeding, additional efficacy and safety outcomes, as well as net clinical outcomes, in patients with or without VHD treated with edoxaban or warfarin, using adjusted Cox proportional hazards. After adjustment for multiple baseline characteristics, compared with no-VHD patients (n = 18,222), VHD patients (n = 2,824) had a similar rate of SSEE but higher rates of death (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.40; 95% confidence interval [CI]:1.26 to 1.56; p <0.001), major adverse cardiovascular events (HR: 1.29; 95% CI: 1.16 to 1.43; p <0.001), and major bleeding (HR: 1.21; 95% CI: 1.03 to 1.42; p = 0.02). Higher-dose edoxaban regimen had efficacy similar to warfarin in the presence of VHD (for SSEE, HR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.44 to 1.07, in patients with VHD, and HR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.77 to 1.07, in patients without VHD; p interaction [pint] = 0.26; and for less major bleeding, HR: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.53 to 1.02 in patients with VHD, and HR: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.71 to 0.94, in patients with no VHD; pint = 0.57). The presence of VHD increased the risk of death, major adverse cardiovascular events, and major bleeding but did not affect the relative efficacy or safety of higher-dose edoxaban versus warfarin in AF. (Global Study to Assess the Safety and Effectiveness of Edoxaban (DU-176b) vs. Standard Practice of Dosing With Warfarin in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation [ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48]; NCT00781391).

Valvular heart disease (VHD) and atrial fibrillation (AF) often coexist. Phase III trials comparing non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) with warfarin excluded patients with moderate/severe mitral stenosis or mechanical heart valves, but variably included patients with other VHD and valve surgeries. This study aimed to determine relative safety and efficacy of NOACs in patients with VHD. We performed a meta-analysis of the 4 phase III AF trials of the currently available NOACs versus warfarin in patients with coexisting VHD to assess pooled estimates of relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for stroke/systemic embolic events (SSEE), major bleeding, intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), and all-cause death. Compared with warfarin, the rate of SSEE in patients treated with higher-dose NOACs was lower and consistent among 13,585 patients with (RR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.58 to 0.86) or 58,098 without VHD (RR: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.75 to 0.95; interaction p = 0.13). Major bleeding in patients on higher-dose NOACs versus warfarin was similar and consistent among patients with (RR: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.68 to 1.27) or without VHD (RR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.70 to 1.02; interaction p = 0.63 for VHD/no-VHD difference). Intracranial hemorrhage was lower with higher-dose NOACs than with warfarin irrespective of VHD (RR: 0.47; 95% CI: 0.24 to 0.93, and 0.49; 95% CI: 0.41 to 059, respectively; interaction p = 0.91). No protective effect of higher-dose NOACs in preventing all-cause death seemed to be present in patients with VHD versus without VHD (RR:1.01; 95% CI: 0.90 to 1.14 vs. RR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.82 to 0.94, respectively; interaction p = 0.03). High-dose NOACs provide overall efficacy and safety similar in AF patients with or without VHD.

Diabetes mellitus is an important risk factor for a first cardiovascular event and for worse outcomes after a cardiovascular event has occurred. This situation might be caused, at least in part, by the prothrombotic status observed in patients with diabetes. Therefore, contemporary antithrombotic strategies, including more potent agents or drug combinations, might provide greater clinical benefit in patients with diabetes than in those without diabetes. In this Consensus Statement, our Working Group explores the mechanisms of platelet and coagulation activity, the current debate on antiplatelet therapy in primary cardiovascular disease prevention, and the benefit of various antithrombotic approaches in secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease in patients with diabetes. While acknowledging that current data are often derived from underpowered, observational studies or subgroup analyses of larger trials, we propose antithrombotic strategies for patients with diabetes in various cardiovascular settings (primary prevention, stable coronary artery disease, acute coronary syndromes, ischaemic stroke and transient ischaemic attack, peripheral artery disease, atrial fibrillation, and venous thromboembolism). Finally, we summarize the improvements in cardiovascular outcomes observed with the latest glucose-lowering drugs, and on the basis of the available evidence, we expand and integrate current guideline recommendations on antithrombotic strategies in patients with diabetes for both primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease.