Vital capacity and COPD: the swedish CardioPulmonary bioImage study (sCaPIs)

Vital capacity and COPD: the swedish CardioPulmonary bioImage study (sCaPIs)

Abstract

Background
Spirometric diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is based on the ratio of forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV )/vital capacity (VC), either as a fixed value <0.7 or below the lower limit of normal (LLN). Forced vital capacity (FVC) is a proxy for VC. The first aim was to compare the use of FVC and VC, assessed as the highest value of FVC or slow vital capacity (SVC), when assessing the FEV1/VC ratio in a general population setting. The second aim was to evaluate the characteristics of subjects with COPD who obtained a higher SVC than FVC.


Methods
Subjects (n=1,050) aged 50–64 years were investigated with FEV1, FVC, and SVC after bronchodilation. Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) COPDFVC was defined as FEV1/FVC ,0.7, GOLDCOPDVC as FEV1/VC ,0.7 using the maximum value of FVC or SVC, LLNCOPDFVC as FEV1/FVC below the LLN, and LLNCOPDVC as FEV1/VC below the LLN using the maximum value of FVC or SVC.


Results

Prevalence of GOLDCOPD FVC was 10.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] 8.2–12.0) and the prevalence of LLNCOPD FVC was 9.5% (95% CI 7.8–11.4). When estimates were based on VC, the prevalence became higher; 16.4% (95% CI 14.3–18.9) and 15.6% (95% CI 13.5–17.9) for GOLDCOPD VC and LLNCOPD VC, respectively. The group of additional subjects classified as having COPD based on VC, had lower FEV 1, more wheeze and higher residual volume
compared to subjects without any COPD.


Conclusions
The prevalence of COPD was significantly higher when the ratio FEV1 /VC was calculated using the highest value of SVC or FVC compared with using FVC only. Subjects classified as having COPD when using the VC concept were more obstructive and with indica- tions of air trapping. Hence, the use of only FVC when assessing airflow limitation may result in a considerable under diagnosis of subjects with mild COPD.

Ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in elective percutaneous coronary intervention (ALPHEUS): a randomised, open-label, phase 3b trial

Summary

Background
Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)-related myonecrosis is frequent and can affect the long-term prognosis of patients. To our knowledge, ticagrelor has not been evaluated in elective PCI and could reduce periprocedural ischaemic complications compared with clopidogrel, the currently recommended treatment. The aim of the ALPHEUS study was to examine if ticagrelor was superior to clopidogrel in reducing periprocedural myocardial necrosis in stable coronary patients undergoing high-risk elective PCI.


Methods
The ALPHEUS study, a phase 3b, randomised, open-label trial, was done at 49 hospitals in France and Czech Republic. Patients with stable coronary artery disease were eligible for the study if they had an indication for PCI and at least one high-risk characteristic. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either ticagrelor (180 mg loading dose, 90 mg twice daily thereafter for 30 days) or clopidogrel (300–600 mg loading dose, 75 mg daily thereafter for 30 days) by use of an interactive web response system, and stratified by centre. The primary outcome was a composite of PCI-related type 4 (a or b) myocardial infarction or major myocardial injury and the primary safety outcome was major bleeding, both of which were evaluated within 48 h of PCI (or at hospital discharge if earlier). The primary analysis was based on all events that occurred in the intention-to-treat population. The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02617290.


Findings

Between Jan 9, 2017, and May 28, 2020, 1910 patients were randomly assigned at 49 sites, 956 to the ticagrelor group and 954 to the clopidogrel group. 15 patients were excluded from the ticagrelor group and 12 from the clopidogrel group. At 48 h, the primary outcome was observed in 334 (35%) of 941 patients in the ticagrelor group and 341 (36%) of 942 patients in the clopidogrel group (odds ratio [OR] 0·97, 95% CI 0·80–1·17; p=0·75). The primary safety outcome did not differ between the two groups, but minor bleeding events were more frequently observed with ticagrelor than clopidogrel at 30 days (105 [11%] of 941 patients in the ticagrelor group vs 71 [8%] of 942 patients in the clopidogrel group; OR 1·54, 95% CI 1·12–2·11; p=0·0070).


Interpretation
Ticagrelor was not superior to clopidogrel in reducing periprocedural myocardial necrosis after elective PCI and did not cause an increase in major bleeding, but did increase the rate of minor bleeding at 30 days. These results support the use of clopidogrel as the standard of care for elective PCI.

Partenaires