Biomedical subjects

David Conen

Publications and source records attributed to David Conen.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2026

Colchicine to prevent cardiovascular events in thoracic surgery patients with or without coronary artery disease: a secondary analysis.

OBJECTIVES: This exploratory post hoc secondary analysis of the Colchicine for the Prevention of Perioperative Atrial Fibrillation (COP-AF) randomised controlled trial evaluated the association between coronary artery disease (CAD) and postoperative ischaemic outcomes after non-cardiac thoracic surgery and assessed whether colchicine had differential effects by CAD status. METHODS: Patients were randomised to colchicine 0.5 mg or placebo two times per day for 10 days. Follow-up was 14 days. The primary outcome was myocardial injury after non-cardiac surgery (MINS). A key secondary outcome was the composite of death, MINS and stroke. Cox proportional hazards models assessed the association between CAD and outcomes, with interaction terms to explore whether colchicine had differential effects by CAD status. RESULTS: Of 3209 patients enrolled, 331 (10.3%) had CAD. MINS occurred in 29.3% (n=97) and 18.2% (n=523) of patients with and without CAD, adjusted HR (aHR) 1.53 (95% CI 1.22 to 1.92; p<0.001). For colchicine versus placebo, the HR for MINS was 0.82 (95% CI 0.55 to 1.22) in CAD versus 0.91 (95% CI 0.77 to 1.08) in non-CAD patients (p for interaction=0.61). Death, stroke or MINS occurred in 30.2% (n=100) vs 18.6% (n=535), respectively (aHR 1.53, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.91; p<0.001). Colchicine HRs were 0.77 (95% CI 0.52 to 1.14) vs 0.91 (95% CI 0.76 to 1.07; p for interaction=0.45). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with CAD undergoing thoracic surgery had a higher risk of MINS and other ischaemic outcomes than non-CAD patients. There was no evidence that the effect of colchicine differed between patients with and without CAD; however, these analyses were limited by sample size and do not exclude modest differences between subgroups.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Rationale, design, and experiences from the vanguard phase of the bariatric surgery for the reduction of cardiovascular events (BRAVE) trial.

BACKGROUND: Observational studies suggest that metabolic/bariatric surgery (MBS) reduces mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with obesity, but adequately powered randomized trials (RCTs) are lacking. The Bariatric Surgery for the Reduction of Cardiovascular Events (BRAVE) trial was designed to address this evidence gap. METHODS: BRAVE is an investigator-initiated, multi-center, open-label RCT with blinded endpoint adjudication comparing MBS vs guideline-based medical weight management (MWM) in adults with obesity and high-risk cardiovascular disease (CVD). Eligible participants have a body-mass index ≥35 kg/m² or ≥30 kg/m² with type 2 diabetes or age >55 years, and prior myocardial infarction (MI), coronary intervention, heart failure (HF), atrial fibrillation (AF) with elevated CHA₂DS₂-VASc score, cerebrovascular disease, or peripheral arterial disease. Participants are randomized 1:1 to MBS (sleeve gastrectomy, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, or duodenal switch) or MWM, which includes dietary, behavioral, and pharmacologic therapies. The primary outcome is the composite of all-cause death, MI, stroke, HF events, coronary revascularization, AF hospitalization, and renal events. A vanguard phase of 200 participants was implemented to optimize recruitment and logistics. RESULTS: As of October 2025, 2,514 individuals have been screened from 17 centers in Canada, Brazil, Italy and Spain, with 444 entered MBS work-up, and 200 have been randomized. The randomized cohort (mean age 59.8 years; 37% female; mean BMI 44.0 kg m⁻²) has high burden of hypertension (82%), diabetes (45%), coronary artery disease (44%), HF (39%), and AF (48%). Recruitment barriers were identified and addressed through targeted education and enhanced patient engagement. CONCLUSIONS: BRAVE is the first large RCT evaluating whether MBS safely reduces major cardiovascular events compared with medical therapy in high-risk patients with obesity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05531474.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Reliability of resting heart rate measurements in atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Heart rate (HR) control in atrial fibrillation (AF) is commonly guided by resting HR measurements, usually with 12‑lead ECG or in-office pulse palpation. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to assess the reliability of resting HR measurements in AF patients with long-term ambulatory ECG and activity monitoring. METHODS: We included patients who had recorded a full-disclosure ambulatory ECG with a mobile cardiac telemetry device equipped with an accelerometer (PocketECG, MEDICALgorithmics, Poland), with at least 95% AF. Resting HR samples (≤20 per individual/day) were collected as 10-s daytime (8 am to 8 pm) measurements after ≥10 min of rest. These samples were compared to each individual's mean daytime resting HR. RESULTS: In 832 patients (median age 77 (interquartile range (IQR) 69-83) years, 42% women) with a median registration duration of 13 days (IQR 7-22), the population mean daytime resting HR was 85 (±15) beats per minute (bpm). A single resting HR differed from the mean daytime resting HR by a mean of ±10.4% (IQR 3.6-14.4%). When the mean daytime resting HR was ≥110 bpm, 29% of resting HR samples were < 110 bpm, and when the mean daytime resting HR was 80-109 bpm,11% of samples were ≥ 110 bpm. Resting HR measurement variability decreased to 5.3% (IQR 1.9-7.5%) when four resting HR samples were averaged. CONCLUSION: In patients with AF, a single resting HR measurement often differs substantially from the mean daytime resting HR. When a precise measurement is clinically relevant, repeated resting HR sampling or ambulatory monitoring can address this measurement imprecision.

Humans↗