article · Circulation
Background: After acute myocardial infarction (AMI), physicians typically address traditional coronary artery disease risk factors such as LDL-C, smoking, hypertension, and diabetes. However, residual inflammatory risk may be overlooked. Low-dose colchicine has been shown to reduce stroke and recurrent angina requiring revascularization in clinical trials, but real-world data is limited. This study aims to evaluate the use of colchicine post-AMI and its impact on cardiovascular outcomes. Methods: We utilized the TriNetX database (January 2006 to January 2023) to include all new AMI patients aged ≥18 years who underwent revascularization, comparing those started on colchicine post-AMI to those who were not. Baseline characteristics were assessed. At a 5-year follow-up, outcomes such as death, cardiac arrest, recurrent AMI or revascularization, heart failure (HF), stroke, new-onset atrial fibrillation (AF), and diarrhea were evaluated. Results: Out of 151,182 patients, 3,099 (2%) were started on colchicine after the index AMI. The mean ages were 64.7±12.1 years for the non-colchicine group and 65.6±11.8 years for the colchicine group. At 5 years, the colchicine group had a lower incidence of composite cardiovascular outcomes (56.3% vs. 82.6%, p < 0.01). Specifically, recurrent AMI/revascularization (12.4% vs. 71.2%, p <0.01), cardiac arrest (2.7% vs. 5.3%, p<0.01), and stroke (5.8% vs. 7.3%, p<0.01) were lower in the colchicine group. However, new-onset AF was higher in the colchicine group (26.8% vs. 21.8%, p<0.01). No significant differences were observed in death (14.3% vs. 15.1%, p=0.25), HF (38.1% vs. 37.7%, p=0.62), and diarrhea (8.5% vs. 8.2%, p=0.62). Propensity matching showed better cardiovascular outcomes for the colchicine group across all subgroups. Conclusion: Colchicine use post-AMI is associated with improved cardiovascular outcomes in a real-world setting, although its utilization remains low.
This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.
DOI: 10.1161/circ.150.suppl_1.4143525
Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.
Discussion
Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.
No discussion yet. Open the first thread.
New to MARATTO™? Create a free account.