| 1. |
- Erlinge, D., et al.
(författare)
-
Bivalirudin versus Heparin Monotherapy in Myocardial Infarction
- 2017
-
Ingår i: New England Journal of Medicine. - : Massachusetts Medical Society. - 0028-4793 .- 1533-4406. ; 377:12, s. 1132-1142
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background The comparative efficacy of various anticoagulation strategies has not been clearly established in patients with acute myocardial infarction who are undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) according to current practice, which includes the use of radial-artery access for PCI and administration of potent P2Y12 inhibitors without the planned use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors. Methods In this multicenter, randomized, registry-based, open-label clinical trial, we enrolled patients with either ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) or non-STEMI (NSTEMI) who were undergoing PCI and receiving treatment with a potent P2Y12 inhibitor (ticagrelor, prasugrel, or cangrelor) without the planned use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors. The patients were randomly assigned to receive bivalirudin or heparin during PCI, which was performed predominantly with the use of radial-artery access. The primary end point was a composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, or major bleeding during 180 days of follow-up. Results A total of 6006 patients (3005 with STEMI and 3001 with NSTEMI) were enrolled in the trial. At 180 days, a primary end-point event had occurred in 12.3% of the patients (369 of 3004) in the bivalirudin group and in 12.8% (383 of 3002) in the heparin group (hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83 to 1.10; P=0.54). The results were consistent between patients with STEMI and those with NSTEMI and across other major subgroups. Myocardial infarction occurred in 2.0% of the patients in the bivalirudin group and in 2.4% in the heparin group (hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.60 to 1.19; P=0.33), major bleeding in 8.6% and 8.6%, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.19; P=0.98), definite stent thrombosis in 0.4% and 0.7%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.27 to 1.10; P=0.09), and death in 2.9% and 2.8%, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.41; P=0.76). Conclusions Among patients undergoing PCI for myocardial infarction, the rate of the composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, or major bleeding was not lower among those who received bivalirudin than among those who received heparin monotherapy. (Funded by the Swedish Heart-Lung Foundation and others; VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART ClinicalTrialsRegister.eu number, 2012-005260-10 ; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02311231 .).
|
|
| 2. |
- James, Stefan, 1964-, et al.
(författare)
-
Effect of Oxygen Therapy on Cardiovascular Outcomes in Relation to Baseline Oxygen Saturation.
- 2019
-
Ingår i: JACC. - : Elsevier BV. - 1936-8798 .- 1876-7605.
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine the effect of supplemental oxygen in patients with myocardial infarction (MI) on the composite of all-cause death, rehospitalization with MI, or heart failure related to baseline oxygen saturation. A secondary objective was to investigate outcomes in patients developing hypoxemia.BACKGROUND: In the DETO2X-AMI (Determination of the Role of Oxygen in Suspected Acute Myocardial Infarction) trial, 6,629 normoxemic patients with suspected MI were randomized to oxygen at 6 l/min for 6 to 12 hours or ambient air.METHODS: The study population of 5,010 patients with confirmed MI was divided by baseline oxygen saturation into a low-normal (90% to 94%) and a high-normal (95% to 100%) cohort. Outcomes are reported within 1 year. To increase power, all follow-up time (between 1 and 4 years) was included post hoc, and interaction analyses were performed with oxygen saturation as a continuous covariate.RESULTS: The composite endpoint of all-cause death, rehospitalization with MI, or heart failure occurred significantly more often in patients in the low-normal cohort (17.3%) compared with those in the high-normal cohort (9.5%) (p < 0.001), and most often in patients developing hypoxemia (23.6%). Oxygen therapy compared with ambient air was not associated with improved outcomes regardless of baseline oxygen saturation (interaction p values: composite endpoint, p = 0.79; all-cause death, p = 0.33; rehospitalization with MI, p = 0.86; hospitalization for heart failure, p = 0.35).CONCLUSIONS: Irrespective of oxygen saturation at baseline, we found no clinically relevant beneficial effect of routine oxygen therapy in normoxemic patients with MI regarding cardiovascular outcomes. Low-normal baseline oxygen saturation or development of hypoxemia was identified as an independent marker of poor prognosis. (An Efficacy and Outcome Study of Supplemental Oxygen Treatment in Patients With Suspected Myocardial Infarction; NCT01787110).
|
|
| 3. |
- Omerovic, Elmir, et al.
(författare)
-
Bivalirudin versus heparin in ST and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction-Outcomes at two years
- 2024
-
Ingår i: Cardiovascular Revascularization Medicine. - : Elsevier. - 1553-8389 .- 1878-0938.
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: The registry-based randomized VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART trial (NCT02311231) compared bivalirudin vs. heparin in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for myocardial infarction (MI). It showed no difference in the composite primary endpoint of death, MI, or major bleeding at 180 days. Here, we report outcomes at two years.METHODS: Analysis of primary and secondary endpoints at two years of follow-up was prespecified in the study protocol. We report the study results for the extended follow-up time here.RESULTS: In total, 6006 patients were enrolled, 3005 with ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) and 3001 with Non-STEMI (NSTEMI), representing 70 % of all eligible patients with these diagnoses during the study. The primary endpoint occurred in 14.0 % (421 of 3004) in the bivalirudin group compared with 14.3 % (429 of 3002) in the heparin group (hazard ratio [HR] 0.97; 95 % confidence interval [CI], 0.85-1.11; P = 0.70) at one year and in 16.7 % (503 of 3004) compared with 17.1 % (514 of 3002), (HR 0.97; 95 % CI, 0.96-1.10; P = 0.66) at two years. The results were consistent in patients with STEMI and NSTEMI and across major subgroups.CONCLUSIONS: Until the two-year follow-up, there were no differences in endpoints between patients with MI undergoing PCI and allocated to bivalirudin compared with those allocated to heparin.REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT02311231.
|
|
| 4. |
- Thim, Troels, et al.
(författare)
-
Agreement between iFR and FFR in staged follow-up evaluation of non-culprit stenoses after ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (iSTEMI substudy)
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Journal of the American College of Cardiology. - : Elsevier. - 0735-1097 .- 1558-3597. ; 70:18, s. B91-B91
-
Tidskriftsartikel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Classification agreement between instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) and fractional flow reserve (FFR) is approximately 80% in stable patients. It was recently shown that FFR guidance, as compared to iFR guidance, was associated with a higher risk of subsequent revascularization among patients with non- ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. The classification agreement, and the impact of time interval, between iFR and FFR in the assessment of non-culprit lesions after recent ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) has not been described.METHODS: The iSTEMI study assessed agreement between iFR across non-culprit stenoses at the index procedure in patients with STEMI versus iFR and FFR at a follow-up angiography. The interval between STEMI and follow-up evaluation was at the discretion of the treating physicians. In this substudy, classification agreement between follow-up iFR and follow-up FFR was evaluated within groups defined according to follow-up time point after STEMI, i.e., <5days, 5-15days, and16 days. iFR<0.90 and FFR0.80 were considered hemodynamically significant.RESULTS: Among 120 patients with 157 non-culprit stenoses, follow-up iFR and FFR was available in 112 patients with 146 non-culprit stenoses. Median follow-up interval was 16 days (IQR 5-32 days). The overall classification agreement was 84%. With follow-up<5days after STEMI, there was classification agreement between iFR and FFR was in 27 of 35 (77%) non-culprit stenoses. With follow-up 5-15 after STEMI, there was classification agreement in 33 of 38 (86%) non-culprit stenoses. With follow-up 16 days after STEMI, there was classification agreement in 63 of 73 (86%) non-culprit stenoses. The observed differences in these proportions over time after STEMI were not statistically significant (<5versus5days, p¼0.19).CONCLUSION: Overall, classification agreement between iFR and FFR in the assessment of non-culprit lesions after STEMI was comparable to that observed in stable patients. Time interval between STEMI and follow-up evaluation may impact agreement between follow-up iFR and follow-up FFR, although the observed differences were not statistically significant.
|
|
| 5. |
- Thim, Troels, et al.
(författare)
-
Agreement between nonculprit stenosis follow-up iFR and FFR after STEMI (iSTEMI substudy)
- 2020
-
Ingår i: BMC Research Notes. - : BioMed Central. - 1756-0500. ; 13:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVE: To evaluate agreement between instantaneous wave free ratio (iFR) and fractional flow reserve (FFR) for the functional assessment of nonculprit coronary stenoses at staged follow-up after ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).RESULTS: We measured iFR and FFR at staged follow-up in 112 STEMI patients with 146 nonculprit stenoses. Median interval between STEMI and follow-up was 16 (interquartile range 5-32) days. Agreement between iFR and FFR was 77% < 5 days after STEMI and 86% after ≥ 5 days (p = 0.19). Among cases with disagreement, the proportion of cases with hemodynamically significant iFR and non-significant FFR were different when assessed < 5 days (5 in 8, 63%) versus ≥ 5 days (3 in 15, 20%) after STEMI (p = 0.04). Overall classification agreement between iFR and FFR was comparable to that observed in stable patients. Time interval between STEMI and follow-up evaluation may impact agreement between iFR and FFR.
|
|
| 6. |
- Thim, Troels, et al.
(författare)
-
Instantaneous wave-free ratio cutoff values for nonculprit stenosis classification in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (an iSTEMI substudy)
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Coronary Artery Disease. - : Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. - 0954-6928 .- 1473-5830. ; 31:5, s. 411-416
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objectives: The instantaneous wave-free ratio cutoff value of <0.90 for hemodynamic significance of coronary stenoses has been validated in stable patients. We examined different cutoff values in the evaluation of nonculprit stenoses in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.Methods: We measured instantaneous wave-free ratio across nonculprit stenoses in the acute setting and at follow-up in 120 patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and 157 nonculprit stenoses, of which, 113 patients with 147 nonculprit stenoses completed follow-up.Results: The prevalence of nonculprit stenosis hemodynamic significance was 52% in the acute setting and 41% at follow-up. With follow-up, instantaneous wave-free ratio as reference, acute instantaneous wave-free ratio >0.90 had a negative predictive value of 89%. Acute instantaneous wave-free ratio <0.90 had a positive predictive value of 68%. Acute instantaneous wave-free ratio >0.93 had a negative predictive value of 100%. Acute instantaneous wave-free ratio <0.86 and <0.83 had positive predictive values of 71 and 77%. Using acute instantaneous wave-free ratio <0.90 as cutoff for hemodynamic significance yielded the highest degree of classification agreement between acute and follow-up instantaneous wave-free ratio.Conclusions: In patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, acute instantaneous wave-free ratio with the cutoff values <0.90 for hemodynamic significance appears optimal in the evaluation of nonculprit stenoses and has a high negative predictive value and a moderate positive predictive value.
|
|
| 7. |
- Thim, Troels, et al.
(författare)
-
Nonculprit Stenosis Evaluation Using Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio in Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction
- 2017
-
Ingår i: JACC. - New York, USA : Elsevier. - 1936-8798 .- 1876-7605. ; 10:24, s. 2528-2535
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to examine the level of agreement between acute instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) measured across nonculprit stenoses in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and iFR measured at a staged follow-up procedure.BACKGROUND: Acute full revascularization of nonculprit stenoses in STEMI is debated and currently guided by angiography. Acute functional assessment of nonculprit stenoses may be considered.METHODS: Immediately after successful primary culprit intervention for STEMI, nonculprit coronary stenoses were evaluated with iFR and left untreated. Follow-up evaluation with iFR was performed at a later stage. iFR <0.90 was considered hemodynamically significant.RESULTS: One hundred twenty patients with 157 nonculprit lesions were included. Median acute iFR was 0.89 (interquartile range: 0.82 to 0.94; n = 156), and median follow-up iFR was 0.91 (interquartile range [IQR]: 0.86 to 0.96; n = 147). Classification agreement was 78% between acute and follow-up iFR. The negative predictive value of acute iFR was 89%. Median time from acute to follow-up evaluation was 16 days (IQR: 5 to 32 days). With follow-up within 5 days after STEMI, no difference was observed between acute and follow-up iFR, and classification agreement was 89%. With follow-up ≥16 days after STEMI, acute iFR was lower than follow-up iFR, and classification agreement was 70%.CONCLUSIONS: Acute iFR evaluation appeared valid for ruling out significant nonculprit stenoses in patients with STEMI undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention. The time interval from acute to follow-up iFR influenced classification agreement, suggesting that inherent physiological disarrangements during STEMI may contribute to classification disagreement.
|
|
