| 1. |
- Holm, Niels R, et al.
(författare)
-
OCT or Angiography Guidance for PCI in Complex Bifurcation Lesions.
- 2023
-
Ingår i: The New England journal of medicine. - 1533-4406. ; 389:16, s. 1477-1487
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Imaging-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is associated with better clinical outcomes than angiography-guided PCI. Whether routine optical coherence tomography (OCT) guidance in PCI of lesions involving coronary-artery branch points (bifurcations) improves clinical outcomes as compared with angiographic guidance is uncertain.We conducted a multicenter, randomized, open-label trial at 38 centers in Europe. Patients with a clinical indication for PCI and a complex bifurcation lesion identified by means of coronary angiography were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to OCT-guided PCI or angiography-guided PCI. The primary end point was a composite of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), defined as death from a cardiac cause, target-lesion myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target-lesion revascularization at a median follow-up of 2 years.We assigned 1201 patients to OCT-guided PCI (600 patients) or angiography-guided PCI (601 patients). A total of 111 patients (18.5%) in the OCT-guided PCI group and 116 (19.3%) in the angiography-guided PCI group had a bifurcation lesion involving the left main coronary artery. At 2 years, a primary end-point event had occurred in 59 patients (10.1%) in the OCT-guided PCI group and in 83 patients (14.1%) in the angiography-guided PCI group (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.50 to 0.98; P=0.035). Procedure-related complications occurred in 41 patients (6.8%) in the OCT-guided PCI group and 34 patients (5.7%) in the angiography-guided PCI group.Among patients with complex coronary-artery bifurcation lesions, OCT-guided PCI was associated with a lower incidence of MACE at 2 years than angiography-guided PCI. (Funded by Abbott Vascular and others; OCTOBER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03171311.).
|
|
| 2. |
- Escaned, Javier, et al.
(författare)
-
Safety of the Deferral of Coronary Revascularization on the Basis of Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio and Fractional Flow Reserve Measurements in Stable Coronary Artery Disease and Acute Coronary Syndromes
- 2018
-
Ingår i: JACC. - : Elsevier. - 1936-8798 .- 1876-7605. ; 11:15, s. 1437-1449
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical outcomes of patients deferred from coronary revascularization on the basis of instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) or fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurements in stable angina pectoris (SAP) and acute coronary syndromes (ACS). BACKGROUND Assessment of coronary stenosis severity with pressure guidewires is recommended to determine the need for myocardial revascularization. METHODS The safety of deferral of coronary revascularization in the pooled per-protocol population (n = 4,486) of the DEFINE-FLAIR (Functional Lesion Assessment of Intermediate Stenosis to Guide Revascularisation) and iFR-SWEDEHEART (Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio Versus Fractional Flow Reserve in Patients With Stable Angina Pectoris or Acute Coronary Syndrome) randomized clinical trials was investigated. Patients were stratified according to revascularization decision making on the basis of iFR or FFR and to clinical presentation (SAP or ACS). The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE), defined as the composite of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization at 1 year. RESULTS Coronary revascularization was deferred in 2,130 patients. Deferral was performed in 1,117 patients (50%) in the iFR group and 1,013 patients (45%) in the FFR group (p < 0.01). At 1 year, the MACE rate in the deferred population was similar between the iFR and FFR groups (4.12% vs. 4.05%; fully adjusted hazard ratio: 1.13; 95% confidence interval: 0.72 to 1.79; p = 0.60). A clinical presentation with ACS was associated with a higher MACE rate compared with SAP in deferred patients (5.91% vs. 3.64% in ACS and SAP, respectively; fully adjusted hazard ratio: 0.61 in favor of SAP; 95% confidence interval: 0.38 to 0.99; p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS Overall, deferral of revascularization is equally safe with both iFR and FFR, with a low MACE rate of about 4%. Lesions were more frequently deferred when iFR was used to assess physiological significance. In deferred patients presenting with ACS, the event rate was significantly increased compared with SAP at 1 year. (C) 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier on behalf of the American College of Cardiology Foundation.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Akhtar, Zubair, et al.
(författare)
-
Optimal timing of influenza vaccination among patients with acute myocardial infarction - Findings from the IAMI trial
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Vaccine. - : Elsevier. - 0264-410X .- 1873-2518. ; 41:48, s. 7159-7165
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Influenza vaccination reduces the risk of adverse cardiovascular events. The IAMI trial randomly assigned 2571 patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) to receive influenza vaccine or saline placebo during their index hospital admission. It was conducted at 30 centers in 8 countries from October 1, 2016 to March 1, 2020. In this post-hoc exploratory sub-study, we compare the trial outcomes in patients receiving early season vaccination (n = 1188) and late season vaccination (n = 1344). The primary endpoint was the composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stent thrombosis at 12 months. The cumulative incidence of the primary and key secondary endpoints by randomized treatment and early or late vaccination was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. In the early vaccinated group, the primary composite endpoint occurred in 36 participants (6.0%) assigned to influenza vaccine and 49 (8.4%) assigned to placebo (HR 0.69; 95% CI 0.45 to 1.07), compared to 31 participants (4.7%) assigned to influenza vaccine and 42 (6.2%) assigned to placebo (HR 0.74; 95% CI 0.47 to 1.18) in the late vaccinated group (P = 0.848 for interaction on HR scale at 1 year). We observed similar estimates for the key secondary endpoints of all-cause death and CV death. There was no statistically significant difference in vaccine effectiveness against adverse cardiovascular events by timing of vaccination. The effect of vaccination on all-cause death at one year was more pronounced in the group receiving early vaccination (HR 0.50; 95% CI, 0.29 to 0.86) compared late vaccination group (HR 0.75; 35% CI, 0.40 to 1.40) but there was no statistically significant difference between these groups (Interaction P = 0.335). In conclusion, there is insufficient evidence from the trial to establish whether there is a difference in efficacy between early and late vaccination but regardless of vaccination timing we strongly recommend influenza vaccination in all patients with cardiovascular diseases.
|
|
| 5. |
- Andell, Pontus, et al.
(författare)
-
Reclassification of Treatment Strategy With Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio and Fractional Flow Reserve : A Substudy From the iFR-SWEDEHEART Trial
- 2018
-
Ingår i: JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions. - : Elsevier BV. - 1936-8798 .- 1876-7605. ; 11:20, s. 2084-2094
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objectives: The authors sought to compare reclassification of treatment strategy following instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) and fractional flow reserve (FFR). Background: iFR was noninferior to FFR in 2 large randomized controlled trials in guiding coronary revascularization. Reclassification of treatment strategy by FFR is well-studied, but similar reports on iFR are lacking. Methods: The iFR-SWEDEHEART (Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio Versus Fractional Flow Reserve in Patients With Stable Angina Pectoris or Acute Coronary Syndrome Trial) study randomized 2,037 participants with stable angina or acute coronary syndrome to treatment guided by iFR or FFR. Interventionalists entered the preferred treatment (optimal medical therapy [OMT], percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI], or coronary artery bypass grafting [CABG]) on the basis of coronary angiograms, and the final treatment decision was mandated by the iFR/FFR measurements. Results: In the iFR/FFR (n = 1,009/n = 1,004) populations, angiogram-based treatment approaches were similar (p = 0.50) with respect to OMT (38%/35%), PCI of 1 (37%/39%), 2 (15%/16%), and 3 vessels (2%/2%) and CABG (8%/8%). iFR and FFR reclassified 40% and 41% of patients, respectively (p = 0.78). The majority of reclassifications were conversion of PCI to OMT in both the iFR/FFR groups (31.4%/29.0%). Reclassification increased with increasing number of lesions evaluated (odds ratio per evaluated lesion for FFR: 1.46 [95% confidence interval: 1.22 to 1.76] vs. iFR 1.37 [95% confidence interval: 1.18 to 1.59]). Reclassification rates for patients with 1, 2, and 3 assessed vessels were 36%, 52%, and 53% (p < 0.01). Conclusions: Reclassification of treatment strategy of intermediate lesions was common and occurred in 40% of patients with iFR or FFR. The most frequent reclassification was conversion from PCI to OMT regardless of physiology modality. Irrespective of the physiological index reclassification of angiogram-based treatment strategy increased with the number of lesions evaluated.
|
|
| 6. |
- Berntorp, Karolina, et al.
(författare)
-
Clinical Outcome of Revascularization Deferral With Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio and Fractional Flow Reserve : A 5-Year Follow-Up Substudy From the iFR-SWEDEHEART Trial
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Journal of the American Heart Association. - 2047-9980. ; 12:3, s. 028423-028423
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background Although physiology-based assessment of coronary artery stenosis using instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) and fractional flow reserve (FFR) are established methods of guiding coronary revascularization, its clinical outcome in long-term deferral needs further evaluation, especially with acute coronary syndrome as a clinical presentation. The aim was to evaluate the long-term clinical outcome of deferral of revascularization based on iFR or FFR. Methods and Results This is a substudy of the iFR-SWEDEHEART (Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio Versus Fractional Flow Reserve in Patients With Stable Angina Pectoris or Acute Coronary Syndrome) randomized clinical trial, where patients deferred from revascularization from each study arm were selected. Nine hundred eight patients deferred from coronary revascularization with iFR (n=473) and FFR (n=435) were followed for 5 years. The national quality registry, SWEDEHEART (Swedish Web-System for Enhancement and Development of Evidence-Based Care in Heart Disease Evaluated According to Recommended Therapies), was used for patient data collection and clinical follow-up. The end point was major adverse cardiac events and their individual components all-cause death, cardiovascular death, noncardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and unplanned revascularization. No significant difference was found in major adverse cardiac events (iFR 18.6% versus FFR 16.8%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.08 [95% CI, 0.79-1.48]; P=0.63) or their individual components. Conclusions No differences in clinical outcomes after 5-year follow-up were noted when comparing iFR versus FFR as methods for deferral of coronary revascularization in patients presenting with stable angina pectoris and acute coronary syndrome. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02166736.
|
|
| 7. |
- Berntorp, Karolina, et al.
(författare)
-
Instantaneous wave-free ratio compared with fractional flow reserve in PCI : A cost-minimization analysis
- 2021
-
Ingår i: International Journal of Cardiology. - : Hindawi Publishing Corporation. - 0167-5273 .- 1874-1754. ; 344, s. 54-59
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Coronary physiology is a routine diagnostic tool when assessing whether coronary revascularization is indicated. The iFR-SWEDEHEART trial demonstrated similar clinical outcomes when using instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) or fractional flow reserve (FFR) to guide revascularization. The objective of this analysis was to assess a cost-minimization analysis of iFR-guided compared with FFR-guided revascularization.METHODS: In this cost-minimization analysis we used a decision-tree model from a healthcare perspective with a time-horizon of one year to estimate the cost difference between iFR and FFR in a Nordic setting and a United States (US) setting. Treatment pathways and health care utilizations were constructed from the iFR-SWEDEHEART trial. Unit cost for revascularization and myocardial infarction in the Nordic setting and US setting were derived from the Nordic diagnosis-related group versus Medicare cost data. Unit cost of intravenous adenosine administration and cost per stent placed were based on the average costs from the enrolled centers in the iFR-SWEDEHEART trial. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were carried out to test the robustness of the result.RESULTS: The cost-minimization analysis demonstrated a cost saving per patient of $681 (95% CI: $641 - $723) in the Nordic setting and $1024 (95% CI: $934 - $1114) in the US setting, when using iFR-guided compared with FFR-guided revascularization. The results were not sensitive to changes in uncertain parameters or assumptions.CONCLUSIONS: IFR-guided revascularization is associated with significant savings in cost compared with FFR-guided revascularization.
|
|
| 8. |
- Christiansen, Evald H, et al.
(författare)
-
Instantaneous Wave-free Ratio versus Fractional Flow Reserve to Guide PCI.
- 2017
-
Ingår i: The New England journal of medicine. - : Massachussetts Medical Society. - 1533-4406 .- 0028-4793. ; 376:19, s. 1813-1823
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) is an index used to assess the severity of coronary-artery stenosis. The index has been tested against fractional flow reserve (FFR) in small trials, and the two measures have been found to have similar diagnostic accuracy. However, studies of clinical outcomes associated with the use of iFR are lacking. We aimed to evaluate whether iFR is noninferior to FFR with respect to the rate of subsequent major adverse cardiac events.We conducted a multicenter, randomized, controlled, open-label clinical trial using the Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry for enrollment. A total of 2037 participants with stable angina or an acute coronary syndrome who had an indication for physiologically guided assessment of coronary-artery stenosis were randomly assigned to undergo revascularization guided by either iFR or FFR. The primary end point was the rate of a composite of death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization within 12 months after the procedure.A primary end-point event occurred in 68 of 1012 patients (6.7%) in the iFR group and in 61 of 1007 (6.1%) in the FFR group (difference in event rates, 0.7 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.5 to 2.8; P=0.007 for noninferiority; hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.58; P=0.53); the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in event rates fell within the prespecified noninferiority margin of 3.2 percentage points. The results were similar among major subgroups. The rates of myocardial infarction, target-lesion revascularization, restenosis, and stent thrombosis did not differ significantly between the two groups. A significantly higher proportion of patients in the FFR group than in the iFR group reported chest discomfort during the procedure.Among patients with stable angina or an acute coronary syndrome, an iFR-guided revascularization strategy was noninferior to an FFR-guided revascularization strategy with respect to the rate of major adverse cardiac events at 12 months. (Funded by Philips Volcano; iFR SWEDEHEART ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02166736 .).
|
|
| 9. |
- Fröbert, Ole, 1964-, et al.
(författare)
-
Clinical Impact of Influenza Vaccination after ST- and Non-ST-segment elevation Myocardial Infarction Insights from the IAMI trial
- 2023
-
Ingår i: American Heart Journal. - : Elsevier. - 0002-8703 .- 1097-6744. ; 255, s. 82-89
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Influenza vaccination early after myocardial infarction (MI) improves prognosis but vaccine effectiveness may differ dependent on type of MI.METHODS: A total of 2571 participants were prospectively enrolled in the IAMI trial and randomly assigned to receive in-hospital inactivated influenza vaccine or saline placebo. The trial was conducted at 30 centers in 8 countries from October 1, 2016 to March 1, 2020. Here we report vaccine effectiveness in the 2467 participants with ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI, n=1348) or non-ST-segment elevation MI (NSTEMI, n=1119). The primary endpoint was the composite of all-cause death, MI, or stent thrombosis at 12 months. Cumulative incidence of the primary and key secondary endpoints by randomized treatment and NSTEMI/STEMI was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Treatment effects were evaluated with formal interaction testing to assess for effect modification.RESULTS: Baseline risk was higher in participants with NSTEMI. In the NSTEMI group the primary endpoint occurred in 6.5% of participants assigned to influenza vaccine and 10.5% assigned to placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.60; 95% CI, 0.39-0.91), compared to 4.1% assigned to influenza vaccine and 4.5% assigned to placebo in the STEMI group (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.54-1.50, P=0.237 for interaction). Similar findings were seen for the key secondary endpoints of all-cause death and cardiovascular death. The Kaplan-Meier risk difference in all-cause death at 1 year was more pronounced in participants with NSTEMI (NSTEMI: HR, 0.47; 95% CI 0.28-0.80, STEMI: HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.43-1.70, interaction P=0.028).CONCLUSIONS: The beneficial effect of influenza vaccination on adverse cardiovascular events may be enhanced in patients with NSTEMI compared to those with STEMI.
|
|
| 10. |
- Fröbert, Ole, 1964-, et al.
(författare)
-
Design and rationale for the Influenza vaccination After Myocardial Infarction (IAMI) trial. A registry-based randomized clinical trial
- 2017
-
Ingår i: American Heart Journal. - : MOSBY-ELSEVIER. - 0002-8703 .- 1097-6744. ; 189, s. 94-102
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Registry studies and case-control studies have demonstrated that the risk of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is increased following influenza infection. Small randomized trials, underpowered for clinical end points, indicate that future cardiovascular events can be reduced following influenza vaccination in patients with established cardiovascular disease. Influenza vaccination is recommended by international guidelines for patients with cardiovascular disease, but uptake is varying and vaccination is rarely prioritized during hospitalization for AMI.Methods/design: The Influenza vaccination After Myocardial Infarction (IAMI) trial is a double-blind, multicenter, prospective, registry-based, randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trial. A total of 4,400 patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) or non-STEMI undergoing coronary angiography will randomly be assigned either to in-hospital influenza vaccination or to placebo. Baseline information is collected from national heart disease registries, and follow-up will be performed using both registries and a structured telephone interview. The primary end point is a composite of time to all cause death, a new AMI, or stent thrombosis at 1 year.Implications: The IAMI trial is the largest randomized trial to date to evaluate the effect of in-hospital influenza vaccination on death and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with STEMI or non-STEMI. The trial is expected to provide highly relevant clinical data on the efficacy of influenza vaccine as secondary prevention after AMI.
|
|
