| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Andell, P., et al.
(författare)
-
Intravascular Ultrasound Guidance Is Associated With Better Outcome in Patients Undergoing Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Stenting Compared With Angiography Guidance Alone
- 2017
-
Ingår i: Circulation-Cardiovascular Interventions. - : Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health). - 1941-7640 .- 1941-7632. ; 10:5
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background Small observational studies have indicated better outcome with intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guidance when performing unprotected left main coronary artery (LMCA) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), but the overall picture remains inconclusive and warrants further investigation. We studied the impact of IVUS guidance on outcome in patients undergoing unprotected LMCA PCI in a Swedish nationwide observational study. Methods and Results Patients who underwent unprotected LMCA PCI between 2005 and 2014 because of stable coronary artery disease or acute coronary syndrome were included from the nationwide SCAAR (Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry). Of 2468 patients, IVUS guidance was used in 621 (25.2%). The IVUS group was younger (median age, 70 versus 75 years) and had fewer comorbidities but more complex lesions. IVUS was associated with larger stent diameters (median, 4 mm versus 3.5 mm). After adjusting for potential confounders, IVUS was associated with significantly lower occurrence of the primary composite end point of all-cause mortality, restenosis, or definite stent thrombosis (hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.50-0.84) and all-cause mortality alone (hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% confidence interval, 0.47-0.82). In 340 propensity score-matched pairs, IVUS was also associated with significantly lower occurrence of the primary end point (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% confidence interval, 0.37-0.80). Conclusions IVUS was associated with an independent and significant outcome benefit when performing unprotected LMCA PCI. Potential mediators of this benefit include larger and more appropriately sized stents, perhaps translating into lower risk of subsequent stent thrombosis. Although residual confounding cannot be ruled out, our findings indicate a possible hazard when performing unprotected LMCA PCI without IVUS guidance.
|
|
| 3. |
- Dankiewicz, Josef, et al.
(författare)
-
Hypothermia versus Normothermia after Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest
- 2021
-
Ingår i: New England Journal of Medicine. - : MASSACHUSETTS MEDICAL SOC. - 0028-4793 .- 1533-4406. ; 384:24, s. 2283-2294
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Hypothermia or Normothermia after Cardiac Arrest This trial randomly assigned patients with coma after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest to undergo targeted hypothermia at 33 degrees C or normothermia with treatment of fever. At 6 months, there were no significant between-group differences regarding death or functional outcomes. Background Targeted temperature management is recommended for patients after cardiac arrest, but the supporting evidence is of low certainty. Methods In an open-label trial with blinded assessment of outcomes, we randomly assigned 1900 adults with coma who had had an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest of presumed cardiac or unknown cause to undergo targeted hypothermia at 33 degrees C, followed by controlled rewarming, or targeted normothermia with early treatment of fever (body temperature, >= 37.8 degrees C). The primary outcome was death from any cause at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included functional outcome at 6 months as assessed with the modified Rankin scale. Prespecified subgroups were defined according to sex, age, initial cardiac rhythm, time to return of spontaneous circulation, and presence or absence of shock on admission. Prespecified adverse events were pneumonia, sepsis, bleeding, arrhythmia resulting in hemodynamic compromise, and skin complications related to the temperature management device. Results A total of 1850 patients were evaluated for the primary outcome. At 6 months, 465 of 925 patients (50%) in the hypothermia group had died, as compared with 446 of 925 (48%) in the normothermia group (relative risk with hypothermia, 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.94 to 1.14; P=0.37). Of the 1747 patients in whom the functional outcome was assessed, 488 of 881 (55%) in the hypothermia group had moderately severe disability or worse (modified Rankin scale score >= 4), as compared with 479 of 866 (55%) in the normothermia group (relative risk with hypothermia, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.09). Outcomes were consistent in the prespecified subgroups. Arrhythmia resulting in hemodynamic compromise was more common in the hypothermia group than in the normothermia group (24% vs. 17%, P<0.001). The incidence of other adverse events did not differ significantly between the two groups. Conclusions In patients with coma after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, targeted hypothermia did not lead to a lower incidence of death by 6 months than targeted normothermia. (Funded by the Swedish Research Council and others; TTM2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, .)
|
|
| 4. |
- 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.
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
- Redfors, B. Björn, et al.
(författare)
-
Incidence and prognosis of the takotsubo syndrome compared to acute myocardial infarction
- 2019
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Heart Failure. - : John Wiley & Sons. - 1388-9842 .- 1879-0844. ; 21, s. 267-267
-
Tidskriftsartikel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- Background: Takotsubo syndrome (TS) is a potentially life-threatening acute cardiac syndrome with a clinical presentation very similar to myocardial infarction (MI) and for which the natural history, management and outcome remain incompletely understood.Purpose: The aims of this study were to assess the relative short- and long-term mortality risk of TS , ST-elevation MI (STEMI) and non STEMI (NSTEMI) and to identify predictors of in-hospital complications and poor prognosis in patients with TS.Methods: Using the nationwide Swedish Angiography and Angioplasty Registry (SCAAR) we identified almost all (n=117,720) patients who underwent coronary angiography due to TS (N=2,898 [2.5%]), STEMI (N=48,493 [41.2%]) or NSTEMI (N=66,329 [56.3%]) in Sweden between January 2009 and February 2018.Results: Patients with TS were more often women as compared with patients with STEMI or NSTEMI. TS was associated with unadjusted and adjusted 30-day mortality risks lower than STEMI (adjusted hazard ratio [adjHR] 0.60, 95% confidence interval [CI]0.48-0.76, p<0.001), but higher than NSTEMI (adjHR 2.70, 95% CI 2.14-3.41, p<0.001). Compared to STEMI, TS was associated with similar risk of acute heart failure (adjHR 1.26, 95% CI 0.91–1.76, p=0.16) but lower risk of cardio-genic shock (adjHR 0.55, 95% CI 0.34–0.89, p=0.02). The relative 30-day mortality risk for TS versus STEMI and NSTEMI was higher for smokers than non-smokers (adjusted pinteractionSTEMI=0.01 and pinteractionNSTEMI=0.01).Conclusion: Thirty-day mortality in TS was higher than in NSTEMI but lower than STEMI, despite a similar risk of acute heart failure in TS and STEMI. Among patients with TS, smoking was an independent predictor of mortality
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
- 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 .).
|
|
