| 1. |
- Kappetein, Arie Pieter, et al.
(författare)
-
Design and rationale for a randomised comparison of everolimus-eluting stents and coronary artery bypass graft surgery in selected patients with left main coronary artery disease : the EXCEL trial
- 2016
-
Ingår i: EuroIntervention. - 1774-024X .- 1969-6213. ; 12:7, s. 861-872
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Aims: Coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery is the standard of care for revascularisation of patients with left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD). Recent studies have suggested that percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DES) may provide comparable outcomes in selected patients with LMCAD without extensive CAD. We therefore designed a trial to investigate whether PCI with XIENCE cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stents (CoCr-EES) would result in non-inferior or superior clinical outcomes to CABG in selected patients with LMCAD. Methods and results: The Evaluation of XIENCE versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization (EXCEL) trial is a prospective, open-label, multicentre, international study of 1,900 randomised subjects. Patients with significant LMCAD with a SYNTAX score <= 32 and local Heart Team consensus that the subject is appropriate for revascularisation by both PCI and CABG are consented and randomised 1:1 to undergo PCI using CoCr-EES or CABG. All patients undergo follow-up for five years. The primary endpoint is the three-year composite rate of death, stroke or myocardial infarction, assessed at a median follow-up of at least three years (with at least two-year follow-up in all patients), powered for sequential non-inferiority and superiority testing. Conclusions: The EXCEL study will define the contemporary roles of CABG and PCI using XIENCE CoCr-EES in patients with LMCAD disease with low and intermediate SYNTAX scores.
|
|
| 2. |
- Landray, Martin J., et al.
(författare)
-
Improving public health by improving clinical trial guidelines and their application
- 2017
-
Ingår i: European Heart Journal. - : OXFORD UNIV PRESS. - 0195-668X .- 1522-9645. ; 38:21, s. 1632-1637B
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Evidence generated from randomized controlled trials forms the foundation of cardiovascular therapeutics and has led to the adoption of numerous drugs and devices that prolong survival and reduce morbidity, as well as the avoidance of interventions that have been shown to be ineffective or even unsafe. Many aspects of cardiovascular research have evolved considerably since the first randomized trials in cardiology were conducted. In order to be large enough to provide reliable evidence about effects on major outcomes, cardiovascular trials may now involve thousands of patients recruited from hundreds of clinical sites in many different countries. Costly infrastructure has developed to meet the increasingly complex organizational and operational requirements of these clinical trials. Concerns have been raised that this approach is unsustainable, inhibiting the reliable evaluation of new and existing treatments, to the detriment of patient care. These issues were considered by patients, regulators, funders, and trialists at a meeting of the European Society of Cardiology Cardiovascular Roundtable in October 2015. This paper summarizes the key insights and discussions from the workshop, highlights subsequent progress, and identifies next steps to produce meaningful change in the conduct of cardiovascular clinical research.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Urban, Philip, et al.
(författare)
-
Defining High Bleeding Risk in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention : A Consensus Document From the Academic Research Consortium for High Bleeding Risk
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Circulation. - : LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS. - 0009-7322 .- 1524-4539. ; 140:3, s. 240-261
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Identification and management of patients at high bleeding risk undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention are of major importance, but a lack of standardization in defining this population limits trial design, data interpretation, and clinical decision-making. The Academic Research Consortium for High Bleeding Risk (ARC-HBR) is a collaboration among leading research organizations, regulatory authorities, and physician-scientists from the United States, Asia, and Europe focusing on percutaneous coronary intervention-related bleeding. Two meetings of the 31-member consortium were held in Washington, DC, in April 2018 and in Paris, France, in October 2018. These meetings were organized by the Cardiovascular European Research Center on behalf of the ARC-HBR group and included representatives of the US Food and Drug Administration and the Japanese Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency, as well as observers from the pharmaceutical and medical device industries. A consensus definition of patients at high bleeding risk was developed that was based on review of the available evidence. The definition is intended to provide consistency in defining this population for clinical trials and to complement clinical decision-making and regulatory review. The proposed ARC-HBR consensus document represents the first pragmatic approach to a consistent definition of high bleeding risk in clinical trials evaluating the safety and effectiveness of devices and drug regimens for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.
|
|
| 5. |
- Urban, Philip, et al.
(författare)
-
Defining high bleeding risk in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention : a consensus document from the Academic Research Consortium for High Bleeding Risk
- 2019
-
Ingår i: European Heart Journal. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 0195-668X .- 1522-9645. ; 40:31, s. 2632-2653
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Identification and management of patients at high bleeding risk undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention are of major importance, but a lack of standardization in defining this population limits trial design, data interpretation, and clinical decision-making. The Academic Research Consortium for High Bleeding Risk (ARC-HBR) is a collaboration among leading research organizations, regulatory authorities, and physician-scientists from the United States, Asia, and Europe focusing on percutaneous coronary intervention-related bleeding. Two meetings of the 31-member consortium were held in Washington, DC, in April 2018 and in Paris, France, in October 2018. These meetings were organized by the Cardiovascular European Research Center on behalf of the ARC-HBR group and included representatives of the US Food and Drug Administration and the Japanese Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency, as well as observers from the pharmaceutical and medical device industries. A consensus definition of patients at high bleeding risk was developed that was based on review of the available evidence. The definition is intended to provide consistency in defining this population for clinical trials and to complement clinical decision-making and regulatory review. The proposed ARC-HBR consensus document represents the first pragmatic approach to a consistent definition of high bleeding risk in clinical trials evaluating the safety and effectiveness of devices and drug regimens for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.
|
|
| 6. |
- Pasea, Laura, et al.
(författare)
-
Personalising the decision for prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy : development, validation and potential impact of prognosticmodels for cardiovascular events and bleeding in myocardial infarction survivors
- 2017
-
Ingår i: European Heart Journal. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 0195-668X .- 1522-9645. ; 38:14, s. 1048-1055A
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Aims The aim of this study is to develop models to aid the decision to prolong dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) that requires balancing an individual patient's potential benefits and harms Methods and results Using population-based electronic health records (EHRs) (CALIBER, England, 2000-10), of patients evaluated 1 year after acute myocardial infarction (MI), we developed (n= 12 694 patients) and validated (n= 5613) prognostic models for cardiovascular (cardiovascular death, MI or stroke) events and three different bleeding endpoints. We applied trial effect estimates to determine potential benefits and harms of DAPT and the net clinical benefit of individuals. Prognostic models for cardiovascular events (c-index: 0.75 (95% CI: 0.74, 0.77)) and bleeding (c index 0.72 (95% CI: 0.67, 0.77)) were well calibrated: 3-year risk of cardiovascular events was 16.5% overall (5.2% in the lowest-and 46.7% in the highest-risk individuals), while for major bleeding, it was 1.7% (0.3% in the lowest-and 5.4% in the highest-risk patients). For every 10 000 patients treated per year, we estimated 249 (95% CI: 228, 269) cardiovascular events prevented and 134 (95% CI: 87, 181) major bleeding events caused in the highest-risk patients, and 28 (95% CI: 19, 37) cardiovascular events prevented and 9 (95% CI: 0, 20) major bleeding events caused in the lowest-risk patients. There was a net clinical benefit of prolonged DAPT in 63-99% patients depending on how benefits and harms were weighted Conclusion Prognostic models for cardiovascular events and bleeding using population-based EHRs may help to personalise decisions for prolonged DAPT 1-year following acute MI.
|
|
| 7. |
- Wolsk, Emil, et al.
(författare)
-
Contribution of cardiac and extra-cardiac disease burden to risk of cardiovascular outcomes varies by ejection fraction in heart failure.
- 2018
-
Ingår i: European journal of heart failure. - : Wiley. - 1879-0844 .- 1388-9842. ; 20:3, s. 504-510
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Patients with heart failure (HF) often have multiple co-morbidities that contribute to the risk of adverse cardiovascular (CV) and non-CV outcomes. We assessed the relative contribution of cardiac and extra-cardiac disease burden and demographic factors to CV outcomes in HF patients with reduced (HFrEF) or preserved (HFpEF) left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).We utilized data from the CHARM trial, which enrolled HF patients across the ejection fraction spectrum. We decomposed the previously validated MAGGIC risk score into cardiac (LVEF, New York Heart Association class, systolic blood pressure, time since HF diagnosis, HF medication use), extra-cardiac (body mass index, creatinine, diabetes mellitus, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, smoker), and demographic (age, gender) categories, and calculated subscores for each patient representing the burden of each component. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the population attributable risk (PAR) associated with each component to the outcomes of death, CV death, HF, myocardial infarction, and stroke relative to patients with the lowest risk score. PARs for each component were depicted across the spectrum of LVEF. In 2675 chronic HF patients from North America [HFrEF (LVEF ≤40%): n = 1589, HFpEF (LVEF >40%): n = 1086] with data available for calculation of the MAGGIC score, the highest risk of death and CV death was attributed to cardiac burden. This was especially evident in HFrEF patients (PAR: 76% cardiac disease vs. 58% extra-cardiac disease, P < 0.05). Conversely, in HFpEF patients, extra-cardiac burden accounted for a greater proportion of risk for death than cardiac burden (PAR: 15% cardiac disease vs. 49% extra-cardiac disease, P < 0.05). For HF hospitalization, the contribution of both cardiac and extra-cardiac burden was comparable in HFpEF patients (PAR: 42% cardiac disease vs. 53% extra-cardiac disease, P = NS). In addition, demographic burden was especially high in HFpEF patients, with 62% of deaths attributable to demographic characteristics.In North American HF patients enrolled in the CHARM trials, the relative contribution of cardiac and extra-cardiac disease burden to CV outcomes and death differed depending on LVEF. The high risk of events attributable to non-cardiac disease burden may help explain why cardiac disease-modifying medication proven to be efficacious in HFrEF patients has not proven beneficial in HFpEF.
|
|
