| 1. |
- Bohm, Felix, et al.
(författare)
-
FFR-Guided Complete or Culprit-Only PCI in Patients with Myocardial Infarction
- 2024
-
Ingår i: New England Journal of Medicine. - : MASSACHUSETTS MEDICAL SOC. - 0028-4793 .- 1533-4406.
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background The benefit of fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided complete revascularization in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel coronary artery disease remains unclear.Methods In this multinational, registry-based, randomized trial, we assigned patients with STEMI or very-high-risk non-STEMI (NSTEMI) and multivessel disease who were undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of the culprit lesion to receive either FFR-guided complete revascularization of nonculprit lesions or no further revascularization. The primary outcome was a composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization. The two key secondary outcomes were a composite of death from any cause or myocardial infarction and unplanned revascularization.Results A total of 1542 patients underwent randomization, with 764 assigned to receive FFR-guided complete revascularization and 778 assigned to receive culprit-lesion-only PCI. At a median follow-up of 4.8 years (interquartile range, 4.3 to 5.2), a primary-outcome event had occurred in 145 patients (19.0%) in the complete-revascularization group and in 159 patients (20.4%) in the culprit-lesion-only group (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74 to 1.17; P=0.53). With respect to the secondary outcomes, no apparent between-group differences were observed in the composite of death from any cause or myocardial infarction (hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.87 to 1.44) or unplanned revascularization (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.56 to 1.04). There were no apparent between-group differences in safety outcomes.Conclusions Among patients with STEMI or very-high-risk NSTEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease, FFR-guided complete revascularization was not shown to result in a lower risk of a composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization than culprit-lesion-only PCI at 4.8 years. (Funded by the Swedish Research Council and others; FULL REVASC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02862119.) In a registry-based trial, FFR-guided PCI of nonculprit lesions did not result in a lower risk of a composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization than culprit-lesion-only PCI.
|
|
| 2. |
- 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 .).
|
|
| 3. |
- 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 .).
|
|
| 4. |
- Lonn, Eva M., et al.
(författare)
-
Blood-Pressure Lowering in Intermediate-Risk Persons without Cardiovascular Disease
- 2016
-
Ingår i: New England Journal of Medicine. - 0028-4793 .- 1533-4406. ; 374:21, s. 2009-2020
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND Antihypertensive therapy reduces the risk of cardiovascular events among high-risk persons and among those with a systolic blood pressure of 160 mm Hg or higher, but its role in persons at intermediate risk and with lower blood pressure is unclear.METHODS In one comparison from a 2-by-2 factorial trial, we randomly assigned 12,705 participants at intermediate risk who did not have cardiovascular disease to receive either candesartan at a dose of 16 mg per day plus hydrochlorothiazide at a dose of 12.5 mg per day or placebo. The first coprimary outcome was the composite of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke; the second coprimary outcome additionally included resuscitated cardiac arrest, heart failure, and revascularization. The median follow-up was 5.6 years.RESULTS The mean blood pressure of the participants at baseline was 138.1/81.9 mm Hg; the decrease in blood pressure was 6.0/3.0 mm Hg greater in the active-treatment group than in the placebo group. The first coprimary outcome occurred in 260 participants (4.1%) in the active-treatment group and in 279 (4.4%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79 to 1.10; P = 0.40); the second coprimary outcome occurred in 312 participants (4.9%) and 328 participants (5.2%), respectively (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.11; P = 0.51). In one of the three prespecified hypothesis-based subgroups, participants in the subgroup for the upper third of systolic blood pressure (>143.5 mm Hg) who were in the active-treatment group had significantly lower rates of the first and second coprimary outcomes than those in the placebo group; effects were neutral in the middle and lower thirds (P = 0.02 and P = 0.009, respectively, for trend in the two outcomes).CONCLUSIONS Therapy with candesartan at a dose of 16 mg per day plus hydrochlorothiazide at a dose of 12.5 mg per day was not associated with a lower rate of major cardiovascular events than placebo among persons at intermediate risk who did not have cardiovascular disease. ( ClinicalTrials. gov number, NCT00468923.)
|
|
| 5. |
- Maron, David J., et al.
(författare)
-
Initial Invasive or Conservative Strategy for Stable Coronary Disease
- 2020
-
Ingår i: New England Journal of Medicine. - 0028-4793 .- 1533-4406. ; 382:15, s. 1395-1407
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain.Methods: We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction.Results: Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, -1.8 percentage points; 95% CI, -4.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32).Conclusions: Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; ISCHEMIA ClinicalTrials.gov number, .) Patients with stable coronary disease were randomly assigned to an initial invasive strategy with angiography and revascularization if appropriate or to medical therapy alone. At 3.2 years, there was no significant difference between the groups with respect to the estimated rate of ischemic events. The findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction.
|
|
| 6. |
- McMurray, J. J. V., et al.
(författare)
-
Dapagliflozin in Patients with Heart Failure and Reduced Ejection Fraction
- 2019
-
Ingår i: New England Journal of Medicine. - 0028-4793 .- 1533-4406. ; 381:21, s. 1995-2008
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND In patients with type 2 diabetes, inhibitors of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) reduce the risk of a first hospitalization for heart failure, possibly through glucose-independent mechanisms. More data are needed regarding the effects of SGLT2 inhibitors in patients with established heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction, regardless of the presence or absence of type 2 diabetes.METHODS In this phase 3, placebo-controlled trial, we randomly assigned 4744 patients with New York Heart Association class II, III, or IV heart failure and an ejection fraction of 40% or less to receive either dapagliflozin (at a dose of 10 mg once daily) or placebo, in addition to recommended therapy. The primary outcome was a composite of worsening heart failure (hospitalization or an urgent visit resulting in intravenous therapy for heart failure) or cardiovascular death.RESULTS Over a median of 18.2 months, the primary outcome occurred in 386 of 2373 patients (16.3%) in the dapagliflozin group and in 502 of 2371 patients (21.2%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65 to 0.85; P<0.001). A first worsening heart failure event occurred in 237 patients (10.0%) in the dapagliflozin group and in 326 patients (13.7%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.83). Death from cardiovascular causes occurred in 227 patients (9.6%) in the dapagliflozin group and in 273 patients (11.5%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.69 to 0.98); 276 patients (11.6%) and 329 patients (13.9%), respectively, died from any cause (hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.97). Findings in patients with diabetes were similar to those in patients without diabetes. The frequency of adverse events related to volume depletion, renal dysfunction, and hypoglycemia did not differ between treatment groups.CONCLUSIONS Among patients with heart failure and a reduced ejection fraction, the risk of worsening heart failure or death from cardiovascular causes was lower among those who received dapagliflozin than among those who received placebo, regardless of the presence or absence of diabetes.
|
|
| 7. |
- Spertus, John A, et al.
(författare)
-
Health Status after Invasive or Conservative Care in Coronary and Advanced Kidney Disease.
- 2020
-
Ingår i: New England Journal of Medicine. - 0028-4793 .- 1533-4406. ; 382:17, s. 1619-1628
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: In the ISCHEMIA-CKD trial, the primary analysis showed no significant difference in the risk of death or myocardial infarction with initial angiography and revascularization plus guideline-based medical therapy (invasive strategy) as compared with guideline-based medical therapy alone (conservative strategy) in participants with stable ischemic heart disease, moderate or severe ischemia, and advanced chronic kidney disease (an estimated glomerular filtration rate of <30 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 or receipt of dialysis). A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status.METHODS: We assessed health status with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) before randomization and at 1.5, 3, and 6 months and every 6 months thereafter. The primary outcome of this analysis was the SAQ Summary score (ranging from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating less frequent angina and better function and quality of life). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate the treatment effect with the invasive strategy.RESULTS: Health status was assessed in 705 of 777 participants. Nearly half the participants (49%) had had no angina during the month before randomization. At 3 months, the estimated mean difference between the invasive-strategy group and the conservative-strategy group in the SAQ Summary score was 2.1 points (95% credible interval, -0.4 to 4.6), a result that favored the invasive strategy. The mean difference in score at 3 months was largest among participants with daily or weekly angina at baseline (10.1 points; 95% credible interval, 0.0 to 19.9), smaller among those with monthly angina at baseline (2.2 points; 95% credible interval, -2.0 to 6.2), and nearly absent among those without angina at baseline (0.6 points; 95% credible interval, -1.9 to 3.3). By 6 months, the between-group difference in the overall trial population was attenuated (0.5 points; 95% credible interval, -2.2 to 3.4).CONCLUSIONS: Participants with stable ischemic heart disease, moderate or severe ischemia, and advanced chronic kidney disease did not have substantial or sustained benefits with regard to angina-related health status with an initially invasive strategy as compared with a conservative strategy. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; ISCHEMIA-CKD ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01985360.).
|
|
| 8. |
- Steg, P. Gabriel, et al.
(författare)
-
Ticagrelor in Patients with Stable Coronary Disease and Diabetes
- 2019
-
Ingår i: New England Journal of Medicine. - : MASSACHUSETTS MEDICAL SOC. - 0028-4793 .- 1533-4406. ; 381:14, s. 1309-1320
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Patients with stable coronary artery disease and diabetes were randomly assigned to receive either ticagrelor plus aspirin or placebo plus aspirin. At 40 months, the incidence of the composite efficacy outcome of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke was lower with ticagrelor than with placebo; the frequency of major bleeding was higher with ticagrelor. Background Patients with stable coronary artery disease and diabetes mellitus who have not had a myocardial infarction or stroke are at high risk for cardiovascular events. Whether adding ticagrelor to aspirin improves outcomes in this population is unclear. Methods In this randomized, double-blind trial, we assigned patients who were 50 years of age or older and who had stable coronary artery disease and type 2 diabetes mellitus to receive either ticagrelor plus aspirin or placebo plus aspirin. Patients with previous myocardial infarction or stroke were excluded. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. The primary safety outcome was major bleeding as defined by the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) criteria. Results A total of 19,220 patients underwent randomization. The median follow-up was 39.9 months. Permanent treatment discontinuation was more frequent with ticagrelor than placebo (34.5% vs. 25.4%). The incidence of ischemic cardiovascular events (the primary efficacy outcome) was lower in the ticagrelor group than in the placebo group (7.7% vs. 8.5%; hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81 to 0.99; P=0.04), whereas the incidence of TIMI major bleeding was higher (2.2% vs. 1.0%; hazard ratio, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.82 to 2.94; P<0.001), as was the incidence of intracranial hemorrhage (0.7% vs. 0.5%; hazard ratio, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.18 to 2.48; P=0.005). There was no significant difference in the incidence of fatal bleeding (0.2% vs. 0.1%; hazard ratio, 1.90; 95% CI, 0.87 to 4.15; P=0.11). The incidence of an exploratory composite outcome of irreversible harm (death from any cause, myocardial infarction, stroke, fatal bleeding, or intracranial hemorrhage) was similar in the ticagrelor group and the placebo group (10.1% vs. 10.8%; hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.02). Conclusions In patients with stable coronary artery disease and diabetes without a history of myocardial infarction or stroke, those who received ticagrelor plus aspirin had a lower incidence of ischemic cardiovascular events but a higher incidence of major bleeding than those who received placebo plus aspirin. (Funded by AstraZeneca; THEMIS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01991795.).
|
|
| 9. |
- Tricoci, Pierluigi, et al.
(författare)
-
Thrombin-receptor antagonist vorapaxar in acute coronary syndromes
- 2012
-
Ingår i: New England Journal of Medicine. - 0028-4793 .- 1533-4406. ; 366:1, s. 20-33
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND:Vorapaxar is a new oral protease-activated-receptor 1 (PAR-1) antagonist that inhibits thrombin-induced platelet activation.METHODS:In this multinational, double-blind, randomized trial, we compared vorapaxar with placebo in 12,944 patients who had acute coronary syndromes without ST-segment elevation. The primary end point was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, stroke, recurrent ischemia with rehospitalization, or urgent coronary revascularization.RESULTS:Follow-up in the trial was terminated early after a safety review. After a median follow-up of 502 days (interquartile range, 349 to 667), the primary end point occurred in 1031 of 6473 patients receiving vorapaxar versus 1102 of 6471 patients receiving placebo (Kaplan-Meier 2-year rate, 18.5% vs. 19.9%; hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85 to 1.01; P=0.07). A composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke occurred in 822 patients in the vorapaxar group versus 910 in the placebo group (14.7% and 16.4%, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.81 to 0.98; P=0.02). Rates of moderate and severe bleeding were 7.2% in the vorapaxar group and 5.2% in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.16 to 1.58; P<0.001). Intracranial hemorrhage rates were 1.1% and 0.2%, respectively (hazard ratio, 3.39; 95% CI, 1.78 to 6.45; P<0.001). Rates of nonhemorrhagic adverse events were similar in the two groups.CONCLUSIONS:In patients with acute coronary syndromes, the addition of vorapaxar to standard therapy did not significantly reduce the primary composite end point but significantly increased the risk of major bleeding, including intracranial hemorrhage. (Funded by Merck; TRACER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00527943.).
|
|
| 10. |
- Wallentin, Lars, 1943-, et al.
(författare)
-
Ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes
- 2009
-
Ingår i: New England Journal of Medicine. - 0028-4793 .- 1533-4406. ; 361:11, s. 1045-1057
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Ticagrelor is an oral, reversible, direct-acting inhibitor of the adenosine diphosphate receptor P2Y12 that has a more rapid onset and more pronounced platelet inhibition than clopidogrel. METHODS: In this multicenter, double-blind, randomized trial, we compared ticagrelor (180-mg loading dose, 90 mg twice daily thereafter) and clopidogrel (300-to-600-mg loading dose, 75 mg daily thereafter) for the prevention of cardiovascular events in 18,624 patients admitted to the hospital with an acute coronary syndrome, with or without ST-segment elevation. RESULTS: At 12 months, the primary end point--a composite of death from vascular causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke--had occurred in 9.8% of patients receiving ticagrelor as compared with 11.7% of those receiving clopidogrel (hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.77 to 0.92; P<0.001). Predefined hierarchical testing of secondary end points showed significant differences in the rates of other composite end points, as well as myocardial infarction alone (5.8% in the ticagrelor group vs. 6.9% in the clopidogrel group, P=0.005) and death from vascular causes (4.0% vs. 5.1%, P=0.001) but not stroke alone (1.5% vs. 1.3%, P=0.22). The rate of death from any cause was also reduced with ticagrelor (4.5%, vs. 5.9% with clopidogrel; P<0.001). No significant difference in the rates of major bleeding was found between the ticagrelor and clopidogrel groups (11.6% and 11.2%, respectively; P=0.43), but ticagrelor was associated with a higher rate of major bleeding not related to coronary-artery bypass grafting (4.5% vs. 3.8%, P=0.03), including more instances of fatal intracranial bleeding and fewer of fatal bleeding of other types. CONCLUSIONS: In patients who have an acute coronary syndrome with or without ST-segment elevation, treatment with ticagrelor as compared with clopidogrel significantly reduced the rate of death from vascular causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke without an increase in the rate of overall major bleeding but with an increase in the rate of non-procedure-related bleeding.
|
|
