| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Christiansen, Evald H, et al.
(author)
-
Instantaneous Wave-free Ratio versus Fractional Flow Reserve to Guide PCI.
- 2017
-
In: The New England journal of medicine. - : Massachussetts Medical Society. - 1533-4406 .- 0028-4793. ; 376:19, s. 1813-1823
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)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.
(author)
-
Bivalirudin versus Heparin Monotherapy in Myocardial Infarction
- 2017
-
In: New England Journal of Medicine. - : Massachusetts Medical Society. - 0028-4793 .- 1533-4406. ; 377:12, s. 1132-1142
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)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. |
- Yndigegn, T., et al.
(author)
-
Beta-Blockers after Myocardial Infarction and Preserved Ejection Fraction
- 2024
-
In: New England Journal of Medicine. - : MASSACHUSETTS MEDICAL SOC. - 0028-4793 .- 1533-4406.
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background Most trials that have shown a benefit of beta-blocker treatment after myocardial infarction included patients with large myocardial infarctions and were conducted in an era before modern biomarker-based diagnosis of myocardial infarction and treatment with percutaneous coronary intervention, antithrombotic agents, high-intensity statins, and renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system antagonists.Methods In a parallel-group, open-label trial performed at 45 centers in Sweden, Estonia, and New Zealand, we randomly assigned patients with an acute myocardial infarction who had undergone coronary angiography and had a left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 50% to receive either long-term treatment with a beta-blocker (metoprolol or bisoprolol) or no beta-blocker treatment. The primary end point was a composite of death from any cause or new myocardial infarction.Results From September 2017 through May 2023, a total of 5020 patients were enrolled (95.4% of whom were from Sweden). The median follow-up was 3.5 years (interquartile range, 2.2 to 4.7). A primary end-point event occurred in 199 of 2508 patients (7.9%) in the beta-blocker group and in 208 of 2512 patients (8.3%) in the no-beta-blocker group (hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.79 to 1.16; P=0.64). Beta-blocker treatment did not appear to lead to a lower cumulative incidence of the secondary end points (death from any cause, 3.9% in the beta-blocker group and 4.1% in the no-beta-blocker group; death from cardiovascular causes, 1.5% and 1.3%, respectively; myocardial infarction, 4.5% and 4.7%; hospitalization for atrial fibrillation, 1.1% and 1.4%; and hospitalization for heart failure, 0.8% and 0.9%). With regard to safety end points, hospitalization for bradycardia, second- or third-degree atrioventricular block, hypotension, syncope, or implantation of a pacemaker occurred in 3.4% of the patients in the beta-blocker group and in 3.2% of those in the no-beta-blocker group; hospitalization for asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in 0.6% and 0.6%, respectively; and hospitalization for stroke in 1.4% and 1.8%.Conclusions Among patients with acute myocardial infarction who underwent early coronary angiography and had a preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (>= 50%), long-term beta-blocker treatment did not lead to a lower risk of the composite primary end point of death from any cause or new myocardial infarction than no beta-blocker use. (Funded by the Swedish Research Council and others; REDUCE-AMI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03278509.) Hospitalized patients with acute myocardial infarction and preserved EF were assigned to receive open-label long-term beta-blocker therapy or not. Beta-blockers did not lead to a lower risk of death or MI.
|
|
