| 1. |
- Engstrøm, Thomas, et al.
(author)
-
Danegaptide for primary percutaneous coronary intervention in acute myocardial infarction patients : A phase 2 randomised clinical trial
- 2018
-
In: Heart. - : BMJ. - 1355-6037 .- 1468-201X. ; 104:19, s. 1593-1599
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Objectives: Reperfusion immediately after reopening of the infarct-related artery in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) may cause myocardial damage in addition to the ischaemic insult (reperfusion injury). The gap junction modulating peptide danegaptide has in animal models reduced this injury. We evaluated the effect of danegaptide on myocardial salvage in patients with STEMI. Methods: In addition to primary percutaneous coronary intervention in STEMI patients with thrombolysis in myocardial infarction flow 0-1, single vessel disease and ischaemia time less than 6 hours, we tested, in a clinical proof-of-concept study, the therapeutic potential of danegaptide at two-dose levels. Primary outcome was myocardial salvage evaluated by cardiac MRI after 3 months. Results: From November 2013 to August 2015, a total of 585 patients were randomly enrolled in the trial. Imaging criteria were fulfilled for 79 (high dose), 80 (low dose) and 84 (placebo) patients eligible for the per-protocol analysis. Danegaptide did not affect the myocardial salvage index (danegaptide high (63.9±14.9), danegaptide low (65.6±15.6) and control (66.7±11.7), P=0.40), final infarct size (danegaptide high (19.6±11.4 g), danegaptide low (18.6±9.6 g) and control (21.4±15.0 g), P=0.88) or left ventricular ejection fraction (danegaptide high (53.9%±9.5%), danegaptide low (52.7%±10.3%) and control (52.1%±10.9%), P=0.64). There was no difference between groups with regard to clinical outcome. Conclusions: Administration of danegaptide to patients with STEMI did not improve myocardial salvage. Trial registration number: NCT01977755; Pre-results.
|
|
| 2. |
- Laursen, Peter Nørkjær, et al.
(author)
-
Comparison between patients included in randomized controlled trials of ischemic heart disease and real-world data. A nationwide study
- 2018
-
In: American Heart Journal. - : Elsevier BV. - 0002-8703. ; 204, s. 128-138
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background: The objective was to compare patients with ischemic heart disease (IHD) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) who were included in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (trial participants) with patients who were not included (nonparticipants) on a trial-by-trial basis and according to indication for PCI. Methods: In this cohort study, we compared patients with IHD who were randomized in RCTs in relation to undergoing PCI in Denmark between 2011 and 2015 were considered as RCT-participants in this study. The RCT-participants were compared with contemporary nonparticipants with IHD undergoing PCI in the same period, and they were identified using unselected national registry data. The primary end point was all-cause mortality. Results: A total of 10,317 (30%) patients were included in 10 relevant RCTs (trial participants), and a total of 23,644 (70%) contemporary patients did not participate (nonparticipants). In all the included RCTs, nonparticipants had higher hazard ratios for mortality compared to trial participants (P <.001). Among all patients treated with PCI, the pooled estimates showed a significantly higher mortality rate for nonparticipants compared to trial participants (hazard ratio: 2.03, 95% CI: 1.88-2.19) (P <.001). When patients were stratified according to indication for PCI, the pooled estimates showed a significantly lower mortality rate for trial participants compared to nonparticipants in all strata (P for all <.001). Conclusions: Trial participants in recently performed RCTs including patients undergoing PCI were not representative of the general population of patients with IHD treated with PCI according to clinical characteristics and mortality. The difference in mortality was found irrespective of the indication for PCI. Thus, results from RCTs including patients undergoing PCI should be extrapolated with caution to the general patient population.
|
|
