| 1. |
|
|
| 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. |
- 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.
|
|
| 4. |
- Fröbert, Ole, 1964-, et al.
(författare)
-
Design and rationale for the Influenza vaccination After Myocardial Infarction (IAMI) trial. A registry-based randomized clinical trial
- 2017
-
Ingår i: American Heart Journal. - : MOSBY-ELSEVIER. - 0002-8703 .- 1097-6744. ; 189, s. 94-102
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Registry studies and case-control studies have demonstrated that the risk of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is increased following influenza infection. Small randomized trials, underpowered for clinical end points, indicate that future cardiovascular events can be reduced following influenza vaccination in patients with established cardiovascular disease. Influenza vaccination is recommended by international guidelines for patients with cardiovascular disease, but uptake is varying and vaccination is rarely prioritized during hospitalization for AMI.Methods/design: The Influenza vaccination After Myocardial Infarction (IAMI) trial is a double-blind, multicenter, prospective, registry-based, randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trial. A total of 4,400 patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) or non-STEMI undergoing coronary angiography will randomly be assigned either to in-hospital influenza vaccination or to placebo. Baseline information is collected from national heart disease registries, and follow-up will be performed using both registries and a structured telephone interview. The primary end point is a composite of time to all cause death, a new AMI, or stent thrombosis at 1 year.Implications: The IAMI trial is the largest randomized trial to date to evaluate the effect of in-hospital influenza vaccination on death and cardiovascular outcomes in patients with STEMI or non-STEMI. The trial is expected to provide highly relevant clinical data on the efficacy of influenza vaccine as secondary prevention after AMI.
|
|
| 5. |
- Venetsanos, Dimitrios, et al.
(författare)
-
Sex-related response to bivalirudin and unfractionated heparin in patients with acute myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention : A subgroup analysis of the VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART trial
- 2019
-
Ingår i: European Heart Journal. - : Sage Publications. - 2048-8726 .- 2048-8734. ; 8:6, s. 502-509
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- AIMS: Our aim was to study the impact of sex on anticoagulant treatment outcomes during percutaneous coronary intervention in acute myocardial infarction patients.METHODS: This study was a prespecified analysis of the Bivalirudin versus Heparin in ST-Segment and Non ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction in Patients on Modern Antiplatelet Therapy in the Swedish Web System for Enhancement and Development of Evidence-based Care in Heart Disease Evaluated according to Recommended Therapies Registry Trial (VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART) trial, in which patients with myocardial infarction were randomised to bivalirudin or unfractionated heparin during percutaneous coronary intervention. The primary outcome was the composite of death, myocardial infarction or major bleeding at 180 days.RESULTS: There was a lower risk of the primary outcome in women assigned to bivalirudin than to unfractionated heparin (13.6% vs 17.1%, hazard ratio 0.78, 95% confidence interval (0.60-1.00)) with no significant difference in men (11.8% vs 11.2%, hazard ratio 1.06 (0.89-1.26), p for interaction 0.05). The observed difference was primarily due to lower risk of major bleeding (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium definition 2, 3 or 5) associated with bivalirudin in women (8.9% vs 11.8%, hazard ratio 0.74 (0.54-1.01)) but not in men (8.5% vs 7.3%, hazard ratio 1.16 (0.94-1.43) in men, p for interaction 0.02). Conversely, no significant difference in the risk of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 3 or 5 bleeding, associated with bivalirudin, was found in women 4.5% vs 5.4% (hazard ratio 0.84 (0.54-1.31)) or men 2.9% vs 2.1% (hazard ratio 1.36 (0.93-1.99)). Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 2 bleeding occurred significantly less often in women assigned to bivalirudin than to unfractionated heparin. The risk of death or myocardial infarction did not significantly differ between randomised treatments in men or women.CONCLUSION: In women, bivalirudin was associated with a lower risk of adverse outcomes, compared to unfractionated heparin, primarily due to a significant reduction in Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 2 bleeds.
|
|
