| 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. |
- Ludwig, Sebastian, et al.
(författare)
-
Transcatheter Mitral Valve Replacement versus Medical Therapy for Secondary Mitral Regurgitation: A Propensity Score-Matched Comparison.
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Circulation. Cardiovascular interventions. - 1941-7632. ; 16:6
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Transcatheter mitral valve replacement (TMVR) is an emerging therapeutic alternative for patients with secondary mitral regurgitation (MR). Outcomes of TMVR versus guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) have not been investigated for this population. This study aimed to compare clinical outcomes of patients with secondary MR undergoing TMVR versus GDMT alone. Methods: The CHOICE-MI registry included patients with MR undergoing TMVR using dedicated devices. Patients with MR etiologies other than secondary MR were excluded. Patients treated with GDMT alone were derived from the control arm of the COAPT trial. We compared outcomes between the TMVR and GDMT groups, using propensity score (PS)-matching to adjust for baseline differences. Results: After PS-matching, 97 patient pairs undergoing TMVR (72.9±8.7 years, 60.8% male, transapical access 91.8%) versus GDMT (73.1±11.0 years, 59.8% male) were compared. At 1 and 2 years, residual MR was ≤1+ in all patients of the TMVR group compared to 6.9% and 7.7%, respectively, in those receiving GDMT alone (both p<0.001). The 2-year rate of HF hospitalization was significantly lower in the TMVR group (32.8% vs. 54.4%, HR 0.59, 95% CI 0.35-0.99; p=0.04). Among survivors, a higher proportion of patients were in NYHA functional class I or II in the TMVR group at 1 year (78.2% vs. 59.7%, p=0.03) and at 2 years (77.8% vs. 53.2%, p=0.09). Two-year mortality was similar in the two groups (TMVR vs. GDMT, 36.8% vs. 40.8%, HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.62-1.64; p=0.98). Conclusions: In this observational comparison, over 2-year follow-up, TMVR using mostly transapical devices in patients with secondary MR was associated with significant reduction of MR, symptomatic improvement, less frequent hospitalizations for HF and similar mortality compared with GDMT.
|
|
| 3. |
- Mark, Daniel B., et al.
(författare)
-
Comprehensive Quality-of-Life Outcomes With Invasive Versus Conservative Management of Chronic Coronary Disease in ISCHEMIA
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Circulation. - : Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health). - 0009-7322 .- 1524-4539. ; 145:17, s. 1294-1307
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches) compared an initial invasive treatment strategy (INV) with an initial conservative strategy in 5179 participants with chronic coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia. The ISCHEMIA research program included a comprehensive quality-of-life (QOL) substudy.METHODS: In 1819 participants (907 INV, 912 conservative strategy), we collected a battery of disease-specific and generic QOL instruments by structured interviews at baseline; at 3, 12, 24, and 36 months postrandomization; and at study closeout. Assessments included angina-related QOL (19-item Seattle Angina Questionnaire), generic health status (EQ-5D), depressive symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire-8), and, for North American patients, cardiac functional status (Duke Activity Status Index).RESULTS: Median age was 67 years, 19.2% were female, and 15.9% were non-White. The estimated mean difference for the 19-item Seattle Angina Questionnaire Summary score favored INV (1.4 points [95% CI, 0.2-2.5] over all follow-up). No differences were observed in patients with rare/absent baseline angina (SAQ Angina Frequency score >80). Among patients with more frequent angina at baseline (SAQ Angina Frequency score <80, 744 patients, 41%), those randomly assigned to INV had a mean 3.7-point higher 19-item Seattle Angina Questionnaire Summary score than conservative strategy (95% CI, 1.6-5.8) with consistent effects across SAQ subscales: Physical Limitations 3.2 points (95% CI, 0.2-6.1), Angina Frequency 3.2 points (95% CI, 1.2-5.1), Quality of Life/Health Perceptions 5.3 points (95% CI, 2.8-7.8). For the Duke Activity Status Index, no difference was estimated overall by treatment, but in patients with baseline SAQ Angina Frequency scores <80, Duke Activity Status Index scores were higher for INV (3.2 points [95% CI, 0.6-5.7]), whereas patients with rare/absent baseline angina showed no treatment-related differences. Moderate to severe depression was infrequent at randomization (11.5%-12.8%) and was unaffected by treatment assignment.CONCLUSIONS: In the ISCHEMIA comprehensive QOL substudy, patients with more frequent baseline angina reported greater improvements in the symptom, physical functioning, and psychological well-being dimensions of QOL when treated with an invasive strategy, whereas patients who had rare/absent angina at baseline reported no consistent treatment-related QOL differences.
|
|
| 4. |
- Coisne, Augustin, et al.
(författare)
-
Regurgitant Volume to LA Volume Ratio in Patients with Secondary MR: The COAPT Trial.
- 2024
-
Ingår i: European Heart Journal-Cardiovascular Imaging. - 2047-2404 .- 2047-2412. ; 25:5, s. 616-625
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The conceptual framework of proportionate versus disproportionate mitral regurgitation (MR) translates poorly to individual patients with heart failure (HF) and secondary MR. A novel index, the ratio of MR severity to left atrial volume (LAV), may identify patients with "disproportionate" MR and a higher risk of events. The objectives, therefore, were to investigate the prognostic impact of MR severity to LAV ratio on outcomes among HF patients with severe secondary MR randomized to transcatheter edge-to-edge repair (TEER) with the MitraClipTM device plus guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) vs. GDMT alone in the COAPT trial.The ratio of preprocedural regurgitant volume (RVol) to LAV was calculated from baseline transthoracic echocardiograms. The primary endpoint was 2-year covariate-adjusted rate of HF hospitalization (HFH).Among 567 patients, the median RVol/LAV was 0.67 (IQR 0.48-0.91). In patients randomized to GDMT alone, lower RVol/LAV was independently associated with an increased 2-year risk of HFH (adjHR: 1.77; 95% CI: 1.20-2.63). RVol/LAV was a stronger predictor of adverse outcomes than RVol or LAV alone. Treatment with TEER plus GDMT compared with GDMT alone was associated with lower 2-year rates of HFH both in patients with low and high RVol/LAV (Pinteraction=0.28). Baseline RVol/LAV ratio was unrelated to 2-year mortality, health status, or functional capacity in either treatment group.Low RVol/LAV ratio was an independent predictor of 2-year HFH in HF patients with severe MR treated with GDMT alone in the COAPT trial. TEER improved outcomes regardless of baseline RVol/LAV ratio.Trial Name: Cardiovascular Outcomes Assessment of the MitraClip Percutaneous Therapy for Heart Failure Patients With Functional Mitral Regurgitation (The COAPT Trial) (COAPT) ClinicalTrial.gov Identifier: NCT01626079 URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01626079.
|
|
| 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. |
- Reynolds, Harmony R., et al.
(författare)
-
Outcomes in the ISCHEMIA Trial Based on Coronary Artery Disease and Ischemia Severity
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Circulation. - : Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. - 0009-7322 .- 1524-4539. ; 144:13, s. 1024-1038
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: The ISCHEMIA trial (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches) postulated that patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) and moderate or severe ischemia would benefit from revascularization. We investigated the relationship between severity of CAD and ischemia and trial outcomes, overall and by management strategy.METHODS: In total, 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia were randomized to an initial invasive or conservative management strategy. Blinded, core laboratory-interpreted coronary computed tomographic angiography was used to assess anatomic eligibility for randomization. Extent and severity of CAD were classified with the modified Duke Prognostic Index (n=2475, 48%). Ischemia severity was interpreted by independent core laboratories (nuclear, echocardiography, magnetic resonance imaging, exercise tolerance testing, n=5105, 99%). We compared 4-year event rates across subgroups defined by severity of ischemia and CAD. The primary end point for this analysis was all-cause mortality. Secondary end points were myocardial infarction (MI), cardiovascular death or MI, and the trial primary end point (cardiovascular death, MI, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest).RESULTS: Relative to mild/no ischemia, neither moderate ischemia nor severe ischemia was associated with increased mortality (moderate ischemia hazard ratio [HR], 0.89 [95% CI, 0.61-1.30]; severe ischemia HR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.57-1.21]; P=0.33). Nonfatal MI rates increased with worsening ischemia severity (HR for moderate ischemia, 1.20 [95% CI, 0.86-1.69] versus mild/no ischemia; HR for severe ischemia, 1.37 [95% CI, 0.98-1.91]; P=0.04 for trend, P=NS after adjustment for CAD). Increasing CAD severity was associated with death (HR, 2.72 [95% CI, 1.06-6.98]) and MI (HR, 3.78 [95% CI, 1.63-8.78]) for the most versus least severe CAD subgroup. Ischemia severity did not identify a subgroup with treatment benefit on mortality, MI, the trial primary end point, or cardiovascular death or MI. In the most severe CAD subgroup (n=659), the 4-year rate of cardiovascular death or MI was lower in the invasive strategy group (difference, 6.3% [95% CI, 0.2%-12.4%]), but 4-year all-cause mortality was similar.CONCLUSIONS: Ischemia severity was not associated with increased risk after adjustment for CAD severity. More severe CAD was associated with increased risk. Invasive management did not lower all-cause mortality at 4 years in any ischemia or CAD subgroup.
|
|
| 7. |
- Spertus, John A, et al.
(författare)
-
Health-Status Outcomes with Invasive or Conservative Care in Coronary Disease.
- 2020
-
Ingår i: New England Journal of Medicine. - 0028-4793 .- 1533-4406. ; 382:15, s. 1408-1419
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: In the ISCHEMIA trial, an invasive strategy with angiographic assessment and revascularization did not reduce clinical events among patients with stable ischemic heart disease and moderate or severe ischemia. A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status among these patients.METHODS: We assessed angina-related symptoms, function, and quality of life with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) at randomization, at months 1.5, 3, and 6, and every 6 months thereafter in participants who had been randomly assigned to an invasive treatment strategy (2295 participants) or a conservative strategy (2322). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate differences between the treatment groups. The primary outcome of this health-status analysis was the SAQ summary score (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health status). All analyses were performed in the overall population and according to baseline angina frequency.RESULTS: At baseline, 35% of patients reported having no angina in the previous month. SAQ summary scores increased in both treatment groups, with increases at 3, 12, and 36 months that were 4.1 points (95% credible interval, 3.2 to 5.0), 4.2 points (95% credible interval, 3.3 to 5.1), and 2.9 points (95% credible interval, 2.2 to 3.7) higher with the invasive strategy than with the conservative strategy. Differences were larger among participants who had more frequent angina at baseline (8.5 vs. 0.1 points at 3 months and 5.3 vs. 1.2 points at 36 months among participants with daily or weekly angina as compared with no angina).CONCLUSIONS: In the overall trial population with moderate or severe ischemia, which included 35% of participants without angina at baseline, patients randomly assigned to the invasive strategy had greater improvement in angina-related health status than those assigned to the conservative strategy. The modest mean differences favoring the invasive strategy in the overall group reflected minimal differences among asymptomatic patients and larger differences among patients who had had angina at baseline. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; ISCHEMIA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01471522.).
|
|
| 8. |
- Ahmadi, Amir, et al.
(författare)
-
Prognostic Determinants of Coronary Atherosclerosis in Stable Ischemic Heart Disease : Anatomy, Physiology, or Morphology?
- 2016
-
Ingår i: Circulation Research. - 0009-7330. ; 119:2, s. 317-329
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Risk stratification in patients with stable ischemic heart disease is essential to guide treatment decisions. In this regard, whether coronary anatomy, physiology, or plaque morphology is the best determinant of prognosis (and driver an effective therapeutic risk reduction) remains one of the greatest ongoing debates in cardiology. In the present report, we review the evidence for each of these characteristics and explore potential algorithms that may enable a practical diagnostic and therapeutic strategy for the management of patients with stable ischemic heart disease.
|
|
| 9. |
- Généreux, Philippe, et al.
(författare)
-
Randomized evaluation of vessel preparation with orbital atherectomy prior to drug-eluting stent implantation in severely calcified coronary artery lesions: Design and rationale of the ECLIPSE trial.
- 2022
-
Ingår i: American heart journal. - : Elsevier BV. - 1097-6744 .- 0002-8703. ; 249, s. 1-11
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Severe coronary artery calcification has been associated with stent underexpansion, procedural complications, and increased rates of early and late adverse clinical events in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. To date, no lesion preparation strategy has been shown to definitively improve outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention for calcified coronary artery lesions.ECLIPSE (NCT03108456) is a prospective, randomized, multicenter trial designed to evaluate two different vessel preparation strategies in severely calcified coronary artery lesions. The routine use of the Diamondback 360 Coronary Orbital Atherectomy System is compared with conventional balloon angioplasty prior to drug-eluting stent implantation. The trial aims to enroll approximately 2000 subjects with a primary clinical endpoint of target vessel failure, defined as the composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target vessel revascularization assessed at 1 year. The co-primary endpoint is the acute post-procedural in-stent minimal cross-sectional area as assessed by optical coherence tomography in a 500-subject cohort. Enrollment is anticipated to complete in 2022 with total clinical follow-up planned for 2 years.ECLIPSE is a large-scale, prospective randomized trial powered to demonstrate whether a vessel preparation strategy of routine orbital atherectomy system is superior to conventional balloon angioplasty prior to implantation of drug-eluting stents in severely calcified coronary artery lesions.
|
|
| 10. |
- Nguyen, Dan D., et al.
(författare)
-
Health Status and Clinical Outcomes in Older Adults With Chronic Coronary Disease
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Journal of the American College of Cardiology. - : Elsevier BV. - 0735-1097 .- 1558-3597. ; 81:17, s. 1697-1709
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Whether initial invasive management in older vs younger adults with chronic coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia improves health status or clinical outcomes is unknown. OBJECTIVES The goal of this study was to examine the impact of age on health status and clinical outcomes with invasive vs conservative management in the ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches) trial.METHODS: One-year angina-specific health status was assessed with the 7-item Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) (score range 0-100; higher scores indicate better health status). Cox proportional hazards models estimated the treatment effect of invasive vs conservative management as a function of age on the composite clinical outcome of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for resuscitated cardiac arrest, unstable angina, or heart failure.RESULTS: Among 4,617 participants, 2,239 (48.5%) were aged <65 years, 1,713 (37.1%) were aged 65 to 74 years, and 665 (14.4%) were aged $75 years. Baseline SAQ summary scores were lower in participants aged <65 years. Fully adjusted differences in 1-year SAQ summary scores (invasive minus conservative) were 4.90 (95% CI: 3.56-6.24) at age 55 years, 3.48 (95% CI: 2.40-4.57) at age 65 years, and 2.13 (95% CI: 0.75-3.51) at age 75 years (Pinteraction = 0.008). Improvement in SAQ Angina Frequency was less dependent on age (Pinteraction = 0.08). There were no age differences between invasive vs conservative management on the composite clinical outcome (Pinteraction = 0.29).CONCLUSIONS: Older patients with chronic coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia had consistent improvement in angina frequency but less improvement in angina-related health status with invasive management compared with younger patients. Invasive management was not associated with improved clinical outcomes in older or younger patients.
|
|
