Explore the vast range of titles available.

A comprehensive international approach to ACAD treatment requires increased research funding, the development of novel treatments, and investment in early detection methods. The focus of management of coronary artery disease needs to shift from the late stages of the disease, coronary artery obstruction and resultant ischaemia and infarction, towards strategies aimed at early prevention, regression, and cure of atherosclerosis ACAD should be seen as a lifetime continuum from early life through to older age Practical and pragmatic research must be promoted and conducted by stakeholders that is inclusive of routine health care using decentralised and adaptive platforms of interventions that allow a greater proportion of diverse patients to be randomised within clinical trials with lifelong follow-up New therapies to eradicate atherosclerosis must be developed The eradication of atherosclerosis is possible with transformative research A global standard of data collection and dissemination to inform population-based decision making in ACAD should be established

The adverse consequences of stable coronary artery disease (CAD) are death, myocardial infarction (MI) and angina. Trials in stable CAD show that percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) does not reduce mortality. PCI does appear to reduce spontaneous MI rates but at the expense of causing some periprocedural MI. Therefore, the main purpose of PCI is to relieve angina. Indeed, patients and physicians often choose PCI rather than first attempting to control symptoms with anti-anginal medications as recommended by guidelines. Nevertheless, it is unclear how effective PCI is at relieving angina. This is because, whereas anti-anginal medications are universally required to be tested against placebo, there is no such requirement for procedural interventions such as PCI. The first placebo-controlled trial of PCI showed a surprisingly small effect size. This may be because it is overly simplistic to assume that the presence of a stenosis and inducible ischaemia in a patient means that the clinical chest pain they report is caused by ischaemia. In this article, we review the evidence base and argue that if we as a medical specialty wish to lead the science of procedures for symptom control, we should recognise the special merit of placebo-controlled experiments.

Despite current antiplatelet therapy, patients remain at risk of recurrent ischemic events after acute coronary syndromes (ACS), which may reflect persistently elevated thrombin generation. Factor XIa inhibition reduces thrombin generation and may improve clinical outcomes with minimal bleeding risk. Librexia ACS (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05754957) is a Phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, event-driven trial to test the efficacy and safety of milvexian, an oral, selective factor XIa inhibitor, in addition to conventional antiplatelet therapy after a recent ACS. Eligibility criteria include symptoms of spontaneous ischemia, a diagnosis of ACS and cardiac biomarker elevation indicative of myonecrosis within 7 days before randomization, along with at least 2 risk-enhancing factors. Participants are randomly assigned to oral milvexian (25 mg twice daily) or a matched placebo. Randomization is stratified according to the planned duration and type of antiplatelet therapy. The primary efficacy endpoint is the time to first occurrence of the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), or ischemic stroke that will enroll approximately 16,000 patients with follow-up until 875 events are accrued. The first major secondary endpoint is time to the first occurrence of cardiovascular death, MI, ischemic stroke, major adverse limb events, and symptomatic venous thromboembolism. The principal safety endpoint is Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 3c or 5 bleeding. The Librexia-ACS trial will determine the efficacy and safety of milvexian after ACS and will be the first trial to test whether factor XIa inhibition in addition to standard-of-care antiplatelet therapy reduces major adverse cardiovascular events without an increased risk of significant bleeding.

AbstractManagement of stable coronary artery disease (CAD) centers on medication to prevent myocardial infarction and death. Many anti-anginal medications also have benefit for reducing symptoms, and have been proven to be effective against placebo control. Before effective preventive medications were available, patients with stable CAD often underwent revascularization with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), on the plausible assumption that these procedures would prevent adverse events and reduce symptoms. However, recent randomized controlled trials have cast doubt on these assumptions.Considering results from the recent ISCHEMIA trial, we discuss the evidence base that underpins revascularization for stable CAD in contemporary practice. We also focus on patient groups at high risk of myocardial infarction and death, for whom revascularization is often recommended. We outline the areas of uncertainty, unanswered research questions, and key areas of potential miscommunication in doctor-patient consultations.

Gender differences exist in outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass graft surgery but have yet to be fully explored after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. We aimed to investigate gender differences after transcatheter aortic valve implantation in the UK National Institute for Cardiovascular Outcomes Research registry. A retrospective analysis was performed of Medtronic CoreValve and Edwards SAPIEN implantation in 1,627 patients (756 women) from January 2007 to December 2010. Men had more risk factors: poor left ventricular systolic function (11.9% vs 5.5%, p <0.001), 3-vessel disease (19.4% vs 9.2%, p <0.001), previous myocardial infarction (29.5% vs 13.0%, p <0.001), peripheral vascular disease (32.4% vs 23.3%, p <0.001), and higher logistic EuroSCORE (21.8 ± 14.2% vs 21.0 ± 13.4%, p = 0.046). Thirty-day mortality was 6.3% (confidence interval 4.3% to 7.9%) in women and 7.4% (5.6% to 9.2%) in men and at 1 year, 21.9% (18.7% to 25.1%) and 22.4% (19.4% to 25.4%), respectively. There was no mortality difference: p = 0.331 by log-rank test; hazard ratio for women 0.91 (0.75 to 1.10). Procedural success (96.6% in women vs 96.4% in men, p = 0.889) and 30-day cerebrovascular event rates (3.8% vs 3.7%, p = 0.962) did not differ. Women had more major vascular complications (7.5% vs 4.2%, p = 0.004) and less moderate or severe postprocedural aortic regurgitation (7.5% vs 12.5%, p = 0.001). In conclusion, despite a higher risk profile in men, there was no gender-related mortality difference; however, women had more major vascular complications and less postprocedural moderate or severe aortic regurgitation.

The coronary sinus reducer (CSR) is proposed to reduce angina in patients with stable coronary artery disease by improving myocardial perfusion. We aimed to measure its efficacy, compared with placebo, on myocardial ischaemia reduction and symptom improvement. ORBITA-COSMIC was a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial conducted at six UK hospitals. Patients aged 18 years or older with angina, stable coronary artery disease, ischaemia, and no further options for treatment were eligible. All patients completed a quantitative adenosine-stress perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance scan, symptom and quality-of-life questionnaires, and a treadmill exercise test before entering a 2-week symptom assessment phase, in which patients reported their angina symptoms using a smartphone application (ORBITA-app). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either CSR or placebo. Both participants and investigators were masked to study assignment. After the CSR implantation or placebo procedure, patients entered a 6-month blinded follow-up phase in which they reported their daily symptoms in the ORBITA-app. At 6 months, all assessments were repeated. The primary outcome was myocardial blood flow in segments designated ischaemic at enrolment during the adenosine-stress perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance scan. The primary symptom outcome was the number of daily angina episodes. Analysis was done by intention-to-treat and followed Bayesian methodology. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04892537, and completed. Between May 26, 2021, and June 28, 2023, 61 patients were enrolled, of whom 51 (44 [86%] male; seven [14%] female) were randomly assigned to either the CSR group (n=25) or the placebo group (n=26). Of these, 50 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis (24 in the CSR group and 26 in the placebo group). 454 (57%) of 800 imaged cardiac segments were ischaemic at enrolment, with a median stress myocardial blood flow of 1·08 mL/min per g (IQR 0·77–1·41). Myocardial blood flow in ischaemic segments did not improve with CSR compared with placebo (difference 0·06 mL/min per g [95% CrI –0·09 to 0·20]; Pr(Benefit)=78·8%). The number of daily angina episodes was reduced with CSR compared with placebo (OR 1·40 [95% CrI 1·08 to 1·83]; Pr(Benefit)=99·4%). There were two CSR embolisation events in the CSR group, and no acute coronary syndrome events or deaths in either group. ORBITA-COSMIC found no evidence that the CSR improved transmural myocardial perfusion, but the CSR did improve angina compared with placebo. These findings provide evidence for the use of CSR as a further antianginal option for patients with stable coronary artery disease. Medical Research Council, Imperial College Healthcare Charity, National Institute for Health and Care Research Imperial Biomedical Research Centre, St Mary's Coronary Flow Trust, British Heart Foundation.

Introduction The ORBITA trial of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus a placebo procedure for patients with stable angina was conducted across six sites in the United Kingdom via home monitoring and telephone consultations. Patients underwent detailed assessment of medication adherence which allowed us to measure the efficacy of the implementation of the optimization protocol and interpretation of the main trial endpoints. Methods Prescribing data were collected throughout the trial. Self‐reported adherence was assessed, and urine samples collected at pre‐randomization and at follow‐up for direct assessment of adherence using high‐performance liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry (HPLC MS/MS). Results Self‐reported adherence was >96% for all drugs in both treatment groups at both stages. The percentage of samples in which drug was detected at pre‐randomization and at follow‐up in the PCI versus placebo groups respectively was: clopidogrel, 96% versus 90% and 98% versus 94%; atorvastatin, 95% versus 92% and 92% versus 91%; perindopril, 95% versus 97% and 85% versus 100%; bisoprolol, 98% versus 99% and 96% versus 97%; amlodipine, 99% versus 99% and 94% versus 96%; nicorandil, 98% versus 96% and 94% versus 92%; ivabradine, 100% versus 100% and 100% versus 100%; and ranolazine, 100% versus 100% and 100% versus 100%. Conclusions Adherence levels were high throughout the study when quantified by self‐reporting methods and similarly high proportions of drug were detected by urinary assay. The results indicate successful implementation of the optimization protocol delivered by telephone, an approach that could serve as a model for treatment of chronic conditions, particularly as consultations are increasingly conducted online. Medical therapy for patients with stable angina optimised over 6 weeks of tele‐ health clinic visits. Treatment titrated to home blood pressure and heart rate measurements. Medication adherence confirmed using HPLC MS/MS and patient self‐reporting. Patients subsequently randomised to PCI or placebo procedure in the ORBITA trial. Adherence reassessed at final follow‐up. Self‐reported adherence was >96% for all drugs in both treatment groups at both stages. Proportion of expected drug detected was >90% for all first‐choice, protocol‐directed medicines at both stages. No significant between group differences at pre‐ randomisation or at follow‐up and medication taking patterns did not change following treatment with PCI. The study uses a simple model for optimisation of medical therapy in clinical practice using a telehealth approach with high levels of adherence.

The main aims of therapy in chronic stable angina are to reduce the risk of myocardial infarction and death and improve symptoms and quality of life (QoL). Unblinded trials have shown that revascularization does not reduce the risk of myocardial infarction or death but does appear to improve symptoms. However, symptoms are susceptible to the placebo effect which can bias therapies to appear more effective than they are. To assess the true physical impact of a treatment on symptoms, placebo-controlled trials with patients and medical and research teams blinded to treatment allocation are necessary. Symptoms and QoL can be reported directly by the patient or indirectly by the physician. Patient-reported outcome measures in angina trials can include angina frequency, frequency of nitrate use, exercise capacity, and questionnaires such as the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) and the generic EuroQOL-5D-5L (EQ-5D-5L) QoL questionnaire. Physician-assessed outcome measures include Canadian Cardiovascular Society Class. The Objective Randomised Blinded Investigation with Optimal Medical Therapy of Angioplasty in Stable Angina (ORBITA) trial was the first blinded placebo-controlled study investigating the role of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in chronic stable angina. The trial showed a smaller than expected and not statistically significant effect of placebo-controlled PCI on the primary endpoint of change in exercise time at 6 weeks follow-up in single-vessel coronary artery disease. There was also no significant placebo-controlled treatment effect of PCI for the prespecified secondary endpoints of SAQ or EQ-5D-5L, although PCI did result in 20% more patients becoming free from angina than placebo in a non-prespecified secondary analysis. ORBITA has demonstrated the need for symptomatic and QoL effects of PCI to be studied using placebo control. Here, we describe ways of measuring QoL, the impact of the unblinded and blinded trials to date, what we have learned from ORBITA, and what is next for this common and complex condition.

The preferred timing of treatment of nonculprit lesions in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) remains uncertain. A comparison of immediate percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) guided by instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) and deferred PCI guided by cardiac stress magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients with STEMI and multivessel disease is warranted. In this international, investigator-initiated, open-label, randomized, controlled trial, patients with STEMI and at least one nonculprit lesion who had undergone successful primary PCI were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to immediate iFR-guided PCI (in lesions with >50% stenosis and an iFR of ≤0.89 [normal value, >0.89]) or deferred cardiac stress MRI-guided PCI within 6 weeks after randomization. The primary end point was a composite of death from any cause, recurrent myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for heart failure at 3-year follow-up. The trial included 1146 patients (558 in the iFR group and 588 in the MRI group) with a mean (±SD) age of 63±11 years; 78% were men. A total of 237 of 556 patients (42.6%) in the iFR group and 110 of 587 patients (18.7%) in the MRI group underwent nonculprit-lesion coronary-artery PCI. A primary-end-point event occurred in 50 patients (9.3%) in the iFR group and in 55 patients (9.8%) in the MRI group (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.65 to 1.40; P = 0.81). Serious adverse events occurred in 145 patients in the iFR group and in 181 in the MRI group. Among patients with STEMI who have undergone successful primary PCI, immediate iFR-guided PCI was not superior to deferred cardiac stress MRI-guided PCI of nonculprit coronary-artery lesions with respect to death from any cause, recurrent myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for heart failure at 3 years. (Funded by Philips Volcano and others; iMODERN ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03298659.).

Recent randomised controlled trials, such as ISCHEMIA and ORBITA, have overturned most of what we were taught in medical school about hospital procedures considered necessary for patients with stable coronary artery disease. In this article, we discuss what these trials mean for physicians and patients considering revascularisation procedures with the hope of reducing the risk of death or alleviating angina.