Explore the vast range of titles available.

Patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel coronary disease have a worse prognosis compared with individuals with single-vessel disease. We aimed to study the clinical outcome of patients with STEMI treated with fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided complete revascularisation versus treatment of the infarct-related artery only. We undertook an open-label, randomised controlled trial at two university hospitals in Denmark. Patients presenting with STEMI who had one or more clinically significant coronary stenosis in addition to the lesion in the infarct-related artery were included. After successful percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of the infarct-related artery, patients were randomly allocated (in a 1:1 ratio) either no further invasive treatment or complete FFR-guided revascularisation before discharge. Randomisation was done electronically via a web-based system in permuted blocks of varying size by the clinician who did the primary PCI. All patients received best medical treatment. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality, non-fatal reinfarction, and ischaemia-driven revascularisation of lesions in non-infarct-related arteries and was assessed when the last enrolled patient had been followed up for 1 year. Analysis was on an intention-to-treat basis. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01960933. From March, 2011, to February, 2014, we enrolled 627 patients to the trial; 313 were allocated no further invasive treatment after primary PCI of the infarct-related artery only and 314 were assigned complete revascularisation guided by FFR values. Median follow-up was 27 months (range 12–44 months). Events comprising the primary endpoint were recorded in 68 (22%) patients who had PCI of the infarct-related artery only and in 40 (13%) patients who had complete revascularisation (hazard ratio 0·56, 95% CI 0·38–0·83; p=0·004). In patients with STEMI and multivessel disease, complete revascularisation guided by FFR measurements significantly reduces the risk of future events compared with no further invasive intervention after primary PCI. This effect is driven by significantly fewer repeat revascularisations, because all-cause mortality and non-fatal reinfarction did not differ between groups. Thus, to avoid repeat revascularisation, patients can safely have all their lesions treated during the index admission. Future studies should clarify whether complete revascularisation should be done acutely during the index procedure or at later time and whether it has an effect on hard endpoints. Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation and Danish Council for Strategic Research.

In patients presenting with acute coronary syndromes and multivessel coronary artery disease, the question of whether to undertake a strategy of complete revascularisation in cases in which percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is performed routinely on non-culprit lesions (in addition to the culprit lesion) or whether to restrict PCI only to the culprit lesion is a common dilemma. The Complete Revascularisation Trialists' Collaboration aimed to determine, based on the totality of data from randomised trials, the effect of a complete revascularisation strategy on major cardiovascular events and whether it reduces cardiovascular death. In this individual patient data meta-analysis, trials were included if they enrolled at least 250 patients, compared a complete revascularisation strategy (with PCI) to a culprit lesion-only PCI strategy, and enrolled patients presenting with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction or non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. To ensure that no trials were overlooked, we searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) for randomised controlled trials published between 1996 and Sept 15, 2025. The primary outcomes were the composite of cardiovascular death or new myocardial infarction and cardiovascular death alone. Hierarchical testing of cardiovascular death alone was planned contingent on reduction in cardiovascular death or new myocardial infarction based on the prespecified alpha level of 0·04. A one-stage individual patient data meta-analysis was performed using a Cox frailty model. All-cause death was the secondary outcome; non-cardiovascular death and new myocardial infarction were additional outcomes. All analyses included all randomly assigned patients. The meta-analysis was registered in PROSPERO, CRD420251124098. Six randomised controlled trials involving 8836 individuals were included. The median age was 65·8 years (IQR 57·0–76·0), and 2088 (23·6%) patients were female and 6748 (76·4%) were male. Overall, 7768 (87·9%) patients presented with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and 1068 (12·1%) with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. At a median follow-up of 36·0 months (IQR 30·6–48·0), cardiovascular death or new myocardial infarction occurred in 382 (9·0%) of 4259 patients in the complete revascularisation group compared with 528 (11·5%) of 4577 patients in the culprit lesion-only group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·76 [95% CI 0·67–0·87], p<0·0001). There were 155 (3·6%) cardiovascular deaths in the complete revascularisation group compared with 209 (4·6%) in the culprit lesion-only group (HR 0·76 [95% CI 0·62–0·93], p=0·0091). All-cause death occurred in 308 (7·2%) patients in the complete revascularisation group compared with 370 (8·1%) patients in the culprit lesion-only group (HR 0·85 [95% CI 0·73–0·99], p=0·039). Non-cardiovascular death was similar between the groups (153 [3·6%] in the complete revascularisation group vs 161 [3·5%] in the culprit lesion-only group; HR 0·98 [95% CI 0·78–1·22], p=0·85). Complete revascularisation reduced new myocardial infarctions compared with culprit lesion-only PCI (255 [6·0%] vs 357 [7·8%]; HR 0·76 [95% CI 0·65–0·90], p=0·0011). In patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction and multivessel disease, complete revascularisation reduced the composite of cardiovascular death or new myocardial infarction as well as cardiovascular death alone compared with a culprit lesion-only PCI strategy. In addition, all-cause death was lower with complete revascularisation. These data provide the strongest and most robust evidence to date that complete revascularisation improves important cardiovascular clinical outcomes. None.

Wearable wireless electrocardiographic (ECG) monitoring is well-proven for arrythmia detection, but ischemia detection accuracy is not well-described. We aimed to assess the agreement of ST-segment deviation from single- versus 12-lead ECG and their accuracy for the detection of reversible ischemia. Bias and limits of agreement (LoA) were calculated between maximum deviations in ST segments from single- and 12-lead ECG during 82Rb PET-myocardial cardiac stress scintigraphy. Sensitivity and specificity for reversible anterior-lateral myocardial ischemia detection were assessed for both ECG methods, using perfusion imaging results as a reference. Out of 110 patients included, 93 were analyzed. The maximum difference between single- and 12-lead ECG was seen in II (−0.019 mV). The widest LoA was seen in V5, with an upper LoA of 0.145 mV (0.118 to 0.172) and a lower LoA of −0.155 mV (−0.182 to −0.128). Ischemia was seen in 24 patients. Single-lead and 12-lead ECG both had poor accuracy for the detection of reversible anterolateral ischemia during the test: single-lead ECG had a sensitivity of 8.3% (1.0–27.0%) and specificity of 89.9% (80.2–95.8%), and 12-lead ECG a sensitivity of 12.5% (3.0–34.4%) and a specificity of 91.3% (82.0–96.7%). In conclusion, agreement was within predefined acceptable criteria for ST deviations, and both methods had high specificity but poor sensitivity for the detection of anterolateral reversible ischemia. Additional studies must confirm these results and their clinical relevance, especially in the light of the poor sensitivity for detecting reversible anterolateral cardiac ischemia.

IntroductionPleural effusion is present in half of the patients hospitalised with acute heart failure. The condition is treated with diuretics and/or therapeutic thoracentesis for larger effusions. No evidence from randomised trials or guidelines supports thoracentesis to alleviate pleural effusion due to acute heart failure. The Thoracentesis to Alleviate cardiac Pleural effusion Interventional Trial (TAP-IT) will investigate if a strategy of referring patients with acute heart failure and pleural effusion to up-front thoracentesis by pleural pigtail catheter insertion in addition to pharmacological therapy compared with pharmacological therapy alone can increase the number of days the participants are alive and not hospitalised during the 90 days following randomisation.Methods and analysisTAP-IT is a pragmatic, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial aiming to include 126 adult patients with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤45% and a non-negligible pleural effusion due to heart failure. Participants will be randomised 1:1, stratified according to site and anticoagulant treatment, and assigned to referral to up-front ultrasound-guided pleural pigtail catheter thoracentesis in addition to standard pharmacological therapy or to standard pharmacological therapy only. Thoracentesis is performed according to local guidelines and can be performed in participants in the pharmacological treatment arm if their condition deteriorates or if no significant improvement is observed within 5 days. The primary endpoint is how many days participants are alive and not hospitalised within 90 days from randomisation and will be analysed in the intention-to-treat population. Key secondary outcomes include 90-day mortality, complications, readmissions, and quality of life.Ethics and disseminationThe study has been approved by the Capital Region of Denmark Scientific Ethical Committee (H-20060817) and Knowledge Center for Data Reviews (P-2021–149). All participants will sign an informed consent form. Enrolment began in August 2021. Regardless of the nature, results will be published in a peer-reviewed medical journal.Trial registration numberNCT05017753.

Background Many patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and valvular heart disease (VHD) suffer from psychological distress. Such stress is associated with increased morbidity, reduced quality of life and delayed return to work. European guidelines emphasize recognition and intervention, but evidence-based treatment options are limited and perceived as costly. The present study will test the effect of brief, group-based cognitive therapy as an adjunct to usual cardiac rehabilitation in a randomized design. Methods A total of 148 patients with CAD and/or VHD after surgical intervention and concomitant psychological distress (defined as HADS anxiety (A) or depression (D) score ≥8) will be randomized to either usual out-patient cardiac rehabilitation (CR) comprising an 8-week multidisciplinary programme or usual care supplemented by five group-based cognitive therapy sessions performed by trained CR nurses. A structured, standardized treatment manual will be used. Patients will be randomized 1:1 at three different sites. Additionally, a non-randomized sub-group of 40 matched patients without signs of psychological distress will be followed to investigate spontaneous variation in HADS. The primary outcome is Hospital Anxiety and Depression Score (HADS). Secondary outcomes are adherence to cardiac rehabilitation (CR), health-related quality of life measured by HeartQoL, time to return to work, adherence to lifestyle interventions and cardiovascular readmissions. Patients are followed up for 12 months. Discussion To our knowledge, this is the first randomized controlled trial (RCT) on patients with cardiac disease with an intensive group-based programme of cognitive therapy performed by CR nurses, which makes it affordable and widely implementable. The outcome will elucidate the feasibility and effect of cognitive therapy as an adjunct to CR in patients with post-surgery CAD and/or VHD and psychological distress and could possibly benefit patients with other heart conditions as well. The clinical trial complies with the Declaration of Helsinki. The trial has been approved by The Regional Research Ethics Committee (file number H-16042832) and The Danish Data Protection Agency. The results will be disseminated as original research in peer-reviewed manuscripts. Trial registration www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT04254315 . Retrospectively registered on 30 January 2020.

Despite successful treatment of the culprit artery lesion by primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with stent implantation, thrombotic embolisation occurs in some cases, which impairs the prognosis of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). We aimed to assess the clinical outcomes of deferred stent implantation versus standard PCI in patients with STEMI. We did this open-label, randomised controlled trial at four primary PCI centres in Denmark. Eligible patients (aged >18 years) had acute onset symptoms lasting 12 h or less, and ST-segment elevation of 0·1 mV or more in at least two or more contiguous electrocardiographic leads or newly developed left bundle branch block. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1), via an electronic web-based system with permuted block sizes of two to six, to receive either standard primary PCI with immediate stent implantation or deferred stent implantation 48 h after the index procedure if a stabilised flow could be obtained in the infarct-related artery. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality, hospital admission for heart failure, recurrent infarction, and any unplanned revascularisation of the target vessel within 2 years' follow-up. Patients, investigators, and treating clinicians were not masked to treatment allocation. We did analysis by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01435408. Between March 1, 2011, and Feb 28, 2014, we randomly assigned 1215 patients to receive either standard PCI (n=612) or deferred stent implantation (n=603). Median follow-up time was 42 months (IQR 33–49). Events comprising the primary endpoint occurred in 109 (18%) patients who had standard PCI and in 105 (17%) patients who had deferred stent implantation (hazard ratio 0·99, 95% CI 0·76–1·29; p=0·92). Procedure-related myocardial infarction, bleeding requiring transfusion or surgery, contrast-induced nephopathy, or stroke occurred in 28 (5%) patients in the conventional PCI group versus 27 (4%) patients in the deferred stent implantation group, with no significant differences between groups. In patients with STEMI, routine deferred stent implantation did not reduce the occurrence of death, heart failure, myocardial infarction, or repeat revascularisation compared with conventional PCI. Results from ongoing randomised trials might shed further light on the concept of deferred stenting in this patient population. Danish Agency for Science, Technology and Innovation, and Danish Council for Strategic Research.

In patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), ischemic postconditioning (iPOST) have shown ambiguous results in minimizing reperfusion injury. Previous findings show beneficial effects of iPOST in patients with STEMI treated without thrombectomy. However, it remains unknown whether the cardioprotective effect of iPOST in these patients persist on long term. In the current study, all patients were identified through the DANAMI-3-iPOST database. Patients were randomized to conventional primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or iPOST in addition to PCI. Cumulative incidence rates were calculated, and multivariable analyses stratified according to thrombectomy use were performed. The primary end point was a combination of cardiovascular mortality and hospitalization for heart failure. From 2011 to 2014, 1,234 patients with STEMI were included with a median follow-up of 4.8 years. In patients treated without thrombectomy (n = 520), the primary end point occurred in 15% (48/326) in the iPOST group and in 22% (42/194) in the conventional group (unadjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.62, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.41 to 0.94, p = 0.023). In adjusted Cox analysis, iPOST remained associated with reduced long-term risk of cardiovascular mortality (HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.97, p = 0.039). In patients treated with thrombectomy (n = 714), there was no significant difference between iPOST (17%, 49/291) and conventional treatment (17%, 72/423) on the primary end point (unadjusted HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.45, p = 0.95). During a follow-up of nearly 5 years, iPOST reduced long-term occurrence of cardiovascular mortality and hospitalization for heart failure in patients with STEMI treated with PCI but without thrombectomy.

In patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, ischemic postconditioning has been shown to reduce infarct size, but the effect on clinical outcome has not been tested in a large randomized trial. In addition, deferring stent implantation in the infarct-related lesion 1 to 3 days after acute opening of the infarct-related artery could have protective effects, by reducing the risk of injury caused by distal embolization and microvascular obstruction. Finally, a considerable fraction of patients present with lesions in other coronary artery branches than the infarct-related artery. Whether a strategy of complete or partial revascularization of these patients should be preferred remains uncertain. The DANAMI 3 trial program was designed to investigate 3 different randomized treatment strategies in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: (1) ischemic postconditioning versus conventional treatment with a primary end point of death and hospitalization for heart failure; (2) deferring stent implantation in the infarct-related lesion versus conventional treatment with a primary end point of death, hospitalization for heart failure, reinfarction, and repeat revascularization; and (3) treatment of the culprit lesion only versus fractional flow reserve-guided complete revascularization in patients with multivessel disease, with a primary end point of death, reinfarction, and repeat revascularization. The DANAMI 3 trial program will determine whether either of 2 approaches to reduce reperfusion injury and distal microvascular obstruction with postconditioning or deferred stent implantation will translate into improved clinical outcome and whether patients with multivessel disease undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention will benefit from a strategy of complete or partial revascularization.

BackgroundThe ability of coronary CT angiography (cCTA) to rule out significant coronary artery disease (CAD) in older patients with non-ST segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTEACS) is unclear since valid cCTA analysis may be limited by extensive coronary artery calcification. In addition, the effect of very early invasive coronary angiography (ICA) with possible revascularisation is debated.MethodsThis is a posthoc analysis of patients ≥75 years included in the Very Early vs Standard Care Invasive Examination and Treatment of Patients with Non-ST-Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome Trial. cCTA was performed prior to the ICA. The diagnostic accuracy of cCTA was investigated. Presence of a coronary artery stenosis ≥50% by subsequent ICA was used as reference. Patients were randomised to a very early (within 12 hours of diagnosis) or a standard ICA (within 48–72 hours of diagnosis). The primary composite endpoint was 5-year all-cause mortality, non-fatal recurrent myocardial infarction or hospital admission for refractory myocardial ischaemia or heart failure.ResultsOf 452 (21%) patients ≥75 years, 161 (35.6%) underwent cCTA. 19% of cCTAs excluded significant CAD. The negative predictive value (NPV) of cCTA was 94% (95% CI 79 to 99) and the sensitivity 98% (95% CI 94 to 100). No significant differences in the frequency of primary endpoints were seen in patients randomised to very early ICA (at 5-year follow-up, n=100 (46.9%) vs 122 (51.0%), log-rank p=0.357).ConclusionIn patients ≥75 years with NSTEACS, cCTA before ICA showed a high NPV. A very early ICA <12 hours of diagnosis did not significantly improve long-term clinical outcomes.

The effect of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) in patients with symptomatic systolic heart failure (HF) caused by coronary artery disease is well documented. However, the effect of primary prophylactic ICDs in patients with systolic HF not due to coronary artery disease is much weaker. In addition, HF management has improved, since the landmark ICD trials and a large proportion of patients now receive cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) where the effect of ICD treatment is unknown. In the DANISH study, 1,116 patients with symptomatic systolic HF not caused by coronary artery disease have been randomized to receive an ICD or not, in addition to contemporary standard therapy. The primary outcome of the trial is time to all-cause death. Follow-up will continue until June 2016 with a median follow-up period of 5 years. Baseline characteristics show that enrolled patients are treated according to current guidelines. At baseline, 97% of patients received an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker, 92% received a β-blocker, 58% a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, and 58% were scheduled to receive CRT. Median age was 63 years (range, 21-84 years) at baseline, and 28% were women. DANISH will provide pertinent information about the effect on all-cause mortality of a primary prophylactic ICD in patients with symptomatic systolic HF not caused by coronary artery disease on contemporary standard therapy including CRT.