Explore the vast range of titles available.

In a trial involving 10,003 patients with suspected coronary artery disease, clinical outcomes at 2 years were not improved with an initial strategy of CT angiography, as compared with functional testing (exercise ECG, nuclear stress testing, or stress echocardiography). New-onset, stable chest pain is a common clinical problem that results in approximately 4 million stress tests annually in the United States in ambulatory patients without diagnosed heart disease. 1 Despite advances in cardiac testing, there is scant information on health-related outcomes and little consensus about which noninvasive test is preferable. 2 – 4 As a result, current patterns of care have been questioned, including the testing of very-low-risk populations 5 and the catheterization of patients who do not have obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD). 6 – 8 The development of coronary computed tomographic angiography (CTA) and its application in this context has the potential to . . .

Patients who had received a drug-eluting stent and then dual antiplatelet therapy for 12 months were randomly assigned to 18 more months of therapy or aspirin alone. Continued therapy resulted in lower rates of stent thrombosis and major adverse cardiovascular events but more bleeding. Millions of patients worldwide undergo coronary stenting each year for the treatment of ischemic heart disease. 1 , 2 Although drug-eluting stents reduce the rate of restenosis as compared with bare-metal stents, there is concern that drug-eluting stents may be associated with a risk of stent thrombosis beyond 1 year after treatment. 3 Stent thrombosis is rare, yet it is frequently associated with myocardial infarction and may be fatal. 3 Furthermore, ischemic events, such as myocardial infarction, stroke, or death from cardiovascular causes, that are unrelated to the treated coronary lesion may also occur beyond 1 year. 4 , 5 The use of dual antiplatelet therapy . . .

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) cessation increases the risk of adverse events after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Whether risk changes over time, depends on the underlying reason for DAPT cessation, or both is unknown. We assessed associations between different modes of DAPT cessation and cardiovascular risk after PCI. The PARIS (patterns of non-adherence to anti-platelet regimens in stented patients) registry is a prospective observational study of patients undergoing PCI with stent implantation in 15 clinical sites in the USA and Europe between July 1, 2009, and Dec 2, 2010. Adult patients (aged 18 years or older) undergoing successful stent implantation in one or more native coronary artery and discharged on DAPT were eligible for enrolment. Patients were followed up at months 1, 6, 12, and 24 after implantation. Prespecified categories for DAPT cessation included physician-recommended discontinuation, brief interruption (for surgery), or disruption (non-compliance or because of bleeding). All adverse events and episodes of DAPT cessation were independently adjudicated. Using Cox models with time-varying covariates, we examined the effect of DAPT cessation on major adverse events (MACE [composite of cardiac death, definite or probable stent thrombosis, myocardial infarction, or target-lesion revascularisation]). Incidence rates for DAPT cessation and adverse events were calculated as Kaplan-Meier estimates of time to the first event. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00998127. We enrolled 5031 patients undergoing PCI, including 5018 in the final study population. Over 2 years, the overall incidence of any DAPT cessation was 57·3%. Rate of any discontinuation was 40·8%, of interruption was 10·5%, and of disruption was 14·4%. The corresponding overall 2 year MACE rate was 11·5%, most of which (74%) occurred while patients were taking DAPT. Compared with those on DAPT, the adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for MACE due to interruption was 1·41 (95% CI 0·94–2·12; p=0·10) and to disruption was 1·50 (1·14–1.97; p=0·004). Within 7 days, 8–30 days, and more than 30 days after disruption, adjusted HRs were 7·04 (3·31–14·95), 2·17 (0·97–4·88), and 1·3 (0·97–1·76), respectively. By contrast with patients who remained on DAPT, those who discontinued had lower MACE risk (0·63 [0·46–0·86]). Results were similar after excluding patients receiving bare metal stents and using an alternative MACE definition that did not include target lesion revascularisation. In a real-world setting, for patients undergoing PCI and discharged on DAPT, cardiac events after DAPT cessation depend on the clinical circumstance and reason for cessation and attenuates over time. While most events after PCI occur in patients on DAPT, early risk for events due to disruption is substantial irrespective of stent type. Bristol-Myers Squibb and Sanofi-Aventis.

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) is necessary to prevent thrombosis yet increases bleeding after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DES). Antiplatelet monotherapy with a potent P2Y12 receptor antagonist may reduce bleeding while maintaining anti thrombotic efficacy compared with conventional DAPT. TWILIGHT is a randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trial evaluating the comparative efficacy and safety of antiplatelet monotherapy versus DAPT in up to 9000 high-risk patients undergoing PCI with DES. Upon enrollment after successful PCI, all patients will be treated with open label low-dose aspirin (81-100 mg daily) plus ticagrelor (90 mg twice daily) for 3 months. Event-free patients will then be randomized in a double-blind fashion to low-dose aspirin versus matching placebo with continuation of open-label ticagrelor for an additional 12 months. The primary hypothesis is that a strategy of ticagrelor monotherapy will be superior with respect to the primary endpoint of bleeding academic research consortium type 2, 3 or 5, while maintaining non-inferiority for ischemic events compared with ticagrelor plus ASA. TWILIGHT is the largest study to date that is specifically designed and powered to demonstrate reductions in bleeding with ticagrelor monotherapy versus ticagrelor plus ASA beyond 3 months post-procedure in a high-risk PCI population treated with DES. The trial will provide novel insights with respect to the potential role of ticagrelor monotherapy as an alternative for long-term platelet inhibition in a broad population of patients undergoing PCI with DES.

Suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) is one of the most common, potentially life-threatening diagnostic problems clinicians encounter. However, no large outcome-based randomized trials have been performed to guide the selection of diagnostic strategies for these patients. The PROMISE study is a prospective, randomized trial comparing the effectiveness of 2 initial diagnostic strategies in patients with symptoms suspicious for CAD. Patients are randomized to either (1) functional testing (exercise electrocardiogram, stress nuclear imaging, or stress echocardiogram) or (2) anatomical testing with ≥64-slice multidetector coronary computed tomographic angiography. Tests are interpreted locally in real time by subspecialty certified physicians, and all subsequent care decisions are made by the clinical care team. Sites are provided results of central core laboratory quality and completeness assessment. All subjects are followed up for ≥1 year. The primary end point is the time to occurrence of the composite of death, myocardial infarction, major procedural complications (stroke, major bleeding, anaphylaxis, and renal failure), or hospitalization for unstable angina. More than 10,000 symptomatic subjects were randomized in 3.2 years at 193 US and Canadian cardiology, radiology, primary care, urgent care, and anesthesiology sites. Multispecialty community practice enrollment into a large pragmatic trial of diagnostic testing strategies is both feasible and efficient. The PROMISE trial will compare the clinical effectiveness of an initial strategy of functional testing against an initial strategy of anatomical testing in symptomatic patients with suspected CAD. Quality of life, resource use, cost-effectiveness, and radiation exposure will be assessed.

This white paper provides a summary of presentations and discussions that were held at an Anticoagulant-Induced Bleeding and Reversal Agents Think Tank co-sponsored by the Cardiac Safety Research Consortium and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) at the FDA's White Oak Headquarters on April 22, 2014. Attention focused on a development pathway for reversal agents for the novel oral anticoagulants (NOACs). This is important because anticoagulation is still widely underused for stroke prevention in patients with atrial fibrillation. Undertreatment persists, although NOACs, in general, overcome some of the difficulties associated with anticoagulation provided by vitamin K antagonists. One reason for the lack of a wider uptake is the absence of NOAC reversal agents. As there are neither widely accepted academic and industry standards nor a definitive regulatory policy on the development of such reversal agents, this meeting provided a forum for leaders in the fields of cardiovascular clinical trials and cardiovascular safety to discuss the issues and develop recommendations. Attendees included representatives from pharmaceutical companies; regulatory agencies; end point adjudication specialist groups; contract research organizations; and active, academically based physicians. There was wide and solid consensus that NOACs overall offer improvements in convenience, efficacy, and safety compared with warfarin, even without reversal agents. Still, it was broadly accepted that it would be helpful to have reversal agents available for clinicians to use. Because it is not feasible to do definitive outcomes studies demonstrating a reversal agent's clinical benefits, it was felt that these agents could be approved for use in life-threatening bleeding situations if the molecules were well characterized preclinically, their pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic profiles were well understood, and showed no harmful adverse events in early human testing. There was also consensus that after such approval, efforts should be made to augment the available clinical information until such time as there is a body of evidence to demonstrate real-world clinical outcomes with the reversal agents. No recommendations were made for more generalized use of these agents in the setting of non–life-threatening situations. This article reflects the views of the authors and should not be construed to represent FDA's views or policies.

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.

We compared 30-day and 1-year survival among high-risk mitral regurgitation (MR) patients treated with the MitraClip (Abbott Vascular, Abbott Park, IL) with matched non-surgically treated patients from the Duke Echocardiography Laboratory Database (DELD). High-risk patients with 3+/4+ MR managed non-surgically between years 2000 and 2010 in the longitudinal DELD were matched to high-risk MitraClip patients. Patient matching was performed using the method of nearest available Mahalanobis distance metric within calipers defined by the propensity score. Kaplan-Meier estimates and stratified Cox proportional hazards models were used to compare survival at 30 days and 1 year. Among 953 high-risk DELD patients available for matching, 30-day and 1-year mortality were 6.5% and 26.2%. Close matches were obtained for 239 of the 351 MitraClip patients. The 30-day mortality in MitraClip patients was lower (4.2%) when compared with matched DELD patients (7.2%). The 1-year relative risk of mortality of the MitraClip compared with non-surgical treatment was 0.64 (95% CI 0.45-0.91; log-rank P = .013). These results in favor of the MitraClip remained significant upon further adjustment for baseline differences between groups (P = .043). This matched comparison of severe MR patients at high surgical risk supports the safety of the MitraClip relative to medical therapy at 30 days and a survival benefit at 1 year.

The present research letter reports the 1-year clinical outcomes of the randomized COMPARE CRUSH trial, which allocated STEMI patients at first medical contact in the ambulance to receive either crushed or integral tablets of prasugrel loading dose. This trial aimed to investigate whether early enhanced antiplatelet effect constituted by the crushed potent oral P2Y12 inhibitor prasugrel could lead to improved early myocardial reperfusion and clinical outcomes.

Dual antiplatelet therapy constitutes the cornerstone of medical treatment in patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). However, oral antiplatelet agents, such as prasugrel or ticagrelor, are characterized by slow gastrointestinal drug absorption in the acute phase of STEMI, leading to decreased bioavailability and therefore delayed onset of platelet inhibition. Evidence suggests that administration of crushed tablets of the P2Y12 inhibitor prasugrel improves drug absorption and achieves earlier antiplatelet effects in STEMI patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, the clinical implications of these pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic findings are unknown. The present study is designed to test the hypothesis that patients presenting with STEMI planned for primary PCI will have improved markers of optimal reperfusion and clinical outcomes by prehospital administration of crushed tablets of prasugrel loading dose. COMPARE CRUSH (NCT03296540) is a randomized trial in a regionally organized ambulance care setting evaluating the efficacy and safety of pre-hospital loading dose with prasugrel crushed tablets versus integral tablets in approximately 674 patients presenting with STEMI planned for primary PCI. The independent primary endpoints are percentage of patients reaching thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) flow grade 3 in the infarct-related artery at initial angiography, or achieving ≥70% ST-segment elevation resolution at 1 hour post-PCI. Secondary clinical endpoints are death, myocardial infarction, revascularization, and stent thrombosis followed up to 1 year. Moreover, the primary safety endpoint is bleeding events assessed at 48 hours. The COMPARE CRUSH trial will assess whether prehospital administration of loading dose prasugrel in form of crushed tablets - which is expected to provide faster platelet inhibition compared to standard treatment with integral tablets - results in improved reperfusion and clinical outcomes. RCT# NCT03296540