Explore the vast range of titles available.

Data suggest that renal denervation (RDN) in treatment‐resistant hypertension (TRHT) is safe in terms of renal function. However, most studies report kidney function as creatinine‐based estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), which may be biased by non‐renal factors. Damage markers other than albuminuria have never been evaluated after RDN. In this non‐randomized RDN trial, we studied changes in kidney function, assessed as measured GFR (mGFR) and various GFR estimates, six months and two years after RDN. We also examined changes in albuminuria and a biomarker of tubular dysfunction. Adult non‐diabetic patients with TRHT and eGFR ≥45 ml/min/1.73 m2 were recruited from hypertension clinics. Before bilateral RDN, mGFR was measured by iohexol clearance. We estimated eGFR from serum creatinine and cystatin C (eGFRcrea, eGFRcys, and eGFRcreacys), and albumin‐creatinine ratio (ACR) and N‐acetyl‐β‐D‐glucosaminidase (NAG)‐creatinine ratio (NAG‐CR) were measured in spot urines. All measurements were repeated after six and twenty‐four months. Twenty patients, mean age 54 (±9) years and baseline mGFR 83 (±20) ml/min/1.73 m2 underwent RDN. After six months, mGFR fell, eGFRcrea remained unchanged, whereas eGFRcys and eGFRcreacys increased. At 2 years’ follow‐up, eGFRcreacys was significantly lower than at baseline. mGFR was 78 (±28) ml/min/1.73 m2. Change in ambulatory systolic BP predicted change in eGFRcrea. Urinary NAG‐CR, but not ACR, increased during follow‐up. Different GFR assessments gave diverging results after RDN. Therefore, care should be taken to method when evaluating kidney function after RDN. Increases in a tubular dysfunction biomarker suggest that kidney damage may occur. Long‐term renal follow‐up is needed after RDN.

BackgroundIt is still uncertain whether coronary bifurcations with lesions involving a large side branch (SB) should be treated by stenting the main vessel and provisional stenting of the SB (simple) or by routine two-stent techniques (complex). We aimed to compare clinical outcome after treatment of lesions in large bifurcations by simple or complex stent implantation.MethodsThe study was a randomised, superiority trial. Enrolment required a SB≥2.75 mm, ≥50% diameter stenosis in both vessels, and allowed SB lesion length up to 15 mm. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiac death, non-procedural myocardial infarction and target lesion revascularisation at 6 months. Two-year clinical follow-up was included in this primary reporting due to lower than expected event rates.ResultsA total of 450 patients were assigned to simple stenting (n=221) or complex stenting (n=229) in 14 Nordic and Baltic centres. Two-year follow-up was available in 218 (98.6%) and 228 (99.5%) patients, respectively. The primary endpoint of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 6 months was 5.5% vs 2.2% (risk differences 3.2%, 95% CI −0.2 to 6.8, p=0.07) and at 2 years 12.9% vs 8.4% (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.13, p=0.12) after simple versus complex treatment. In the subgroup treated by newer generation drug-eluting stents, MACE was 12.0% vs 5.6% (HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.17, p=0.10) after simple versus complex treatment.ConclusionIn the treatment of bifurcation lesions involving a large SB with ostial stenosis, routine two-stent techniques did not improve outcome significantly compared with treatment by the simpler main vessel stenting technique after 2 years.Trial registration numberNCT01496638.

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is increasingly used in revascularisation of patients with left main coronary artery disease in place of the standard treatment, coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). The NOBLE trial aimed to evaluate whether PCI was non-inferior to CABG in the treatment of left main coronary artery disease and reported outcomes after a median follow-up of 3·1 years. We now report updated 5-year outcomes of the trial. The prospective, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority NOBLE trial was done at 36 hospitals in nine northern European countries. Patients with left main coronary artery disease requiring revascularisation were enrolled and randomly assigned (1:1) to receive PCI or CABG. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events (MACCE), a composite of all-cause mortality, non-procedural myocardial infarction, repeat revascularisation, and stroke. Non-inferiority of PCI to CABG was defined as the upper limit of the 95% CI of the hazard ratio (HR) not exceeding 1·35 after 275 MACCE had occurred. Secondary endpoints included all-cause mortality, non-procedural myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularisation. Outcomes were analysed in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01496651. Between Dec 9, 2008, and Jan 21, 2015, 1201 patients were enrolled and allocated to PCI (n=598) or CABG (n=603), with 17 subsequently lost to early follow-up. 592 patients in each group were included in this analysis. At a median of 4·9 years of follow-up, the predefined number of events was reached for adequate power to assess the primary endpoint. Kaplan-Meier 5-year estimates of MACCE were 28% (165 events) for PCI and 19% (110 events) for CABG (HR 1·58 [95% CI 1·24–2·01]); the HR exceeded the limit for non-inferiority of PCI compared to CABG. CABG was found to be superior to PCI for the primary composite endpoint (p=0·0002). All-cause mortality was estimated in 9% after PCI versus 9% after CABG (HR 1·08 [95% CI 0·74–1·59]; p=0·68); non-procedural myocardial infarction was estimated in 8% after PCI versus 3% after CABG (HR 2·99 [95% CI 1·66–5·39]; p=0·0002); and repeat revascularisation was estimated in 17% after PCI versus 10% after CABG (HR 1·73 [95% CI 1·25–2·40]; p=0·0009). In revascularisation of left main coronary artery disease, PCI was associated with an inferior clinical outcome at 5 years compared with CABG. Mortality was similar after the two procedures but patients treated with PCI had higher rates of non-procedural myocardial infarction and repeat revascularisation. Biosensors.

Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is the standard treatment for revascularisation in patients with left main coronary artery disease, but use of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for this indication is increasing. We aimed to compare PCI and CABG for treatment of left main coronary artery disease. In this prospective, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial, patients with left main coronary artery disease were enrolled in 36 centres in northern Europe and randomised 1:1 to treatment with PCI or CABG. Eligible patients had stable angina pectoris, unstable angina pectoris, or non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Exclusion criteria were ST-elevation myocardial infarction within 24 h, being considered too high risk for CABG or PCI, or expected survival of less than 1 year. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events (MACCE), a composite of all-cause mortality, non-procedural myocardial infarction, any repeat coronary revascularisation, and stroke. Non-inferiority of PCI to CABG required the lower end of the 95% CI not to exceed a hazard ratio (HR) of 1·35 after up to 5 years of follow-up. The intention-to-treat principle was used in the analysis if not specified otherwise. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, number NCT01496651. Between Dec 9, 2008, and Jan 21, 2015, 1201 patients were randomly assigned, 598 to PCI and 603 to CABG, and 592 in each group entered analysis by intention to treat. Kaplan-Meier 5 year estimates of MACCE were 28% for PCI (121 events) and 18% for CABG (80 events), HR 1·51 (95% CI 1·13–2·00), exceeding the limit for non-inferiority, and CABG was significantly better than PCI (p=0·0044). As-treated estimates were 28% versus 18% (1·48, 1·11–1·98, p=0·0069). Comparing PCI with CABG, 5 year estimates were 11% versus 9% (1·08, 0·67–1·74, p=0·84) for all-cause mortality, 6% versus 2% (2·87, 1·40–5·89, p=0·0040) for non-procedural myocardial infarction, 15% versus 10% (1·50, 1·04–2·17, p=0·0304) for any revascularisation, and 5% versus 2% (2·20, 0·91–5·36, p=0·08) for stroke. The findings of this study suggest that CABG might be better than PCI for treatment of left main stem coronary artery disease. Biosensors, Aarhus University Hospital, and participating sites.

Objectives To assess reproducibility of core laboratory performance and impact on sample size calculations. Background Little information exists about overall reproducibility of core laboratories in contradistinction to performance of individual technicians. Also, qualitative parameters are being adjudicated increasingly as either primary or secondary end-points. The comparative impact of using diverse indexes on sample sizes has not been previously reported. Methods We compared initial and repeat assessments of five quantitative parameters [e.g., minimum lumen diameter (MLD), ejection fraction (EF), etc.] and six qualitative parameters [e.g., TIMI myocardial perfusion grade (TMPG) or thrombus grade (TTG), etc.], as performed by differing technicians and separated by a year or more. Sample sizes were calculated from these results. TMPG and TTG were also adjudicated by a second core laboratory. Results MLD and EF were the most reproducible, yielding the smallest sample size calculations, whereas percent diameter stenosis and centerline wall motion require substantially larger trials. Of the qualitative parameters, all except TIMI flow grade gave reproducibility characteristics yielding sample sizes of many 100’s of patients. Reproducibility of TMPG and TTG was only moderately good both within and between core laboratories, underscoring an intrinsic difficulty in assessing these. Conclusions Core laboratories can be shown to provide reproducibility performance that is comparable to performance commonly ascribed to individual technicians. The differences in reproducibility yield huge differences in sample size when comparing quantitative and qualitative parameters. TMPG and TTG are intrinsically difficult to assess and conclusions based on these parameters should arise only from very large trials.

Observational reports have found that lower homocysteine levels are associated with lower rates of coronary heart disease and stroke. Treatment with folic acid and vitamin B 12 , with or without vitamin B 6 , lowers plasma homocysteine levels. In the NORVIT trial in patients after myocardial infarction, such therapy did not decrease the rate of recurrent infarction, stroke, and sudden death. After myocardial infarction, treatment with folic acid and vitamin B 12 , with or without vitamin B 6 , did not decrease the rate of recurrent infarction, stroke, and sudden death. Case–control as well as prospective studies have demonstrated that the plasma total homocysteine level is a strong, graded, and independent risk factor for coronary heart disease (CHD) and stroke. 1 – 3 Evidence from studies involving so-called mendelian randomization, 4 demonstrating an association between CHD and the 677C→T methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase polymorphism, has provided additional support for a causal relation between homocysteine and CHD. 5 , 6 Plasma total homocysteine can be lowered with the B vitamins folic acid and vitamin B 12 , 7 and persons with high plasma levels or dietary intake of folate and vitamin B 6 have a decreased risk of CHD. 8 – . . .

In a trial involving over 9000 patients with coronary artery disease who were assigned to receive either contemporary drug-eluting stents or bare-metal stents, there was no significant between-group difference in a composite outcome of death from any cause or nonfatal MI at 6 years. Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with implantation of drug-eluting or bare-metal stents has become one of the most frequently performed therapeutic procedures in medicine. 1 Each year, millions of patients are treated worldwide. 1 , 2 The use of drug-eluting stents has been shown to be more effective in the prevention of restenosis than the use of bare-metal stents, 1 and the use of newer-generation drug-eluting stents, as compared with first-generation devices, 3 , 4 may also reduce the rate of stent thrombosis. 5 – 8 It has been suggested that the benefits associated with the use of newer-generation drug-eluting stents may translate into reduced rates of death and . . .

Current guidelines on the use of β-blockers in post–acute myocardial infarction (MI) patients without reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) are based on studies before the implementation of modern reperfusion and secondary prevention therapies. It remains unknown whether β-blockers will reduce mortality and recurrent MI in contemporary revascularized post-MI patients without reduced LVEF. BETAMI is a prospective, randomized, open, blinded end point multicenter study in 10,000 MI patients designed to test the superiority of oral β-blocker therapy compared to no β-blocker therapy. Patients with LVEF ≥40% following treatment with percutaneous coronary intervention or thrombolysis and/or no clinical signs of heart failure are eligible to participate. The primary end point is a composite of all-cause mortality or recurrent MI obtained from national registries over a mean follow-up period of 3 years. Safety end points include rates of nonfatal MI, all-cause mortality, ventricular arrhythmias, and hospitalizations for heart failure obtained from hospital medical records 30 days after randomization, and from national registries after 6 and 18 months. Key secondary end points include recurrent MI, heart failure, cardiovascular and all-cause mortality, and clinical outcomes linked to β-blocker therapy including drug adherence, adverse effects, cardiovascular risk factors, psychosocial factors, and health economy. Statistical analyses will be conducted according to the intention-to-treat principle. A prespecified per-protocol analysis (patients truly on β-blockers or not) will also be conducted. The results from the BETAMI trial may have the potential of changing current clinical practice for treatment with β-blockers following MI in patients without reduced LVEF. EudraCT number 2018-000590-75.

Bleeding is a concern after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and subsequent dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT). We herein report the incidence and risk factors for major bleeding in the Norwegian Coronary Stent Trial (NORSTENT). NORSTENT was a randomized, double blind, pragmatic trial among patients with acute coronary syndrome or stable coronary disease undergoing PCI during 2008-11. The patients (N = 9,013) were randomized to receive either a drug-eluting stent or a bare-metal stent, and were treated with at least nine months of DAPT. The patients were followed for a median of five years, with Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 3-5 major bleeding as one of the safety endpoints. We estimated cumulative incidence of major bleeding by a competing risks model and risk factors through cause-specific Cox models. The 12-month cumulative incidence of major bleeding was 2.3%. Independent risk factors for major bleeding were chronic kidney disease, low bodyweight (< 60 kilograms), diabetes mellitus, and advanced age (> 80 years). A myocardial infarction (MI) or PCI during follow-up increased the risk of major bleeding (HR = 1.67, 95% CI 1-29-2.15). The 12-month cumulative incidence of major bleeding in NORSTENT was higher than reported in previous, explanatory trials. This analysis strengthens the role of chronic kidney disease, advanced age, and low bodyweight as risk factors for major bleeding among patients receiving DAPT after PCI. The presence of diabetes mellitus or recurrent MI among patients is furthermore a signal of increased bleeding risk. Unique identifier NCT00811772; http://www.clinicaltrial.gov.

Among patients with myocardial infarction and a left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 40%, beta-blockers led to a lower risk of death or major cardiovascular events than no beta-blocker therapy.