Explore the vast range of titles available.

The Scottish Computed Tomography of the Heart (SCOT-HEART) trial demonstrated that management guided by coronary CT angiography (CCTA) improved the diagnosis, management, and outcome of patients with stable chest pain. We aimed to assess whether CCTA-guided care results in sustained long-term improvements in management and outcomes. SCOT-HEART was an open-label, multicentre, parallel group trial for which patients were recruited from 12 outpatient cardiology chest pain clinics across Scotland. Eligible patients were aged 18–75 years with symptoms of suspected stable angina due to coronary heart disease. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to standard of care plus CCTA or standard of care alone. In this prespecified 10-year analysis, prescribing data, coronary procedural interventions, and clinical outcomes were obtained through record linkage from national registries. The primary outcome was coronary heart disease death or non-fatal myocardial infarction on an intention-to-treat basis. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01149590) and is complete. Between Nov 18, 2010, and Sept 24, 2014, 4146 patients were recruited (mean age 57 years [SD 10], 2325 [56·1%] male, 1821 [43·9%] female), with 2073 randomly assigned to standard care and CCTA and 2073 to standard care alone. After a median of 10·0 years (IQR 9·3–11·0), coronary heart disease death or non-fatal myocardial infarction was less frequent in the CCTA group compared with the standard care group (137 [6·6%] vs 171 [8·2%]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·79 [95% CI 0·63–0·99], p=0·044). Rates of all-cause, cardiovascular, and coronary heart disease death, and non-fatal stroke, were similar between the groups (p>0·05 for all), but non-fatal myocardial infarctions (90 [4·3%] vs 124 [6·0%]; HR 0·72 [0·55–0·94], p=0·017) and major adverse cardiovascular events (172 [8·3%] vs 214 [10·3%]; HR 0·80 [0·65–0·97], p=0·026) were less frequent in the CCTA group. Rates of coronary revascularisation procedures were similar (315 [15·2%] vs 318 [15·3%]; HR 1·00 [0·86–1·17], p=0·99) but preventive therapy prescribing remained more frequent in the CCTA group (831 [55·9%] of 1486 vs 728 [49·0%] of 1485 patients with available data; odds ratio 1·17 [95% CI 1·01–1·36], p=0·034). After 10 years, CCTA-guided management of patients with stable chest pain was associated with a sustained reduction in coronary heart disease death or non-fatal myocardial infarction. Identification of coronary atherosclerosis by CCTA improves long-term cardiovascular disease prevention in patients with stable chest pain. The Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates, Edinburgh and Lothian's Health Foundation Trust, British Heart Foundation, and Heart Diseases Research Fund.

Angina might persist or reoccur despite successful revascularisation with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and antianginal therapy. Additionally, PCI in stable patients has not been shown to improve survival compared with optimal medical therapy. Trimetazidine is an antianginal agent that improves energy metabolism of the ischaemic myocardium and might improve outcomes and symptoms of patients who recently had a PCI. In this study, we aimed to assess the long-term potential benefits and safety of trimetazidine added to standard evidence-based medical treatment in patients who had a recent successful PCI. We did a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, event-driven trial of trimetazidine added to standard background therapy in patients who had undergone successful PCI at 365 centres in 27 countries across Europe, South America, Asia, and north Africa. Eligible patients were aged 21–85 years and had had either elective PCI for stable angina or urgent PCI for unstable angina or non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction less than 30 days before randomisation. Patients were randomly assigned by an interactive web response system to oral trimetazidine 35 mg modified-release twice daily or matching placebo. Participants, study investigators, and all study staff were masked to treatment allocation. The primary efficacy endpoint was a composite of cardiac death; hospital admission for a cardiac event; recurrence or persistence of angina requiring an addition, switch, or increase of the dose of at least one antianginal drug; or recurrence or persistence of angina requiring a coronary angiography. Efficacy analyses were done according to the intention-to-treat principle. Safety was assessed in all patients who had at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered with the EU Clinical Trials Register (EudraCT 2010-022134-89). From Sept 17, 2014, to June 15, 2016, 6007 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive either trimetazidine (n=2998) or placebo (n=3009). After a median follow-up of 47·5 months (IQR 42·3–53·3), incidence of primary endpoint events was not significantly different between the trimetazidine group (700 [23·3%] patients) and the placebo group (714 [23·7%]; hazard ratio 0·98 [95% CI 0·88–1·09], p=0·73). When analysed individually, there were no significant differences in the incidence of the components of the primary endpoint between the treatment groups. Similar results were obtained when patients were categorised according to whether they had an elective or urgent PCI. 1219 (40·9%) of 2983 patients in the trimetazidine group and 1230 (41·1%) of 2990 patients in the placebo group had serious treatment-emergent adverse events. Frequencies of adverse events of interest were similar between the groups. Our results show that the routine use of oral trimetazidine 35 mg twice daily over several years in patients receiving optimal medical therapy, after successful PCI, does not influence the recurrence of angina or the outcome; these findings should be taken into account when considering the place of trimetazidine in clinical practice. However, the long-term prescription of this treatment does not appear to be associated with any statistically significant safety concerns in the population studied. Servier.

In a randomized trial of PCI in patients with stable angina who were receiving little or no antianginal medication and had documented ischemia, PCI resulted in a better health status with respect to angina than placebo at 12 weeks.

We aimed to compare differences in risk and timing of recurrent ischemic events among patients with stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD), non–ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS), and ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We performed an individual data pooled analysis of 5 randomized controlled all-comer trials including a total of 8,859 patients and investigated the risk and timing of recurrent ischemic events among patients with SIHD (n = 3,543), NSTE-ACS (n = 3,364), and STEMI (n = 1,952) throughout 2 years of follow-up. At 2 years, all-cause mortality was higher among patients with STEMI (6.4%) and NSTE-ACS (6.1%) compared with those with SIHD (4.2%) (STEMI vs SIHD: hazard ratio [HR] 1.40, 95% CI 1.09-1.78, P = .007; NSTE-ACS vs SIHD: 1.40, 95% CI 1.13-1.73, P = .002). In a landmark analysis, the risk of mortality among patients with STEMI compared with those with SIHD was confined to the first 30 days after PCI (HR 6.19, 95% CI 3.15-12.16, P < .001) but was similar between 30 days and 2 years (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.76-1.33, P = .974) (Pinteraction < .001). Conversely, patients with NSTE-ACS had a higher risk of mortality compared with those with SIHD both within the first 30 days (HR 2.19, 95% CI 1.08-4.47, P = .031) and beyond (HR 1.34, 95% CI 1.07-1.67, P = .012) (Pinteraction < .001). A similar pattern in the differential timing of events was observed for cardiac death. Beyond 30 days, the risk of myocardial infarction was comparable in patients with STEMI and SIHD, whereas the risk in patients with NSTE-ACS was increased (HR 1.65, 95% CI 1.23-2.21, P = .001). Whereas patients with NSTE-ACS are at increased risk for death at any time after PCI, the mortality of STEMI patients is higher during the first 30 days after PCI but not thereafter compared with patients with SIHD.

To the Editor: In the editorial accompanying the article by Rajkumar and colleagues (Dec. 21 issue) 1 on the results of the ORBITA-2 trial involving the use of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with stable angina, White 2 begins with a flawed premise: “The primary aim of treating patients with stable angina is to decrease symptoms and improve quality of life.” That is not the primary aim of treating these patients. Relieving angina is important, but the real priority in the management of stable angina is the provision of appropriate medical therapy to reduce the risk of myocardial infarction and sudden . . .

ObjectivesTo evaluate the diagnostic and prognostic benefits of CT coronary angiography (CTCA) using the 2016 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines for the assessment of suspected stable angina.MethodsPost hoc analysis of the Scottish COmputed Tomography of the HEART (SCOT-HEART) trial of 4146 participants with suspected angina randomised to CTCA. Patients were dichotomised into NICE guideline-defined possible angina and non-anginal presentations. Primary (diagnostic) endpoint was diagnostic certainty of angina at 6 weeks and prognostic endpoint comprised fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI).ResultsIn 3770 eligible participants, CTCA increased diagnostic certainty more in those with possible angina (relative risk (RR) 2.22 (95% CI 1.91 to 2.60), p<0.001) than those with non-anginal symptoms (RR 1.30 (1.11 to 1.53), p=0.002; pinteraction <0.001). In the possible angina cohort, CTCA did not change rates of invasive angiography (p=0.481) but markedly reduced rates of normal coronary angiography (HR 0.32 (0.19 to 0.52), p<0.001). In the non-anginal cohort, rates of invasive angiography increased (HR 1.82 (1.13 to 2.92), p=0.014) without reducing rates of normal coronary angiography (HR 0.78 (0.30 to 2.05), p=0.622). At 3.2 years of follow-up, fatal or non-fatal MI was reduced in patients with possible angina (3.2% to 1.9%%; HR 0.58 (0.34 to 0.99), p=0.045) but not in those with non-anginal symptoms (HR 0.65 (0.25 to 1.69), p=0.379).ConclusionsNICE-guided patient selection maximises the benefits of CTCA on diagnostic certainty, use of invasive coronary angiography and reductions in fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction. Patients with non-anginal chest pain derive minimal benefit from CTCA and increase the rates of invasive investigation.Trial registration numberClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01149590;post results.

Background Chronic remote ischemic conditioning (CRIC) has been shown to improve myocardial ischemia in experimental animal studies; however, its effectiveness in patients with chronic stable angina (CSA) has not been investigated. We conducted a proof-of-concept study to investigate the efficacy and safety of a six-month CRIC treatment in patients with CSA. Methods The EARLY-MYO-CSA trial was a prospective, randomized, controlled trial evaluating the CRIC treatment in patients with CSA with persistent angina pectoris despite receiving ≥ 3-month guideline-recommended optimal medical therapy. The CRIC and control groups received CRIC (at 200 mmHg) or sham CRIC (at 60 mmHg) intervention for 6 months, respectively. The primary endpoint was the 6-month change of myocardial flow reserve (MFR) on single-photon emission computed tomography. The secondary endpoints were changes in rest and stress myocardial blood flow (MBF), angina severity according to the Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) classification, the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ), and a 6-min walk test (6-MWT). Results Among 220 randomized CSA patients, 208 (105 in the CRIC group, and 103 in the control group) completed the treatment and endpoint assessments. The mean change in MFR was significantly greater in the CRIC group than in the control group (0.27 ± 0.38 vs. − 0.04 ± 0.25; P  < 0.001). MFR increased from 1.33 ± 0.48 at baseline to 1.61 ± 0.53 ( P  < 0.001) in the CRIC group; however, a similar increase was not seen in the control group (1.35 ± 0.45 at baseline and 1.31 ± 0.44 at follow-up, P  = 0.757). CRIC treatment, when compared with controls, demonstrated improvements in angina symptoms assessed by CCS classification (60.0% vs. 14.6%, P  < 0.001), all SAQ dimensions scores ( P  < 0.001), and 6-MWT distances (440 [400–523] vs. 420 [330–475] m, P  = 0.016). The incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events was similar between the groups. Conclusions CSA patients benefit from 6-month CRIC treatment with improvements in MFR, angina symptoms, and exercise performance. This treatment is well-tolerated and can be recommended for symptom relief in this clinical population. Trial registration [chictr.org.cn], identifier [ChiCTR2000038649].

IntroductionThere is conflicting evidence regarding the benefits of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with grey zone fractional flow reserve (GZFFR artery) values (0.75–0.80). The prevalence of ischaemia is unknown. We wished to define the prevalence of ischaemia in GZFFR artery and assess whether PCI is superior to optimal medical therapy (OMT) for angina control.MethodsWe enrolled 104 patients with angina with 1:1 randomisation to PCI or OMT. The artery was interrogated with a Doppler flow/pressure wire. Patients underwent Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) with follow-up at 3 and 12 months. The primary outcome was angina status at 3 months using the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ).Results104 patients (age 60±9 years), 79 (76%) males and 79 (76%) Left Anterior Descending (LAD) stenoses were randomised. Coronary physiology and SAQ were similar. Of 98 patients with stress perfusion MRI data, 17 (17%) had abnormal perfusion (≥2 segments with ≥25% ischaemia or ≥1 segment with ≥50% ischaemia) in the target GZFFR artery. Of 89 patients with invasive physiology data, 26 (28%) had coronary flow velocity reserve <2.0 in the target GZFFR artery. After 3 months of follow-up, compared with patients treated with OMT only, patients treated by PCI and OMT had greater improvements in SAQ angina frequency (21 (28) vs 10 (23); p=0.026) and quality of life (24 (26) vs 11 (24); p=0.008) though these differences were no longer significant at 12 months.ConclusionsNon-invasive evidence of major ischaemia is uncommon in patients with GZFFR artery. Compared with OMT alone, patients randomised to undergo PCI reported improved symptoms after 3 months but these differences were no longer significant after 12 months.Trial registration number NCT02425969.

Post percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) fractional flow reserve (FFR) is a significant predictor of major adverse cardiac events (MACE). The rationale for low post procedural FFR values often remains elusive based on angiographic findings alone, warranting further assessment using an FFR pullback or additional intravascular imaging. It is currently unknown if additional interventions intended to improve the PCI, decrease MACE rates. The FFR REACT trial is a prospective, single-center randomized controlled trial in which 290 patients with a post PCI FFR <0.90 will be randomized (1:1) to either standard of care (no additional intervention) or intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)-directed optimization of the FFR (treatment arm). Eligible patients are those treated with angiographically successful PCI for (un)stable angina or non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (MI). Assuming 45% of patients will have a post PCI FFR <0.90, approximately 640 patients undergoing PCI will need to be enrolled. Patients with a post PCI FFR ≥ 0.90 will be enrolled in a prospective registry. The primary end point is defined as a composite of cardiac death, target vessel MI and clinically driven target vessel revascularisation (target vessel failure) at 1 year. Secondary end points will consist of individual components of the primary end point, procedural success, stent thrombosis and correlations on clinical outcome, changes in post PCI Pd/Pa and FFR and IVUS derived dimensions. All patients will be followed for 3 years. The FFR-REACT trial is designed to explore the potential benefit of HD-IVUS-guided PCI optimization in patients with a post PCI FFR <0.90 (Dutch trial register: NTR6711). study flowchart for the FFR REACT trial [Display omitted]