Explore the vast range of titles available.

Whether a conservative strategy of medical therapy alone or a strategy of medical therapy plus invasive treatment is more beneficial in older adults with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) remains unclear. We conducted a prospective, multicenter, randomized trial involving patients 75 years of age or older with NSTEMI at 48 sites in the United Kingdom. The patients were assigned in a 1:1 ratio to a conservative strategy of the best available medical therapy or an invasive strategy of coronary angiography and revascularization plus the best available medical therapy. Patients who were frail or had a high burden of coexisting conditions were eligible. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes (cardiovascular death) or nonfatal myocardial infarction assessed in a time-to-event analysis. A total of 1518 patients underwent randomization; 753 patients were assigned to the invasive-strategy group and 765 to the conservative-strategy group. The mean age of the patients was 82 years, 45% were women, and 32% were frail. A primary-outcome event occurred in 193 patients (25.6%) in the invasive-strategy group and 201 patients (26.3%) in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.77 to 1.14; P = 0.53) over a median follow-up of 4.1 years. Cardiovascular death occurred in 15.8% of the patients in the invasive-strategy group and 14.2% of the patients in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.44). Nonfatal myocardial infarction occurred in 11.7% in the invasive-strategy group and 15.0% in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.99). Procedural complications occurred in less than 1% of the patients. In older adults with NSTEMI, an invasive strategy did not result in a significantly lower risk of cardiovascular death or nonfatal myocardial infarction (the composite primary outcome) than a conservative strategy over a median follow-up of 4.1 years. (Funded by the British Heart Foundation; BHF SENIOR-RITA ISRCTN Registry number, ISRCTN11343602.).

In patients with coronary bifurcation lesions, optical coherence tomography–guided PCI was associated with a lower incidence of major adverse cardiac events at a median 2 years of follow-up than angiography-guided PCI.

Patients with stable coronary disease were randomly assigned to an initial invasive strategy with angiography and revascularization if appropriate or to medical therapy alone. At 3.2 years, there was no significant difference between the groups with respect to the estimated rate of ischemic events. The findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction.

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 . . .

In a randomized trial of imaging-guided or angiography-guided PCI for complex coronary lesion revascularization procedures, imaging-guided PCI led to a lower risk of target-vessel failure than angiography-guided PCI.

In this trial involving 2492 patients, coronary revascularization guided by iFR, as compared with fractional flow reserve-guided revascularization, was within the prespecified margin for noninferiority with respect to major adverse cardiac events. For the past 20 years, physiological measurements obtained during invasive procedures have been used to guide coronary revascularization. Pioneering work supported the use of flow measurements to make safe decisions about revascularization, 1 , 2 but this approach was soon superseded by the use of fractional flow reserve (FFR), which measures pressure as a surrogate of flow to estimate the severity of stenosis. 3 – 5 FFR was successful largely because of its technical simplicity and because clinical trials showed that it was associated with improved clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). 6 , 7 Consequently, FFR is now included in the appropriate-use criteria for . . .

Non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) and unstable angina pectoris are frequent causes of hospital admission in the elderly. However, clinical trials targeting this population are scarce, and these patients are less likely to receive treatment according to guidelines. We aimed to investigate whether this population would benefit from an early invasive strategy versus a conservative strategy. In this open-label randomised controlled multicentre trial, patients aged 80 years or older with NSTEMI or unstable angina admitted to 16 hospitals in the South-East Health Region of Norway were randomly assigned to an invasive strategy (including early coronary angiography with immediate assessment for percutaneous coronary intervention, coronary artery bypass graft, and optimum medical treatment) or to a conservative strategy (optimum medical treatment alone). A permuted block randomisation was generated by the Centre for Biostatistics and Epidemiology with stratification on the inclusion hospitals in opaque concealed envelopes, and sealed envelopes with consecutive inclusion numbers were made. The primary outcome was a composite of myocardial infarction, need for urgent revascularisation, stroke, and death and was assessed between Dec 10, 2010, and Nov 18, 2014. An intention-to-treat analysis was used. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01255540. During a median follow-up of 1·53 years of participants recruited between Dec 10, 2010, and Feb 21, 2014, the primary outcome occurred in 93 (40·6%) of 229 patients assigned to the invasive group and 140 (61·4%) of 228 patients assigned to the conservative group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·53 [95% CI 0·41–0·69], p=0·0001). Five patients dropped out of the invasive group and one from the conservative group. HRs for the four components of the primary composite endpoint were 0·52 (0·35–0·76; p=0·0010) for myocardial infarction, 0·19 (0·07–0·52; p=0·0010) for the need for urgent revascularisation, 0·60 (0·25–1·46; p=0·2650) for stroke, and 0·89 (0·62–1·28; p=0·5340) for death from any cause. The invasive group had four (1·7%) major and 23 (10·0%) minor bleeding complications whereas the conservative group had four (1·8%) major and 16 (7·0%) minor bleeding complications. In patients aged 80 years or more with NSTEMI or unstable angina, an invasive strategy is superior to a conservative strategy in the reduction of composite events. Efficacy of the invasive strategy was diluted with increasing age (after adjustment for creatinine and effect modification). The two strategies did not differ in terms of bleeding complications. Norwegian Health Association (ExtraStiftelsen) and Inger and John Fredriksen Heart Foundation.

In a randomized trial, optical coherence tomography–guided PCI resulted in a larger minimum stent area than angiography-guided PCI, but there was no between-group difference in target-vessel failure at 2 years.

Small trials have suggested that radial access for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) reduces vascular complications and bleeding compared with femoral access. We aimed to assess whether radial access was superior to femoral access in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) who were undergoing coronary angiography with possible intervention. The RadIal Vs femorAL access for coronary intervention (RIVAL) trial was a randomised, parallel group, multicentre trial. Patients with ACS were randomly assigned (1:1) by a 24 h computerised central automated voice response system to radial or femoral artery access. The primary outcome was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or non-coronary artery bypass graft (non-CABG)-related major bleeding at 30 days. Key secondary outcomes were death, myocardial infarction, or stroke; and non-CABG-related major bleeding at 30 days. A masked central committee adjudicated the primary outcome, components of the primary outcome, and stent thrombosis. All other outcomes were as reported by the investigators. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment allocation. Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01014273. Between June 6, 2006, and Nov 3, 2010, 7021 patients were enrolled from 158 hospitals in 32 countries. 3507 patients were randomly assigned to radial access and 3514 to femoral access. The primary outcome occurred in 128 (3·7%) of 3507 patients in the radial access group compared with 139 (4·0%) of 3514 in the femoral access group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·92, 95% CI 0·72–1·17; p=0·50). Of the six prespecified subgroups, there was a significant interaction for the primary outcome with benefit for radial access in highest tertile volume radial centres (HR 0·49, 95% CI 0·28–0·87; p=0·015) and in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (0·60, 0·38–0·94; p=0·026). The rate of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 30 days was 112 (3·2%) of 3507 patients in the radial group compared with 114 (3·2%) of 3514 in the femoral group (HR 0·98, 95% CI 0·76–1·28; p=0·90). The rate of non-CABG-related major bleeding at 30 days was 24 (0·7%) of 3507 patients in the radial group compared with 33 (0·9%) of 3514 patients in the femoral group (HR 0·73, 95% CI 0·43–1·23; p=0·23). At 30 days, 42 of 3507 patients in the radial group had large haematoma compared with 106 of 3514 in the femoral group (HR 0·40, 95% CI 0·28–0·57; p<0·0001). Pseudoaneurysm needing closure occurred in seven of 3507 patients in the radial group compared with 23 of 3514 in the femoral group (HR 0·30, 95% CI 0·13–0·71; p=0·006). Radial and femoral approaches are both safe and effective for PCI. However, the lower rate of local vascular complications may be a reason to use the radial approach. Sanofi-Aventis, Population Health Research Institute, and Canadian Network for Trials Internationally (CANNeCTIN), an initiative of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

Fractional flow reserve (FFR) or non-hyperaemic pressure ratios are recommended to assess functional relevance of intermediate coronary stenosis. Both diagnostic methods require the placement of a pressure wire in the coronary artery during invasive coronary angiography. Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) is an angiography-based computational method for the estimation of FFR that does not require the use of pressure wires. We aimed to investigate whether a QFR-based diagnostic strategy yields a non-inferior 12-month clinical outcome compared with an FFR-based strategy. FAVOR III Europe was a multicentre, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial comparing a QFR-based with an FFR-based diagnostic strategy for patients with intermediate coronary stenosis. Enrolment was performed in 34 centres across 11 European countries. Patients aged 18 years or older with either chronic coronary syndrome or stabilised acute coronary syndrome, and with at least one intermediate non-culprit stenosis (40–90% diameter stenosis by visual estimate; referred to here as a study lesion), were randomly assigned (1:1) to the QFR-guided or the FFR-guided group. Randomisation was done using a concealed web-based system and was stratified by diabetes and presence of a left anterior descending coronary artery study lesion. The primary endpoint was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, and unplanned revascularisation at 12 months. The predefined non-inferiority margin was 3·4% and the primary analysis was performed in the intention-to-treat population. The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03729739) and long-term follow-up is ongoing. Between Nov 6, 2018, and July 21, 2023, 2000 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the QFR-guided strategy (1008 patients) or the FFR-guided strategy (992 patients). The median age was 67·3 years (IQR 59·9–74·7); 1538 (76·9%) patients were male and 462 (23·1%) were female. Median follow-up time was 365 days (IQR 365–365). At 12 months, a primary endpoint event had occurred in 67 (6·7%) patients in the QFR group, and in 41 (4·2%) patients in the FFR group (hazard ratio 1·63 [95% CI 1·11–2·41]). The event proportion difference was 2·5% (90% two-sided CI 0·9–4·2). The upper limit of the 90% CI exceeded the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 3·4%. Therefore, QFR did not meet non-inferiority to FFR. A total of 18 (1·8%) patients in each group experienced an adverse procedural event, the most frequent being procedure-related myocardial infarction, which occurred in ten (1·0%) patients in the QFR group and seven (0·7%) in the FFR group. One patient in the QFR group died in relation to the index procedure. The results of the FAVOR III Europe trial do not support the use of QFR if FFR is available to guide revascularisation decisions in patients with intermediate coronary stenosis. This finding could have implications for current clinical guidelines recommending QFR for this purpose. Medis Medical Imaging Systems and Aarhus University.