Explore the vast range of titles available.

In patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, immediate multivessel PCI was noninferior to staged multivessel PCI with respect to the risk of death and adverse cardiovascular events at 1 year.

The benefit of complete revascularization in older patients (≥75 years of age) with myocardial infarction and multivessel disease remains unclear. In this multicenter, randomized trial, we assigned older patients with myocardial infarction and multivessel disease who were undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of the culprit lesion to receive either physiology-guided complete revascularization of nonculprit lesions or to receive no further revascularization. Functionally significant nonculprit lesions were identified either by pressure wire or angiography. The primary outcome was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or any revascularization at 1 year. The key secondary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction. Safety was assessed as a composite of contrast-associated acute kidney injury, stroke, or bleeding. A total of 1445 patients underwent randomization (720 to receive complete revascularization and 725 to receive culprit-only revascularization). The median age of the patients was 80 years (interquartile range, 77 to 84); 528 patients (36.5%) were women, and 509 (35.2%) were admitted for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. A primary-outcome event occurred in 113 patients (15.7%) in the complete-revascularization group and in 152 patients (21.0%) in the culprit-only group (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.57 to 0.93; P = 0.01). Cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction occurred in 64 patients (8.9%) in the complete-revascularization group and in 98 patients (13.5%) in the culprit-only group (hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.88). The safety outcome did not appear to differ between the groups (22.5% vs. 20.4%; P = 0.37). Among patients who were 75 years of age or older with myocardial infarction and multivessel disease, those who underwent physiology-guided complete revascularization had a lower risk of a composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or ischemia-driven revascularization at 1 year than those who received culprit-lesion-only PCI. (Funded by Consorzio Futuro in Ricerca and others; FIRE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03772743.).

Endovascular therapy for stroke is generally avoided if the cerebral infarction is large. In a trial conducted in Japan, the percentage of patients who had a good functional outcome at 90 days was higher with endovascular therapy than with medical care, but there were more cerebral hemorrhages with endovascular therapy.

In a trial conducted in China, patients with large cerebral infarctions as determined by imaging criteria within 24 hours after onset had better outcomes with endovascular therapy than with medical therapy alone.

Myocardial infarction (MI) in elderly patients is associated with unfavorable prognosis, and it is becoming an increasingly prevalent condition. The prognosis of elderly patients is equally impaired in ST-segment elevation (STE) or non-STE (NSTE), and it is markedly worsened by the common presence of multivessel disease (MVD). Given the limited evidence available for elderly patients, it has not yet been established whether, as for younger patients, a complete revascularization strategy in MI patients with MVD should be advocated. We present the design of a dedicated study that will address this research gap. The FIRE trial is a prospective, randomized, international, multicenter, open-label study with blinded adjudicated evaluation of outcomes. Patients aged 75 years and older, with MI (either STE or NSTE), MVD at coronary artery angiography, and a clear culprit lesion will be randomized to culprit-only treatment or to physiology-guided complete revascularization. The primary end point will be the patient-oriented composite end point of all-cause death, any MI, any stroke, and any revascularization at 1 year. The key secondary end point will be the composite of cardiovascular death and MI. Quality of life and physical performance will be evaluated as well. All components of the primary and key secondary outcome will be tested also at 3 and 5 years. The sample size for the study is 1,400 patients. The FIRE trial will provide evidence on whether a specific revascularization strategy should be applied to elderly patients presenting MI and MVD to improve their clinical outcomes.

In patients with acute myocardial infarction receiving potent antiplatelet therapy, the bleeding risk remains high during the maintenance phase. We sought data on a uniform unguided de-escalation strategy of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) from ticagrelor to clopidogrel after acute myocardial infarction. In this open-label, assessor-masked, multicentre, non-inferiority, randomised trial (TALOS-AMI), patients at 32 institutes in South Korea with acute myocardial infarction receiving aspirin and ticagrelor without major ischaemic or bleeding events during the first month after index percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to a de-escalation (clopidogrel plus aspirin) or active control (ticagrelor plus aspirin) group. Unguided de-escalation without a loading dose of clopidogrel was adopted when switching from ticagrelor to clopidogrel. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or bleeding type 2, 3, or 5 according to Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) criteria from 1 to 12 months. A non-inferiority test was done to assess the safety and efficacy of de-escalation DAPT compared with standard treatment. The hazard ratio (HR) for de-escalation versus active control group in a stratified Cox proportional hazards model was assessed for non-inferiority by means of an HR margin of 1·34, which equates to an absolute difference of 3·0% in the intention-to-treat population and, if significant, a superiority test was done subsequently. To ensure statistical robustness, additional analyses were also done in the per-protocol population. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02018055. From Feb 26, 2014, to Dec 31, 2018, from 2901 patients screened, 2697 patients were randomly assigned: 1349 patients to de-escalation and 1348 to active control groups. At 12 months, the primary endpoints occurred in 59 (4·6%) in the de-escalation group and 104 (8·2%) patients in the active control group (pnon-inferiority<0·001; HR 0·55 [95% CI 0·40–0·76], psuperiority=0·0001). There was no significant difference in composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke between de-escalation (2·1%) and the active control group (3·1%; HR 0·69; 95% CI 0·42–1·14, p=0·15). Composite of BARC 2, 3, or 5 bleeding occurred less frequently in the de-escalation group (3·0% vs 5·6%, HR 0·52; 95% CI 0·35–0·77, p=0·0012). In stabilised patients with acute myocardial infarction after index PCI, a uniform unguided de-escalation strategy significantly reduced the risk of net clinical events up to 12 months, mainly by reducing the bleeding events. ChongKunDang Pharm, Medtronic, Abbott, and Boston Scientific.

Remote ischaemic conditioning with transient ischaemia and reperfusion applied to the arm has been shown to reduce myocardial infarct size in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI). We investigated whether remote ischaemic conditioning could reduce the incidence of cardiac death and hospitalisation for heart failure at 12 months. We did an international investigator-initiated, prospective, single-blind, randomised controlled trial (CONDI-2/ERIC-PPCI) at 33 centres across the UK, Denmark, Spain, and Serbia. Patients (age >18 years) with suspected STEMI and who were eligible for PPCI were randomly allocated (1:1, stratified by centre with a permuted block method) to receive standard treatment (including a sham simulated remote ischaemic conditioning intervention at UK sites only) or remote ischaemic conditioning treatment (intermittent ischaemia and reperfusion applied to the arm through four cycles of 5-min inflation and 5-min deflation of an automated cuff device) before PPCI. Investigators responsible for data collection and outcome assessment were masked to treatment allocation. The primary combined endpoint was cardiac death or hospitalisation for heart failure at 12 months in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02342522) and is completed. Between Nov 6, 2013, and March 31, 2018, 5401 patients were randomly allocated to either the control group (n=2701) or the remote ischaemic conditioning group (n=2700). After exclusion of patients upon hospital arrival or loss to follow-up, 2569 patients in the control group and 2546 in the intervention group were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. At 12 months post-PPCI, the Kaplan-Meier-estimated frequencies of cardiac death or hospitalisation for heart failure (the primary endpoint) were 220 (8·6%) patients in the control group and 239 (9·4%) in the remote ischaemic conditioning group (hazard ratio 1·10 [95% CI 0·91–1·32], p=0·32 for intervention versus control). No important unexpected adverse events or side effects of remote ischaemic conditioning were observed. Remote ischaemic conditioning does not improve clinical outcomes (cardiac death or hospitalisation for heart failure) at 12 months in patients with STEMI undergoing PPCI. British Heart Foundation, University College London Hospitals/University College London Biomedical Research Centre, Danish Innovation Foundation, Novo Nordisk Foundation, TrygFonden.

After 2 years of follow-up in a randomized trial involving 301 patients with moderate ischemic mitral regurgitation undergoing CABG, the addition of mitral-valve repair did not improve left ventricular function or remodeling. Ischemic mitral regurgitation of moderate severity develops in approximately 10% of patients after myocardial infarction. 1 , 2 Mitral regurgitation is caused by the displacement of papillary muscle, leaflet tethering, reduced closing forces, and annular dilatation. Over time, the condition has an adverse effect on the rate of survival free of heart failure. 3 Because most patients with ischemic mitral regurgitation have multivessel coronary artery disease requiring revascularization, surgeons have to consider whether to add mitral-valve repair to coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG). The appropriate surgical management of moderate ischemic mitral regurgitation at the time of CABG remains controversial. Some experts advocate revascularization alone . . .

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 low-risk patients with MI and early complete revascularization, stopping aspirin after 1 month and continuing P2Y12 monotherapy was noninferior to dual antiplatelet therapy for ischemic outcomes and led to reduced bleeding at 1 year.