Explore the vast range of titles available.

Patients in the COURAGE trial who gave permission for long-term survival tracking were followed for up to 15 years. There was no difference between the PCI and medical-therapy groups in all-cause mortality. Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) relieves angina and reduces the extent of myocardial ischemia in patients with stable ischemic heart disease, but trials have not shown a survival benefit. By contrast, among patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, PCI has been shown to increase survival rates, 1 , 2 and among patients with non–ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, PCI has been shown to improve long-term survival, with a reduction in both early and late cardiac events. 3 , 4 Nevertheless, uncertainty persists about the effect of PCI on long-term survival among patients with stable ischemic heart disease. In the Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive . . .

Accumulating evidence from clinical trials suggests that a lower (restrictive) hemoglobin threshold (<8 g/dL) for red blood cell (RBC) transfusion, compared with a higher (liberal) threshold (≥10 g/dL) is safe. However, in anemic patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI), maintaining a higher hemoglobin level may increase oxygen delivery to vulnerable myocardium resulting in improved clinical outcomes. Conversely, RBC transfusion may result in increased blood viscosity, vascular inflammation, and reduction in available nitric oxide resulting in worse clinical outcomes. We hypothesize that a liberal transfusion strategy would improve clinical outcomes as compared to a more restrictive strategy. We will enroll 3500 patients with acute MI (type 1, 2, 4b or 4c) as defined by the Third Universal Definition of MI and a hemoglobin <10 g/dL at 144 centers in the United States, Canada, France, Brazil, New Zealand, and Australia. We randomly assign trial participants to a liberal or restrictive transfusion strategy. Participants assigned to the liberal strategy receive transfusion of RBCs sufficient to raise their hemoglobin to at least 10 g/dL. Participants assigned to the restrictive strategy are permitted to receive transfusion of RBCs if the hemoglobin falls below 8 g/dL or for persistent angina despite medical therapy. We will contact each participant at 30 days to assess clinical outcomes and at 180 days to ascertain vital status. The primary end point is a composite of all-cause death or recurrent MI through 30 days following randomization. Secondary end points include all-cause mortality at 30 days, recurrent adjudicated MI, and the composite outcome of all-cause mortality, nonfatal recurrent MI, ischemia driven unscheduled coronary revascularization (percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting), or readmission to the hospital for ischemic cardiac diagnosis within 30 days. The trial will assess multiple tertiary end points. The MINT trial will inform RBC transfusion practice in patients with acute MI.

Currently, no data are available on the direct comparison between the Absorb everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold (Absorb BVS) and conventional metallic drug-eluting stents. The ABSORB II study is a randomized, active-controlled, single-blinded, multicenter clinical trial aiming to compare the second-generation Absorb BVS with the XIENCE everolimus-eluting metallic stent. Approximately 501 subjects will be enrolled on a 2:1 randomization basis (Absorb BVS/XIENCE stent) in approximately 40 investigational sites across Europe and New Zealand. Treated lesions will be up to 2 de novo native coronary artery lesions, each located in different major epicardial vessels, all with an angiographic maximal luminal diameter between 2.25 and 3.8 mm as estimated by online quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) and a lesion length of ≤48 mm. Clinical follow-up is planned at 30 and 180 days and at 1, 2, and 3 years. All subjects will undergo coronary angiography, intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) and IVUS-virtual histology at baseline (pre-device and post-device implantation) and at 2-year angiographic follow-up. The primary end point is superiority of the Absorb BVS vs XIENCE stent in terms of vasomotor reactivity of the treated segment at 2 years, defined as the QCA quantified change in the mean lumen diameter prenitrate and postnitrate administration. The coprimary end point is the noninferiority (reflex to superiority) of the QCA-derived minimum lumen diameter at 2 years postnitrate minus minimum lumen diameter postprocedure postnitrate by QCA. In addition, all subjects allocated to the Absorb BVS group will undergo multislice computed tomography imaging at 3 years. The ABSORB II randomized controlled trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01425281) is designed to compare the safety, efficacy, and performance of Absorb BVS against the XIENCE everolimus-eluting stent in the treatment of de novo native coronary artery lesions.

The FRISC-II invasive trial compared an early invasive with a non-invasive strategy in terms of death and myocardial infarction in non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome. We present 5-year follow-up results, overall and in subgroups based on recommended risk stratification criteria. In the FRISC-II trial, 2457 patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome were randomised to early invasive strategy (coronary angiography and, if appropriate, revascularisation, within 7 days from admission) or non-invasive primarily medical strategy. Risk stratification was done on the basis of risk indicators at randomisation: age older than 65 years, male sex, diabetes mellitus, previous myocardial infarction, ST-segment depression, raised troponin concentration (>0·03 μg/L), and raised C-reactive protein or interleukin 6. Information on events after 24 months was taken from national registries. Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. At 5 years the groups differed in terms of the primary composite endpoint of death, myocardial infarction, or both (invasive 217, 19·9 %; noninvasive 270, 24·5 %; risk ratio 0·81; 95% CI 0·69–0·95; p=0·009). 5-year mortality was 117 (9·7%) in the invasive group compared with 124 (10·1%) in the noninvasive group (0·95; 0·75 −1·21; p=0·693). Rates of myocardial infarction were 141 (12·9 %) in the invasive and 195 (17.7%) in the non-invasive group (0·73; 0·60–0·89; p=0·002). The benefit of the invasive strategy was confined to male patients, non-smokers, and patients with two or more risk indicators. The 5-year outcome of this trial indicates sustained benefit of an early invasive strategy in patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome at moderate to high risk.

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 randomized trial, 1905 patients with left main coronary artery disease were assigned to either percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG). At 5 years, the rates of the composite of death, stroke, or myocardial infarction were not significantly different between the two groups.

In the ISCHEMIA trial, patients with stable ischemic heart disease were randomly assigned to invasive or conservative treatment. As reported separately, the invasive strategy did not reduce clinical events. Improvements in health status were slightly greater with the invasive strategy, reflecting minimal effects in asymptomatic patients and larger effects in patients with angina symptoms at baseline.

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 . . .

The demonstration that angiogenic growth factors can stimulate new blood vessel growth and restore perfusion in animal models of myocardial ischemia has led to the development of strategies designed for the local production of angiogenic growth factors in patients who are not candidates for conventional revascularization. The results of recent clinical trials of proangiogenesis gene therapy have been disappointing; however, significant limitations in experimental design, in particular in gene transfer strategies, preclude drawing definitive conclusions. In the REVASC study cardiac gene transfer was optimized by direct intramyocardial delivery of a replication-deficient adenovirus-containing vascular endothelial growth factor (AdVEGF121, 4 x 10(10) particle units (p.u.)). Sixty-seven patients with severe angina due to coronary artery disease and no conventional options for revascularization were randomized to AdVEGF121 gene transfer via mini-thoracotomy or continuation of maximal medical treatment. Exercise time to 1 mm ST-segment depression, the predefined primary end-point analysis, was significantly increased in the AdVEGF121 group compared to control at 26 weeks (P=0.026), but not at 12 weeks. As well, total exercise duration and time to moderate angina at weeks 12 and 26, and in angina symptoms as measured by the Canadian Cardiovascular Society Angina Class and Seattle Angina Questionnaire were all improved by VEGF gene transfer (all P-values at 12 and 26 weeks < or =0.001). However, if anything the results of nuclear perfusion imaging favored the control group, although the AdVEGF121 group achieved higher workloads. Overall there was no significant difference in adverse events between the two groups, despite the fact that procedure-related events were seen only in the thoracotomy group. Therefore, administration of AdVEGF121 by direct intramyocardial injections resulted in objective improvement in exercise-induced ischemia in patients with refractory ischemic heart disease.

Prior trials comparing a strategy of optimal medical therapy with or without revascularization have not shown that revascularization reduces cardiovascular events in patients with stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD). However, those trials only included participants in whom coronary anatomy was known prior to randomization and did not include sufficient numbers of participants with significant ischemia. It remains unknown whether a routine invasive approach offers incremental value over a conservative approach with catheterization reserved for failure of medical therapy in patients with moderate or severe ischemia. The ISCHEMIA trial is a National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute supported trial, designed to compare an initial invasive or conservative treatment strategy for managing SIHD patients with moderate or severe ischemia on stress testing. Five thousand one-hundred seventy-nine participants have been randomized. Key exclusion criteria included estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <30 mL/min, recent myocardial infarction (MI), left ventricular ejection fraction <35%, left main stenosis >50%, or unacceptable angina at baseline. Most enrolled participants with normal renal function first underwent blinded coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) to exclude those with left main coronary artery disease (CAD) and without obstructive CAD. All randomized participants receive secondary prevention that includes lifestyle advice and pharmacologic interventions referred to as optimal medical therapy (OMT). Participants randomized to the invasive strategy underwent routine cardiac catheterization followed by revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery, when feasible, as selected by the local Heart Team to achieve optimal revascularization. Participants randomized to the conservative strategy undergo cardiac catheterization only for failure of OMT. The primary endpoint is a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), hospitalization for unstable angina, hospitalization for heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. Assuming the primary endpoint will occur in 16% of the conservative group within 4 years, estimated power exceeds 80% to detect an 18.5% reduction in the primary endpoint. Major secondary endpoints include the composite of CV death and nonfatal MI, net clinical benefit (primary and secondary endpoints combined with stroke), angina-related symptoms and disease-specific quality of life, as well as a cost-effectiveness assessment in North American participants. Ancillary studies of patients with advanced chronic kidney disease and those with documented ischemia and non-obstructive coronary artery disease are being conducted concurrently. ISCHEMIA will provide new scientific evidence regarding whether an invasive management strategy improves clinical outcomes when added to optimal medical therapy in patients with SIHD and moderate or severe ischemia.