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 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.

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.

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.

Patients with ST-segment elevation MI and multivessel coronary disease who had undergone successful culprit-lesion PCI were assigned to a strategy of either PCI of all other suitable stenoses or no further revascularization. At 3 years, the risk of cardiovascular death or new MI was lower with complete revascularization.

In a registry-based trial, FFR-guided PCI of nonculprit lesions did not result in a lower risk of a composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization than culprit-lesion-only PCI.

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.

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.

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.

Recent trials suggested immediate complete revascularization (ICR) as a safe alternative to staged complete revascularization (SCR), but the impact of the respective percutaneous coronary intervention strategies between on- versus off-hours is unclear. On-hours was defined as an index revascularization performed between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, or else the procedure was defined as performed during off-hours. The primary end point consisted of a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, unplanned ischemia-driven revascularization, and cerebrovascular events at 1-year follow-up. We used Cox regression models to relate randomized treatment with study end points. We evaluated multiplicative and additive interactions between on- versus off-hours and randomized treatment. The BIOVASC (Percutaneous Complete Revascularization Strategies Using Sirolimus Eluting Biodegradable Polymer Coated Stents in Patients Presenting With Acute Coronary Syndromes and Multivessel Disease) trial enrolled 1,097 and 428 patients during on- and off-hours, respectively. Patients randomized during off-hours were more likely to present with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (66.4% vs 29.5%, p <0.001). The composite primary outcome occurred in 8.4% and 10.1% of patients randomized to ICR and SCR, respectively, during on-hours (hazard ratio 0.80, 95% confidence interval 0.54 to 1.19). During off-hours, the primary composite outcome occurred in 5.4% and 7.7% in ICR and SCR (0.69, 95% confidence interval 0.32 to 1.46) with no evidence of a differential effect (interaction pmultiplicative = 0.70, padditive = 0.56). No differential effect was found between treatment allocation and on- versus off-hours in any of the secondary outcomes. In conclusion, no differential treatment effect was found when comparing ICR versus SCR in patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome and multivessel disease during on- or off-hours.