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 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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

In acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock the use of mechanical circulatory support devices remains controversial and data from randomized clinical trials are very limited. Extracorporeal life support (ECLS) - venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation - provides the strongest hemodynamic support in addition to oxygenation. However, despite increasing use it has not yet been properly investigated in randomized trials. Therefore, a prospective randomized adequately powered clinical trial is warranted. The ECLS-SHOCK trial is a 420-patient controlled, international, multicenter, randomized, open-label trial. It is designed to compare whether treatment with ECLS in addition to early revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention or alternatively coronary artery bypass grafting and optimal medical treatment is beneficial in comparison to no-ECLS in patients with severe infarct-related cardiogenic shock. Patients will be randomized in a 1:1 fashion to one of the two treatment arms. The primary efficacy endpoint of ECLS-SHOCK is 30-day mortality. Secondary outcome measures such as hemodynamic, laboratory, and clinical parameters will serve as surrogate endpoints for prognosis. Furthermore, a longer follow-up at 6 and 12 months will be performed including quality of life assessment. Safety endpoints include peripheral ischemic vascular complications, bleeding and stroke. The ECLS-SHOCK trial will address essential questions of efficacy and safety of ECLS in addition to early revascularization in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock.

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.