Explore the vast range of titles available.

Objective To investigate whether revascularisation improves prognosis compared with medical treatment among patients with stable coronary artery disease.Design Bayesian network meta-analyses to combine direct within trial comparisons between treatments with indirect evidence from other trials while maintaining randomisation. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies A strategy of initial medical treatment compared with revascularisation by coronary artery bypass grafting or Food and Drug Administration approved techniques for percutaneous revascularization: balloon angioplasty, bare metal stent, early generation paclitaxel eluting stent, sirolimus eluting stent, and zotarolimus eluting (Endeavor) stent, and new generation everolimus eluting stent, and zotarolimus eluting (Resolute) stent among patients with stable coronary artery disease.Data sources Medline and Embase from 1980 to 2013 for randomised trials comparing medical treatment with revascularisation.Main outcome measure All cause mortality.Results 100 trials in 93 553 patients with 262 090 patient years of follow-up were included. Coronary artery bypass grafting was associated with a survival benefit (rate ratio 0.80, 95% credibility interval 0.70 to 0.91) compared with medical treatment. New generation drug eluting stents (everolimus: 0.75, 0.59 to 0.96; zotarolimus (Resolute): 0.65, 0.42 to 1.00) but not balloon angioplasty (0.85, 0.68 to 1.04), bare metal stents (0.92, 0.79 to 1.05), or early generation drug eluting stents (paclitaxel: 0.92, 0.75 to 1.12; sirolimus: 0.91, 0.75 to 1.10; zotarolimus (Endeavor): 0.88, 0.69 to 1.10) were associated with improved survival compared with medical treatment. Coronary artery bypass grafting reduced the risk of myocardial infarction compared with medical treatment (0.79, 0.63 to 0.99), and everolimus eluting stents showed a trend towards a reduced risk of myocardial infarction (0.75, 0.55 to 1.01). The risk of subsequent revascularisation was noticeably reduced by coronary artery bypass grafting (0.16, 0.13 to 0.20) followed by new generation drug eluting stents (zotarolimus (Resolute): 0.26, 0.17 to 0.40; everolimus: 0.27, 0.21 to 0.35), early generation drug eluting stents (zotarolimus (Endeavor): 0.37, 0.28 to 0.50; sirolimus: 0.29, 0.24 to 0.36; paclitaxel: 0.44, 0.35 to 0.54), and bare metal stents (0.69, 0.59 to 0.81) compared with medical treatment.Conclusion Among patients with stable coronary artery disease, coronary artery bypass grafting reduces the risk of death, myocardial infarction, and subsequent revascularisation compared with medical treatment. All stent based coronary revascularisation technologies reduce the need for revascularisation to a variable degree. Our results provide evidence for improved survival with new generation drug eluting stents but no other percutaneous revascularisation technology compared with medical treatment.

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.

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 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.

Objective: To develop a scoring system for risk stratification and evaluation of the effect of an early invasive strategy for treatment of unstable coronary artery disease (CAD). Design: Retrospective analysis of a randomised study (FRISC II; fast revascularisation in instability in coronary disease). Setting: 58 Scandinavian hospitals. Patients: 2457 patients with unstable CAD from the FRISC II study. Main outcome measures: One year rates of mortality and death/myocardial infarction (MI). Methods: Patients were randomly assigned to an early invasive or a non-invasive strategy. From the non-invasive cohort independent variables of death or death/MI were identified. Results: Seven factors, age > 70 years, male sex, diabetes, previous MI, ST depression, and increased concentrations of troponins and markers of inflammation (interleukin 6 or C reactive protein), were associated with an independent increased risk for death or death/MI. In patients with ⩾ 5 of these factors the invasive strategy reduced mortality from 15.4% (20 of 130) to 5.2% (7 of 134) (risk ratio (RR) 0.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 0.78, p  =  0.006). Death/MI was also reduced in patients with 3–4 factors from 15.7% (80 of 511) to 10.8% (58 of 538) (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.94, p  =  0.02). Neither death nor death/MI was reduced in patients with 0–2 risk factors. Conclusion: In unstable CAD, this scoring system based on factors independently associated with an adverse outcome can be used shortly after admission to the hospital for risk stratification and for selection of patients to an early invasive treatment strategy.

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.

Question Which of the following is the next best step in management? calcium channel blocker therapy for coronary spasm coronary stenting for revascularisation of plaque rupture cardiac surgery for myocardial bridging (MB) systemic anticoagulation for coronary embolism For the answer see page 656 From the question on page 636 Answer: C Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) showed an extravascular 'half-moon' structure (arrow), representing an overlying muscle band with corresponding atherosclerotic plaque (figure 1C).

Bioresorbable coronary stents might improve outcomes of patients treated with percutaneous coronary interventions. The everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold is the most studied of these stent platforms; however, its performance versus everolimus-eluting metallic stents remains poorly defined. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds versus everolimus-eluting metallic stents in patients with ischaemic heart disease treated with percutaneous revascularisation. We searched Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), scientific sessions abstracts, and relevant websites for randomised trials investigating everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds versus everolimus-eluting metallic stents published or posted between Nov 30, 2006, and Oct 12, 2015. The primary efficacy outcome was target lesion revascularisation and the primary safety outcome was definite or probable stent (scaffold) thrombosis. Secondary outcomes were target lesion failure (the composite of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or ischaemia-driven target lesion revascularisation), myocardial infarction, death, and in-device late lumen loss. We derived odds ratios (ORs) and weighted mean differences with 95% CIs, and calculated the risk estimates for the main outcomes according to a random-effects model. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42015026374. We included six trials, comprising data for 3738 patients randomised to receive percutaneous coronary intervention with either an everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold (n=2337) or an everolimus-eluting metallic stent (n=1401). Median follow-up was 12 months (IQR 9–12). Patients treated with bioresorbable vascular scaffolds had a similar risk of target lesion revascularisation (OR 0·97 [95% CI 0·66–1·43]; p=0·87), target lesion failure (1·20 [0·90–1·60]; p=0·21), myocardial infarction (1·36 [0·98–1·89]; p=0·06), and death (0·95 [0·45–2·00]; p=0·89) as those treated with metallic stents. Patients treated with a bioresorbable vascular scaffold had a higher risk of definite or probable stent thrombosis than those treated with a metallic stent (OR 1·99 [95% CI 1·00–3·98]; p=0·05), with the highest risk between 1 and 30 days after implantation (3·11 [1·24–7·82]; p=0·02). Lesions treated with a bioresorbable vascular scaffold had greater in-device late lumen loss than those treated with a metallic stent (weighted mean difference 0·08 [95% CI 0·05–0·12]; p<0·0001). Compared with everolimus-eluting metallic stents, everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds had similar rates of repeat revascularisation at 1 year of follow-up, despite inferior mid-term angiographic performance. However, patients treated with a bioresorbable vascular scaffold had an increased risk of subacute stent thrombosis. Studies with extended follow-up in a larger number of patients are needed to fully assess the long-term advantages of everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds. None.