A Placebo-Controlled Trial of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Stable Angina.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is frequently performed to reduce the symptoms of stable angina. Whether PCI relieves angina more than a placebo procedure in patients who are not receiving antianginal medication remains unknown. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of PCI in patients with stable angina. Patients stopped all antianginal medications and underwent a 2-week symptom assessment phase before randomization. Patients were then randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to undergo PCI or a placebo procedure and were followed for 12 weeks. The primary end point was the angina symptom score, which was calculated daily on the basis of the number of angina episodes that occurred on a given day, the number of antianginal medications prescribed on that day, and clinical events, including the occurrence of unblinding owing to unacceptable angina or acute coronary syndrome or death. Scores range from 0 to 79, with higher scores indicating worse health status with respect to angina. RESULTS: A total of 301 patients underwent randomization: 151 to the PCI group and 150 to the placebo group. The mean (±SD) age was 64±9 years, and 79% were men. Ischemia was present in one cardiac territory in 242 patients (80%), in two territories in 52 patients (17%), and in three territories in 7 patients (2%). In the target vessels, the median fractional flow reserve was 0.63 (interquartile range, 0.49 to 0.75), and the median instantaneous wave-free ratio was 0.78 (interquartile range, 0.55 to 0.87). At the 12-week follow-up, the mean angina symptom score was 2.9 in the PCI group and 5.6 in the placebo group (odds ratio, 2.21; 95% confidence interval, 1.41 to 3.47; P<0.001). One patient in the placebo group had unacceptable angina leading to unblinding. Acute coronary syndromes occurred in 4 patients in the PCI group and in 6 patients in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with stable angina who were receiving little or no antianginal medication and had objective evidence of ischemia, PCI resulted in a lower angina symptom score than a placebo procedure, indicating a better health status with respect to angina. (Funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research Imperial Biomedical Research Centre and others; ORBITA-2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03742050.).

Coronary sinus reducer for the treatment of refractory angina (ORBITA-COSMIC): a randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The coronary sinus reducer (CSR) is proposed to reduce angina in patients with stable coronary artery disease by improving myocardial perfusion. We aimed to measure its efficacy, compared with placebo, on myocardial ischaemia reduction and symptom improvement. METHODS: ORBITA-COSMIC was a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial conducted at six UK hospitals. Patients aged 18 years or older with angina, stable coronary artery disease, ischaemia, and no further options for treatment were eligible. All patients completed a quantitative adenosine-stress perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance scan, symptom and quality-of-life questionnaires, and a treadmill exercise test before entering a 2-week symptom assessment phase, in which patients reported their angina symptoms using a smartphone application (ORBITA-app). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either CSR or placebo. Both participants and investigators were masked to study assignment. After the CSR implantation or placebo procedure, patients entered a 6-month blinded follow-up phase in which they reported their daily symptoms in the ORBITA-app. At 6 months, all assessments were repeated. The primary outcome was myocardial blood flow in segments designated ischaemic at enrolment during the adenosine-stress perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance scan. The primary symptom outcome was the number of daily angina episodes. Analysis was done by intention-to-treat and followed Bayesian methodology. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04892537, and completed. FINDINGS: Between May 26, 2021, and June 28, 2023, 61 patients were enrolled, of whom 51 (44 [86%] male; seven [14%] female) were randomly assigned to either the CSR group (n=25) or the placebo group (n=26). Of these, 50 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis (24 in the CSR group and 26 in the placebo group). 454 (57%) of 800 imaged cardiac segments were ischaemic at enrolment, with a median stress myocardial blood flow of 1·08 mL/min per g (IQR 0·77-1·41). Myocardial blood flow in ischaemic segments did not improve with CSR compared with placebo (difference 0·06 mL/min per g [95% CrI -0·09 to 0·20]; Pr(Benefit)=78·8%). The number of daily angina episodes was reduced with CSR compared with placebo (OR 1·40 [95% CrI 1·08 to 1·83]; Pr(Benefit)=99·4%). There were two CSR embolisation events in the CSR group, and no acute coronary syndrome events or deaths in either group. INTERPRETATION: ORBITA-COSMIC found no evidence that the CSR improved transmural myocardial perfusion, but the CSR did improve angina compared with placebo. These findings provide evidence for the use of CSR as a further antianginal option for patients with stable coronary artery disease. FUNDING: Medical Research Council, Imperial College Healthcare Charity, National Institute for Health and Care Research Imperial Biomedical Research Centre, St Mary's Coronary Flow Trust, British Heart Foundation.

Quality assurance of late gadolinium enhancement cardiac magnetic resonance images: a deep learning classifier for confidence in the presence or absence of abnormality with potential to prompt real-time image optimization.

BACKGROUND: Late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) of the myocardium has significant diagnostic and prognostic implications, with even small areas of enhancement being important. Distinguishing between definitely normal and definitely abnormal LGE images is usually straightforward, but diagnostic uncertainty arises when reporters are not sure whether the observed LGE is genuine or not. This uncertainty might be resolved by repetition (to remove artifact) or further acquisition of intersecting images, but this must take place before the scan finishes. Real-time quality assurance by humans is a complex task requiring training and experience, so being able to identify which images have an intermediate likelihood of LGE while the scan is ongoing, without the presence of an expert is of high value. This decision-support could prompt immediate image optimization or acquisition of supplementary images to confirm or refute the presence of genuine LGE. This could reduce ambiguity in reports. METHODS: Short-axis, phase-sensitive inversion recovery late gadolinium images were extracted from our clinical cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) database and shuffled. Two, independent, blinded experts scored each individual slice for "LGE likelihood" on a visual analog scale, from 0 (absolute certainty of no LGE) to 100 (absolute certainty of LGE), with 50 representing clinical equipoise. The scored images were split into two classes-either "high certainty" of whether LGE was present or not, or "low certainty." The dataset was split into training, validation, and test sets (70:15:15). A deep learning binary classifier based on the EfficientNetV2 convolutional neural network architecture was trained to distinguish between these categories. Classifier performance on the test set was evaluated by calculating the accuracy, precision, recall, F1-score, and area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (ROC AUC). Performance was also evaluated on an external test set of images from a different center. RESULTS: One thousand six hundred and forty-five images (from 272 patients) were labeled and split at the patient level into training (1151 images), validation (247 images), and test (247 images) sets for the deep learning binary classifier. Of these, 1208 images were "high certainty" (255 for LGE, 953 for no LGE), and 437 were "low certainty". An external test comprising 247 images from 41 patients from another center was also employed. After 100 epochs, the performance on the internal test set was accuracy = 0.94, recall = 0.80, precision = 0.97, F1-score = 0.87, and ROC AUC = 0.94. The classifier also performed robustly on the external test set (accuracy = 0.91, recall = 0.73, precision = 0.93, F1-score = 0.82, and ROC AUC = 0.91). These results were benchmarked against a reference inter-expert accuracy of 0.86. CONCLUSION: Deep learning shows potential to automate quality control of late gadolinium imaging in CMR. The ability to identify short-axis images with intermediate LGE likelihood in real-time may serve as a useful decision-support tool. This approach has the potential to guide immediate further imaging while the patient is still in the scanner, thereby reducing the frequency of recalls and inconclusive reports due to diagnostic indecision.

Variation in optimal hemodynamic atrio-ventricular delay of biventricular pacing with different endocardial left ventricular lead locations using precision hemodynamics.

INTRODUCTION: It is not known whether the optimal atrioventricular (AVopt ) delay varies between left ventricular (LV) pacing site during endocardial biventricular pacing (BiVP) and may therefore needs consideration. METHODS: We assessed the hemodynamic AVopt in patients with chronic heart failure undergoing endocardial LV lead implantation. AVopt was assessed during atrio-BiVP with a "roving LV lead." Up to four locations were studied: mid-lateral wall, mid-septum (or a close alternative), site of greatest hemodynamic improvement, and LV lead implant site. The AVopt was compared to a fixed AV delay of 180 ms. RESULTS: Seventeen patients were included (12 male, aged 66.5 ± 12.8 years, ejection fraction 26 ± 7%, 16 left bundle branch block or high percentage of right ventricular pacing [RVP], QRS duration 167 ± 27 ms). In most locations (62/63), AVopt increased systolic blood pressure during BiVP compared with RVP (relative improvement 6 mmHg, interquartile range [IQR] 4-9 mmHg). Compared to a fixed AV delay, the hemodynamic improvement at AVopt was higher (1 mmHg, IQR 0.2-2.6 mmHg, p < .001). Within most patients (16/17), we observed a difference in AVopt between pacing sites (median paced AVopt 209 ms, IQR 117-250). Within this range, the hemodynamic impact of these differences was small (median loss 0.6 mmHg, IQR 0.1-2.6 mmHg). CONCLUSION: Within a patient, different endocardial LV lead locations have slightly different hemodynamic AVopt which are superior to a fixed AV delay. The hemodynamic consequence of applying an optimum from a different lead location is small.

How robust are recommended waiting times to pacing after cardiac surgery that are derived from observational data?

AIMS: For bradycardic patients after cardiac surgery, it is unknown how long to wait before implanting a permanent pacemaker (PPM). Current recommendations vary and are based on observational studies. This study aims to examine why this variation may exist. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted first a study of patients in our institution and second a systematic review of studies examining conduction disturbance and pacing after cardiac surgery. Of 5849 operations over a 6-year period, 103 (1.8%) patients required PPM implantation. Only pacing dependence at implant and time from surgery to implant were associated with 30-day pacing dependence. The only predictor of regression of pacing dependence was time from surgery to implant. We then applied the conventional procedure of receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, seeking an optimal time point for decision-making. This suggested the optimal waiting time was 12.5 days for predicting pacing dependence at 30 days for all patients (area under the ROC curve (AUC) 0.620, P = 0.031) and for predicting regression of pacing dependence in patients who were pacing-dependent at implant (AUC 0.769, P < 0.001). However, our systematic review showed that recommended optimal decision-making time points were strongly correlated with the average implant time point of those individual studies (R = 0.96, P < 0.001). We further conducted modelling which revealed that in any such study, the ROC method is strongly biased to indicate a value near to the median time to implant as optimal. CONCLUSION: When commonly used automated statistical methods are applied to observational data with the aim of defining the optimal time to pacing after cardiac surgery, the suggested answer is likely to be similar to the average time to pacing in that cohort.

Comparison of methods for delivering cardiac resynchronization therapy: an acute electrical and haemodynamic within-patient comparison of left bundle branch area, His bundle, and biventricular pacing.

AIMS: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a promising method for delivering cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), but its relative physiological effectiveness compared with His bundle pacing (HBP) is unknown. We conducted a within-patient comparison of HBP, LBBAP, and biventricular pacing (BVP). METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients referred for CRT were recruited. We assessed electrical response using non-invasive mapping, and acute haemodynamic response using a high-precision haemodynamic protocol. Nineteen patients were recruited: 14 male, mean LVEF of 30%. Twelve had time for BVP measurements. All three modalities reduced total ventricular activation time (TVAT), (ΔTVATHBP -43 ± 14 ms and ΔTVATLBBAP -35 ± 20 ms vs. ΔTVATBVP -19 ± 30 ms, P = 0.03 and P = 0.1, respectively). HBP produced a significantly greater reduction in TVAT compared with LBBAP in all 19 patients (-46 ± 15 ms, -36 ± 17 ms, P = 0.03). His bundle pacing and LBBAP reduced left ventricular activation time (LVAT) more than BVP (ΔLVATHBP -43 ± 16 ms, P < 0.01 vs. BVP, ΔLVATLBBAP -45 ± 17 ms, P < 0.01 vs. BVP, ΔLVATBVP -13 ± 36 ms), with no difference between HBP and LBBAP (P = 0.65). Acute systolic blood pressure was increased by all three modalities. In the 12 with BVP, greater improvement was seen with HBP and LBBAP (6.4 ± 3.8 mmHg BVP, 8.1 ± 3.8 mmHg HBP, P = 0.02 vs. BVP and 8.4 ± 8.2 mmHg for LBBAP, P = 0.3 vs. BVP), with no difference between HBP and LBBAP (P = 0.8). CONCLUSION: HBP delivered better ventricular resynchronization than LBBAP because right ventricular activation was slower during LBBAP. But LBBAP was not inferior to HBP with respect to LV electrical resynchronization and acute haemodynamic response.

Catheter ablation improves cardiovascular outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

AIMS: The effect of atrial fibrillation catheter ablation on cardiovascular outcomes in heart failure is an important outstanding research question. We undertook a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing ablation to medical therapy in patients with AF and heart failure. METHODS AND RESULTS: We systematically identified all trials comparing catheter ablation to medical therapy in patients with heart failure and atrial fibrillation. The pre-specified primary endpoint was all-cause mortality in trials with at least 2 years of follow-up. The secondary endpoint was heart failure hospitalization. Sensitivity analyses were performed for trials with any follow-up and trials deemed at low risk of bias. Eight trials (1390 patients) were included. Seven hundred and seven patients were randomized to catheter ablation and 683 to medical therapy. In the primary analysis (three trials, n = 977), catheter ablation reduced mortality compared with medical therapy [relative risk (RR): 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.44 to 0.84, P = 0.003]. Catheter ablation also reduced heart failure hospitalizations compared with medical therapy (RR: 0.60, 95% CI: 0.49-0.74, P < 0.001). The effect on stroke was not statistically significant (RR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.28-1.37, P = 0.237). There was low heterogeneity between studies. Sensitivity analyses were consistent with the primary analyses. CONCLUSION: In patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure, catheter ablation reduces mortality and the occurrence of heart failure hospitalizations.

Upgrading right ventricular pacemakers to biventricular pacing or conduction system pacing: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Guidelines recommend patients undergoing a first pacemaker implant who have even mild left ventricular (LV) impairment should receive biventricular or conduction system pacing (CSP). There is no corresponding recommendation for patients who already have a pacemaker. We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies assessing device upgrades. The primary outcome was the echocardiographic change in LV ejection fraction (LVEF). Six RCTs (randomizing 161 patients) and 47 observational studies (2644 patients) assessing the efficacy of upgrade to biventricular pacing were eligible for analysis. Eight observational studies recruiting 217 patients of CSP upgrade were also eligible. Fourteen additional studies contributed data on complications (25 412 patients). Randomized controlled trials of biventricular pacing upgrade showed LVEF improvement of +8.4% from 35.5% and observational studies: +8.4% from 25.7%. Observational studies of left bundle branch area pacing upgrade showed +11.1% improvement from 39.0% and observational studies of His bundle pacing upgrade showed +12.7% improvement from 36.0%. New York Heart Association class decreased by -0.4, -0.8, -1.0, and -1.2, respectively. Randomized controlled trials of biventricular upgrade found improvement in Minnesota Heart Failure Score (-6.9 points) and peak oxygen uptake (+1.1 mL/kg/min). This was also seen in observational studies of biventricular upgrades (-19.67 points and +2.63 mL/kg/min, respectively). In studies of the biventricular upgrade, complication rates averaged 2% for pneumothorax, 1.4% for tamponade, and 3.7% for infection over 24 months of mean follow-up. Lead-related complications occurred in 3.3% of biventricular upgrades and 1.8% of CSP upgrades. Randomized controlled trials show significant physiological and symptomatic benefits of upgrading pacemakers to biventricular pacing. Observational studies show similar effects between biventricular pacing upgrade and CSP upgrade.

Left bundle branch pacing with and without anodal capture: impact on ventricular activation pattern and acute haemodynamics.

AIMS: Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) can deliver physiological left ventricular activation, but typically at the cost of delayed right ventricular (RV) activation. Right ventricular activation can be advanced through anodal capture, but there is uncertainty regarding the mechanism by which this is achieved, and it is not known whether this produces haemodynamic benefit. METHODS AND RESULTS: We recruited patients with LBBP leads in whom anodal capture eliminated the terminal R-wave in lead V1. Ventricular activation pattern, timing, and high-precision acute haemodynamic response were studied during LBBP with and without anodal capture. We recruited 21 patients with a mean age of 67 years, of whom 14 were males. We measured electrocardiogram timings and haemodynamics in all patients, and in 16, we also performed non-invasive mapping. Ventricular epicardial propagation maps demonstrated that RV septal myocardial capture, rather than right bundle capture, was the mechanism for earlier RV activation. With anodal capture, QRS duration and total ventricular activation times were shorter (116 ± 12 vs. 129 ± 14 ms, P < 0.01 and 83 ± 18 vs. 90 ± 15 ms, P = 0.01). This required higher outputs (3.6 ± 1.9 vs. 0.6 ± 0.2 V, P < 0.01) but without additional haemodynamic benefit (mean difference -0.2 ± 3.8 mmHg compared with pacing without anodal capture, P = 0.2). CONCLUSION: Left bundle branch pacing with anodal capture advances RV activation by stimulating the RV septal myocardium. However, this requires higher outputs and does not improve acute haemodynamics. Aiming for anodal capture may therefore not be necessary.

Septal scar as a barrier to left bundle branch area pacing.

BACKGROUND: The use of left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) for bradycardia pacing and cardiac resynchronization is increasing, but implants are not always successful. We prospectively studied consecutive patients to determine whether septal scar contributes to implant failure. METHODS: Patients scheduled for bradycardia pacing or cardiac resynchronization therapy were prospectively enrolled. Recruited patients underwent preprocedural scar assessment by cardiac MRI with late gadolinium enhancement imaging. LBBAP was attempted using a lumenless lead (Medtronic 3830) via a transeptal approach. RESULTS: Thirty-five patients were recruited: 29 male, mean age 68 years, 10 ischemic, and 16 non-ischemic cardiomyopathy. Pacing indication was bradycardia in 26% and cardiac resynchronization in 74%. The lead was successfully deployed to the left ventricular septum in 30/35 (86%) and unsuccessful in the remaining 5/35 (14%). Septal late gadolinium enhancement was significantly less extensive in patients where left septal lead deployment was successful, compared those where it was unsuccessful (median 8%, IQR 2%-18% vs. median 54%, IQR 53%-57%, p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The presence of septal scar appears to make it more challenging to deploy a lead to the left ventricular septum via the transeptal route. Additional implant tools or alternative approaches may be required in patients with extensive septal scar.

Cardiopulmonary exercise testing and efficacy of percutaneous coronary intervention: a substudy of the ORBITA trial.

AIMS: Oxygen-pulse morphology and gas exchange analysis measured during cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) has been associated with myocardial ischaemia. The aim of this analysis was to examine the relationship between CPET parameters, myocardial ischaemia and anginal symptoms in patients with chronic coronary syndrome and to determine the ability of these parameters to predict the placebo-controlled response to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with severe single-vessel coronary artery disease (CAD) were randomized 1:1 to PCI or placebo in the ORBITA trial. Subjects underwent pre-randomization treadmill CPET, dobutamine stress echocardiography (DSE) and symptom assessment. These assessments were repeated at the end of a 6-week blinded follow-up period.A total of 195 patients with CPET data were randomized (102 PCI, 93 placebo). Patients in whom an oxygen-pulse plateau was observed during CPET had higher (more ischaemic) DSE score [+0.82 segments; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.40 to 1.25, P = 0.0068] and lower fractional flow reserve (-0.07; 95% CI: -0.12 to -0.02, P = 0.011) compared with those without. At lower (more abnormal) oxygen-pulse slopes, there was a larger improvement of the placebo-controlled effect of PCI on DSE score [oxygen-pulse plateau presence (Pinteraction = 0.026) and oxygen-pulse gradient (Pinteraction = 0.023)] and Seattle angina physical-limitation score [oxygen-pulse plateau presence (Pinteraction = 0.037)]. Impaired peak VO2, VE/VCO2 slope, peak oxygen-pulse, and oxygen uptake efficacy slope was significantly associated with higher symptom burden but did not relate to severity of ischaemia or predict response to PCI. CONCLUSION: Although selected CPET parameters relate to severity of angina symptoms and quality of life, only an oxygen-pulse plateau detects the severity of myocardial ischaemia and predicts the placebo-controlled efficacy of PCI in patients with single-vessel CAD.

Mortality risk prediction of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein in suspected acute coronary syndrome: A cohort study.

BACKGROUND: There is limited evidence on the use of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) as a biomarker for selecting patients for advanced cardiovascular (CV) therapies in the modern era. The prognostic value of mildly elevated hsCRP beyond troponin in a large real-world cohort of unselected patients presenting with suspected acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is unknown. We evaluated whether a mildly elevated hsCRP (up to 15 mg/L) was associated with mortality risk, beyond troponin level, in patients with suspected ACS. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study based on the National Institute for Health Research Health Informatics Collaborative data of 257,948 patients with suspected ACS who had a troponin measured at 5 cardiac centres in the United Kingdom between 2010 and 2017. Patients were divided into 4 hsCRP groups (<2, 2 to 4.9, 5 to 9.9, and 10 to 15 mg/L). The main outcome measure was mortality within 3 years of index presentation. The association between hsCRP levels and all-cause mortality was assessed using multivariable Cox regression analysis adjusted for age, sex, haemoglobin, white cell count (WCC), platelet count, creatinine, and troponin. Following the exclusion criteria, there were 102,337 patients included in the analysis (hsCRP <2 mg/L (n = 38,390), 2 to 4.9 mg/L (n = 27,397), 5 to 9.9 mg/L (n = 26,957), and 10 to 15 mg/L (n = 9,593)). On multivariable Cox regression analysis, there was a positive and graded relationship between hsCRP level and mortality at baseline, which remained at 3 years (hazard ratio (HR) (95% CI) of 1.32 (1.18 to 1.48) for those with hsCRP 2.0 to 4.9 mg/L and 1.40 (1.26 to 1.57) and 2.00 (1.75 to 2.28) for those with hsCRP 5 to 9.9 mg/L and 10 to 15 mg/L, respectively. This relationship was independent of troponin in all suspected ACS patients and was further verified in those who were confirmed to have an ACS diagnosis by clinical coding. The main limitation of our study is that we did not have data on underlying cause of death; however, the exclusion of those with abnormal WCC or hsCRP levels >15 mg/L makes it unlikely that sepsis was a major contributor. CONCLUSIONS: These multicentre, real-world data from a large cohort of patients with suspected ACS suggest that mildly elevated hsCRP (up to 15 mg/L) may be a clinically meaningful prognostic marker beyond troponin and point to its potential utility in selecting patients for novel treatments targeting inflammation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov - NCT03507309.

Quality of Life Assessment in Trials of Revascularization for Chronic Stable Angina: Insights from ORBITA and the Implications of Blinding.

The main aims of therapy in chronic stable angina are to reduce the risk of myocardial infarction and death and improve symptoms and quality of life (QoL). Unblinded trials have shown that revascularization does not reduce the risk of myocardial infarction or death but does appear to improve symptoms. However, symptoms are susceptible to the placebo effect which can bias therapies to appear more effective than they are. To assess the true physical impact of a treatment on symptoms, placebo-controlled trials with patients and medical and research teams blinded to treatment allocation are necessary. Symptoms and QoL can be reported directly by the patient or indirectly by the physician. Patient-reported outcome measures in angina trials can include angina frequency, frequency of nitrate use, exercise capacity, and questionnaires such as the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) and the generic EuroQOL-5D-5L (EQ-5D-5L) QoL questionnaire. Physician-assessed outcome measures include Canadian Cardiovascular Society Class. The Objective Randomised Blinded Investigation with Optimal Medical Therapy of Angioplasty in Stable Angina (ORBITA) trial was the first blinded placebo-controlled study investigating the role of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in chronic stable angina. The trial showed a smaller than expected and not statistically significant effect of placebo-controlled PCI on the primary endpoint of change in exercise time at 6 weeks follow-up in single-vessel coronary artery disease. There was also no significant placebo-controlled treatment effect of PCI for the prespecified secondary endpoints of SAQ or EQ-5D-5L, although PCI did result in 20% more patients becoming free from angina than placebo in a non-prespecified secondary analysis. ORBITA has demonstrated the need for symptomatic and QoL effects of PCI to be studied using placebo control. Here, we describe ways of measuring QoL, the impact of the unblinded and blinded trials to date, what we have learned from ORBITA, and what is next for this common and complex condition.

Optimizing atrio-ventricular delay in pacemakers using potentially implantable physiological biomarkers.

BACKGROUND: Hemodynamically optimal atrioventricular (AV) delay can be derived by echocardiography or beat-by-beat blood pressure (BP) measurements, but analysis is labor intensive. Laser Doppler perfusion monitoring measures blood flow and can be incorporated into future implantable cardiac devices. We assess whether laser Doppler can be used instead of BP to optimize AV delay. METHODS: Fifty eight patients underwent 94 AV delay optimizations with biventricular or His-bundle pacing using laser Doppler and simultaneous noninvasive beat-by-beat BP. Optimal AV delay was defined using a curve of hemodynamic response to switching from AAI (reference state) to DDD (test state) at several AV delays (40-320 ms), with automatic quality control checking precision of the optimum. Five subsequent patients underwent an extended protocol to test the impact of greater numbers of alternations on optimization quality. RESULTS: 55/94 optimizations passed quality control resulting in an optimal AV delay on laser Doppler similar to that derived by BP (median absolute deviation 12 ms). An extended protocol with increasing number of replicates consistently improved quality and reduced disagreement between laser Doppler and BP optima. With only five replicates, no optimization passed quality control, and the median absolute deviation would be 29 ms. These improved progressively until at 50 replicates, all optimizations passed quality control and the median absolute deviation was only 13 ms. CONCLUSIONS: Laser Doppler perfusion produces hemodynamic optima equivalent to BP. Quality control can be automatic. Adding more replicates, consistently improves quality. Future implantable devices could use such methods to dynamically and reliably optimize AV delays.

Remote digital smart device follow-up in prospective clinical trials: early insights from ORBITA-2, ORBITA-COSMIC, and ORBITA-STAR.

Smart devices are a fundamental media for acquisition, processing, storage, and transfer of digital health data. The global penetration and high frequency usage of smart devices such as smartphones and fitness monitors provide us an opportunity for incorporation into clinical trials to generate more clinically meaningful data. Reporting of angina can significantly vary between patients and also within patients at different timepoints. Furthermore, the nature of angina can lead to variation in ways patients adapt their activities of daily living and hence reporting of symptoms and quality of life. Current clinical trials investigating the effects of intervention on angina do not accurately incorporate these patient centred outcomes and considerations. Hence, methods to contemporaneously assess daily angina burden in a convenient, patient focused, and cost-effective manner are priorities for contemporary clinical trials to address. In this article, we provide our insights into the use of remote digital smart devices in clinical trials of stable coronary artery disease conducted by our research group. We discuss how our experiences from previous trials necessitated its incorporation and will provide us with important data that will inform clinical practice. We discuss the benefits and current challenges and limitations of smart device incorporation while providing our procedural workflow for how we incorporated smart devices into our clinical trials for others to consider. We hope that this approach will allow us to understand the perceptions and implications of angina on patient lives with greater granularity than previously explored.

Invasive versus non-invasive management of older patients with non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (SENIOR-NSTEMI): a cohort study based on routine clinical data.

BACKGROUND: Previous trials suggest lower long-term risk of mortality after invasive rather than non-invasive management of patients with non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), but the trials excluded very elderly patients. We aimed to estimate the effect of invasive versus non-invasive management within 3 days of peak troponin concentration on the survival of patients aged 80 years or older with NSTEMI. METHODS: Routine clinical data for this study were obtained from five collaborating hospitals hosting NIHR Biomedical Research Centres in the UK (all tertiary centres with emergency departments). Eligible patients were 80 years old or older when they underwent troponin measurements and were diagnosed with NSTEMI between 2010 (2008 for University College Hospital) and 2017. Propensity scores (patients' estimated probability of receiving invasive management) based on pretreatment variables were derived using logistic regression; patients with high probabilities of non-invasive or invasive management were excluded. Patients who died within 3 days of peak troponin concentration without receiving invasive management were assigned to the invasive or non-invasive management groups based on their propensity scores, to mitigate immortal time bias. We estimated mortality hazard ratios comparing invasive with non-invasive management, and compared the rate of hospital admissions for heart failure. FINDINGS: Of the 1976 patients with NSTEMI, 101 died within 3 days of their peak troponin concentration and 375 were excluded because of extreme propensity scores. The remaining 1500 patients had a median age of 86 (IQR 82-89) years of whom (845 [56%] received non-invasive management. During median follow-up of 3·0 (IQR 1·2-4·8) years, 613 (41%) patients died. The adjusted cumulative 5-year mortality was 36% in the invasive management group and 55% in the non-invasive management group (adjusted hazard ratio 0·68, 95% CI 0·55-0·84). Invasive management was associated with lower incidence of hospital admissions for heart failure (adjusted rate ratio compared with non-invasive management 0·67, 95% CI 0·48-0·93). INTERPRETATION: The survival advantage of invasive compared with non-invasive management appears to extend to patients with NSTEMI who are aged 80 years or older. FUNDING: NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre, as part of the NIHR Health Informatics Collaborative.

Electrocardiographic predictors of successful resynchronization of left bundle branch block by His bundle pacing.

BACKGROUND: His bundle pacing (HBP) is an alternative to biventricular pacing (BVP) for delivering cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in patients with heart failure and left bundle branch block (LBBB). It is not known whether ventricular activation times and patterns achieved by HBP are equivalent to intact conduction systems and not all patients with LBBB are resynchronized by HBP. OBJECTIVE: To compare activation times and patterns of His-CRT with BVP-CRT, LBBB and intact conduction systems. METHODS: In patients with LBBB, noninvasive epicardial mapping (ECG imaging) was performed during BVP and temporary HBP. Intrinsic activation was mapped in all subjects. Left ventricular activation times (LVAT) were measured and epicardial propagation mapping (EPM) was performed, to visualize epicardial wavefronts. Normal activation pattern and a normal LVAT range were determined from normal subjects. RESULTS: Forty-five patients were included, 24 with LBBB and LV impairment, and 21 with normal 12-lead ECG and LV function. In 87.5% of patients with LBBB, His-CRT successfully shortened LVAT by ≥10 ms. In 33.3%, His-CRT resulted in complete ventricular resynchronization, with activation times and patterns indistinguishable from normal subjects. EPM identified propagation discontinuity artifacts in 83% of patients with LBBB. This was the best predictor of whether successful resynchronization was achieved by HBP (logarithmic odds ratio, 2.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.07-4.31; p = .04). CONCLUSION: Noninvasive electrocardiographic mapping appears to identify patients whose LBBB can be resynchronized by HBP. In contrast to BVP, His-CRT may deliver the maximum potential ventricular resynchronization, returning activation times, and patterns to those seen in normal hearts.

Non-invasive detection of exercise-induced cardiac conduction abnormalities in sudden cardiac death survivors in the inherited cardiac conditions.

AIMS: Rate adaptation of the action potential ensures spatial heterogeneities in conduction across the myocardium are minimized at different heart rates providing a protective mechanism against ventricular fibrillation (VF) and sudden cardiac death (SCD), which can be quantified by the ventricular conduction stability (V-CoS) test previously described. We tested the hypothesis that patients with a history of aborted SCD due to an underlying channelopathy or cardiomyopathy have a reduced capacity to maintain uniform activation following exercise. METHODS AND RESULTS: Sixty individuals, with (n = 28) and without (n = 32) previous aborted-SCD event underwent electro-cardiographic imaging recordings following exercise treadmill test. These included 25 Brugada syndrome, 13 hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, 12 idiopathic VF, and 10 healthy controls. Data were inputted into the V-CoS programme to calculate a V-CoS score that indicate the percentage of ventricle that showed no significant change in ventricular activation, with a lower score indicating the development of greater conduction heterogeneity. The SCD group, compared to those without, had a lower median (interquartile range) V-CoS score at peak exertion [92.8% (89.8-96.3%) vs. 97.3% (94.9-99.1%); P < 0.01] and 2 min into recovery [95.2% (91.1-97.2%) vs. 98.9% (96.9-99.5%); P < 0.01]. No significant difference was observable later into recovery at 5 or 10 min. Using the lowest median V-CoS scores obtained during the entire recovery period post-exertion, SCD survivors had a significantly lower score than those without for each of the different underlying aetiologies. CONCLUSION: Data from this pilot study demonstrate the potential use of this technique in risk stratification for the inherited cardiac conditions.

Mortality after drug-eluting stents vs. coronary artery bypass grafting for left main coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

AIMS: The optimal method of revascularization for patients with left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD) is controversial. Coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) has traditionally been considered the gold standard therapy, and recent randomized trials comparing CABG with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DES) have reported conflicting outcomes. We, therefore, performed a systematic review and updated meta-analysis comparing CABG to PCI with DES for the treatment of LMCAD. METHODS AND RESULTS: We systematically identified all randomized trials comparing PCI with DES vs. CABG in patients with LMCAD. The primary efficacy endpoint was all-cause mortality. Secondary endpoints included cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and unplanned revascularization. All analyses were by intention-to-treat. There were five eligible trials in which 4612 patients were randomized. The weighted mean follow-up duration was 67.1 months. There were no significant differences between PCI and CABG for the risk of all-cause mortality [relative risk (RR) 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81-1.32; P = 0.779] or cardiac death (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.79-1.34; P = 0.817). There were also no significant differences in the risk of stroke (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.35-1.50; P = 0.400) or MI (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.96-1.56; P = 0.110). Percutaneous coronary intervention was associated with an increased risk of unplanned revascularization (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.49-2.02; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The totality of randomized clinical trial evidence demonstrated similar long-term mortality after PCI with DES compared with CABG in patients with LMCAD. Nor were there significant differences in cardiac death, stroke, or MI between PCI and CABG. Unplanned revascularization procedures were less common after CABG compared with PCI. These findings may inform clinical decision-making between cardiologists, surgeons, and patients with LMCAD.

Catheter ablation vs. thoracoscopic surgical ablation in long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation: CASA-AF randomized controlled trial.

AIMS: Long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation (LSPAF) is challenging to treat with suboptimal catheter ablation (CA) outcomes. Thoracoscopic surgical ablation (SA) has shown promising efficacy in atrial fibrillation (AF). This multicentre randomized controlled trial tested whether SA was superior to CA as the first interventional strategy in de novo LSPAF. METHODS AND RESULTS: We randomized 120 LSPAF patients to SA or CA. All patients underwent predetermined lesion sets and implantable loop recorder insertion. Primary outcome was single procedure freedom from AF/atrial tachycardia (AT) ≥30 s without anti-arrhythmic drugs at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included clinical success (≥75% reduction in AF/AT burden); procedure-related serious adverse events; changes in patients' symptoms and quality-of-life scores; and cost-effectiveness. At 12 months, freedom from AF/AT was recorded in 26% (14/54) of patients in SA vs. 28% (17/60) in the CA group [OR 1.128, 95% CI (0.46-2.83), P = 0.83]. Reduction in AF/AT burden ≥75% was recorded in 67% (36/54) vs. 77% (46/60) [OR 1.13, 95% CI (0.67-4.08), P = 0.3] in SA and CA groups, respectively. Procedure-related serious adverse events within 30 days of intervention were reported in 15% (8/55) of patients in SA vs. 10% (6/60) in CA, P = 0.46. One death was reported after SA. Improvements in AF symptoms were greater following CA. Over 12 months, SA was more expensive and provided fewer quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) compared with CA (0.78 vs. 0.85, P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Single procedure thoracoscopic SA is not superior to CA in treating LSPAF. Catheter ablation provided greater improvements in symptoms and accrued significantly more QALYs during follow-up than SA. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN18250790 and ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02755688.