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.

Myocardial Perfusion Imaging After Severe COVID-19 Infection Demonstrates Regional Ischemia Rather Than Global Blood Flow Reduction.

Background: Acute myocardial damage is common in severe COVID-19. Post-mortem studies have implicated microvascular thrombosis, with cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) demonstrating a high prevalence of myocardial infarction and myocarditis-like scar. The microcirculatory sequelae are incompletely characterized. Perfusion CMR can quantify the stress myocardial blood flow (MBF) and identify its association with infarction and myocarditis. Objectives: To determine the impact of the severe hospitalized COVID-19 on global and regional myocardial perfusion in recovered patients. Methods: A case-control study of previously hospitalized, troponin-positive COVID-19 patients was undertaken. The results were compared with a propensity-matched, pre-COVID chest pain cohort (referred for clinical CMR; angiography subsequently demonstrating unobstructed coronary arteries) and 27 healthy volunteers (HV). The analysis used visual assessment for the regional perfusion defects and AI-based segmentation to derive the global and regional stress and rest MBF. Results: Ninety recovered post-COVID patients {median age 64 [interquartile range (IQR) 54-71] years, 83% male, 44% requiring the intensive care unit (ICU)} underwent adenosine-stress perfusion CMR at a median of 61 (IQR 29-146) days post-discharge. The mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was 67 ± 10%; 10 (11%) with impaired LVEF. Fifty patients (56%) had late gadolinium enhancement (LGE); 15 (17%) had infarct-pattern, 31 (34%) had non-ischemic, and 4 (4.4%) had mixed pattern LGE. Thirty-two patients (36%) had adenosine-induced regional perfusion defects, 26 out of 32 with at least one segment without prior infarction. The global stress MBF in post-COVID patients was similar to the age-, sex- and co-morbidities of the matched controls (2.53 ± 0.77 vs. 2.52 ± 0.79 ml/g/min, p = 0.10), though lower than HV (3.00 ± 0.76 ml/g/min, p< 0.01). Conclusions: After severe hospitalized COVID-19 infection, patients who attended clinical ischemia testing had little evidence of significant microvascular disease at 2 months post-discharge. The high prevalence of regional inducible ischemia and/or infarction (nearly 40%) may suggest that occult coronary disease is an important putative mechanism for troponin elevation in this cohort. This should be considered hypothesis-generating for future studies which combine ischemia and anatomical assessment.

Patterns of myocardial injury in recovered troponin-positive COVID-19 patients assessed by cardiovascular magnetic resonance.

BACKGROUND: Troponin elevation is common in hospitalized COVID-19 patients, but underlying aetiologies are ill-defined. We used multi-parametric cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) to assess myocardial injury in recovered COVID-19 patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: One hundred and forty-eight patients (64 ± 12 years, 70% male) with severe COVID-19 infection [all requiring hospital admission, 48 (32%) requiring ventilatory support] and troponin elevation discharged from six hospitals underwent convalescent CMR (including adenosine stress perfusion if indicated) at median 68 days. Left ventricular (LV) function was normal in 89% (ejection fraction 67% ± 11%). Late gadolinium enhancement and/or ischaemia was found in 54% (80/148). This comprised myocarditis-like scar in 26% (39/148), infarction and/or ischaemia in 22% (32/148) and dual pathology in 6% (9/148). Myocarditis-like injury was limited to three or less myocardial segments in 88% (35/40) of cases with no associated LV dysfunction; of these, 30% had active myocarditis. Myocardial infarction was found in 19% (28/148) and inducible ischaemia in 26% (20/76) of those undergoing stress perfusion (including 7 with both infarction and ischaemia). Of patients with ischaemic injury pattern, 66% (27/41) had no past history of coronary disease. There was no evidence of diffuse fibrosis or oedema in the remote myocardium (T1: COVID-19 patients 1033 ± 41 ms vs. matched controls 1028 ± 35 ms; T2: COVID-19 46 ± 3 ms vs. matched controls 47 ± 3 ms). CONCLUSIONS: During convalescence after severe COVID-19 infection with troponin elevation, myocarditis-like injury can be encountered, with limited extent and minimal functional consequence. In a proportion of patients, there is evidence of possible ongoing localized inflammation. A quarter of patients had ischaemic heart disease, of which two-thirds had no previous history. Whether these observed findings represent pre-existing clinically silent disease or de novo COVID-19-related changes remain undetermined. Diffuse oedema or fibrosis was not detected.

Translating stem cell research to cardiac disease therapies: pitfalls and prospects for improvement.

Over the past 2 decades, there have been numerous stem cell studies focused on cardiac diseases, ranging from proof-of-concept to phase 2 trials. This series of papers focuses on the legacy of these studies and the outlook for future treatment of cardiac diseases with stem cell therapies. The first section by Drs. Rosen and Myerburg is an independent review that analyzes the basic science and translational strategies supporting the rapid advance of stem cell technology to the clinic, the philosophies behind them, trial designs, and means for going forward that may impact favorably on progress. The second and third sections were collected as responses to the initial section of this review. The commentary by Drs. Francis and Cole discusses the review by Drs. Rosen and Myerburg and details how trial outcomes can be affected by noise, poor trial design (particularly the absence of blinding), and normal human tendencies toward optimism and denial. The final, independent paper by Dr. Marbán takes a different perspective concerning the potential for positive impact of stem cell research applied to heart disease and future prospects for its clinical application. (Compiled by the JACC editors).

Discrepancies in autologous bone marrow stem cell trials and enhancement of ejection fraction (DAMASCENE): weighted regression and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether discrepancies in trials of use of bone marrow stem cells in patients with heart disease account for the variation in reported effect size in improvement of left ventricular function. DESIGN: Identification and counting of factual discrepancies in trial reports, and sample size weighted regression against therapeutic effect size. Meta-analysis of trials that provided sufficient information. DATA SOURCES: PubMed and Embase from inception to April 2013. ELIGIBILITY FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Randomised controlled trials evaluating the effect of autologous bone marrow stem cells for heart disease on mean left ventricular ejection fraction. RESULTS: There were over 600 discrepancies in 133 reports from 49 trials. There was a significant association between the number of discrepancies and the reported increment in EF with bone marrow stem cell therapy (Spearman's r=0.4, P=0.005). Trials with no discrepancies were a small minority (five trials) and showed a mean EF effect size of -0.4%. The 24 trials with 1-10 discrepancies showed a mean effect size of 2.1%. The 12 with 11-20 discrepancies showed a mean effect of size 3.0%. The three with 21-30 discrepancies showed a mean effect size of 5.7%. The high discrepancy group, comprising five trials with over 30 discrepancies each, showed a mean effect size of 7.7%. CONCLUSIONS: Avoiding discrepancies is difficult but is important because discrepancy count is related to effect size. The mechanism is unknown but should be explored in the design of future trials because in the five trials without discrepancies the effect of bone marrow stem cell therapy on ejection fraction is zero.

International RCT-based guidelines for use of preoperative stress testing and perioperative beta-blockers and statins in non-cardiac surgery.

BACKGROUND: Cardiologists frequently advise on perioperative care for non-cardiac surgery and require guidance based on randomised controlled trials that are not discredited by misconduct or misreporting. Regional political bodies currently do not provide this. We therefore examined the credible randomised controlled trial (RCT) evidence on key cardiac perioperative questions which currently have 14 recommendations. METHODS: Three aspects of perioperative measures were considered: perioperative statins, preoperative stress-testing and perioperative beta-blockade. One author searched PubMed for RCTs considering these topics. All authors independently assessed the RCTs and then collaboratively composed guidelines. RESULTS: Perioperative statin therapy has been examined by three RCTs, DECREASE III and IV, which are discredited and a third containing serious inconsistencies undermining its validity. Preoperative stress testing has been examined by two RCTs: one discredited trial, DECREASE II, and a second which found no benefit. Perioperative beta-blockade has been examined by eleven RCTs, two of which are discredited. The nine remaining trials together suggest that perioperative beta-blockade increases mortality. CONCLUSIONS: When the non-credible RCTs are omitted, the evidence base on these three subjects is much smaller than previously believed: 14 recommendations can be replaced by 3. Current guideline arrangements collectively paralyse the numerous signatories from making urgent amendments after initial publication, even when important new information comes to light. Clinicians simply have to wait for the routine five-year expiry. We present a concise scientifically based guideline and commit to updating it responsibly.

Meta-analysis of secure randomised controlled trials of ß-blockade to prevent perioperative death in non-cardiac surgery.

BACKGROUND: Current European and American guidelines recommend the perioperative initiation of a course of ß-blockers in those at risk of cardiac events undergoing high- or intermediate-risk surgery or vascular surgery. The Dutch Echocardiographic Cardiac Risk Evaluation Applying Stress Echocardiography (DECREASE) family of trials, the bedrock of evidence for this, are no longer secure. We therefore conducted a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of ß-blockade on perioperative mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, stroke and hypotension in non-cardiac surgery using the secure data. METHODS: The randomised controlled trials of initiation of ß-blockers before non-cardiac surgery were examined. Primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 30 days or at discharge. The DECREASE trials were separately analysed. RESULTS: Nine secure trials totalling 10 529 patients, 291 of whom died, met the criteria. Initiation of a course of ß-blockers before surgery caused a 27% risk increase in 30-day all-cause mortality (p=0.04). The DECREASE family of studies substantially contradict the meta-analysis of the secure trials on the effect of mortality (p=0.05 for divergence). In the secure trials, ß-blockade reduced non-fatal myocardial infarction (RR 0.73, p=0.001) but increased stroke (RR 1.73, p=0.05) and hypotension (RR 1.51, p<0.00001). These results were dominated by one large trial. CONCLUSIONS: Guideline bodies should retract their recommendations based on fictitious data without further delay. This should not be blocked by dispute over allocation of blame. The well-conducted trials indicate a statistically significant 27% increase in mortality from the initiation of perioperative ß-blockade that guidelines currently recommend. Any remaining enthusiasts might best channel their energy into a further randomised trial which should be designed carefully and conducted honestly.

Autologous bone marrow-derived stem cell therapy in heart disease: discrepancies and contradictions.

BACKGROUND: Autologous bone marrow stem cell therapy is the greatest advance in the treatment of heart disease for a generation according to pioneering reports. In response to an unanswered letter regarding one of the largest and most promising trials, we attempted to summarise the findings from the most innovative and prolific laboratory. METHOD AND RESULTS: Amongst 48 reports from the group, there appeared to be 5 actual clinical studies ("families" of reports). Duplicate or overlapping reports were common, with contradictory experimental design, recruitment and results. Readers cannot always tell whether a study is randomised versus not, open-controlled or blinded placebo-controlled, or lacking a control group. There were conflicts in recruitment dates, criteria, sample sizes, million-fold differences in cell counts, sex reclassification, fractional numbers of patients and conflation of competitors' studies with authors' own. Contradictory results were also common. These included arithmetical miscalculations, statistical errors, suppression of significant changes, exaggerated description of own findings, possible silent patient deletions, fractional numbers of coronary arteries, identical results with contradictory sample sizes, contradictory results with identical sample sizes, misrepresented survival graphs and a patient with a negative NYHA class. We tabulate over 200 discrepancies amongst the reports. The 5 family-flagship papers (Strauer 2002, STAR, IACT, ABCD, BALANCE) have had 2665 citations. Of these, 291 citations were to the pivotal STAR or IACT-JACC papers, but 97% of their eligible citing papers did not mention any discrepancies. Five meta-analyses or systematic reviews covered these studies, but none described any discrepancies and all resolved uncertainties by undisclosed methods, in mutually contradictory ways. Meta-analysts disagreed whether some studies were randomised or "accepter-versus-rejecter". Our experience of presenting the discrepancies to journals is that readers may remain unaware of such problems. CONCLUSIONS: Modern reporting of clinical research can still be imperfect. The scientific literature absorbs such reports largely uncritically. Even meta-analyses seem to resolve contradictions haphazardly. Discrepancies communicated to journals are not guaranteed to reach the scientific community. Journals could consider prioritising systematic reporting of queries even if seemingly minor, and establishing a policy of "habeas data".