Invasive versus medically managed acute coronary syndromes with prior bypass (CABG-ACS): insights into the registry versus randomised trial populations.

BACKGROUND: Coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) patients are under-represented in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) trials. We compared characteristics and outcomes for patients who did and did not participate in a randomised trial of invasive versus non-invasive management (CABG-ACS). METHODS: ACS patients with prior CABG in four hospitals were randomised to invasive or non-invasive management. Non-randomised patients entered a registry. Primary efficacy (composite of all-cause mortality, rehospitalisation for refractory ischaemia/angina, myocardial infarction (MI), heart failure) and safety outcomes (composite of bleeding, stroke, procedure-related MI, worsening renal function) were independently adjudicated. RESULTS: Of 217 patients screened, 84 (39%) screenfailed, of whom 24 (29%) did not consent and 60 (71%) were ineligible. Of 133 (61%) eligible, 60 (mean±SD age, 71±9 years, 72% male) entered the trial and 73 (age, 72±10 years, 73% male) entered a registry (preferences: physician (79%), patient (38%), both (21%)).Compared with trial participants, registry patients had more valve disease, lower haemoglobin, worse New York Heart Association class and higher frailty.At baseline, invasive management was performed in 52% and 49% trial and registry patients, respectively, of whom 32% and 36% had percutaneous coronary intervention at baseline, respectively (p=0.800). After 2 years follow-up (694 (median, IQR 558-841) days), primary efficacy (43% trial vs 49% registry (HR 1.14, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.89)) and safety outcomes (28% trial vs 22% registry (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.46)) were similar. EuroQol was lower in registry patients at 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with trial participants, registry participants had excess morbidity, but longer-term outcomes were similar. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01895751.

Invasive Versus Medical Management in Patients With Prior Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery With a Non-ST Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: The benefits of routine invasive management in patients with prior coronary artery bypass grafts presenting with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes are uncertain because these patients were excluded from pivotal trials. METHODS: In a multicenter trial, non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes patients with prior coronary artery bypass graft were prospectively screened in 4 acute hospitals. Medically stabilized patients were randomized to invasive management (invasive group) or noninvasive management (medical group). The primary outcome was adherence with the randomized strategy by 30 days. A blinded, independent Clinical Event Committee adjudicated predefined composite outcomes for efficacy (all-cause mortality, rehospitalization for refractory ischemia/angina, myocardial infarction, hospitalization because of heart failure) and safety (major bleeding, stroke, procedure-related myocardial infarction, and worsening renal function). RESULTS: Two hundred seventeen patients were screened and 60 (mean±SD age, 71±9 years, 72% male) were randomized (invasive group, n=31; medical group, n=29). One-third (n=10) of the participants in the invasive group initially received percutaneous coronary intervention. In the medical group, 1 participant crossed over to invasive management on day 30 but percutaneous coronary intervention was not performed. During 2-years' follow-up (median [interquartile range], 744 [570-853] days), the composite outcome for efficacy occurred in 13 (42%) subjects in the invasive group and 13 (45%) subjects in the medical group. The composite safety outcome occurred in 8 (26%) subjects in the invasive group and 9 (31%) subjects in the medical group. An efficacy or safety outcome occurred in 17 (55%) subjects in the invasive group and 16 (55%) subjects in the medical group. Health status (EuroQol 5 Dimensions) and angina class in each group were similar at 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: More than half of the population experienced a serious adverse event. An initial noninvasive management strategy is feasible. A substantive health outcomes trial of invasive versus noninvasive management in non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes patients with prior coronary artery bypass grafts appears warranted. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01895751.

Approaches to the treatment of anaemia in patients with chronic heart failure.

An association between anaemia, poor functional status and, compared to non-anaemic patients, worse clinical status and a higher risk of hospitalisation and death has been consistently reported in chronic heart failure (CHF), although cause an effect has not been proven. While it is attractive to think that correction of a co-morbidity that exacerbates already diminished delivery of oxygen to the tissues in heart failure is likely to beneficial, the possible haemodynamic effects of increasing haemoglobin, for example vasoconstriction, might not be. Consequently, the balance of benefit and risk of anaemia correction in CHF is uncertain, may vary according to the severity of anaemia (and other factors) and needs to be properly evaluated. To date, most studies of anaemia correction in CHF have used erythropoiesis stimulating agents (ESAs). The trials with erythropoietin have been of small size, uncontrolled or unblended/single blind, raising concerns again about interpretation of subjective outcomes. In addition, the analyses of these trials have been suboptimal. Two double-blind, placebo-controlled, darbepoetin studies have been published in full. Neither showed an improvement in functional capacity or consistent effect on patient reported symptoms/quality of life. Darbepoetin is, however, currently being tested in a large-scale, phase III morbidity and mortality trial, the Reduction of Events with Darbepoetin alfa in Heart Failure (RED-HF) which should contribute important information of the safety and efficacy of ESAs in this syndrome. Other approaches, notably parenteral iron supplementation, are also being evaluated and other agents for anaemia correction are under development.