Catheter-based therapy for high-risk or intermediate-risk pulmonary embolism: death and re-hospitalization.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Catheter-based therapies (CBTs) have been developed as a treatment option in patients with pulmonary embolism (PE). There remains a paucity of data to inform decision-making in patients with intermediate-risk or high-risk PE. The aim of this study was to characterize in-hospital and readmission outcomes in patients with intermediate-risk or high-risk PE treated with vs. without CBT in a large retrospective registry. METHODS: Patients hospitalized with intermediate-risk or high-risk PE were identified using the 2017-20 National Readmission Database. In-hospital outcomes included death and bleeding and 30- and 90-day readmission outcomes including all-cause, venous thromboembolism (VTE)-related and bleeding-related readmissions. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was utilized to compare outcomes between CBT and no CBT. RESULTS: A total of 14 903 [2076 (13.9%) with CBT] and 42 829 [8824 (20.6%) with CBT] patients with high-risk and intermediate-risk PE were included, respectively. Prior to IPTW, patients with CBT were younger and less likely to have cancer and cardiac arrest, receive systemic thrombolysis, or be on mechanical ventilation. In the IPTW logistic regression model, CBT was associated with lower odds of in-hospital death in high-risk [odds ratio (OR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80-0.87] and intermediate-risk PE (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.70-0.83). Patients with high-risk PE treated with CBT were associated with lower risk of 90-day all-cause [hazard ratio (HR) 0.77, 95% CI 0.71-0.83] and VTE (HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.34-0.63) readmission. Patients with intermediate-risk PE treated with CBT were associated with lower risk of 90-day all-cause (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.72-0.79) and VTE (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.57-0.76) readmission. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with high-risk or intermediate-risk PE, CBT was associated with lower in-hospital death and 90-day readmission. Prospective, randomized trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Atherosclerosis quantification and cardiovascular risk: the ISCHEMIA trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The aim of this study was to determine the prognostic value of coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA)-derived atherosclerotic plaque analysis in ISCHEMIA. METHODS: Atherosclerosis imaging quantitative computed tomography (AI-QCT) was performed on all available baseline CCTAs to quantify plaque volume, composition, and distribution. Multivariable Cox regression was used to examine the association between baseline risk factors (age, sex, smoking, diabetes, hypertension, ejection fraction, prior coronary disease, estimated glomerular filtration rate, and statin use), number of diseased vessels, atherosclerotic plaque characteristics determined by AI-QCT, and a composite primary outcome of cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction over a median follow-up of 3.3 (interquartile range 2.2-4.4) years. The predictive value of plaque quantification over risk factors was compared in an area under the curve (AUC) analysis. RESULTS: Analysable CCTA data were available from 3711 participants (mean age 64 years, 21% female, 79% multivessel coronary artery disease). Amongst the AI-QCT variables, total plaque volume was most strongly associated with the primary outcome (adjusted hazard ratio 1.56, 95% confidence interval 1.25-1.97 per interquartile range increase [559 mm3]; P = .001). The addition of AI-QCT plaque quantification and characterization to baseline risk factors improved the model's predictive value for the primary outcome at 6 months (AUC 0.688 vs. 0.637; P = .006), at 2 years (AUC 0.660 vs. 0.617; P = .003), and at 4 years of follow-up (AUC 0.654 vs. 0.608; P = .002). The findings were similar for the other reported outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In ISCHEMIA, total plaque volume was associated with cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction. In this highly diseased, high-risk population, enhanced assessment of atherosclerotic burden using AI-QCT-derived measures of plaque volume and composition modestly improved event prediction.

Survival After Invasive or Conservative Management of Stable Coronary Disease.

BACKGROUND: The ISCHEMIA trial (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches) compared an initial invasive versus an initial conservative management strategy for patients with chronic coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, with no major difference in most outcomes during a median of 3.2 years. Extended follow-up for mortality is ongoing. METHODS: ISCHEMIA participants were randomized to an initial invasive strategy added to guideline-directed medical therapy or a conservative strategy. Patients with moderate or severe ischemia, ejection fraction ≥35%, and no recent acute coronary syndromes were included. Those with an unacceptable level of angina were excluded. Extended follow-up for vital status is being conducted by sites or through central death index search. Data obtained through December 2021 are included in this interim report. We analyzed all-cause, cardiovascular, and noncardiovascular mortality by randomized strategy, using nonparametric cumulative incidence estimators, Cox regression models, and Bayesian methods. Undetermined deaths were classified as cardiovascular as prespecified in the trial protocol. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics for 5179 original ISCHEMIA trial participants included median age 65 years, 23% women, 16% Hispanic, 4% Black, 42% with diabetes, and median ejection fraction 0.60. A total of 557 deaths accrued during a median follow-up of 5.7 years, with 268 of these added in the extended follow-up phase. This included a total of 343 cardiovascular deaths, 192 noncardiovascular deaths, and 22 unclassified deaths. All-cause mortality was not different between randomized treatment groups (7-year rate, 12.7% in invasive strategy, 13.4% in conservative strategy; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.85-1.18]). There was a lower 7-year rate cardiovascular mortality (6.4% versus 8.6%; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.63-0.96]) with an initial invasive strategy but a higher 7-year rate of noncardiovascular mortality (5.6% versus 4.4%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.44 [95% CI, 1.08-1.91]) compared with the conservative strategy. No heterogeneity of treatment effect was evident in prespecified subgroups, including multivessel coronary disease. CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in all-cause mortality with an initial invasive strategy compared with an initial conservative strategy, but there was lower risk of cardiovascular mortality and higher risk of noncardiovascular mortality with an initial invasive strategy during a median follow-up of 5.7 years. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT04894877.

ß blockers switched to first-line therapy in hypertension.

In their recent guidelines, the European Society of Hypertension upgraded ß blockers, putting them on equal footing with thiazide diuretics, renin-angiotensin system blockers (eg, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers), and calcium channel blockers. The reason offered for upgrading ß blockers was the observation that they are often used for many other clinical conditions commonly encountered with hypertension. This upgrade would allow for the treatment of two conditions with a single drug (a so-called twofer). In most current national and international hypertension guidelines, ß blockers are only considered to be an alternative when there are specific indications. Compared with the other first-line antihypertensive drug classes, ß blockers are significantly less effective in preventing stroke and cardiovascular mortality. To relegate ß blockers to an inferiority status as previous guidelines have done was based on the evidence in aggregate, and still stands. No new evidence supports the switch of ß blockers back to first-line therapy. We are concerned that this move might lead to widespread harm because of inferior stroke protection.

Efficacy and safety of catheter-based thrombectomy versus catheter-directed thrombolysis in acute pulmonary embolism.

Data comparing catheter-based thrombectomy (CBT) and catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) in acute pulmonary embolism are lacking. To address this, we performed a meta-analysis of prospective and retrospective studies of CBT and compared it to performance goal rates of mortality and major bleeding from a recently published network meta-analysis. When compared with performance goal for CDT based on historical studies, CBT was noninferior for all-cause mortality (6.0% vs 6.87%; P-valueNI < .001), non-inferior and superior for major bleeding (4.9% vs 11%; P-valueNI < .001 and P < .001 for superiority).

Quality and rapidity of anticoagulation in patients with acute pulmonary embolism undergoing mechanical thrombectomy.

The primary objective of our study was to determine the proportion of intermediate-risk PE patients undergoing mechanical thrombectomy (MT) who achieved therapeutic anticoagulation (AC) at the time of the procedure. The salient findings of our study showed that only a minority of patients (14.3%) were in the therapeutic range by ACT at the time of MT (primary outcome). Furthermore, in this higher-risk PE cohort selected for MT, 18.2% of patients were subtherapeutic after initially reaching therapeutic AC, 43% experienced supratherapeutic AC at some point before MT, and less than half (43%) attained therapeutic AC at 6 hours, highlighting the necessity for optimizing anticoagulation practices in acute PE.

Low left ventricular outflow tract velocity time integral predicts normotensive shock in patients with acute pulmonary embolism.

In this study, we found that a low LVOT VTI (<15 cm), a simple bedside point-of-care measurement, predicts normotensive shock in patients with acute intermediate-risk PE.

Catheter-based therapy for intermediate or high-risk pulmonary embolism is associated with lower in-hospital mortality in patients with cancer: Insights from the National Inpatient Sample.

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a common complication among patients with cancer and is a significant contributor to morbidity and mortality. Catheter-based therapies (CBT), including catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) and mechanical thrombectomy, have been developed and are used in patients with intermediate or high-risk PE. However, there is a paucity of data on outcomes in patients with cancer as most clinical studies exclude this group of patients. AIMS: To characterize outcomes of patients with cancer admitted with intermediate or high-risk PE treated with CBT compared with no CBT. METHODS: Patients with an admission diagnosis of intermediate or high-risk PE and a history of cancer from October 2015 to December 2018 were identified using the National Inpatient Sample. Outcomes of interest were in-hospital death or cardiac arrest (CA) and major bleeding. Inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) was utilized to compare outcomes between patients treated with and without CBT. Variables that remained unbalanced after IPTW were adjusted using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 2084 unweighted admissions (10,420 weighted) for intermediate or high-risk PE and cancer were included, of which 136 (6.5%) were treated with CBT. After IPTW, CBT was associated with lower death or CA (aOR 0.54, 95% CI 0.46-0.64) but higher major bleeding (aOR 1.41, 95% CI 1.21-1.65). After stratifying by PE risk type, patients treated with CBT had lower risk of death or CA in both intermediate (aOR 0.52, 95% CI 0.36-0.75) and high-risk PE (aOR 0.48, 95% CI 0.33-0.53). However, patients with CBT were associated with increased risk of major bleeding in intermediate-risk PE (aOR 2.12, 95% CI 1.67-2.69) but not in those with high-risk PE (aOR 0.84, 95% CI 0.66-1.07). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with cancer hospitalized with intermediate or high-risk PE, treatment with CBT was associated with lower risk of in-hospital death or CA but higher risk of bleeding. Prospective studies and inclusion of patients with cancer in randomized trials are warranted to confirm our findings.

Percutaneous mechanical thrombectomy in acute pulmonary embolism: Outcomes from a safety-net hospital.

BACKGROUND: Our study aims to present clinical outcomes of mechanical thrombectomy (MT) in a safety-net hospital. METHODS: This is a retrospective study of intermediate or high-risk pulmonary embolism (PE) patients who underwent MT between October 2020 and May 2023. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. RESULTS: Among 61 patients (mean age 57.6 years, 47% women, 57% Black) analyzed, 12 (19.7%) were classified as high-risk PE, and 49 (80.3%) were intermediate-risk PE. Of these patients, 62.3% had Medicaid or were uninsured, 50.8% lived in a high poverty zip code. The prevalence of normotensive shock in intermediate-risk PE patients was 62%. Immediate hemodynamic improvements included 7.4 mmHg mean drop in mean pulmonary artery pressure (-21.7%, p < 0.001) and 93% had normalization of their cardiac index postprocedure. Thirty-day mortality for the entire cohort was 5% (3 patients) and 0% when restricted to the intermediate-risk group. All 3 patients who died at 30 days presented with cardiac arrest. There were no differences in short-term mortality based on race, insurance type, citizenship status, or socioeconomic status. All-cause mortality at most recent follow up was 13.1% (mean follow up time of 13.4 ± 8.5 months). CONCLUSION: We extend the findings from prior studies that MT demonstrates a favorable safety profile with immediate improvement in hemodynamics and a low 30-day mortality in patients with acute PE, holding true even with relatively higher risk and more vulnerable population within a safety-net hospital.

Emerging Evidence on Coronary Heart Disease Screening in Kidney and Liver Transplantation Candidates: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association: Endorsed by the American Society of Transplantation.

Coronary heart disease is an important source of mortality and morbidity among kidney transplantation and liver transplantation candidates and recipients and is driven by traditional and nontraditional risk factors related to end-stage organ disease. In this scientific statement, we review evidence from the past decade related to coronary heart disease screening and management for kidney and liver transplantation candidates. Coronary heart disease screening in asymptomatic kidney and liver transplantation candidates has not been demonstrated to improve outcomes but is common in practice. Risk stratification algorithms based on the presence or absence of clinical risk factors and physical performance have been proposed, but a high proportion of candidates still meet criteria for screening tests. We suggest new approaches to pretransplantation evaluation grounded on the presence or absence of known coronary heart disease and cardiac symptoms and emphasize multidisciplinary engagement, including involvement of a dedicated cardiologist. Noninvasive functional screening methods such as stress echocardiography and myocardial perfusion scintigraphy have limited accuracy, and newer noninvasive modalities, especially cardiac computed tomography-based tests, are promising alternatives. Emerging evidence such as results of the 2020 International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches-Chronic Kidney Disease trial emphasizes the vital importance of guideline-directed medical therapy in managing diagnosed coronary heart disease and further questions the value of revascularization among asymptomatic kidney transplantation candidates. Optimizing strategies to disseminate and implement best practices for medical management in the broader end-stage organ disease population should be prioritized to improve cardiovascular outcomes in these populations.

Comprehensive Quality-of-Life Outcomes With Invasive Versus Conservative Management of Chronic Coronary Disease in ISCHEMIA.

BACKGROUND: ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches) compared an initial invasive treatment strategy (INV) with an initial conservative strategy in 5179 participants with chronic coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia. The ISCHEMIA research program included a comprehensive quality-of-life (QOL) substudy. METHODS: In 1819 participants (907 INV, 912 conservative strategy), we collected a battery of disease-specific and generic QOL instruments by structured interviews at baseline; at 3, 12, 24, and 36 months postrandomization; and at study closeout. Assessments included angina-related QOL (19-item Seattle Angina Questionnaire), generic health status (EQ-5D), depressive symptoms (Patient Health Questionnaire-8), and, for North American patients, cardiac functional status (Duke Activity Status Index). RESULTS: Median age was 67 years, 19.2% were female, and 15.9% were non-White. The estimated mean difference for the 19-item Seattle Angina Questionnaire Summary score favored INV (1.4 points [95% CI, 0.2-2.5] over all follow-up). No differences were observed in patients with rare/absent baseline angina (SAQ Angina Frequency score >80). Among patients with more frequent angina at baseline (SAQ Angina Frequency score <80, 744 patients, 41%), those randomly assigned to INV had a mean 3.7-point higher 19-item Seattle Angina Questionnaire Summary score than conservative strategy (95% CI, 1.6-5.8) with consistent effects across SAQ subscales: Physical Limitations 3.2 points (95% CI, 0.2-6.1), Angina Frequency 3.2 points (95% CI, 1.2-5.1), Quality of Life/Health Perceptions 5.3 points (95% CI, 2.8-7.8). For the Duke Activity Status Index, no difference was estimated overall by treatment, but in patients with baseline SAQ Angina Frequency scores <80, Duke Activity Status Index scores were higher for INV (3.2 points [95% CI, 0.6-5.7]), whereas patients with rare/absent baseline angina showed no treatment-related differences. Moderate to severe depression was infrequent at randomization (11.5%-12.8%) and was unaffected by treatment assignment. CONCLUSIONS: In the ISCHEMIA comprehensive QOL substudy, patients with more frequent baseline angina reported greater improvements in the symptom, physical functioning, and psychological well-being dimensions of QOL when treated with an invasive strategy, whereas patients who had rare/absent angina at baseline reported no consistent treatment-related QOL differences. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT01471522.

2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Coronary Artery Revascularization: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: The executive summary of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions coronary artery revascularization guideline provides the top 10 items readers should know about the guideline. In the full guideline, the recommendations replace the 2011 coronary artery bypass graft surgery guideline and the 2011 and 2015 percutaneous coronary intervention guidelines. This summary offers a patient-centric approach to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with significant coronary artery disease undergoing coronary revascularization, as well as the supporting documentation to encourage their use. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2019 to September 2019, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, CINHL Complete, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2021, were also considered. Structure: Recommendations from the earlier percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass graft surgery guidelines have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians in caring for patients undergoing coronary revascularization. This summary includes recommendations, tables, and figures from the full guideline that relate to the top 10 take-home messages. The reader is referred to the full guideline for graphical flow charts, supportive text, and tables with additional details about the rationale for and implementation of each recommendation, and the evidence tables detailing the data considered in the development of this guideline.

Health Status after Invasive or Conservative Care in Coronary and Advanced Kidney Disease.

BACKGROUND: In the ISCHEMIA-CKD trial, the primary analysis showed no significant difference in the risk of death or myocardial infarction with initial angiography and revascularization plus guideline-based medical therapy (invasive strategy) as compared with guideline-based medical therapy alone (conservative strategy) in participants with stable ischemic heart disease, moderate or severe ischemia, and advanced chronic kidney disease (an estimated glomerular filtration rate of <30 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 or receipt of dialysis). A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status. METHODS: We assessed health status with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) before randomization and at 1.5, 3, and 6 months and every 6 months thereafter. The primary outcome of this analysis was the SAQ Summary score (ranging from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating less frequent angina and better function and quality of life). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate the treatment effect with the invasive strategy. RESULTS: Health status was assessed in 705 of 777 participants. Nearly half the participants (49%) had had no angina during the month before randomization. At 3 months, the estimated mean difference between the invasive-strategy group and the conservative-strategy group in the SAQ Summary score was 2.1 points (95% credible interval, -0.4 to 4.6), a result that favored the invasive strategy. The mean difference in score at 3 months was largest among participants with daily or weekly angina at baseline (10.1 points; 95% credible interval, 0.0 to 19.9), smaller among those with monthly angina at baseline (2.2 points; 95% credible interval, -2.0 to 6.2), and nearly absent among those without angina at baseline (0.6 points; 95% credible interval, -1.9 to 3.3). By 6 months, the between-group difference in the overall trial population was attenuated (0.5 points; 95% credible interval, -2.2 to 3.4). CONCLUSIONS: Participants with stable ischemic heart disease, moderate or severe ischemia, and advanced chronic kidney disease did not have substantial or sustained benefits with regard to angina-related health status with an initially invasive strategy as compared with a conservative strategy. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; ISCHEMIA-CKD ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01985360.).

Renin-Angiotensin-Aldosterone System Inhibitors and Risk of Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: There is concern about the potential of an increased risk related to medications that act on the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system in patients exposed to coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19), because the viral receptor is angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2). METHODS: We assessed the relation between previous treatment with ACE inhibitors, angiotensin-receptor blockers, beta-blockers, calcium-channel blockers, or thiazide diuretics and the likelihood of a positive or negative result on Covid-19 testing as well as the likelihood of severe illness (defined as intensive care, mechanical ventilation, or death) among patients who tested positive. Using Bayesian methods, we compared outcomes in patients who had been treated with these medications and in untreated patients, overall and in those with hypertension, after propensity-score matching for receipt of each medication class. A difference of at least 10 percentage points was prespecified as a substantial difference. RESULTS: Among 12,594 patients who were tested for Covid-19, a total of 5894 (46.8%) were positive; 1002 of these patients (17.0%) had severe illness. A history of hypertension was present in 4357 patients (34.6%), among whom 2573 (59.1%) had a positive test; 634 of these patients (24.6%) had severe illness. There was no association between any single medication class and an increased likelihood of a positive test. None of the medications examined was associated with a substantial increase in the risk of severe illness among patients who tested positive. CONCLUSIONS: We found no substantial increase in the likelihood of a positive test for Covid-19 or in the risk of severe Covid-19 among patients who tested positive in association with five common classes of antihypertensive medications.

Health-Status Outcomes with Invasive or Conservative Care in Coronary Disease.

BACKGROUND: In the ISCHEMIA trial, an invasive strategy with angiographic assessment and revascularization did not reduce clinical events among patients with stable ischemic heart disease and moderate or severe ischemia. A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status among these patients. METHODS: We assessed angina-related symptoms, function, and quality of life with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) at randomization, at months 1.5, 3, and 6, and every 6 months thereafter in participants who had been randomly assigned to an invasive treatment strategy (2295 participants) or a conservative strategy (2322). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate differences between the treatment groups. The primary outcome of this health-status analysis was the SAQ summary score (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health status). All analyses were performed in the overall population and according to baseline angina frequency. RESULTS: At baseline, 35% of patients reported having no angina in the previous month. SAQ summary scores increased in both treatment groups, with increases at 3, 12, and 36 months that were 4.1 points (95% credible interval, 3.2 to 5.0), 4.2 points (95% credible interval, 3.3 to 5.1), and 2.9 points (95% credible interval, 2.2 to 3.7) higher with the invasive strategy than with the conservative strategy. Differences were larger among participants who had more frequent angina at baseline (8.5 vs. 0.1 points at 3 months and 5.3 vs. 1.2 points at 36 months among participants with daily or weekly angina as compared with no angina). CONCLUSIONS: In the overall trial population with moderate or severe ischemia, which included 35% of participants without angina at baseline, patients randomly assigned to the invasive strategy had greater improvement in angina-related health status than those assigned to the conservative strategy. The modest mean differences favoring the invasive strategy in the overall group reflected minimal differences among asymptomatic patients and larger differences among patients who had had angina at baseline. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; ISCHEMIA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01471522.).

Management of Coronary Disease in Patients with Advanced Kidney Disease.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials that have assessed the effect of revascularization in patients with stable coronary disease have routinely excluded those with advanced chronic kidney disease. METHODS: We randomly assigned 777 patients with advanced kidney disease and moderate or severe ischemia on stress testing to be treated with an initial invasive strategy consisting of coronary angiography and revascularization (if appropriate) added to medical therapy or an initial conservative strategy consisting of medical therapy alone and angiography reserved for those in whom medical therapy had failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction. A key secondary outcome was a composite of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 2.2 years, a primary outcome event had occurred in 123 patients in the invasive-strategy group and in 129 patients in the conservative-strategy group (estimated 3-year event rate, 36.4% vs. 36.7%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79 to 1.29; P = 0.95). Results for the key secondary outcome were similar (38.5% vs. 39.7%; hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.29). The invasive strategy was associated with a higher incidence of stroke than the conservative strategy (hazard ratio, 3.76; 95% CI, 1.52 to 9.32; P = 0.004) and with a higher incidence of death or initiation of dialysis (hazard ratio, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.04 to 2.11; P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with stable coronary disease, advanced chronic kidney disease, and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; ISCHEMIA-CKD ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01985360.).

Initial Invasive or Conservative Strategy for Stable Coronary Disease.

BACKGROUND: Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain. METHODS: We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction. RESULTS: Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, -1.8 percentage points; 95% CI, -4.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; ISCHEMIA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01471522.).

Network meta-analysis of temporary mechanical circulatory support in acute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock.

We performed a network meta-analysis of 11 published randomized clinical trials examining the use of temporary mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices in adults with acute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock, including 1,053 total patients with an observed in-hospital or 30-day mortality of 40.4%. None of the temporary MCS devices was associated with lower in-hospital or 30-day mortality compared with initial medical therapy or any other MCS device, either individually or in combination. These data do not support the routine use of temporary MCS devices for the purpose of reducing short-term mortality in unselected patients with acute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock.

Effect of cooling methods and target temperature on outcomes in comatose patients resuscitated from cardiac arrest: Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: Targeted temperature management (TTM) has been recommended after cardiac arrest (CA), however the specific temperature targets and cooling methods (intravascular cooling (IVC) versus surface cooling (SC)) remain uncertain. METHODS: PUBMED and EMBASE were searched until October 8, 2022 for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) investigating the efficacy of TTM after CA. The randomized treatment arms were categorized into the following 6 groups: 31..C to 33..C IVC, 31..C to 33..C SC, 34..C to 36..C IVC, 34..C to 36..C SC, strict normothermia or fever prevention (Strict NT or FP), and standard of care without TTM (No-TTM). The primary outcome was neurological recovery. P-score was used to rank the treatments, where a larger value indicates better performance. RESULTS: We identified 15 RCTs, involving 5,218 patients with CA. Compared to No-TTM as the reference, the other therapeutic options significantly improved neurological outcomes (vs No-TTM; 31..C to 33.. C IVC: RR = 0.67, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.83; 31..C to 33..C SC RR = 0.73, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.87; 34..C to 36.. C IVC: RR = 0.66, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.86; 34..C to 36..C SC: RR = 0.73, 0.59 to 0.90; Strict NT or FP: RR = 0.75, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.90). Overall, 31-33..C IVC had the highest probability to be the best therapeutic option to improve outcomes (the ranking P-score of 0.836). As a subgroup analysis, the ranking P-score showed that IVC might be a better cooling method compared to SC (IVC vs SC P-score: 0.960 vs 0.670). CONCLUSIONS: Hypothermia (31..C to 36..C IVC and SC) and active normothermia (Strict-NT and Strict-FP) were associated with better neurological outcomes compared to No-TTM, with IVC having a greater probability of being the better cooling method than SC.

Rationale and design of the TUXEDO-2 India study: Ultra-Thin strUt Supraflex Cruz versus XiencE in a Diabetic pOpulation with multi-vessel disease-2.

BACKGROUND: The role of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) in patients with diabetes mellitus and multi-vessel disease has been questioned by the results of the FREEDOM trial, which showed superiority of coronary artery bypass graft(CABG) over first generation drug-eluting stents (DES) including a reduction in mortality. In the light of safer and more efficacious stents and significantly better medical management, those results that date back to 2012 need to be revisited. TUXEDO-2 is a study designed to compare two contemporary stents in Indian diabetic patients with multi-vessel disease. AIMS: The primary objective of the TUXEDO-2 study is to compare the clinical outcomes of PCI with ultra-thin Supraflex Cruz vs Xience when combined with contemporary optimal medical therapy (OMT) in diabetic patients with multi-vessel disease. The secondary objective is to compare clinical outcomes between a pooled cohort from both arms of the study (Supraflex Cruz + Xience; PCI arm) vs CABG based on a performance goal derived from the CABG arm of the FREEDOM trial (historical cohort). The tertiary objective is a randomized comparison of ticagrelor vs prasugrel in addition to aspirin for the composite of ischemic and bleeding events. METHODS: In this prospective, open-label, multi-centre, 2 × 2 factorial, randomized, controlled study, 1,800 patients with diabetes mellitus and multi-vessel disease (inclusion criteria similar to FREEDOM trial) with indication for coronary revascularization will be randomly assigned to Supraflex Cruz or Xience stents and also to ticagrelor- or prasugrel- based antiplatelet strategies. All patients will receive guideline directed OMT and optimal PCI including image- and physiology-guided complete revascularization where feasible. The patients will be followed through five years to assess their clinical status and major clinical events. The primary endpoint is a non-inferiority comparison of target lesion failure at one-year for Supraflex Cruz vs Xience (primary objective) with an expected event rate of 11% and a non-inferiority margin of 4.5%. For PCI vs CABG (secondary objective), the primary endpoint is major adverse cardiac events (MACE), defined as a composite of all cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or stroke at one-year and yearly up to five years, with a performance goal of 21.6%. For ticagrelor vs prasugrel (tertiary objective), the primary endpoint is composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and major bleeding as per the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) at one-year with expected event rate of 15% and a non-inferiority margin of 5%. CONCLUSIONS: The TUXEDO-2 study is a contemporary study involving state-of-the-art PCI combined with guideline directed OMT in a complex subset of patients with diabetes mellitus and multi-vessel disease. The trial will answer the question as to whether a biodegradable polymer coated ultra-thin Supraflex Cruz stent is an attractive option for PCI in diabetic patients with multi-vessel disease. It will also help address the question whether the results of FREEDOM trial would have been different in the current era of safer and more efficacious stents and modern medical therapy. In addition, the comparative efficacy and safety of ticagrelor vs prasugrel in addition to aspirin will be evaluated. (CTRI/2019/11/022088).