Five-Year Follow-up after Transcatheter Repair of Secondary Mitral Regurgitation.

BACKGROUND: Data from a 5-year follow-up of outcomes after transcatheter edge-to-edge repair of severe mitral regurgitation, as compared with outcomes after maximal doses of guideline-directed medical therapy alone, in patients with heart failure are now available. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with heart failure and moderate-to-severe or severe secondary mitral regurgitation who remained symptomatic despite the use of maximal doses of guideline-directed medical therapy to undergo transcatheter edge-to-edge repair plus receive medical therapy (device group) or to receive medical therapy alone (control group) at 78 sites in the United States and Canada. The primary effectiveness end point was all hospitalizations for heart failure through 2 years of follow-up. The annualized rate of all hospitalizations for heart failure, all-cause mortality, the risk of death or hospitalization for heart failure, and safety, among other outcomes, were assessed through 5 years. RESULTS: Of the 614 patients enrolled in the trial, 302 were assigned to the device group and 312 to the control group. The annualized rate of hospitalization for heart failure through 5 years was 33.1% per year in the device group and 57.2% per year in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41 to 0.68). All-cause mortality through 5 years was 57.3% in the device group and 67.2% in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.89). Death or hospitalization for heart failure within 5 years occurred in 73.6% of the patients in the device group and in 91.5% of those in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.64). Device-specific safety events within 5 years occurred in 4 of 293 treated patients (1.4%), with all the events occurring within 30 days after the procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with heart failure and moderate-to-severe or severe secondary mitral regurgitation who remained symptomatic despite guideline-directed medical therapy, transcatheter edge-to-edge repair of the mitral valve was safe and led to a lower rate of hospitalization for heart failure and lower all-cause mortality through 5 years of follow-up than medical therapy alone. (Funded by Abbott; COAPT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01626079.).

Optical Coherence Tomography-Guided versus Angiography-Guided PCI.

BACKGROUND: Data regarding clinical outcomes after optical coherence tomography (OCT)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) as compared with angiography-guided PCI are limited. METHODS: In this prospective, randomized, single-blind trial, we randomly assigned patients with medication-treated diabetes or complex coronary-artery lesions to undergo OCT-guided PCI or angiography-guided PCI. A final blinded OCT procedure was performed in patients in the angiography group. The two primary efficacy end points were the minimum stent area after PCI as assessed with OCT and target-vessel failure at 2 years, defined as a composite of death from cardiac causes, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target-vessel revascularization. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: The trial was conducted at 80 sites in 18 countries. A total of 2487 patients underwent randomization: 1233 patients were assigned to undergo OCT-guided PCI, and 1254 to undergo angiography-guided PCI. The minimum stent area after PCI was 5.72±2.04 mm2 in the OCT group and 5.36±1.87 mm2 in the angiography group (mean difference, 0.36 mm2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.21 to 0.51; P<0.001). Target-vessel failure within 2 years occurred in 88 patients in the OCT group and in 99 patients in the angiography group (Kaplan-Meier estimates, 7.4% and 8.2%, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.67 to 1.19; P = 0.45). OCT-related adverse events occurred in 1 patient in the OCT group and in 2 patients in the angiography group. Stent thrombosis within 2 years occurred in 6 patients (0.5%) in the OCT group and in 17 patients (1.4%) in the angiography group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing PCI, OCT guidance resulted in a larger minimum stent area than angiography guidance, but there was no apparent between-group difference in the percentage of patients with target-vessel failure at 2 years. (Funded by Abbott; ILUMIEN IV: OPTIMAL PCI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03507777.).

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Patients With Left Main Disease With and Without Diabetes: Findings From a Pooled Analysis of 4 Randomized Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes may be associated with differential outcomes in patients undergoing left main coronary revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). The aim of this study was to investigate outcomes in patients with left main disease with and without diabetes randomized to PCI versus CABG. METHODS: Individual patient data were pooled from 4 trials (SYNTAX [Synergy Between PCI With Taxus and Cardiac Surgery], PRECOMBAT [Premier of Randomized Comparison of Bypass Surgery Versus Angioplasty Using Sirolimus-Eluting Stent in Patients With Left Main Coronary Artery Disease], NOBLE [Nordic-Baltic-British Left Main Revascularisation Study], and EXCEL [Evaluation of XIENCE Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization]) that randomized patients with left main disease to PCI or CABG. Patients were considered suitable for either approach. Patients were categorized by diabetes status. Kaplan-Meier event rates, Cox model hazard ratios, and interactions were assessed. RESULTS: Among 4393 patients, 1104 (25.1%) had diabetes. Patients with diabetes experienced higher rates of 5-year death (158/1104 [Kaplan-Meier rate, 14.7%] versus 297/3289 [9.3%]; P<0.001), spontaneous myocardial infarction (MI; 67/1104 [6.7%] versus 114/3289 [3.7%]; P<0.001), and repeat revascularization (189/1104 [18.5%] versus 410/3289 [13.2%]; P<0.001). Rates of all-cause mortality did not differ after PCI versus CABG in those with (84/563 [15.3%] versus 74/541 [14.1%]; hazard ratio, 1.11 [95% CI, 0.82-1.52]) or without (155/1634 [9.7%] versus 142/1655 [8.9%]; hazard ratio, 1.08 [95% CI, 0.86-1.36; PintHR=0.87) diabetes. Rates of stroke within 1 year were lower with PCI versus CABG in the entire population, with no heterogeneity based on diabetes status (PintHR=0.51). The 5-year rates of spontaneous MI and repeat coronary revascularization were higher after PCI regardless of diabetes status (spontaneous MI: 45/563 [8.9%] versus 22/541 [4.4%] in diabetes and 82/1634 [5.3%] versus 32/1655 [2.1%] in no diabetes, PintHR=0.47; repeat revascularization: 127/563 [24.5%] versus 62/541 [12.4%] in diabetes and 254/1634 [16.3%] versus 156/1655 [10.1%] in no diabetes, PintHR=0.18). For spontaneous MI and repeat revascularization, there were greater absolute risk differences beyond 1 year in patients with diabetes (4.9% and 9.9%) compared with those without (2.1% and 4.3%; PintARD=0.047 and 0.016). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with left main disease considered equally suitable for PCI or CABG and with largely low to intermediate SYNTAX scores, diabetes was associated with higher rates of death and cardiovascular events through 5 years. Compared with CABG, PCI resulted in no difference in the risk of death and a lower risk of early stroke regardless of diabetes status, and a higher risk of spontaneous MI and repeat coronary revascularization, with larger late absolute excess risks in patients with diabetes. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifiers: NCT01205776, NCT0146651, NCT00422968, and NCT00114972.

Intravascular imaging-guided coronary drug-eluting stent implantation: an updated network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Previous meta-analyses have shown reduced risks of composite adverse events with intravascular imaging-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) compared with angiography guidance alone. However, these studies have been insufficiently powered to show whether all-cause death or all myocardial infarction are reduced with intravascular imaging guidance, and most previous intravascular imaging studies were done with intravascular ultrasound rather than optical coherence tomography (OCT), a newer imaging modality. We aimed to assess the comparative performance of intravascular imaging-guided PCI and angiography-guided PCI with drug-eluting stents. METHODS: For this systematic review and updated meta-analysis, we searched the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases from inception to Aug 30, 2023, for studies that randomly assigned patients undergoing PCI with drug-eluting stents either to intravascular ultrasound or OCT, or both, or to angiography alone to guide the intervention. The searches were done and study-level data were extracted independently by two investigators. The primary endpoint was target lesion failure, defined as the composite of cardiac death, target vessel-myocardial infarction (TV-MI), or target lesion revascularisation, assessed in patients randomly assigned to intravascular imaging guidance (intravascular ultrasound or OCT) versus angiography guidance. We did a standard frequentist meta-analysis to generate direct data, and a network meta-analysis to generate indirect data and overall treatment effects. Outcomes were expressed as relative risks (RRs) with 95% CIs at the longest reported follow-up duration. This study was registered with the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO, number CRD42023455662). FINDINGS: 22 trials were identified in which 15 964 patients were randomised and followed for a weighted mean duration of 24·7 months (longest duration of follow-up in each study ranging from 6 to 60 months). Compared with angiography-guided PCI, intravascular imaging-guided PCI resulted in a decreased risk of target lesion failure (RR 0·71 [95% CI 0·63-0·80]; p<0·0001), driven by reductions in the risks of cardiac death (RR 0·55 [95% CI 0·41-0·75]; p=0·0001), TV-MI (RR 0·82 [95% CI 0·68-0·98]; p=0·030), and target lesion revascularisation (RR 0·72 [95% CI 0·60-0·86]; p=0·0002). Intravascular imaging guidance also reduced the risks of stent thrombosis (RR 0·52 [95% CI 0·34-0·81]; p=0·0036), all myocardial infarction (RR 0·83 [95% CI 0·71-0·99]; p=0·033), and all-cause death (RR 0·75 [95% CI 0·60-0·93]; p=0·0091). Outcomes were similar for OCT-guided and intravascular ultrasound-guided PCI. INTERPRETATION: Compared with angiography guidance, intravascular imaging guidance of coronary stent implantation with OCT or intravascular ultrasound enhances both the safety and effectiveness of PCI, reducing the risks of death, myocardial infarction, repeat revascularisation, and stent thrombosis. FUNDING: Abbott.

Ticagrelor alone versus ticagrelor plus aspirin from month 1 to month 12 after percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ULTIMATE-DAPT): a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Following percutaneous coronary intervention with stent placement to treat acute coronary syndromes, international clinical guidelines generally recommend dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin plus a P2Y12 receptor inhibitor for 12 months to prevent myocardial infarction and stent thrombosis. However, data on single antiplatelet therapy with a potent P2Y12 inhibitor earlier than 12 months after percutaneous coronary intervention for patients with an acute coronary syndrome are scarce. The aim of this trial was to assess whether the use of ticagrelor alone, compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin, could reduce the incidence of clinically relevant bleeding events without an accompanying increase in major adverse cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events (MACCE). METHODS: In this randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial, patients aged 18 years or older with an acute coronary syndrome who completed the IVUS-ACS study and who had no major ischaemic or bleeding events after 1-month treatment with dual antiplatelet therapy were randomly assigned to receive oral ticagrelor (90 mg twice daily) plus oral aspirin (100 mg once daily) or oral ticagrelor (90 mg twice daily) plus a matching oral placebo, beginning 1 month and ending at 12 months after percutaneous coronary intervention (11 months in total). Recruitment took place at 58 centres in China, Italy, Pakistan, and the UK. Patients were required to remain event-free for 1 month on dual antiplatelet therapy following percutaneous coronary intervention with contemporary drug-eluting stents. Randomisation was done using a web-based system, stratified by acute coronary syndrome type, diabetes, IVUS-ACS randomisation, and site, using dynamic minimisation. The primary superiority endpoint was clinically relevant bleeding (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium [known as BARC] types 2, 3, or 5). The primary non-inferiority endpoint was MACCE (defined as the composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, ischaemic stroke, definite stent thrombosis, or clinically driven target vessel revascularisation), with an expected event rate of 6·2% in the ticagrelor plus aspirin group and an absolute non-inferiority margin of 2·5 percentage points between 1 month and 12 months after percutaneous coronary intervention. The two co-primary endpoints were tested sequentially; the primary superiority endpoint had to be met for hypothesis testing of the MACCE outcome to proceed. All principal analyses were assessed in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03971500, and is completed. FINDINGS: Between Sept 21, 2019, and Oct 27, 2022, 3400 (97·0%) of the 3505 participants in the IVUS-ACS study were randomly assigned (1700 patients to ticagrelor plus aspirin and 1700 patients to ticagrelor plus placebo). 12-month follow-up was completed by 3399 (>99·9%) patients. Between month 1 and month 12 after percutaneous coronary intervention, clinically relevant bleeding occurred in 35 patients (2·1%) in the ticagrelor plus placebo group and in 78 patients (4·6%) in the ticagrelor plus aspirin group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·45 [95% CI 0·30 to 0·66]; p<0·0001). MACCE occurred in 61 patients (3·6%) in the ticagrelor plus placebo group and in 63 patients (3·7%) in the ticagrelor plus aspirin group (absolute difference -0·1% [95% CI -1·4% to 1·2%]; HR 0·98 [95% CI 0·69 to 1·39]; pnon-inferiority<0·0001, psuperiority=0·89). INTERPRETATION: In patients with an acute coronary syndrome who had percutaneous coronary intervention with contemporary drug-eluting stents and remained event-free for 1 month on dual antiplatelet therapy, treatment with ticagrelor alone between month 1 and month 12 after the intervention resulted in a lower rate of clinically relevant bleeding and a similar rate of MACCE compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin. Along with the results from previous studies, these findings show that most patients in this population can benefit from superior clinical outcomes with aspirin discontinuation and maintenance on ticagrelor monotherapy after 1 month of dual antiplatelet therapy. FUNDING: The Chinese Society of Cardiology, the National Natural Scientific Foundation of China, and the Jiangsu Provincial & Nanjing Municipal Clinical Trial Project. TRANSLATION: For the Mandarin translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Intravascular ultrasound-guided versus angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention in acute coronary syndromes (IVUS-ACS): a two-stage, multicentre, randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Intravascular ultrasound-guided percutaneous coronary intervention has been shown to result in superior clinical outcomes compared with angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention. However, insufficient data are available concerning the advantages of intravascular ultrasound guidance for patients with an acute coronary syndrome. This trial aimed to investigate whether the use of intravascular ultrasound guidance, as compared with angiography guidance, improves the outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention with contemporary drug-eluting stents in patients presenting with an acute coronary syndrome. METHODS: In this two-stage, multicentre, randomised trial, patients aged 18 years or older and presenting with an acute coronary syndrome at 58 centres in China, Italy, Pakistan, and the UK were randomly assigned to intravascular ultrasound-guided percutaneous coronary intervention or angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention. Patients, follow-up health-care providers, and assessors were masked to random assignment; however, staff in the catheterisation laboratory were not. The primary endpoint was target vessel failure, a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically driven target vessel revascularisation at 1 year after randomisation. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03971500, and is completed. FINDINGS: Between Aug 20, 2019 and Oct 27, 2022, 3505 patients with an acute coronary syndrome were randomly assigned to intravascular ultrasound-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (n=1753) or angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (n=1752). 1-year follow-up was completed in 3504 (>99·9%) patients. The primary endpoint occurred in 70 patients in the intravascular ultrasound group and 128 patients in the angiography group (Kaplan-Meier rate 4·0% vs 7·3%; hazard ratio 0·55 [95% CI 0·41-0·74]; p=0·0001), driven by reductions in target vessel myocardial infarction or target vessel revascularisation. There were no significant differences in all-cause death or stent thrombosis between groups. Safety endpoints were also similar in the two groups. INTERPRETATION: In patients with an acute coronary syndrome, intravascular ultrasound-guided implantation of contemporary drug-eluting stents resulted in a lower 1-year rate of the composite outcome of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically driven revascularisation compared with angiography guidance alone. FUNDING: The Chinese Society of Cardiology, the National Natural Scientific Foundation of China, and Jiangsu Provincial & Nanjing Municipal Clinical Trial Project. TRANSLATION: For the Mandarin translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Preventive percutaneous coronary intervention versus optimal medical therapy alone for the treatment of vulnerable atherosclerotic coronary plaques (PREVENT): a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Acute coronary syndrome and sudden cardiac death are often caused by rupture and thrombosis of lipid-rich atherosclerotic coronary plaques (known as vulnerable plaques), many of which are non-flow-limiting. The safety and effectiveness of focal preventive therapy with percutaneous coronary intervention of vulnerable plaques in reducing adverse cardiac events are unknown. We aimed to assess whether preventive percutaneous coronary intervention of non-flow-limiting vulnerable plaques improves clinical outcomes compared with optimal medical therapy alone. METHODS: PREVENT was a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial done at 15 research hospitals in four countries (South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and New Zealand). Patients aged 18 years or older with non-flow-limiting (fractional flow reserve >0·80) vulnerable coronary plaques identified by intracoronary imaging were randomly assigned (1:1) to either percutaneous coronary intervention plus optimal medical therapy or optimal medical therapy alone, in block sizes of 4 or 6, stratified by diabetes status and the performance of percutaneous coronary intervention in a non-study target vessel. Follow-up continued annually in all enrolled patients until the last enrolled patient reached 2 years after randomisation. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiac causes, target-vessel myocardial infarction, ischaemia-driven target-vessel revascularisation, or hospitalisation for unstable or progressive angina, assessed in the intention-to-treat population at 2 years. Time-to-first-event estimates were calculated with the Kaplan-Meier method and were compared with the log-rank test. This report is the principal analysis from the trial and includes all long-term analysed data. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02316886, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between Sept 23, 2015, and Sept 29, 2021, 5627 patients were screened for eligibility, 1606 of whom were enrolled and randomly assigned to percutaneous coronary intervention (n=803) or optimal medical therapy alone (n=803). 1177 (73%) patients were men and 429 (27%) were women. 2-year follow-up for the primary outcome assessment was completed in 1556 (97%) patients (percutaneous coronary intervention group n=780; optimal medical therapy group n=776). At 2 years, the primary outcome occurred in three (0·4%) patients in the percutaneous coronary intervention group and in 27 (3·4%) patients in the medical therapy group (absolute difference -3·0 percentage points [95% CI -4·4 to -1·8]; p=0·0003). The effect of preventive percutaneous coronary intervention was directionally consistent for each component of the primary composite outcome. Serious clinical or adverse events did not differ between the percutaneous coronary intervention group and the medical therapy group: at 2 years, four (0·5%) versus ten (1·3%) patients died (absolute difference -0·8 percentage points [95% CI -1·7 to 0·2]) and nine (1·1%) versus 13 (1·7%) patients had myocardial infarction (absolute difference -0·5 percentage points [-1·7 to 0·6]). INTERPRETATION: In patients with non-flow-limiting vulnerable coronary plaques, preventive percutaneous coronary intervention reduced major adverse cardiac events arising from high-risk vulnerable plaques, compared with optimal medical therapy alone. Given that PREVENT is the first large trial to show the potential effect of the focal treatment for vulnerable plaques, these findings support consideration to expand indications for percutaneous coronary intervention to include non-flow-limiting, high-risk vulnerable plaques. FUNDING: The CardioVascular Research Foundation, Abbott, Yuhan Corp, CAH-Cordis, Philips, and Infraredx, a Nipro company.

Bivalirudin Versus Heparin During PCI in NSTEMI: Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis of Large Randomized Trials.

BACKGROUND: The benefit:risk profile of bivalirudin versus heparin anticoagulation in patients with non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is uncertain. Study-level meta-analyses lack granularity to provide conclusive answers. We sought to compare the outcomes of bivalirudin and heparin in patients with non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing PCI. METHODS: We performed an individual patient data meta-analysis of patients with non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction in all 5 trials that randomized ≥1000 patients with any myocardial infarction undergoing PCI to bivalirudin versus heparin (MATRIX [Minimizing Adverse Hemorrhagic Events by Transradial Access Site and Systemic Implementation of Angiox], VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART [Bivalirudin Versus Heparin in ST-Segment and Non-ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction in Patients on Modern Antiplatelet Therapy in the Swedish Web System for Enhancement and Development of Evidence-Based Care in Heart Disease Evaluated According to Recommended Therapies Registry Trial], ISAR-REACT 4 [Intracoronary Stenting and Antithrombotic Regimen: Rapid Early Action for Coronary Treatment 4], ACUITY [Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage Strategy], and BRIGHT [Bivalirudin in Acute Myocardial Infarction vs Heparin and GPI Plus Heparin Trial]). The primary effectiveness and safety end points were 30-day all-cause mortality and serious bleeding. RESULTS: A total of 12 155 patients were randomized: 6040 to bivalirudin (52.3% with a post-PCI bivalirudin infusion), and 6115 to heparin (53.2% with planned glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor use). Thirty-day mortality was not significantly different between bivalirudin and heparin (1.2% versus 1.1%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.24 [95% CI, 0.86-1.79]; P=0.25). Cardiac mortality, reinfarction, and stent thrombosis rates were also not significantly different. Bivalirudin reduced serious bleeding (both access site-related and non-access site-related) compared with heparin (3.3% versus 5.5%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.48-0.72; P<0.0001). Outcomes were consistent regardless of use of a post-PCI bivalirudin infusion or routine lycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor use with heparin and during 1-year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing PCI, procedural anticoagulation with bivalirudin and heparin did not result in significantly different rates of mortality or ischemic events, including stent thrombosis and reinfarction. Bivalirudin reduced serious bleeding compared with heparin arising both from the access site and nonaccess sites.

Coronary Artery Lesion Lipid Content and Plaque Burden in Diabetic and Nondiabetic Patients: PROSPECT II.

BACKGROUND: Patients with diabetes have increased rates of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs). We hypothesized that this is explained by diabetes-associated differences in coronary plaque morphology and lipid content. METHODS: In PROSPECT II (Providing Regional Observations to Study Predictors of Events in the Coronary Tree), 898 patients with acute myocardial infarction with or without ST-segment elevation underwent 3-vessel quantitative coronary angiography and coregistered near-infrared spectroscopy and intravascular ultrasound imaging after successful percutaneous coronary intervention. Subsequent MACEs were adjudicated to either treated culprit lesions or untreated nonculprit lesions. This substudy stratified patients by diabetes status and assessed baseline culprit and nonculprit prevalence of high-risk plaque characteristics defined as maximum plaque burden ≥70% and maximum lipid core burden index ≥324.7. Separate covariate-adjusted multivariable models were performed to identify whether diabetes was associated with nonculprit lesion-related MACEs and high-risk plaque characteristics. RESULTS: Diabetes was present in 109 of 898 patients (12.1%). During a median 3.7-year follow-up, MACEs occurred more frequently in patients with versus without diabetes (20.1% versus 13.5% [odds ratio (OR), 1.94 (95% CI, 1.14-3.30)]), primarily attributable to increased risk of myocardial infarction related to culprit lesion restenosis (4.3% versus 1.1% [OR, 3.78 (95% CI, 1.12-12.77)]) and nonculprit lesion-related spontaneous myocardial infarction (9.3% versus 3.8% [OR, 2.74 (95% CI, 1.25-6.04)]). However, baseline prevalence of high-risk plaque characteristics was similar for patients with versus without diabetes concerning culprit (maximum plaque burden ≥70%: 90% versus 93%, P=0.34; maximum lipid core burden index ≥324.7: 66% versus 70%, P=0.49) and nonculprit lesions (maximum plaque burden ≥70%: 23% versus 22%, P=0.37; maximum lipid core burden index ≥324.7: 26% versus 24%, P=0.47). In multivariable models, diabetes was associated with MACEs in nonculprit lesions (adjusted OR, 2.47 [95% CI, 1.21-5.04]) but not with prevalence of high-risk plaque characteristics (adjusted OR, 1.21 [95% CI, 0.86-1.69]). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with recent myocardial infarction, both treated and untreated lesions contributed to the diabetes-associated ≈2-fold increased MACE rate during the 3.7-year follow-up. Diabetes-related plaque characteristics that might underlie this increased risk were not identified by multimodality imaging. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT02171065.

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.

Hypertension, microvascular obstruction and infarct size in patients with STEMI undergoing PCI: Pooled analysis from 7 cardiac magnetic resonance imaging studies.

BACKGROUND: Mortality after ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is increased in patients with hypertension. The mechanisms underlying this association are uncertain. We sought to investigate whether patients with STEMI and prior hypertension have greater microvascular obstruction (MVO) and infarct size (IS) compared with those without hypertension. METHODS: We pooled individual patient data from 7 randomized trials of patients with STEMI undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in whom cardiac magnetic resonance imaging was performed within 1 month after reperfusion. The associations between hypertension and MVO, IS, and mortality were assessed in multivariable adjusted models. RESULTS: Among 2174 patients (61.3 ± 12.6 years, 76% male), 1196 (55.0%) had hypertension. Patients with hypertension were older, more frequently diabetic and had more extensive coronary artery disease than those without hypertension. MVO and IS measured as percent LV mass were not significantly different in patients with and without hypertension (adjusted differences 0.1, 95% CI -0.3 to 0.6, P = .61 and -0.2, 95% CI -1.5 to 1.2, P = .80, respectively). Hypertension was associated with a higher unadjusted risk of 1-year death (hazard ratio [HR] 2.28, 95% CI 1.44-3.60, P < .001), but was not independently associated with higher mortality after multivariable adjustment (adjusted HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.60-1.79, P = .90). CONCLUSION: In this large-scale individual patient data pooled analysis, hypertension was not associated with larger IS or MVO after primary PCI for STEMI.

Dual antiplatelet therapy duration after percutaneous coronary intervention in high bleeding risk: a meta-analysis of randomized trials.

AIMS: The optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients at high bleeding risk (HBR) is still debated. The current study, using the totality of existing evidence, evaluated the impact of an abbreviated DAPT regimen in HBR patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to search randomized clinical trials comparing abbreviated [i.e. very-short (1 month) or short (3 months)] with standard (≥6 months) DAPT in HBR patients without indication for oral anticoagulation. A total of 11 trials, including 9006 HBR patients, were included. Abbreviated DAPT reduced major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding [risk ratio (RR): 0.76, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.61-0.94; I2 = 28%], major bleeding (RR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.64-0.99, I2 = 0%), and cardiovascular mortality (RR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.65-0.95, I2 = 0%) compared with standard DAPT. No difference in all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events, myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis was observed. Results were consistent, irrespective of HBR definition and clinical presentation. CONCLUSION: In HBR patients undergoing PCI, a 1- or 3-month abbreviated DAPT regimen was associated with lower bleeding and cardiovascular mortality, without increasing ischaemic events, compared with a ≥6-month DAPT regimen. STUDY REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number CRD42021284004.

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.

Clinical Trial Design Principles and Outcomes Definitions for Device-Based Therapies for Hypertension: A Consensus Document From the Hypertension Academic Research Consortium.

The clinical implications of hypertension in addition to a high prevalence of both uncontrolled blood pressure and medication nonadherence promote interest in developing device-based approaches to hypertension treatment. The expansion of device-based therapies and ongoing clinical trials underscores the need for consistency in trial design, conduct, and definitions of clinical study elements to permit trial comparability and data poolability. Standardizing methods of blood pressure assessment, effectiveness measures beyond blood pressure alone, and safety outcomes are paramount. The Hypertension Academic Research Consortium (HARC) document represents an integration of evolving evidence and consensus opinion among leading experts in cardiovascular medicine and hypertension research with regulatory perspectives on clinical trial design and methodology. The HARC document integrates the collective information among device-based therapies for hypertension to better address existing challenges and identify unmet needs for technologies proposed to treat the world's leading cause of death and disability. Consistent with the Academic Research Consortium charter, this document proposes pragmatic consensus clinical design principles and outcomes definitions for studies aimed at evaluating device-based hypertension therapies.

Bivalirudin plus a high-dose infusion versus heparin monotherapy in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention: a randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Previous randomised trials of bivalirudin versus heparin in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have reported conflicting results, in part because of treatment with different pharmacological regimens. We designed a large-scale trial examining bivalirudin with a post-PCI high-dose infusion compared with heparin alone, the regimens that previous studies have shown to have the best balance of safety and efficacy. METHODS: BRIGHT-4 was an investigator-initiated, open-label, randomised controlled trial conducted at 87 clinical centres in 63 cities in China. Patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI with radial artery access within 48 h of symptom onset who had not received previous fibrinolytic therapy, anticoagulants, or glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive bivalirudin with a post-PCI high-dose infusion for 2-4 h or unfractionated heparin monotherapy. There was no masking. Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor use was reserved for procedural thrombotic complications in both groups. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality or Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) types 3-5 bleeding at 30 days. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03822975), and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Feb 14, 2019, and April 7, 2022, a total of 6016 patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI were randomly assigned to receive either bivalirudin plus a high-dose infusion after PCI (n=3009) or unfractionated heparin monotherapy (n=3007). Radial artery access was used in 5593 (93·1%) of 6008 patients. Compared with heparin monotherapy, bivalirudin reduced the 30-day rate of the primary endpoint (132 events [4·39%] in the heparin group vs 92 events [3·06%] in the bivalirudin group; difference, 1·33%, 95% CI 0·38-2·29%; hazard ratio [HR] 0·69, 95% CI 0·53-0·91; p=0·0070). All-cause mortality within 30 days occurred in 118 (3·92%) heparin-assigned patients and in 89 (2·96%) bivalirudin-assigned patients (HR 0·75; 95% CI 0·57-0·99; p=0·0420), and BARC types 3-5 bleeding occurred in 24 (0·80%) heparin-assigned patients and five (0·17%) bivalirudin-assigned patients (HR 0·21; 95% CI 0·08-0·54; p=0·0014). There were no significant differences in the 30-day rates of reinfarction, stroke, or ischaemia-driven target vessel revascularisation between the groups. Within 30 days, stent thrombosis occurred in 11 (0·37%) of bivalirudin-assigned patients and 33 (1·10%) of heparin-assigned patients (p=0·0015). INTERPRETATION: In patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI predominantly with radial artery access, anticoagulation with bivalirudin plus a post-PCI high-dose infusion for 2-4 h significantly reduced the 30-day composite rate of all-cause mortality or BARC types 3-5 major bleeding compared with heparin monotherapy. FUNDING: Chinese Society of Cardiology Foundation (CSCF2019A01), and a research grant from Jiangsu Hengrui Pharmaceuticals.

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.).

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.).

Polymer-based or Polymer-free Stents in Patients at High Bleeding Risk.

BACKGROUND: Polymer-free drug-coated stents provide superior clinical outcomes to bare-metal stents in patients at high bleeding risk who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and are treated with 1 month of dual antiplatelet therapy. Data on the use of polymer-based drug-eluting stents, as compared with polymer-free drug-coated stents, in such patients are limited. METHODS: In an international, randomized, single-blind trial, we compared polymer-based zotarolimus-eluting stents with polymer-free umirolimus-coated stents in patients at high bleeding risk. After PCI, patients were treated with 1 month of dual antiplatelet therapy, followed by single antiplatelet therapy. The primary outcome was a safety composite of death from cardiac causes, myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis at 1 year. The principal secondary outcome was target-lesion failure, an effectiveness composite of death from cardiac causes, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically indicated target-lesion revascularization. Both outcomes were powered for noninferiority. RESULTS: A total of 1996 patients at high bleeding risk were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive zotarolimus-eluting stents (1003 patients) or polymer-free drug-coated stents (993 patients). At 1 year, the primary outcome was observed in 169 of 988 patients (17.1%) in the zotarolimus-eluting stent group and in 164 of 969 (16.9%) in the polymer-free drug-coated stent group (risk difference, 0.2 percentage points; upper boundary of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval [CI], 3.5; noninferiority margin, 4.1; P = 0.01 for noninferiority). The principal secondary outcome was observed in 174 patients (17.6%) in the zotarolimus-eluting stent group and in 169 (17.4%) in the polymer-free drug-coated stent group (risk difference, 0.2 percentage points; upper boundary of the one-sided 97.5% CI, 3.5; noninferiority margin, 4.4; P = 0.007 for noninferiority). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients at high bleeding risk who received 1 month of dual antiplatelet therapy after PCI, use of polymer-based zotarolimus-eluting stents was noninferior to use of polymer-free drug-coated stents with regard to safety and effectiveness composite outcomes. (Funded by Medtronic; ONYX ONE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03344653.).

Preventive PCI or medical therapy alone for vulnerable atherosclerotic coronary plaque: Rationale and design of the randomized, controlled PREVENT trial.

BACKGROUND: Acute coronary syndromes are commonly caused by the rupture of vulnerable plaque, which often appear angiographically not severe. Although pharmacologic management is considered standard therapy for stabilizing plaque vulnerability, the potential role of preventive local treatment for vulnerable plaque has not yet been determined. The PREVENT trial was designed to compare preventive percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) plus optimal medical therapy (OMT) with OMT alone in patients with functionally nonsignificant high-risk vulnerable plaques. METHODS: The PREVENT trial is a multinational, multicenter, prospective, open-label, active-treatment-controlled randomized trial. Eligible patients have at least 1 angiographically significant stenosis (diameter stenosis >50% by visual estimation) without functional significance (fractional flow reserve [FFR] >0.80). Target lesions are assessed by intracoronary imaging and must meet at least 2 imaging criteria for vulnerable plaque; (1) minimal lumen area <4.0 mm2; (2) plaque burden >70%; (3) maximal lipid core burden index in a 4 mm segment >315 by near infrared spectroscopy; and (4) thin cap fibroatheroma as determined by virtual histology or optical coherence tomography. Enrolled patients are randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either preventive PCI with either bioabsorbable vascular scaffolds or metallic everolimus-eluting stents plus OMT or OMT alone. The primary endpoint is target-vessel failure, defined as the composite of death from cardiac causes, target-vessel myocardial infarction, ischemic-driven target-vessel revascularization, or hospitalization for unstable or progressive angina, at 2 years after randomization. RESULTS: Enrollment of a total of 1,608 patients has been completed. Follow-up of the last enrolled patient will be completed in September 2023 and primary results are expected to be available in early 2024. CONCLUSIONS: The PREVENT trial is the first large-scale, randomized trial to evaluate the effect of preventive PCI on non-flow-limiting vulnerable plaques containing multiple high-risk features that is appropriately powered for clinical outcomes. PREVENT will provide compelling evidence as to whether preventive PCI of vulnerable plaques plus OMT improves patient outcomes compared with OMT alone. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov. Unique identifier: NCT02316886. KEY POINTS: The PREVENT trial is the first, large-scale randomized clinical trial to evaluate the effect of preventive PCI on non-flow-limiting vulnerable plaque with high-risk features. It will provide compelling evidence to determine whether PCI of focal vulnerable plaques on top of OMT improves patient outcomes.