REGENERATE-COBRA: A phase II randomized sham-controlled trial assessing the safety and efficacy of intracoronary administration of autologous bone marrow-derived cells in patients with refractory angina.

AIMS: The REGENERATE-COBRA trial (NCT05711849) will assess the safety and efficacy of an intracoronary infusion of autologous bone marrow-derived mononuclear cells in refractory angina patients with no revascularization options who are symptomatic despite optimal medical and device therapy. METHODS: REGENERATE-COBRA is a single site, blinded, randomized, sham-controlled, Phase II clinical trial enrolling 110 refractory angina patients with no revascularization options who are symptomatic despite optimal medical and device therapy. Patients will be randomized to either autologous bone marrow derived-mononuclear cells or a sham procedure. Patients in the cell-treated arm will undergo a bone marrow aspiration and an intracoronary infusion of autologous bone marrow derived-mononuclear cells. Patients in the control arm will undergo a sham bone marrow aspiration and a sham intracoronary infusion. The trial's primary endpoint is an improvement in Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) angina class by 2 classes between baseline and 6 months. Secondary endpoints include change in: CCS class at 12 months, myocardial ischemic burden (as measured by perfusion imaging) at 6 months, quality of life at 6 and 12 months (as measured by EQ-5D-5L, EQ-5D-VAS and Seattle Angina Questionnaire), angina frequency at 6 and 12 months, total exercise time (as measured by a modified Bruce protocol) and major adverse cardiovascular events at 6 and 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first trial to assess the safety and efficacy of an intracoronary infusion of autologous bone marrow-derived unfractionated mononuclear cells in symptomatic refractory angina patients who have exhausted conventional therapeutic options.

Non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes with previous coronary artery bypass grafting: a meta-analysis of invasive vs. conservative management.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: A routine invasive strategy is recommended in the management of higher risk patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACSs). However, patients with previous coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery were excluded from key trials that informed these guidelines. Thus, the benefit of a routine invasive strategy is less certain in this specific subgroup. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted. A comprehensive search was performed of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Eligible studies were RCTs of routine invasive vs. a conservative or selective invasive strategy in patients presenting with NSTE-ACS that included patients with previous CABG. Summary data were collected from the authors of each trial if not previously published. Outcomes assessed were all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, myocardial infarction, and cardiac-related hospitalization. Using a random-effects model, risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. RESULTS: Summary data were obtained from 11 RCTs, including previously unpublished subgroup outcomes of nine trials, comprising 897 patients with previous CABG (477 routine invasive, 420 conservative/selective invasive) followed up for a weighted mean of 2.0 (range 0.5-10) years. A routine invasive strategy did not reduce all-cause mortality (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.97-1.29), cardiac mortality (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.70-1.58), myocardial infarction (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.65-1.23), or cardiac-related hospitalization (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.78-1.40). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first meta-analysis assessing the effect of a routine invasive strategy in patients with prior CABG who present with NSTE-ACS. The results confirm the under-representation of this patient group in RCTs of invasive management in NSTE-ACS and suggest that there is no benefit to a routine invasive strategy compared to a conservative approach with regard to major adverse cardiac events. These findings should be validated in an adequately powered RCT.

The effect of CTCA guided selective invasive graft assessment on coronary angiographic parameters and outcomes: Insights from the BYPASS-CTCA trial.

BACKGROUND: Computed tomography cardiac angiography (CTCA) is recommended for the evaluation of patients with prior coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. The BYPASS-CTCA study demonstrated that CTCA prior to invasive coronary angiography (ICA) in CABG patients leads to significant reductions in procedure time and contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN), alongside improved patient satisfaction. However, whether CTCA information was used to facilitate selective graft cannulation at ICA was not protocol mandated. In this post-hoc analysis we investigated the influence of CTCA facilitated selective graft assessment on angiographic parameters and study endpoints. METHODS: BYPASS-CTCA was a randomized controlled trial in which patients with previous CABG referred for ICA were randomized to undergo CTCA prior to ICA, or ICA alone. In this post-hoc analysis we assessed the impact of selective ICA (grafts not invasively cannulated based on the CTCA result) following CTCA versus non-selective ICA (imaging all grafts irrespective of CTCA findings). The primary endpoints were ICA procedural duration, incidence of CIN, and patient satisfaction post-ICA. Secondary endpoints included the incidence of procedural complications and 1-year major adverse cardiac events. RESULTS: In the CTCA cohort (n â€‹= â€‹343), 214 (62.4%) patients had selective coronary angiography performed, whereas 129 (37.6%) patients had non-selective ICA. Procedure times were significantly reduced in the selective CTCA â€‹+ â€‹ICA group compared to the non-selective CTCA â€‹+ â€‹ICA group (-5.82min, 95% CI -7.99 to -3.65, p â€‹< â€‹0.001) along with reduction of CIN (1.5% vs 5.8%, OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.98). No difference was seen in patient satisfaction with the ICA, however procedural complications (0.9% vs 4.7%, OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.09-0.87) and 1-year major adverse cardiac events (13.1% vs 20.9%, HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.32-0.96) were significantly lower in the selective group. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with prior CABG, CTCA guided selective angiographic assessment of bypass grafts is associated with improved procedural parameters, lower complication rates and better 12-month outcomes. Taken in addition to the main findings of the BYPASS-CTCA trial, these results suggest a synergistic approach between CTCA and ICA should be considered in this patient group. REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03736018.