Percutaneous Revascularization for Ischemic Left Ventricular Dysfunction.

BACKGROUND: Whether revascularization by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) can improve event-free survival and left ventricular function in patients with severe ischemic left ventricular systolic dysfunction, as compared with optimal medical therapy (i.e., individually adjusted pharmacologic and device therapy for heart failure) alone, is unknown. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction of 35% or less, extensive coronary artery disease amenable to PCI, and demonstrable myocardial viability to a strategy of either PCI plus optimal medical therapy (PCI group) or optimal medical therapy alone (optimal-medical-therapy group). The primary composite outcome was death from any cause or hospitalization for heart failure. Major secondary outcomes were left ventricular ejection fraction at 6 and 12 months and quality-of-life scores. RESULTS: A total of 700 patients underwent randomization - 347 were assigned to the PCI group and 353 to the optimal-medical-therapy group. Over a median of 41 months, a primary-outcome event occurred in 129 patients (37.2%) in the PCI group and in 134 patients (38.0%) in the optimal-medical-therapy group (hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78 to 1.27; P = 0.96). The left ventricular ejection fraction was similar in the two groups at 6 months (mean difference, -1.6 percentage points; 95% CI, -3.7 to 0.5) and at 12 months (mean difference, 0.9 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.7 to 3.4). Quality-of-life scores at 6 and 12 months appeared to favor the PCI group, but the difference had diminished at 24 months. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with severe ischemic left ventricular systolic dysfunction who received optimal medical therapy, revascularization by PCI did not result in a lower incidence of death from any cause or hospitalization for heart failure. (Funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment Program; REVIVED-BCIS2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01920048.).

Arrhythmia and Death Following Percutaneous Revascularization in Ischemic Left Ventricular Dysfunction: Prespecified Analyses From the REVIVED-BCIS2 Trial.

BACKGROUND: Ventricular arrhythmia is an important cause of mortality in patients with ischemic left ventricular dysfunction. Revascularization with coronary artery bypass graft or percutaneous coronary intervention is often recommended for these patients before implantation of a cardiac defibrillator because it is assumed that this may reduce the incidence of fatal and potentially fatal ventricular arrhythmias, although this premise has not been evaluated in a randomized trial to date. METHODS: Patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction, extensive coronary disease, and viable myocardium were randomly assigned to receive either percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) plus optimal medical and device therapy (OMT) or OMT alone. The composite primary outcome was all-cause death or aborted sudden death (defined as an appropriate implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy or a resuscitated cardiac arrest) at a minimum of 24 months, analyzed as time to first event on an intention-to-treat basis. Secondary outcomes included cardiovascular death or aborted sudden death, appropriate implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy or sustained ventricular arrhythmia, and number of appropriate ICD therapies. RESULTS: Between August 28, 2013, and March 19, 2020, 700 patients were enrolled across 40 centers in the United Kingdom. A total of 347 patients were assigned to the PCI+OMT group and 353 to the OMT alone group. The mean age of participants was 69 years; 88% were male; 56% had hypertension; 41% had diabetes; and 53% had a clinical history of myocardial infarction. The median left ventricular ejection fraction was 28%; 53.1% had an implantable defibrillator inserted before randomization or during follow-up. All-cause death or aborted sudden death occurred in 144 patients (41.6%) in the PCI group and 142 patients (40.2%) in the OMT group (hazard ratio, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.82-1.30]; P=0.80). There was no between-group difference in the occurrence of any of the secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: PCI was not associated with a reduction in all-cause mortality or aborted sudden death. In patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy, PCI is not beneficial solely for the purpose of reducing potentially fatal ventricular arrhythmias. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT01920048.

Expedited transfer to a cardiac arrest centre for non-ST-elevation out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (ARREST): a UK prospective, multicentre, parallel, randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation has called for a randomised trial of delivery to a cardiac arrest centre. We aimed to assess whether expedited delivery to a cardiac arrest centre compared with current standard of care following resuscitated cardiac arrest reduces deaths. METHODS: ARREST is a prospective, parallel, multicentre, open-label, randomised superiority trial. Patients (aged ≥18 years) with return of spontaneous circulation following out-of-hospital cardiac arrest without ST elevation were randomly assigned (1:1) at the scene of their cardiac arrest by London Ambulance Service staff using a secure online randomisation system to expedited delivery to the cardiac catheter laboratory at one of seven cardiac arrest centres or standard of care with delivery to the geographically closest emergency department at one of 32 hospitals in London, UK. Masking of the ambulance staff who delivered the interventions and those reporting treatment outcomes in hospital was not possible. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 30 days, analysed in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population excluding those with unknown mortality status. Safety outcomes were analysed in the ITT population. The trial was prospectively registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Registry, 96585404. FINDINGS: Between Jan 15, 2018, and Dec 1, 2022, 862 patients were enrolled, of whom 431 (50%) were randomly assigned to a cardiac arrest centre and 431 (50%) to standard care. 20 participants withdrew from the cardiac arrest centre group and 19 from the standard care group, due to lack of consent or unknown mortality status, leaving 411 participants in the cardiac arrest centre group and 412 in the standard care group for the primary analysis. Of 822 participants for whom data were available, 560 (68%) were male and 262 (32%) were female. The primary endpoint of 30-day mortality occurred in 258 (63%) of 411 participants in the cardiac arrest centre group and in 258 (63%) of 412 in the standard care group (unadjusted risk ratio for survival 1·00, 95% CI 0·90-1·11; p=0·96). Eight (2%) of 414 patients in the cardiac arrest centre group and three (1%) of 413 in the standard care group had serious adverse events, none of which were deemed related to the trial intervention. INTERPRETATION: In adult patients without ST elevation, transfer to a cardiac arrest centre following resuscitated cardiac arrest in the community did not reduce deaths. FUNDING: British Heart Foundation.

Real-world outcomes of children treated with dupilumab for moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis: a single-centre retrospective observational UK study.

BACKGROUND: Dupilumab is licensed for the treatment of moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) in patients aged ≥ 6 months. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to examine real-world outcomes and safety of dupilumab in British children with moderate-to-severe AD attending a tertiary referral paediatric centre. METHODS: Skin and quality of life scores, adverse events and discontinuation rates were assessed. Patients aged ≤ 18 years with moderate-to-severe AD were included if they had skin scores recorded at baseline and at least one follow-up visit. Efficacy and safety were assessed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: In this retrospective observational survey, 72 children/teenagers, with a median age of 14 years (range 7-18) were included. Oral systemic immunosuppressants had failed to control AD in 88% of children recruited. All patients commenced on dupilumab had pretreatment eczema skin scores consistent with moderate-to-severe disease, with a median Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) score of 25 [interquartile range (IQR) 20-31]. EASI scores decreased by a median of 94% (IQR 82-100) and remained consistently low over 10-52 months of the study, with a median EASI score at final follow-up of 2 (IQR 0-6). Of the 72 children, 8 (11%) were able to discontinue dupilumab as they were in remission. Nineteen (26%) experienced adverse events, most commonly conjunctivitis (12 patients; 17%). Eight (11%) discontinued dupilumab (six with ongoing inflammatory skin flares, one with severe allergic conjunctivitis, one with intercurrent Wilson disease). CONCLUSIONS: Dupilumab was highly effective in treating most children with moderate-to-severe AD with good safety outcomes in the real world. However, 10% of children may need alternative therapy because of drug ineffectiveness or side-effects.

Angiotensin receptor blockers and ß blockers in Marfan syndrome: an individual patient data meta-analysis of randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and ß blockers are widely used in the treatment of Marfan syndrome to try to reduce the rate of progressive aortic root enlargement characteristic of this condition, but their separate and joint effects are uncertain. We aimed to determine these effects in a collaborative individual patient data meta-analysis of randomised trials of these treatments. METHODS: In this meta-analysis, we identified relevant trials of patients with Marfan syndrome by systematically searching MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL from database inception to Nov 2, 2021. Trials were eligible if they involved a randomised comparison of an ARB versus control or an ARB versus ß blocker. We used individual patient data from patients with no prior aortic surgery to estimate the effects of: ARB versus control (placebo or open control); ARB versus ß blocker; and indirectly, ß blocker versus control. The primary endpoint was the annual rate of change of body surface area-adjusted aortic root dimension Z score, measured at the sinuses of Valsalva. FINDINGS: We identified ten potentially eligible trials including 1836 patients from our search, from which seven trials and 1442 patients were eligible for inclusion in our main analyses. Four trials involving 676 eligible participants compared ARB with control. During a median follow-up of 3 years, allocation to ARB approximately halved the annual rate of change in the aortic root Z score (mean annual increase 0·07 [SE 0·02] ARB vs 0·13 [SE 0·02] control; absolute difference -0·07 [95% CI -0·12 to -0·01]; p=0·012). Prespecified secondary subgroup analyses showed that the effects of ARB were particularly large in those with pathogenic variants in fibrillin-1, compared with those without such variants (heterogeneity p=0·0050), and there was no evidence to suggest that the effect of ARB varied with ß-blocker use (heterogeneity p=0·54). Three trials involving 766 eligible participants compared ARBs with ß blockers. During a median follow-up of 3 years, the annual change in the aortic root Z score was similar in the two groups (annual increase -0·08 [SE 0·03] in ARB groups vs -0·11 [SE 0·02] in ß-blocker groups; absolute difference 0·03 [95% CI -0·05 to 0·10]; p=0·48). Thus, indirectly, the difference in the annual change in the aortic root Z score between ß blockers and control was -0·09 (95% CI -0·18 to 0·00; p=0·042). INTERPRETATION: In people with Marfan syndrome and no previous aortic surgery, ARBs reduced the rate of increase of the aortic root Z score by about one half, including among those taking a ß blocker. The effects of ß blockers were similar to those of ARBs. Assuming additivity, combination therapy with both ARBs and ß blockers from the time of diagnosis would provide even greater reductions in the rate of aortic enlargement than either treatment alone, which, if maintained over a number of years, would be expected to lead to a delay in the need for aortic surgery. FUNDING: Marfan Foundation, the Oxford British Heart Foundation Centre for Research Excellence, and the UK Medical Research Council.

Negative interaction between nitrates and remote ischemic preconditioning in patients undergoing cardiac surgery: the ERIC-GTN and ERICCA studies.

Remote ischaemic preconditioning (RIPC) using transient limb ischaemia failed to improve clinical outcomes following cardiac surgery and the reasons for this remain unclear. In the ERIC-GTN study, we evaluated whether concomitant nitrate therapy abrogated RIPC cardioprotection. We also undertook a post-hoc analysis of the ERICCA study, to investigate a potential negative interaction between RIPC and nitrates on clinical outcomes following cardiac surgery. In ERIC-GTN, 185 patients undergoing cardiac surgery were randomized to: (1) Control (no RIPC or nitrates); (2) RIPC alone; (3); Nitrates alone; and (4) RIPC + Nitrates. An intravenous infusion of nitrates (glyceryl trinitrate 1 mg/mL solution) was commenced on arrival at the operating theatre at a rate of 2-5 mL/h to maintain a mean arterial pressure between 60 and 70 mmHg and was stopped when the patient was taken off cardiopulmonary bypass. The primary endpoint was peri-operative myocardial injury (PMI) quantified by a 48-h area-under-the-curve high-sensitivity Troponin-T (48 h-AUC-hs-cTnT). In ERICCA, we analysed data for 1502 patients undergoing cardiac surgery to investigate for a potential negative interaction between RIPC and nitrates on clinical outcomes at 12-months. In ERIC-GTN, RIPC alone reduced 48 h-AUC-hs-cTnT by 37.1%, when compared to control (ratio of AUC 0.629 [95% CI 0.413-0.957], p = 0.031), and this cardioprotective effect was abrogated in the presence of nitrates. Treatment with nitrates alone did not reduce 48 h-AUC-hs-cTnT, when compared to control. In ERICCA there was a negative interaction between nitrate use and RIPC for all-cause and cardiovascular mortality at 12-months, and for risk of peri-operative myocardial infarction. RIPC alone reduced the risk of peri-operative myocardial infarction, compared to control, but no significant effect of RIPC was demonstrated for the other outcomes. When RIPC and nitrates were used together they had an adverse impact in patients undergoing cardiac surgery with the presence of nitrates abrogating RIPC-induced cardioprotection and increasing the risk of mortality at 12-months post-cardiac surgery in patients receiving RIPC.

Translation of experimental cardioprotective capability of P2Y12 inhibitors into clinical outcome in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction.

We studied the translational cardioprotective potential of P2Y12 inhibitors against acute myocardial ischemia/reperfusion injury (IRI) in an animal model of acute myocardial infarction and in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI). P2Y12 inhibitors may have pleiotropic effects to induce cardioprotection against acute myocardial IRI beyond their inhibitory effects on platelet aggregation. We compared the cardioprotective effects of clopidogrel, prasugrel, and ticagrelor on infarct size in an in vivo rat model of acute myocardial IRI, and investigated the effects of the P2Y12 inhibitors on enzymatic infarct size (48-h area-under-the-curve (AUC) troponin T release) and clinical outcomes in a retrospective study of STEMI patients from the CONDI-2/ERIC-PPCI trial using propensity score analyses. Loading with ticagrelor in rats reduced infarct size after acute myocardial IRI compared to controls (37 ± 11% vs 52 ± 8%, p < 0.01), whereas clopidogrel and prasugrel did not (50 ± 11%, p > 0.99 and 49 ± 9%, p > 0.99, respectively). Correspondingly, troponin release was reduced in STEMI patients treated with ticagrelor compared to clopidogrel (adjusted 48-h AUC ratio: 0.67, 95% CI 0.47-0.94). Compared to clopidogrel, the composite endpoint of cardiac death or hospitalization for heart failure within 12 months was reduced in STEMI patients loaded with ticagrelor (HR 0.63; 95% CI 0.42-0.94) but not prasugrel (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.43-1.63), prior to PPCI. Major adverse cardiovascular events did not differ between clopidogrel, ticagrelor, or prasugrel. The cardioprotective effects of ticagrelor in reducing infarct size may contribute to the clinical benefit observed in STEMI patients undergoing PPCI.

Effect of remote ischaemic conditioning on infarct size and remodelling in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients: the CONDI-2/ERIC-PPCI CMR substudy.

The effect of limb remote ischaemic conditioning (RIC) on myocardial infarct (MI) size and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was investigated in a pre-planned cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) substudy of the CONDI-2/ERIC-PPCI trial. This single-blind multi-centre trial (7 sites in UK and Denmark) included 169 ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients who were already randomised to either control (n = 89) or limb RIC (n = 80) (4 × 5 min cycles of arm cuff inflations/deflations) prior to primary percutaneous coronary intervention. CMR was performed acutely and at 6 months. The primary endpoint was MI size on the 6 month CMR scan, expressed as median and interquartile range. In 110 patients with 6-month CMR data, limb RIC did not reduce MI size [RIC: 13.0 (5.1-17.1)% of LV mass; control: 11.1 (7.0-17.8)% of LV mass, P = 0.39], or LVEF, when compared to control. In 162 patients with acute CMR data, limb RIC had no effect on acute MI size, microvascular obstruction and LVEF when compared to control. In a subgroup of anterior STEMI patients, RIC was associated with lower incidence of microvascular obstruction and higher LVEF on the acute scan when compared with control, but this was not associated with an improvement in LVEF at 6 months. In summary, in this pre-planned CMR substudy of the CONDI-2/ERIC-PPCI trial, there was no evidence that limb RIC reduced MI size or improved LVEF at 6 months by CMR, findings which are consistent with the neutral effects of limb RIC on clinical outcomes reported in the main CONDI-2/ERIC-PPCI trial.

Irbesartan in Marfan syndrome (AIMS): a double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Irbesartan, a long acting selective angiotensin-1 receptor inhibitor, in Marfan syndrome might reduce aortic dilatation, which is associated with dissection and rupture. We aimed to determine the effects of irbesartan on the rate of aortic dilatation in children and adults with Marfan syndrome. METHODS: We did a placebo-controlled, double-blind randomised trial at 22 centres in the UK. Individuals aged 6-40 years with clinically confirmed Marfan syndrome were eligible for inclusion. Study participants were all given 75 mg open label irbesartan once daily, then randomly assigned to 150 mg of irbesartan (increased to 300 mg as tolerated) or matching placebo. Aortic diameter was measured by echocardiography at baseline and then annually. All images were analysed by a core laboratory blinded to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was the rate of aortic root dilatation. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN90011794. FINDINGS: Between March 14, 2012, and May 1, 2015, 192 participants were recruited and randomly assigned to irbesartan (n=104) or placebo (n=88), and all were followed for up to 5 years. Median age at recruitment was 18 years (IQR 12-28), 99 (52%) were female, mean blood pressure was 110/65 mm Hg (SDs 16 and 12), and 108 (56%) were taking ß blockers. Mean baseline aortic root diameter was 34·4 mm in the irbesartan group (SD 5·8) and placebo group (5·5). The mean rate of aortic root dilatation was 0·53 mm per year (95% CI 0·39 to 0·67) in the irbesartan group compared with 0·74 mm per year (0·60 to 0·89) in the placebo group, with a difference in means of -0·22 mm per year (-0·41 to -0·02, p=0·030). The rate of change in aortic Z score was also reduced by irbesartan (difference in means -0·10 per year, 95% CI -0·19 to -0·01, p=0·035). Irbesartan was well tolerated with no observed differences in rates of serious adverse events. INTERPRETATION: Irbesartan is associated with a reduction in the rate of aortic dilatation in children and young adults with Marfan syndrome and could reduce the incidence of aortic complications. FUNDING: British Heart Foundation, the UK Marfan Trust, the UK Marfan Association.

Effect of remote ischaemic conditioning on clinical outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction (CONDI-2/ERIC-PPCI): a single-blind randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Remote ischaemic conditioning with transient ischaemia and reperfusion applied to the arm has been shown to reduce myocardial infarct size in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI). We investigated whether remote ischaemic conditioning could reduce the incidence of cardiac death and hospitalisation for heart failure at 12 months. METHODS: We did an international investigator-initiated, prospective, single-blind, randomised controlled trial (CONDI-2/ERIC-PPCI) at 33 centres across the UK, Denmark, Spain, and Serbia. Patients (age >18 years) with suspected STEMI and who were eligible for PPCI were randomly allocated (1:1, stratified by centre with a permuted block method) to receive standard treatment (including a sham simulated remote ischaemic conditioning intervention at UK sites only) or remote ischaemic conditioning treatment (intermittent ischaemia and reperfusion applied to the arm through four cycles of 5-min inflation and 5-min deflation of an automated cuff device) before PPCI. Investigators responsible for data collection and outcome assessment were masked to treatment allocation. The primary combined endpoint was cardiac death or hospitalisation for heart failure at 12 months in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02342522) and is completed. FINDINGS: Between Nov 6, 2013, and March 31, 2018, 5401 patients were randomly allocated to either the control group (n=2701) or the remote ischaemic conditioning group (n=2700). After exclusion of patients upon hospital arrival or loss to follow-up, 2569 patients in the control group and 2546 in the intervention group were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. At 12 months post-PPCI, the Kaplan-Meier-estimated frequencies of cardiac death or hospitalisation for heart failure (the primary endpoint) were 220 (8·6%) patients in the control group and 239 (9·4%) in the remote ischaemic conditioning group (hazard ratio 1·10 [95% CI 0·91-1·32], p=0·32 for intervention versus control). No important unexpected adverse events or side effects of remote ischaemic conditioning were observed. INTERPRETATION: Remote ischaemic conditioning does not improve clinical outcomes (cardiac death or hospitalisation for heart failure) at 12 months in patients with STEMI undergoing PPCI. FUNDING: British Heart Foundation, University College London Hospitals/University College London Biomedical Research Centre, Danish Innovation Foundation, Novo Nordisk Foundation, TrygFonden.

Early remote ischaemic preconditioning leads to sustained improvement in allograft function after live donor kidney transplantation: long-term outcomes in the REnal Protection Against Ischaemia-Reperfusion in transplantation (REPAIR) randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: The REnal Protection Against Ischaemia-Reperfusion in transplantation (REPAIR) RCT examined whether remote ischaemic preconditioning (RIPC) improved renal function after living-donor kidney transplantation. The primary endpoint, glomerular filtration rate (GFR), quantified by iohexol at 12 months, suggested that RIPC may confer longer-term benefit. Here, we present yearly follow-up data of estimated GFR for up to 5 yr after transplantation. METHODS: In this double-blind, factorial RCT, we enrolled 406 adult live donor kidney transplant donor-recipient pairs in 15 European transplant centres. RIPC was performed before induction of anaesthesia. RIPC consisted of four 5 min inflations of a BP cuff on the upper arm to 40 mm Hg above systolic BP separated by 5 min periods of cuff deflation. For sham RIPC, cuff inflation to 40 mm Hg was undertaken. Pairs were randomised to sham RIPC, early RIPC only (immediately pre-surgery), late RIPC only (24 h pre-surgery), or dual RIPC (early and late RIPC). The pre-specified secondary outcome of estimated GFR (eGFR) was calculated from serum creatinine measurements, using the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration equation. Predefined safety outcomes were mortality and graft loss. RESULTS: There was a sustained improvement in eGFR after early RIPC, compared with control from 3 months to 5 yr (adjusted mean difference: 4.71 ml min-1 (1.73 m)-2 [95% confidence interval, CI: 1.54-7.89]; P=0.004). Mortality and graft loss were similar between groups (RIPC: 20/205 [9.8%] vs control 24/201 [11.9%]; hazard ratio: 0.79 [95% CI: 0.43-1.43]). CONCLUSIONS: RIPC safely improves long-term kidney function after living-donor renal transplantation when administered before induction of anaesthesia. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN30083294.

Reference-based sensitivity analysis for time-to-event data.

The analysis of time-to-event data typically makes the censoring at random assumption, ie, that-conditional on covariates in the model-the distribution of event times is the same, whether they are observed or unobserved (ie, right censored). When patients who remain in follow-up stay on their assigned treatment, then analysis under this assumption broadly addresses the de jure, or "while on treatment strategy" estimand. In such cases, we may well wish to explore the robustness of our inference to more pragmatic, de facto or "treatment policy strategy," assumptions about the behaviour of patients post-censoring. This is particularly the case when censoring occurs because patients change, or revert, to the usual (ie, reference) standard of care. Recent work has shown how such questions can be addressed for trials with continuous outcome data and longitudinal follow-up, using reference-based multiple imputation. For example, patients in the active arm may have their missing data imputed assuming they reverted to the control (ie, reference) intervention on withdrawal. Reference-based imputation has two advantages: (a) it avoids the user specifying numerous parameters describing the distribution of patients' postwithdrawal data and (b) it is, to a good approximation, information anchored, so that the proportion of information lost due to missing data under the primary analysis is held constant across the sensitivity analyses. In this article, we build on recent work in the survival context, proposing a class of reference-based assumptions appropriate for time-to-event data. We report a simulation study exploring the extent to which the multiple imputation estimator (using Rubin's variance formula) is information anchored in this setting and then illustrate the approach by reanalysing data from a randomized trial, which compared medical therapy with angioplasty for patients presenting with angina.

Remote Ischemic Preconditioning and Outcomes of Cardiac Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Whether remote ischemic preconditioning (transient ischemia and reperfusion of the arm) can improve clinical outcomes in patients undergoing coronary-artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery is not known. We investigated this question in a randomized trial. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, sham-controlled trial involving adults at increased surgical risk who were undergoing on-pump CABG (with or without valve surgery) with blood cardioplegia. After anesthesia induction and before surgical incision, patients were randomly assigned to remote ischemic preconditioning (four 5-minute inflations and deflations of a standard blood-pressure cuff on the upper arm) or sham conditioning (control group). Anesthetic management and perioperative care were not standardized. The combined primary end point was death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, coronary revascularization, or stroke, assessed 12 months after randomization. RESULTS: We enrolled a total of 1612 patients (811 in the control group and 801 in the ischemic-preconditioning group) at 30 cardiac surgery centers in the United Kingdom. There was no significant difference in the cumulative incidence of the primary end point at 12 months between the patients in the remote ischemic preconditioning group and those in the control group (212 patients [26.5%] and 225 patients [27.7%], respectively; hazard ratio with ischemic preconditioning, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.79 to 1.15; P=0.58). Furthermore, there were no significant between-group differences in either adverse events or the secondary end points of perioperative myocardial injury (assessed on the basis of the area under the curve for the high-sensitivity assay of serum troponin T at 72 hours), inotrope score (calculated from the maximum dose of the individual inotropic agents administered in the first 3 days after surgery), acute kidney injury, duration of stay in the intensive care unit and hospital, distance on the 6-minute walk test, and quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: Remote ischemic preconditioning did not improve clinical outcomes in patients undergoing elective on-pump CABG with or without valve surgery. (Funded by the Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Program [a Medical Research Council and National Institute of Health Research partnership] and the British Heart Foundation; ERICCA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01247545.).

Rationale and design of: A Randomized tRial of Expedited transfer to a cardiac arrest center for non-ST elevation out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: The ARREST randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is a global public health issue. There is wide variation in both regional and inter-hospital survival rates from OHCA and overall survival remains poor at 7%. Regionalization of care into cardiac arrest centers (CAC) improves outcomes following cardiac arrest from ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) through concentration of services and greater provider experience. The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) recommends delivery of all post-arrest patients to a CAC, but that randomized controlled trials are necessary in patients without ST elevation (STE). METHODS/DESIGN: Following completion of a pilot randomized trial to assess safety and feasibility of conducting a large-scale randomized controlled trial in patients following OHCA of presumed cardiac cause without STE, we present the rationale and design of A Randomized tRial of Expedited transfer to a cardiac arrest center for non-ST elevation OHCA (ARREST). In total 860 patients will be enrolled and randomized (1:1) to expedited transfer to CAC (24/7 access to interventional cardiology facilities, cooling and goal-directed therapies) or to the current standard of care, which comprises delivery to the nearest emergency department. Primary outcome is 30-day all-cause mortality and secondary outcomes are 30-day and 3-month neurological status and 3, 6 and 12-month mortality. Patients will be followed up for one year after enrolment. CONCLUSION: Post-arrest care is time-critical, requires a multi-disciplinary approach and may be more optimally delivered in centers with greater provider experience. This trial would help to demonstrate if regionalization of post-arrest care to CACs reduces mortality in patients without STE, which could dramatically reshape emergency care provision.

Bivalirudin started during emergency transport for primary PCI.

BACKGROUND: Bivalirudin, as compared with heparin and glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, has been shown to reduce rates of bleeding and death in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Whether these benefits persist in contemporary practice characterized by prehospital initiation of treatment, optional use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors and novel P2Y12 inhibitors, and radial-artery PCI access use is unknown. METHODS: We randomly assigned 2218 patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) who were being transported for primary PCI to receive either bivalirudin or unfractionated or low-molecular-weight heparin with optional glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (control group). The primary outcome at 30 days was a composite of death or major bleeding not associated with coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG), and the principal secondary outcome was a composite of death, reinfarction, or non-CABG major bleeding. RESULTS: Bivalirudin, as compared with the control intervention, reduced the risk of the primary outcome (5.1% vs. 8.5%; relative risk, 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.43 to 0.82; P=0.001) and the principal secondary outcome (6.6% vs. 9.2%; relative risk, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.96; P=0.02). Bivalirudin also reduced the risk of major bleeding (2.6% vs. 6.0%; relative risk, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.28 to 0.66; P<0.001). The risk of acute stent thrombosis was higher with bivalirudin (1.1% vs. 0.2%; relative risk, 6.11; 95% CI, 1.37 to 27.24; P=0.007). There was no significant difference in rates of death (2.9% vs. 3.1%) or reinfarction (1.7% vs. 0.9%). Results were consistent across subgroups of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Bivalirudin, started during transport for primary PCI, improved 30-day clinical outcomes with a reduction in major bleeding but with an increase in acute stent thrombosis. (Funded by the Medicines Company; EUROMAX ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01087723.).

Prediction of 1-year mortality and impact of bivalirudin therapy according to level of baseline risk: A patient-level pooled analysis from three randomized trials.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to construct a predictive model for one-year mortality in patients undergoing invasive coronary evaluation and to examine the impact of bivalirudin on survival according to the level of baseline risk. BACKGROUND: Compared to heparin plus GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors (HEP/GPI), bivalirudin decreases bleeding complications in a range of clinical presentations. The impact of preprocedural risk assessment on survival and whether this is modified by bivalirudin, has not been investigated in detail. METHODS: We examined patient-level data from the REPLACE-2, ACUITY, and HORIZONS-AMI trials (n = 18,819) to construct a risk-adjusted mortality model using baseline clinical variables. RESULTS: One-year mortality occurred in 287 patients (3.1%) assigned to bivalirudin and 336 patients (3.6%) assigned to HEP/GPI (HR 0.85; 95% CI, 0.73-1.00; P = 0.048). Using 11 highly significant predictors of mortality, we developed an integer-risk score to classify patients into risk tertiles. High-risk patients had a rate of 1-year mortality over 9-fold greater than low-risk patients. Consequently, the absolute mortality reduction attributed to bivalirudin was more marked in high-risk patients: 3.1% (-0.8% to 7.0%) in the overall cohort, 4.8% (0.5% to 9.2%) in the PCI cohort (P-interaction versus intermediate and low risk categories, 0.09 and P = 0.02, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing invasive coronary evaluation, 1-year mortality can be predicted using baseline variables. Bivalirudin treatment (versus HEP/GPI) conferred a survival benefit.

Effect of remote ischaemic conditioning on clinical outcomes in patients presenting with an ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

The rationale and study design for the multicentre, randomized, controlled CONDI2/ERIC-PPCI study are discussed.

Long-term mortality data from the balloon pump-assisted coronary intervention study (BCIS-1): a randomized, controlled trial of elective balloon counterpulsation during high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention.

BACKGROUND: There is conflicting evidence on the utility of elective intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) use during high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Observational series have indicated a reduction in major in-hospital adverse events, although randomized trial evidence does not support this. A recent study has suggested a mortality benefit trend early after PCI, but there are currently no long-term outcome data from randomized trials in this setting. METHODS AND RESULTS: Three hundred one patients with left ventricular impairment (ejection fraction <30%) and severe coronary disease (BCIS-1 jeopardy score ≥8; maximum possible score=12) were randomized to receive PCI with elective IABP support (n=151) or without planned IABP support (n=150). Long-term all-cause mortality was assessed by tracking the databases held at the Office of National Statistics (in England and Wales) and the General Register Office (in Scotland). The groups were balanced in terms of baseline characteristics (left ventricular ejection fraction, 23.6%; BCIS-1 jeopardy score, 10.4) and the amount and type of revascularization performed. Mortality data were available for the entire cohort at a median of 51 months (interquartile range, 41-58) from randomization. All-cause mortality at follow-up was 33% in the overall cohort, with significantly fewer deaths occurring in the elective IABP group (n=42) than in the group that underwent PCI without planned IABP support (n=58) (hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.44-0.98; P=0.039). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with severe ischemic cardiomyopathy treated with PCI, all-cause mortality was 33% at a median of 51 months. Elective IABP use during PCI was associated with a 34% relative reduction in all-cause mortality compared with unsupported PCI. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.isrctn.org. Unique identifier: ISRCTN40553718; and http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00910481.

Red blood cell transfusion and mortality in trauma patients: risk-stratified analysis of an observational study.

BACKGROUND: Haemorrhage is a common cause of death in trauma patients. Although transfusions are extensively used in the care of bleeding trauma patients, there is uncertainty about the balance of risks and benefits and how this balance depends on the baseline risk of death. Our objective was to evaluate the association of red blood cell (RBC) transfusion with mortality according to the predicted risk of death. METHODS AND FINDINGS: A secondary analysis of the CRASH-2 trial (which originally evaluated the effect of tranexamic acid on mortality in trauma patients) was conducted. The trial included 20,127 trauma patients with significant bleeding from 274 hospitals in 40 countries. We evaluated the association of RBC transfusion with mortality in four strata of predicted risk of death: <6%, 6%-20%, 21%-50%, and >50%. For this analysis the exposure considered was RBC transfusion, and the main outcome was death from all causes at 28 days. A total of 10,227 patients (50.8%) received at least one transfusion. We found strong evidence that the association of transfusion with all-cause mortality varied according to the predicted risk of death (p-value for interaction <0.0001). Transfusion was associated with an increase in all-cause mortality among patients with <6% and 6%-20% predicted risk of death (odds ratio [OR] 5.40, 95% CI 4.08-7.13, p<0.0001, and OR 2.31, 95% CI 1.96-2.73, p<0.0001, respectively), but with a decrease in all-cause mortality in patients with >50% predicted risk of death (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.47-0.74, p<0.0001). Transfusion was associated with an increase in fatal and non-fatal vascular events (OR 2.58, 95% CI 2.05-3.24, p<0.0001). The risk associated with RBC transfusion was significantly increased for all the predicted risk of death categories, but the relative increase was higher for those with the lowest (<6%) predicted risk of death (p-value for interaction <0.0001). As this was an observational study, the results could have been affected by different types of confounding. In addition, we could not consider haemoglobin in our analysis. In sensitivity analyses, excluding patients who died early; conducting propensity score analysis adjusting by use of platelets, fresh frozen plasma, and cryoprecipitate; and adjusting for country produced results that were similar. CONCLUSIONS: The association of transfusion with all-cause mortality appears to vary according to the predicted risk of death. Transfusion may reduce mortality in patients at high risk of death but increase mortality in those at low risk. The effect of transfusion in low-risk patients should be further tested in a randomised trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: www.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01746953.