Bivalirudin versus heparin in ST and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction-Outcomes at two years.

BACKGROUND: The registry-based randomized VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART trial (NCT02311231) compared bivalirudin vs. heparin in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for myocardial infarction (MI). It showed no difference in the composite primary endpoint of death, MI, or major bleeding at 180 days. Here, we report outcomes at two years. METHODS: Analysis of primary and secondary endpoints at two years of follow-up was prespecified in the study protocol. We report the study results for the extended follow-up time here. RESULTS: In total, 6006 patients were enrolled, 3005 with ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) and 3001 with Non-STEMI (NSTEMI), representing 70 % of all eligible patients with these diagnoses during the study. The primary endpoint occurred in 14.0 % (421 of 3004) in the bivalirudin group compared with 14.3 % (429 of 3002) in the heparin group (hazard ratio [HR] 0.97; 95 % confidence interval [CI], 0.85-1.11; P = 0.70) at one year and in 16.7 % (503 of 3004) compared with 17.1 % (514 of 3002), (HR 0.97; 95 % CI, 0.96-1.10; P = 0.66) at two years. The results were consistent in patients with STEMI and NSTEMI and across major subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Until the two-year follow-up, there were no differences in endpoints between patients with MI undergoing PCI and allocated to bivalirudin compared with those allocated to heparin. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT02311231.

Prognostic value of early sustained ventricular arrhythmias in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction treated by primary percutaneous coronary intervention: A substudy of VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART trial.

Background: Prognostic assessment of ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF) in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is based mainly on distinguishing between early (<48 hours) and late arrhythmias, and does not take into account its time distribution with regard to reperfusion, or type of arrhythmia. Objective: We analyzed the prognostic value of early ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) in STEMI with regard to their type and timing. Methods: The prespecified analysis of the multicenter prospective Bivalirudin versus Heparin in ST-Segment and Non-ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarctionin 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 included 2886 STEMI patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). VA episodes were characterized regarding their type and timing. Survival status at 180 days was assessed through the population registry. Results: Nonmonomorphic VT or VF was observed in 97 (3.4%) and monomorphic VT in 16 (0.5%) patients. Only 3 (2.7%) early VA episodes occurred after 24 hours from symptom onset. VA was associated with higher risk of death (hazard ratio 3.59; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.01-6.42) after adjustment for age, sex, and STEMI localization. VA after PCI was associated with an increased mortality compared with VA before PCI (hazard ratio 6.68; 95% CI 2.90-15.41). Early VA was associated with in-hospital mortality (odds ratio 7.39; 95% CI 3.68-14.83) but not with long-term prognosis in patients discharged alive. The type of VA was not associated with mortality. Conclusion: VA after PCI was associated with an increased mortality compared with VA before PCI. Long-term prognosis did not differ between patients with monomorphic VT and nonmonomorphic VT or VF, but events were few. VA incidence during 24 to 48 hours of STEMI is negligibly low, thus precluding assessment of its prognostic importance.

5-Year Outcomes of PCI Guided by Measurement of Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio Versus Fractional Flow Reserve.

BACKGROUND: Instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) is a coronary physiology index used to assess the severity of coronary artery stenosis to guide revascularization. iFR has previously demonstrated noninferior short-term outcome compared to fractional flow reserve (FFR), but data on longer-term outcome have been lacking. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to investigate the prespecified 5-year follow-up of the primary composite outcome of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and unplanned revascularization of the iFR-SWEDEHEART trial comparing iFR vs FFR in patients with chronic and acute coronary syndromes. METHODS: iFR-SWEDEHEART was a multicenter, controlled, open-label, registry-based randomized clinical trial using the Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry for enrollment. A total of 2,037 patients were randomized to undergo revascularization guided by iFR or FFR. RESULTS: No patients were lost to follow-up. At 5 years, the rate of the primary composite endpoint was 21.5% in the iFR group and 19.9% in the FFR group (HR: 1.09; 95% CI: 0.90-1.33). The rates of all-cause death (9.4% vs 7.9%; HR: 1.20; 95% CI: 0.89-1.62), nonfatal myocardial infarction (5.7% vs 5.8%; HR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.70-1.44), and unplanned revascularization (11.6% vs 11.3%; HR: 1.02; 95% CI: 0.79-1.32) were also not different between the 2 groups. The outcomes were consistent across prespecified subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with chronic or acute coronary syndromes, an iFR-guided revascularization strategy was associated with no difference in the 5-year composite outcome of death, myocardial infarction, and unplanned revascularization compared with an FFR-guided revascularization strategy. (Evaluation of iFR vs FFR in Stable Angina or Acute Coronary Syndrome [iFR SWEDEHEART]; NCT02166736).

Bivalirudin Versus Heparin Monotherapy in ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: Bivalirudin was not superior to unfractionated heparin in patients with myocardial infarction (MI) treated with percutaneous coronary intervention and no planned use of GPI (glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors) in contemporary clinical practice of radial access and potent P2Y12-inhibitors in the VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART randomized clinical trial (Bivalirudin Versus Heparin in STEMI and NSTEMI Patients on Modern Antiplatelet Therapy-Swedish Web-System for Enhancement and Development of Evidence-Based Care in Heart Disease Evaluated According to Recommended Therapies Registry). METHODS: In this prespecified separately powered subgroup analysis, we included patients with ST-segment-elevation MI undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention with the primary composite end point of all-cause death, MI, or major bleeding event within 180 days. RESULTS: Among the 6006 patients enrolled in the trial, 3005 patients with ST-segment-elevation MI were randomized to receive bivalirudin or heparin. The mean age was 66.8 years. According to protocol recommendations, 87% were treated with potent oral P2Y12-inhibitors before start of angiography and radial access was used in 90%. GPI was used in 51 (3.4%) and 74 (4.9%) of patients randomized to receive bivalirudin and heparin, respectively. The primary end point occurred in 12.5% (187 of 1501) and 13.0% (196 of 1504; hazard ratio [HR], 0.95 [95% CI, 0.78-1.17], P=0.64) with consistent results in all major subgroups. All-cause death occurred in 3.9% versus 3.9% (HR, 1.00 [0.70-1.45], P=0.98), MI in 1.7% versus 2.2% (HR, 0.76 [0.45-1.28], P=0.30), major bleeding in 8.3% versus 8.0% (HR, 1.04 [0.81-1.33], P=0.78), and definite stent thrombosis in 0.5% versus 1.3% (HR, 0.42 [0.18-0.96], P=0.04). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ST-segment-elevation MI undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention with radial access and receiving current recommended treatments with potent P2Y12-inhibitors rate of the composite of all-cause death, MI, or major bleeding was not lower in those randomized to receive bivalirudin as compared with heparin. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02311231.

Survival of Patients With Angina Pectoris Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Intracoronary Pressure Wire Guidance.

BACKGROUND: Intracoronary pressure wire measurement of fractional flow reserve (FFR) provides decision-making guidance during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, limited data exist on the effect of FFR on long-term clinical outcomes in patients with stable angina pectoris. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine the association between the usage of FFR and all-cause mortality in patients with stable angina undergoing PCI. METHODS: Data was used from the SCAAR (Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry) on all patients undergoing PCI (with or without FFR guidance) for stable angina pectoris in Sweden between January 2005 and March 2016. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality, and the secondary endpoints were stent thrombosis (ST) or restenosis and peri-procedural complications. The primary model was multilevel Cox proportional hazards regression adjusted with Kernel-based propensity score matching. RESULTS: In total, 23,860 patients underwent PCI for stable angina pectoris; of these, FFR guidance was used in 3,367. After a median follow-up of 4.7 years (range 0 to 11.2 years), the FFR group had lower adjusted risk estimates for all-cause mortality (hazard ratio: 0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.73 to 0.89; p < 0.001), and ST and restenosis (hazard ratio: 0.74; 95% CI: 0.57 to 0.96; p = 0.022). The number of peri-procedural complications did not differ between the groups (adjusted odds ratio: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.77 to 1.19; p = 0.697). CONCLUSIONS: In this observational study, the use of FFR was associated with a lower risk of long-term mortality, ST, and restenosis in patients undergoing PCI for stable angina pectoris. This study supports the current European and American guidelines for the use of FFR during PCI and shows that intracoronary pressure wire guidance confers prognostic benefit in patients with stable angina pectoris.

Radial versus femoral access in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing invasive management: A prespecified subgroup analysis from VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART.

AIMS: In the 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 (VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART), bivalirudin was not superior to unfractionated heparin in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing invasive management. We assessed whether the access site had an impact on the primary endpoint of death, myocardial infarction or major bleeding at 180 days and whether it interacted with bivalirudin/unfractionated heparin. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 6006 patients with acute coronary syndrome planned for percutaneous coronary intervention were randomised to either bivalirudin or unfractionated heparin. Arterial access was left to the operator discretion. Overall, 90.5% of patients underwent transradial access and 9.5% transfemoral access. Baseline risk was higher in transfemoral access. The unadjusted hazard ratio for the primary outcome was lower with transradial access (hazard ratio 0.53, 95% confidence interval 0.43-0.67, p<0.001) and remained lower after multivariable adjustment (hazard ratio 0.56, 95% confidence interval 0.52-0.84, p<0.001). Transradial access was associated with lower risk of death (hazard ratio 0.41, 95% confidence interval 0.28-0.60, p<0.001) and major bleeding (hazard ratio 0.57, 95% confidence interval 0.44-0.75, p<0.001). There was no interaction between treatment with bivalirudin and access site for the primary endpoint (p=0.976) or major bleeding (p=0.801). CONCLUSIONS: Transradial access was associated with lower risk of death, myocardial infarction or major bleeding at 180 days. Bivalirudin was not associated with less bleeding, irrespective of access site.

Bivalirudin versus heparin monotherapy in non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: The optimal anti-coagulation strategy for patients with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction treated with percutaneous coronary intervention is unclear in contemporary clinical practice of radial access and potent P2Y12-inhibitors. The aim of this study was to investigate whether bivalirudin was superior to heparin monotherapy in patients with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction without routine glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor use. METHODS: In a large pre-specified subgroup of the multicentre, prospective, randomised, registry-based, open-label clinical VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART trial we randomised patients with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, treated with ticagrelor or prasugrel, to bivalirudin or heparin monotherapy with no planned use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors during percutaneous coronary intervention. The primary endpoint was the rate of a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction or major bleeding within 180 days. RESULTS: A total of 3001 patients with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction, were enrolled. The primary endpoint occurred in 12.1% (182 of 1503) and 12.5% (187 of 1498) of patients in the bivalirudin and heparin groups, respectively (hazard ratio of bivalirudin compared to heparin treatment 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.78-1.18, p=0.69). The results were consistent in all major subgroups. All-cause death occurred in 2.0% versus 1.7% (hazard ratio 1.15, 0.68-1.94, p=0.61), myocardial infarction in 2.3% versus 2.5% (hazard ratio 0.91, 0.58-1.45, p=0.70), major bleeding in 8.9% versus 9.1% (hazard ratio 0.97, 0.77-1.24, p=0.82) and definite stent thrombosis in 0.3% versus 0.2% (hazard ratio 1.33, 0.30-5.93, p=0.82). CONCLUSION: Bivalirudin as compared to heparin during percutaneous coronary intervention for non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction did not reduce the composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction or major bleeding in non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients receiving current recommended treatments with modern P2Y12-inhibitors and predominantly radial access.

Safety of the Deferral of Coronary Revascularization on the Basis of Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio and Fractional Flow Reserve Measurements in Stable Coronary Artery Disease and Acute Coronary Syndromes.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical outcomes of patients deferred from coronary revascularization on the basis of instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) or fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurements in stable angina pectoris (SAP) and acute coronary syndromes (ACS). BACKGROUND: Assessment of coronary stenosis severity with pressure guidewires is recommended to determine the need for myocardial revascularization. METHODS: The safety of deferral of coronary revascularization in the pooled per-protocol population (n = 4,486) of the DEFINE-FLAIR (Functional Lesion Assessment of Intermediate Stenosis to Guide Revascularisation) and iFR-SWEDEHEART (Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio Versus Fractional Flow Reserve in Patients With Stable Angina Pectoris or Acute Coronary Syndrome) randomized clinical trials was investigated. Patients were stratified according to revascularization decision making on the basis of iFR or FFR and to clinical presentation (SAP or ACS). The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE), defined as the composite of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization at 1 year. RESULTS: Coronary revascularization was deferred in 2,130 patients. Deferral was performed in 1,117 patients (50%) in the iFR group and 1,013 patients (45%) in the FFR group (p < 0.01). At 1 year, the MACE rate in the deferred population was similar between the iFR and FFR groups (4.12% vs. 4.05%; fully adjusted hazard ratio: 1.13; 95% confidence interval: 0.72 to 1.79; p = 0.60). A clinical presentation with ACS was associated with a higher MACE rate compared with SAP in deferred patients (5.91% vs. 3.64% in ACS and SAP, respectively; fully adjusted hazard ratio: 0.61 in favor of SAP; 95% confidence interval: 0.38 to 0.99; p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, deferral of revascularization is equally safe with both iFR and FFR, with a low MACE rate of about 4%. Lesions were more frequently deferred when iFR was used to assess physiological significance. In deferred patients presenting with ACS, the event rate was significantly increased compared with SAP at 1 year.

Bivalirudin versus Heparin Monotherapy in Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: The comparative efficacy of various anticoagulation strategies has not been clearly established in patients with acute myocardial infarction who are undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) according to current practice, which includes the use of radial-artery access for PCI and administration of potent P2Y12 inhibitors without the planned use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors. METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized, registry-based, open-label clinical trial, we enrolled patients with either ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) or non-STEMI (NSTEMI) who were undergoing PCI and receiving treatment with a potent P2Y12 inhibitor (ticagrelor, prasugrel, or cangrelor) without the planned use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors. The patients were randomly assigned to receive bivalirudin or heparin during PCI, which was performed predominantly with the use of radial-artery access. The primary end point was a composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, or major bleeding during 180 days of follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 6006 patients (3005 with STEMI and 3001 with NSTEMI) were enrolled in the trial. At 180 days, a primary end-point event had occurred in 12.3% of the patients (369 of 3004) in the bivalirudin group and in 12.8% (383 of 3002) in the heparin group (hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83 to 1.10; P=0.54). The results were consistent between patients with STEMI and those with NSTEMI and across other major subgroups. Myocardial infarction occurred in 2.0% of the patients in the bivalirudin group and in 2.4% in the heparin group (hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.60 to 1.19; P=0.33), major bleeding in 8.6% and 8.6%, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.19; P=0.98), definite stent thrombosis in 0.4% and 0.7%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.27 to 1.10; P=0.09), and death in 2.9% and 2.8%, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.41; P=0.76). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing PCI for myocardial infarction, the rate of the composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, or major bleeding was not lower among those who received bivalirudin than among those who received heparin monotherapy. (Funded by the Swedish Heart-Lung Foundation and others; VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART ClinicalTrialsRegister.eu number, 2012-005260-10 ; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02311231 .).

Real-life clinical outcomes with everolimus eluting platinum chromium stent with an abluminal biodegradable polymer in patients from the Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry (SCAAR).

BACKGROUND: No previous studies have evaluated the performance of the Synergy stent in a large real-life population. OBJECTIVES: To describe the initial real-life experience with a novel everolimus eluting platinum chromium stent with abluminal biodegradable polymer (SYNERGY) in unselected patients from a nationwide registry. METHODS: All implanted Synergy stents were compared with other new generation drug eluting stents (n-DES) with >1,000 implantations in Sweden between March 2013 and October 2015. Restenosis, definite stent thrombosis (ST), myocardial infarction (MI) and death rates were assessed using propensity score and Cox regression analyses. RESULTS: A total of 7,886 of Synergy stents and 64,429 other n-DES (BioMatrix, N = 1,953; Orsiro, N = 4,946; Promus Element Plus, N= 2,543; Promus Premier, N= 20,414; Xience Xpedition, N= 7,971, Resolute/Resolute Integrity, N = 19,021; Ultimaster, N = 1,156; Resolute Onyx, N = 6,425) were implanted in 42,357 procedures. Restenosis and stent thrombosis occurred in 642 and 314 cases, respectively, in the overall population at 1 year. The cumulative rate of restenosis (1.1% vs. 1.0%, adjusted HR: 1.24 95% CI: 0.88-1.75; P = 0.21) and ST (0.4% vs. 0.5%, adjusted HR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.63-1.50; P = 0.17) up to 1 year was low in both the Synergy group and the other n-DES group. Death occurred in 5.2% versus 4.5% (adjusted HR: 1.14; 95% CI: 0.96-1.36; P = 0.11) and MI in 3.2% versus 3.5%, (adjusted HR: 1.11; 95% CI: 0.93-1.33; P = 0.24) up to 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: In a large real-life population the Synergy stent appears to be safe and effective with a low rate of restenosis and ST comparable with other n-DES. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Instantaneous Wave-free Ratio versus Fractional Flow Reserve to Guide PCI.

BACKGROUND: The instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) is an index used to assess the severity of coronary-artery stenosis. The index has been tested against fractional flow reserve (FFR) in small trials, and the two measures have been found to have similar diagnostic accuracy. However, studies of clinical outcomes associated with the use of iFR are lacking. We aimed to evaluate whether iFR is noninferior to FFR with respect to the rate of subsequent major adverse cardiac events. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, randomized, controlled, open-label clinical trial using the Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry for enrollment. A total of 2037 participants with stable angina or an acute coronary syndrome who had an indication for physiologically guided assessment of coronary-artery stenosis were randomly assigned to undergo revascularization guided by either iFR or FFR. The primary end point was the rate of a composite of death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization within 12 months after the procedure. RESULTS: A primary end-point event occurred in 68 of 1012 patients (6.7%) in the iFR group and in 61 of 1007 (6.1%) in the FFR group (difference in event rates, 0.7 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.5 to 2.8; P=0.007 for noninferiority; hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.58; P=0.53); the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in event rates fell within the prespecified noninferiority margin of 3.2 percentage points. The results were similar among major subgroups. The rates of myocardial infarction, target-lesion revascularization, restenosis, and stent thrombosis did not differ significantly between the two groups. A significantly higher proportion of patients in the FFR group than in the iFR group reported chest discomfort during the procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with stable angina or an acute coronary syndrome, an iFR-guided revascularization strategy was noninferior to an FFR-guided revascularization strategy with respect to the rate of major adverse cardiac events at 12 months. (Funded by Philips Volcano; iFR SWEDEHEART ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02166736 .).

Thrombus aspiration during ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: The clinical effect of routine intracoronary thrombus aspiration before primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is uncertain. We aimed to evaluate whether thrombus aspiration reduces mortality. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, prospective, randomized, controlled, open-label clinical trial, with enrollment of patients from the national comprehensive Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry (SCAAR) and end points evaluated through national registries. A total of 7244 patients with STEMI undergoing PCI were randomly assigned to manual thrombus aspiration followed by PCI or to PCI only. The primary end point was all-cause mortality at 30 days. RESULTS: No patients were lost to follow-up. Death from any cause occurred in 2.8% of the patients in the thrombus-aspiration group (103 of 3621), as compared with 3.0% in the PCI-only group (110 of 3623) (hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72 to 1.22; P=0.63). The rates of hospitalization for recurrent myocardial infarction at 30 days were 0.5% and 0.9% in the two groups, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.34 to 1.07; P=0.09), and the rates of stent thrombosis were 0.2% and 0.5%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.20 to 1.02; P=0.06). There were no significant differences between the groups with respect to the rate of stroke or neurologic complications at the time of discharge (P=0.87). The results were consistent across all major prespecified subgroups, including subgroups defined according to thrombus burden and coronary flow before PCI. CONCLUSIONS: Routine thrombus aspiration before PCI as compared with PCI alone did not reduce 30-day mortality among patients with STEMI. (Funded by the Swedish Research Council and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01093404.).

Circumflex artery motion; a new angiographic method for assessment of left ventricular function.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the usefulness of circumflex artery motion (CAM) for assessment of left ventricular (LV) function. DESIGN: Seventy-three consecutive patients referred for coronary angiography and LV angiography were included. Ejection fraction (EF) was calculated from LV angiography and CAM was measured from coronary angiography. RESULTS: The ratio between CAM and the end-diastolic length of the ventricle, which can be denominated long-axis fractional shortening (FS(L)), was found to be a better index of LV function than CAM per se. There was a significant linear correlation between EF and FS(L) (r = 0.81, SEE = 8.2, p < 0.001). When values of FS(L) > or =10% were selected to define a normal EF (> or =50%) there was a sensitivity of 95% and a specificity of 93%. Visual estimation of EF from CAM was not as good as the use of calculated FS(L) but may me useful as a fast screening method. CONCLUSION: LV systolic function can be assessed by studying CAM recorded by coronary angiography.