Methylprednisolone in patients undergoing cardiopulmonary bypass (SIRS): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Cardiopulmonary bypass initiates a systemic inflammatory response syndrome that is associated with postoperative morbidity and mortality. Steroids suppress inflammatory responses and might improve outcomes in patients at high risk of morbidity and mortality undergoing cardiopulmonary bypass. We aimed to assess the effects of steroids in patients at high risk of morbidity and mortality undergoing cardiopulmonary bypass. METHODS: The Steroids In caRdiac Surgery (SIRS) study is a double-blind, randomised, controlled trial. We used a central computerised phone or interactive web system to randomly assign (1:1) patients at high risk of morbidity and mortality from 80 hospital or cardiac surgery centres in 18 countries undergoing cardiac surgery with the use of cardiopulmonary bypass to receive either methylprednisolone (250 mg at anaesthetic induction and 250 mg at initiation of cardiopulmonary bypass) or placebo. Patients were assigned with block randomisation with random block sizes of 2, 4, or 6 and stratified by centre. Patients aged 18 years or older were eligible if they had a European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation of at least 6. Patients were excluded if they were taking or expected to receive systemic steroids in the immediate postoperative period or had a history of bacterial or fungal infection in the preceding 30 days. Patients, caregivers, and those assessing outcomes were masked to allocation. The primary outcomes were 30-day mortality and a composite of death and major morbidity (ie, myocardial injury, stroke, renal failure, or respiratory failure) within 30 days, both analysed by intention to treat. Safety outcomes were also analysed by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00427388. FINDINGS: Patients were recruited between June 21, 2007, and Dec 19, 2013. Complete 30-day data was available for all 7507 patients randomly assigned to methylprednisolone (n=3755) and to placebo (n=3752). Methylprednisolone, compared with placebo, did not reduce the risk of death at 30 days (154 [4%] vs 177 [5%] patients; relative risk [RR] 0·87, 95% CI 0·70-1·07, p=0·19) or the risk of death or major morbidity (909 [24%] vs 885 [24%]; RR 1·03, 95% CI 0·95-1·11, p=0·52). The most common safety outcomes in the methylprednisolone and placebo group were infection (465 [12%] vs 493 [13%]), surgical site infection (151 [4%] vs 151 [4%]), and delirium (295 [8%] vs 289 [8%]). INTERPRETATION: Methylprednisolone did not have a significant effect on mortality or major morbidity after cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass. The SIRS trial does not support the routine use of methylprednisolone for patients undergoing cardiopulmonary bypass. FUNDING: Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

Extracranial Systemic Embolic Events in Patients With Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation: Incidence, Risk Factors, and Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Nonvalvular atrial fibrillation is a major cause of thromboembolic events. In comparison with atrial fibrillation-related stroke, extracranial systemic embolic events (SEEs) remain poorly defined. METHODS AND RESULTS: All suspected SEEs reported among 37 973 participants of 4 large contemporary randomized clinical trials of anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation were independently readjudicated for clinical and objective evidence of sudden loss of perfusion of a limb or organ. Over 91 746 patient-years of follow-up, 221 SEEs occurred in 219 subjects. The SEE incidence was 0.24 of 100 and stroke incidence was 1.92 of 100 patient-years. In comparison with patients with stroke, those with SEE were more often female (56% versus 47%; P=0.01) and had comparable mean age (73.1±8.5 versus 73.5±8.8 years; P=0.57) and mean CHADS2 scores (2.4±1.3 versus 2.5±1.2; P=0.33). SEEs more frequently involved the lower extremity (58%) than visceral-mesenteric (31%) or upper extremity (10%). SEE-related care involved clinic assessment alone in 5%, 30% were hospitalized without procedures, 60% underwent endovascular or surgical intervention, and 5% underwent amputation. Within 30 days, 54% of patients recovered fully, 20% survived with deficits, and 25% died. Thirty-day mortality was greater after visceral-mesenteric than lower- or upper-extremity SEE (55%, 17%, and 9%, respectively, P≤0.0001). The relative risk of death throughout follow-up was 4.33 (95% confidence interval, 3.29-5.70) after SEE versus 6.79 (95% confidence interval, 6.22-7.41) after stroke in comparison with patients without either event. CONCLUSIONS: SEE constituted 11.5% of clinically recognized thromboembolic events in patients with atrial fibrillation and was associated with high morbidity and mortality. SEE mortality was comparable to that of ischemic stroke and varied by anatomic site.

Cardioverter defibrillator implantation without induction of ventricular fibrillation: a single-blind, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial (SIMPLE).

BACKGROUND: Defibrillation testing by induction and termination of ventricular fibrillation is widely done at the time of implantation of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs). We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of ICD implantation without defibrillation testing versus the standard of ICD implantation with defibrillation testing. METHODS: In this single-blind, randomised, multicentre, non-inferiority trial (Shockless IMPLant Evaluation [SIMPLE]), we recruited patients aged older than 18 years receiving their first ICD for standard indications at 85 hospitals in 18 countries worldwide. Exclusion criteria included pregnancy, awaiting transplantation, particpation in another randomised trial, unavailability for follow-up, or if it was expected that the ICD would have to be implanted on the right-hand side of the chest. Patients undergoing initial implantation of a Boston Scientific ICD were randomly assigned (1:1) using a computer-generated sequence to have either defibrillation testing (testing group) or not (no-testing group). We used random block sizes to conceal treatment allocation from the patients, and randomisation was stratified by clinical centre. Our primary efficacy analysis tested the intention-to-treat population for non-inferiority of no-testing versus testing by use of a composite outcome of arrhythmic death or failed appropriate shock (ie, a shock that did not terminate a spontaneous episode of ventricular tachycardia or fibrillation). The non-inferiority margin was a hazard ratio (HR) of 1·5 calculated from a proportional hazards model with no-testing versus testing as the only covariate; if the upper bound of the 95% CI was less than 1·5, we concluded that ICD insertion without testing was non-inferior to ICD with testing. We examined safety with two, 30 day, adverse event outcome clusters. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00800384. FINDINGS: Between Jan 13, 2009, and April 4, 2011, of 2500 eligible patients, 1253 were randomly assigned to defibrillation testing and 1247 to no-testing, and followed up for a mean of 3·1 years (SD 1·0). The primary outcome of arrhythmic death or failed appropriate shock occurred in fewer patients (90 [7% per year]) in the no-testing group than patients who did receive it (104 [8% per year]; HR 0·86, 95% CI 0·65-1·14; pnon-inferiority <0·0001). The first safety composite outcome occurred in 69 (5·6%) of 1236 patients with no-testing and in 81 (6·5%) of 1242 patients with defibrillation testing, p=0·33. The second, pre-specified safety composite outcome, which included only events most likely to be directly caused by testing, occurred in 3·2% of patients with no-testing and in 4·5% with defibrillation testing, p=0·08. Heart failure needing intravenous treatment with inotropes or diuretics was the most common adverse event (in 20 [2%] of 1236 patients in the no-testing group vs 28 [2%] of 1242 patients in the testing group, p=0·25). INTERPRETATION: Routine defibrillation testing at the time of ICD implantation is generally well tolerated, but does not improve shock efficacy or reduce arrhythmic death. FUNDING: Boston Scientific and the Heart and Stroke Foundation (Ontario Provincial office).

Methylprednisolone in patients undergoing cardiopulmonary bypass (SIRS): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND:Cardiopulmonary bypass initiates a systemic inflammatory response syndrome that is associated with postoperative morbidity and mortality. Steroids suppress inflammatory responses and might improve outcomes in patients at high risk of morbidity and mortality undergoing cardiopulmonary bypass. We aimed to assess the effects of steroids in patients at high risk of morbidity and mortality undergoing cardiopulmonary bypass.METHODS:The Steroids In caRdiac Surgery (SIRS) study is a double-blind, randomised, controlled trial. We used a central computerised phone or interactive web system to randomly assign (1:1) patients at high risk of morbidity and mortality from 80 hospital or cardiac surgery centres in 18 countries undergoing cardiac surgery with the use of cardiopulmonary bypass to receive either methylprednisolone (250 mg at anaesthetic induction and 250 mg at initiation of cardiopulmonary bypass) or placebo. Patients were assigned with block randomisation with random block sizes of 2, 4, or 6 and stratified by centre. Patients aged 18 years or older were eligible if they had a European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation of at least 6. Patients were excluded if they were taking or expected to receive systemic steroids in the immediate postoperative period or had a history of bacterial or fungal infection in the preceding 30 days. Patients, caregivers, and those assessing outcomes were masked to allocation. The primary outcomes were 30-day mortality and a composite of death and major morbidity (ie, myocardial injury, stroke, renal failure, or respiratory failure) within 30 days, both analysed by intention to treat. Safety outcomes were also analysed by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00427388...

Clonidine in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery.

BACKGROUND: Marked activation of the sympathetic nervous system occurs during and after noncardiac surgery. Low-dose clonidine, which blunts central sympathetic outflow, may prevent perioperative myocardial infarction and death without inducing hemodynamic instability. METHODS: We performed a blinded, randomized trial with a 2-by-2 factorial design to allow separate evaluation of low-dose clonidine versus placebo and low-dose aspirin versus placebo in patients with, or at risk for, atherosclerotic disease who were undergoing noncardiac surgery. A total of 10,010 patients at 135 centers in 23 countries were enrolled. For the comparison of clonidine with placebo, patients were randomly assigned to receive clonidine (0.2 mg per day) or placebo just before surgery, with the study drug continued until 72 hours after surgery. The primary outcome was a composite of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction at 30 days. RESULTS: Clonidine, as compared with placebo, did not reduce the number of primary-outcome events (367 and 339, respectively; hazard ratio with clonidine, 1.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93 to 1.26; P=0.29). Myocardial infarction occurred in 329 patients (6.6%) assigned to clonidine and in 295 patients (5.9%) assigned to placebo (hazard ratio, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.30; P=0.18). Significantly more patients in the clonidine group than in the placebo group had clinically important hypotension (2385 patients [47.6%] vs. 1854 patients [37.1%]; hazard ratio 1.32; 95% CI, 1.24 to 1.40; P<0.001). Clonidine, as compared with placebo, was associated with an increased rate of nonfatal cardiac arrest (0.3% [16 patients] vs. 0.1% [5 patients]; hazard ratio, 3.20; 95% CI, 1.17 to 8.73; P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Administration of low-dose clonidine in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery did not reduce the rate of the composite outcome of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction; it did, however, increase the risk of clinically important hypotension and nonfatal cardiac arrest. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; POISE-2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01082874.).

Aspirin in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery.

BACKGROUND: There is substantial variability in the perioperative administration of aspirin in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery, both among patients who are already on an aspirin regimen and among those who are not. METHODS: Using a 2-by-2 factorial trial design, we randomly assigned 10,010 patients who were preparing to undergo noncardiac surgery and were at risk for vascular complications to receive aspirin or placebo and clonidine or placebo. The results of the aspirin trial are reported here. The patients were stratified according to whether they had not been taking aspirin before the study (initiation stratum, with 5628 patients) or they were already on an aspirin regimen (continuation stratum, with 4382 patients). Patients started taking aspirin (at a dose of 200 mg) or placebo just before surgery and continued it daily (at a dose of 100 mg) for 30 days in the initiation stratum and for 7 days in the continuation stratum, after which patients resumed their regular aspirin regimen. The primary outcome was a composite of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction at 30 days. RESULTS: The primary outcome occurred in 351 of 4998 patients (7.0%) in the aspirin group and in 355 of 5012 patients (7.1%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio in the aspirin group, 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.86 to 1.15; P=0.92). Major bleeding was more common in the aspirin group than in the placebo group (230 patients [4.6%] vs. 188 patients [3.8%]; hazard ratio, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.01, to 1.49; P=0.04). The primary and secondary outcome results were similar in the two aspirin strata. CONCLUSIONS: Administration of aspirin before surgery and throughout the early postsurgical period had no significant effect on the rate of a composite of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction but increased the risk of major bleeding. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; POISE-2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01082874.).

Effects of off-pump and on-pump coronary-artery bypass grafting at 1 year.

BACKGROUND: Previously, we reported that there was no significant difference at 30 days in the rate of a primary composite outcome of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or new renal failure requiring dialysis between patients who underwent coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG) performed with a beating-heart technique (off-pump) and those who underwent CABG performed with cardiopulmonary bypass (on-pump). We now report results on quality of life and cognitive function and on clinical outcomes at 1 year. METHODS: We enrolled 4752 patients with coronary artery disease who were scheduled to undergo CABG and randomly assigned them to undergo the procedure off-pump or on-pump. Patients were enrolled at 79 centers in 19 countries. We assessed quality of life and cognitive function at discharge, at 30 days, and at 1 year and clinical outcomes at 1 year. RESULTS: At 1 year, there was no significant difference in the rate of the primary composite outcome between off-pump and on-pump CABG (12.1% and 13.3%, respectively; hazard ratio with off-pump CABG, 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.77 to 1.07; P=0.24). The rate of the primary outcome was also similar in the two groups in the period between 31 days and 1 year (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.55 to 1.13; P=0.19). The rate of repeat coronary revascularization at 1 year was 1.4% in the off-pump group and 0.8% in the on-pump group (hazard ratio, 1.66; 95% CI, 0.95 to 2.89; P=0.07). There were no significant differences between the two groups at 1 year in measures of quality of life or neurocognitive function. CONCLUSIONS: At 1 year after CABG, there was no significant difference between off-pump and on-pump CABG with respect to the primary composite outcome, the rate of repeat coronary revascularization, quality of life, or neurocognitive function. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research; CORONARY ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00463294.).

Off-pump or on-pump coronary-artery bypass grafting at 30 days.

BACKGROUND: The relative benefits and risks of performing coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG) with a beating-heart technique (off-pump CABG), as compared with cardiopulmonary bypass (on-pump CABG), are not clearly established. METHODS: At 79 centers in 19 countries, we randomly assigned 4752 patients in whom CABG was planned to undergo the procedure off-pump or on-pump. The first coprimary outcome was a composite of death, nonfatal stroke, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or new renal failure requiring dialysis at 30 days after randomization. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the rate of the primary composite outcome between off-pump and on-pump CABG (9.8% vs. 10.3%; hazard ratio for the off-pump group, 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79 to 1.14; P=0.59) or in any of its individual components. The use of off-pump CABG, as compared with on-pump CABG, significantly reduced the rates of blood-product transfusion (50.7% vs. 63.3%; relative risk, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.75 to 0.85; P<0.001), reoperation for perioperative bleeding (1.4% vs. 2.4%; relative risk, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.93; P=0.02), acute kidney injury (28.0% vs. 32.1%; relative risk, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.80 to 0.96; P=0.01), and respiratory complications (5.9% vs. 7.5%; relative risk, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.63 to 0.98; P=0.03) but increased the rate of early repeat revascularizations (0.7% vs. 0.2%; hazard ratio, 4.01; 95% CI, 1.34 to 12.0; P=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference between off-pump and on-pump CABG with respect to the 30-day rate of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or renal failure requiring dialysis. The use of off-pump CABG resulted in reduced rates of transfusion, reoperation for perioperative bleeding, respiratory complications, and acute kidney injury but also resulted in an increased risk of early revascularization. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research; CORONARY ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00463294.).

The cost of clopidogrel use in atrial fibrillation in the ACTIVE-A trial.

BACKGROUND: The Atrial Fibrillation Clopidogrel Trial With Irbesartan for Prevention of Vascular Events-Aspirin (ACTIVE-A) demonstrated that in patients with atrial fibrillation unsuitable for vitamin K antagonist (VKA) therapy, a combination of clopidogrel and aspirin reduced stroke risk by 28% but increased major hemorrhage risk by 57%. This analysis examined cost implications of adding clopidogrel to aspirin (C+A) for ACTIVE-A patients. METHODS: Health care use was extracted for each patient. We considered only direct costs and included only hospitalization events. We used Canadian unit costs for the health care resources consumed and Canadian list price of brand clopidogrel. Costs, in 2008 Canadian dollars, were discounted at 3% per year. RESULTS: C+A reduced costs of health care use components except for the study medication. Stroke prevention resulted in important cost savings that offset the cost of clopidogrel. Total costs per patient for C+A were $14,132 (95% confidence interval [CI], $13,445-$14,842), compared with $13,756 (95% CI, $13,032-$14,544) for aspirin alone, resulting in incremental cost of $376 (95% CI, -$645 to $1397) for C+A, confirmed through bootstrap simulation. Estimates were sensitive to the price of clopidogrel, varying from cost savings to a significant increase. CONCLUSION: C+A in patients unsuitable for VKA therapy is cost neutral (following our predefined conditions) as cost of clopidogrel is offset by prevention of costly strokes. These findings support the use of C+A in ACTIVE-A patients for whom VKA therapy is unsuitable.

Early invasive compared with a selective invasive strategy in women with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes: a substudy of the OASIS 5 trial and a meta-analysis of previous randomized trials.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to compare benefits and risks of a routine invasive compared with a selective invasive strategy in women with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes. METHODS AND RESULTS: We randomly assigned 184 women, either to a routine or to a selective invasive strategy as a substudy to the OASIS 5 trial, who were followed for 2 years. Meta-analysis of data from previous randomized trials was also done. There were no significant differences between the two treatment strategies in the primary outcome death/myocardial infarction (MI)/stroke [21.0 vs. 15.4%, HR = 1.46, 95% CI (0.73-2.94)], in the secondary outcome death/MI [18.8 vs. 14.3%, HR = 1.39, 95% CI (0.67-2.88)], or separately analysed outcomes MI [12.9 vs. 13.3%, HR = 0.95, 95% CI (0.42-2.19)] or stroke [2.3 vs. 4.4%, HR = 0.67, 95% CI (0.12-3.70)]. However, there were significantly more deaths after 1 year (8.8 vs. 1.1%, HR = 9.01, 95% CI (1.11-72.90) and a higher rate of major bleeding at 30 days [8.8 vs. 1.1%, HR = 11.45, 95% CI (1.43-91.96)] in the routine invasive strategy group. A meta-analysis including 2692 women in previous randomized trials, with a gender perspective, showed no significant difference in the composite outcome death/MI, OR = 1.18, 95% CI (0.92-1.53) but a higher mortality with a routine invasive strategy for women, OR = 1.51, 95% CI (1.00-2.29). CONCLUSION: The rate of death, MI, or stroke in women was not different in patients treated with a routine invasive strategy compared with a selective invasive strategy, but there was a concerning trend towards higher mortality. When combined with data from previous trials, there does not appear to be a benefit of an early invasive strategy in women with ACS, which differs from the results in men. These data emphasize the lack of clear evidence in favour of an invasive strategy in women and suggest caution in extrapolating the results from men to women.

Rationale and design of the coronary artery bypass grafting surgery off or on pump revascularization study: a large international randomized trial in cardiac surgery.

BACKGROUND: Uncertainty remains regarding the benefits and risks of the technique of operating on a beating heart (off pump) for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery versus on-pump CABG. Prior trials had few events and relatively short follow-up. There is a need for a large randomized, controlled trial with long-term follow-up to inform both the short- and long-term impact of the 2 approaches to CABG. METHODS: We plan to randomize 4,700 patients in whom CABG is planned to undergo the procedure on pump or off pump. The coprimary outcomes are a composite of total mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and renal failure at 30 days and a composite of total mortality, MI, stroke, renal failure, and repeat revascularization at 5 years. We will also undertake a cost-effectiveness analysis at 30 days and 5 years after CABG surgery. Other outcomes include neurocognitive dysfunction, recurrence of angina, cardiovascular mortality, blood transfusions, and quality of life. RESULTS: As of May 3, 2011, CORONARY has recruited >3,884 patients from 79 centers in 19 countries. Currently, patient's mean age is 67.6 years, 80.7% are men, 47.0% have a history of diabetes, 51.4% have a history of smoking, and 34.4% had a previous MI. In addition, 20.9% of patients have a left main disease, and 96.6% have double or triple vessel disease. CONCLUSIONS: CORONARY is the largest trial yet conducted comparing off-pump CABG to on-pump CABG. Its results will lead to a better understanding of the safety and efficacy of off-pump CABG.

Off-pump or on-pump coronary-arterybypass grafting at 30 days

BackgroundThe relative benefits and risks of performing coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG) with a beating-heart technique (off-pump CABG), as compared with cardiopulmonarybypass (on-pump CABG), are not clearly established.MethodsAt 79 centers in 19 countries, we randomly assigned 4752 patients in whom CABG was planned to undergo the procedure off-pump or on-pump. The first coprimary outcome was a composite of death, nonfatal stroke, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or new renal failure requiring dialysis at 30 days after randomization.ResultsThere was no significant difference in the rate of the primary composite outcomebetween off-pump and on-pump CABG (9.8% vs. 10.3%; hazard ratio for the offpump group, 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79 to 1.14; P = 0.59) or in any of its individual components. The use of off-pump CABG, as compared with on-pump CABG, significantly reduced the rates of blood-product transfusion (50.7% vs. 63.3%; relative risk, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.75 to 0.85; P<0.001), reoperation for perioperative bleeding(1.4% vs. 2.4%; relative risk, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.93; P = 0.02), acute kidney injury (28.0% vs. 32.1%; relative risk, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.80 to 0.96; P = 0.01), and respiratorycomplications (5.9% vs. 7.5%; relative risk, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.63 to 0.98; P = 0.03) but increased the rate of early repeat revascularizations (0.7% vs. 0.2%; hazard ratio, 4.01; 95% CI, 1.34 to 12.0; P = 0.01).ConclusionsThere was no significant difference between off-pump and on-pump CABG with respect to the 30-day rate of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or renal failure requiring dialysis. The use of off-pump CABG resulted in reduced rates of transfusion, reoperation for erioperative bleeding, respiratory complications, and acute kidney injury but also resulted in an increased risk of early revascularization. (Funded by theCanadian Institutes of Health Research; CORONARY ClinicalTrials.gov number,NCT00463294.)

Rationale and design of the coronary artery bypass grafting surgery off or on pump revascularization study: a large international randomized trial in cardiac surgery

Background Uncertainty remains regarding the benefits and risks of the technique of operating on a beating heart(off pump) for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery versus on-pump CABG. Prior trials had few events and relativelyshort follow-up. There is a need for a large randomized, controlled trial with long-term follow-up to inform both the short- andlong-term impact of the 2 approaches to CABG.Methods We plan to randomize 4,700 patients in whom CABG is planned to undergo the procedure on pump or offpump. The coprimary outcomes are a composite of total mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and renal failure at30 days and a composite of total mortality, MI, stroke, renal failure, and repeat revascularization at 5 years. We will alsoundertake a cost-effectiveness analysis at 30 days and 5 years after CABG surgery. Other outcomes include neurocognitivedysfunction, recurrence of angina, cardiovascular mortality, blood transfusions, and quality of life.Results As of May 3, 2011, CORONARY has recruited N3,884 patients from 79 centers in 19 countries. Currently,patient's mean age is 67.6 years, 80.7% are men, 47.0% have a history of diabetes, 51.4% have a history of smoking, and34.4% had a previous MI. In addition, 20.9% of patients have a left main disease, and 96.6% have double or triplevessel disease.Conclusions CORONARY is the largest trial yet conducted comparing off-pump CABG to on-pump CABG. Its resultswill lead to a better understanding of the safety and efficacy of off-pump CABG. (Am Heart J 2012;163:1-6.)

Radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography and intervention in patients with acute coronary syndromes (RIVAL): a randomised, parallel group, multicentre trial.

BACKGROUND: Small trials have suggested that radial access for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) reduces vascular complications and bleeding compared with femoral access. We aimed to assess whether radial access was superior to femoral access in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) who were undergoing coronary angiography with possible intervention. METHODS: The RadIal Vs femorAL access for coronary intervention (RIVAL) trial was a randomised, parallel group, multicentre trial. Patients with ACS were randomly assigned (1:1) by a 24 h computerised central automated voice response system to radial or femoral artery access. The primary outcome was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or non-coronary artery bypass graft (non-CABG)-related major bleeding at 30 days. Key secondary outcomes were death, myocardial infarction, or stroke; and non-CABG-related major bleeding at 30 days. A masked central committee adjudicated the primary outcome, components of the primary outcome, and stent thrombosis. All other outcomes were as reported by the investigators. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment allocation. Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01014273. FINDINGS: Between June 6, 2006, and Nov 3, 2010, 7021 patients were enrolled from 158 hospitals in 32 countries. 3507 patients were randomly assigned to radial access and 3514 to femoral access. The primary outcome occurred in 128 (3·7%) of 3507 patients in the radial access group compared with 139 (4·0%) of 3514 in the femoral access group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·92, 95% CI 0·72-1·17; p=0·50). Of the six prespecified subgroups, there was a significant interaction for the primary outcome with benefit for radial access in highest tertile volume radial centres (HR 0·49, 95% CI 0·28-0·87; p=0·015) and in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (0·60, 0·38-0·94; p=0·026). The rate of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 30 days was 112 (3·2%) of 3507 patients in the radial group compared with 114 (3·2%) of 3514 in the femoral group (HR 0·98, 95% CI 0·76-1·28; p=0·90). The rate of non-CABG-related major bleeding at 30 days was 24 (0·7%) of 3507 patients in the radial group compared with 33 (0·9%) of 3514 patients in the femoral group (HR 0·73, 95% CI 0·43-1·23; p=0·23). At 30 days, 42 of 3507 patients in the radial group had large haematoma compared with 106 of 3514 in the femoral group (HR 0·40, 95% CI 0·28-0·57; p<0·0001). Pseudoaneurysm needing closure occurred in seven of 3507 patients in the radial group compared with 23 of 3514 in the femoral group (HR 0·30, 95% CI 0·13-0·71; p=0·006). INTERPRETATION: Radial and femoral approaches are both safe and effective for PCI. However, the lower rate of local vascular complications may be a reason to use the radial approach. FUNDING: Sanofi-Aventis, Population Health Research Institute, and Canadian Network for Trials Internationally (CANNeCTIN), an initiative of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

Irbesartan in patients with atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: The risk of cardiovascular events among patients with atrial fibrillation is high. We evaluated whether irbesartan, an angiotensin-receptor blocker, would reduce this risk. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with a history of risk factors for stroke and a systolic blood pressure of at least 110 mm Hg to receive either irbesartan at a target dose of 300 mg once daily or double-blind placebo. These patients were already enrolled in one of two trials (of clopidogrel plus aspirin versus aspirin alone or versus oral anticoagulants). The first coprimary outcome was stroke, myocardial infarction, or death from vascular causes; the second was this composite outcome plus hospitalization for heart failure. RESULTS: A total of 9016 patients were enrolled and followed for a mean of 4.1 years. The mean reduction in systolic blood pressure was 2.9 mm Hg greater in the irbesartan group than in the placebo group, and the mean reduction in diastolic blood pressure was 1.9 mm Hg greater. The first coprimary outcome occurred at a rate of 5.4% per 100 person-years in both groups (hazard ratio with irbesartan, 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91 to 1.08; P=0.85). The second coprimary outcome occurred at a rate of 7.3% per 100 person-years among patients receiving irbesartan and 7.7% per 100 person-years among patients receiving placebo (hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.87 to 1.02; P=0.12). The rates of first hospitalization for heart failure (a prespecified secondary outcome) were 2.7% per 100 person-years among patients receiving irbesartan and 3.2% per 100 person-years among patients receiving placebo (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.76 to 0.98). Among patients who were in sinus rhythm at baseline, there was no benefit of irbesartan in preventing hospitalization for atrial fibrillation or atrial fibrillation recorded on 12-lead electrocardiography, nor was there a benefit in a subgroup that underwent transtelephonic monitoring. More patients in the irbesartan group than in the placebo group had symptomatic hypotension (127 vs. 64) and renal dysfunction (43 vs. 24). CONCLUSIONS: Irbesartan did not reduce cardiovascular events in patients with atrial fibrillation. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Sanofi-Aventis; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00249795.).

Design and rationale of the radial versus femoral access for coronary intervention (RIVAL) trial: a randomized comparison of radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography or intervention in patients with acute coronary syndromes.

BACKGROUND: Major bleeding in acute coronary syndromes (ACS) is associated with an increased risk of subsequent mortality and recurrent ischemic events. Observational data and small randomized trials suggest that radial instead of femoral access for coronary angiography/intervention results in fewer bleeding complications, with preserved and possibly improved efficacy. Radial access versus femoral access has yet to be formally evaluated in a randomized trial adequately powered for the comparison of clinically important outcomes. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography/intervention in patients with ACS managed with an invasive strategy. DESIGN: This was a multicenter international randomized trial with blinded assessment of outcomes. 7021 patients with ACS (with or without ST elevation) have been randomized to either radial or femoral access for coronary angiography/intervention. The primary outcome is the composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or non-coronary artery bypass graft-related major bleeding up to day 30. The key secondary outcomes are (1) death, myocardial infarction, or stroke up to day 30 and (2) non-coronary artery bypass graft-related major bleeding up to day 30. Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) success rates will also be compared between the two access sites. CONCLUSIONS: The RIVAL trial will help define the optimal access site for coronary angiography/intervention in patients with ACS.

Radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography and intervention in patients with acute coronary syndromes (RIVAL): a randomised, parallel group, multicentre trial

Background Small trials have suggested that radial access for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) reducesvascular complications and bleeding compared with femoral access. We aimed to assess whether radial access was superior to femoral access in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) who were undergoing coronaryangiography with possible intervention.Methods The RadIal Vs femorAL access for coronary intervention (RIVAL) trial was a randomised, parallel group,multicentre trial. Patients with ACS were randomly assigned (1:1) by a 24 h computerised central automated voiceresponse system to radial or femoral artery access. The primary outcome was a composite of death, myocardialinfarction, stroke, or non-coronary artery bypass graft (non-CABG)-related major bleeding at 30 days. Key secondary outcomes were death, myocardial infarction, or stroke; and non-CABG-related major bleeding at 30 days. A masked central committee adjudicated the primary outcome, components of the primary outcome, and stent thrombosis. All other outcomes were as reported by the investigators. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment allocation. Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01014273. Findings Between June 6, 2006, and Nov 3, 2010, 7021 patients were enrolled from 158 hospitals in 32 countries.3507 patients were randomly assigned to radial access and 3514 to femoral access. The primary outcome occurred in128 (3·7%) of 3507 patients in the radial access group compared with 139 (4·0%) of 3514 in the femoral access group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·92, 95% CI 0·72–1·17; p=0·50). Of the six prespecifi ed subgroups, there was a signifi cant interaction for the primary outcome with benefi t for radial access in highest tertile volume radial centres (HR 0·49, 95% CI 0·28–0·87; p=0·015)...

Design and rationale of the radIal Vs. femorAL access for coronary intervention (RIVAL) trial: A randomized comparison of radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography or intervention in patients with acute coronary syndromes

Background Major bleeding in acute coronary syndromes (ACS) is associated with an increased risk of subsequentmortality and recurrent ischemic events. Observational data and small randomized trials suggest that radial instead of femoralaccess for coronary angiography/intervention results in fewer bleeding complications, with preserved and possibly improvedefficacy. Radial access versus femoral access has yet to be formally evaluated in a randomized trial adequately powered forthe comparison of clinically important outcomes.Objectives The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of radial versus femoral access for coronaryangiography/intervention in patients with ACS managed with an invasive strategy.Design This was a multicenter international randomized trial with blinded assessment of outcomes. 7021 patients withACS (with or without ST elevation) have been randomized to either radial or femoral access for coronary angiography/intervention. The primary outcome is the composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or non–coronary artery bypassgraft-related major bleeding up to day 30. The key secondary outcomes are (1) death, myocardial infarction, or stroke up today 30 and (2) non–coronary artery bypass graft-related major bleeding up to day 30. Percutaneous coronary intervention(PCI) success rates will also be compared between the two access sites.Conclusions The RIVAL trial will help define the optimal access site for coronary angiography/intervention in patientswith ACS.

Efficacy and safety of fondaparinux in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction across the age spectrum. Results from the Organization for the Assessment of Strategies for Ischemic Syndromes 6 (OASIS-6) trial.

AIMS: The OASIS-6 trial demonstrated the benefit of fondaparinux in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) not undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Elderly compared to younger patients are at higher risk of bleeding and could have a different balance of benefits and risks when treated with antithrombotic therapy. METHODS AND RESULTS: We explored the efficacy and safety of fondaparinux compared to control according to age tertiles in 12,092 patients with STEMI in the OASIS-6 trial. Death or myocardial infarction rates were reduced by fondaparinux in tertile I (age<56 years, 4.5% vs 4.8%, hazard ratio [HR] 0.94, 95% CI 0.71-1.25), in tertile II (age 56-68 years, 7.9% vs 9.7%, HR 0.80, 0.65-0.98), and in tertile III (age≥69 years, 17.2% vs 19.8%, HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.75-1.01, P for heterogeneity=0.87). Severe hemorrhage rates were reduced in tertile I (0.5% vs 0.6%, HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.41-2.12), in tertile II (0.9% vs 1.5%, HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.35-1.11), and in tertile III (2.1% vs 2.4%, HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.56-1.33, P for heterogeneity=0.86). Death, myocardial infarction, or severe hemorrhage rates were reduced in tertile I (4.8% vs 5.0%, HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.72-1.25), in tertile II (8.1% vs 10.1%, HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.65-0.97), and in tertile III (17.6% vs 20.4%, HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.74-1.00, P for heterogeneity=0.77). CONCLUSION: The balance of benefits and risks of fondaparinux is consistent across age tertiles, supporting its use across the age spectrum of patients with STEMI who do not undergo primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

Fondaparinux with UnfracTionated heparin dUring Revascularization in Acute coronary syndromes (FUTURA/OASIS 8): a randomized trial of intravenous unfractionated heparin during percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes initially treated with fondaparinux.

BACKGROUND: There is uncertainty regarding the optimal adjunctive unfractionated heparin (UFH) regimen for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) treated with fondaparinux. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to evaluate the safety of 2 dose regimens of adjunctive intravenous UFH during PCI in high-risk patients with NSTE-ACS initially treated with fondaparinux and referred for early coronary angiography. DESIGN: This is an international prospective cohort study of approximately 4,000 high-risk patients presenting to hospital with unstable angina or non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, treated with fondaparinux as initial medical therapy, and referred for early coronary angiography with a view to revascularization. Within this cohort, 2,000 patients undergoing PCI will be eligible for enrollment into a double-blind international randomized parallel-group trial evaluating standard activated clotting time (ACT)-guided doses of intravenous UFH versus a non-ACT-guided weight-adjusted low dose. The standard regimen uses an 85-U/kg bolus of UFH if there is no platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa (GpIIb-IIIa) inhibitor or 60 U/kg if GpIIb-IIIa inhibitor use is planned, with additional bolus guided by blinded ACT measurements. The low-dose regimen uses a 50 U/kg UFH bolus, irrespective of planned GpIIb-IIIa use. The primary outcome is the composite of peri-PCI major bleeding, minor bleeding, or major vascular access site complications. The assessment of net clinical benefit is a key secondary outcome: it addresses the composite of peri-PCI major bleeding with death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization at day 30. CONCLUSION: FUTURA/OASIS 8 will help define the optimal UFH regimen as adjunct to PCI in high-risk NSTE-ACS patients treated with fondaparinux.