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

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

Optical Coherence Tomography-Guided versus Angiography-Guided PCI.

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

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

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

Demystifying the Contemporary Role of 12-Month Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Acute Coronary Syndrome.

For almost two decades, 12-month dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) has been the only class I recommendation on DAPT in American and European guidelines, which has resulted in 12-month durations of DAPT therapy being the most frequently implemented in ACS patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) across the globe. Twelve-month DAPT was initially grounded in the results of the CURE (Clopidogrel in Unstable Angina to Prevent Recurrent Events) trial, which, by design, studied DAPT versus no DAPT rather than the optimal DAPT duration. The average DAPT duration in this study was 9 months, not 12 months. Subsequent ACS studies, which were not designed to assess DAPT duration, rather its composition (aspirin with prasugrel or ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel) were further interpreted as supportive evidence for 12-month DAPT duration. In these studies, the median DAPT duration was 9 or 15 months for ticagrelor and prasugrel, respectively. Several subsequent studies questioned the 12-month regimen and suggested that DAPT duration should either be fewer than 12 months in patients at high bleeding risk or more than 12 months in patients at high ischemic risk who can safely tolerate the treatment. Bleeding, rather than ischemic risk assessment, has emerged as a treatment modifier for maximizing the net clinical benefit of DAPT, due to excessive bleeding and no clear benefit of prolonged treatment regimens in high bleeding risk patients. Multiple DAPT de-escalation treatment strategies, including switching from prasugrel or ticagrelor to clopidogrel, reducing the dose of prasugrel or ticagrelor, and shortening DAPT duration while maintaining monotherapy with ticagrelor, have been consistently shown to reduce bleeding without increasing fatal or nonfatal cardiovascular or cerebral ischemic risks compared with 12-month DAPT. However, 12-month DAPT remains the only class-I DAPT recommendation for patients with ACS despite the lack of prospectively established evidence, leading to unnecessary and potentially harmful overtreatment in many patients. It is time for clinical practice and guideline recommendations to be updated to reflect the totality of the evidence regarding the optimal DAPT duration in ACS.

Interatrial Shunt Treatment for Heart Failure: The Randomized RELIEVE-HF Trial.

BACKGROUND: An interatrial shunt may provide an autoregulatory mechanism to decrease left atrial pressure and improve heart failure (HF) symptoms and prognosis. METHODS: Patients with symptomatic HF with any left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) were randomized 1:1 to transcatheter shunt implantation versus a placebo procedure, stratified by reduced (≤40%) versus preserved (>40%) LVEF. The primary safety outcome was a composite of device-related or procedure-related major adverse cardiovascular or neurological events at 30 days compared with a prespecified performance goal of 11%. The primary effectiveness outcome was the hierarchical composite ranking of all-cause death, cardiac transplantation or left ventricular assist device implantation, HF hospitalization, outpatient worsening HF events, and change in quality of life from baseline measured by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall summary score through maximum 2-year follow-up, assessed when the last enrolled patient reached 1-year follow-up, expressed as the win ratio. Prespecified hypothesis-generating analyses were performed on patients with reduced and preserved LVEF. RESULTS: Between October 24, 2018, and October 19, 2022, 508 patients were randomized at 94 sites in 11 countries to interatrial shunt treatment (n=250) or a placebo procedure (n=258). Median (25th and 75th percentiles) age was 73.0 years (66.0, 79.0), and 189 patients (37.2%) were women. Median LVEF was reduced (≤40%) in 206 patients (40.6%) and preserved (>40%) in 302 patients (59.4%). No primary safety events occurred after shunt implantation (upper 97.5% confidence limit, 1.5%; P<0.0001). There was no difference in the 2-year primary effectiveness outcome between the shunt and placebo procedure groups (win ratio, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.61-1.22]; P=0.20). However, patients with reduced LVEF had fewer adverse cardiovascular events with shunt treatment versus placebo (annualized rate 49.0% versus 88.6%; relative risk, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.42-0.73]; P<0.0001), whereas patients with preserved LVEF had more cardiovascular events with shunt treatment (annualized rate 60.2% versus 35.9%; relative risk, 1.68 [95% CI, 1.29-2.19]; P=0.0001; Pinteraction<0.0001). There were no between-group differences in change in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire overall summary score during follow-up in all patients or in those with reduced or preserved LVEF. CONCLUSIONS: Transcatheter interatrial shunt implantation was safe but did not improve outcomes in patients with HF. However, the results from a prespecified exploratory analysis in stratified randomized groups suggest that shunt implantation is beneficial in patients with reduced LVEF and harmful in patients with preserved LVEF. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03499236.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

De-escalation to ticagrelor monotherapy versus 12 months of dual antiplatelet therapy in patients with and without acute coronary syndromes: a systematic review and individual patient-level meta-analysis of randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) for 12 months is the standard of care after coronary stenting in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). The aim of this individual patient-level meta-analysis was to summarise the evidence comparing DAPT de-escalation to ticagrelor monotherapy versus continuing DAPT for 12 months after coronary drug-eluting stent implantation. METHODS: A systematic review and individual patient data (IPD)-level meta-analysis of randomised trials with centrally adjudicated endpoints was performed to evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of ticagrelor monotherapy (90 mg twice a day) after short-term DAPT (from 2 weeks to 3 months) versus 12-month DAPT in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with a coronary drug-eluting stent. Randomised trials comparing P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy with DAPT after coronary revascularisation were searched in Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and two websites (www.tctmd.com and www.escardio.org) from database inception up to May 20, 2024. Trials that included patients with an indication for long-term oral anticoagulants were excluded. The risk of bias was assessed using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. The principal investigators of the eligible trials provided IPD by means of an anonymised electronic dataset. The three ranked coprimary endpoints were major adverse cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events (MACCE; a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) tested for non-inferiority in the per-protocol population; and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 3 or 5 bleeding and all-cause death tested for superiority in the intention-to-treat population. All outcomes are reported as Kaplan-Meier estimates. The non-inferiority was tested using a one-sided α of 0·025 with the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 1·15 (hazard ratio [HR] scale), followed by the ranked superiority testing at a two-sided α of 0·05. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42024506083). FINDINGS: A total of 8361 unique citations were screened, of which 610 records were considered potentially eligible during the screening of titles and abstracts. Of these, six trials that randomly assigned patients to ticagrelor monotherapy or DAPT were identified. De-escalation took place a median of 78 days (IQR 31-92) after intervention, with a median duration of treatment of 334 days (329-365). Among 23 256 patients in the per-protocol population, MACCE occurred in 297 (Kaplan-Meier estimate 2·8%) with ticagrelor monotherapy and 332 (Kaplan-Meier estimate 3·2%) with DAPT (HR 0·91 [95% CI 0·78-1·07]; p=0·0039 for non-inferiority; τ2<0·0001). Among 24 407 patients in the intention-to-treat population, the risks of BARC 3 or 5 bleeding (Kaplan-Meier estimate 0·9% vs 2·1%; HR 0·43 [95% CI 0·34-0·54]; p<0·0001 for superiority; τ2=0·079) and all-cause death (Kaplan-Meier estimate 0·9% vs 1·2%; 0·76 [0·59-0·98]; p=0·034 for superiority; τ2<0·0001) were lower with ticagrelor monotherapy. Trial sequential analysis showed strong evidence of non-inferiority for MACCE and superiority for bleeding among the overall and ACS populations (the z-curve crossed the monitoring boundaries or the required information size without crossing the futility boundaries or approaching the null). The treatment effects were heterogeneous by sex for MACCE (p interaction=0·041) and all-cause death (p interaction=0·050), indicating a possible benefit in women with ticagrelor monotherapy, and by clinical presentation for bleeding (p interaction=0·022), indicating a benefit in ACS with ticagrelor monotherapy. INTERPRETATION: Our study found robust evidence that, compared with 12 months of DAPT, de-escalation to ticagrelor monotherapy does not increase ischaemic risk and reduces the risk of major bleeding, especially in patients with ACS. Ticagrelor monotherapy might also be associated with a mortality benefit, particularly among women, which warrants further investigation. FUNDING: Cardiocentro Ticino Institute, Ente Ospedaliero Cantonale.

The win ratio in cardiology trials: lessons learnt, new developments, and wise future use.

The win ratio method for analysing a composite clinical hierarchy of outcomes is growing in popularity especially in cardiovascular trials. This article gives a perspective on its use so far and the issues derived from that experience. Specifically, it focuses on the limitations of a conventional composite outcome; how does the win ratio work, what does it mean, and how to display its findings; guidance on choosing an appropriate clinical hierarchy of outcomes including clinical events, quantitative outcomes, and other options; the additional value of the win difference as a measure of absolute benefit: extension to stratified win ratio, subgroup analysis, matched win ratio, and covariate adjustment; determining trial size for a win ratio outcome; specific insights such as adaptive designs, use of repeat events, and use of margins and time averages for quantitative outcomes; a critique of potential misuses; availability of statistical software; and a statistical appendix on the methodological details. Throughout, each principle is illustrated by examples from specific cardiology trials. The article concludes with a set of recommendations for future use of the win ratio.

Optical coherence tomography predictors of clinical outcomes after stent implantation: the ILUMIEN IV trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Observational registries have suggested that optical coherence tomography (OCT) imaging-derived parameters may predict adverse events after drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation. The present analysis sought to determine the OCT predictors of clinical outcomes from the large-scale ILUMIEN IV trial. METHODS: ILUMIEN IV was a prospective, single-blind trial of 2487 patients with diabetes or high-risk lesions randomized to OCT-guided versus angiography-guided DES implantation. All patients underwent final OCT imaging (blinded in the angiography-guided arm). From more than 20 candidates, the independent OCT predictors of 2-year target lesion failure (TLF; the primary endpoint), cardiac death or target-vessel myocardial infarction (TV-MI), ischaemia-driven target lesion revascularization (ID-TLR), and stent thrombosis were analysed by multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression in single treated lesions. RESULTS: A total of 2128 patients had a single treated lesion with core laboratory-analysed final OCT. The 2-year Kaplan-Meier rates of TLF, cardiac death or TV-MI, ID-TLR, and stent thrombosis were 6.3% (n = 130), 3.3% (n = 68), 4.3% (n = 87), and 0.9% (n = 18), respectively. The independent predictors of 2-year TLF were a smaller minimal stent area (per 1 mm2 increase: hazard ratio 0.76, 95% confidence interval 0.68-0.89, P < .0001) and proximal edge dissection (hazard ratio 1.77, 95% confidence interval 1.20-2.62, P = .004). The independent predictors of cardiac death or TV-MI were smaller minimal stent area and longer stent length; of ID-TLR were smaller intra-stent flow area and proximal edge dissection; and of stent thrombosis was smaller minimal stent expansion. CONCLUSIONS: In the ILUMIEN IV trial, the most important OCT-derived post-DES predictors of both safety and effectiveness outcomes were parameters related to stent area, expansion and flow, proximal edge dissection, and stent length.

Atherosclerosis quantification and cardiovascular risk: the ISCHEMIA trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The aim of this study was to determine the prognostic value of coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA)-derived atherosclerotic plaque analysis in ISCHEMIA. METHODS: Atherosclerosis imaging quantitative computed tomography (AI-QCT) was performed on all available baseline CCTAs to quantify plaque volume, composition, and distribution. Multivariable Cox regression was used to examine the association between baseline risk factors (age, sex, smoking, diabetes, hypertension, ejection fraction, prior coronary disease, estimated glomerular filtration rate, and statin use), number of diseased vessels, atherosclerotic plaque characteristics determined by AI-QCT, and a composite primary outcome of cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction over a median follow-up of 3.3 (interquartile range 2.2-4.4) years. The predictive value of plaque quantification over risk factors was compared in an area under the curve (AUC) analysis. RESULTS: Analysable CCTA data were available from 3711 participants (mean age 64 years, 21% female, 79% multivessel coronary artery disease). Amongst the AI-QCT variables, total plaque volume was most strongly associated with the primary outcome (adjusted hazard ratio 1.56, 95% confidence interval 1.25-1.97 per interquartile range increase [559 mm3]; P = .001). The addition of AI-QCT plaque quantification and characterization to baseline risk factors improved the model's predictive value for the primary outcome at 6 months (AUC 0.688 vs. 0.637; P = .006), at 2 years (AUC 0.660 vs. 0.617; P = .003), and at 4 years of follow-up (AUC 0.654 vs. 0.608; P = .002). The findings were similar for the other reported outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In ISCHEMIA, total plaque volume was associated with cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction. In this highly diseased, high-risk population, enhanced assessment of atherosclerotic burden using AI-QCT-derived measures of plaque volume and composition modestly improved event prediction.

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

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

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

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

Survival After Invasive or Conservative Management of Stable Coronary Disease.

BACKGROUND: The ISCHEMIA trial (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches) compared an initial invasive versus an initial conservative management strategy for patients with chronic coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, with no major difference in most outcomes during a median of 3.2 years. Extended follow-up for mortality is ongoing. METHODS: ISCHEMIA participants were randomized to an initial invasive strategy added to guideline-directed medical therapy or a conservative strategy. Patients with moderate or severe ischemia, ejection fraction ≥35%, and no recent acute coronary syndromes were included. Those with an unacceptable level of angina were excluded. Extended follow-up for vital status is being conducted by sites or through central death index search. Data obtained through December 2021 are included in this interim report. We analyzed all-cause, cardiovascular, and noncardiovascular mortality by randomized strategy, using nonparametric cumulative incidence estimators, Cox regression models, and Bayesian methods. Undetermined deaths were classified as cardiovascular as prespecified in the trial protocol. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics for 5179 original ISCHEMIA trial participants included median age 65 years, 23% women, 16% Hispanic, 4% Black, 42% with diabetes, and median ejection fraction 0.60. A total of 557 deaths accrued during a median follow-up of 5.7 years, with 268 of these added in the extended follow-up phase. This included a total of 343 cardiovascular deaths, 192 noncardiovascular deaths, and 22 unclassified deaths. All-cause mortality was not different between randomized treatment groups (7-year rate, 12.7% in invasive strategy, 13.4% in conservative strategy; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.85-1.18]). There was a lower 7-year rate cardiovascular mortality (6.4% versus 8.6%; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.63-0.96]) with an initial invasive strategy but a higher 7-year rate of noncardiovascular mortality (5.6% versus 4.4%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.44 [95% CI, 1.08-1.91]) compared with the conservative strategy. No heterogeneity of treatment effect was evident in prespecified subgroups, including multivessel coronary disease. CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in all-cause mortality with an initial invasive strategy compared with an initial conservative strategy, but there was lower risk of cardiovascular mortality and higher risk of noncardiovascular mortality with an initial invasive strategy during a median follow-up of 5.7 years. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT04894877.

Bivalirudin versus heparin in patients with or without bail-out GPI use: a pre-specified subgroup analysis from the BRIGHT-4 trial.

BACKGROUND: Conflicting results comparing bivalirudin versus heparin anticoagulation in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), in part due to the confounding effect of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPI). The aim of the study was to compare the safety and effectiveness of bivalirudin plus a post-PCI high-dose infusion vs heparin with or without bail-out GPI use. METHODS: We conducted a pre-specified subgroup analysis from the BRIGHT-4 trial that randomized 6016 STEMI patients who underwent primary PCI to receive either bivalirudin plus a post-PCI high-dose infusion for 2-4 h or heparin monotherapy. GPI use was only reserved as bail-out therapy for procedural thrombotic complications. The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause death or Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) types 3-5 bleeding at 30 days. RESULTS: A total of 5250 (87.4%) patients received treatment without GPI while 758 (12.6%) received bail-out GPI. Bail-out GPI use was associated with an increased risk of the primary outcome compared to non-GPI use (5.28% vs. 3.41%; adjusted hazard ratio (aHR), 1.62; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.13-2.33; P = 0.009) and all-cause death (5.01% vs. 3.12%; aHR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.20-2.52; P = 0.004) but not in the risk of BARC types 3-5 bleeding (0.53% vs. 0.48%; aHR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.31-2.66; P = 0.85). Among patients without GPI use, bivalirudin was associated with lower rates of the primary outcome (2.63% vs. 4.21%; aHR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.39-0.77; P = 0.0005), all-cause death (2.52% vs. 3.74%; aHR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.41-0.83; P = 0.003), and BARC types 3-5 bleeding (0.15% vs. 0.81%; aHR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.06-0.57; P = 0.003) compared with heparin. However, among patients requiring bail-out GPI, there were no significant differences observed in the rates of the primary outcome (5.76% vs. 4.87%; aHR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.36-1.66; P = 0.50; Pinteraction = 0.07) or its individual components between bivalirudin and heparin groups. CONCLUSIONS: Bivalirudin plus a post-PCI high-dose infusion was associated with significantly reduced 30-day composite rate of all-cause death or BARC types 3-5 bleeding compared with heparin monotherapy in STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI without GPI use. However, these benefits might be less pronounced in patients requiring bail-out GPI due to thrombotic complications during primary PCI. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03822975.

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

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

Clinical Outcomes of Patients Experiencing Transient Loss of Pulse Pressure During High-Risk PCI with Impella.

BACKGROUND: Patients experiencing loss of pulse pressure (LOPP) during high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (HR-PCI) are transiently dependent on mechanical circulatory support devices. We sought to define the frequency and clinic outcomes of patients who experience LOPP during HR-PCI. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients enrolled in the PROTECT III study and had automated Impella controller logs capturing real-time hemodynamics were included in this analysis. A LOPP event was defined as a mean pulse pressure on Impella of <20 mm Hg for ≥5 seconds during PCI. Clinical characteristics and outcomes were then compared between those with and without LOPP. Logistic regression identified clinical and hemodynamic predictors of LOPP. We included 302 patients, of whom 148 patients (49%) experienced LOPP. Age, sex, and comorbidities were similar in patients with and without LOPP. Mean baseline systolic blood pressure (118.6 mm Hg vs 129.8 mm Hg; P < .001) and mean arterial pressure (86.9 mm Hg vs 91.6 mm Hg; P = .011) were lower in patients with LOPP, whereas heart rate (78 bpm vs 73 bpm; P = .012) was higher. Anatomical complexity was similar between groups. Patients with LOPP were more likely to experience major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (23.5% vs 8.8%; P = .002), acute kidney injury (10.1% vs 2.6%; P = .030), and death (20.2% vs 7.9%; P = .008) within 90 days. A low baseline systolic blood pressure and cardiomyopathy were the strongest predictors of LOPP (P = .003 and P = .001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: LOPP on Impella during HR-PCI was common and occurred more frequently in patients with cardiomyopathy and a low systolic blood pressure. LOPP was strongly associated with higher 90-day major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events, acute kidney injury, and mortality. Condensed Abstract We sought to define the frequency and clinic outcomes of patients who experience LOPP during high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (HR-PCI). We included 302 patients, of whom 148 (49%) experienced LOPP. Patients with LOPP were more likely to experience major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (23.5% vs 8.8%; P = .002), acute kidney injury (10.1% vs 2.6%; P = .030), and death (20.2% vs 7.9%; P = .008) within 90 days. A low baseline systolic blood pressure and cardiomyopathy were the strongest predictors of LOPP (P = .003 and P = .001, respectively).

Expanding revascularization trials to women and underserved minorities and shifting to patient-centered outcomes: RECHARGE trials program.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: We review the limited available evidence informing coronary revascularization decisions in women and minorities, and introduce the RECHARGE trial program, which consists of two separate but integrated parallel multicenter, randomized trials comparing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), one exclusively enrolling women (RECHARGE:Women) and one exclusively enrolling Black or Hispanic patients (RECHARGE:Minorities). RECENT FINDINGS: The extensive evidence base supporting coronary revascularization suffers from under-representation of women, minorities and minoritized populations, and the use of heterogeneous primary composite outcomes whose components have varying strengths of association with prognosis and quality-of-life (QOL). In RECHARGE, participants will be followed for up to 10 years, with QOL assessments at baseline, 30 days, 3 months, every 6 months for 3 years, and annually thereafter. The primary endpoint is the hierarchical composite of time to all-cause mortality, time-averaged change from baseline in the physical component of the SF-12v2 physical summary score, and time-averaged change from baseline in the mental component of the SF12v2 summary score, evaluated using a win ratio. Independently adjudicated major adverse cardiovascular and noncardiovascular events and disease-specific QoL will be secondary endpoints. SUMMARY: The RECHARGE trials are the first revascularization trials to enroll exclusively women and minority patients and to use patient-centered outcomes as their primary outcome.