Coronary Artery Surgery Study (CASS): Comparability of 10 year survival in randomized and randomizable patients

AbstractThe Coronary Artery Surgery Study (CASS) includes 780 patients with mild or moderate stable angina pectoris or asymptomatic survivors of a myocardial infarction who were randomized to either medical or surgical therapy and 1,319 patients who were eligible for randomization but were not randomized (randomizable patients). There were no substantial aggregate differences observed in any of the survival comparisons after 10 years of follow-up study between the randomized and randomizable patients assigned to the medical (79% versus 80%) or surgical (82% versus 81%) groups or in patient subgroups stratified according to coronary artery disease extent and left ventricular ejection fraction.Cox regression analyses were done with independent variables known to be predictors of survival, including surgical versus medical therapy and randomized versus randomizable group, to test the null hypothesis of a mortality difference between medical versus surgical assignment according to group assignment (randomized versus randomizable). In no case did the initial group category enter as a significant predictor of survival. The results in the randomizable group reinforce those in the randomized group with respect to the medical versus surgical comparison.Two subgroups are identified with a significant surgical advantage: 1) patients with proximal left anterior descending coronary artery stenosis ≥70% and an ejection fraction < 0.50, and 2) patients with three vessel coronary artery disease and an ejection fraction < 0.50. In both groups, coronary bypass surgery had a statistically significant beneficial effect on survival (p < 0.05).After a decade of follow-up, the CASS randomizable patients confirm conclusions reached on the basis of the CASS randomized trial

Effects of dalcetrapib in patients with a recent acute coronary syndrome

In observational analyses, higher levels of high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol have been associated with a lower risk of coronary heart disease events. However, whether raising HDL cholesterol levels therapeutically reduces cardiovascular risk remains uncertain. Inhibition of cholesteryl ester transfer protein (CETP) raises HDL cholesterol levels and might therefore improve cardiovascular outcomes

Asymptomatic cardiac ischemia pilot (ACIP) study: Effects of coronary angioplasty and coronary artery bypass graft surgery on recurrent angina and ischemia

ObjectivesThe Asymptomatic Cardiac Ischemia Pilot (ACIP) study showed that revascularization is more effective than medical therapy in suppressing cardiac ischemia at 12 weeks. This report compares the relative efficacy of coronary angioplasty or coronary artery bypass graft surgery in suppressing ambulatory electrocardiographic (ECG) and treadmill exercise cardiac ischemia between 2 and 3 months after revascularization in the ACIP study.BackgroundPrevious studies have shown that coronary angioplasty and bypass surgery relieve angina early after the procedure in a high proportion of selected patients. However, alleviation of ischemia on the ambulatory ECG and treadmill exercise test have not been adequately studied prospectively after revascularization.MethodsIn patients randomly assigned to revascularization in the ACIP study, the choice of coronary angioplasty or bypass surgery was made by the clinical unit staff and the patient.ResultsPatients assigned to bypass surgery (n = 78) had more severe coronary disease (p = 0.001) and more ischemic episodes (p = 0.01) at baseline than those assigned to angioplasty (n = 92). Ambulatory ECG ischemia was no longer present 8 weeks after revascularization (12 weeks after enrollment) in 70% of the bypass surgery group versus 46% of the angioplasty group (p = 0.002). ST segment depression on the exercise ECG was no longer present in 46% of the bypass surgery group versus 23% of the angioplasty group (p = 0.005). Total exercise time in minutes on the treadmill exercise test increased by 2.4 min after bypass surgery and by 1.4 min after angioplasty (p = 0.02). Only 10% of the bypass surgery group versus 32% of the angioplasty group still reported angina in the 4 weeks before the 12-week visit (p = 0.001).ConclusionsAngina and ambulatory ECG ischemia are relieved in a high proportion of patients early after revascularization. However, ischemia can still be induced on the treadmill exercise test, albeit at higher levels of exercise, in many patients. Bypass surgery was superior to coronary angioplasty in suppressing cardiac ischemia despite the finding that patients who underwent bypass surgery had more severe coronary artery disease

The QT interval and risk of incident atrial fibrillation

Abnormal atrial repolarization is important in the development of atrial fibrillation (AF), but no direct measurement is available in clinical medicine

ACC/AHA guideline update for perioperative cardiovascular evaluation for noncardiac surgery - Executive summary: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on practice guidelines (Committee to Update the 1996 Guidelines on Perioperative Cardiovascular Evaluation for Noncardiac Surgery)

These guidelines represent an update of those published in 1996 and are intended for physicians who are involved in the preoperative, operative, and postoperative care of patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. They provide a framework for considering cardiac risk of noncardiac surgery in a variety of patient and surgical situations. The overriding theme of these guidelines is that preoperative intervention is rarely necessary simply to lower the risk of surgery unless such intervention is indicated irrespective of the preoperative context. The purpose of preoperative evaluation is not simply to give medical clearance but rather to perform an evaluation of the patient’s current medical status; make recommendations concerning the evaluation, management, and risk of cardiac problems over the entire perioperative period; and provide a clinical risk profile that the patient, primary physician, anesthesiologist, and surgeon can use in making treatment decisions that may influence short- and long-term cardiac outcomes. The goal of the consultation is to identify the most appropriate testing and treatment strategies to optimize care of the patient, provide assessment of both short- and long-term cardiac risk, and avoid unnecessary testing in this era of cost containment

ACC/AHA guideline update for perioperative cardiovascular evaluation for noncardiac surgery - Executive summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee to Update the 1996 Guidelines on Perioperative Cardiovascular Evaluation for Noncardiac Surgery)

These guidelines represent an update of those published in 1996 and are intended for physicians who are involved in the preoperative, operative, and postoperative care of patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. They provide a framework for considering cardiac risk of noncardiac surgery in a variety of patient and surgical situations. The overriding theme of these guidelines is that preoperative intervention is rarely necessary simply to lower the risk of surgery unless such intervention is indicated irrespective of the preoperative context. The purpose of preoperative evaluation is not simply to give medical clearance but rather to perform an evaluation of the patient’s current medical status; make recommendations concerning the evaluation, management, and risk of cardiac problems over the entire perioperative period; and provide a clinical risk profile that the patient, primary physician, anesthesiologist, and surgeon can use in making treatment decisions that may influence short- and long-term cardiac outcomes. The goal of the consultation is to identify the most appropriate testing and treatment strategies to optimize care of the patient, provide assessment of both short- and long-term cardiac risk, and avoid unnecessary testing in this era of cost containment

ACC/AHA/ESC 2006 guidelines for management of patients with ventricular arrhythmias and the prevention of sudden cardiac death: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force and the European Society of Cardiology Committee for Practice Guidelines

Several excellent guidelines already exist on treating patients who have ventricular arrhythmias (Table 1). The purpose of this document is to update and combine the previously published recommendations into one source approved by the major cardiology organizations in the United States and Europe. We have consciously attempted to create a streamlined document, not a textbook, that would be useful specifically to locate recommendations on the evaluation and treatment of patients who have or may be at risk for ventricular arrhythmias. Thus, sections on epidemiology, mechanisms and substrates, and clinical presentations are brief, because there are no recommendations for those sections. For the other sections, the wording has been kept to a minimum, and clinical presentations have been confined to those aspects relevant to forming recommendations

ACC/AHA/ESC 2006 Guidelines for Management of Patients With Ventricular Arrhythmias and the Prevention of Sudden Cardiac Death. A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force and the European Society of Cardiology Committee for Practice Guidelines.

Several excellent guidelines already exist on treating patients who have ventricular arrhythmias (Table 1).The purpose of this document is to update and combine the previously published recommendations into one source approved by the major cardiology organizations in the United States and Europe. We have consciously attempted to create a streamlined document, not a textbook, that would be useful specifically to locate recommendations on the evaluation and treatment of patients who have or may be at risk for ventricular arrhythmias. Thus, sections on epidemiology, mechanisms and substrates, and clinical presentations are brief, because there are no recommendations for those sections. For the other sections, the wording has been kept to a minimum, and clinical presentations have been confined to those aspects relevant to forming recommendations

Third universal definition of myocardial infarction

"Myocardial infarction (MI) can be recognised by clinical features, including electrocardiographic (ECG) findings, elevated values of biochemical markers (biomarkers) of myocardial necrosis, and by imaging, or may be defined by pathology. It is a major cause of death and disability worldwide. MI may be the first manifestation of coronary artery disease (CAD) or it may occur, repeatedly, in patients with established disease. Information on MI rates can provide useful information regarding the burden of CAD within and across populations, especially if standardized data are collected in a manner that distinguishes between incident and recurrent events. From the epidemiological point of view, the incidence of MI in a population can be used as a proxy for the prevalence of CAD in that population. The term ‘myocardial infarction’ may have major psychological and legal implications for the individual and society. It is an indicator of one of the leading health problems in the world and it is an outcome measure in clinical trials, observational studies and quality assurance programmes. These studies and programmes require a precise and consistent definition of MI. In the past, a general consensus existed for the clinical syndrome designated as MI. In studies of disease prevalence, the World Health Organization (WHO) defined MI from symptoms, ECG abnormalities and cardiac enzymes. However, the development of ever more sensitive and myocardial tissue-specific cardiac biomarkers and more sensitive imaging techniques now allows for detection of very small amounts of myocardial injury or necrosis. Additionally, the management of patients with MI has significantly improved, resulting in less myocardial injury and necrosis, in spite of a similar clinical presentation. Moreover, it appears necessary to distinguish the various conditions which may cause MI, such as ‘spontaneous’ and ‘procedure-related’ MI. Accordingly, physicians, other healthcare providers and patients require an up-to-date definition of MI.