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

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

ACTIVATION (PercutAneous Coronary inTervention prIor to transcatheter aortic VAlve implantaTION): A Randomized Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to determine if percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) prior to transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in patients with significant coronary artery disease would produce noninferior clinical results when compared with no PCI (control arm). BACKGROUND: PCI in patients undergoing TAVR is not without risk, and there are no randomized data to inform clinical practice. METHODS: Patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis and significant coronary artery disease with Canadian Cardiovascular Society class ≤2 angina were randomly assigned to receive PCI or no PCI prior to TAVR. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death or rehospitalization at 1 year. Noninferiority testing (prespecified margin of 7.5%) was performed in the intention-to-treat population. RESULTS: At 17 centers, 235 patients underwent randomization. At 1 year, the primary composite endpoint occurred in 48 (41.5%) of the PCI arm and 47 (44.0%) of the no-PCI arm. The requirement for noninferiority was not met (difference: -2.5%; 1-sided upper 95% confidence limit: 8.5%; 1-sided noninferiority test P = 0.067). On analysis of the as-treated population, the difference was -3.7% (1-sided upper 95% confidence limit: 7.5%; P = 0.050). Mortality was 16 (13.4%) in the PCI arm and 14 (12.1%) in the no-PCI arm. At 1 year, there was no evidence of a difference in the rates of stroke, myocardial infarction, or acute kidney injury, with higher rates of any bleed in the PCI arm (P = 0.021). CONCLUSIONS: Observed rates of death and rehospitalization at 1 year were similar between PCI and no PCI prior to TAVR; however, the noninferiority margin was not met, and PCI resulted in a higher incidence of bleeding. (Assessing the Effects of Stenting in Significant Coronary Artery Disease Prior to Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation; ISRCTN75836930)

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

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

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

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

Antiplatelet therapy with aspirin, clopidogrel, and dipyridamole versus clopidogrel alone or aspirin and dipyridamole in patients with acute cerebral ischaemia (TARDIS): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 superiority trial

Background: Intensive antiplatelet therapy with three agents might be more effective than guideline treatment for preventing recurrent events in patients with acute cerebral ischaemia. We aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of intensive antiplatelet therapy (combined aspirin, clopidogrel, and dipyridamole) with that of guideline-based antiplatelet therapy. Methods: We did an international, prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded-endpoint trial in adult participants with ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TIA) within 48 h of onset. Participants were assigned in a 1:1 ratio using computer randomisation to receive loading doses and then 30 days of intensive antiplatelet therapy (combined aspirin 75 mg, clopidogrel 75 mg, and dipyridamole 200 mg twice daily) or guideline-based therapy (comprising either clopidogrel alone or combined aspirin and dipyridamole). Randomisation was stratified by country and index event, and minimised with prognostic baseline factors, medication use, time to randomisation, stroke-related factors, and thrombolysis. The ordinal primary outcome was the combined incidence and severity of any recurrent stroke (ischaemic or haemorrhagic; assessed using the modified Rankin Scale) or TIA within 90 days, as assessed by central telephone follow-up with masking to treatment assignment, and analysed by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN47823388. Findings: 3096 participants (1556 in the intensive antiplatelet therapy group, 1540 in the guideline antiplatelet therapy group) were recruited from 106 hospitals in four countries between April 7, 2009, and March 18, 2016. The trial was stopped early on the recommendation of the data monitoring committee. The incidence and severity of recurrent stroke or TIA did not differ between intensive and guideline therapy (93 [6%] participants vs 105 [7%]; adjusted common odds ratio [cOR] 0·90, 95% CI 0·67–1·20, p=0·47). By contrast, intensive antiplatelet therapy was associated with more, and more severe, bleeding (adjusted cOR 2·54, 95% CI 2·05–3·16, p<0·0001). Interpretation: Among patients with recent cerebral ischaemia, intensive antiplatelet therapy did not reduce the incidence and severity of recurrent stroke or TIA, but did significantly increase the risk of major bleeding. Triple antiplatelet therapy should not be used in routine clinical practice

Antiplatelet therapy with aspirin, clopidogrel, and dipyridamole versus clopidogrel alone or aspirin and dipyridamole in patients with acute cerebral ischaemia (TARDIS): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 superiority trial

Background: Intensive antiplatelet therapy with three agents might be more effective than guideline treatment for preventing recurrent events in patients with acute cerebral ischaemia. We aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of intensive antiplatelet therapy (combined aspirin, clopidogrel, and dipyridamole) with that of guideline-based antiplatelet therapy.Methods: We did an international, prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded-endpoint trial in adult participants with ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TIA) within 48 h of onset. Participants were assigned in a 1:1 ratio using computer randomisation to receive loading doses and then 30 days of intensive antiplatelet therapy (combined aspirin 75 mg, clopidogrel 75 mg, and dipyridamole 200 mg twice daily) or guideline-based therapy (comprising either clopidogrel alone or combined aspirin and dipyridamole). Randomisation was stratified by country and index event, and minimised with prognostic baseline factors, medication use, time to randomisation, stroke-related factors, and thrombolysis. The ordinal primary outcome was the combined incidence and severity of any recurrent stroke (ischaemic or haemorrhagic; assessed using the modified Rankin Scale) or TIA within 90 days, as assessed by central telephone follow-up with masking to treatment assignment, and analysed by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN47823388.Findings: 3096 participants (1556 in the intensive antiplatelet therapy group, 1540 in the guideline antiplatelet therapy group) were recruited from 106 hospitals in four countries between April 7, 2009, and March 18, 2016. The trial was stopped early on the recommendation of the data monitoring committee. The incidence and severity of recurrent stroke or TIA did not differ between intensive and guideline therapy (93 [6%] participants vs 105 [7%]; adjusted common odds ratio [cOR] 0·90, 95% CI 0·67–1·20, p=0·47). By contrast, intensive antiplatelet therapy was associated with more, and more severe, bleeding (adjusted cOR 2·54, 95% CI 2·05–3·16,