Two-year outcome after early or late Intervention in non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome

Contains fulltext : 182932.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)OBJECTIVE: To compare long-term outcome of an early to a delayed invasive strategy in high-risk patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS). METHODS: This prospective, multicentre trial included patients with NSTE-ACS and at least two out of three of the following high-risk criteria: (1) evidence of extensive myocardial ischaemia on ECG, (2) elevated biomarkers for myocardial necrosis and (3) age above 65 years. Patients were randomised to either an early (angiography and revascularisation if appropriate 48 hours after randomisation). Endpoint for this prespecified long-term follow-up was the composite incidence of death or reinfarction after 2 years. Data collection was performed by telephone contact with the patients, their relatives or general practitioner and by review of hospital records. RESULTS: Endpoint status after 2-year follow-up was collected in 521 of 542 initially enrolled patients. Incidence of death or reinfarction was 11.8% in the early and 13.1% in the delayed treatment group (relative risk (RR)=0.90, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.42). No significant differences were found in occurrence of the individual components of the primary endpoint: death 6.1% vs 8.9%, RR 0.69 (95% CI 0.37 to 1.27), reinfarction 6.5% vs 5.4%, RR 1.20 (95% CI 0.60 to 2.38). Post-hoc subgroup analysis showed statistical significant interaction between age and treatment strategy on outcome (p=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: After 2 years follow-up, no difference in incidence of death or reinfarction was seen between early to late invasive strategy. These findings are in line with results of other studies with longer follow-up. Older patients seem to benefit more from early invasive treatment

Comparison of Outcomes and Intervention Among Patients With Non-ST-Segment Elevation Acute Myocardial Infarction of Those With a Left Circumflex Versus Those With a Non-Left Circumflex-Related Coronary Artery (From the ELISA-3 Trial)

Item does not contain fulltex

Selecting interventions to improve patient-relevant outcomes in health care for aortic valve disease - the Intervention Selection Toolbox

Contains fulltext : 218708.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Measuring and improving outcomes is a central element of value-based health care. However, selecting improvement interventions based on outcome measures is complex and tools to support the selection process are lacking. The goal was to present strategies for the systematic identification and selection of improvement interventions applied to the case of aortic valve disease and to combine various methods of process and outcome assessment into one integrated approach for quality improvement. METHODS: For this case study a concept-driven mixed-method approach was applied for the identification of improvement intervention clusters including: (1) benchmarking outcomes, (2) data exploration, (3) care delivery process analysis, and (4) monitoring of ongoing improvements. The main outcome measures were long-term survival and 30-day mortality. For the selection of an improvement intervention, the causal relations between the potential improvement interventions and outcome measures were quantified followed by a team selection based on consensus from a multidisciplinary team of professionals. RESULTS: The study resulted in a toolbox: the Intervention Selection Toolbox (IST). The toolbox comprises two phases: (a) identifying potential for improvement, and (b) selecting an effective intervention from the four clusters expected to lead to the desired improvement in outcomes. The improvements identified for the case of aortic valve disease with impact on long-term survival in the context of the studied hospital in 2015 include: anticoagulation policy, increased attention to nutritional status of patients and determining frailty of patients before the treatment decision. CONCLUSIONS: Identifying potential for improvement and carefully selecting improvement interventions based on (clinical) outcome data demands a multifaceted approach. Our toolbox integrates both care delivery process analyses and outcome analyses. The toolbox is recommended for use in hospital care for the selection of high-impact improvement interventions

Randomised comparison of drug-eluting versus bare-metal stenting in patients with non-ST elevation myocardial infarction

OBJECTIVE: The superiority of drug-eluting stents (DES) over bare-metal stents (BMS) in patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is well studied; however, randomised data in patients with non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) are lacking. The objective of this study was to investigate whether stenting with everolimus-eluting stents (EES) safely reduces restenosis in patients with NSTEMI as compared to BMS. METHODS: ELISA-3 patients were asked to participate in the angiographic substudy and were randomised to DE (Xience V) or BM (Vision) stenting (ELISA-3 group). The primary end point was minimal luminal diameter (MLD) at 9-month follow-up angiography. In addition, 296 patients with NSTEMI who were excluded or did not want to participate in the ELISA-3 trial (RELI group) were randomised to DE or BM stenting and underwent clinical follow-up only (major adverse cardiac events (MACE), stent thrombosis (ST)). A pooled analysis was performed to assess an effect on clinical outcome. RESULTS: 178 of 540 ELISA-3 patients participated in the angiographic substudy. MLD at 9 months angiography was 2.37+/-0.63 mm (DES) versus 1.84+/-0.62 mm (BMS), p<0.001. Binary restenosis occurred in 1.9% in the DES group versus 16.7% in the BMS group (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.84, p=0.007). In the pooled analysis, the incidence of MACE, target vessel revascularisation and ST at 2 years follow-up in the DES versus BMS group was 12.5% versus 16.0% (p=0.28), 4.0% versus 10.4% (p=0.009) and 1.3% versus 3.0% (p=0.34), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with NSTEMI, use of EES is safe and decreases both angiographic and clinical restenosis as compared to BMS http://www.isrctn.com/search?q=39230163. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: 39230163; Post-results

Fractional Flow Reserve-Guided PCI as Compared with Coronary Bypass Surgery.

Patients with three-vessel coronary artery disease have been found to have better outcomes with coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG) than with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), but studies in which PCI is guided by measurement of fractional flow reserve (FFR) have been lacking. In this multicenter, international, noninferiority trial, patients with three-vessel coronary artery disease were randomly assigned to undergo CABG or FFR-guided PCI with current-generation zotarolimus-eluting stents. The primary end point was the occurrence within 1 year of a major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular event, defined as death from any cause, myocardial infarction, stroke, or repeat revascularization. Noninferiority of FFR-guided PCI to CABG was prespecified as an upper boundary of less than 1.65 for the 95% confidence interval of the hazard ratio. Secondary end points included a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke; safety was also assessed. A total of 1500 patients underwent randomization at 48 centers. Patients assigned to undergo PCI received a mean (±SD) of 3.7±1.9 stents, and those assigned to undergo CABG received 3.4±1.0 distal anastomoses. The 1-year incidence of the composite primary end point was 10.6% among patients randomly assigned to undergo FFR-guided PCI and 6.9% among those assigned to undergo CABG (hazard ratio, 1.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1 to 2.2), findings that were not consistent with noninferiority of FFR-guided PCI (P = 0.35 for noninferiority). The incidence of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke was 7.3% in the FFR-guided PCI group and 5.2% in the CABG group (hazard ratio, 1.4; 95% CI, 0.9 to 2.1). The incidences of major bleeding, arrhythmia, and acute kidney injury were higher in the CABG group than in the FFR-guided PCI group. In patients with three-vessel coronary artery disease, FFR-guided PCI was not found to be noninferior to CABG with respect to the incidence of a composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or repeat revascularization at 1 year. (Funded by Medtronic and Abbott Vascular; FAME 3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02100722.)