Complete revascularization with multivessel PCI for myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND In patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of the culprit lesion reduces the risk of cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction. Whether PCI of nonculprit lesions further reduces the risk of such events is unclear. METHODS We randomly assigned patients with STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease who had undergone successful culprit-lesion PCI to a strategy of either complete revascularization with PCI of angiographically significant nonculprit lesions or no further revascularization. Randomization was stratified according to the intended timing of nonculprit-lesion PCI (either during or after the index hospitalization). The first coprimary outcome was the composite of cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction; the second coprimary outcome was the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven revascularization. RESULTS At a median follow-up of 3 years, the first coprimary outcome had occurred in 158 of the 2016 patients (7.8%) in the complete-revascularization group as compared with 213 of the 2025 patients (10.5%) in the culprit-lesion-only PCI group (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60 to 0.91; P=0.004). The second coprimary outcome had occurred in 179 patients (8.9%) in the complete-revascularization group as compared with 339 patients (16.7%) in the culprit-lesion-only PCI group (hazard ratio, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.61; P<0.001). For both coprimary outcomes, the benefit of complete revascularization was consistently observed regardless of the intended timing of nonculprit-lesion PCI (P=0.62 and P=0.27 for interaction for the first and second coprimary outcomes, respectively). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease, complete revascularization was superior to culprit-lesion-only PCI in reducing the risk of cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction, as well as the risk of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven revascularization. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; COMPLETE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01740479. opens in new tab.

Clinical impact of direct stenting and interaction with thrombus aspiration in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention : Thrombectomy Trialists Collaboration

Aims Preliminary studies suggest that direct stenting (DS) during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) may reduce microvascular obstruction and improve clinical outcome. Thrombus aspiration may facilitate DS. We assessed the impact of DS on clinical outcome and myocardial reperfusion and its interaction with thrombus aspiration among ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients undergoing PCI. Methods and results Patient-level data from the three largest randomized trials on routine manual thrombus aspiration vs. PCI only were merged. A 1:1 propensity matched population was created to compare DS and conventional stenting. Synergy between DS and thrombus aspiration was assessed with interaction P-values in the final models. In the unmatched population (n= 17 329), 32% underwent DS and 68% underwent conventional stenting. Direct stenting rates were higher in patients randomized to thrombus aspiration as compared with PCI only (41% vs. 22%; P < 0.001). Patients undergoing DS required less contrast (162mL vs. 172mL; P< 0.001) and had shorter fluoroscopy time (11.1min vs. 13.3 min; P< 0.001). After propensity matching (n= 10 944), no significant differences were seen between DS and conventional stenting with respect to 30-day cardiovascular death [1.7% vs. 1.9%; hazard ratio 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55-1.41; P=0.60; Pinteraction = 0.96) and 30-day stroke or transient ischaemic attack (0.6% vs. 0.4%; odds ratio 1.02; 95% CI 0.14-7.54; P=0.99; Pinteraction = 0.81). One-year results were similar. No significant differences were seen in electrocardiographic and angiographic myocardial reperfusion measures. Conclusion Direct stenting rates were higher in patients randomized to thrombus aspiration. Clinical outcomes and myocardial reperfusion measures did not differ significantly between DS and conventional stenting and there was no interaction with thrombus aspiration

Thrombus Aspiration in ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction : An Individual Patient Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND—: Thrombus aspiration during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for the treatment of ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) has been widely used; however, recent trials have questioned its value and safety. In this meta-analysis, we, the trial investigators, aimed to pool the individual patient data from these trials to determine the benefits and risks of thrombus aspiration during PCI in patients with STEMI. METHODS—: Included were large (N≥1000) randomized controlled trials comparing manual thrombectomy vs. PCI alone in patients with STEMI. Individual patient data was provided by the leadership of each trial. The pre-specified primary efficacy outcome was cardiovascular (CV) mortality within 30 days and the primary safety outcome was stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) within 30 days. RESULTS—: The 3 eligible randomized trials (TAPAS, TASTE and TOTAL) enrolled 19,047 patients, of whom 18,306 underwent PCI and were included in the primary analysis. CV death at 30 days occurred in 221 (2.4%) of 9155 patients randomized to thrombus aspiration and 262 (2.9%) of 9151 randomized to PCI alone (hazard ratio (HR) 0.84; 95% CI 0.70-1.01, p=0.06). Stroke or TIA occurred in 66 (0.8%) randomized to thrombus aspiration and 46 (0.5%) randomized to PCI alone (odds ratio [OR] 1.43 95% CI 0.98-2.1, p=0.06). There were no significant differences in recurrent myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, heart failure or target vessel revascularization. In the subgroup with high thrombus burden (TIMI thrombus grade ≥3) thrombus aspiration was associated with less CV death (170 [2.5%] vs. 205 [3.1%] HR 0.80; 95% CI 0.65-0.98, p =0.03), and with more stroke or TIA (55 [0.9%] vs. 34 [0.5%] OR 1.56; 95% CI 1.02-2.42, p=0.04). However, the interaction p-values were 0.32 and 0.34, respectively. CONCLUSIONS—: Routine thrombus aspiration during STEMI PCI did not improve clinical outcomes. In the high thrombus burden subgroup the trends toward reduced CV death and increased stroke or TIA provide a rationale for future trials of improved thrombus aspiration technologies in this high-risk subgroup. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION—: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02552407, PROSPERO CRD4201502593

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

International audienceDefibrillation 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. 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. 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). Routine defibrillation testing at the time of ICD implantation is generally well tolerated, but does not improve shock efficacy or reduce arrhythmic death. Boston Scientific and the Heart and Stroke Foundation (Ontario Provincial office)

Benznidazole and Posaconazole in Eliminating Parasites in Asymptomatic T. Cruzi Carriers: The STOP-CHAGAS Trial

BACKGROUND Benznidazole is recommended for treatment of Chagas infection. Effects of combination therapy with benznidazole and posaconazole have not been tested in Trypanosoma cruzi carriers. OBJECTIVES The purpose of this study was to determine whether posaconazole alone or combined with benznidazole were superior to benznidazole monotherapy in eliminating T. cruzi parasites measured by real time polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) in asymptomatic Chagas carriers. METHODS A prospective, multicenter randomized placebo-controlled study was conducted in 120 subjects from Latin America and Spain who were randomized to 4 groups: posaconazole 400 mg twice a day (b.i.d.); benznidazole 200 mg + placebo b.i.d.; benznidazole 200 mg b.i.d. + posaconazole 400 mg b.i.d.; or placebo 10 mg b.i.d. T. cruzi deoxyribonucleic acid was detected by RT-PCR at 30, 60, 90, 120, 150, 180, and 360 days. The primary efficacy outcome is the proportion of subjects with persistent negative RT-PCR by day 180; the secondary outcome was negative RT-PCR at 360 days. RESULTS Only 13.3% of those receiving posaconazole and 10% receiving placebo achieved the primary outcome, compared with 80% receiving benznidazole + posaconazole and 86.7% receiving benznidazole monotherapy (p < 0.0001 vs. posaconazole/placebo). Posaconazole monotherapy or posaconazole combined with benznidazole achieved high RT-PCR conversion rates during treatment (30 days; 93.3% and 88.9% and 60 days; 90%, and 92.3%) that were similar to benznidazole (89.7% and 89.3%); all were superior to placebo or posaconazole (10% and 16.7%, p < 0.0001). This was not observed at 360 days; benznidazole + posaconazole and benznidazole monotherapy (both 96%) versus placebo (17%) and posaconazole (16%, p < 0.0001). Serious adverse events were rare (6 patients) and were observed in the benznidazole-treated patients. Permanent discontinuation was reported in 19 patients (31.7%) receiving either benznidazole monotherapy or combined with posaconazole. CONCLUSIONS Posaconazole demonstrated trypanostatic activity during treatment, but it is ineffective long-term in asymptomatic T. cruzi carriers. Benznidazole monotherapy is superior to posaconazole, with high RT-PCR conversion rates sustained at 1 year. Side effects lead to therapy discontinuation in 32%. No advantages were observed with combined therapy versus benznidazole monotherapy. (A Study of the Use of Oral Posaconazole [POS] in the Treatment of Asymptomatic Chronic Chagas Disease [P05267] [STOP CHAGAS]: NCT01377480) (C) 2017 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation

Andexanet Alfa for Acute Major Bleeding Associated with Factor Xa Inhibitors

BACKGROUND: Andexanet alfa (andexanet) is a recombinant modified human factor Xa decoy protein that has been shown to reverse the inhibition of factor Xa in healthy volunteers. METHODS: In this multicenter, prospective, open-label, single-group study, we evaluated 67 patients who had acute major bleeding within 18 hours after the administration of a factor Xa inhibitor. The patients all received a bolus of andexanet followed by a 2-hour infusion of the drug. Patients were evaluated for changes in measures of anti-factor Xa activity and were assessed for clinical hemostatic efficacy during a 12-hour period. All the patients were subsequently followed for 30 days. The efficacy population of 47 patients had a baseline value for anti-factor Xa activity of at least 75 ng per milliliter (or ≥0.5 IU per milliliter for those receiving enoxaparin) and had confirmed bleeding severity at adjudication. RESULTS: The mean age of the patients was 77 years; most of the patients had substantial cardiovascular disease. Bleeding was predominantly gastrointestinal or intracranial. The mean (±SD) time from emergency department presentation to the administration of the andexanet bolus was 4.8±1.8 hours. After the bolus administration, the median anti-factor Xa activity decreased by 89% (95% confidence interval [CI], 58 to 94) from baseline among patients receiving rivaroxaban and by 93% (95% CI, 87 to 94) among patients receiving apixaban. These levels remained similar during the 2-hour infusion. Four hours after the end of the infusion, there was a relative decrease from baseline of 39% in the measure of anti-factor Xa activity among patients receiving rivaroxaban and of 30% among those receiving apixaban. Twelve hours after the andexanet infusion, clinical hemostasis was adjudicated as excellent or good in 37 of 47 patients in the efficacy analysis (79%; 95% CI, 64 to 89). Thrombotic events occurred in 12 of 67 patients (18%) during the 30-day follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of a descriptive preliminary analysis, an initial bolus and subsequent 2-hour infusion of andexanet substantially reduced anti-factor Xa activity in patients with acute major bleeding associated with factor Xa inhibitors, with effective hemostasis occurring in 79%. (Funded by Portola Pharmaceuticals; ANNEXA-4 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02329327 .).status: publishe