Methods for specifying the target difference in a randomised controlled trial : the Difference ELicitation in TriAls (DELTA) systematic review

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Cardiac Magnetic Resonance for Evaluating Nonculprit Lesions After Myocardial Infarction: Comparison With Fractional Flow Reserve

Objectives: This study sought to determine the agreement between cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging and invasive measurements of fractional flow reserve (FFR) in the evaluation of nonculprit lesions after ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). In addition, we investigated whether fully quantitative analysis of myocardial perfusion is superior to semiquantitative and visual analysis. Background: The agreement between CMR and FFR in the evaluation of nonculprit lesions in patients with STEMI with multivessel disease is unknown. Methods: Seventy-seven patients with STEMI with at least 1 intermediate (diameter stenosis 50% to 90%) nonculprit lesion underwent CMR and invasive coronary angiography in conjunction with FFR measurements at 1 month after primary intervention. The imaging protocol included stress and rest perfusion, cine imaging, and late gadolinium enhancement. Fully quantitative, semiquantitative, and visual analysis of myocardial perfusion were compared against a reference of FFR. Hemodynamically obstructive was defined as FFR ≤0.80. Results: Hemodynamically obstructive nonculprit lesions were present in 31 (40%) patients. Visual analysis displayed an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.74 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.62 to 0.83), with a sensitivity of 73% and a specificity of 70%. For semiquantitative analysis, the relative upslope of the stress signal intensity time curve and the relative upslope derived myocardial flow reserve had respective AUCs of 0.66 (95% CI: 0.54 to 0.77) and 0.71 (95% CI: 0.59 to 0.81). Fully quantitative analysis did not augment diagnostic performance (all p > 0.05). Stress myocardial blood flow displayed an AUC of 0.76 (95% CI: 0.64 to 0.85), with a sensitivity of 69% and a specificity of 77%. Similarly, MFR displayed an AUC of 0.82 (95% CI: 0.71 to 0.90), with a sensitivity of 82% and a specificity of 71%. Conclusions: CMR and FFR have moderate-good agreement in the evaluation of nonculprit lesions in patients with STEMI with multivessel disease. Fully quantitative, semiquantitative, and visual analysis yield similar diagnostic performance

Evaluation and Management of Nonculprit Lesions in STEMI

Nonculprit lesions are frequently observed in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Results from recent randomized clinical trials suggest that complete revascularization after ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction improves outcomes. In this state-of-the-art paper, the authors review these trials and consider how best to determine which nonculprit lesions require revascularization and when this should be performed.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Invasive minimal Microvascular Resistance Is a New Index to Assess Microcirculatory Function Independent of Obstructive Coronary Artery Disease

Background-—Coronary microcirculatory dysfunction portends a poor cardiovascular outcome. Invasive assessment of microcirculatory dysfunction by coronary flow reserve (CFR) and hyperemic microvascular resistance (HMR) is affected by coronary artery disease (CAD). In this study we propose minimal microvascular resistance (mMR) as a new measure of microcirculatory dysfunction and aim to determine whether mMR is influenced by CAD. Methods and Results-—We obtained 482 simultaneous measurements of intracoronary Doppler flow velocity and pressure. The mMR is defined as the ratio between distal coronary pressure and flow velocity during the hyperemic wave-free period. Measurements were divided into 2 cohorts. Cohort 1 was a paired analysis involving 81 pairs with a vessel with and without CAD to investigate whether HMR, CFR, and mMR are modulated by CAD. CFR was lower, and HMR was higher, in vessels with CAD than in vessels without CAD: 2.12 0.79 versus 2.56 0.63 mm Hgcm 1 s, P<0.001, and 2.61 1.22 versus 2.31 0.89 mm Hgcm 1 s, P=0.04, respectively. mMR was equal in vessels with and without CAD: 1.54 0.77 versus 1.53 0.57 mm Hgcm 1 s, P=0.90. Differences for CFR occurred when FFR was 0.60 to 0.80 or ≤0.60 but not when FFR ≥0.80. For HMR, the difference occurred only when FFR ≤0.60. For mMR, no difference was observed in any FFR stratum. Cohort 2 was used for validation and showed significant relationships for CFR and HMR with FFR: Pearson r=0.488, P<0.001 and 0.159, P=0.03, respectively; mMR had no association with FFR: Pearson r=0.055; P=0.32. Con

Coronary angiography after cardiac arrest: Rationale and design of the COACT trial

Background Ischemic heart disease is a major cause of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. The role of immediate coronary angiography (CAG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) after restoration of spontaneous circulation following cardiac arrest in the absence of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) remains debated. Hypothesis We hypothesize that immediate CAG and PCI, if indicated, will improve 90-day survival in post cardiac arrest patients without signs of STEMI. Design In a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled clinical trial, 552 post cardiac arrest patients with restoration of spontaneous circulation and without signs of STEMI will be randomized in a 1:1 fashion to immediate CAG and PCI (within 2 hours) versus initial deferral with CAG and PCI after neurological recovery. The primary end point of the study is 90-day survival. The secondary end points will include 90-day survival with good cerebral performance or minor/moderate disability, myocardial injury, duration of inotropic support, occurrence of acute kidney injury, need for renal replacement therapy, time to targeted temperature control, neurological status at intensive care unit discharge, markers of shock, recurrence of ventricular tachycardia, duration of mechanical ventilation, and reasons for discontinuation of treatment. Summary The COACT trial is a multicenter, randomized, controlled clinical study that will evaluate the effect of an immediate invasive coronary strategy in post cardiac arrest patients without STEMI on 90-day survival

1-Year Outcomes of Delayed Versus Immediate Intervention in Patients With Transient ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction

Objectives The aim of the present study was to determine the effect of a delayed versus an immediate invasive approach on final infarct size and clinical outcome up to 1 year. Background Up to 24% of patients with acute coronary syndromes present with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) but show complete resolution of ST-segment elevation and symptoms before revascularization. Current guidelines do not clearly state whether these patients with transient STEMI should be treated with a STEMI-like or non–ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome–like intervention strategy. Methods In this multicenter trial, 142 patients with transient STEMI were randomized 1:1 to either delayed or immediate coronary intervention. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging was performed at 4 days and at 4-month follow-up to assess infarct size and myocardial function. Clinical follow-up was performed at 4 and 12 months. Results In the delayed (22.7 h) and the immediate (0.4 h) invasive groups, final infarct size as a percentage of the left ventricle was very small (0.4% [interquartile range: 0.0% to 2.5%] vs. 0.4% [interquartile range: 0.0% to 3.5%]; p = 0.79), and left ventricular function was good (mean ejection fraction 59.3 ± 6.5% vs. 59.9 ± 5.4%; p = 0.63). In addition, the overall occurrence of major adverse cardiac events, consisting of death, recurrent infarction, and target lesion revascularization, up to 1 year was low and not different between both groups (5.7% vs. 4.4%, respectively; p = 1.00). Conclusions At follow-up, patients with transient STEMI have limited infarction and well-preserved myocardial function in general, and delayed or immediate revascularization has no effect on functional outcome and clinical events up to 1 year