Rationale and design of the Clinical Evaluation of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Coronary heart disease 2 trial (CE-MARC 2): a prospective, multicenter, randomized trial of diagnostic strategies in suspected coronary heart disease

Background: A number of investigative strategies exist for the diagnosis of coronary heart disease (CHD). Despite the widespread availability of noninvasive imaging, invasive angiography is commonly used early in the diagnostic pathway. Consequently, approximately 60% of angiograms reveal no evidence of obstructive coronary disease. Reducing unnecessary angiography has potential financial savings and avoids exposing the patient to unnecessary risk. There are no large-scale comparative effectiveness trials of the different diagnostic strategies recommended in international guidelines and none that have evaluated the safety and efficacy of cardiovascular magnetic resonance.<p></p> Trial Design: CE-MARC 2 is a prospective, multicenter, 3-arm parallel group, randomized controlled trial of patients with suspected CHD (pretest likelihood 10%-90%) requiring further investigation. A total of 1,200 patients will be randomized on a 2:2:1 basis to receive 3.0-T cardiovascular magnetic resonance–guided care, single-photon emission computed tomography–guided care (according to American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association appropriate-use criteria), or National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines–based management. The primary (efficacy) end point is the occurrence of unnecessary angiography as defined by a normal (>0.8) invasive fractional flow reserve. Safety of each strategy will be assessed by 3-year major adverse cardiovascular event rates. Cost-effectiveness and health-related quality-of-life measures will be performed.<p></p> Conclusions: The CE-MARC 2 trial will provide comparative efficacy and safety evidence for 3 different strategies of investigating patients with suspected CHD, with the intension of reducing unnecessary invasive angiography rates. Evaluation of these management strategies has the potential to improve patient care, health-related quality of life, and the cost-effectiveness of CHD investigation

Individual component analysis of the multi-parametric cardiovascular magnetic resonance protocol in the CE-MARC trial

Background: The CE-MARC study assessed the diagnostic performance investigated the use of cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) in patients with suspected coronary artery disease (CAD). The study used a multi-parametric CMR protocol assessing 4 components: i) left ventricular function; ii) myocardial perfusion; iii) viability (late gadolinium enhancement (LGE)) and iv) coronary magnetic resonance angiography (MRA). In this pre-specified CE-MARC sub-study we assessed the diagnostic accuracy of the individual CMR components and their combinations. Methods: All patients from the CE-MARC population (n = 752) were included using data from the original blinded-read. The four individual core components of the CMR protocol was determined separately and then in paired and triplet combinations. Results were then compared to the full multi-parametric protocol. Results: CMR and X-ray angiography results were available in 676 patients. The maximum sensitivity for the detection of significant CAD by CMR was achieved when all four components were used (86.5 %). Specificity of perfusion (91.8 %), function (93.7 %) and LGE (95.8 %) on its own was significantly better than specificity of the multi-parametric protocol (83.4 %) (all P < 0.0001) but with the penalty of decreased sensitivity (86.5 % vs. 76.9 %, 47.4 % and 40.8 % respectively). The full multi-parametric protocol was the optimum to rule-out significant CAD (Likelihood Ratio negative (LR-) 0.16) and the LGE component alone was the best to rue-in CAD (LR+ 9.81). Overall diagnostic accuracy was similar with the full multi-parametric protocol (85.9 %) compared to paired and triplet combinations. The use of coronary MRA within the full multi-parametric protocol had no additional diagnostic benefit compared to the perfusion/function/LGE combination (overall accuracy 84.6 % vs. 84.2 % (P = 0.5316); LR- 0.16 vs. 0.21; LR+ 5.21 vs. 5.77). Conclusions: From this pre-specified sub-analysis of the CE-MARC study, the full multi-parametric protocol had the highest sensitivity and was the optimal approach to rule-out significant CAD. The LGE component alone was the optimal rule-in strategy. Finally the inclusion of coronary MRA provided no additional benefit when compared to the combination of perfusion/function/LGE. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN77246133

Extracellular Myocardial Volume in Patients With Aortic Stenosis

BACKGROUND: Myocardial fibrosis is a key mechanism of left ventricular decompensation in aortic stenosis and can be quantified using cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) measures such as extracellular volume fraction (ECV%). Outcomes following aortic valve intervention may be linked to the presence and extent of myocardial fibrosis. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to determine associations between ECV% and markers of left ventricular decompensation and post-intervention clinical outcomes. METHODS: Patients with severe aortic stenosis underwent CMR, including ECV% quantification using modified Look-Locker inversion recovery-based T1 mapping and late gadolinium enhancement before aortic valve intervention. A central core laboratory quantified CMR parameters. RESULTS: Four-hundred forty patients (age 70 ± 10 years, 59% male) from 10 international centers underwent CMR a median of 15 days (IQR: 4 to 58 days) before aortic valve intervention. ECV% did not vary by scanner manufacturer, magnetic field strength, or T1 mapping sequence (all p > 0.20). ECV% correlated with markers of left ventricular decompensation including left ventricular mass, left atrial volume, New York Heart Association functional class III/IV, late gadolinium enhancement, and lower left ventricular ejection fraction (p < 0.05 for all), the latter 2 associations being independent of all other clinical variables (p = 0.035 and p < 0.001). After a median of 3.8 years (IQR: 2.8 to 4.6 years) of follow-up, 52 patients had died, 14 from adjudicated cardiovascular causes. A progressive increase in all-cause mortality was seen across tertiles of ECV% (17.3, 31.6, and 52.7 deaths per 1,000 patient-years; log-rank test; p = 0.009). Not only was ECV% associated with cardiovascular mortality (p = 0.003), but it was also independently associated with all-cause mortality following adjustment for age, sex, ejection fraction, and late gadolinium enhancement (hazard ratio per percent increase in ECV%: 1.10; 95% confidence interval [1.02 to 1.19]; p = 0.013). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with severe aortic stenosis scheduled for aortic valve intervention, an increased ECV% is a measure of left ventricular decompensation and a powerful independent predictor of mortality

Myocardial effects of aldosterone antagonism in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

Background: Spironolactone may have prognostic benefit in selected patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. This study assessed the myocardial tissue effects of spironolactone in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. Methods and Results: A 1:1 randomized controlled study of 6 months of spironolactone versus control in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. The primary outcome was change in myocardial extracellular volume fraction by cardiovascular magnetic resonance as a surrogate of diffuse fibrosis. Of 55 randomized patients, 40 (20 women; age, 75.2±5.9 years) completed follow-up (19 treatment, 21 control). A significant change in extracellular volume over the study period was not seen (treatment, 28.7±3.7% versus 27.7±3.4% [P=0.14]; controls, 27.6±3.4% versus 28.3±4.4% [P=0.14]); however, the rate of extracellular volume expansion was decreased by spironolactone (−1.0±2.4% versus 0.8±2.2%). Indexed left ventricular mass decreased with treatment (104.4±26.6 versus 94.0±20.6 g/m 2; P=0.001) but not in controls (101.4±29.4 versus 104.0±32.8 g/m 2; P=0.111). Extracellular mass decreased by 13.8% (15.1±4.8 versus 13.0±3.4 g/m 2; P=0.003), and cellular mass decreased by 8.3% (37.6±10.0 versus 34.3±7.9 g/m 2; P=0.001) with spironolactone, but was static in controls. Conclusions: Spironolactone did not lead to significant change in extracellular volume. However, spironolactone did decrease rate of extracellular expansion, with a decrease in the mass of both cellular and extracellular myocardial compartments. These data point to the mechanism of action of spironolactone in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, including a direct tissue effect with a reduction in rate of myocardial fibrosis

Effect of remote ischaemic conditioning on clinical outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction (CONDI-2/ERIC-PPCI): a single-blind randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Remote ischaemic conditioning with transient ischaemia and reperfusion applied to the arm has been shown to reduce myocardial infarct size in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI). We investigated whether remote ischaemic conditioning could reduce the incidence of cardiac death and hospitalisation for heart failure at 12 months. METHODS: We did an international investigator-initiated, prospective, single-blind, randomised controlled trial (CONDI-2/ERIC-PPCI) at 33 centres across the UK, Denmark, Spain, and Serbia. Patients (age >18 years) with suspected STEMI and who were eligible for PPCI were randomly allocated (1:1, stratified by centre with a permuted block method) to receive standard treatment (including a sham simulated remote ischaemic conditioning intervention at UK sites only) or remote ischaemic conditioning treatment (intermittent ischaemia and reperfusion applied to the arm through four cycles of 5-min inflation and 5-min deflation of an automated cuff device) before PPCI. Investigators responsible for data collection and outcome assessment were masked to treatment allocation. The primary combined endpoint was cardiac death or hospitalisation for heart failure at 12 months in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02342522) and is completed. FINDINGS: Between Nov 6, 2013, and March 31, 2018, 5401 patients were randomly allocated to either the control group (n=2701) or the remote ischaemic conditioning group (n=2700). After exclusion of patients upon hospital arrival or loss to follow-up, 2569 patients in the control group and 2546 in the intervention group were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. At 12 months post-PPCI, the Kaplan-Meier-estimated frequencies of cardiac death or hospitalisation for heart failure (the primary endpoint) were 220 (8·6%) patients in the control group and 239 (9·4%) in the remote ischaemic conditioning group (hazard ratio 1·10 [95% CI 0·91-1·32], p=0·32 for intervention versus control). No important unexpected adverse events or side effects of remote ischaemic conditioning were observed. INTERPRETATION: Remote ischaemic conditioning does not improve clinical outcomes (cardiac death or hospitalisation for heart failure) at 12 months in patients with STEMI undergoing PPCI. FUNDING: British Heart Foundation, University College London Hospitals/University College London Biomedical Research Centre, Danish Innovation Foundation, Novo Nordisk Foundation, TrygFonden