Interventional versus conservative treatment for patients with unstable angina or non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction: the British Heart Foundation RITA 3 randomised trial. Randomized Intervention Trial of unstable Angina.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines suggest that, for patients at moderate risk of death from unstable coronary-artery disease, either an interventional strategy (angiography followed by revascularisation) or a conservative strategy (ischaemia-driven or symptom-driven angiography) is appropriate. We aimed to test the hypothesis that an interventional strategy is better than a conservative strategy in such patients. METHODS: We did a randomised multicentre trial of 1810 patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes (mean age 62 years, 38% women). Patients were assigned an early intervention or conservative strategy. The antithrombin agent in both groups was enoxaparin. The co-primary endpoints were a combined rate of death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, or refractory angina at 4 months; and a combined rate of death or non-fatal myocardial infarction at 1 year. Analysis was by intention to treat. FINDINGS: At 4 months, 86 (9.6%) of 895 patients in the intervention group had died or had a myocardial infarction or refractory angina, compared with 133 (14.5%) of 915 patients in the conservative group (risk ratio 0.66, 95% CI 0.51-0.85, p=0.001). This difference was mainly due to a halving of refractory angina in the intervention group. Death or myocardial infarction was similar in both treatment groups at 1 year (68 [7.6%] vs 76 [8.3%], respectively; risk ratio 0.91, 95% CI 0.67-1.25, p=0.58). Symptoms of angina were improved and use of antianginal medications significantly reduced with the interventional strategy (p<0.0001). INTERPRETATION: In patients presenting with unstable coronary-artery disease, an interventional strategy is preferable to a conservative strategy, mainly because of the halving of refractory or severe angina, and with no increased risk of death or myocardial infarction

Patients with prior coronary artery bypass grafting have a poor outcome after myocardial infarction: an analysis of the VALsartan in acute myocardial iNfarcTion trial (VALIANT)

The number of patients presenting with an acute myocardial infarction (MI) and prior coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is increasing. We compared the baseline characteristics, treatment, and clinical outcomes of patients with and without prior CABG in the VALIANT trial. Of the 14 703 patients with heart failure (HF), left ventricular systolic dysfunction, or both enrolled in VALIANT, 1026 (7%) had prior CABG. Prior CABG patients were older [mean age (SD): 67 (10) vs. 65 (12) years; P less than 0.0001], had more comorbidity, and more frequent non-Q wave MI (66 vs. 30%; P less than 0.0001). At hospital presentation, prior CABG patients received less aspirin (82 vs. 90%; P less than 0.0001) and thrombolysis (21 vs. 36%; P less than 0.0001), but had a similar rate of primary percutaneous coronary intervention (14 vs. 15%; P = 0.2). Prior CABG patients were more likely to experience the composite outcome of cardiovascular death, MI, HF, resuscitated cardiac arrest, or stroke; 3 year Kaplan-Meier rate, 64 vs. 39% (adjusted hazard ratio 1.29, 95% confidence interval 1.17-1.43; P less than 0.0001). Patients with prior CABG had a worse clinical profile and experienced more fatal and non-fatal outcomes. Greater recognition is necessary for these high-risk patients including optimization of evidence-based secondary preventive therapy