Clinical outcomes of deferred revascularisation using fractional flow reserve in patients with and without diabetes mellitus

Objective: Deferred revascularisation based upon fractional flow reserve (FFR >0.80) is associated with a low incidence of target lesion failure (TLF). Whether deferred revascularisation is also as safe in diabetes mellitus (DM) patients is unknown. Methods: All DM patients and the next consecutive Non-DM patients who underwent a FFR-assessment between 1/01/2010 and 31/12/2013 were included, and followed until 1/07/2015. Patients with lesions FFR >0.80 were analysed according to the presence vs. absence of DM, while patients who underwent index revascularisation in FFR-assessed or other lesions were excluded. The primary endpoint was the incidence of TLF; a composite of target lesion revascularisation (TLR) and target vessel myocardial infarction (TVMI). Results: A total of 250 patients (122 DM, 128 non-DM) who underwent deferred revascularisation of all lesions (FFR >0.80) were compared. At a mean follow up of 39.8 \ub1 16.3 months, DM patients compared to non-DM had a higher TLF rate, 18.1 vs 7.5 %, logrank p 64 0.01, Cox regression-adjusted HR 3.65 (95 % CI 1.40-9.53, p < 0.01), which was largely driven by a higher incidence of TLR (17.2 vs. 7.5 %, HR 3.52, 95 % CI 1.34-9.30, p = 0.01), whilst a non-significant but numerically higher incidence of TVMI (6.1 vs. 2.0 %, HR 3.34, 95 % CI 0.64-17.30, p = 0.15) was observed. Conclusions: This study, the largest to directly compare the clinical outcomes of FFR-guided deferred revascularisation in patients with and without DM, shows that DM patients are associated with a significantly higher TLF rate. Whether intravascular imaging, additional invasive haemodynamics or stringent risk factor modification may impact on this higher TLF rate remains unknown

Early or late intervention in patients with transient ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome: Subgroup analysis of the ELISA-3 trial

Item does not contain fulltextOBJECTIVES: To investigate incidence and patient characteristics of transient ST-segment elevation (TSTE) ACS and to compare outcome of early versus late invasive treatment. BACKGROUND: Optimal timing of treatment in TSTE-ACS patients is not outlined in current guidelines and no prospective randomized trials have been done so far. METHODS: Post hoc subgroup analysis of patients with TSTE randomized in the ELISA 3 trial. This study compared early (48 h) angiography and revascularization in 542 patients with high-risk NSTE-ACS. Primary endpoint was incidence of death, reinfarction, or recurrent ischemia at 30 days follow-up. RESULTS: TSTE was present in 129 patients (24.2%) and associated with male gender, smoking and younger age. The primary endpoint occurred in 8.9% of patients with and 13.0% of patients without TSTE (RR = 0.681, P = 0.214). Incidence of death or MI after 2 year follow-up was 5.7 and 14.6% respectively (RR = 0.384, P = 0.008). Within the group of patients with TSTE, incidence of the primary endpoint was 5.8% in the early and 12.7% in the late treatment group (RR = 0.455, P = 0.213), driven by reduction in recurrent ischemia. Enzymatic infarct size, bleeding and incidence of death or recurrent MI at 2 years follow-up was comparable between the treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: In high-risk patients with NSTE-ACS, TSTE is frequently seen. Similar to findings in patients with high-risk NSTE-ACS, immediate angiography and revascularization in these patients is feasible but not superior to later treatment. Prospective randomized trials are needed to provide more evidence in the optimal timing of treatment in patients with TSTE-ACS. (c) 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc

Initial invasive or conservative strategy for stable coronary disease

BACKGROUND Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain. METHODS We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction. RESULTS Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, 121.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 124.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used

Health-status outcomes with invasive or conservative care in coronary disease

BACKGROUND In the ISCHEMIA trial, an invasive strategy with angiographic assessment and revascularization did not reduce clinical events among patients with stable ischemic heart disease and moderate or severe ischemia. A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status among these patients. METHODS We assessed angina-related symptoms, function, and quality of life with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) at randomization, at months 1.5, 3, and 6, and every 6 months thereafter in participants who had been randomly assigned to an invasive treatment strategy (2295 participants) or a conservative strategy (2322). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate differences between the treatment groups. The primary outcome of this health-status analysis was the SAQ summary score (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health status). All analyses were performed in the overall population and according to baseline angina frequency. RESULTS At baseline, 35% of patients reported having no angina in the previous month. SAQ summary scores increased in both treatment groups, with increases at 3, 12, and 36 months that were 4.1 points (95% credible interval, 3.2 to 5.0), 4.2 points (95% credible interval, 3.3 to 5.1), and 2.9 points (95% credible interval, 2.2 to 3.7) higher with the invasive strategy than with the conservative strategy. Differences were larger among participants who had more frequent angina at baseline (8.5 vs. 0.1 points at 3 months and 5.3 vs. 1.2 points at 36 months among participants with daily or weekly angina as compared with no angina). CONCLUSIONS In the overall trial population with moderate or severe ischemia, which included 35% of participants without angina at baseline, patients randomly assigned to the invasive strategy had greater improvement in angina-related health status than those assigned to the conservative strategy. The modest mean differences favoring the invasive strategy in the overall group reflected minimal differences among asymptomatic patients and larger differences among patients who had had angina at baseline