Discrepancies in autologous bone marrow stem cell trials and enhancement of ejection fraction (DAMASCENE): weighted regression and meta-analysis

Objective To investigate whether discrepancies in trials of use of bone marrow stem cells in patients with heart disease account for the variation in reported effect size in improvement of left ventricular function. Design Identification and counting of factual discrepancies in trial reports, and sample size weighted regression against therapeutic effect size. Meta-analysis of trials that provided sufficient information. Data sources PubMed and Embase from inception to April 2013. Eligibility for selecting studies Randomised controlled trials evaluating the effect of autologous bone marrow stem cells for heart disease on mean left ventricular ejection fraction. Results There were over 600 discrepancies in 133 reports from 49 trials. There was a significant association between the number of discrepancies and the reported increment in EF with bone marrow stem cell therapy (Spearman’s r=0.4, P=0.005). Trials with no discrepancies were a small minority (five trials) and showed a mean EF effect size of −0.4%. The 24 trials with 1-10 discrepancies showed a mean effect size of 2.1%. The 12 with 11-20 discrepancies showed a mean effect of size 3.0%. The three with 21-30 discrepancies showed a mean effect size of 5.7%. The high discrepancy group, comprising five trials with over 30 discrepancies each, showed a mean effect size of 7.7%. Conclusions Avoiding discrepancies is difficult but is important because discrepancy count is related to effect size. The mechanism is unknown but should be explored in the design of future trials because in the five trials without discrepancies the effect of bone marrow stem cell therapy on ejection fraction is zero

Difficulty in detecting discrepancies in a clinical trial report: 260-reader evaluation

Background: Scientific literature can contain errors. Discrepancies, defined as two or more statements or results that cannot both be true, may be a signal of problems with a trial report. In this study, we report how many discrepancies are detected by a large panel of readers examining a trial report containing a large number of discrepancies. Methods: We approached a convenience sample of 343 journal readers in seven countries, and invited them in person to participate in a study. They were asked to examine the tables and figures of one published article for discrepancies. 260 participants agreed, ranging from medical students to professors. The discrepancies they identified were tabulated and counted. There were 39 different discrepancies identified. We evaluated the probability of discrepancy identification, and whether more time spent or greater participant experience as academic authors improved the ability to detect discrepancies. Results: Overall, 95.3% of discrepancies were missed. Most participants (62%) were unable to find any discrepancies. Only 11.5% noticed more than 10% of the discrepancies. More discrepancies were noted by participants who spent more time on the task (Spearman’s ρ = 0.22, P < 0.01), and those with more experience of publishing papers (Spearman’s ρ = 0.13 with number of publications, P = 0.04). Conclusions: Noticing discrepancies is difficult. Most readers miss most discrepancies even when asked specifically to look for them. The probability of a discrepancy evading an individual sensitized reader is 95%, making it important that, when problems are identified after publication, readers are able to communicate with each other. When made aware of discrepancies, the majority of readers support editorial action to correct the scientific record

Effects of percutaneous coronary intervention on death and myocardial infarction stratified by stable and unstable coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background: In patients presenting with ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) reduces mortality when compared with fibrinolysis. In other forms of coronary artery disease (CAD), however, it has been controversial whether PCI reduces mortality. In this meta-analysis, we examine the benefits of PCI in (1) patients post–myocardial infarction (MI) who did not receive immediate revascularization; (2) patients who have undergone primary PCI for ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction but have residual coronary lesions; (3) patients who have suffered a non–ST-segment–elevation acute coronary syndrome; and (4) patients with truly stable CAD with no recent infarct. This analysis includes data from the recently presented International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches (ISCHEMIA) and Complete versus Culprit-Only Revascularization Strategies to Treat Multivessel Disease after Early PCI for STEMI (COMPLETE) trials. Methods and Results: We systematically identified all randomized trials of PCI on a background of medical therapy for the treatment of CAD. The ISCHEMIA trial, presented in November 2019, was eligible for inclusion. Data were combined using a random-effects meta-analysis. The primary end point was all-cause mortality. Forty-six trials, including 37 757 patients, were eligible. In the 3 unstable scenarios, PCI had the following effects on mortality: unrevascularized post-MI relative risk (RR) 0.68 (95% CI, 0.45–1.03); P=0.07; multivessel disease following ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction (RR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.69–1.04]; P=0.11); non–ST-segment–elevation acute coronary syndrome (RR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.72–0.97]; P=0.02). Overall, in these unstable scenarios PCI was associated with a significant reduction in mortality (RR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.75–0.93]; P=0.02). In unstable CAD, PCI also reduced cardiac death (RR, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.53–0.90]; P=0.007) and MI (RR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.62–0.90]; P=0.002). For stable CAD, PCI did not reduce mortality (RR, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.87–1.11]), cardiac death (RR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.71–1.12]; P=0.33), or MI (RR, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.86–1.08]; P=0.54). Conclusions: PCI prevents death, cardiac death, and MI in patients with unstable CAD. For patients with stable CAD, PCI shows no evidence of an effect on any of these outcomes

Coronary flow reserve and cardiovascular outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS: This meta-analysis aims to quantify the association of reduced coronary flow with all-cause mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) across a broad range of patient groups and pathologies. METHODS AND RESULTS: We systematically identified all studies between 1 January 2000 and 1 August 2020, where coronary flow was measured and clinical outcomes were reported. The endpoints were all-cause mortality and MACE. Estimates of effect were calculated from published hazard ratios (HRs) using a random-effects model. Seventy-nine studies with a total of 59 740 subjects were included. Abnormal coronary flow reserve (CFR) was associated with a higher incidence of all-cause mortality [HR: 3.78, 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.39-5.97] and a higher incidence of MACE (HR 3.42, 95% CI: 2.92-3.99). Each 0.1 unit reduction in CFR was associated with a proportional increase in mortality (per 0.1 CFR unit HR: 1.16, 95% CI: 1.04-1.29) and MACE (per 0.1 CFR unit HR: 1.08, 95% CI: 1.04-1.11). In patients with isolated coronary microvascular dysfunction, an abnormal CFR was associated with a higher incidence of mortality (HR: 5.44, 95% CI: 3.78-7.83) and MACE (HR: 3.56, 95% CI: 2.14-5.90). Abnormal CFR was also associated with a higher incidence of MACE in patients with acute coronary syndromes (HR: 3.76, 95% CI: 2.35-6.00), heart failure (HR: 6.38, 95% CI: 1.95-20.90), heart transplant (HR: 3.32, 95% CI: 2.34-4.71), and diabetes mellitus (HR: 7.47, 95% CI: 3.37-16.55). CONCLUSION: Reduced coronary flow is strongly associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality and MACE across a wide range of pathological processes. This finding supports recent recommendations that coronary flow should be measured more routinely in clinical practice, to target aggressive vascular risk modification for individuals at higher risk

A randomised controlled trial to investigate the use of acute coronary syndrome therapy in patients hospitalised with COVID-19: the C19-ACS trial

BACKGROUND: Patients hospitalised with COVID-19 suffer thrombotic complications. Risk factors for poor outcomes are shared with coronary artery disease. OBJECTIVES: To investigate efficacy of an acute coronary syndrome regimen in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 and coronary disease risk factors. PATIENTS/METHODS: A randomised controlled open-label trial across acute hospitals (UK and Brazil) added aspirin, clopidogrel, low-dose rivaroxaban, atorvastatin, and omeprazole to standard care for 28-days. Primary efficacy and safety outcomes were 30-day mortality and bleeding. The key secondary outcome was a daily clinical status (at home, in hospital, on intensive therapy unit admission, death). RESULTS: 320 patients from 9 centres were randomised. The trial terminated early due to low recruitment. At 30 days there was no significant difference in mortality (intervention: 11.5% vs control: 15%, unadjusted OR 0.73, 95%CI 0.38 to 1.41, p=0.355). Significant bleeds were infrequent and not significantly different between the arms (intervention: 1.9% vs control 1.9%, p>0.999). Using a Bayesian Markov longitudinal ordinal model, it was 93% probable that intervention arm participants were more likely to transition to a better clinical state each day (OR 1.46, 95% CrI 0.88 to 2.37, Pr(Beta>0)=93%; adjusted OR 1.50, 95% CrI 0.91 to 2.45, Pr(Beta>0)=95%) and median time to discharge home was two days shorter (95% CrI -4 to 0, 2% probability that it was worse). CONCLUSIONS: Acute coronary syndrome treatment regimen was associated with a reduction in the length of hospital stay without an excess in major bleeding. A larger trial is needed to evaluate mortality

Endothelial Dysfunction and Specific Inflammation in Obesity Hypoventilation Syndrome

BACKGROUND: Obesity hypoventilation syndrome (OHS) is associated with increased cardiovascular morbidity. What moderate chronic hypoventilation adds to obesity on systemic inflammation and endothelial dysfunction remains unknown. QUESTION: To compare inflammatory status and endothelial function in OHS versus eucapnic obese patients. METHODOLOGY: 14 OHS and 39 eucapnic obese patients matched for BMI and age were compared. Diurnal blood gazes, overnight polysomnography and endothelial function, measured by reactive hyperemia peripheral arterial tonometry (RH-PAT), were assessed. Inflammatory (Leptin, RANTES, MCP-1, IL-6, IL-8, TNFalpha, Resistin) and anti-inflammatory (adiponectin, IL-1Ra) cytokines were measured by multiplex beads immunoassays. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: OHS exhibited a higher PaCO(2), a lower forced vital capacity (FVC) and tended to have a lower PaO(2) than eucapnic obese patients. (HS)-CRP, RANTES levels and glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) were significantly increased in OHS (respectively 11.1+/-10.9 vs. 5.7+/-5.5 mg x l(-1) for (HS)-CRP, 55.9+/-55.3 vs 23.3+/-15.8 ng/ml for RANTES and 7.3+/-4.3 vs 6.1+/-1.7 for HbA1c). Serum adiponectin was reduced in OHS (7606+/-2977 vs 13,660+/-7854 ng/ml). Endothelial function was significantly more impaired in OHS (RH-PAT index: 0.22+/-0.06 vs 0.51+/-0.11). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to eucapnic obesity, OHS is associated with a specific increase in the pro-atherosclerotic RANTES chemokine, a decrease in the anti-inflammatory adipokine adiponectin and impaired endothelial function. These three conditions are known to be strongly associated with an increased cardiovascular risk. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00603096

Achieving Optimal Medical Therapy: Insights From the ORBITA Trial

Background: In stable coronary artery disease, medications are used for 2 purposes: cardiovascular risk reduction and symptom improvement. In clinical trials and clinical practice, medication use is often not optimal. The ORBITA (Objective Randomised Blinded Investigation With Optimal Medical Therapy of Angioplasty in Stable Angina) trial was the first placebo-controlled trial of percutaneous coronary intervention. A key component of the ORBITA trial design was the inclusion of a medical optimization phase, aimed at ensuring that all patients were treated with guideline-directed truly optimal medical therapy. In this study, we report the medical therapy that was achieved. Methods and Results: After enrollment into the ORBITA trial, all 200 patients entered a 6-week period of intensive medical therapy optimization, with initiation and uptitration of risk reduction and antianginal therapy. At the prerandomization stage, the median number of antianginals established was 3 (interquartile range, 2-4). A total of 195 patients (97.5%) reached the prespecified target of ≥2 antianginals; 136 (68.0%) did not stop any antianginals because of adverse effects, and the median number of antianginals stopped for adverse effects per patient was 0 (interquartile range, 0-1). Amlodipine and bisoprolol were well tolerated (stopped for adverse effects in 4/175 [2.3%] and 9/167 [5.4%], respectively). Ranolazine and ivabradine were also well tolerated (stopped for adverse effects in 1/20 [5.0%] and 1/18 [5.6%], respectively). Isosorbide mononitrate and nicorandil were stopped for adverse effects in 36 of 172 (20.9%) and 32 of 141 (22.7%) of patients, respectively. Statins were well tolerated and taken by 191 of 200 (95.5%) patients. Conclusions: In the 12-week ORBITA trial period, medical therapy was successfully optimized and well tolerated, with few drug adverse effects leading to therapy cessation. Truly optimal medical therapy can be achieved in clinical trials, and translating this into longer-term clinical practice should be a focus of future study. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02062593

Dobutamine stress echocardiography ischemia as a predictor of the placebo-controlled efficacy of percutaneous coronary intervention in stable coronary artery disease: the stress echo-stratified analysis of ORBITA

BACKGROUND: Dobutamine stress echocardiography is widely used to test for ischemia in patients with stable coronary artery disease. In this analysis, we studied the ability of the prerandomization stress echocardiography score to predict the placebo-controlled efficacy of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) within the ORBITA trial (Objective Randomised Blinded Investigation With Optimal Medical Therapy of Angioplasty in Stable Angina).METHODS: One hundred eighty-three patients underwent dobutamine stress echocardiography before randomization. The stress echocardiography score is broadly the number of segments abnormal at peak stress, with akinetic segments counting double and dyskinetic segments counting triple. The ability of prerandomization stress echocardiography to predict the placebo-controlled effect of PCI on response variables was tested by using regression modeling.RESULTS: At prerandomization, the stress echocardiography score was 1.56±1.77 in the PCI arm (n=98) and 1.61±1.73 in the placebo arm (n=85). There was a detectable interaction between prerandomization stress echocardiography score and the effect of PCI on angina frequency score with a larger placebo-controlled effect in patients with the highest stress echocardiography score (Pinteraction=0.031). With our sample size, we were unable to detect an interaction between stress echocardiography score and any other patient-reported response variables: freedom from angina (Pinteraction=0.116), physical limitation (Pinteraction=0.461), quality of life (Pinteraction=0.689), EuroQOL 5 quality-of-life score (Pinteraction=0.789), or between stress echocardiography score and physician-assessed Canadian Cardiovascular Society angina class (Pinteraction=0.693), and treadmill exercise time (Pinteraction=0.426).CONCLUSIONS: The degree of ischemia assessed by dobutamine stress echocardiography predicts the placebo-controlled efficacy of PCI on patient-reported angina frequency. The greater the downstream stress echocardiography abnormality caused by a stenosis, the greater the reduction in symptoms from PCI