Prognostic Value Of Normal Myocardial Perfusion Imaging In Asymptomatic Diabetic Patients With Moderate And High Calcium Scores

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the intermediate prognostic value of normal myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) in asymptomatic diabetic patients with intermediate and high coronary artery calcium (CAC) scores. Methods: A total of 115 asymptomatic diabetic patients with no known coronary artery disease (CAD) underwent MPI after multi-slice computed tomography CAC assessment for the detection of suspected CAD. The study included 75 patients with normal MPI results. A 17-segment model for myocardial perfusion and function analysis was used. Patients were divided into three groups: I gr-20 patients with a diabetes duration between 1-5 years; II gr-24 patients with a diabetes duration 5-10 years; and III gr-31 patients with a diabetes duration >10 years. End points (cardiac death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, heart failure, new angina, revascularization) were assessed at 6, 12 and 24 months

Echocardiographic findings on aortic stenosis: an observational, prospective, and multi-center registry

International audienceBackground: The aim of this aortic stenosis registry was to investigate the changes of routine echocardiographic indices and strain in patients with moderate-to-severe aortic stenosis over a 6-month follow-up period. Methods: Our aortic stenosis registry is observational, prospective, multicenter registry of nine countries, with 197 patients with aortic valve area less than 1.5 cm 2 . The enrolment took place from January to August 2017. We excluded patients with uncontrolled atrial arrhythmias, pulmonary hypertension or cardiomyopathies, as well as those with hemodynamically significant valvular disease other than aortic stenosis. We included patients who did not require intervention and who had a complete follow-up study. Results: In patients with preserved ejection fraction, left ventricular mass has significantly increased between baseline and follow-up studies (218 ± 34 grams vs 253 ± 29 grams, p = 0.02). However, when indexed to body surface area, there was no significant difference. Left ventricular global longitudinal strain significantly decreased (-19.7 ± -4.8 vs (-16.4 vs -3.8, p = 0.01). Left atrial volume was significantly higher at follow-up (p = 0.035). Right ventricular basal diameter and mid-cavity diameter were greater at the follow-up (p = 0.04 and p = 0.035, respectively). Patients with low-flow low-gradient aortic stenosis had significantly lower global longitudinal strain (-12.3% ± -3.9% vs -19.7% ± -4.8%, p = 0.01). Conclusion: Left atrial dilatation is one of the first changes to take place in low-flow low-gradient aortic stenosis patients even when left ventricular dimensions and function remains intact. Global longitudinal strain is an important determinant of left ventricular systolic and diastolic dysfunction and right ventricular function is an important parameter of aortic stenosis assessment. Accordingly, our registry has further shed the light on these indices role as multisite follow-up of aortic stenosis

Management of coronary disease in patients with advanced kidney disease

BACKGROUND Clinical trials that have assessed the effect of revascularization in patients with stable coronary disease have routinely excluded those with advanced chronic kidney disease. METHODS We randomly assigned 777 patients with advanced kidney disease and moderate or severe ischemia on stress testing to be treated with an initial invasive strategy consisting of coronary angiography and revascularization (if appropriate) added to medical therapy or an initial conservative strategy consisting of medical therapy alone and angiography reserved for those in whom medical therapy had failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction. A key secondary outcome was a composite of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. RESULTS At a median follow-up of 2.2 years, a primary outcome event had occurred in 123 patients in the invasive-strategy group and in 129 patients in the conservative-strategy group (estimated 3-year event rate, 36.4% vs. 36.7%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79 to 1.29; P=0.95). Results for the key secondary outcome were similar (38.5% vs. 39.7%; hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.29). The invasive strategy was associated with a higher incidence of stroke than the conservative strategy (hazard ratio, 3.76; 95% CI, 1.52 to 9.32; P=0.004) and with a higher incidence of death or initiation of dialysis (hazard ratio, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.04 to 2.11; P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease, advanced chronic kidney 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 death or nonfatal myocardial infarction

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