Search

Background: The use of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) is underprescribed in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).Objectives: This study sought to examine whether targeted and tailored electronic health record (EHR) alerts recommending GDMT in eligible patients with HFrEF improves GDMT use.Methods: PROMPT-HF (PRagmatic trial Of Messaging to Providers about Treatment of Heart Failure) was a pragmatic, EHR-based, cluster-randomized comparative effectiveness trial. A total of 100 providers caring for patients with HFrEF were randomized to either an alert or usual care. The alert notified providers of individualized GDMT recommendations along with patient characteristics. The primary outcome was an increase in the number of GDMT classes prescribed at 30 days postrandomization. Providers were surveyed on knowledge of guidelines and user experience.Results: The study enrolled 1,310 ambulatory patients with HFrEF from April to October 2021. Median age was 72 years; 31% were female; 18% were Black; and median left ventricular ejection fraction was 32%. At baseline, 84% of participants were receiving β-blockers, 71% received a renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitor, 29% received a mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist, and 11% received a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor. The primary outcome occurred in 176 of 685 (26%) participants in the alert arm vs 117 of 625 (19%) in the usual care arm, thus increasing GDMT class prescription by >40% after alert exposure (adjusted relative risk: 1.41; 95% CI: 1.03-1.93; P = 0.03). The number of patients needed to alert to result in an increase in addition of GDMT classes was 14. A total of 79% of alerted providers agreed that the alert was effective at enabling improved prescription of medical therapy for HF.Conclusions: A real-time, targeted, and tailored EHR-based alerting system for outpatients with HFrEF led to significantly higher rates of GDMT at 30 days when compared with usual care. This low-cost intervention can be rapidly integrated into clinical care and accelerate adoption of high-value therapies in heart failure. (PRagmatic trial Of Messaging to Providers about Treatment of Heart Failure [PROMPT-HF; NCT04514458]). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Prompt myocardial revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) reduces infarct size and improves outcomes in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). However, as much as 50% of the loss of viable myocardium may be attributed to the reperfusion injury and the associated inflammatory response.Objectives: This study sought to evaluate the effect of the interleukin-6 receptor inhibitor tocilizumab on myocardial salvage in acute STEMI.Methods: The ASSAIL-MI trial was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted at 3 high-volume PCI centers in Norway. Patients admitted with STEMI within 6 h of symptom onset were eligible. Consenting patients were randomized in a 1:1 fashion to promptly receive a single infusion of 280 mg tocilizumab or placebo. The primary endpoint was the myocardial salvage index as measured by magnetic resonance imaging after 3 to 7 days.Results: We randomized 101 patients to tocilizumab and 98 patients to placebo. The myocardial salvage index was larger in the tocilizumab group than in the placebo group (adjusted between-group difference 5.6 [95% confidence interval: 0.2 to 11.3] percentage points, p = 0.04). Microvascular obstruction was less extensive in the tocilizumab arm, but there was no significant difference in the final infarct size between the tocilizumab arm and the placebo arm (7.2% vs. 9.1% of myocardial volume, p = 0.08). Adverse events were evenly distributed across the treatment groups.Conclusions: Tocilizumab increased myocardial salvage in patients with acute STEMI. (ASSessing the effect of Anti-IL-6 treatment in Myocardial Infarction [ASSAIL-MI]; NCT03004703). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Outcomes data for a durable-polymer everolimus-eluting stent (EES) at extended long-term follow-up in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) are unknown.Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess the 10-year outcomes of patients enrolled in the EXAMINATION (A Clinical Evaluation of Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stents in the Treatment of Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction) trial.Methods: The EXAMINATION-EXTEND (10-Years Follow-Up of the EXAMINATION Trial) study is an investigator-driven 10-year follow-up of the EXAMINATION trial, which randomly assigned 1,498 patients with STEMI in a 1:1 ratio to receive either EES (n = 751) or bare-metal stents (n = 747). The primary endpoint was a patient-oriented composite endpoint of all-cause death, any myocardial infarction, or any revascularization. Secondary endpoints included a device-oriented composite endpoint of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization; the individual components of the combined endpoints; and stent thrombosis.Results: Complete 10-year clinical follow-up was obtained in 94.5% of the EES group and 95.9% of the bare-metal stent group. Rates of the patient-oriented composite endpoint and device-oriented composite endpoint were significantly reduced in the EES group (32.4% vs. 38.0% [hazard ratio: 0.81; 95% confidence interval: 0.68 to 0.96; p = 0.013] and 13.6% vs. 18.4% [hazard ratio: 0.72; 95% confidence interval: 0.55 to 0.93; p = 0.012], respectively), driven mainly by target lesion revascularization (5.7% vs. 8.8%; p = 0.018). The rate of definite stent thrombosis was similar in both groups (2.2% vs. 2.5%; p = 0.590). No differences were found between the groups in terms of target lesion revascularization (1.4% vs. 1.3%; p = 0.963) and definite or probable stent thrombosis (0.6% vs. 0.4%; p = 0.703) between 5 and 10 years.Conclusions: At 10-year follow-up, EES demonstrated confirmed superiority in combined patient- and device-oriented composite endpoints compared with bare-metal stents in patients with STEMI requiring primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Between 5- and 10-year follow-up, a low incidence of adverse cardiovascular events related to device failure was found in both groups. (10-Years Follow-Up of the EXAMINATION Trial; NCT04462315). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Outcome data after extended long-term follow-up of patients with coronary artery disease treated with drug-eluting stents (DES) in randomized clinical trials are scant.Objectives: Performance differences among devices may be expected to emerge over time depending on whether stenting is done with polymer-free or durable polymer DES. This study assessed the 10-year outcomes of patients enrolled in the ISAR-TEST-5 (Test Efficacy of Sirolimus- and Probucol-Eluting Versus Zotarolimus-Eluting Stents) trial.Methods: A total of 3,002 patients were randomized to treatment with either polymer-free sirolimus- and probucol-eluting stents (n = 2,002) or durable polymer zotarolimus-eluting stents (n = 1,000). The primary endpoint was the composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization (a device-oriented composite endpoint [DOCE]). Additional endpoints of interest were the patient-oriented composite endpoint (POCE), including all-cause death, any myocardial infarction, or any revascularization; individual components of the composite endpoints; and definite or probable stent thrombosis.Results: The median age of the patients at randomization was 67.8 years. At 10 years, 63.9% of patients were alive. The rates of DOCE and POCE were high in both groups with no difference in the incidence between polymer-free sirolimus- and probucol-eluting stents and durable polymer zotarolimus-eluting stents (DOCE: 43.8% vs. 43.0%, respectively; hazard ratio: 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.89 to 1.14; p = 0.90; POCE: 66.2% vs. 67.7%, respectively; hazard ratio: 0.94; 95% CI: 0.86 to 1.04; p = 0.22). The rates of the individual components of the composite endpoints were comparable in both groups. The incidence of definite/probable stent thrombosis over 10 years was low and comparable in both groups (1.6% vs. 1.9%; hazard ratio: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.46 to 1.54; p = 0.58).Conclusions: At 10 years, there were no measurable differences in outcomes between patients treated with polymer-free versus durable polymer DES. The incidence of stent thrombosis was low and comparable in both groups. High overall adverse clinical event rates were observed during extended follow-up. (Test Efficacy of Sirolimus- and Probucol-Eluting Versus Zotarolimus-Eluting Stents [ISAR-TEST-5]; NCT00598533). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite advances in treatment, mortality in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS) remains high. Short-term mechanical circulatory support devices acutely improve hemodynamic conditions.Objectives: The aim of this study was to determine whether a new percutaneous mechanical circulatory support (pMCS) device (Impella CP, Abiomed, Danvers, Massachusetts) decreases 30-day mortality when compared with an intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) in patients with severe shock complicating AMI.Methods: In a randomized, prospective, open-label, multicenter trial, 48 patients with severe CS complicating AMI were assigned to pMCS (n = 24) or IABP (n = 24). Severe CS was defined as systolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg or the need for inotropic or vasoactive medication and the requirement for mechanical ventilation. The primary endpoint was 30-day all-cause mortality.Results: At 30 days, mortality in patients treated with either IABP or pMCS was similar (50% and 46%, respectively; hazard ratio with pMCS: 0.96; 95% confidence interval: 0.42 to 2.18; p = 0.92). At 6 months, mortality rates for both pMCS and IABP were 50% (hazard ratio: 1.04; 95% confidence interval: 0.47 to 2.32; p = 0.923).Conclusions: In this explorative randomized controlled trial involving mechanically ventilated patients with CS after AMI, routine treatment with pMCS was not associated with reduced 30-day mortality compared with IABP. (IMPRESS in Severe Shock; NTR3450). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Whether the rate of drug elution and polymer absorption affects clinical outcomes of biodegradable polymer-based drug-eluting stents (DES) is unknown. The widely used polylactide polymer-based Excel stent (JW Medical, Weihai, China) elutes sirolimus within 180 days, and the polylactide polymer is completely absorbed within 6 to 9 months. In contrast, the poly-lactide-co-glycolide polymer-based BuMA stent (Sino Medical, Tianjin, China) elutes sirolimus within 30 days, and the poly-lactide-co-glycolide polymer is completely absorbed within 3 months. Thus, both metallic DES elute sirolimus, isolating major differences to the polymer and elution kinetics.Objectives: The goal of this study was to compare the safety and effectiveness between the BuMA sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) and Excel SES in an "all-comers" population.Methods: PANDA III was a multicenter trial with few exclusion criteria, powered for sequential noninferiority and superiority testing. The primary endpoint was 1-year target lesion failure (TLF), a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization.Results: Between December 2013 and August 2014, 2,348 patients were randomly assigned to treatment with BuMA (n = 1,174) or Excel SES (n = 1,174). The 1-year primary endpoint of TLF occurred in 6.4% of patients in each group (difference: 0.06%; 95% confidence interval: 1.93% to 2.04%; pnoninferiority = 0.0003; psuperiority = 0.95). There were no significant between-group differences in any of the secondary endpoints other than the incidence of definite/probable stent thrombosis, which occurred less frequently with the BuMA stent (0.5% vs. 1.3%; log-rank p = 0.048).Conclusions: The BuMA SES was demonstrated to be noninferior to the Excel SES for 1-year TLF, with a lower incidence of stent thrombosis. (Comparison of BuMA eG Based BioDegradable Polymer Stent With EXCEL Biodegradable Polymer Sirolimus-eluting Stent in "Real-World" Practice [PANDA-III]; NCT02017275). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) is designed to achieve results comparable to metallic drug-eluting stents at 1 year, with improved long-term outcomes. Whether the 1-year clinical and angiographic results of BVS are noninferior to current-generation drug-eluting stents has not been established.Objectives: This study sought to evaluate the angiographic efficacy and clinical safety and effectiveness of BVS in a randomized trial designed to enable approval of the BVS in China.Methods: Eligible patients with 1 or 2 de novo native coronary artery lesions were randomized to BVS or cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stents (CoCr-EES) in a 1:1 ratio stratified by diabetes and the number of lesions treated. Angiographic and clinical follow-up were planned at 1 year in all patients. The primary endpoint was angiographic in-segment late loss (LL), powered for noninferiority with a margin of 0.15 mm.Results: A total of 480 patients were randomized (241 BVS vs. 239 CoCr-EES) at 24 sites. Acute clinical device success (98.0% vs. 99.6%; p = 0.22) and procedural success (97.0% and 98.3%; p = 0.37) were comparable in BVS- and CoCr-EES-treated patients, respectively. The primary endpoint of in-segment LL at 1 year was 0.19 ± 0.38 mm for BVS versus 0.13 ± 0.38 mm for CoCr-EES; the 1-sided 97.5% upper confidence limit of the difference was 0.14 mm, achieving noninferiority of BVS compared with CoCr-EES (pnoninferiority = 0.01). BVS and CoCr-EES also had similar 1-year rates of target lesion failure (cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization; 3.4% vs. 4.2%, respectively; p = 0.62) and definite/probable scaffold/stent thrombosis (0.4% vs. 0.0%, respectively; p = 1.00).Conclusions: In the present multicenter randomized trial, BVS was noninferior to CoCr-EES for the primary endpoint of in-segment LL at 1 year. (A Clinical Evaluation of Absorb Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold [Absorb BVS] System in Chinese Population-ABSORB CHINA Randomized Controlled Trial [RCT]; NCT01923740). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]