Search

Abstract Background The purpose of the Finnish Cardiovascular Study (FINCAVAS) is to construct a risk profile – using genetic, haemodynamic and electrocardiographic (ECG) markers – of individuals at high risk of cardiovascular diseases, events and deaths. Methods and design All patients scheduled for an exercise stress test at Tampere University Hospital and willing to participate have been and will be recruited between October 2001 and December 2007. The final number of participants is estimated to reach 5,000. Technically successful data on exercise tests using a bicycle ergometer have been collected of 2,212 patients (1,400 men and 812 women) by the end of 2004. In addition to repeated measurement of heart rate and blood pressure, digital high-resolution ECG at 500 Hz is recorded continuously during the entire exercise test, including the resting and recovery phases. About 20% of the patients are examined with coronary angiography. Genetic variations known or suspected to alter cardiovascular function or pathophysiology are analysed to elucidate the effects and interactions of these candidate genes, exercise and commonly used cardiovascular medications. Discussion FINCAVAS compiles an extensive set of data on patient history, genetic variation, cardiovascular parameters, ECG markers as well as follow-up data on clinical events, hospitalisations and deaths. The data enables the development of new diagnostic and prognostic tools as well as assessments of the importance of existing markers.

Background: It is unclear whether more effective forms of thrombus removal than current aspiration catheters would lead to improved outcomes. We sought to evaluate the prognostic role of residual thrombus burden (rTB), after manual thrombectomy, in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention with routine manual thrombectomy in the TOTAL trial (Thrombectomy Versus PCI Alone)., Methods: This is a single-arm analysis of patients from the TOTAL trial who underwent routine manual aspiration thrombectomy. The rTB was quantified by an angiographic core laboratory using the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction criteria and validated using existing optical coherent tomography data. Large rTB was defined as grade ≥3. The primary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes, recurrent myocardial infarction, cardiogenic shock, or new or worsening heart failure within 180 days., Results: Of 5033 patients randomized to routine thrombectomy, 2869 patients had quantifiable rTB (1014 [35%] had large rTB). Patients with large rTB were more likely to have hypertension, previous percutaneous coronary intervention, myocardial infarction, or Killip class III on presentation but less likely to have Killip class I. The primary outcome occurred more frequently in patients with large rTB, even after adjustment for known risk predictors (8.6% versus 4.6%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.83 [95% CI, 1.34-2.48]). These patients also had a higher risk of cardiovascular death (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.83 [95% CI, 1.13-2.95]), cardiogenic shock (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.02 [95% CI, 1.08-3.76]), and heart failure (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.74 [95% CI, 1.02-2.96]) but not myocardial infarction or stroke., Conclusions: Large rTB is a common finding in primary percutaneous coronary intervention and is associated with increased risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes, including cardiovascular death. Future technologies offering better thrombus removal than current devices may decrease or even eliminate the risk associated with rTB. This, potentially, can turn into a strategic option to be studied in clinical trials., Registration: URL: https://www., Clinicaltrials: gov; Unique identifier: NCT01149044.

Background: The COMPLETE (Complete vs Culprit-only Revascularization to Treat Multi-vessel Disease After Early PCI for STEMI) trial demonstrated that staged nonculprit lesion percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) reduced major cardiovascular (CV) events in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD)., Objectives: The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of nonculprit-lesion PCI timing on major CV outcomes and also the time course of the benefit of complete revascularization., Methods: Following culprit-lesion PCI, 4,041 patients with STEMI and multivessel CAD were randomized to staged nonculprit-lesion PCI or culprit-lesion only PCI. Randomization was stratified according to investigator-planned timing of nonculprit-lesion PCI: during or after the index hospitalization. The first coprimary outcome was the composite of CV death or myocardial infarction (MI). In pre-specified analyses, hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated for each time stratum. Landmark analyses of the entire population were performed within 45 days and after 45 days., Results: For nonculprit-lesion PCI planned during the index hospitalization (actual time: median 1 day), CV death or MI was reduced with complete revascularization compared with culprit-lesion only PCI (HR: 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.59 to 1.00). For nonculprit lesion PCI planned to occur after hospital discharge (actual time: median 23 days), CV death or MI was also reduced with complete revascularization (HR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.49 to 0.97; interaction p = 0.62). Landmark analyses demonstrated an HR of 0.86 (95% CI: 0.59 to 1.24) during the first 45 days and 0.69 (95% CI: 0.54 to 0.89) from 45 days to the end of follow-up for intended nonculprit lesion PCI versus culprit lesion only PCI., Conclusions: Among STEMI patients with multivessel disease, the benefit of complete revascularization over culprit-lesion only PCI was consistent irrespective of the investigator-determined timing of nonculprit-lesion intervention. The benefit of complete revascularization on hard clinical outcomes emerged mainly over the long term., (Copyright © 2019 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Prior Studies have suggested better outcomes in smokers compared with nonsmokers receiving clopidogrel ("smoker's paradox"). The impact of a more intensive clopidogrel regimen on ischemic and bleeding risks in smokers with acute coronary syndromes requiring percutaneous coronary interventions remains unclear., Methods and Results: We analyzed 17 263 acute coronary syndrome patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention from the CURRENT-OASIS 7 (Clopidogrel and Aspirin Optimal Dose Usage to Reduce Recurrent Events-Seventh Organization to Assess Strategies in Ischemic Symptoms) trial, which compared double-dose (600 mg day 1;150 mg days 2-7; then 75 mg daily) versus standard-dose (300 mg day 1; then 75 mg daily) clopidogrel in acute coronary syndrome patients. The primary outcome was cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 30 days. Interactions between treatment allocation and smoking status (current smokers versus nonsmokers) were evaluated. Overall, 6394 patients (37.0%) were current smokers. For the comparison of double- versus standard-dose clopidogrel, there were significant interactions in smokers and nonsmokers for the primary outcome ( P =0.031) and major bleeding ( P =0.002). Double- versus standard-dose clopidogrel reduced the primary outcome among smokers by 34% (hazard ratio [HR] 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.50-0.87, P =0.003), whereas in nonsmokers, there was no apparent benefit (HR 0.96, 95% CI, 0.80-1.14, P =0.61). For major bleeding, there was no difference between the groups in smokers (HR 0.77, 95% CI, 0.48-1.24, P =0.28), whereas in nonsmokers, the double-dose clopidogrel regimen increased bleeding (HR 1.89, 95% CI, 1.37-2.60, P <0.0001). Double-dose clopidogrel reduced the incidence of definite stent thrombosis in smokers (HR 0.41, 95% CI, 0.24-0.71) and nonsmokers (HR 0.63, 95% CI, 0.42-0.93; P for interaction=0.19)., Conclusions: In smokers, a double-dose clopidogrel regimen reduced major cardiovascular events and stent thrombosis after percutaneous coronary intervention, with no increase in major bleeding. This suggests that clopidogrel dosing in patients with acute coronary syndromes should be personalized, taking into consideration both ischemic and bleeding risk., Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00335452., (© 2017 The Authors. Published on behalf of the American Heart Association, Inc., by Wiley.)

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy and safety of radial versus femoral access in women undergoing coronary angiography/intervention., Background: The risk of bleeding and vascular access site complications are higher in women than in men., Methods: In a pre-specified RIVAL (RadIal Vs femorAL access for coronary intervention) subgroup analysis, we compared outcomes in women (n=1,861) and men (n=5,160) randomized to radial versus femoral access., Results: Overall, women were at higher risk of major vascular complications compared with men (4.7% vs. 1.7%; p<0.0001). Major vascular complications were significantly reduced with radial access in women (3.1% vs. 6.1%; hazard ratio [HR]: 0.5; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.32 to 0.78; p=0.002) and in men (0.7% vs. 2.8%; HR: 0.27; 95% CI: 0.17 to 0.45; p<0.0001; interaction p=0.092). Crossover rates were higher with radial compared with femoral access in women (11.1% vs. 1.9%; HR: 5.88; p<0.0001) and men (6.3% vs. 1.9%; HR: 3.32; p<0.0001; interaction p=0.054). Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) success rates were similar irrespective of access site (women: HR: 1.05; p=0.471; men: HR: 1.00; p=0.888; interaction p=0.674), with no differences in PCI complications. In multivariable analyses, female sex was an independent predictor of major vascular complications (HR: 2.39; 95% CI: 1.76 to 3.25; p<0.0001). There were consistent findings for women and men, with no difference for the primary composite endpoint of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and non-coronary artery bypass grafting bleeding (women: 3.9% vs. 5.0%; HR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.50 to 1.19; men: 3.54% vs. 3.5%; HR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.75 to -1.34; interaction p=0.325)., Conclusions: Women undergoing coronary angiography and PCI have a higher risk of vascular access site complications compared with men, and radial access is an effective method to reduce these complications., (Copyright © 2015 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The study sought to evaluate the relationship between procedural volume and outcomes with radial and femoral approach., Background: RIVAL (RadIal Vs. femorAL) was a randomized trial of radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography/intervention (N = 7,021), which overall did not show a difference in primary outcome of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or non-coronary artery bypass graft major bleeding., Methods: In pre-specified subgroup analyses, the hazard ratios for the primary outcome were compared among centers divided by tertiles and among individual operators. A multivariable Cox proportional hazards model was used to determine the independent effect of center and operator volumes after adjusting for other variables., Results: In high-volume radial centers, the primary outcome was reduced with radial versus femoral access (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.28 to 0.87) but not in intermediate- (HR: 1.23; 95% CI: 0.88 to 1.72) or low-volume centers (HR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.52 to 1.31; interaction p = 0.021). High-volume centers enrolled a higher proportion of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). After adjustment for STEMI, the benefit of radial access persisted at high-volume radial centers. There was no difference in the primary outcome between radial and femoral access by operator volume: high-volume operators (HR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.48 to 1.28), intermediate (HR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.60 to 1.27), and low (HR: 1.10; 95% CI: 0.74 to 1.65; interaction p = 0.536). However, in a multivariable model, overall center volume and radial center volume were independently associated with the primary outcome but not femoral center volume (overall percutaneous coronary intervention volume HR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.88 to 0.96; radial volume HR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.80 to 0.97; and femoral volume HR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.94 to 1.07; p = 0.98)., Conclusions: Procedural volume and expertise are important, particularly for radial percutaneous coronary intervention. (A Trial of Trans-radial Versus Trans-femoral Percutaneous Coronary Intervention [PCI] Access Site Approach in Patients With Unstable Angina or Myocardial Infarction Managed With an Invasive Strategy [RIVAL]; NCT01014273)., (Copyright © 2014 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The authors sought to compare the radiation dose between radial and femoral access., Background: Small trials have shown an increase in the radiation dose with radial compared with femoral access, but many were performed during the operators' learning curve of radial access., Methods: Patients were randomized to radial or femoral access, as a part of the RIVAL (RadIal Vs. femorAL) trial (N = 7,021). Fluoroscopy time was prospectively collected in 5740 patients and radiation dose quantified as air kerma in 1,445 patients and dose-area product (DAP) in 2,255 patients., Results: Median fluoroscopy time was higher with radial versus femoral access (9.3 vs. 8.0 min, p < 0.001). Median air kerma was nominally higher with radial versus femoral access (1,046 vs. 930 mGy, respectively, p = 0.051). Median DAP was not different between radial and femoral access (52.8 Gy-cm(2) vs. 51.2 Gy·cm(2), p = 0.83). When results are stratified according to procedural volume, air kerma was increased only in the lowest tertile of radial volume centers (low 1,425 vs. 1,045 mGy, p = 0.002; middle 987 vs. 958 mGy, p = 0.597; high 652 vs. 621 mGy, p = 0.403, interaction p = 0.026). Multivariable regression showed procedural volume was the greatest independent predictor of lower air kerma dose (ratio of geometric means 0.55; 95% confidence interval 0.49 to 0.61 for highest-volume radial centers)., Conclusions: Radiation dose as measured by air kerma was nominally higher with radial versus femoral access, but differences were present only in lower-volume centers and operators. High-volume centers have the lowest radiation dose irrespective of which access site approach that they use. (A Trial of Trans-radial Versus Trans-femoral Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) Access Site Approach in Patients With Unstable Angina or Myocardial Infarction Managed With an Invasive Strategy [RIVAL]; NCT01014273)., (Copyright © 2013 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to determine the consistency of the effects of radial artery access in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and in those with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTEACS)., Background: The safety associated with radial access may translate into mortality benefit in higher-risk patients, such as those with STEMI., Methods: We compared efficacy and bleeding outcomes in patients randomized to radial versus femoral access in RIVAL (RadIal Vs femorAL access for coronary intervention trial) (N = 7,021) separately in those with STEMI (n = 1,958) and NSTEACS (n = 5,063). Interaction tests between access site and acute coronary syndrome type were performed., Results: Baseline characteristics were well matched between radial and femoral groups. There were significant interactions for the primary outcome of death/myocardial infarction/stroke/non-coronary artery bypass graft-related major bleeding (p = 0.025), the secondary outcome of death/myocardial infarction/stroke (p = 0.011) and mortality (p = 0.001). In STEMI patients, radial access reduced the primary outcome compared with femoral access (3.1% vs. 5.2%; hazard ratio [HR]: 0.60; p = 0.026). For NSTEACS, the rates were 3.8% and 3.5%, respectively (p = 0.49). In STEMI patients, death/myocardial infarction/stroke were also reduced with radial access (2.7% vs. 4.6%; HR 0.59; p = 0.031), as was all-cause mortality (1.3% vs. 3.2%; HR: 0.39; p = 0.006), with no difference in NSTEACS patients. Operator radial experience was greater in STEMI versus NSTEACS patients (400 vs. 326 cases/year, p < 0.0001). In primary PCI, mortality was reduced with radial access (1.4% vs. 3.1%; HR: 0.46; p = 0.041)., Conclusions: In patients with STEMI, radial artery access reduced the primary outcome and mortality. No such benefit was observed in patients with NSTEACS. The radial approach may be preferred in STEMI patients when the operator has considerable radial experience. (A Trial of Trans-radial Versus Trans-femoral Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) Access Site Approach in Patients With Unstable Angina or Myocardial Infarction Managed With an Invasive Strategy [RIVAL]; NCT01014273)., (Copyright © 2012 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)