Search

Purpose: This study evaluated whether patient support, administered via an electronic device-based app, increased adherence to treatment and lifestyle changes in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) treated with ticagrelor in routine clinical practice., Methods: Patients (aged ≥ 18 years) with diagnosed ACS treated with ticagrelor co-administered with low-dose acetylsalicylic acid were randomized into an active group (with support tool app for medication intake reminders and motivational messages) and a control group (without support tool app), and observed for 48 weeks (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02615704). Patients were asked to complete the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) and Lifestyle Changes Questionnaire (LSQ), and were assessed for blood pressure and body mass index (BMI) at baseline (visit 1) and at the end of the study (visit 2). Medication adherence was measured using the Brilique Adherence Questionnaire (BAQ)., Results: Patients (N = 676) were randomized to an active (n = 342) or a control (n = 334) group. BAQ data were available for 174 patients in the active group and 174 patients in the control group. Over the 48-week period, mean (standard deviation) adherence for the active and control groups was 96.4% (13.2%) and 91.5% (23.1%), respectively (effect of app intervention, p < 0.05). There were no significant differences in blood pressure and BMI between visits. General improvements in SF-36 and LSQ scores were observed for both groups., Conclusion: The patient support tool app was associated with significant improvements in patient-reported treatment adherence compared with a data collection app alone in patients prescribed ticagrelor for ACS., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

A novel smartphone-based patient support tool was developed to increase the adherence to antiplatelet therapy and lifestyle changes in patients after coronary angioplasty for acute coronary syndrome (ACS). The eMocial study (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02615704) investigates whether an electronic support tool will improve adherence to comedication and lifestyle changes in ACS patients. The primary hypothesis of this trial is that an electronic support tool can increase adherence to comedication (primary endpoint) thereby supporting positive lifestyle changes (secondary endpoints). Patients hospitalized with ACS (ST elevation myocardial infarction [STEMI], non-ST elevation myocardial infarction [NSTEMI], or unstable angina pectoris) and treated with ticagrelor coadministered with low-dose acetylsalicylic acid will be randomized 1:1 to an active group receiving the patient support tool via a smartphone-based application or to a control group without the patient support tool. Patient questionnaires to evaluate lifestyle changes and quality of life will be used at baseline and at the end of the 48-week observation phase. Patients are asked to fill out questionnaires to determine their adherence, treatment attitudes, health-care utilization and risk factors on a monthly basis. The study was started in February 2016 and the completion date is scheduled for October 2019. For final analysis 664 patients are expected be available. Preliminary baseline demographics were unstable angina pectoris (13.7%), NSTEMI (49.9%), STEMI (36.4%), male gender (86.3%), and diabetes mellitus (17.6%). Our study could significantly help to understand how inadequate adherence to antiplatelet therapy in ACS patients could be improved with a smartphone-based application., (© 2019 The Authors. Clinical Cardiology published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Objectives: This study sought to evaluate sex differences in procedural characteristics and clinical outcomes of instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR)- and fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided revascularization strategies., Background: An iFR-guided strategy has shown a lower revascularization rate than an FFR-guided strategy, without differences in clinical outcomes., Methods: This is a post hoc analysis of the DEFINE-FLAIR (Functional Lesion Assessment of Intermediate stenosis to guide Revascularization) study, in which 601 women and 1,891 men were randomized to iFR- or FFR-guided strategy. The primary endpoint was 1-year major adverse cardiac events (MACE), a composite of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization., Results: Among the entire population, women had a lower number of functionally significant lesions per patient (0.31 ± 0.51 vs. 0.43 ± 0.59; p < 0.001) and less frequently underwent revascularization than men (42.1% vs. 53.1%; p < 0.001). There was no difference in mean iFR value according to sex (0.91 ± 0.09 vs. 0.91 ± 0.10; p = 0.442). However, the mean FFR value was lower in men than in women (0.83 ± 0.09 vs. 0.85 ± 0.10; p = 0.001). In men, an FFR-guided strategy was associated with a higher rate of revascularization than an iFR-guided strategy (57.1% vs. 49.3%; p = 0.001), but this difference was not observed in women (41.4% vs. 42.6%; p = 0.757). There was no difference in MACE rates between iFR- and FFR-guided strategies in both women (5.4% vs. 5.6%, adjusted hazard ratio: 1.10; 95% confidence interval: 0.50 to 2.43; p = 0.805) and men (6.6% vs. 7.0%, adjusted hazard ratio: 0.98; 95% confidence interval: 0.66 to 1.46; p = 0.919)., Conclusions: An FFR-guided strategy was associated with a higher rate of revascularization than iFR-guided strategy in men, but not in women. However, iFR- and FFR-guided strategies showed comparable clinical outcomes, regardless of sex. (Functional Lesion Assessment of Intermediate Stenosis to guide Revascularization [DEFINE-FLAIR]; NCT02053038)., (Copyright © 2019 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical outcomes of patients deferred from coronary revascularization on the basis of instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) or fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurements in stable angina pectoris (SAP) and acute coronary syndromes (ACS)., Background: Assessment of coronary stenosis severity with pressure guidewires is recommended to determine the need for myocardial revascularization., Methods: The safety of deferral of coronary revascularization in the pooled per-protocol population (n = 4,486) of the DEFINE-FLAIR (Functional Lesion Assessment of Intermediate Stenosis to Guide Revascularisation) and iFR-SWEDEHEART (Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio Versus Fractional Flow Reserve in Patients With Stable Angina Pectoris or Acute Coronary Syndrome) randomized clinical trials was investigated. Patients were stratified according to revascularization decision making on the basis of iFR or FFR and to clinical presentation (SAP or ACS). The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE), defined as the composite of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization at 1 year., Results: Coronary revascularization was deferred in 2,130 patients. Deferral was performed in 1,117 patients (50%) in the iFR group and 1,013 patients (45%) in the FFR group (p < 0.01). At 1 year, the MACE rate in the deferred population was similar between the iFR and FFR groups (4.12% vs. 4.05%; fully adjusted hazard ratio: 1.13; 95% confidence interval: 0.72 to 1.79; p = 0.60). A clinical presentation with ACS was associated with a higher MACE rate compared with SAP in deferred patients (5.91% vs. 3.64% in ACS and SAP, respectively; fully adjusted hazard ratio: 0.61 in favor of SAP; 95% confidence interval: 0.38 to 0.99; p = 0.04)., Conclusions: Overall, deferral of revascularization is equally safe with both iFR and FFR, with a low MACE rate of about 4%. Lesions were more frequently deferred when iFR was used to assess physiological significance. In deferred patients presenting with ACS, the event rate was significantly increased compared with SAP at 1 year., (Copyright © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Coronary revascularization guided by fractional flow reserve (FFR) is associated with better patient outcomes after the procedure than revascularization guided by angiography alone. It is unknown whether the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR), an alternative measure that does not require the administration of adenosine, will offer benefits similar to those of FFR., Methods: We randomly assigned 2492 patients with coronary artery disease, in a 1:1 ratio, to undergo either iFR-guided or FFR-guided coronary revascularization. The primary end point was the 1-year risk of major adverse cardiac events, which were a composite of death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization. The trial was designed to show the noninferiority of iFR to FFR, with a margin of 3.4 percentage points for the difference in risk., Results: At 1 year, the primary end point had occurred in 78 of 1148 patients (6.8%) in the iFR group and in 83 of 1182 patients (7.0%) in the FFR group (difference in risk, -0.2 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.3 to 1.8; P<0.001 for noninferiority; hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.33; P=0.78). The risk of each component of the primary end point and of death from cardiovascular or noncardiovascular causes did not differ significantly between the groups. The number of patients who had adverse procedural symptoms and clinical signs was significantly lower in the iFR group than in the FFR group (39 patients [3.1%] vs. 385 patients [30.8%], P<0.001), and the median procedural time was significantly shorter (40.5 minutes vs. 45.0 minutes, P=0.001)., Conclusions: Coronary revascularization guided by iFR was noninferior to revascularization guided by FFR with respect to the risk of major adverse cardiac events at 1 year. The rate of adverse procedural signs and symptoms was lower and the procedural time was shorter with iFR than with FFR. (Funded by Philips Volcano; DEFINE-FLAIR ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02053038 .).

Introduction: The objective of this study was to compare the accumulated clinical outcomes of two Malaysian all-comers populations, each treated with different polymer-free sirolimus-eluting stents (PF-SES) of similar stent design. Methods: The Malaysian subpopulation of two all-comers observational studies based on the same protocol (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT02629575 and NCT02905214) were combined and compared to a Malaysian-only cohort which was treated with a later-generation PF-SES. The PF-SES's used differed only in their bare-metal backbone architecture, with otherwise identical sirolimus coating. The primary endpoint was the accumulated target lesion revascularization (TLR) rate at 12 months. The rates of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), stent thrombosis (ST) and myocardial infarction (MI) were part of the secondary endpoints. Results: A total of 643 patients were treated with either the first-generation PF-SES (413 patients) or second-generation PF-SES (230 patients). Patient demographics were similar in terms of age (p = 0.744), male gender (0.987), diabetes mellitus (p = 0.293), hypertension (p = 0.905) and acute coronary syndrome (ACS, 44.8% vs. 46.1%, p = 0.752) between groups. There were no differences between treatment groups in terms of lesion length (20.8 ± 7.3 mm vs. 22.9 ± 7.9, p = 0.111) or vessel diameter (2.87 ± 0.39 vs. 2.93 ± 0.40, p = 0.052) despite numerically smaller diameters in the first-generation PF-SES group. The second-generation PF-SES tended to have more complex lesions as characterized by calcification (10.3% vs. 16.2%, p = 0.022), severe tortuosity (3.5% vs. 6.9%, p = 0.041) and B2/C lesions (49.2% vs. 62.8%, p < 0.001). The accumulated TLR rates did not differ significantly between the first- and second-generation PF-SES (0.8% vs. 0.9%, p = 0.891). The accumulated MACE rates were not significantly different (p = 0.561), at 1.5% (6/413) and 2.2% (5/230), respectively. Conclusions: Modifications in coronary stent architecture which enhance the radial strength and radiopacity without gross changes in strut thickness and design do not seem to impact clinical outcomes. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT02629575 and NCT02905214. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]