Search

Background: Currently, in the majority of patients with stable angina pectoris (SAP) treatment consists of optimal medical treatment, potentially followed by coronary angiography and subsequent coronary revascularisation if necessary”. Recent work questioned the effectiveness of these invasive procedures in reducing re-events and improving prognosis. The potential of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation on clinical outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease is well-known. However, in the modern era, no studies compared the effects of cardiac rehabilitation versus coronary revascularisation in patients with SAP. Methods: In this multicentre randomised controlled trial, 216 patients with stable angina pectoris and residual anginal complaints under optimal medical treatment will be randomised to: 1) usual care (i.e., coronary revascularisation), or 2) a 12-month cardiac rehabilitation (CR) programme. CR consists of a multidisciplinary intervention, including education, exercise training, lifestyle coaching and a dietary intervention with a stepped decline in supervision. The primary outcome will be anginal complaints (Seattle Angina Questionnaire-7) following the 12-month intervention. Secondary outcomes include cost-effectiveness, ischemic threshold during exercise, cardiovascular events, exercise capacity, quality of life and psychosocial wellbeing. Discussion: In this study, we will examine the hypothesis that multidisciplinary CR is at least equally effective in reducing anginal complaints as the contemporary invasive approach at 12-months follow-up for patients with SAP. If proven successful, this study will have significant impact on the treatment of patients with SAP as multidisciplinary CR is a less invasive and potentially less costly and better sustainable treatment than coronary revascularisations. Trial registration: Netherlands Trial Register, NL9537. Registered 14 June 2021.

Background Although physiology-based assessment of coronary artery stenosis using instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) and fractional flow reserve (FFR) are established methods of guiding coronary revascularization, its clinical outcome in long-term deferral needs further evaluation, especially with acute coronary syndrome as a clinical presentation. The aim was to evaluate the long-term clinical outcome of deferral of revascularization based on iFR or FFR. Methods and Results This is a substudy of the iFR-SWEDEHEART (Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio Versus Fractional Flow Reserve in Patients With Stable Angina Pectoris or Acute Coronary Syndrome) randomized clinical trial, where patients deferred from revascularization from each study arm were selected. Nine hundred eight patients deferred from coronary revascularization with iFR (n=473) and FFR (n=435) were followed for 5 years. The national quality registry, SWEDEHEART (Swedish Web-System for Enhancement and Development of Evidence-Based Care in Heart Disease Evaluated According to Recommended Therapies), was used for patient data collection and clinical follow-up. The end point was major adverse cardiac events and their individual components all-cause death, cardiovascular death, noncardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and unplanned revascularization. No significant difference was found in major adverse cardiac events (iFR 18.6% versus FFR 16.8%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.08 [95% CI, 0.79-1.48]; P=0.63) or their individual components. Conclusions No differences in clinical outcomes after 5-year follow-up were noted when comparing iFR versus FFR as methods for deferral of coronary revascularization in patients presenting with stable angina pectoris and acute coronary syndrome. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02166736.

No clinical risk score is universally accepted for coronary artery disease. In 603 patients (mean age, 61.2 ± 12.3 yr) with stable coronary artery disease, we investigated the predictive power of clinical risk scores derived from the Framingham, the Long-term Intervention with Pravastatin in Ischemic Disease (LIPID), and the Vienna and Ludwigshafen Coronary Artery Disease (VILCAD) studies. Secondary outcomes were the recurrence of an acute thrombotic event (coronary events, strokes, or transient ischemic attacks), or heart failure or death. The primary outcome was the combination of secondary outcomes. During follow-up (duration, 2.08 ± 0.97 yr), 42 patients had an acute thrombotic event; 22, heart failure or death; and 60, the primary outcome. The Framingham score predicted acute thrombotic events: hazard ratio (HR)=1.05; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.01–1.08; P=0.03; net reclassification index (NRI, calculated to evaluate improvement in prediction gained by adding different risk scores to models constructed with variables excluded from the calculation of that score)=9.7% (95% CI, 9.6–9.8). The LIPID (HR=1.13; 95% CI, 1.04–1.22; P=0.005) and VILCAD scores (HR=1.99; 95% CI, 1.48–2.67; P We conclude that the accuracy of these risk scores varies in accordance with the outcome studied.

Background— The principle of continuous thermodilution can be used to calculate absolute coronary blood flow and microvascular resistance (R). The aim of the study is to explore the safety, feasibility, and reproducibility of coronary blood flow and R measurements as measured by continuous thermodilution in humans. Methods and Results— Absolute coronary flow and R can be calculated by thermodilution by infusing saline at room temperature through a dedicated monorail catheter. The temperature of saline as it enters the vessel, the temperature of blood and saline mixed in the distal part of the vessel, and the distal coronary pressure were measured by a pressure/temperature sensor-tipped guidewire. The feasibility and safety of the method were tested in 135 patients who were referred for coronary angiography. No significant adverse events were observed; in 11 (8.1%) patients, bradycardia and concomitant atrioventricular block appeared transiently and were reversed immediately on interruption of the infusion. The reproducibility of measurements was tested in a subgroup of 80 patients (129 arteries). Duplicate measurements had a strong correlation both for coronary blood flow (ρ=0.841, P P P P Conclusions— Absolute coronary blood flow (in L/min) and R (in mm Hg/L/min or Wood units) can be safely and reproducibly measured with continuous thermodilution. This approach constitutes a new opportunity for the study of the coronary microcirculation.

Background: Whether the benefit in quality of life (QOL) after percutaneous coronary intervention depends on the severity of the stenosis as determined by fractional flow reserve (FFR) remains unknown. This study sought to investigate the relationship between FFR values and improvement in QOL. Methods: From the FAME 1 and 2 trials (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation), we identified 706 stable patients with coronary artery disease who had at least 1 lesion with an FFR≤0.80 that was treated with percutaneous coronary intervention and 185 patients with coronary artery disease who had no lesion with an FFR≤0.80 and were treated medically who served as a reference group. QOL was assessed by the European Quality of Life–5 Dimensions index at baseline, 1 month, and 1 year. We assessed the relationship between QOL improvement (defined as the change in European Quality of Life–5 Dimensions index from baseline) and FFR as a continuous value and according to abnormal FFR tertile. Results: QOL improved significantly after percutaneous coronary intervention in each abnormal FFR tertile, whereas it did not change in the reference group. The lowest abnormal FFR subgroup had the greatest improvement in QOL at 1 month ( P P =0.002 for 1 month and 0.049 for 1 year), greater delta FFR ( P =0.021 for 1 month and 0.025 for 1 year), and higher angina class ( P =0.001 for 1 month and Conclusions: Among patients with stable coronary artery disease, FFR and angina severity predict QOL improvement after percutaneous coronary intervention. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifiers: NCT00267774 and NCT01132495.