Symptoms as a Predictor of the Placebo-Controlled Efficacy of PCI in Stable Coronary Artery Disease.

BACKGROUND: Placebo-controlled evidence from ORBITA-2 found that percutaneous cutaneous intervention (PCI) in stable coronary artery disease with little or no antianginal medication relieved angina, but residual symptoms persisted in many. The reason for this was unclear. OBJECTIVES: ; This ORBITA-2 secondary analysis investigates the relationship between presenting symptoms and disease severity (anatomic, non-invasive, and invasive ischemia) and the ability of symptoms to predict the placebo-controlled efficacy of PCI. METHODS: Pre-randomization symptom severity and nature were assessed using the ORBITA smartphone application and symptom and quality of life questionnaires including the Rose angina questionnaire. Disease severity was assessed using quantitative coronary angiography (QCA), stress echocardiography, fractional flow reserve (FFR), and instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR). Bayesian ordinal regression was used. RESULTS: At pre-randomization, the median number of daily angina episodes was 0.8 (0.4-1.6), 64% had Rose angina, QCA diameter stenosis 61 (49-74), stress echocardiography score 1.0 (0.0-2.7), FFR 0.63 (0.49-0.75), and iFR 0.78 (0.55-0.87). There was little relationship between symptom severity and nature and disease severity: angina symptom score with QCA ordinal correlation coefficient 0.06 (95% CrI 0.00 to 0.08); stress echocardiography 0.09 (95% CrI 0.02 to 0.10); FFR 0.04 (95% CrI -0.03 to 0.07); and iFR 0.04 (95% CrI -0.01 to 0.07). However, Rose angina and guideline-based typical angina were strong predictors of placebo-controlled PCI efficacy (angina symptom score: OR 1.9, 95% CrI 1.6 to 2.1, Pr(Interaction)=99.9% and OR 1.8, 95% CrI 1.6 to 2.1, Pr(Interaction)=99.9%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Although symptom severity and nature were poorly associated with disease severity, the nature of symptoms powerfully predicted the placebo-controlled efficacy of PCI.

N-of-1 Trial of Angina Verification Before Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

BACKGROUND: In stable coronary artery disease, 30% to 60% of patients remain symptomatic despite successful revascularization. Perhaps not all symptoms reported by a patient with myocardial ischemia are, in fact, angina. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to determine whether independent symptom verification using a placebo-controlled ischemic stimulus could distinguish which patients achieve greatest symptom relief from percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS: ORBITA-STAR was a multicenter, n-of-1, placebo-controlled study in patients undergoing single-vessel PCI for stable symptoms. Participants underwent 4 episodes (60 seconds each) of low-pressure balloon occlusion across their coronary stenosis, randomly paired with 4 episodes of placebo inflation. Following each episode, patients reported the similarity of the induced symptom in comparison with their usual symptom. The similarity score ranged from -10 (placebo replicated the symptom more than balloon occlusion) to +10 (balloon occlusion exactly replicated the symptom). The primary endpoint was the ability of the similarity score to predict symptom relief with PCI. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients were recruited, aged 62.9 ± 8.6 years. The median fractional flow reserve was 0.68 (Q1-Q3: 0.57-0.79), and the instantaneous wave-free ratio was 0.80 (Q1-Q3: 0.48-0.89). The median similarity score was 3 (Q1-Q3: 0.875-5.25). The similarity score was a strong predictor of symptom improvement following PCI: a patient with an upper quartile similarity score of 5.25 was significantly more likely to have lower angina frequency at follow-up (OR: 8.01; 95% credible interval: 2.39-15.86) than a patient with a lower quartile similarity score of 0.875 (OR: 1.31; 95% credible interval: 0.71-1.99), Pr(difference) >99.9%. CONCLUSIONS: Similarity score powerfully predicted symptom improvement from PCI. These data lay the foundation for independent symptom mapping to target PCI to those patients most likely to benefit. (Systematic Trial of Angina Assessment Before Revascularization [ORBITA-STAR]; NCT04280575).

Placebo Control and Blinding in Randomized Trials of Procedural Interventions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Regression.

Importance: Unlike medications, procedural interventions are rarely trialed against placebo prior to becoming accepted in clinical practice. When placebo-controlled trials are eventually conducted, procedural interventions may be less effective than previously believed. Objective: To investigate the importance of including a placebo arm in trials of surgical and interventional procedures by comparing effect sizes from trials of the same procedure that do and do not include a placebo arm. Data Sources: Searches of MEDLINE and Embase identified all placebo-controlled trials for procedural interventions in any specialty of medicine and surgery from inception to March 31, 2019. A secondary search identified randomized clinical trials assessing the same intervention, condition, and end point but without a placebo arm for paired comparison. Study Selection: Placebo-controlled trials of anatomically site-specific procedures requiring skin incision or endoscopic techniques were eligible for inclusion; these were then matched to trials without placebo control that fell within prespecified limits of heterogeneity. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Random-effects meta-regression, with placebo and blinding as a fixed effect and intervention and end point grouping as random effects, was used to calculate the impact of placebo control for each end point. Data were analyzed from March 2019 to March 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: End points were examined in prespecified subgroups: patient-reported or health care professional-assessed outcomes, quality of life, pain, blood pressure, exercise-related outcomes, recurrent bleeding, and all-cause mortality. Results: Ninety-seven end points were matched from 72 blinded, placebo-controlled trials (hereafter, blinded) and 55 unblinded trials without placebo control (hereafter, unblinded), including 111 500 individual patient end points. Unblinded trials had larger standardized effect sizes than blinded trials for exercise-related outcomes (standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.59; 95% CI, 0.29 to 0.89; P < .001) and quality-of-life (SMD, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.11 to 0.53; P = .003) and health care professional-assessed end points (SMD, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.18 to 0.61; P < .001). The placebo effect accounted for 88.1%, 55.2%, and 61.3% of the observed unblinded effect size for these end points, respectively. There was no significant difference between unblinded and blinded trials for patient-reported end points (SMD, 0.31; 95% CI, -0.02 to 0.64; P = .07), blood pressure (SMD, 0.26; 95% CI, -0.10 to 0.62; P = .15), all-cause mortality (odds ratio [OR], 0.23; 95% CI, -0.26 to 0.72; P = .36), pain (SMD, 0.03; 95% CI, -0.52 to 0.57; P = .91), or recurrent bleeding events (OR, -0.12; 95% CI, -1.11 to 0.88; P = .88). Conclusions and Relevance: The magnitude of the placebo effect found in this systematic review and meta-regression was dependent on the end point. Placebo control in trials of procedural interventions had the greatest impact on exercise-related, quality-of-life, and health care professional-assessed end points. Randomized clinical trials of procedural interventions may consider placebo control accordingly.

Coronary sinus reducer for the treatment of refractory angina (ORBITA-COSMIC): a randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The coronary sinus reducer (CSR) is proposed to reduce angina in patients with stable coronary artery disease by improving myocardial perfusion. We aimed to measure its efficacy, compared with placebo, on myocardial ischaemia reduction and symptom improvement. METHODS: ORBITA-COSMIC was a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial conducted at six UK hospitals. Patients aged 18 years or older with angina, stable coronary artery disease, ischaemia, and no further options for treatment were eligible. All patients completed a quantitative adenosine-stress perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance scan, symptom and quality-of-life questionnaires, and a treadmill exercise test before entering a 2-week symptom assessment phase, in which patients reported their angina symptoms using a smartphone application (ORBITA-app). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either CSR or placebo. Both participants and investigators were masked to study assignment. After the CSR implantation or placebo procedure, patients entered a 6-month blinded follow-up phase in which they reported their daily symptoms in the ORBITA-app. At 6 months, all assessments were repeated. The primary outcome was myocardial blood flow in segments designated ischaemic at enrolment during the adenosine-stress perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance scan. The primary symptom outcome was the number of daily angina episodes. Analysis was done by intention-to-treat and followed Bayesian methodology. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04892537, and completed. FINDINGS: Between May 26, 2021, and June 28, 2023, 61 patients were enrolled, of whom 51 (44 [86%] male; seven [14%] female) were randomly assigned to either the CSR group (n=25) or the placebo group (n=26). Of these, 50 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis (24 in the CSR group and 26 in the placebo group). 454 (57%) of 800 imaged cardiac segments were ischaemic at enrolment, with a median stress myocardial blood flow of 1·08 mL/min per g (IQR 0·77-1·41). Myocardial blood flow in ischaemic segments did not improve with CSR compared with placebo (difference 0·06 mL/min per g [95% CrI -0·09 to 0·20]; Pr(Benefit)=78·8%). The number of daily angina episodes was reduced with CSR compared with placebo (OR 1·40 [95% CrI 1·08 to 1·83]; Pr(Benefit)=99·4%). There were two CSR embolisation events in the CSR group, and no acute coronary syndrome events or deaths in either group. INTERPRETATION: ORBITA-COSMIC found no evidence that the CSR improved transmural myocardial perfusion, but the CSR did improve angina compared with placebo. These findings provide evidence for the use of CSR as a further antianginal option for patients with stable coronary artery disease. FUNDING: Medical Research Council, Imperial College Healthcare Charity, National Institute for Health and Care Research Imperial Biomedical Research Centre, St Mary's Coronary Flow Trust, British Heart Foundation.

A double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial of the coronary sinus Reducer in refractory angina: design and rationale of the ORBITA-COSMIC trial.

The coronary sinus Reducer (CSR) is an hourglass-shaped device which creates an artificial stenosis in the coronary sinus. Whilst placebo-controlled data show an improvement in angina, these results are unreplicated and are the subject of further confirmatory research. The mechanism of action of this unintuitive therapy is unknown. The Coronary Sinus Reducer Objective Impact on Symptoms, MRI Ischaemia, and Microvascular Resistance (ORBITA-COSMIC) trial is a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial investigating the efficacy of the CSR. Patients with (i) established epicardial coronary artery disease, (ii) angina on maximally tolerated antianginal medication, (iii) evidence of myocardial ischaemia and (iv) no further options for percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting will be enrolled. Upon enrolment, angina and quality-of-life questionnaires, treadmill exercise testing and quantitative stress perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging will be performed. Participants will record their symptoms daily on a smartphone application throughout the trial. After a 2-week symptom assessment phase, participants will be randomised in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory to CSR or a placebo procedure. After 6 months of blinded follow-up, all prerandomisation tests will be repeated. A prespecified subgroup will undergo invasive coronary physiology assessment at prerandomisation and follow-up. The primary outcome is stress myocardial blood flow on CMR. Secondary outcomes include angina frequency, quality of life and treadmill exercise time. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04892537).

Catheter Ablation for Ventricular Tachycardia After MI: A Reconstructed Individual Patient Data Meta-analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials.

Background: The prognostic impact of ventricular tachycardia (VT) catheter ablation is an important outstanding research question. We undertook a reconstructed individual patient data meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials comparing ablation to medical therapy in patients developing VT after MI. Methods: We systematically identified all trials comparing catheter ablation to medical therapy in patients with VT and prior MI. The prespecified primary endpoint was reconstructed individual patient assessment of all-cause mortality. Prespecified secondary endpoints included trial-level assessment of all-cause mortality, VT recurrence or defibrillator shocks and all-cause hospitalisations. Prespecified subgroup analysis was performed for ablation approaches involving only substrate modification without VT activation mapping. Sensitivity analyses were performed depending on the proportion of patients with prior MI included. Results: Eight trials, recruiting a total of 874 patients, were included. Of these 874 patients, 430 were randomised to catheter ablation and 444 were randomised to medical therapy. Catheter ablation reduced all-cause mortality compared with medical therapy when synthesising individual patient data (HR 0.63; 95% CI [0.41-0.96]; p=0.03), but not in trial-level analysis (RR 0.91; 95% CI [0.67-1.23]; p=0.53; I2=0%). Catheter ablation significantly reduced VT recurrence, defibrillator shocks and hospitalisations compared with medical therapy. Sensitivity analyses were consistent with the primary analyses. Conclusion: In patients with postinfarct VT, catheter ablation reduces mortality.

A Placebo-Controlled Trial of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Stable Angina.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is frequently performed to reduce the symptoms of stable angina. Whether PCI relieves angina more than a placebo procedure in patients who are not receiving antianginal medication remains unknown. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of PCI in patients with stable angina. Patients stopped all antianginal medications and underwent a 2-week symptom assessment phase before randomization. Patients were then randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to undergo PCI or a placebo procedure and were followed for 12 weeks. The primary end point was the angina symptom score, which was calculated daily on the basis of the number of angina episodes that occurred on a given day, the number of antianginal medications prescribed on that day, and clinical events, including the occurrence of unblinding owing to unacceptable angina or acute coronary syndrome or death. Scores range from 0 to 79, with higher scores indicating worse health status with respect to angina. RESULTS: A total of 301 patients underwent randomization: 151 to the PCI group and 150 to the placebo group. The mean (±SD) age was 64±9 years, and 79% were men. Ischemia was present in one cardiac territory in 242 patients (80%), in two territories in 52 patients (17%), and in three territories in 7 patients (2%). In the target vessels, the median fractional flow reserve was 0.63 (interquartile range, 0.49 to 0.75), and the median instantaneous wave-free ratio was 0.78 (interquartile range, 0.55 to 0.87). At the 12-week follow-up, the mean angina symptom score was 2.9 in the PCI group and 5.6 in the placebo group (odds ratio, 2.21; 95% confidence interval, 1.41 to 3.47; P<0.001). One patient in the placebo group had unacceptable angina leading to unblinding. Acute coronary syndromes occurred in 4 patients in the PCI group and in 6 patients in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with stable angina who were receiving little or no antianginal medication and had objective evidence of ischemia, PCI resulted in a lower angina symptom score than a placebo procedure, indicating a better health status with respect to angina. (Funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research Imperial Biomedical Research Centre and others; ORBITA-2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03742050.).

Comparison of methods for delivering cardiac resynchronization therapy: electrical treatment targets and mechanisms of action.

INTRODUCTION: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has been developed as a treatment for patients with conduction system dysfunction and impairment of ventricular performance. The aim is to restore more physiological cardiac activation and thereby improve cardiac function, symptoms, and outcomes. AREAS COVERED: In this review, we discuss potential electrical treatment targets for patients with heart failure and how these electrical treatment targets may determine the optimal pacing approach for delivering CRT. EXPERT OPINION: The most well-established method for delivering CRT is biventricular pacing (BVP). BVP improves symptoms and reduces mortality in patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB). However, patients continue to suffer from heart failure symptoms and decompensations despite receiving BVP. There may be scope to deliver more effective CRT since BVP does not restore physiological ventricular activation. Furthermore, the results with BVP in patients with non-LBBB conduction system disease have been generally disappointing. Alternative pacing approaches to BVP are now available, including conduction system pacing and left ventricular endocardial pacing. These newer pacing approaches offer exciting potential to not only offer an alternative to coronary sinus lead implantation in the case of implant failure but to potentially deliver more effective treatment in LBBB and maybe even extend the indications for CRT beyond LBBB.

Catheter ablation improves cardiovascular outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

AIMS: The effect of atrial fibrillation catheter ablation on cardiovascular outcomes in heart failure is an important outstanding research question. We undertook a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing ablation to medical therapy in patients with AF and heart failure. METHODS AND RESULTS: We systematically identified all trials comparing catheter ablation to medical therapy in patients with heart failure and atrial fibrillation. The pre-specified primary endpoint was all-cause mortality in trials with at least 2 years of follow-up. The secondary endpoint was heart failure hospitalization. Sensitivity analyses were performed for trials with any follow-up and trials deemed at low risk of bias. Eight trials (1390 patients) were included. Seven hundred and seven patients were randomized to catheter ablation and 683 to medical therapy. In the primary analysis (three trials, n = 977), catheter ablation reduced mortality compared with medical therapy [relative risk (RR): 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.44 to 0.84, P = 0.003]. Catheter ablation also reduced heart failure hospitalizations compared with medical therapy (RR: 0.60, 95% CI: 0.49-0.74, P < 0.001). The effect on stroke was not statistically significant (RR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.28-1.37, P = 0.237). There was low heterogeneity between studies. Sensitivity analyses were consistent with the primary analyses. CONCLUSION: In patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure, catheter ablation reduces mortality and the occurrence of heart failure hospitalizations.

Upgrading right ventricular pacemakers to biventricular pacing or conduction system pacing: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Guidelines recommend patients undergoing a first pacemaker implant who have even mild left ventricular (LV) impairment should receive biventricular or conduction system pacing (CSP). There is no corresponding recommendation for patients who already have a pacemaker. We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies assessing device upgrades. The primary outcome was the echocardiographic change in LV ejection fraction (LVEF). Six RCTs (randomizing 161 patients) and 47 observational studies (2644 patients) assessing the efficacy of upgrade to biventricular pacing were eligible for analysis. Eight observational studies recruiting 217 patients of CSP upgrade were also eligible. Fourteen additional studies contributed data on complications (25 412 patients). Randomized controlled trials of biventricular pacing upgrade showed LVEF improvement of +8.4% from 35.5% and observational studies: +8.4% from 25.7%. Observational studies of left bundle branch area pacing upgrade showed +11.1% improvement from 39.0% and observational studies of His bundle pacing upgrade showed +12.7% improvement from 36.0%. New York Heart Association class decreased by -0.4, -0.8, -1.0, and -1.2, respectively. Randomized controlled trials of biventricular upgrade found improvement in Minnesota Heart Failure Score (-6.9 points) and peak oxygen uptake (+1.1 mL/kg/min). This was also seen in observational studies of biventricular upgrades (-19.67 points and +2.63 mL/kg/min, respectively). In studies of the biventricular upgrade, complication rates averaged 2% for pneumothorax, 1.4% for tamponade, and 3.7% for infection over 24 months of mean follow-up. Lead-related complications occurred in 3.3% of biventricular upgrades and 1.8% of CSP upgrades. Randomized controlled trials show significant physiological and symptomatic benefits of upgrading pacemakers to biventricular pacing. Observational studies show similar effects between biventricular pacing upgrade and CSP upgrade.

Intravenous thrombolysis in stroke with admission NIHSS score 0 or 1.

BACKGROUND: Up to 30% of stroke patients initially presenting with non-disabling or mild deficits may experience poor functional outcome. Despite, intravenous thrombolysis remains controversial in this subgroup of stroke patients due to its uncertain risk benefit ratio. AIM: We aimed to analyze the real-world experience with intravenous thrombolysis in stroke patients presenting with very low NIHSS. METHODS: Data of stroke patients presenting with mild initial stroke severity (NIHSS 0-5) including vascular risk factors, stroke syndrome and etiology, early neurological deterioration, symptomatic intracerebral haemorrhage (sICH), and functional outcome by modified Rankin Scale were extracted from a large nationwide stroke registry and analysed. Patients were categorized and compared according to admission severity NIHSS 0-1 versus NIHSS 2-5 and intravenous thrombolysis use. RESULTS: Seven hundred and three (2%) of 35,113 patients presenting with NIHSS 0-1 and 6316 (13.9%) of 45,521 of patients presenting with NIHSS 2-5 underwent intravenous thrombolysis. In the NIHSS 0-1 group, intravenous thrombolysis was associated with early neurological deterioration (adjusted OR 8.84, CI 6.61-11.83), sICH (adjusted OR 9.32, CI 4.53-19.15) and lower rate of excellent outcome (mRS 0-1) at three months (adjusted OR 0.67, CI 0.5-0.9). In stroke patients with NIHSS 2-5, intravenous thrombolysis was associated with early neurological deterioration (adjusted OR 1.7, 1.47-1.98), sICH (adjusted OR 5.75, CI 4.45-7.45), and higher rate of excellent outcome (mRS 0-1) at three months (adjusted OR 1.21, CI 1.08-1.34). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with NIHSS 0-1, intravenous thrombolysis did not increase the likelihood of excellent outcome. Moreover, potential signals of harm were observed. Further research seems to be warranted.