FFR-Guided Complete or Culprit-Only PCI in Patients with Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: The benefit of fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided complete revascularization in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel coronary artery disease remains unclear. METHODS: In this multinational, registry-based, randomized trial, we assigned patients with STEMI or very-high-risk non-STEMI (NSTEMI) and multivessel disease who were undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of the culprit lesion to receive either FFR-guided complete revascularization of nonculprit lesions or no further revascularization. The primary outcome was a composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization. The two key secondary outcomes were a composite of death from any cause or myocardial infarction and unplanned revascularization. RESULTS: A total of 1542 patients underwent randomization, with 764 assigned to receive FFR-guided complete revascularization and 778 assigned to receive culprit-lesion-only PCI. At a median follow-up of 4.8 years (interquartile range, 4.3 to 5.2), a primary-outcome event had occurred in 145 patients (19.0%) in the complete-revascularization group and in 159 patients (20.4%) in the culprit-lesion-only group (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74 to 1.17; P = 0.53). With respect to the secondary outcomes, no apparent between-group differences were observed in the composite of death from any cause or myocardial infarction (hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.87 to 1.44) or unplanned revascularization (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.56 to 1.04). There were no apparent between-group differences in safety outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with STEMI or very-high-risk NSTEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease, FFR-guided complete revascularization was not shown to result in a lower risk of a composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization than culprit-lesion-only PCI at 4.8 years. (Funded by the Swedish Research Council and others; FULL REVASC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02862119.).

Beta-Blockers after Myocardial Infarction and Preserved Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: Most trials that have shown a benefit of beta-blocker treatment after myocardial infarction included patients with large myocardial infarctions and were conducted in an era before modern biomarker-based diagnosis of myocardial infarction and treatment with percutaneous coronary intervention, antithrombotic agents, high-intensity statins, and renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system antagonists. METHODS: In a parallel-group, open-label trial performed at 45 centers in Sweden, Estonia, and New Zealand, we randomly assigned patients with an acute myocardial infarction who had undergone coronary angiography and had a left ventricular ejection fraction of at least 50% to receive either long-term treatment with a beta-blocker (metoprolol or bisoprolol) or no beta-blocker treatment. The primary end point was a composite of death from any cause or new myocardial infarction. RESULTS: From September 2017 through May 2023, a total of 5020 patients were enrolled (95.4% of whom were from Sweden). The median follow-up was 3.5 years (interquartile range, 2.2 to 4.7). A primary end-point event occurred in 199 of 2508 patients (7.9%) in the beta-blocker group and in 208 of 2512 patients (8.3%) in the no-beta-blocker group (hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.79 to 1.16; P = 0.64). Beta-blocker treatment did not appear to lead to a lower cumulative incidence of the secondary end points (death from any cause, 3.9% in the beta-blocker group and 4.1% in the no-beta-blocker group; death from cardiovascular causes, 1.5% and 1.3%, respectively; myocardial infarction, 4.5% and 4.7%; hospitalization for atrial fibrillation, 1.1% and 1.4%; and hospitalization for heart failure, 0.8% and 0.9%). With regard to safety end points, hospitalization for bradycardia, second- or third-degree atrioventricular block, hypotension, syncope, or implantation of a pacemaker occurred in 3.4% of the patients in the beta-blocker group and in 3.2% of those in the no-beta-blocker group; hospitalization for asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in 0.6% and 0.6%, respectively; and hospitalization for stroke in 1.4% and 1.8%. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with acute myocardial infarction who underwent early coronary angiography and had a preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (≥50%), long-term beta-blocker treatment did not lead to a lower risk of the composite primary end point of death from any cause or new myocardial infarction than no beta-blocker use. (Funded by the Swedish Research Council and others; REDUCE-AMI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03278509.).

Bivalirudin versus heparin in ST and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction-Outcomes at two years.

BACKGROUND: The registry-based randomized VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART trial (NCT02311231) compared bivalirudin vs. heparin in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for myocardial infarction (MI). It showed no difference in the composite primary endpoint of death, MI, or major bleeding at 180 days. Here, we report outcomes at two years. METHODS: Analysis of primary and secondary endpoints at two years of follow-up was prespecified in the study protocol. We report the study results for the extended follow-up time here. RESULTS: In total, 6006 patients were enrolled, 3005 with ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) and 3001 with Non-STEMI (NSTEMI), representing 70 % of all eligible patients with these diagnoses during the study. The primary endpoint occurred in 14.0 % (421 of 3004) in the bivalirudin group compared with 14.3 % (429 of 3002) in the heparin group (hazard ratio [HR] 0.97; 95 % confidence interval [CI], 0.85-1.11; P = 0.70) at one year and in 16.7 % (503 of 3004) compared with 17.1 % (514 of 3002), (HR 0.97; 95 % CI, 0.96-1.10; P = 0.66) at two years. The results were consistent in patients with STEMI and NSTEMI and across major subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Until the two-year follow-up, there were no differences in endpoints between patients with MI undergoing PCI and allocated to bivalirudin compared with those allocated to heparin. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT02311231.

Design and rationale of the myocardial infarction and new treatment with metformin study (MIMET) - Study protocol for a registry-based randomised clinical trial.

AIMS: To investigate if addition of metformin to standard care (life-style advice) reduces the occurrence of cardiovascular events and death after myocardial infarction (MI) in patients with newly detected prediabetes. METHODS: The Myocardial Infarction and new treatment with Metformin study (MIMET) is a large multicentre registry-based randomised clinical trial (R-RCT) within the SWEDEHEART registry platform expected to include 5160 patients with MI and newly detected prediabetes (identified with fasting blood glucose, HbA1c or 2-h glucose on oral glucose tolerance test) at ∼20 study sites in Sweden. Patients 18-80 years, without known diabetes and naïve to glucose lowering therapy, will be randomised 1:1 to open-label metformin therapy plus standard care or standard care alone. OUTCOMES: Patients will be followed for 2 years for the primary outcome new cardiovascular event (first of death, non-fatal MI, hospitalisation for heart failure or non-fatal stroke). Secondary endpoints include individual components of the primary endpoint, diabetes diagnosis, initiation of any glucose lowering therapy, cancer, and treatment safety. Events will be collected from national healthcare registries. CONCLUSIONS: The MIMET study will investigate if metformin is superior to standard care after myocardial infarction in preventing cardiovascular events in patients with prediabetes (Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT05182970; EudraCT No: 2019-001487-30).

Heterogeneity in Blood Pressure Response to 4 Antihypertensive Drugs: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Hypertension is the leading risk factor for premature death worldwide. Multiple blood pressure-lowering therapies are available but the potential for maximizing benefit by personalized targeting of drug classes is unknown. Objective: To investigate and quantify the potential for targeting specific drugs to specific individuals to maximize blood pressure effects. Design, Setting, and Participants: A randomized, double-blind, repeated crossover trial in men and women with grade 1 hypertension at low risk for cardiovascular events at an outpatient research clinic in Sweden. Mixed-effects models were used to assess the extent to which individuals responded better to one treatment than another and to estimate the additional blood pressure lowering achievable by personalized treatment. Interventions: Each participant was scheduled for treatment in random order with 4 different classes of blood pressure-lowering drugs (lisinopril [angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor], candesartan [angiotensin-receptor blocker], hydrochlorothiazide [thiazide], and amlodipine [calcium channel blocker]), with repeated treatments for 2 classes. Main Outcomes and Measures: Ambulatory daytime systolic blood pressure, measured at the end of each treatment period. Results: There were 1468 completed treatment periods (median length, 56 days) recorded in 270 of the 280 randomized participants (54% men; mean age, 64 years). The blood pressure response to different treatments varied considerably between individuals (P < .001), specifically for the choices of lisinopril vs hydrochlorothiazide, lisinopril vs amlodipine, candesartan vs hydrochlorothiazide, and candesartan vs amlodipine. Large differences were excluded for the choices of lisinopril vs candesartan and hydrochlorothiazide vs amlodipine. On average, personalized treatment had the potential to provide an additional 4.4 mm Hg-lower systolic blood pressure. Conclusions and Relevance: These data reveal substantial heterogeneity in blood pressure response to drug therapy for hypertension, findings that may have implications for personalized therapy. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02774460.

The remote exercise SWEDEHEART study-Rationale and design of a multicenter registry-based cluster randomized crossover clinical trial (RRCT).

BACKGROUND: Despite proven benefits of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (EBCR), few patients with myocardial infarction (MI) participate in and complete these programs. STUDY DESIGN AND OBJECTIVES: The Remote Exercise SWEDEHEART study is a large multicenter registry-based cluster randomized crossover clinical trial with a planned enrollment of 1500 patients with a recent MI. Patients at intervention centers will be offered supervised EBCR, either delivered remotely, center-based or as a combination of both modes, as self-preferred choice. At control centers, patients will be offered supervised center-based EBCR, only. The duration of each time period (intervention/control) for each center will be 15 months and then cross-over occurs. The primary aim is to evaluate if remotely delivered EBCR, offered as an alternative to center-based EBCR, can increase participation in EBCR sessions. The proportion completers in each group will be presented in a supportive responder analysis. The key secondary aim is to investigate if remote EBCR is as least as effective as center-based EBCR, in terms of physical fitness and patient-reported outcome measures. Follow-up of major adverse cardiovascular events (cardiovascular- and all-cause mortality, recurrent hospitalization for acute coronary syndrome, heart failure hospitalization, stroke, and coronary revascularization) will be performed at 1 and 3 years. Safety monitoring of serious adverse events will be registered, and a cost-effectiveness analysis will be conducted to estimate the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) associated with the intervention compared with control. CONCLUSIONS: The cluster randomized crossover clinical trial Remote Exercise SWEDEHEART study is evaluating if participation in EBCR sessions can be increased, which may contribute to health benefits both on a group level and for individual patients including a more equal access to health care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT04260958).

Design and rationale of randomized evaluation of decreased usage of beta-blockers after acute myocardial infarction (REDUCE-AMI).

AIMS: Most trials showing benefit of beta-blocker treatment after myocardial infarction (MI) included patients with large MIs and are from an era before modern biomarker-based MI diagnosis and reperfusion treatment. The aim of the randomized evaluation of decreased usage of beta-blockers after acute myocardial infarction (REDUCE-AMI) trial is to determine whether long-term oral beta-blockade in patients with an acute MI and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) reduces the composite endpoint of death of any cause or recurrent MI. METHODS AND RESULTS: It is a registry-based, randomized, parallel, open-label, multicentre trial performed at 38 centres in Sweden, 1 centre in Estonia, and 6 centres in New Zealand. About 5000 patients with an acute MI who have undergone coronary angiography and with EF ≥ 50% will be randomized to long-term treatment with beta-blockade or not. The primary endpoint is the composite endpoint of death of any cause or new non-fatal MI. There are several secondary endpoints, including all-cause death, cardiovascular death, new MI, readmission because of heart failure and atrial fibrillation, symptoms, functional status, and health-related quality of life after 6-10 weeks and after 1 year of treatment. Safety endpoints are bradycardia, AV-block II-III, hypotension, syncope or need for pacemaker, asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and stroke. CONCLUSION: The results from REDUCE-AMI will add important evidence regarding the effect of beta-blockers in patients with MI and preserved EF and may change guidelines and clinical practice.

Study protocol: The DAICY trial-dual versus single-antibiotic impregnated cement in primary hemiarthroplasty for femoral neck fracture-a register-based cluster-randomized crossover-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Older patients with a displaced femoral neck fracture (FNF) are often treated with a cemented primary hemiarthroplasty (HA). The DAICY trial investigates whether high-dose dual-impregnated antibioticloaded cement (DIAC) including gentamicin and clindamycin can reduce the risk of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in comparison with low-dose single-impregnated gentamicin antibiotic-loaded cement (SIAC), in patients ≥ 60 years treated with a cemented HA for a displaced FNF. STUDY DESIGN: The trial is a national, multicenter, register-based, cluster-randomized, crossover trial. Patients ≥ 60 years with a non-pathological, displaced FNF (Type Garden 3-4/AO 31-B2 or B3) suitable for HA according to local guidelines are eligible for inclusion. Participating orthopedic departments will be randomized to start with either SIAC (control group) or DIAC treatment (intervention group) for 2 years. After 2 years, the study departments will then change to the other treatment arm for the remaining 2 years of the study. Approximately 7,000 patients will be included. The study is pragmatic in that the choice of implant brands, surgical approach and peri- and postoperative protocols follow the local routines of each participating department. All outcome variables will be retrieved after linkage of the study cohort to the following Swedish registers: the Fracture Register, the Arthroplasty Register, the National Patient Register and the Prescribed Drug Registry Outcome: The primary outcome will be periprosthetic joint infection of the index joint within 1 year after surgery. Secondary outcomes will be any reoperation on the index joint, mortality within 90 days and 1 year, resistance patterns of causative bacteria in cases of PJI, and health economics. Potential added value: This trial is designed to support or refute the efficacy of DIAC used in patients with a displaced FNF, potentially reducing PJI and resource allocation. Start of the trial and estimated duration - The DAICY trial started recruiting patients in January 2022 and will continue recruiting for approximately 4 years. Complete follow-up expected in 5 years.

Bivalirudin Versus Heparin Monotherapy in ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: Bivalirudin was not superior to unfractionated heparin in patients with myocardial infarction (MI) treated with percutaneous coronary intervention and no planned use of GPI (glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors) in contemporary clinical practice of radial access and potent P2Y12-inhibitors in the VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART randomized clinical trial (Bivalirudin Versus Heparin in STEMI and NSTEMI Patients on Modern Antiplatelet Therapy-Swedish Web-System for Enhancement and Development of Evidence-Based Care in Heart Disease Evaluated According to Recommended Therapies Registry). METHODS: In this prespecified separately powered subgroup analysis, we included patients with ST-segment-elevation MI undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention with the primary composite end point of all-cause death, MI, or major bleeding event within 180 days. RESULTS: Among the 6006 patients enrolled in the trial, 3005 patients with ST-segment-elevation MI were randomized to receive bivalirudin or heparin. The mean age was 66.8 years. According to protocol recommendations, 87% were treated with potent oral P2Y12-inhibitors before start of angiography and radial access was used in 90%. GPI was used in 51 (3.4%) and 74 (4.9%) of patients randomized to receive bivalirudin and heparin, respectively. The primary end point occurred in 12.5% (187 of 1501) and 13.0% (196 of 1504; hazard ratio [HR], 0.95 [95% CI, 0.78-1.17], P=0.64) with consistent results in all major subgroups. All-cause death occurred in 3.9% versus 3.9% (HR, 1.00 [0.70-1.45], P=0.98), MI in 1.7% versus 2.2% (HR, 0.76 [0.45-1.28], P=0.30), major bleeding in 8.3% versus 8.0% (HR, 1.04 [0.81-1.33], P=0.78), and definite stent thrombosis in 0.5% versus 1.3% (HR, 0.42 [0.18-0.96], P=0.04). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ST-segment-elevation MI undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention with radial access and receiving current recommended treatments with potent P2Y12-inhibitors rate of the composite of all-cause death, MI, or major bleeding was not lower in those randomized to receive bivalirudin as compared with heparin. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02311231.

A registry-based randomised trial comparing an SGLT2 inhibitor and metformin as standard treatment of early stage type 2 diabetes (SMARTEST): Rationale, design and protocol.

AIM: SGLT2 inhibitors have been shown to reduce cardiovascular and renal complications in type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients at high cardiovascular risk. Metformin is currently widely used as initial monotherapy in T2D but lacks convincing data to show that it reduces risk of complications. We aim to compare the SGLT2 inhibitor dapagliflozin and metformin as first-line T2D medication with regard to development of complications in a registry-based randomised controlled trial. METHODS: The SGLT2 inhibitor or metformin as standard treatment of early stage type 2 diabetes (SMARTEST) trial will enrol 4300 subjects at 30-40 study sites in Sweden who will be randomised 1:1 to either metformin or dapagliflozin. Participants must have T2D duration <4 years, no prior cardiovascular disease, and be either drug-naïve or on monotherapy for T2D. RESULTS: The primary endpoint is a composite of all-cause death, major adverse cardiovascular events and occurrence or progression of microvascular complications (retinopathy, nephropathy, diabetic foot lesions). Secondary endpoints include individual components of the primary endpoint, start of insulin therapy, risk factor biomarkers, patient-reported outcome measures, and cost-effectiveness analysis. Outcomes will primarily be assessed using nationwide healthcare registries. CONCLUSIONS: The SMARTEST trial will investigate whether dapagliflozin is superior to metformin in preventing complications in early stage T2D. (Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT03982381, EudraCT 2019-001046-17).

The Full Revasc (Ffr-gUidance for compLete non-cuLprit REVASCularization) Registry-based randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Complete revascularization in ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients with multivessel disease has resulted in reduction in composite clinical endpoints in medium sized trials. Only one trial showed an effect on hard clinical endpoints, but the revascularization procedure was guided by angiographic evaluation of stenosis severity. Consequently, it is not clear how Fractional Flow Reserve (FFR)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) affects hard clinical endpoints in STEMI. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Ffr-gUidance for compLete non-cuLprit REVASCularization (FULL REVASC) - is a pragmatic, multicenter, international, registry-based randomized clinical trial designed to evaluate whether a strategy of FFR-guided complete revascularization of non-culprit lesions, reduces the combined primary endpoint of total mortality, non-fatal MI and unplanned revascularization. 1,545 patients were randomized to receive FFR-guided PCI during the index hospitalization or initial conservative management of non-culprit lesions. We found that in angiographically severe non-culprit lesions of 90-99% severity, 1 in 5 of these lesions were re-classified as non-flow limiting by FFR. Considering lesions of intermediate severity (70%-89%), half were re-classified as non-flow limiting by FFR. The study is event driven for an estimated follow-up of at least 2.75 years to detect a 9.9%/year>7.425%/year difference (HR = 0.74 at 80% power (α = .05)) for the combined primary endpoint. CONCLUSION: This large randomized clinical trial is designed and powered to evaluate the effect of complete revascularization with FFR-guided PCI during index hospitalization on total mortality, non-fatal MI and unplanned revascularization following primary PCI in STEMI patients with multivessel disease. Enrollment completed in September 2019 and follow-up is ongoing.

Randomized comparison of early supplemental oxygen versus ambient air in patients with confirmed myocardial infarction: Sex-related outcomes from DETO2X-AMI.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to investigate the impact of oxygen therapy on cardiovascular outcomes in relation to sex in patients with confirmed myocardial infarction (MI). METHODS: The DETermination of the role of Oxygen in suspected Acute Myocardial Infarction trial randomized 6,629 patients to oxygen at 6 L/min for 6-12 hours or ambient air. In the present subgroup analysis including 5,010 patients (1,388 women and 3,622 men) with confirmed MI, we report the effect of supplemental oxygen on the composite of all-cause death, rehospitalization with MI, or heart failure at long-term follow-up, stratified according to sex. RESULTS: Event rate for the composite endpoint was 18.1% in women allocated to oxygen, compared to 21.4% in women allocated to ambient air (hazard ratio [HR] 0.83, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.65-1.05). In men, the incidence was 13.6% in patients allocated to oxygen compared to 13.3% in patients allocated to ambient air (HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.86-1.23). No significant interaction in relation to sex was found (P= .16). Irrespective of allocated treatment, the composite endpoint occurred more often in women compared to men (19.7 vs 13.4%, HR 1.51; 95% CI, 1.30-1.75). After adjustment for age alone, there was no difference between the sexes (HR 1.06, 95% CI 0.91-1.24), which remained consistent after multivariate adjustment. CONCLUSION: Oxygen therapy in normoxemic MI patients did not significantly affect all-cause mortality or rehospitalization for MI or heart failure in women or men. The observed worse outcome in women was explained by differences in baseline characteristics, especially age.

Oxygen therapy in suspected acute myocardial infarction and concurrent normoxemic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a prespecified subgroup analysis from the DETO2X-AMI trial.

BACKGROUND: The DETermination of the role of Oxygen in suspected Acute Myocardial Infarction (DETO2X-AMI) trial did not find any benefit of oxygen therapy compared to ambient air in normoxemic patients with suspected acute myocardial infarction. Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease may both benefit and be harmed by supplemental oxygen. Thus we evaluated the effect of routine oxygen therapy compared to ambient air in normoxemic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients with suspected acute myocardial infarction. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 6629 patients with suspected acute myocardial infarction were randomly assigned in the DETO2X-AMI trial to oxygen or ambient air. In the oxygen group (n=3311) and the ambient air group (n=3318), 155 and 141 patients, respectively, had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (prevalence of 4.5%). Patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were older, had more comorbid conditions and experienced a twofold higher risk of death at one year (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: 32/296 (10.8%) vs. non-chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: 302/6333 (4.8%)). Oxygen therapy compared to ambient air was not associated with improved outcomes at 365 days (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: all-cause mortality hazard ratio (HR) 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50-1.99, Pinteraction=0.96); cardiovascular death HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.32-2.04, Pinteraction=0.59); rehospitalisation with acute myocardial infarction or death HR 1.27, 95% CI 0.71-2.28, Pinteraction=0.46); hospitalisation for heart failure or death HR 1.08, 95% CI 0.61-1.91, Pinteraction=0.77]); there were no significant treatment-by-chronic obstructive pulmonary disease interactions. CONCLUSIONS: Although chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients had twice the mortality rate compared to non-chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients, this prespecified subgroup analysis from the DETO2X-AMI trial on oxygen therapy versus ambient air in normoxemic chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients with suspected acute myocardial infarction revealed no evidence for benefit of routine oxygen therapy consistent with the main trial's findings. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT02290080.

Effect of Oxygen Therapy on Cardiovascular Outcomes in Relation to Baseline Oxygen Saturation.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine the effect of supplemental oxygen in patients with myocardial infarction (MI) on the composite of all-cause death, rehospitalization with MI, or heart failure related to baseline oxygen saturation. A secondary objective was to investigate outcomes in patients developing hypoxemia. BACKGROUND: In the DETO2X-AMI (Determination of the Role of Oxygen in Suspected Acute Myocardial Infarction) trial, 6,629 normoxemic patients with suspected MI were randomized to oxygen at 6 l/min for 6 to 12 h or ambient air. METHODS: The study population of 5,010 patients with confirmed MI was divided by baseline oxygen saturation into a low-normal (90% to 94%) and a high-normal (95% to 100%) cohort. Outcomes are reported within 1 year. To increase power, all follow-up time (between 1 and 4 years) was included post hoc, and interaction analyses were performed with oxygen saturation as a continuous covariate. RESULTS: The composite endpoint of all-cause death, rehospitalization with MI, or heart failure occurred significantly more often in patients in the low-normal cohort (17.3%) compared with those in the high-normal cohort (9.5%) (p < 0.001), and most often in patients developing hypoxemia (23.6%). Oxygen therapy compared with ambient air was not associated with improved outcomes regardless of baseline oxygen saturation (interaction p values: composite endpoint, p = 0.79; all-cause death, p = 0.33; rehospitalization with MI, p = 0.86; hospitalization for heart failure, p = 0.35). CONCLUSIONS: Irrespective of oxygen saturation at baseline, we found no clinically relevant beneficial effect of routine oxygen therapy in normoxemic patients with MI regarding cardiovascular outcomes. Low-normal baseline oxygen saturation or development of hypoxemia was identified as an independent marker of poor prognosis. (An Efficacy and Outcome Study of Supplemental Oxygen Treatment in Patients With Suspected Myocardial Infarction; NCT01787110).

Oxygen Therapy in Myocardial Infarction Patients With or Without Diabetes: A Predefined Subgroup Analysis From the DETO2X-AMI Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of oxygen therapy in myocardial infarction (MI) patients with and without diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In the Determination of the Role of Oxygen in Suspected Acute Myocardial Infarction (DETO2X-AMI) trial, 6,629 normoxemic patients with suspected MI were randomized to oxygen at 6 L/min for 6-12 h or ambient air. In this prespecified analysis involving 5,010 patients with confirmed MI, 934 had known diabetes. Oxidative stress may be of particular importance in diabetes, and the primary objective was to study the effect of supplemental oxygen on the composite of all-cause death and rehospitalization with MI or heart failure (HF) at 1 year in patients with and without diabetes. RESULTS: As expected, event rates were significantly higher in patients with diabetes compared with patients without diabetes (main composite end point: hazard ratio [HR] 1.60 [95% CI 1.32-1.93], P < 0.01). In patients with diabetes, the main composite end point occurred in 16.2% (72 of 445) allocated to oxygen as compared with 16.6% (81 of 489) allocated to ambient air (HR 0.93 [95% CI 0.67-1.27], P = 0.81). There was no statistically significant difference for the individual components of the composite end point or the rate of cardiovascular death up to 1 year. Likewise, corresponding end points in patients without diabetes were similar between the treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Despite markedly higher event rates in patients with MI and diabetes, oxygen therapy did not significantly affect 1-year all-cause death, cardiovascular death, or rehospitalization with MI or HF, irrespective of underlying diabetes, in line with the results of the entire study.

Radial versus femoral access in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing invasive management: A prespecified subgroup analysis from VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART.

AIMS: In the Bivalirudin versus Heparin in ST-Segment and Non-ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction in Patients on Modern Antiplatelet Therapy in the Swedish Web System for Enhancement and Development of Evidence-based Care in Heart Disease Evaluated according to Recommended Therapies Registry Trial (VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART), bivalirudin was not superior to unfractionated heparin in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing invasive management. We assessed whether the access site had an impact on the primary endpoint of death, myocardial infarction or major bleeding at 180 days and whether it interacted with bivalirudin/unfractionated heparin. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 6006 patients with acute coronary syndrome planned for percutaneous coronary intervention were randomised to either bivalirudin or unfractionated heparin. Arterial access was left to the operator discretion. Overall, 90.5% of patients underwent transradial access and 9.5% transfemoral access. Baseline risk was higher in transfemoral access. The unadjusted hazard ratio for the primary outcome was lower with transradial access (hazard ratio 0.53, 95% confidence interval 0.43-0.67, p<0.001) and remained lower after multivariable adjustment (hazard ratio 0.56, 95% confidence interval 0.52-0.84, p<0.001). Transradial access was associated with lower risk of death (hazard ratio 0.41, 95% confidence interval 0.28-0.60, p<0.001) and major bleeding (hazard ratio 0.57, 95% confidence interval 0.44-0.75, p<0.001). There was no interaction between treatment with bivalirudin and access site for the primary endpoint (p=0.976) or major bleeding (p=0.801). CONCLUSIONS: Transradial access was associated with lower risk of death, myocardial infarction or major bleeding at 180 days. Bivalirudin was not associated with less bleeding, irrespective of access site.

The Precision HYpertenSIon Care (PHYSIC) study: a double-blind, randomized, repeated cross-over study.

High blood pressure is the leading risk factor for premature deaths and a major cost to societies worldwide. Effective blood pressure-lowering drugs are available, but patient adherence to them is low, likely partly due to side effects. To identify patient-specific differences in treatment effects, a repeated cross-over design, where the same treatment contrasts are repeated within each patient, is needed. Such designs have been surprisingly rarely used, given the current focus on precision medicine. The Precision HYpertenSIon Care (PHYSIC) study aims to investigate if there is a consistent between-person variation in blood pressure response to the common blood pressure-lowering drug classes of a clinically relevant magnitude, given the within-person variation in blood pressure. The study will also investigate the between-person variation in side effects of the drugs. In a double-blind, randomized, repeated cross-over trial, 300 patients with mild hypertension will be treated with four blood pressure-lowering drugs (candesartan, lisinopril, amlodipine, and hydrochlorothiazide) in monotherapy, with two of the drugs repeated for each patient. If the study indicates that there is a potential for precision hypertension care, the most promising predictors of blood pressure and side effect response to the drugs will be explored, as will the potential for development of a biomarker panel to rank the suitability of blood pressure-lowering drug classes for individual patients in terms of anticipated blood pressure effects and side effects, with the ultimate goal to maximize adherence. The study follows a protocol pre-registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with the identifier NCT02774460.

Bivalirudin versus heparin monotherapy in non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: The optimal anti-coagulation strategy for patients with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction treated with percutaneous coronary intervention is unclear in contemporary clinical practice of radial access and potent P2Y12-inhibitors. The aim of this study was to investigate whether bivalirudin was superior to heparin monotherapy in patients with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction without routine glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor use. METHODS: In a large pre-specified subgroup of the multicentre, prospective, randomised, registry-based, open-label clinical VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART trial we randomised patients with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, treated with ticagrelor or prasugrel, to bivalirudin or heparin monotherapy with no planned use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors during percutaneous coronary intervention. The primary endpoint was the rate of a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction or major bleeding within 180 days. RESULTS: A total of 3001 patients with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction, were enrolled. The primary endpoint occurred in 12.1% (182 of 1503) and 12.5% (187 of 1498) of patients in the bivalirudin and heparin groups, respectively (hazard ratio of bivalirudin compared to heparin treatment 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.78-1.18, p=0.69). The results were consistent in all major subgroups. All-cause death occurred in 2.0% versus 1.7% (hazard ratio 1.15, 0.68-1.94, p=0.61), myocardial infarction in 2.3% versus 2.5% (hazard ratio 0.91, 0.58-1.45, p=0.70), major bleeding in 8.9% versus 9.1% (hazard ratio 0.97, 0.77-1.24, p=0.82) and definite stent thrombosis in 0.3% versus 0.2% (hazard ratio 1.33, 0.30-5.93, p=0.82). CONCLUSION: Bivalirudin as compared to heparin during percutaneous coronary intervention for non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction did not reduce the composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction or major bleeding in non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients receiving current recommended treatments with modern P2Y12-inhibitors and predominantly radial access.

The Analgesic Effect of Oxygen in Suspected Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Substudy of the DETO2X-AMI Trial.

OBJECTIVES: In this substudy of the DETO2X-AMI (An Efficacy and Outcome Study of Supplemental Oxygen Treatment in Patients With Suspected Myocardial Infarction) trial, the authors aimed to assess the analgesic effect of moderate-flow oxygen supplementation in patients with suspected acute myocardial infarction (AMI) treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and to study the effect of oxygen supplementation on the use of opiates and sedatives during PCI. BACKGROUND: Routine oxygen in normoxemic patients with AMI does not provide clinical benefit. However, oxygen may relieve ischemic pain. METHODS: Patients were randomly allocated to oxygen or ambient air according to the main study protocol. After PCI, peak level of pain during PCI was measured by the Visual Analogue Scale. The total amount of opiates and sedatives was reported. RESULTS: A total of 622 patients were enrolled: 330 in the oxygen group and 292 in the ambient air group. There was no significant difference in peak level of pain (oxygen 4.0 [1.0 to 6.0] vs. air 3.0 [0.6 to 6.0]; p = 0.37), use of opiates (mg) (oxygen 0.0 [0.0 to 3.0] vs. air 0.0 [0.0 to 3.0]; p = 0.31), or use of sedatives between the groups (median [interquartile range]) (oxygen 2.5 [0.0 to 2.5] vs. air 2.5 [0.0 to 2.5]; p = 0.74). CONCLUSIONS: In the present study, the authors did not find any analgesic effect of routine oxygen as compared with ambient air, and no differences in the use of sedatives and opiates during PCI. Our results indicate that moderate-flow oxygen supplementation does not relieve pain in normoxemic patients with suspected AMI undergoing treatment with PCI and should thus not be used for this purpose.

Oxygen therapy in ST-elevation myocardial infarction.

Aims: To determine whether supplemental oxygen in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) impacts on procedure-related and clinical outcomes. Methods and results: The DETermination of the role of Oxygen in suspected Acute Myocardial Infarction (DETO2X-AMI) trial randomized patients with suspected myocardial infarction (MI) to receive oxygen at 6 L/min for 6-12 h or ambient air. In this pre-specified analysis, we included only STEMI patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). In total, 2807 patients were included, 1361 assigned to receive oxygen, and 1446 assigned to ambient air. The pre-specified primary composite endpoint of all-cause death, rehospitalization with MI, cardiogenic shock, or stent thrombosis at 1 year occurred in 6.3% (86 of 1361) of patients allocated to oxygen compared to 7.5% (108 of 1446) allocated to ambient air [hazard ratio (HR) 0.85, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.64-1.13; P = 0.27]. There was no difference in the rate of death from any cause (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.61-1.22; P = 0.41), rate of rehospitalization for MI (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.57-1.48; P = 0.73), rehospitalization for cardiogenic shock (HR 1.05, 95% CI 0.21-5.22; P = 0.95), or stent thrombosis (HR 1.27, 95% CI 0.46-3.51; P = 0.64). The primary composite endpoint was consistent across all subgroups, as well as at different time points, such as during hospital stay, at 30 days and the total duration of follow-up up to 1356 days. Conclusions: Routine use of supplemental oxygen in normoxemic patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI did not significantly affect 1-year all-cause death, rehospitalization with MI, cardiogenic shock, or stent thrombosis.