What Is the Clinical Impact of Stress CMR After the ISCHEMIA Trial?

After progressively receding for decades, cardiovascular mortality due to coronary artery disease has recently increased, and the associated healthcare costs are projected to double by 2030. While the 2019 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for chronic coronary syndromes recommend non-invasive cardiac imaging for patients with suspected coronary artery disease, the impact of non-invasive imaging strategies to guide initial coronary revascularization and improve long-term outcomes is still under debate. Recently, the ISCHEMIA trial has highlighted the fundamental role of optimized medical therapy and the lack of overall benefit of early invasive strategies at a median follow-up of 3.2 years. However, sub-group analyses excluding procedural infarctions with longer follow-ups of up to 5 years have suggested that patients undergoing revascularization had better outcomes than those receiving medical therapy alone. A recent sub-study of ISCHEMIA in patients with heart failure or reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF <45%) indicated that revascularization improved clinical outcomes compared to medical therapy alone. Furthermore, other large observational studies have suggested a favorable prognostic impact of coronary revascularization in patients with severe inducible ischemia assessed by stress cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR). Indeed, some data suggest that stress CMR-guided revascularization assessing the extent of the ischemia could be useful in identifying patients who would most benefit from invasive procedures such as myocardial revascularization. Interestingly, the MR-INFORM trial has recently shown that a first-line stress CMR-based non-invasive assessment was non-inferior in terms of outcomes, with a lower incidence of coronary revascularization compared to an initial invasive approach guided by fractional flow reserve in patients with stable angina. In the present review, we will discuss the current state-of-the-art data on the prognostic value of stress CMR assessment of myocardial ischemia in light of the ISCHEMIA trial results, highlighting meaningful sub-analyses, and still unanswered opportunities of this pivotal study. We will also review the available evidence for the potential clinical application of quantifying the extent of ischemia to stratify cardiovascular risk and to best guide invasive and non-invasive treatment strategies.

Intensive treatment of hyperglycemia in the acute phase of myocardial infarction: the tenuous balance between effectiveness and safety - a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

INTRODUCTION: In acute myocardial infarction (AMI), each 18 mg/dl (1 mmol/L) increment is associated with a 3% increase in mortality rates. All strategies applied for reducing blood glucose to this date, however, have not presented encouraging results. METHODOLOGY: We searched the Medline (PubMed) and Cochrane Library databases for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) from 1995 to 2017 that used the intensive strategy or GIK therapy for blood glucose control during the acute stage of the AMI. We included eight studies. In order to identify the effects of GIK or insulin therapy, we calculated a overall risk ratio (RR) with meta-analysis of fixed and random effects models. A two-tail p-value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: A total of 28,151 patients were included: 1,379 intensively treated with insulin, 13,031 in GIK group, and 13,741 in the control group. The total mortality was 10.5% (n=2,961) and the RR of 1.03 [95%CI 0.96-1.10]; I2 = 31%; p = 0.41 for the combined intensive insulin plus GIK groups in comparison with the control group. In meta-regression analyses, intense reductions in blood glucose (> 36 mg/dL) in relation to the estimated average blood glucose (estimated by HbA1c) were associated with higher mortality, whereas lower reductions in blood glucose (< 36 mg/dL) were not associated with mortality. The lowering of blood glucose in the acute phase of MI compared with the average blood glucose was more effective around 18 mg/dL. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis suggests that there may be a tenuous line between the effectiveness and safety of reducing blood glucose in the acute phase of MI. The targets must not exceed a reduction greater than 36 mg/dL in relation to estimated average blood glucose.

Intensive treatment of hyperglycemia in the acute phase of myocardial infarction: the tenuous balance between effectiveness and safety - a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

SUMMARY INTRODUCTION In acute myocardial infarction (AMI), each 18 mg/dl (1 mmol/L) increment is associated with a 3% increase in mortality rates. All strategies applied for reducing blood glucose to this date, however, have not presented encouraging results. METHODOLOGY We searched the Medline (PubMed) and Cochrane Library databases for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) from 1995 to 2017 that used the intensive strategy or GIK therapy for blood glucose control during the acute stage of the AMI. We included eight studies. In order to identify the effects of GIK or insulin therapy, we calculated a overall risk ratio (RR) with meta-analysis of fixed and random effects models. A two-tail p-value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS A total of 28,151 patients were included: 1,379 intensively treated with insulin, 13,031 in GIK group, and 13,741 in the control group. The total mortality was 10.5% (n=2,961) and the RR of 1.03 [95%CI 0.96-1.10]; I2 = 31%; p = 0.41 for the combined intensive insulin plus GIK groups in comparison with the control group. In meta-regression analyses, intense reductions in blood glucose (> 36 mg/dL) in relation to the estimated average blood glucose (estimated by HbA1c) were associated with higher mortality, whereas lower reductions in blood glucose (< 36 mg/dL) were not associated with mortality. The lowering of blood glucose in the acute phase of MI compared with the average blood glucose was more effective around 18 mg/dL. CONCLUSION This meta-analysis suggests that there may be a tenuous line between the effectiveness and safety of reducing blood glucose in the acute phase of MI. The targets must not exceed a reduction greater than 36 mg/dL in relation to estimated average blood glucose.

RESUMO INTRODUÇÃO No infarto agudo do miocárdio (IAM), cada incremento de 18 mg/dl (1 mmol/L) se associa a um aumento de 3% na mortalidade. As estratégias de redução da glicemia tentadas até o momento, entretanto, não trouxeram resultados animadores. METODOLOGIA Foram pesquisadas nas bases de dados Medline (PubMed) e Cochrane Library os ensaios clínicos randomizados (ECRs) de 1995 a 2017 que utilizaram estratégia intensiva ou a terapia GIK no controle glicêmico durante a fase aguda do IAM. Foram incluídos oito estudos. Para identificar os efeitos da insulinoterapia ou da terapia GIK, calculamos um risco relativo geral (RR) com meta-análises de modelos de efeitos fixos e aleatórios. Um valor de p-bicaudal < 0,05 foi considerado estatisticamente significativo. RESULTADOS Foram incluídos 28.151 pacientes, sendo 1.379 no grupo de tratamento intensivo da glicemia, 13.031 no GIK e 13.741 no controle. A mortalidade total foi de 2.961 (10,5%), computando um risco relativo de 1,03 [95%CI 0,96-1,10]; I 2 = 31%; p = 0,41 para o grupo intensivo ou GIK contra o grupo conservador. Reduções intensas (> 36 mg/dL) em relação à glicemia estimada média se associaram à maior mortalidade, enquanto reduções menores não se associaram com seu incremento ou redução. A redução glicêmica na fase aguda em relação à glicemia estimada média foi mais efetiva e segura na faixa em torno de 18 mg/dL. CONCLUSÃO Esta meta-análise levanta a hipótese de haver um limite tênue entre efetividade e segurança para a redução glicêmica na fase aguda, sendo que os alvos não devem exceder uma redução maior do que 36 mg/dL de glicemia.