We have located links that may give you full text access.
Complete vs Culprit-Only Revascularization in Older Patients With Myocardial Infarction and High Bleeding Risk: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
JAMA Cardiology 2024 May 9
IMPORTANCE: Patients with high bleeding risk (HBR) have a poor prognosis, and it is not known if they may benefit from complete revascularization after myocardial infarction (MI).
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the benefit of physiology-guided complete revascularization vs a culprit-only strategy in patients with HBR, MI, and multivessel disease.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a prespecified analysis of the Functional Assessment in Elderly MI Patients With Multivessel Disease (FIRE) randomized clinical trial data. FIRE was an investigator-initiated, open-label, multicenter trial. Patients 75 years or older with MI and multivessel disease were enrolled at 34 European centers from July 2019 through October 2021. Physiology treatment was performed either by angiography- or wire-based assessment. Patients were divided into HBR or non-HBR categories in accordance with the Academic Research Consortium HBR document.
INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to either physiology-guided complete revascularization or culprit-only strategy.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome comprised a composite of death, MI, stroke, or revascularization at 1 year. Secondary outcomes included a composite of cardiovascular death or MI and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) types 3 to 5.
RESULTS: Among 1445 patients (mean [SD] age, 81 [5] years; 917 male [63%]), 1025 (71%) met HBR criteria. Patients with HBR were at higher risk for the primary end point (hazard ratio [HR], 2.01; 95% CI, 1.47-2.76), cardiovascular death or MI (HR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.26-2.83), and BARC types 3 to 5 (HR, 3.28; 95% CI, 1.40-7.64). The primary end point was significantly reduced with physiology-guided complete revascularization as compared with culprit-only strategy in patients with HBR (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.55-0.96). No indication of interaction was noted between revascularization strategy and HBR status for primary and secondary end points.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: HBR status is prevalent among older patients with MI, significantly increasing the likelihood of adverse events. Physiology-guided complete revascularization emerges as an effective strategy, in comparison with culprit-only revascularization, for mitigating ischemic adverse events, including cardiovascular death and MI.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03772743.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the benefit of physiology-guided complete revascularization vs a culprit-only strategy in patients with HBR, MI, and multivessel disease.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a prespecified analysis of the Functional Assessment in Elderly MI Patients With Multivessel Disease (FIRE) randomized clinical trial data. FIRE was an investigator-initiated, open-label, multicenter trial. Patients 75 years or older with MI and multivessel disease were enrolled at 34 European centers from July 2019 through October 2021. Physiology treatment was performed either by angiography- or wire-based assessment. Patients were divided into HBR or non-HBR categories in accordance with the Academic Research Consortium HBR document.
INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to either physiology-guided complete revascularization or culprit-only strategy.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome comprised a composite of death, MI, stroke, or revascularization at 1 year. Secondary outcomes included a composite of cardiovascular death or MI and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) types 3 to 5.
RESULTS: Among 1445 patients (mean [SD] age, 81 [5] years; 917 male [63%]), 1025 (71%) met HBR criteria. Patients with HBR were at higher risk for the primary end point (hazard ratio [HR], 2.01; 95% CI, 1.47-2.76), cardiovascular death or MI (HR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.26-2.83), and BARC types 3 to 5 (HR, 3.28; 95% CI, 1.40-7.64). The primary end point was significantly reduced with physiology-guided complete revascularization as compared with culprit-only strategy in patients with HBR (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.55-0.96). No indication of interaction was noted between revascularization strategy and HBR status for primary and secondary end points.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: HBR status is prevalent among older patients with MI, significantly increasing the likelihood of adverse events. Physiology-guided complete revascularization emerges as an effective strategy, in comparison with culprit-only revascularization, for mitigating ischemic adverse events, including cardiovascular death and MI.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03772743.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Advances in Clinical Cardiology 2023: A Summary of Key Clinical Trials.Advances in Therapy 2024 May 15
Nutrition in the intensive care unit: from the acute phase to beyond.Intensive Care Medicine 2024 May 22
The Therapy and Management of Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction: New Insights on Treatment.Cardiac Failure Review 2024
Sodium-glucose co-transporter protein 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors for people with chronic kidney disease and diabetes.Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2024 May 22
Bronchiectasis management in adults: state of the art and future directions.European Respiratory Journal 2024 May 24
Drug Therapy for Acute and Chronic Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction with Hypertension: A State-of-the-Art Review.American Journal of Cardiovascular Drugs : Drugs, Devices, and Other Interventions 2024 April 5
Pathophysiological Link and Treatment Implication of Heart Failure and Preserved Ejection Fraction in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease.Biomedicines 2024 April 31
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app