Search

Background Severity and extent of coronary artery disease (CAD) assessed by invasive coronary angiography (ICA) guide treatment and may predict clinical outcome in patients with non–ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTEACS). Objectives This study tested the hypothesis that coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA) is equivalent to ICA for risk assessment in patients with NSTEACS. Methods The VERDICT (Very Early Versus Deferred Invasive Evaluation Using Computerized Tomography in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes) trial evaluated timing of treatment in relation to outcome in patients with NSTEACS and included a clinically blinded coronary CTA conducted prior to ICA. Severity of CAD was defined as obstructive (coronary stenosis ≥50%) or nonobstructive. Extent of CAD was defined as high risk (obstructive left main or proximal left anterior descending artery stenosis and/or multivessel disease) or non–high risk. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death, nonfatal recurrent myocardial infarction, hospital admission for refractory myocardial ischemia, or heart failure. Results Coronary CTA and ICA were conducted in 978 patients. During a median follow-up time of 4.2 years (interquartile range: 2.7 to 5.5 years), the primary endpoint occurred in 208 patients (21.3%). The rate of the primary endpoint was up to 1.7-fold higher in patients with obstructive CAD compared with in patients with nonobstructive CAD as defined by coronary CTA (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.74; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.22 to 2.49; p = 0.002) or ICA (HR: 1.54; 95% CI: 1.13 to 2.11; p = 0.007). In patients with high-risk CAD, the rate of the primary endpoint was 1.5-fold higher compared with the rate in those with non–high-risk CAD as defined by coronary CTA (HR: 1.56; 95% CI: 1.18 to 2.07; p = 0.002). A similar trend was noted for ICA (HR: 1.28; 95% CI: 0.98 to 1.69; p = 0.07). Conclusions Coronary CTA is equivalent to ICA for the assessment of long-term risk in patients with NSTEACS. (Very Early Versus Deferred Invasive Evaluation Using Computerized Tomography in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes [VERDICT]; NCT02061891 )

Background: The optimal timing of invasive coronary angiography (ICA) and revascularization in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome is not well defined. We tested the hypothesis that a strategy of very early ICA and possible revascularization within 12 hours of diagnosis is superior to an invasive strategy performed within 48 to 72 hours in terms of clinical outcomes. Methods: Patients admitted with clinical suspicion of non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome in the Capital Region of Copenhagen, Denmark, were screened for inclusion in the VERDICT trial (Very Early Versus Deferred Invasive Evaluation Using Computerized Tomography) ( ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02061891). Patients with ECG changes indicating new ischemia or elevated troponin, in whom ICA was clinically indicated and deemed logistically feasible within 12 hours, were randomized 1:1 to ICA within 12 hours or standard invasive care within 48 to 72 hours. The primary end point was a combination of all-cause death, nonfatal recurrent myocardial infarction, hospital admission for refractory myocardial ischemia, or hospital admission for heart failure. Results: A total of 2147 patients were randomized; 1075 patients allocated to very early invasive evaluation had ICA performed at a median of 4.7 hours after randomization, whereas 1072 patients assigned to standard invasive care had ICA performed 61.6 hours after randomization. Among patients with significant coronary artery disease identified by ICA, coronary revascularization was performed in 88.4% (very early ICA) and 83.1% (standard invasive care). Within a median follow-up time of 4.3 (interquartile range, 4.1–4.4) years, the primary end point occurred in 296 (27.5%) of participants in the very early ICA group and 316 (29.5%) in the standard care group (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.78–1.08). Among patients with a GRACE risk score (Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events) >140, a very early invasive treatment strategy improved the primary outcome compared with the standard invasive treatment (hazard ratio, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.67–1.01; P value for interaction=0.023). Conclusions: A strategy of very early invasive coronary evaluation does not improve overall long-term clinical outcome compared with an invasive strategy conducted within 2 to 3 days in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome. However, in patients with the highest risk, very early invasive therapy improves long-term outcomes. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT02061891.

The authors sought to perform a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the clinical efficacy of combined examination with coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA) and computed tomography perfusion imaging (CTP) compared to coronary CTA alone.Stress myocardial CTP may increase diagnostic specificity when added to coronary CTA in patients suspected of having ischemic heart disease.Patients recently hospitalized for acute-onset chest pain, who had acute coronary syndrome had been ruled out by normal electrocardiograms, normal troponin levels, and relief of symptoms, and who had a clinical indication for outpatient noninvasive testing, were screened for inclusion in the CATCH-2 (CArdiac cT in the treatment of acute CHest pain 2) trial (NCT02014311). Patients were randomized 1:1 to examination with coronary CTA or coronary CTA+CTP. The primary endpoint was the frequency of coronary revascularization among patients referred for invasive coronary angiography (ICA) based on index computed tomography evaluation. Secondary endpoints were invasive procedural complications at index-related ICA, post-index cardiac death, hospital admittance because of recurrence of chest pain, unstable angina pectoris, or acute myocardial infarction, ICA, and revascularization.Among 300 patients allocated to the coronary CTA+CTP group, 41 (14%) were referred for ICA compared with 89 (30%) allocated to coronary CTA (p 0.0001). The primary endpoint occurred in 50% of coronary CTA+CTP patients versus 48% of invasively examined patients (p = 0.85). The total number of revascularizations was significantly lower in the coronary CTA+CTP group compared to the coronary CTA group (n = 20 [7%] vs. n = 42 [14%]; p = 0.0045). At median follow-up of 1.5 years, the occurrence of secondary endpoints was similar in the 2 groups.A post-discharge diagnostic strategy of coronary CTA+CTP safely reduces the need for invasive examination and treatment in patients suspected of having ischemic heart disease. (CArdiac cT in the treatment of acute CHest pain 2-Myocardial CT Perfusion [CATCH2]; NCT02014311).

Aims Patients admitted with chest pain are a diagnostic challenge because the majority does not have coronary artery disease (CAD). Assessment of CAD with coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) is safe, cost-effective, and accurate, albeit with a modest specificity. Stress myocardial computed tomography perfusion (CTP) has been shown to increase the specificity when added to CCTA, without lowering the sensitivity. This article describes the design of a randomized controlled trial, CATCH-2, comparing a clinical diagnostic management strategy of CCTA alone against CCTA in combination with CTP. Methods Patients with acute-onset chest pain older than 50 years and with at least one cardiovascular risk factor for CAD are being prospectively enrolled to this study from 6 different clinical sites since October 2013. A total of 600 patients will be included. Patients are randomized 1:1 to clinical management based on CCTA or on CCTA in combination with CTP, determining the need for further testing with invasive coronary angiography including measurement of the fractional flow reserve in vessels with coronary artery lesions. Patients are scanned with a 320-row multidetector computed tomography scanner. Decisions to revascularize the patients are taken by the invasive cardiologist independently of the study allocation. The primary end point is the frequency of revascularization. Secondary end points of clinical outcome are also recorded. Discussion The CATCH-2 will determine whether CCTA in combination with CTP is diagnostically superior to CCTA alone in the management of patients with acute-onset chest pain.

The optimal timing of invasive coronary angiography (ICA) and revascularization in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome is not well defined. We tested the hypothesis that a strategy of very early ICA and possible revascularization within 12 hours of diagnosis is superior to an invasive strategy performed within 48 to 72 hours in terms of clinical outcomes.Patients admitted with clinical suspicion of non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome in the Capital Region of Copenhagen, Denmark, were screened for inclusion in the VERDICT trial (Very Early Versus Deferred Invasive Evaluation Using Computerized Tomography) ( ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02061891). Patients with ECG changes indicating new ischemia or elevated troponin, in whom ICA was clinically indicated and deemed logistically feasible within 12 hours, were randomized 1:1 to ICA within 12 hours or standard invasive care within 48 to 72 hours. The primary end point was a combination of all-cause death, nonfatal recurrent myocardial infarction, hospital admission for refractory myocardial ischemia, or hospital admission for heart failure.A total of 2147 patients were randomized; 1075 patients allocated to very early invasive evaluation had ICA performed at a median of 4.7 hours after randomization, whereas 1072 patients assigned to standard invasive care had ICA performed 61.6 hours after randomization. Among patients with significant coronary artery disease identified by ICA, coronary revascularization was performed in 88.4% (very early ICA) and 83.1% (standard invasive care). Within a median follow-up time of 4.3 (interquartile range, 4.1-4.4) years, the primary end point occurred in 296 (27.5%) of participants in the very early ICA group and 316 (29.5%) in the standard care group (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.78-1.08). Among patients with a GRACE risk score (Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events)140, a very early invasive treatment strategy improved the primary outcome compared with the standard invasive treatment (hazard ratio, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.67-1.01; P value for interaction=0.023).A strategy of very early invasive coronary evaluation does not improve overall long-term clinical outcome compared with an invasive strategy conducted within 2 to 3 days in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome. However, in patients with the highest risk, very early invasive therapy improves long-term outcomes.URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT02061891.

Aims Assessment of right ventricular (RV) function in acute pulmonary embolism (PE) has prognostic significance. The aim of this study was to evaluate right atrium (RA) and RV myocardial damage with 2-dimensional speckle-tracking in patients with an acute central vs an acute peripheral PE. Methods and Results Twenty-six patients with acute PE and 10 controls were retrospectively enrolled. Right atrium and RV myocardial deformation was analyzed using speckle-tracking imaging echocardiography. Parameters were evaluated to illustrate myocardial damage in patients with a central or a peripherally located PE. Thirteen of the enrolled patients had a massive central PE, and thirteen subjects had a peripheral located PE. Baseline characteristics were not significantly different between the 3 groups besides a more elevated heart rate among patients with a central PE ( P = .02) and a tendency of an increased D-dimer in this group. Right ventricular dimensions were more affected among patients with a PE. Compared with controls, segmental RV and RA strain/strain rate in the free wall was significantly reduced in patients with PE ( P Conclusion This pilot study suggests that basal-/mid-segments of RA and RV free wall are more affected in patients with a PE compared with controls. Interestingly, we found no significant difference in myocardial RA and RV damage between patients with a central and a peripheral PE. We advocate that PE no matter central or peripheral is a serious condition and that a peripheral PE has to be intensively treated similar to a central PE.

Closure of persistent foramen ovale (PFO) to avoid cryptogenic strokes is performed globally with enthusiasm but lacks prove of efficacy. We present a 79-year-old man who had had a PFO device introduced nine years previously because of cryptogenic strokes presenting as syncopes. The patient was referred from his general practitioner with two new syncopes. Transthoracic echocardiography revealed no cardiac causes of embolism. Transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) revealed a misplaced device like an umbrella in a storm, but no septum defects. Holter revealed seconds-long episodes of atrial fibrillation (AF). The patient was successfully treated with anticoagulation. A literature review showed that: (i) the efficacy of PFO closure devices has not been proven in any trial, but was demonstrated in a meta-analysis comparing three different devices; (ii) PFO devices are rarely controlled by TEE during or after insertion; (iii) residual shunts are detected in up to 45% of cases; (iv) there is an increased rate of post-arrhythmic complications; (v) the risk of AF in congenital heart disease increases with increasing age, with a 13% risk of transient ischemic attacks and stroke; and (vi) surgical treatment of PFO was found to have a 4.1% risk of complications including stroke. The question to be asked is whether device closure of PFO should be avoided, considering that PFO is a congenital heart defect with risks of AF and (cryptogenic) stroke? Heart surgery should be a treatment option for symptomatic PFO.