Critical Appraisal of Contemporary Clinical Endpoint Definitions in Coronary Intervention Trials: A Guidance Document

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention versus Optimal Medical Therapy in Patients with Chronic Total Occlusion: A Meta-Analysis

Background/Objectives: Chronic total occlusion (CTO) is a prevalent finding in patients with coronary artery disease and is associated with increased mortality. Prior reports on the efficacy of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) compared to optimal medical therapy (OMT) were controversial. Following the emergence of recently published new evidence, a meta-analysis is warranted. The current meta-analysis assessed the effects of PCI compared to OMT in the treatment of CTO. Methods: A structured literature search was performed. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized controlled studies of interventions were eligible. The primary outcome was an accumulated composite of cardiac mortality, myocardial infarction and target vessel/lesion revascularization events. Results: Thirty-two studies reporting on 11260 patients were included. Of these, 5712 (50.7%) were assigned to the PCI and 5548 (49.3%) were allocated to the OMT group. The primary outcome occurred in 14.6% of the PCI and 20.1% of the OMT group (12 trials, OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.88, p = 0.005, I2 = 67%). Subgrouping demonstrated a consistent reduction in the primary outcome for the PCI group in RCTs (six trials, OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.99, p = 0.05). The primary outcome reduction was irrespective of the study design, and it was replicable in sensitivity and subgroup analyses. Advantages in other outcomes were rather related to statistical pooling effects and dominated by observational data. Conclusions: CTO-PCI was associated with improved patient-oriented primary outcome compared to OMT in a study-level meta-analysis. This composite outcome effect was mainly driven by target vessel treatment, but a significant reduction in mortality and myocardial infarction was observed, irrespectively. These findings have hypothesis-generating implications. Future RCTs with adequate statistical power are eagerly awaited.

Post-procedural elevated cardiac troponin I and the association with 5-year mortality in patients undergoing elective PCI

Background

The clinically meaningful cardiac troponin I (cTnI) threshold associated with the long-term prognosis in patients undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is still debated.

Objective

To assess the association between different thresholds for post-procedural cTnI and 5-year mortality.

Methods

The study included 4059 consecutive patients with normal baseline cTnI values who underwent elective PCI. The post-procedural cTnI level was measured at 8-48 h after PCI. The main study endpoints were 5-year all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality.

Results

A cTnI ≥5 times the upper reference limit (URL) as defined by the fourth universal definition of myocardial infarction (4th UDMI), ≥35 times as defined by the Academic Research Consortium-2 criteria, and ≥70 times as defined by the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI [2014]) was identified in 33%, 6.6%, and 3.3% of patients, respectively. During 5 years of follow-up, the all-cause mortality rate was 3.4% (n = 132) and the cardiovascular mortality rate was 2.0% (n = 77). Both all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality increased with higher peak cTnI, and were independently predicted by a cTnI ≥70 times the URL (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 2.45, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.20-5.02 and adjusted HR 3.17, 95% CI 1.31-7.67, respectively; reference, cTnI <1 × URL]. The SCAI (2014) threshold was significantly associated with 5-year cardiovascular mortality (adjusted HR 2.66, 95% CI 1.20-5.89; reference, cTnI, <70 × URL) and all-cause mortality (adjusted HR 2.23, 95% CI 1.16-4.30; reference, cTnI <70 × URL).

Conclusion

In patients with normal pre-procedural cTnI who underwent elective PCI, a post-procedural cTnI ≥70 times the URL independently predicted 5-year all-cause and cardiovascular mortality. Therefore, only the SCAI (2014) post-procedural cTnI threshold was independently associated with long-term mortality.

Endpoint adjudication in cardiovascular clinical trials

Endpoint adjudication (EA) is a common feature of contemporary randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in cardiovascular medicine. Endpoint adjudication refers to a process wherein a group of expert reviewers, known as the clinical endpoint committee (CEC), verify potential endpoints identified by site investigators. Events that are determined by the CEC to meet pre-specified trial definitions are then utilized for analysis. The rationale behind the use of EA is that it may lessen the potential misclassification of clinical events, thereby reducing statistical noise and bias. However, it has been questioned whether this is universally true, especially given that EA significantly increases the time, effort, and resources required to conduct a trial. Herein, we compare the summary estimates obtained using adjudicated vs. non-adjudicated site designated endpoints in major cardiovascular RCTs in which both were reported. Based on these data, we lay out a framework to determine which trials may warrant EA and where it may be redundant. The value of EA is likely greater when cardiovascular trials have nuanced primary endpoints, endpoint definitions that align poorly with practice, sub-optimal data completeness, greater operator variability, and lack of blinding. EA may not be needed if the primary endpoint is all-cause death or all-cause hospitalization. In contrast, EA is likely merited for more nuanced endpoints such as myocardial infarction, bleeding, worsening heart failure as an outpatient, unstable angina, or transient ischaemic attack. A risk-based approach to adjudication can potentially allow compromise between costs and accuracy. This would involve adjudication of a small proportion of events, with further adjudication done if inconsistencies are detected.

A new clinical classification of acute myocardial infarction

The existence of a universal definition of myocardial infarction-which involves classification into multiple subtypes-has promoted the use of standard diagnostic criteria across the world. However, this classification has not been applied consistently in practice and is perceived by some as too complicated. Where there is diagnostic uncertainty, patients have worse outcomes. This uncertainty has also impacted on the validity of the diagnosis of myocardial infarction in clinical trials. To address these issues and to encourage clinicians to recognize that different mechanisms of myocardial infarction have differing treatment implications, we propose an alternative clinical classification for consideration; one that recognizes that myocardial infarction can arise spontaneously, secondary to another condition, or as a complication of a cardiac procedure. This classification is aligned with clinical practice and proposes more objective and specific diagnostic criteria that, if agreed by international consensus, could reduce diagnostic uncertainty in practice and research.

Fractional flow reserve or 3D-quantitative-coronary-angiography based vessel-FFR guided revascularization. Rationale and study design of the prospective randomized fast III trial

BACKGROUND

Physiological assessment of intermediate coronary lesions to guide coronary revascularization is currently recommended by international guidelines. Vessel fractional flow reserve (vFFR) has emerged as a new approach to derive fractional flow reserve (FFR) from 3D-quantitative coronary angiography (3D-QCA) without the need for hyperemic agents or pressure wires.

STUDY DESIGN AND OBJECTIVES

The FAST III is an investigator-initiated, open label, multicenter randomized trial comparing vFFR guided versus FFR guided coronary revascularization in approximately 2228 patients with intermediate coronary lesions (defined as 30%-80% stenosis by visual assessment or QCA). Intermediate lesions are physiologically assessed using on-line vFFR or FFR and treated if vFFR or FFR ≤0.80. The primary end point is a composite of all-cause death, any myocardial infarction, or any revascularization at 1-year post-randomization. Secondary end points include the individual components of the primary end point and cost-effectiveness will be investigated.

CONCLUSIONS

FAST III is the first randomized trial to explore whether a vFFR guided revascularization strategy is non-inferior to an FFR guided strategy in terms of clinical outcomes at 1-year follow-up in patients with intermediate coronary artery lesions.

Immediate versus staged complete revascularisation in patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome and multivessel coronary disease (BIOVASC): a prospective, open-label, non-inferiority, randomised trial

BACKGROUND

In patients with acute coronary syndrome and multivessel coronary disease, complete revascularisation by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is associated with improved clinical outcomes. We aimed to investigate whether PCI for non-culprit lesions should be attempted during the index procedure or staged.

METHODS

This prospective, open-label, non-inferiority, randomised trial was done at 29 hospitals across Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands, and Spain. We included patients aged 18-85 years presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction or non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome and multivessel (ie, two or more coronary arteries with a diameter of 2·5 mm or more and ≥70% stenosis based on visual estimation or positive coronary physiology testing) coronary artery disease with a clearly identifiable culprit lesion. A web-based randomisation module was used to randomly assign patients (1:1), with a random block size of four to eight, stratified by study centre, to undergo immediate complete revascularisation (PCI of the culprit lesion first, followed by other non-culprit lesions deemed to be clinically significant by the operator during the index procedure) or staged complete revascularisation (PCI of only the culprit lesion during the index procedure and PCI of all non-culprit lesions deemed to be clinically significant by the operator within 6 weeks after the index procedure). The primary outcome was the composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, any unplanned ischaemia-driven revascularisation, or cerebrovascular events at 1 year after the index procedure. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and unplanned ischaemia-driven revascularisation at 1 year after the index procedure. Primary and secondary outcomes were assessed in all randomly assigned patients by intention to treat. Non-inferiority of immediate to staged complete revascularisation was considered to be met if the upper boundary of the 95% CI of the hazard ratio (HR) for the primary outcome did not exceed 1·39. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03621501.

FINDINGS

Between June 26, 2018, and Oct 21, 2021, 764 patients (median age 65·7 years [IQR 57·2-72·9] and 598 [78·3%] males) were randomly assigned to the immediate complete revascularisation group and 761 patients (median age 65·3 years [58·6-72·9] and 589 [77·4%] males) were randomly assigned to the staged complete revascularisation group, and were included in the intention-to-treat population. The primary outcome at 1 year occurred in 57 (7·6%) of 764 patients in the immediate complete revascularisation group and in 71 (9·4%) of 761 patients in the staged complete revascularisation group (HR 0·78, 95% CI 0·55-1·11, pnon-inferiority=0·0011). There was no difference in all-cause death between the immediate and staged complete revascularisation groups (14 [1·9%] vs nine [1·2%]; HR 1·56, 95% CI 0·68-3·61, p=0·30). Myocardial infarction occurred in 14 (1·9%) patients in the immediate complete revascularisation group and in 34 (4·5%) patients in the staged complete revascularisation group (HR 0·41, 95% CI 0·22-0·76, p=0·0045). More unplanned ischaemia-driven revascularisations were performed in the staged complete revascularisation group than in the immediate complete revascularisation group (50 [6·7%] patients vs 31 [4·2%] patients; HR 0·61, 95% CI 0·39-0·95, p=0·030).

INTERPRETATION

In patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome and multivessel disease, immediate complete revascularisation was non-inferior to staged complete revascularisation for the primary composite outcome and was associated with a reduction in myocardial infarction and unplanned ischaemia-driven revascularisation.

FUNDING

Erasmus University Medical Center and Biotronik.

Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography for the Assessment of Sirolimus-Eluting Resorbable Magnesium Scaffold

Background: Little evidence to date has described the feasibility and diagnostic accuracy of coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) with noninvasive fractional flow reserve (CT-FFR) in coronary vessels with resorbable magnesium scaffold (RMS). Methods: The SHERPA-MAGIC is a prospective study enrolling patients receiving RMS. The present analysis considered patients undergoing CCTA 18 months after the index procedure. CCTA images were employed to investigate reabsorption status, luminal measurements, and noninvasive FFR. Three-year follow-up was available for all patients. Results: Overall, 26 patients with a total of 29 coronary arteries treated with 35 RMS were considered. The most frequently involved vessel was left anterior descendent (LAD). Median stent length was 25 (20–25) mm, with a median diameter of 3 (3–3.5) mm. At 18-month CCTA, all scaffolded segments were patent. Complete RMS reabsorption was observed in 27 (93%, 95% CI 77–99%) cases. Median minimal lumen diameter (MLD) and area (MLA) of the scaffolded segments were 2.5 [2.1–2.8] mm and 6.4 [4.4–8.4] mm², respectively. Median CT-FFR was 0.88 [0.81–0.91]. Only one (3.5%) vessel showed a flow-limiting CT-FFR value ≤0.80. During the 3-year follow-up, only one (4%) adverse event was observed. Conclusions: In patients undergoing RMS implantation, CCTA including noninvasive CT-FFR evaluation is feasible and allows investigation of long-term RMS performance.

Independence of clinical events committees: A consensus statement from clinical research organizations

BACKGROUND

Randomized clinical trials are the gold standard to assess the causal relationship between an intervention and subsequent outcomes, also known as clinical endpoints. In order to limit bias, central clinical events committees (CEC) are established to ensure consistent event reporting across participating centers, as well as complete and accurate ascertainment of endpoints. However, defining independence is challenging.

METHODS

This consensus statement was generated by teleconferences and electronic communications among clinical research organizations from the United States, Europe and Australia. This document does not constitute regulatory guidance.

RESULTS

An independent CEC is defined when the adjudicators are not primarily involved in designing, funding, sponsoring, organizing, conducting, analyzing or regulating the clinical trial for which they serve as an adjudicator, beyond their role as CEC member. Moreover, independence requires absence of conflicts of interest with the steering committee, sponsor, grant giver, manufacturer, coordinating center, other independent committees, core laboratories, medical monitor, safety physician, participating clinical sites, statistician or data manager, regulatory agencies or authorities, which could influence (or be perceived to influence) a member's objectivity in evaluating trial data. Such conflicts of interest include financial benefits, directing or advisory role (paid or unpaid), decision-making position, as well as being a direct relative. An independent adjudicator has no other role within a clinical trial.

CONCLUSIONS

This consensus statement presents a standardized definition of an independent CEC to be considered by clinical research organizations, manufacturers, and investigators. In addition, it provides recommendations on best practices for implementation of an independent CEC.

Clinical events classification (CEC) in clinical trials: Report on the current landscape and future directions - proceedings from the CEC Summit 2018

IMPORTANCE

Clinical events adjudication is pivotal for generating consistent and comparable evidence in clinical trials. The methodology of event adjudication is evolving, but research is needed to develop best practices and spur innovation.

OBSERVATIONS

A meeting of stakeholders from regulatory agencies, academic and contract research organizations, pharmaceutical and device companies, and clinical trialists convened in Chicago, IL, for Clinical Events Classification (CEC) Summit 2018 to discuss key topics and future directions. Formal studies are lacking on strategies to optimize CEC conduct, improve efficiency, minimize cost, and generally increase the speed and accuracy of the event adjudication process. Major challenges to CEC discussed included ensuring rigorous quality of the process, identifying safety events, standardizing event definitions, using uniform strategies for missing information, facilitating interactions between CEC members and other trial leadership, and determining the CEC's role in pragmatic trials or trials using real-world data. Consensus recommendations from the meeting include the following: (1) ensure an adequate adjudication infrastructure; (2) use negatively adjudicated events to identify important safety events reported only outside the scope of the primary endpoint; (3) conduct further research in the use of artificial intelligence and digital/mobile technologies to streamline adjudication processes; and (4) emphasize the importance of standardizing event definitions and quality metrics of CEC programs.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

As novel strategies for clinical trials emerge to generate evidence for regulatory approval and to guide clinical practice, a greater understanding of the role of the CEC process will be critical to optimize trial conduct and increase confidence in the data generated.

Clinical Trial Design Principles and Outcomes Definitions for Device-Based Therapies for Hypertension: A Consensus Document From the Hypertension Academic Research Consortium

The clinical implications of hypertension in addition to a high prevalence of both uncontrolled blood pressure and medication nonadherence promote interest in developing device-based approaches to hypertension treatment. The expansion of device-based therapies and ongoing clinical trials underscores the need for consistency in trial design, conduct, and definitions of clinical study elements to permit trial comparability and data poolability. Standardizing methods of blood pressure assessment, effectiveness measures beyond blood pressure alone, and safety outcomes are paramount. The Hypertension Academic Research Consortium (HARC) document represents an integration of evolving evidence and consensus opinion among leading experts in cardiovascular medicine and hypertension research with regulatory perspectives on clinical trial design and methodology. The HARC document integrates the collective information among device-based therapies for hypertension to better address existing challenges and identify unmet needs for technologies proposed to treat the world’s leading cause of death and disability. Consistent with the Academic Research Consortium charter, this document proposes pragmatic consensus clinical design principles and outcomes definitions for studies aimed at evaluating device-based hypertension therapies.

Complete versus culprit-only strategy in older MI patients with multivessel disease

AIMS

The revascularization strategy to pursue in older myocardial infarction (MI) patients with multivessel disease (MVD) is currently unknown. For this reason, while waiting for the results of dedicated trials, we sought to compare a complete versus a culprit-only strategy in older MI patients by merging data from four registries.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The inclusion criteria for the target population of the present study were (i) age ≥ 75 years; (ii) MI (STE or NSTE); (iii) MVD; (iv) successful treatment of culprit lesion. Propensity scores (PS) were derived using logistic regression (backward stepwise selection, p < 0.2). The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were cardiovascular (CV) death, MI, and major bleeding. Multivariable adjustment included the PS and inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). The Kaplan-Meier plots were weighted for IPT. Among 2087 patients included, 1362 (65%) received culprit-only treatment whereas 725 (35%) complete revascularization. The mean age was 81.5 years, while the mean follow-up was 419 ± 284 days. Seventy-four patients (10%) died in the complete group and 223 in the culprit-only one (16%). The adjusted cumulative 1-year mortality was 9.7% in the complete and 12.9% in the culprit-only group (adjusted HR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.50-0.89). Complete revascularization was associated with lower incidence of CV death (adjusted HR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.48-0.95) and MI (adjusted HR 0.67, 95% CI: 0.48-0.95).

CONCLUSIONS

Culprit-only is the default strategy in older MI patients with MVD. In our analysis, complete revascularization was associated with lower all-cause and CV mortality and with a lower MI rate.

A multi-center, international, randomized, 2-year, parallel-group study to assess the superiority of IVUS-guided PCI versus qualitative angio-guided PCI in unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) disease: Study protocol for OPTIMAL trial

Background

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is used increasingly for revascularization of unprotected left main coronary artery (LMCA) disease. Observational studies and subgroup analyses from clinical trials, have suggested a possible benefit from the use of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guidance when performing unprotected LMCA PCI. However, the value of imaging with IVUS has never been proven in an appropriately powered randomized clinical trial. The OPtimizaTIon of Left MAin PCI With IntravascuLar Ultrasound (OPTIMAL) trial has been designed to establish whether IVUS-guided PCI optimization on LMCA is associated with superior clinical outcomes when compared with standard qualitative angiography-guided PCI.

Methods

The OPTIMAL trial is a randomized, multicenter, international study designed to enroll a total of 800 patients undergoing PCI for unprotected LMCA disease. Patients will be randomized in a 1:1 fashion to IVUS-guided PCI versus angiogram-guided PCI. In patients allocated to the angiogram-guided arm, use of IVUS is discouraged, unless there are safety concerns. In patients allocated to the IVUS guidance arm, pre-procedural IVUS assessment is highly recommended, whilst post-procedural IVUS assessment is mandatory to confirm appropriate stenting result and/or to guide stent result optimization, according to predefined criteria. Patients will be followed up to 2 years after the index procedure. The primary outcome measure is the Academic Research Consortium (ARC) patient-oriented composite endpoint (PoCE) which includes all-cause death, any stroke, any myocardial infarction and any repeat revascularization at 2 years follow-up.

Discussion

The OPTIMAL trial aims to provide definitive evidence about the clinical impact of IVUS-guidance during PCI to an unprotected LMCA. It is anticipated by the investigators, that an IVUS-guided strategy will be associated with less clinical events compared to a strategy guided by angiogram alone.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04111770. Registered on October 1, 2019.

Implications of Periprocedural Myocardial Biomarker Elevations and Commonly Used MI Definitions After Left Main PCI

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to: 1) assess the relationship of different thresholds of creatine kinase-myocardial band (CK-MB) and cardiac troponin with subsequent mortality; and 2) evaluate the prognostic significance of periprocedural myocardial infarction (PMI) according to various definitions of myocardial infarction in patients with left main (LM) coronary artery disease.

BACKGROUND

The magnitude of postprocedural biomarker elevation representing a clinically meaningful PMI after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is controversial.

METHODS

A total of 4,013 consecutive patients undergoing LM PCI at a single center from January 2004 to December 2016 were enrolled. CK-MB and cardiac troponin I (cTnI) were routinely collected at baseline and at frequent intervals between 8 and 48 hours after PCI. The primary and secondary outcomes were the covariate-adjusted 3-year rates of cardiovascular (CV) and all-cause mortality, respectively.

RESULTS

The 3-year rate of CV mortality progressively increased with higher peak CK-MB values. CV mortality was first independently predicted by postprocedural CK-MB 3 to 5 times the upper reference limit (URL) (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 2.93; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.02-8.40), whereas all-cause death was independently predicted only by CK-MB ≥ 10 × URL (aHR: 3.25; 95% CI: 1.37-7.70). In contrast, no level of peak postprocedural cTnI was associated with CV or all-cause death. PMI by the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI), Academic Research Consortium-2 (ARC-2), and fourth universal definition of myocardial infarction (UDMI) occurred in 1.3%, 3.1%, and 5.1% of patients, respectively. The SCAI definition was significantly associated with 3-year CV mortality (aHR: 4.93; 95% CI: 1.92-12.69) and all-cause mortality (aHR: 3.11; 95% CI: 1.33-7.27), whereas the ARC-2 and fourth UDMI definitions were not.

CONCLUSIONS

In a large cohort of consecutive patients undergoing LM PCI, intermediate (≥3 × URL) and high (≥10 × URL) levels of peak postprocedural CK-MB independently predicted 3-year CV and all-cause mortality, respectively, whereas even large elevations of post-PCI cTnI did not. The SCAI definition (but not the ARC-2 or fourth UDMI) of PMI was independently associated with mortality after LM PCI.

Incidence, Management, Immediate and Long-Term Outcome of Guidewire and Device Related Grade III Coronary Perforations (from G3CAP - Cardiogroup VI Registry)

Ellis grade III coronary artery perforations (G3-CAP) remain a life-threatening complication of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), with high morbidity and mortality and lack of consensus regarding optimal treatment strategies. We reviewed all PCIs performed in 10 European centers from 1993 to 2019 recording all G3-CAP along with management strategies, in-hospital and long-term outcome according to Device-related perforations (DP) and Guidewire-related perforations (WP). Among 106,592 PCI (including 7,773 chronic total occlusions), G3-CAP occurred in 311 patients (0.29%). DP occurred in 194 cases (62.4%), more commonly in proximal segments (73.2%) and frequently secondary to balloon dilatation (66.0%). WP arose in 117 patients (37.6%) with chronic total occlusions guidewires involved in 61.3% of cases. Overall sealing success rate was 90.7% and usually required multiple maneuvers (80.4%). The most commonly adopted strategies to obtain hemostasis were prolonged balloon inflation (73.2%) with covered stent implantation (64.4%) in the DP group, and prolonged balloon inflation (53.8%) with coil embolization (41%) in the WP group.  Procedural or in-hospital events arose in 38.2% of cases: mortality was higher after DP (7.2% vs 2.6%, p = 0.05) and acute stent thrombosis 3-fold higher (3.1% vs 0.9%, p = 0.19). At clinical follow-up, median 2 years, a major cardiovascular event occurred in one-third of cases (all-cause mortality 8.2% and 7.1% respectively, without differences between groups). In conclusion, although rare and despite improved rates of adequate perforation sealing G3-CAP cause significant adverse events. DP and WP result in different patterns of G3-CAP and management strategies should be based on this classification.

Sleep apnea and diabetes mellitus are independently associated with cardiovascular events and hospitalization for heart failure after coronary artery bypass grafting

The relative and combined effects of sleep apnea with diabetes mellitus (DM) on cardiovascular outcomes in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) remain unknown. In this secondary analysis of data from the SABOT study, 1007 patients were reclassified into four groups based on their sleep apnea and DM statuses, yielding 295, 218, 278, and 216 patients in the sleep apnea (+) DM (+), sleep apnea (+) DM (−), sleep apnea (−) DM (+), and sleep apnea (−) DM (−) groups, respectively. After a mean follow-up period of 2.1 years, the crude incidence of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event was 18% in the sleep apnea (+) DM (+), 11% in the sleep apnea (+) DM (−), 13% in the sleep apnea (−) DM (+), and 5% in the sleep apnea (−) DM (−) groups. Using sleep apnea (−) DM (−) as the reference group, a Cox regression analysis indicated that sleep apnea (+) and DM (+) independently predicted MACCEs (adjusted hazard ratio, 3.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.7–6.2; p = 0.005) and hospitalization for heart failure (adjusted hazard ratio, 12.6; 95% confidence interval, 3.0–52.3; p < 0.001). Sleep apnea and DM have independent effects on the prognosis of patients undergoing CABG.

Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identification no. NCT02701504.

Trial Design Principles for Patients at High Bleeding Risk Undergoing PCI: JACC Scientific Expert Panel

Investigating the balance of risk for thrombotic and bleeding events after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is especially relevant for patients at high bleeding risk (HBR). The Academic Research Consortium for HBR recently proposed a consensus definition in an effort to standardize the patient population included in HBR trials. The aim of this consensus-based document, the second initiative from the Academic Research Consortium for HBR, is to propose recommendations to guide the design of clinical trials of devices and drugs in HBR patients undergoing PCI. The authors discuss the designs of trials in HBR patients undergoing PCI and various aspects of trial design specific to HBR patients, including target populations, intervention and control groups, primary and secondary outcomes, and timing of endpoint reporting.

Meta-Analysis Comparing the Risk of Myocardial Infarction Following Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Versus Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Multivessel or Left Main Coronary Artery Disease

There is insufficient data regarding the comparative efficacy of coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) regarding myocardial infarction (MI). Our systematic review included randomized controlled trials that compared CABG versus PCI with stents in patients with multivessel or left main coronary artery disease (CAD). Included trials should have had reported event number of MI and a clinical follow-up of one or more years. Data were pooled using a random-effects model. The primary end point was MI at the longest available follow-up in the intention-to-treat population. Fifteen trials with a total of 13,592 patients treated with either CABG (n = 6,596) or PCI (n = 6,996) were included. After a weighted follow-up of 4.5 years, patients treated with CABG had a significantly lower risk of MI than those treated with PCI (risk ratio [RR] 0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.58 to 0.96, p = 0.024). The lower risk of MI with CABG as compared with PCI was more evident during a longer duration of follow-up (≥3 years, RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.91, p = 0.008; ≥5 years, RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.86, p = 0.003) and in the diabetic population (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.70, p <0.001). The magnitude of risk reduction was similar across patients with multivessel (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.99) and left main CAD (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.15). In conclusion, the present meta-analysis of studies involving patients with multivessel or left main CAD suggests a significant benefit of CABG over PCI concerning the risk of future MI.