Suchergebnisse

Holger Thiele was the PI of the CULPRIT-SHOCK trial, which was funded the European Union 7th Framework Program (FP7/2007-2013) and by the German Heart Research Foundation and the German Cardiac Society. ; Sí

The evaluation for European Union market approval of coronary stents falls under the Medical Device Directive that was adopted in 1993. Specific requirements for the assessment of coronary stents are laid out in supplementary advisory documents. In response to a call by the European Commission to make recommendations for a revision of the advisory document on the evaluation of coronary stents (Appendix 1 of MEDDEV 2.7.1), the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) established a Task Force to develop an expert advisory report. As basis for its report, the ESC-EAPCI Task Force reviewed existing processes, established a comprehensive list of all coronary drug-eluting stents that have received a CE mark to date, and undertook a systematic review of the literature of all published randomized clinical trials evaluating clinical and angiographic outcomes of coronary artery stents between 2002 and 2013. Based on these data, the TF provided recommendations to inform a new regulatory process for coronary stents. The main recommendations of the task force include implementation of a standardized non-clinical assessment of stents and a novel clinical evaluation pathway for market approval. The two-stage clinical evaluation plan includes recommendation for an initial pre-market trial with objective performance criteria (OPC) benchmarking using invasive imaging follow-up leading to conditional CE-mark approval and a subsequent mandatory, large-scale randomized trial with clinical endpoint evaluation leading to unconditional CE-mark. The data analysis from the systematic review of the Task Force may provide a basis for determination of OPC for use in future studies. This paper represents an executive summary of the Task Force's report.

Background In patients who have acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock, early revascularization of the culprit artery by means of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) improves outcomes. However, the majority of patients with cardiogenic shock have multivessel disease, and whether PCI should be performed immediately for stenoses in nonculprit arteries is controversial. Methods In this multicenter trial, we randomly assigned 706 patients who had multivessel disease, acute myocardial infarction, and cardiogenic shock to one of two initial revascularization strategies: either PCI of the culprit lesion only, with the option of staged revascularization of nonculprit lesions, or immediate multivessel PCI. The primary end point was a composite of death or severe renal failure leading to renal-replacement therapy within 30 days after randomization. Safety end points included bleeding and stroke. Results At 30 days, the composite primary end point of death or renal-replacement therapy had occurred in 158 of the 344 patients (45.9%) in the culprit-lesion-only PCI group and in 189 of the 341 patients (55.4%) in the multivessel PCI group (relative risk, 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71 to 0.96; P=0.01). The relative risk of death in the culprit-lesion-only PCI group as compared with the multivessel PCI group was 0.84 (95% CI, 0.72 to 0.98; P=0.03), and the relative risk of renal-replacement therapy was 0.71 (95% CI, 0.49 to 1.03; P=0.07). The time to hemodynamic stabilization, the risk of catecholamine therapy and the duration of such therapy, the levels of troponin T and creatine kinase, and the rates of bleeding and stroke did not differ significantly between the two groups. Conclusions Among patients who had multivessel coronary artery disease and acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock, the 30-day risk of a composite of death or severe renal failure leading to renal-replacement therapy was lower among those who initially underwent PCI of the culprit lesion only than among those who underwent immediate multivessel PCI. (Funded by the European Union 7th Framework Program and others; CULPRIT-SHOCK ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01927549 .).

BACKGROUND Among patients with acute myocardial infarction, cardiogenic shock, and multivessel coronary artery disease, the risk of a composite of death from any cause or severe renal failure leading to renal-replacement therapy at 30 days was found to be lower with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of the culprit lesion only than with immediate multivessel PCI. We evaluated clinical outcomes at 1 year. METHODS We randomly assigned 706 patients to either culprit-lesion-only PCI or immediate multivessel PCI. The results for the primary end point of death or renal-replacement therapy at 30 days have been reported previously. Prespecified secondary end points at 1 year included death from any cause, recurrent myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization, rehospitalization for congestive heart failure, the composite of death or recurrent infarction, and the composite of death, recurrent infarction, or rehospitalization for heart failure. RESULTS As reported previously, at 30 days, the primary end point had occurred in 45.9% of the patients in the culprit-lesion-only PCI group and in 55.4% in the multivessel PCI group (P=0.01). At 1 year, death had occurred in 172 of 344 patients (50.0%) in the culprit-lesion-only PCI group and in 194 of 341 patients (56.9%) in the multivessel PCI group (relative risk, 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76 to 1.01). The rate of recurrent infarction was 1.7% with culprit-lesion-only PCI and 2.1% with multivessel PCI (relative risk, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.29 to 2.50), and the rate of a composite of death or recurrent infarction was 50.9% and 58.4%, respectively (relative risk, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.00). Repeat revascularization occurred more frequently with culprit-lesion-only PCI than with multivessel PCI (in 32.3% of the patients vs. 9.4%; relative risk, 3.44; 95% CI, 2.39 to 4.95), as did rehospitalization for heart failure (5.2% vs. 1.2%; relative risk, 4.46; 95% CI, 1.53 to 13.04). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock, the risk of death or renal-replacement therapy at 30 days was lower with culprit-lesion-only PCI than with immediate multivessel PCI, and mortality did not differ significantly between the two groups at 1 year of follow-up. (Funded by the European Union Seventh Framework Program and others; CULPRIT-SHOCK ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01927549 .).

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) due to atherosclerosis of the arterial vessel wall and to thrombosis is the foremost cause of premature mortality and of disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) in Europe, and is also increasingly common in developing countries.1 In the European Union, the economic cost of CVD represents annually E192 billion1 in direct and indirect healthcare costs. The main clinical entities are coronary artery disease (CAD), ischaemic stroke, and peripheral arterial disease (PAD). The causes of these CVDs are multifactorial. Some of these factors relate to lifestyles, such as tobacco smoking, lack of physical activity, and dietary habits, and are thus modifiable. Other risk factors are also modifiable, such as elevated blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, and dyslipidaemias, or non-modifiable, such as age and male gender. These guidelines deal with the management of dyslipidaemias as an essential and integral part of CVD prevention. Prevention and treatment of dyslipidaemias should always be considered within the broader framework of CVD prevention, which is addressed in guidelines of the Joint European Societies' Task forces on CVD prevention in clinical practice.2 - 5 The latest version of these guidelines was published in 20075; an update will become available in 2012. These Joint ESC/European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) guidelines on the management of dyslipidaemias are complementary to the guidelines on CVD prevention in clinical practice and address not only physicians [e.g. general practitioners (GPs) and cardiologists] interested in CVD prevention, but also specialists from lipid clinics or metabolic units who are dealing with dyslipidaemias that are more difficult to classify and treat. ; Peer reviewed