Ollie Östlund

Thrombus Aspiration during ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction

BACKGROUND The clinical effect of routine intracoronary thrombus aspiration before primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is uncertain. We aimed to evaluate whether thrombus aspiration reduces mortality. METHODS We conducted a multicenter, prospective, randomized, controlled, open-label clinical trial, with enrollment of patients from the national comprehensive Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry (SCAAR) and end points evaluated through national registries. A total of 7244 patients with STEMI undergoing PCI were randomly assigned to manual thrombus aspiration followed by PCI or to PCI only. The primary end point was all-cause mortality at 30 days. RESULTS No patients were lost to follow-up. Death from any cause occurred in 2.8% of the patients in the thrombus-aspiration group (103 of 3621), as compared with 3.0% in the PCI-only group (110 of 3623) (hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72 to 1.22; P=0.63). The rates of hospitalization for recurrent myocardial infarction at 30 days were 0.5% and 0.9% in the two groups, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.34 to 1.07; P=0.09), and the rates of stent thrombosis were 0.2% and 0.5%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.20 to 1.02; P=0.06). There were no significant differences between the groups with respect to the rate of stroke or neurologic complications at the time of discharge (P=0.87). The results were consistent across all major prespecified subgroups, including subgroups defined according to thrombus burden and coronary flow before PCI. CONCLUSIONS Routine thrombus aspiration before PCI as compared with PCI alone did not reduce 30-day mortality among patients with STEMI. (Funded by the Swedish Research Council and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01093404.).

Mechanical Chest Compressions and Simultaneous Defibrillation vs Conventional Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation in Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: The LINC Randomized Trial

IMPORTANCE A strategy using mechanical chest compressions might improve the poor outcome in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, but such a strategy has not been tested in large clinical trials. OBJECTIVE To determine whether administering mechanical chest compressions with defibrillation during ongoing compressions (mechanical CPR), compared with manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation (manual CPR), according to guidelines, would improve 4-hour survival. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Multicenter randomized clinical trial of 2589 patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest conducted between January 2008 and February 2013 in 4 Swedish, 1 British, and 1 Dutch ambulance services and their referring hospitals. Duration of follow-up was 6 months. INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive either mechanical chest compressions (LUCAS Chest Compression System, Physio-Control/Jolife AB) combined with defibrillation during ongoing compressions (n = 1300) or to manual CPR according to guidelines (n = 1289). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Four-hour survival, with secondary end points of survival up to 6 months with good neurological outcome using the Cerebral Performance Category (CPC) score. A CPC score of 1 or 2 was classified as a good outcome. RESULTS Four-hour survival was achieved in 307 patients (23.6%) with mechanical CPR and 305 (23.7%) with manual CPR (risk difference, -0.05%; 95% CI, -3.3% to 3.2%; P > .99). Survival with a CPC score of 1 or 2 occurred in 98 (7.5%) vs 82 (6.4%) (risk difference, 1.18%; 95% CI, -0.78% to 3.1%) at intensive care unit discharge, in 108 (8.3%) vs 100 (7.8%) (risk difference, 0.55%; 95% CI, -1.5% to 2.6%) at hospital discharge, in 105 (8.1%) vs 94 (7.3%) (risk difference, 0.78%; 95% CI, -1.3% to 2.8%) at 1 month, and in 110 (8.5%) vs 98 (7.6%) (risk difference, 0.86%; 95% CI, -1.2% to 3.0%) at 6 months with mechanical CPR and manual CPR, respectively. Among patients surviving at 6 months, 99% in the mechanical CPR group and 94% in the manual CPR group had CPC scores of 1 or 2. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among adults with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, there was no significant difference in 4-hour survival between patients treated with the mechanical CPR algorithm or those treated with guideline-adherent manual CPR. The vast majority of survivors in both groups had good neurological outcomes by 6 months. In clinical practice, mechanical CPR using the presented algorithm did not result in improved effectiveness compared with manual CPR. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00609778.

Outcomes 1 Year after Thrombus Aspiration for Myocardial Infarction

BACKGROUND Routine intracoronary thrombus aspiration before primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) has not been proved to reduce short-term mortality. We evaluated clinical outcomes at 1 year after thrombus aspiration. METHODS We randomly assigned 7244 patients with STEMI to undergo manual thrombus aspiration followed by PCI or to undergo PCI alone, in a registry-based, randomized clinical trial. The primary end point of all-cause mortality at 30 days has been reported previously. Death from any cause at 1 year was a prespecified secondary end point of the trial. RESULTS No patients were lost to follow-up. Death from any cause occurred in 5.3% of the patients (191 of 3621 patients) in the thrombus-aspiration group, as compared with 5.6% (202 of 3623) in the PCI-only group (hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78 to 1.15; P=0.57). Rehospitalization for myocardial infarction at 1 year occurred in 2.7% and 2.7% of the patients, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.28; P=0.81), and stent thrombosis in 0.7% and 0.9%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.50 to 1.40; P=0.51). The composite of death from any cause, rehospitalization for myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis occurred in 8.0% and 8.5% of the patients, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.11; P=0.48). The results were consistent across all the major subgroups, including grade of thrombus burden and coronary flow before PCI. CONCLUSIONS Routine thrombus aspiration before PCI in patients with STEMI did not reduce the rate of death from any cause or the composite of death from any cause, rehospitalization for myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis at 1 year. (Funded by the Swedish Research Council and others; TASTE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01093404.).

Overall asthma control: The relationship between current control and future risk

BACKGROUND Asthma guidelines emphasize both maintaining current control and reducing future risk, but the relationship between these 2 targets is not well understood. OBJECTIVE This retrospective analysis of 5 budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy (Symbicort SMART Turbuhaler(*)) studies assessed the relationship between asthma control questionnaire (ACQ-5) and Global Initiative for Asthma-defined clinical asthma control and future risk of instability and exacerbations. METHODS The percentage of patients with Global Initiative for Asthma-defined controlled asthma over time was assessed for budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy versus the 3 maintenance therapies; higher dose inhaled corticosteroid (ICS), same dose ICS/long-acting beta(2)-agonist (LABA), and higher dose ICS/LABA plus short-acting beta(2)-agonist. The relationship between baseline ACQ-5 and exacerbations was investigated. A Markov analysis examined the transitional probability of change in control status throughout the studies. RESULTS The percentage of patients achieving asthma control increased with time, irrespective of treatment; the percentage Controlled/Partly Controlled at study end was at least similar to budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy versus the 3 maintenance therapies: higher dose ICS (56% vs 45%), same dose ICS/LABA (56% vs 53%), and higher dose ICS/LABA (54% vs 54%). Baseline ACQ-5 score correlated positively with exacerbation rates. A Controlled or Partly Controlled week predicted at least Partly Controlled asthma the following week (>or=80% probability). The better the control, the lower the risk of an Uncontrolled week. The probability of an exacerbation was related to current state and was lower with budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy. CONCLUSIONS Current control predicts future risk of instability and exacerbations. Budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy reduces exacerbations versus comparators and achieves at least similar control.

Measuring asthma control: a comparison of three classification systems

There are various ways to classify asthma control; however, no classification is universally accepted. This retrospective analysis compared asthma control as assessed by the Asthma Control Questionnaire (5-item version; ACQ-5), Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) or Gaining Optimal Asthma Control (GOAL) study criteria. Pooled data at the final study week (n = 8,188) from three budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy studies which measured ACQ-5 were stratified according to GINA or GOAL criteria and ACQ-5 score distribution. The percentages of patients with a controlled/partly controlled week (GINA), totally/well-controlled week (GOAL) and range of ACQ-5 cut-off points were compared. Patients with GINA controlled, partly controlled and uncontrolled asthma had mean ACQ-5 scores of 0.43, 0.75 and 1.62, respectively. Patients with GOAL totally controlled, well-controlled and uncontrolled asthma had ACQ-5 scores of 0.39, 0.78 and 1.63. The kappa measure of agreement was 0.80 for GINA and GOAL criteria, and 0.63 for GINA controlled/partly controlled and ACQ-5 <1.00. ACQ-5 detected clinically important improvements in 49% of patients who, according to GINA criteria, remained uncontrolled at the end of the study. Asthma control measured by GINA or GOAL criteria provides similar results. GINA Controlled/Partly Controlled and GOAL Totally Controlled/Well-Controlled correspond to ACQ-5 <1.00. The ACQ-5 is more responsive to change in a clinical trial setting than a categorical scale.

Oxygen Therapy in Suspected Acute Myocardial Infarction

BACKGROUND The clinical effect of routine oxygen therapy in patients with suspected acute myocardial infarction who do not have hypoxemia at baseline is uncertain. METHODS In this registry‐based randomized clinical trial, we used nationwide Swedish registries for patient enrollment and data collection. Patients with suspected myocardial infarction and an oxygen saturation of 90% or higher were randomly assigned to receive either supplemental oxygen (6 liters per minute for 6 to 12 hours, delivered through an open face mask) or ambient air. RESULTS A total of 6629 patients were enrolled. The median duration of oxygen therapy was 11.6 hours, and the median oxygen saturation at the end of the treatment period was 99% among patients assigned to oxygen and 97% among patients assigned to ambient air. Hypoxemia developed in 62 patients (1.9%) in the oxygen group, as compared with 254 patients (7.7%) in the ambient‐air group. The median of the highest troponin level during hospitalization was 946.5 ng per liter in the oxygen group and 983.0 ng per liter in the ambient‐air group. The primary end point of death from any cause within 1 year after randomization occurred in 5.0% of patients (166 of 3311) assigned to oxygen and in 5.1% of patients (168 of 3318) assigned to ambient air (hazard ratio, 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79 to 1.21; P=0.80). Rehospitalization with myocardial infarction within 1 year occurred in 126 patients (3.8%) assigned to oxygen and in 111 patients (3.3%) assigned to ambient air (hazard ratio, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.88 to 1.46; P=0.33). The results were consistent across all predefined subgroups. CONCLUSIONS Routine use of supplemental oxygen in patients with suspected myocardial infarction who did not have hypoxemia was not found to reduce 1‐year all‐cause mortality. (Funded by the Swedish Heart–Lung Foundation and others; DETO2X‐AMI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01787110.)

Bivalirudin versus Heparin Monotherapy in Myocardial Infarction

BACKGROUND The comparative efficacy of various anticoagulation strategies has not been clearly established in patients with acute myocardial infarction who are undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) according to current practice, which includes the use of radial‐artery access for PCI and administration of potent P2Y12 inhibitors without the planned use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors. METHODS In this multicenter, randomized, registry‐based, open‐label clinical trial, we enrolled patients with either ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) or non‐STEMI (NSTEMI) who were undergoing PCI and receiving treatment with a potent P2Y12 inhibitor (ticagrelor, prasugrel, or cangrelor) without the planned use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors. The patients were randomly assigned to receive bivalirudin or heparin during PCI, which was performed predominantly with the use of radial‐artery access. The primary end point was a composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, or major bleeding during 180 days of follow‐up. RESULTS A total of 6006 patients (3005 with STEMI and 3001 with NSTEMI) were enrolled in the trial. At 180 days, a primary end‐point event had occurred in 12.3% of the patients (369 of 3004) in the bivalirudin group and in 12.8% (383 of 3002) in the heparin group (hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83 to 1.10; P=0.54). The results were consistent between patients with STEMI and those with NSTEMI and across other major subgroups. Myocardial infarction occurred in 2.0% of the patients in the bivalirudin group and in 2.4% in the heparin group (hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.60 to 1.19; P=0.33), major bleeding in 8.6% and 8.6%, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.19; P=0.98), definite stent thrombosis in 0.4% and 0.7%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.27 to 1.10; P=0.09), and death in 2.9% and 2.8%, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.41; P=0.76). CONCLUSIONS Among patients undergoing PCI for myocardial infarction, the rate of the composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, or major bleeding was not lower among those who received bivalirudin than among those who received heparin monotherapy. (Funded by the Swedish Heart–Lung Foundation and others; VALIDATE‐SWEDEHEART ClinicalTrialsRegister.eu number, 2012–005260–10; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02311231.)

Overall asthma control achieved with budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy for patients on different treatment steps

BackgroundAdjusting medication for uncontrolled asthma involves selecting one of several options from the same or a higher treatment step outlined in asthma guidelines. We examined the relative benefit of introducing budesonide/formoterol (BUD/FORM) maintenance and reliever therapy (Symbicort SMART® Turbuhaler®) in patients previously prescribed treatments from Global Initiative for Asthma (GINA) Steps 2, 3 or 4.MethodsThis is a post hoc analysis of the results of five large clinical trials (>12000 patients) comparing BUD/FORM maintenance and reliever therapy with other treatments categorised by treatment step at study entry. Both current clinical asthma control during the last week of treatment and exacerbations during the study were examined.ResultsAt each GINA treatment step, the proportion of patients achieving target levels of current clinical control were similar or higher with BUD/FORM maintenance and reliever therapy compared with the same or a higher fixed maintenance dose of inhaled corticosteroid/long-acting β2-agonist (ICS/LABA) (plus short-acting β2-agonist [SABA] as reliever), and rates of exacerbations were lower at all treatment steps in BUD/FORM maintenance and reliever therapy versus same maintenance dose ICS/LABA (P < 0.01) and at treatment Step 4 versus higher maintenance dose ICS/LABA (P < 0.001). BUD/FORM maintenance and reliever therapy also achieved significantly higher rates of current clinical control and significantly lower exacerbation rates at most treatment steps compared with a higher maintenance dose ICS + SABA (Steps 2-4 for control and Steps 3 and 4 for exacerbations). With all treatments, the proportion of patients achieving current clinical control was lower with increasing treatment steps.ConclusionsBUD/FORM maintenance and reliever therapy may be a preferable option for patients on Steps 2 to 4 of asthma guidelines requiring a more effective treatment and, compared with other fixed dose alternatives, is most effective in the higher treatment steps.

Effect of different asthma treatments on risk of cold-related exacerbations

Common colds often trigger asthma exacerbations. The present study compared cold-related severe exacerbations during budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy, and different regimens of maintenance inhaled corticosteroids (ICS), with or without long-acting &bgr;2-agonists (LABA), and with as-needed short-acting &bgr;2-agonists (SABA) or LABA. Reported colds and severe exacerbations (defined by oral corticosteroid use and/or hospitalisation/emergency room visit) were assessed for 12,507 patients during 6–12 months of double-blind treatment. Exacerbations occurring ≤14 days after onset of reported colds were analysed by a Poisson model. The incidence of colds was similar across treatments. Asthma symptoms and reliever use increased during colds. Budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy reduced severe cold-related exacerbations by 36% versus pooled comparators plus SABA (rate ratio (RR) 0.64; p=0.002), and for individual treatment comparisons, by 52% versus the same maintenance dose of ICS/LABA (RR 0.48; p<0.001); there were nonsignificant reductions versus higher maintenance doses of ICS or ICS/LABA (RR 0.83 and 0.72, respectively). As-needed LABA did not reduce cold-related exacerbations versus as-needed SABA (RR 0.96). Severe cold-related exacerbations were reduced by budesonide/formoterol maintenance and reliever therapy compared with ICS with or without LABA and with as-needed SABA. Subanalyses suggested the importance of the ICS component in reducing cold-related exacerbations. Future studies should document the cause of exacerbations, in order to allow identification of different treatment effects.

Growth Differentiation Factor 15 Predicts All-Cause Morbidity and Mortality in Stable Coronary Heart Disease

BACKGROUND Higher growth differentiation factor 15 (GDF-15) concentrations are associated with cardiovascular (CV) and non-CV morbidity and mortality. However, information on associations between GDF-15 and the risk of specific CV and non-CV events in stable coronary heart disease (CHD) patients is limited. METHODS In 14 577 patients with stable CHD participating in the Stabilization of Atherosclerotic Plaque by Initiation of Darapladib Therapy Trial (STABILITY), GDF-15 and other prognostic biomarkers (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide, high-sensitivity troponin T, cystatin C, and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein) were measured. In adjusted Cox regression models, the associations between GDF-15 and the composite CV end point [CV death, myocardial infarction (MI), and stroke], as well as other CV and non-CV events, were assessed. RESULTS The median concentration (interquartile range) of GDF-15 at baseline was 1253 (915-1827) ng/L. The hazard ratio for the composite end point for the highest compared to the lowest quartile of GDF-15 was 1.8 (95% CI, 1.5-2.2); for CV death, 2.63 (1.9-3.6); for sudden death, 3.06 (1.9-4.8); for heart failure (HF) death, 4.3 (1.3-14); for cancer death, 2.5 (1.3-4.7); for hospitalization for HF, 5.8 (3.2-10); for MI 1.4 (95% CI, 1.1-1.9); and for stroke, 1.8 (95% CI, 1.1-2.8). After adjustment for other prognostic biomarkers, GDF-15 remained significantly associated with all outcomes except for MI. CONCLUSIONS In stable CHD, GDF-15 was independently associated with CV, non-CV, and cancer mortality, as well as with MI and stroke. When also adjusting for other prognostic biomarkers, the associations to all fatal and nonfatal events were maintained except for MI. Information on GDF-15, therefore, might be helpful when assessing the risk of adverse outcomes in patients with stable CHD. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00799903.