BACKGROUND Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain. METHODS We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction. RESULTS Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasivestrategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, −1.8 percentage points; 95% CI, −4.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used.

No abstract

The management of low-risk patients presenting to emergency departments is a common and challenging clinical problem entailing 8 million emergency department visits annually. Although a majority of these patients do not have a life-threatening condition, the clinician must distinguish between those who require urgent treatment of a serious problem and those with more benign entities who do not require admission. Inadvertent discharge of patients with acute coronary syndrome from the emergency department is associated with increased mortality and liability, whereas inappropriate admission of patients without serious disease is neither indicated nor cost-effective. Clinical judgment and basic clinical tools (history, physical examination, and electrocardiogram) remain primary in meeting this challenge and affording early identification of low-risk patients with chest pain. Additionally, established and newer diagnostic methods have extended clinicians' diagnostic capacity in this setting. Low-risk patients presenting with chest pain are increasingly managed in chest pain units in which accelerated diagnostic protocols are performed, comprising serial electrocardiograms and cardiac injury markers to exclude acute coronary syndrome. Patients with negative findings usually complete the accelerated diagnostic protocol with a confirmatory test to exclude ischemia. This is typically an exercise treadmill test or a cardiac imaging study if the exercise treadmill test is not applicable. Rest myocardial perfusion imaging has assumed an important role in this setting. Computed tomography coronary angiography has also shown promise in this setting. A negative accelerated diagnostic protocol evaluation allows discharge, whereas patients with positive findings are admitted. This approach has been found to be safe, accurate, and cost-effective in low-risk patients presenting with chest pain.

Ejection fraction, ESVI and IS measurements performed one to two weeks after MI can each predict six-month mortality. Ejection fraction was superior to the other two measurements. However, this study had limited power to detect independent significance of ESVI or IS.

Larger infarct size measured by 99mTc sestamibi imaging after acute myocardial infarction is associated with increased mortality risk during short-term follow-up.

No abstract

Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), a connective tissue disease characterized by the production of autoantibodies, can affect all organ systems. Cardiac involvement in patients with SLE has been described since the early 20th century. The manifestations are numerous and can involve all components of the heart, including the pericardium, conduction system, myocardium, valves, and coronary arteries. In recent years, echocardiography has yielded additional information about the heart in patients who have SLE with and without clinical cardiac involvement. Moreover, antiphospholipid antibodies have been linked to several cardiac manifestations in patients with SLE, including valvular abnormalities and possibly coronary artery disease. This updated, comprehensive review summarizes the new literature on SLE and the heart.

The lack of standardized reporting of the magnitude of ischemia on noninvasive imaging contributes to variability in translating the severity of ischemia across stress imaging modalities. We identified the risk of coronary artery disease (CAD) death or myocardial infarction (MI) associated with ≥10% ischemic myocardium on stress nuclear imaging as the risk threshold for stress echocardiography and cardiac magnetic resonance. A narrative review revealed that ≥10% ischemic myocardium on stress nuclear imaging was associated with a median rate of CAD death or MI of 4.9%/year (interquartile range: 3.75% to 5.3%). For stress echocardiography, ≥3 newly dysfunctional segments portend a median rate of CAD death or MI of 4.5%/year (interquartile range: 3.8% to 5.9%). Although imprecisely delineated, moderate-severe ischemia on cardiac magnetic resonance may be indicated by ≥4 of 32 stress perfusion defects or ≥3 dobutamine-induced dysfunctional segments. Risk-based thresholds can define equivalent amounts of ischemia across the stress imaging modalities, which will help to translate a common understanding of patient risk on which to guide subsequent management decisions.