BACKGROUNDIn patients with stable angina, two strategies are often used to guide revascularization: one involves myocardial-perfusion cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and the other involves invasive angiography and measurement of fractional flow reserve (FFR). Whether a cardiovascular MRI-based strategy is noninferior to an FFRbased strategy with respect to major adverse cardiac events has not been established. METHODSWe performed an unblinded, multicenter, clinical-effectiveness trial by randomly assigning 918 patients with typical angina and either two or more cardiovascular risk factors or a positive exercise treadmill test to a cardiovascular MRI-based strategy or an FFR-based strategy. Revascularization was recommended for patients in the cardiovascular-MRI group with ischemia in at least 6% of the myocardium or in the FFR group with an FFR of 0.8 or less. The composite primary outcome was death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or target-vessel revascularization within 1 year. The noninferiority margin was a risk difference of 6 percentage points. RESULTSA total of 184 of 454 patients (40.5%) in the cardiovascular-MRI group and 213 of 464 patients (45.9%) in the FFR group met criteria to recommend revascularization (P = 0.11). Fewer patients in the cardiovascular-MRI group than in the FFR group underwent index revascularization (162 [35.7%] vs. 209 [45.0%], P = 0.005). The primary outcome occurred in 15 of 421 patients (3.6%) in the cardiovascular-MRI group and 16 of 430 patients (3.7%) in the FFR group (risk difference, −0.2 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, −2.7 to 2.4), findings that met the noninferiority threshold. The percentage of patients free from angina at 12 months did not differ significantly between the two groups (49.2% in the cardiovascular-MRI group and 43.8% in the FFR group, P = 0.21). CONCLUSIONSAmong patients with stable angina and risk factors for coronary artery disease, myocardial-perfusion cardiovascular MRI was associated with a lower incidence of coronary revascularization than FFR and was noninferior to FFR with respect to major adverse cardiac events.

BACKGROUNDWhether revascularization by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) can improve event-free survival and left ventricular function in patients with severe ischemic left ventricular systolic dysfunction, as compared with optimal medical therapy (i.e., individually adjusted pharmacologic and device therapy for heart failure) alone, is unknown. METHODSWe randomly assigned patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction of 35% or less, extensive coronary artery disease amenable to PCI, and demonstrable myocardial viability to a strategy of either PCI plus optimal medical therapy (PCI group) or optimal medical therapy alone (optimal-medical-therapy group). The primary composite outcome was death from any cause or hospitalization for heart failure. Major secondary outcomes were left ventricular ejection fraction at 6 and 12 months and quality-of-life scores. RESULTSA total of 700 patients underwent randomization -347 were assigned to the PCI group and 353 to the optimal-medical-therapy group. Over a median of 41 months, a primary-outcome event occurred in 129 patients (37.2%) in the PCI group and in 134 patients (38.0%) in the optimal-medical-therapy group (hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78 to 1.27; P = 0.96). The left ventricular ejection fraction was similar in the two groups at 6 months (mean difference, −1.6 percentage points; 95% CI, −3.7 to 0.5) and at 12 months (mean difference, 0.9 percentage points; 95% CI, −1.7 to 3.4). Quality-of-life scores at 6 and 12 months appeared to favor the PCI group, but the difference had diminished at 24 months. CONCLUSIONSAmong patients with severe ischemic left ventricular systolic dysfunction who received optimal medical therapy, revascularization by PCI did not result in a lower incidence of death from any cause or hospitalization for heart failure.

No abstract

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Cardiovascular disease remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. Changing natural history of the disease due to improved care of acute conditions and ageing population necessitates new strategies to tackle conditions which have more chronic and indolent course. These include an increased deployment of safe screening methods, life-long surveillance, and monitoring of both disease activity and tailored-treatment, by way of increasingly personalized medical care. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) is a non-invasive, ionising radiation-free method, which can support a significant number of clinically relevant measurements and offers new opportunities to advance the state of art of diagnosis, prognosis and treatment. The objective of the SCMR Clinical Trial Taskforce was to summarizes the evidence to emphasize where currently CMR-guided clinical care can indeed translate into meaningful use and efficient deployment of resources results in meaningful and efficient use. The objective of the present initiative was to provide an appraisal of evidence on analytical validation, including the accuracy and precision, and clinical qualification of parameters in disease context, clarifying the strengths and weaknesses of the state of art, as well as the gaps in the current evidence This paper is complementary to the existing position papers on standardized acquisition and post-processing ensuring robustness and transferability for widespread use. Themed imaging-endpoint guidance on trial design to support drug-discovery or change in clinical practice (part II), will be presented in a follow-up paper in due course. As CMR continues to undergo rapid development, regular updates of the present recommendations are foreseen.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12968-018-0484-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.