SummaryBackgroundRemote ischaemic conditioning with transient ischaemia and reperfusion applied to the arm has been shown to reduce myocardial infarct size in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI). We investigated whether remote ischaemic conditioning could reduce the incidence of cardiac death and hospitalisation for heart failure at 12 months.MethodsWe did an international investigator-initiated, prospective, single-blind, randomised controlled trial (CONDI-2/ERIC-PPCI) at 33 centres across the UK, Denmark, Spain, and Serbia. Patients (age >18 years) with suspected STEMI and who were eligible for PPCI were randomly allocated (1:1, stratified by centre with a permuted block method) to receive standard treatment (including a sham simulated remote ischaemic conditioning intervention at UK sites only) or remote ischaemic conditioning treatment (intermittent ischaemia and reperfusion applied to the arm through four cycles of 5-min inflation and 5-min deflation of an automated cuff device) before PPCI. Investigators responsible for data collection and outcome assessment were masked to treatment allocation. The primary combined endpoint was cardiac death or hospitalisation for heart failure at 12 months in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02342522) and is completed.FindingsBetween Nov 6, 2013, and March 31, 2018, 5401 patients were randomly allocated to either the control group (n=2701) or the remote ischaemic conditioning group (n=2700). After exclusion of patients upon hospital arrival or loss to follow-up, 2569 patients in the control group and 2546 in the intervention group were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. At 12 months post-PPCI, the Kaplan-Meier-estimated frequencies of cardiac death or hospitalisation for heart failure (the primary endpoint) were 220 (8·6%) patients in the control group and 239 (9·4%) in the remote ischaemic conditioning group (hazard ratio 1·10 [95% CI 0·91–1·32], p=0·32 for intervention versus control). No important unexpected adverse events or side effects of remote ischaemic conditioning were observed.InterpretationRemote ischaemic conditioning does not improve clinical outcomes (cardiac death or hospitalisation for heart failure) at 12 months in patients with STEMI undergoing PPCI.FundingBritish Heart Foundation, University College London Hospitals/University College London Biomedical Research Centre, Danish Innovation Foundation, Novo Nordisk Foundation, TrygFonden.

Angiographic measurements are not reliable in the assessment of intermediate LMCA lesions. An MLA of 6 mm(2) or more is a safe value for deferring revascularization of the LMCA, given the application of the clinical and angiographic inclusion criteria used in this study.

Introduction and objectives The COVID-19 outbreak has had an unclear impact on the treatment and outcomes of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). The aim of this study was to assess changes in STEMI management during the COVID-19 outbreak. Methods Using a multicenter, nationwide, retrospective, observational registry of consecutive patients who were managed in 75 specific STEMI care centers in Spain, we compared patient and procedural characteristics and in-hospital outcomes in 2 different cohorts with 30-day follow-up according to whether the patients had been treated before or after COVID-19. Results Suspected STEMI patients treated in STEMI networks decreased by 27.6% and patients with confirmed STEMI fell from 1305 to 1009 (22.7%). There were no differences in reperfusion strategy (> 94% treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention in both cohorts). Patients treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention during the COVID-19 outbreak had a longer ischemic time (233 [150-375] vs 200 [140-332] minutes, P < .001) but showed no differences in the time from first medical contact to reperfusion. In-hospital mortality was higher during COVID-19 (7.5% vs 5.1%; unadjusted OR, 1.50; 95%CI, 1.07-2.11; P < .001); this association remained after adjustment for confounders (risk-adjusted OR, 1.88; 95%CI, 1.12-3.14; P = .017). In the 2020 cohort, there was a 6.3% incidence of confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection during hospitalization. Conclusions The number of STEMI patients treated during the current COVID-19 outbreak fell vs the previous year and there was an increase in the median time from symptom onset to reperfusion and a significant 2-fold increase in the rate of in-hospital mortality. No changes in reperfusion strategy were detected, with primary percutaneous coronary intervention performed for the vast majority of patients. The co-existence of STEMI and SARS-CoV-2 infection was relatively infrequent.

Background We aimed to compare the performance of the recent CASTLE score to J-CTO, CL and PROGRESS CTO scores in a comprehensive database of percutaneous coronary intervention of chronic total occlusion procedures. Methods Scores were calculated using raw data from 1,342 chronic total occlusion procedures included in REBECO Registry that includes learning and expert operators. Calibration, discrimination and reclassification were evaluated and compared. Results Mean score values were: CASTLE 1.60±1.10, J-CTO 2.15±1.24, PROGRESS 1.68±0.94 and CL 2.52±1.52 points. The overall percutaneous coronary intervention success rate was 77.8%. Calibration was good for CASTLE and CL, but not for J-CTO or PROGRESS scores. Discrimination: the area under the curve (AUC) of CASTLE (0.633) was significantly higher than PROGRESS (0.557) and similar to J-CTO (0.628) and CL (0.652). Reclassification: CASTLE, as assessed by integrated discrimination improvement, was superior to PROGRESS (integrated discrimination improvement +0.036, p<0.001), similar to J-CTO and slightly inferior to CL score (– 0.011, p = 0.004). Regarding net reclassification improvement, CASTLE reclassified better than PROGRESS (overall continuous net reclassification improvement 0.379, p<0.001) in roughly 20% of cases. Conclusion Procedural percutaneous coronary intervention difficulty is not consistently depicted by available chronic total occlusion scores and is influenced by the characteristics of each chronic total occlusion cohort. In our study population, including expert and learning operators, the CASTLE score had slightly better overall performance along with CL score. However, we found only intermediate performance in the c-statistic predicting chronic total occlusion success among all scores.

No abstract