Neal Jeffries

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 invasive-strategy 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. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; ISCHEMIA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01471522.).

Importance: Catheter ablation is effective in restoring sinus rhythm in atrial fibrillation (AF), but its effects on long-term mortality and stroke risk are uncertain. Objective: To determine whether catheter ablation is more effective than conventional medical therapy for improving outcomes in AF. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Catheter Ablation vs Antiarrhythmic Drug Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation trial is an investigator-initiated, open-label, multicenter, randomized trial involving 126 centers in 10 countries. A total of 2204 symptomatic patients with AF aged 65 years and older or younger than 65 years with 1 or more risk factors for stroke were enrolled from November 2009 to April 2016, with follow-up through December 31, 2017. Interventions: The catheter ablation group (n = 1108) underwent pulmonary vein isolation, with additional ablative procedures at the discretion of site investigators. The drug therapy group (n = 1096) received standard rhythm and/or rate control drugs guided by contemporaneous guidelines. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was a composite of death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest. Among 13 prespecified secondary end points, 3 are included in this report: all-cause mortality; total mortality or cardiovascular hospitalization; and AF recurrence. Results: Of the 2204 patients randomized (median age, 68 years; 37.2% female; 42.9% had paroxysmal AF and 57.1% had persistent AF), 89.3% completed the trial. Of the patients assigned to catheter ablation, 1006 (90.8%) underwent the procedure. Of the patients assigned to drug therapy, 301 (27.5%) ultimately received catheter ablation. In the intention-to-treat analysis, over a median follow-up of 48.5 months, the primary end point occurred in 8.0% (n = 89) of patients in the ablation group vs 9.2% (n = 101) of patients in the drug therapy group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.86 [95% CI, 0.65-1.15]; P = .30). Among the secondary end points, outcomes in the ablation group vs the drug therapy group, respectively, were 5.2% vs 6.1% for all-cause mortality (HR, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.60-1.21]; P = .38), 51.7% vs 58.1% for death or cardiovascular hospitalization (HR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.74-0.93]; P = .001), and 49.9% vs 69.5% for AF recurrence (HR, 0.52 [95% CI, 0.45-0.60]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with AF, the strategy of catheter ablation, compared with medical therapy, did not significantly reduce the primary composite end point of death, disabling stroke, serious bleeding, or cardiac arrest. However, the estimated treatment effect of catheter ablation was affected by lower-than-expected event rates and treatment crossovers, which should be considered in interpreting the results of the trial. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00911508.

In a trial comparing coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG) alone with CABG plus mitral-valve repair in patients with moderate ischemic mitral regurgitation, we found no significant difference in the left ventricular end-systolic volume index (LVESVI) or survival after 1 year. Concomitant mitral-valve repair was associated with a reduced prevalence of moderate or severe mitral regurgitation, but patients had more adverse events. We now report 2-year outcomes.We randomly assigned 301 patients to undergo either CABG alone or the combined procedure. Patients were followed for 2 years for clinical and echocardiographic outcomes.At 2 years, the mean (±SD) LVESVI was 41.2±20.0 ml per square meter of body-surface area in the CABG-alone group and 43.2±20.6 ml per square meter in the combined-procedure group (mean improvement over baseline, -14.1 ml per square meter and -14.6 ml per square meter, respectively). The rate of death was 10.6% in the CABG-alone group and 10.0% in the combined-procedure group (hazard ratio in the combined-procedure group, 0.90; 95% confidence interval, 0.45 to 1.83; P=0.78). There was no significant between-group difference in the rank-based assessment of the LVESVI (including death) at 2 years (z score, 0.38; P=0.71). The 2-year rate of moderate or severe residual mitral regurgitation was higher in the CABG-alone group than in the combined-procedure group (32.3% vs. 11.2%, P<0.001). Overall rates of hospital readmission and serious adverse events were similar in the two groups, but neurologic events and supraventricular arrhythmias remained more frequent in the combined-procedure group.In patients with moderate ischemic mitral regurgitation undergoing CABG, the addition of mitral-valve repair did not lead to significant differences in left ventricular reverse remodeling at 2 years. Mitral-valve repair provided a more durable correction of mitral regurgitation but did not significantly improve survival or reduce overall adverse events or readmissions and was associated with an early hazard of increased neurologic events and supraventricular arrhythmias. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and Canadian Institutes of Health Research; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00806988.).

BACKGROUND: Ischemic mitral regurgitation is associated with increased mortality and morbidity. For surgical patients with moderate regurgitation, the benefits of adding mitral-valve repair to coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG) are uncertain. METHODS: We randomly assigned 301 patients with moderate ischemic mitral regurgitation to CABG alone or CABG plus mitral-valve repair (combined procedure). The primary end point was the left ventricular end-systolic volume index (LVESVI), a measure of left ventricular remodeling, at 1 year. This end point was assessed with the use of a Wilcoxon rank-sum test in which deaths were categorized as the lowest LVESVI rank. RESULTS: At 1 year, the mean LVESVI among surviving patients was 46.1±22.4 ml per square meter of body-surface area in the CABG-alone group and 49.6±31.5 ml per square meter in the combined-procedure group (mean change from baseline, -9.4 and -9.3 ml per square meter, respectively). The rate of death was 6.7% in the combined-procedure group and 7.3% in the CABG-alone group (hazard ratio with mitral-valve repair, 0.90; 95% confidence interval, 0.38 to 2.12; P=0.81). The rank-based assessment of LVESVI at 1 year (incorporating deaths) showed no significant between-group difference (z score, 0.50; P=0.61). The addition of mitral-valve repair was associated with a longer bypass time (P<0.001), a longer hospital stay after surgery (P=0.002), and more neurologic events (P=0.03). Moderate or severe mitral regurgitation was less common in the combined-procedure group than in the CABG-alone group (11.2% vs. 31.0%, P<0.001). There were no significant between-group differences in major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events, deaths, readmissions, functional status, or quality of life at 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with moderate ischemic mitral regurgitation, the addition of mitral-valve repair to CABG did not result in a higher degree of left ventricular reverse remodeling. Mitral-valve repair was associated with a reduced prevalence of moderate or severe mitral regurgitation but an increased number of untoward events. Thus, at 1 year, this trial did not show a clinically meaningful advantage of adding mitral-valve repair to CABG. Longer-term follow-up may determine whether the lower prevalence of mitral regurgitation translates into a net clinical benefit. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00806988.).