Among patients with unstable angina or myocardial infarction without ST-segment elevation, prasugrel did not significantly reduce the frequency of the primary end point, as compared with clopidogrel, and similar risks of bleeding were observed. (Funded by Eli Lilly and Daiichi Sankyo; TRILOGY ACS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00699998.).

No abstract

Aims To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of cryoballoon ablation (CBA) compared with radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for symptomatic paroxysmal or drug-refractory persistent atrial fibrillation (AF). Methods and results Prospective cluster cohort study in experienced CBA and RFA centres. Primary endpoint was ‘atrial arrhythmia recurrence’, secondary endpoints were as follows: procedural results, safety, and clinical course. A total of 4189 patients were included: CBA 2329 (55.6%) and RFA 1860 (44.4%). Cryoballoon ablation population was younger, with fewer comorbidities. Procedure time was longer in the RFA group (P = 0.01). Radiation exposure was 2487 (CBA) and 1792 cGycm2 (RFA) (P < 0.001). Follow-up duration was 441 (CBA) and 511 days (RFA) (P < 0.0001). Primary endpoint occurred in 30.7% (CBA) and 39.4% patients (RFA) [adjusted hazard ratio (adjHR) 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70–1.04; P = 0.12). In paroxysmal AF, CBA resulted in a lower risk of recurrence (adjHR 0.80, 95% CI 0.64–0.99; P = 0.047). In persistent AF, the primary outcome was not different between groups. Major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular event rates were 1.0% (CBA) and 2.8% (RFA) (adjHR 0.53, 95% CI 0.26–1.10; P = 0.088). Re-ablations (adjHR 0.46, 95% CI 0.34–0.61; P < 0.0001) and adverse events during follow-up (adjHR 0.64, 95% CI 0.48–0.88; P = 0.005) were less common after CBA. Higher rehospitalization rates with RFA were caused by re-ablations. Conclusions The primary endpoint did not differ between CBA and RFA. Cryoballoon ablation was completed rapidly; the radiation exposure was greater. Rehospitalization due to re-ablations and adverse events during follow-up were observed significantly less frequently after CBA than after RFA. Subgroup analysis suggested a lower risk of recurrence after CBA in paroxysmal AF. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01360008), https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01360008.

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00110838.

Aims  The EUropean Comparative Effectiveness Research to Assess the Use of Primary ProphylacTic Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators (EU-CERT-ICD), a prospective investigator-initiated, controlled cohort study, was conducted in 44 centres and 15 European countries. It aimed to assess current clinical effectiveness of primary prevention ICD therapy. Methods and results  We recruited 2327 patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) or dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) and guideline indications for prophylactic ICD implantation. Primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. Clinical characteristics, medications, resting, and 12-lead Holter electrocardiograms (ECGs) were documented at enrolment baseline. Baseline and follow-up (FU) data from 2247 patients were analysable, 1516 patients before first ICD implantation (ICD group) and 731 patients without ICD serving as controls. Multivariable models and propensity scoring for adjustment were used to compare the two groups for mortality. During mean FU of 2.4 ± 1.1 years, 342 deaths occurred (6.3%/years annualized mortality, 5.6%/years in the ICD group vs. 9.2%/years in controls), favouring ICD treatment [unadjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.682, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.537–0.865, P = 0.0016]. Multivariable mortality predictors included age, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), New York Heart Association class <III, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Adjusted mortality associated with ICD vs. control was 27% lower (HR 0.731, 95% CI 0.569–0.938, P = 0.0140). Subgroup analyses indicated no ICD benefit in diabetics (adjusted HR = 0.945, P = 0.7797, P for interaction = 0.0887) or those aged ≥75 years (adjusted HR 1.063, P = 0.8206, P for interaction = 0.0902). Conclusion  In contemporary ICM/DCM patients (LVEF ≤35%, narrow QRS), primary prophylactic ICD treatment was associated with a 27% lower mortality after adjustment. There appear to be patients with less survival advantage, such as older patients or diabetics.