BackgroundThe optimal management of patients found to have multivessel disease while undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (P-PCI) for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction is uncertain.ObjectivesCvLPRIT (Complete versus Lesion-only Primary PCI trial) is a U.K. open-label randomized study comparing complete revascularization at index admission with treatment of the infarct-related artery (IRA) only.MethodsAfter they provided verbal assent and underwent coronary angiography, 296 patients in 7 U.K. centers were randomized through an interactive voice-response program to either in-hospital complete revascularization (n = 150) or IRA-only revascularization (n = 146). Complete revascularization was performed either at the time of P-PCI or before hospital discharge. Randomization was stratified by infarct location (anterior/nonanterior) and symptom onset (≤3 h or >3 h). The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death, recurrent myocardial infarction (MI), heart failure, and ischemia-driven revascularization within 12 months.ResultsPatient groups were well matched for baseline clinical characteristics. The primary endpoint occurred in 10.0% of the complete revascularization group versus 21.2% in the IRA-only revascularization group (hazard ratio: 0.45; 95% confidence interval: 0.24 to 0.84; p = 0.009). A trend toward benefit was seen early after complete revascularization (p = 0.055 at 30 days). Although there was no significant reduction in death or MI, a nonsignificant reduction in all primary endpoint components was seen. There was no reduction in ischemic burden on myocardial perfusion scintigraphy or in the safety endpoints of major bleeding, contrast-induced nephropathy, or stroke between the groups.ConclusionsIn patients presenting for P-PCI with multivessel disease, index admission complete revascularization significantly lowered the rate of the composite primary endpoint at 12 months compared with treating only the IRA. In such patients, inpatient total revascularization may be considered, but larger clinical trials are required to confirm this result and specifically address whether this strategy is associated with improved survival. (Complete Versus Lesion-only Primary PCI Pilot Study [CvLPRIT]; ISRCTN70913605)

kill' strategy, for future trials significant enhancement of both 'kick' and 'kill' agents will be required. Research in context panel Evidence before this study This randomised clinical trial was designed to test the concept of 'kick and kill' as a strategy to achieve a cure for HIV infection. Prior to this study, there was evidence from in vitro and single arm clinical studies that the histone deacetylase inhibitor (HDACi) class of drugs could induce viral transcription from latently infected cells, potentially creating a target for the immune system. In conjunction with this 'kick' to the latent HIV reservoir there was evidence that T cell immunitywhich determines HIV disease progression-could be enhanced through vaccination-induced responses, providing the 'kill'. Although the strategy of 'kick and kill' looked promising, there had been no powered RCTs to test it. Added value of the study RIVER tested 'kick and kill' using the HDACi vorinostat as the 'kick' combined with a vaccine strategy targeting conserved regions of the HIV genome. The vaccine aimed to produce T cells to kill latently-infected cells in which viral transcription had been induced by the HDACi. RIVER showed that the intervention was safe, with outstanding adherence to the complex trial protocol by the participants. However, even though there was evidence for both increased histone acetylation and potent vaccine-induced T-cell responses, the intervention did not confer any additional benefit on any measures of the HIV reservoir compared with antiretroviral therapy alone. Implications of all the available evidence. RIVER was the first RCT in treated recent HIV infection, and was not able to show any impact of 'kick and kill' on the primary outcome measure, or any marker of the HIV reservoir size. This is consistent with other studies which had tested HDACi alone. We did not, however, stop antiretroviral therapy in the RIVER trial participants, and future studies may include a treatment interruption as a further measure of impact. Whilst the RIVER trial suggests that this specific 'kick and kill' approach may not be an effective approach towards achieving HIV cure, the overall principle can not yet be dismissed, as more potent future interventions may have a greater impact.

No abstract

MPR was associated with symptom-onset in initially asymptomatic patients with AS, but with moderate accuracy and was not superior to symptom-limited exercise testing. ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01658345).

BackgroundThird‐generation P2Y12 antagonists (prasugrel and ticagrelor) are recommended in guidelines on ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction. Mechanisms translating their more potent antiplatelet activity into improved clinical outcomes versus the second‐generation P2Y12 antagonist clopidogrel are unclear. The aim of this post hoc analysis of the Complete Versus Lesion‐Only PRImary PCI Trial‐CMR (CvLPRIT‐CMR) substudy was to assess whether prasugrel and ticagrelor were associated with reduced infarct size compared with clopidogrel in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention.Methods and ResultsCvLPRIT‐CMR was a multicenter, prospective, randomized, open‐label, blinded end point trial in 203 ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction patients with multivessel disease undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention with either infarct‐related artery–only or complete revascularization. P2Y12 inhibitors were administered according to local guidelines. The primary end point of infarct size on cardiovascular magnetic resonance was not significantly different between the randomized groups. P2Y12 antagonist administration was not randomized. Patients receiving clopidogrel (n=70) compared with those treated with either prasugrel or ticagrelor (n=133) were older (67.8±12 versus 61.5±10 years, P<0.001), more frequently had hypertension (49% versus 29%, P=0.007), and tended to have longer symptom‐to‐revascularization time (234 versus 177 minutes, P=0.05). Infarct size (median 16.1% [quartiles 1–3, 10.5–27.7%] versus 12.1% [quartiles 1–3, 4.8–20.7%] of left ventricular mass, P=0.013) and microvascular obstruction incidence (65.7% versus 48.9%, P=0.022) were significantly greater in patients receiving clopidogrel. Infarct size remained significantly different after adjustment for important covariates using both generalized linear models (P=0.048) and propensity score matching (P=0.025).ConclusionsIn this analysis of CvLPRIT‐CMR, third‐generation P2Y12 antagonists were associated with smaller infarct size and lower microvascular obstruction incidence versus the second‐generation P2Y12 antagonist clopidogrel for ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction.Clinical Trial Registration URL: http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN70913605.