IMPORTANCE Uncertainty remains about the efficacy of folic acid therapy for the primary prevention of stroke because of limited and inconsistent data. OBJECTIVE To test the primary hypothesis that therapy with enalapril and folic acid is more effective in reducing first stroke than enalapril alone among Chinese adults with hypertension. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS The China Stroke Primary Prevention Trial, a randomized, double-blind clinical trial conducted from May 19, 2008, to August 24, 2013, in 32 communities in Jiangsu and Anhui provinces in China. A total of 20 702 adults with hypertension without history of stroke or myocardial infarction (MI) participated in the study. INTERVENTIONS Eligible participants, stratified by MTHFR C677T genotypes (CC, CT, and TT), were randomly assigned to receive double-blind daily treatment with a single-pill combination containing enalapril, 10 mg, and folic acid, 0.8 mg (n = 10 348) or a tablet containing enalapril, 10 mg, alone (n = 10 354). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was first stroke. Secondary outcomes included first ischemic stroke; first hemorrhagic stroke; MI; a composite of cardiovascular events consisting of cardiovascular death, MI, and stroke; and all-cause death. RESULTS During a median treatment duration of 4.5 years, compared with the enalapril alone group, the enalapril-folic acid group had a significant risk reduction in first stroke (2.7% of participants in the enalapril-folic acid group vs 3.4% in the enalapril alone group; hazard ratio [HR], 0.79; 95% CI, 0.68-0.93), first ischemic stroke (2.2% with enalapril-folic acid vs 2.8% with enalapril alone; HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.64-0.91), and composite cardiovascular events consisting of cardiovascular death, MI, and stroke (3.1% with enalapril-folic acid vs 3.9% with enalapril alone; HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.69-0.92). The risks of hemorrhagic stroke (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.65-1.34), MI (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.60-1.82), and all-cause deaths (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.81-1.10) did not differ significantly between the 2 treatment groups. There were no significant differences between the 2 treatment groups in the frequencies of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among adults with hypertension in China without a history of stroke or MI, the combined use of enalapril and folic acid, compared with enalapril alone, significantly reduced the risk of first stroke. These findings are consistent with benefits from folate use among adults with hypertension and low baseline folate levels.
Aims Conventional fractional flow reserve (FFR) is measured invasively using a coronary guidewire equipped with a pressure sensor. A non-invasive derived FFR would eliminate risk of coronary injury, minimize technical limitations, and potentially increase adoption. We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of a computational pressure-flow dynamics derived FFR (caFFR), applied to coronary angiography, compared to invasive FFR. Methods and results The FLASH FFR study was a prospective, multicentre, single-arm study conducted at six centres in China. Eligible patients had native coronary artery target lesions with visually estimated diameter stenosis of 30–90% and diagnosis of stable or unstable angina pectoris. Using computational pressure-fluid dynamics, in conjunction with thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) frame count, applied to coronary angiography, caFFR was measured online in real-time and compared blind to conventional invasive FFR by an independent core laboratory. The primary endpoint was the agreement between caFFR and FFR, with a pre-specified performance goal of 84%. Between June and December 2018, matched caFFR and FFR measurements were performed in 328 coronary arteries. Total operational time for caFFR was 4.54 ± 1.48 min. caFFR was highly correlated to FFR (R = 0.89, P = 0.76) with a mean bias of −0.002 ± 0.049 (95% limits of agreement −0.098 to 0.093). The diagnostic performance of caFFR vs. FFR was diagnostic accuracy 95.7%, sensitivity 90.4%, specificity 98.6%, positive predictive value 97.2%, negative predictive value 95.0%, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.979. Conclusions Using wire-based FFR as the reference, caFFR has high accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity. caFFR could eliminate the need of a pressure wire, technical error and potentially increase adoption of physiological assessment of coronary artery stenosis severity. Clinical Trial Registration URL: http://www.chictr.org.cn Unique Identifier: ChiCTR1800019522.
A coronary angiography-derived index of microvascular resistance (caIMR) is proposed for physiological assessment of microvasular diseases in coronary circulation. The aim of the study is to assess diagnostic performance of caIMR, using wire-derived index of microvascular resistance (IMR) as the reference standard. IMR was demonstrated in 56 patients (57 vessels) with stable/unstable angina pectoris and no obstructive coronary arteries in three centers using the Certus pressure wire. Based on the aortic pressure wave and coronary angiograms from two projections, the caIMR was computed and assessed in blinded fashion against the IMR at an independent core laboratory. Diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of the caIMR with a cutoff value of 25 were 84.2% (95% CI: 72.1% to 92.5%), 86.1% (95% CI: 70.5% to 95.3%), 81.0% (95% CI: 58.1% to 94.6%), 88.6% (95% CI: 76.1% to 95.0%), and 77.3% (95% CI: 59.5% to 88.7%) against the IMR with a cutoff value of 25. The receiver-operating curve had area under the curve of 0.919 and the correlation coefficient equaled to 0.746 between caIMR and wire-derived IMR. Hence, caIMR could eliminate the need of a pressure wire, reduce technical error, and potentially increase adoption of physiological assessment of microvascular diseases in patients with ischemic heart disease.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.