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 invasivestrategy 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.

No abstract

No abstract

Patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are at increased risk of thrombosis. 1 However, studies have been limited in size, did not report all thrombotic events, and focused on patients with severe disease hospitalized in intensive care units (ICUs). We assessed the incidence of, and risk factors for, venous and arterial thrombotic events in all hospitalized patients with COVID-19 at a large health system consisting of 4 hospitals in New York City. Methods | This study included consecutive patients aged at least 18 years, admitted to a hospital affiliated with NYU Langone Health between March 1 and April 17, 2020, who tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) using reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reac

Copies: This document is available on the World Wide Web sites of the American College of Cardiology (www.acc.org), the American Heart Association (my.americanheart.org), and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (scai.org). A copy of the document is also available at http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifierϭ3003999 by selecting either the "topic list" link or the "chronological list" link (No. KJ-0734). To purchase additional reprints, call 843-216-2533 or e-mail kelle.ramsay@wolterskluwer.com.Expert peer review of AHA Scientific Statements is conducted at the AHA National Center. For more on AHA statements and guidelines development, visit http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifierϭ3023366.Permissions: Multiple copies, modification, alteration, enhancement, and/or distribution of this document are not permitted without the express permission of the American Heart Association. Instructions for obtaining permission are located at http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml? identifierϭ4431. A link to the "Permission Request Form" appears on the right side of the page. STEMI and PCI Focused Updates PreambleA primary challenge in the development of clinical practice guidelines is keeping pace with the stream of new data on which recommendations are based. In an effort to respond promptly to new evidence, the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association (ACCF/AHA) Task Force on Practice Guidelines has created a "focused update" process to revise the existing guideline recommendations that are affected by evolving data or opinion. Before the initiation of this focused approach, periodic updates and revisions of existing guidelines required up to 3 years to complete. Now, however, new evidence will be reviewed in an ongoing fashion to more efficiently respond to important science and treatment trends that could have a major impact on patient outcomes and quality of care. Evidence will be reviewed at least twice a year, and updates will be initiated on an as-needed basis as quickly as possible, while maintaining the rigorous methodology that the ACCF and AHA have developed during their 25 years of partnership.These updated guideline recommendations reflect a consensus of expert opinion after a thorough review primarily of late-breaking clinical trials identified through a broad-based vetting process as being important to the relevant patient population, as well as a review of other new data deemed to have an impact on patient care (see Section 1.1, Methodology and Evidence Review, for details). This focused update is not intended to represent an update based on a full literature review from the date of the previous guideline publication. Specific criteria/considerations for inclusion of new data include the following:• publication in a peer-reviewed journal;• large randomized, placebo-controlled trial(s);• nonrandomized data deemed important on the basis of results that affect current safety and efficacy assumptions; • strength/weakness of ...