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.

Background: Glucagon-like peptide 1 agonists differ in chemical structure, duration of action and in their effects on clinical outcomes. The cardiovascular effects of once-weekly albiglutide in type 2 diabetes are unknown. Methods: We randomly assigned patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease to the addition of once-weekly subcutaneous injection of albiglutide (30 mg to 50 mg) or matching placebo to standard care. We hypothesized that albiglutide would be noninferior to placebo for the primary outcome of first occurrence of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. If noninferiority was confirmed by an upper limit of the 95% confidence interval for the hazard ratio of less than 1.30, closed-testing for superiority was prespecified. Findings: Overall, 9463 participants were followed for a median of 1.6 years. The primary composite outcome occurred in 338 of 4731 patients (7.1%; 4.6 events per 100 person-years) in the albiglutide group and in 428 of 4732 patients (9.0%; 5.9 events per 100 person-years) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI ], 0.68 to 0.90), indicating that albiglutide, was superior to placebo (P<0.0001 for noninferiority, P=0.0006 for superiority). The incidence of acute pancreatitis (albiglutide 10 patients and placebo 7 patients), pancreatic cancer (6 and 5), medullary thyroid carcinoma (0 and 0), and other serious adverse events did not differ significantly between the two groups. Interpretation: In patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, albiglutide was superior to placebo with respect to major adverse cardiovascular events. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline; Harmony Outcomes ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02465515.) noninferiority; P = 0.06 for superiority). There seems to be variation in the results of existing trials with GLP-1 receptor agonists, which if correct, might reflect drug structure or duration of action, patients studied, duration of follow-up or other factors.

Due to the aging and increasingly complex nature of our patients, frailty has become a high-priority theme in cardiovascular medicine. Despite the recognition of frailty as a pivotal element in the evaluation of older adults with cardiovascular disease (CVD), there has yet to be a road map to facilitate its adoption in routine clinical practice. Thus, we sought to synthesize the existing body of evidence and offer a perspective on how to integrate frailty into clinical practice. Frailty is a biological syndrome that reflects a state of decreased physiological reserve and vulnerability to stressors. Upward of 20 frailty assessment tools have been developed, with most tools revolving around the core phenotypic domains of frailty—slow walking speed, weakness, inactivity, exhaustion, and shrinking—as measured by physical performance tests and questionnaires. The prevalence of frailty ranges from 10% to 60%, depending on the CVD burden, as well as the tool and cutoff chosen to define frailty. Epidemiological studies have consistently demonstrated that frailty carries a relative risk of >2 for mortality and morbidity across a spectrum of stable CVD, acute coronary syndromes, heart failure, and surgical and transcatheter interventions. Frailty contributes valuable prognostic insights incremental to existing risk models and assists clinicians in defining optimal care pathways for their patients. Interventions designed to improve outcomes in frail elders with CVD such as multidisciplinary cardiac rehabilitation are being actively tested. Ultimately, frailty should not be viewed as a reason to withhold care but rather as a means of delivering it in a more patient-centered fashion.

Gait speed is a simple and effective test that may identify a subset of vulnerable elderly patients at incrementally higher risk of mortality and major morbidity after cardiac surgery.

Attempts at making cardiovascular RCTs more inclusive appear to have had limited success; thus, women and elderly persons remain underrepresented in published trial literature relative to their disease prevalence. Because safety and efficacy can vary as a function of sex and age, these enrollment biases undermine efforts to provide evidence-based care to all cardiac patients.