Arrhythmia monitoring and outcome after myocardial infarction (BIO|GUARD-MI): a randomized trial

C. Jøns, P. B. Bloch Thomsen, Sam Riahi, Tom Smilde, Ulrich Bach, Peter Karl K Jacobsen, Miloš Táborský, József Faluközy, Marcus Wiemer, Per Dahl Christensen, Attila Kónyi, Dan Schelfaut, Alan Bulava, Marcin Grabowski, Béla Merkely, Dieter Nuyens, R. Mahajan, Patrick Nagel, Roland Tilz, J. Malczynski, Clemens Steinwender, Johannes Brachmann, Harvey Serota, Jürgen Schrader, Steffen Behrens, Peter Søgaard
{"title":"Arrhythmia monitoring and outcome after myocardial infarction (BIO|GUARD-MI): a randomized trial","authors":"C. Jøns, P. B. Bloch Thomsen, Sam Riahi, Tom Smilde, Ulrich Bach, Peter Karl K Jacobsen, Miloš Táborský, József Faluközy, Marcus Wiemer, Per Dahl Christensen, Attila Kónyi, Dan Schelfaut, Alan Bulava, Marcin Grabowski, Béla Merkely, Dieter Nuyens, R. Mahajan, Patrick Nagel, Roland Tilz, J. Malczynski, Clemens Steinwender, Johannes Brachmann, Harvey Serota, Jürgen Schrader, Steffen Behrens, Peter Søgaard","doi":"10.3389/fcvm.2024.1300074","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Cardiac arrhythmias predict poor outcome after myocardial infarction (MI). We studied if arrhythmia monitoring with an insertable cardiac monitor (ICM) can improve treatment and outcome.BIO|GUARD-MI was a randomized, international open-label study with blinded outcome assessment.Tertiary care facilities monitored the arrhythmias, while the follow-up remained with primary care physicians.Patients after ST-elevation (STEMI) or non-ST-elevation MI with an ejection fraction >35% and a CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥4 (men) or ≥5 (women).Patients were randomly assigned to receive or not receive an ICM in addition to standard post-MI treatment. Device-detected arrhythmias triggered immediate guideline recommended therapy changes via remote monitoring.MACE, defined as a composite of cardiovascular death or acute unscheduled hospitalization for cardiovascular causes.790 patients (mean age 71 years, 72% male, 51% non-STEMI) of planned 1,400 pts were enrolled and followed for a median of 31.6 months. At 2 years, 39.4% of the device group and 6.7% of the control group had their therapy adapted for an arrhythmia [hazard ratio (HR) = 5.9, P < 0.0001]. Most frequent arrhythmias were atrial fibrillation, pauses and bradycardia. The use of an ICM did not improve outcome in the entire cohort (HR = 0.84, 95%-CI: 0.65–1.10; P = 0.21). In secondary analysis, a statistically significant interaction of the type of infarction suggests a benefit in the pre-specified non-STEMI subgroup. Risk factor analysis indicates that this may be connected to the higher incidence of MACE in patients with non-STEMI.The burden of asymptomatic but actionable arrhythmias is large in post-infarction patients. However, arrhythmia monitoring with an ICM did not improve outcome in the entire cohort. Post-hoc analysis suggests that it may be beneficial in non-STEMI patients or other high-risk subgroups.\n[https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02341534], NCT02341534.","PeriodicalId":510752,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine","volume":"63 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2024.1300074","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Cardiac arrhythmias predict poor outcome after myocardial infarction (MI). We studied if arrhythmia monitoring with an insertable cardiac monitor (ICM) can improve treatment and outcome.BIO|GUARD-MI was a randomized, international open-label study with blinded outcome assessment.Tertiary care facilities monitored the arrhythmias, while the follow-up remained with primary care physicians.Patients after ST-elevation (STEMI) or non-ST-elevation MI with an ejection fraction >35% and a CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥4 (men) or ≥5 (women).Patients were randomly assigned to receive or not receive an ICM in addition to standard post-MI treatment. Device-detected arrhythmias triggered immediate guideline recommended therapy changes via remote monitoring.MACE, defined as a composite of cardiovascular death or acute unscheduled hospitalization for cardiovascular causes.790 patients (mean age 71 years, 72% male, 51% non-STEMI) of planned 1,400 pts were enrolled and followed for a median of 31.6 months. At 2 years, 39.4% of the device group and 6.7% of the control group had their therapy adapted for an arrhythmia [hazard ratio (HR) = 5.9, P < 0.0001]. Most frequent arrhythmias were atrial fibrillation, pauses and bradycardia. The use of an ICM did not improve outcome in the entire cohort (HR = 0.84, 95%-CI: 0.65–1.10; P = 0.21). In secondary analysis, a statistically significant interaction of the type of infarction suggests a benefit in the pre-specified non-STEMI subgroup. Risk factor analysis indicates that this may be connected to the higher incidence of MACE in patients with non-STEMI.The burden of asymptomatic but actionable arrhythmias is large in post-infarction patients. However, arrhythmia monitoring with an ICM did not improve outcome in the entire cohort. Post-hoc analysis suggests that it may be beneficial in non-STEMI patients or other high-risk subgroups. [https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02341534], NCT02341534.
心律失常监测与心肌梗死后的预后(BIO|GUARD-MI):随机试验
心律失常预示着心肌梗死(MI)后的不良预后。我们研究了使用插入式心脏监护仪(ICM)监测心律失常是否能改善治疗和预后。BIO|GUARD-MI 是一项随机、国际开放标签研究,采用盲法进行预后评估。研究对象为ST段抬高(STEMI)或非ST段抬高的心肌梗死患者,射血分数大于35%,CHA2DS2-VASc评分≥4分(男性)或≥5分(女性)。除了心肌梗死后的标准治疗外,患者还被随机分配接受或不接受ICM。在计划接受治疗的 1400 名患者中,有 790 名患者(平均年龄 71 岁,72% 为男性,51% 为非 STEMI 患者)接受了治疗,随访时间中位数为 31.6 个月。2 年后,39.4% 的装置组患者和 6.7% 的对照组患者因心律失常而调整了治疗方案[危险比 (HR) = 5.9,P < 0.0001]。最常见的心律失常是心房颤动、暂停和心动过缓。使用 ICM 并未改善整个队列的预后(HR = 0.84,95%-CI:0.65-1.10;P = 0.21)。在二次分析中,梗死类型的交互作用具有统计学意义,表明在预先指定的非 STEMI 亚组中有获益。风险因素分析表明,这可能与非 STEMI 患者的 MACE 发生率较高有关。然而,使用 ICM 监测心律失常并不能改善整个队列的预后。事后分析表明,它可能对非STEMI患者或其他高风险亚组有益。[https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02341534],NCT02341534。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信