Importance: The optimal treatment of intermediate-high–risk pulmonary embolism (PE) remains unknown.Objective: To assess the effect of conventional catheter-directed thrombolysis (cCDT) plus anticoagulation vs anticoagulation monotherapy in improving echocardiographic measures of right ventricle (RV) to left ventricle (LV) ratio in acute intermediate-high–risk PE.Design, Setting, and Participants: The Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis vs Anticoagulation in Patients with Acute Intermediate-High–Risk Pulmonary Embolism (CANARY) trial was an open-label, randomized clinical trial of patients with intermediate-high–risk PE, conducted in 2 large cardiovascular centers in Tehran, Iran, between December 22, 2018, through February 2, 2020.Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to cCDT (alteplase, 0.5 mg/catheter/h for 24 hours) plus heparin vs anticoagulation monotherapy.Main Outcomes and Measures: The proportion of patients with a 3-month echocardiographic RV/LV ratio greater than 0.9, assessed by a core laboratory, was the primary outcome. The proportion of patients with an RV/LV ratio greater than 0.9 at 72 hours after randomization and the 3-month all-cause mortality were among secondary outcomes. Major bleeding (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 or 5) was the main safety outcome. A clinical events committee, masked to the treatment assignment, adjudicated clinical outcomes.Results: The study was prematurely stopped due to the COVID-19 pandemic after recruiting 94 patients (mean [SD] age, 58.4 [2.5] years; 27 women [29%]), of whom 85 patients completed the 3-month echocardiographic follow-up. Overall, 2 of 46 patients (4.3%) in the cCDT group and 5 of 39 patients (12.8%) in the anticoagulation monotherapy group met the primary outcome (odds ratio [OR], 0.31; 95% CI, 0.06-1.69; P = .24). The median (IQR) 3-month RV/LV ratio was significantly lower with cCDT (0.7 [0.6-0.7]) than with anticoagulation (0.8 [0.7-0.9); P = .01). An RV/LV ratio greater than 0.9 at 72 hours after randomization was observed in fewer patients treated with cCDT (13 of 48 [27.0%]) than anticoagulation (24 of 46 [52.1%]; OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.14-0.80; P = .01). Fewer patients assigned to cCDT experienced a 3-month composite of death or RV/LV greater than 0.9 (2 of 48 [4.3%] vs 8 of 46 [17.3%]; OR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.04-1.03; P = .048). One case of nonfatal major gastrointestinal bleeding occurred in the cCDT group.Conclusions and Relevance: This prematurely terminated randomized clinical trial of patients with intermediate-high–risk PE was hypothesis-generating for improvement in some efficacy outcomes and acceptable rate of major bleeding for cCDT compared with anticoagulation monotherapy and provided support for a definitive clinical outcomes trial.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05172115

Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) is the gold standard of treatment in patients with acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). The no-reflow phenomenon (NRP) is a detrimental consequence of STEMI. Colchicine is an anti-inflammatory drug that may help prevent the NRP and improve patient outcomes. In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial, 451 patients with acute STEMI who were candidates for PPCI and eligible for enrollment were randomized into the colchicine group (n = 229) and the control group (n = 222). About 321 patients were eligible to participate; 161 patients were assigned to the colchicine group, whereas 160 patients were assigned to the control group. Colchicine was administered 1 mg before PCI and 0.5 mg daily after the procedure until discharge. NRP, measured by angiographic findings including the thrombolysis in myocardial infarction flow grade and the thrombolysis in myocardial infarction myocardial perfusion grade, was reported as the primary outcome. Secondary end points included ST resolution 90 minutes after the procedure, P-selectin, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, and troponin levels postprocedurally, predischarge ejection fraction, and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 1 month and 1 year after PPCI. NRP rates did not show a significant difference between the 2 groups (P = 0.98). Moreover, the levels of P-selectin, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, and troponin were not significantly different. MACE and predischarge ejection fraction were also not significantly different between the groups. In patients with STEMI treated by PPCI, colchicine administered before PPCI was not associated with a significant reduction in the NRP and MACE prevention (trial registration: IRCT20120111008698N23).

Background and objectives: We aimed to demonstrate the clinical utility of CHA2DS2-VASc score in risk assessment of patients with STEMI regarding adverse clinical outcomes particularly no-reflow phenomenon. Materials and Methods: We designed a retrospective cohort study using the data of Tehran Heart Center registry for acute coronary syndrome. The study included 1331 consecutive patients with STEMI who underwent primary angioplasty. Patients were divided into two groups according to low and high CHA2DS2-VASc score. Angiographic results of reperfusion were inspected to evaluate the association of high CHA2DS2-VASc score and the likelihood of suboptimal TIMI flow. The secondary endpoint of the study was short-term in-hospital mortality of all cause. Results: The present study confirmed that CHA2DS2-VASc model enables us to determine the risk of no-reflow and all-cause in-hospital mortality independently. Odds ratios were 1.59 (1.30–2.25) and 1.60 (1.17–2.19), respectively. Moreover, BMI, high thrombus grade, and cardiogenic shock were predictors of failed reperfusion (odds were 1.07 (1.01–1.35), 1.59 (1.28–1.76), and 8.65 (3.76–24.46), respectively). We showed that using a cut off value of ≥ two in CHA2DS2-VASc model provides a sensitivity of 69.7% and specificity of 64.4% for discrimination of increased mortality hazards. Area under the curve: 0.72 with 95% CI (0.62–0.81). Conclusions: Calculation of CHA2DS2-VASc score applied as a simple risk stratification tool before primary PCI affords great predictive power. Furthermore, incremental values are obtained by using both CHA2DS2-VASc and no-reflow regarding mortality risk assessment.

Purpose: High-intensity interval training (HIIT) appears to be safe and effective in cardiovascular diseases. However, there is a paucity of data on the effect of HIIT for patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE). The present randomized controlled trial (RCT) therefore examined the efficiency and safety of HIIT in patients with acute PE. Methods: In single-center parallel open-label RCT, 24 patients (5 women) discharged recently with a diagnosis of intermediate–high-risk acute PE were randomized (1:1) to supervised HIIT (n = 12) or control (n = 12) group. The primary outcomes were exercise capacity evaluated in terms of the estimated maximal oxygen uptake (eV˙O_2max), lung function (forced expiratory volume in 1 s [FEV1]), right ventricular (RV) function (RV/left ventricular diameter [LV] ratio), and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Safety was the secondary outcome. Results: Eight weeks of HIIT improved eV˙O_2max (+65%, P < 0.001), FEV₁ (%) (+17%, P = 0.031), and RV/LV ratio diameter (−27%, P = 0.005), as well as HRQoL. All patients in the HIIT group tolerated exercise training without serious adverse events. The control group did not improve (P > 0.05) eV˙O_2max, RV/LV ratio diameter, or HRQoL; however, FEV₁ (%) was slightly reduced (−6%, P = 0.030). Conclusions: The present RCT of a tailored center-based HIIT intervention provides preliminary evidence that this intervention could improve exercise capacity, lung function, RV function, and HRQoL without serious adverse events, which could provide marked clinical benefits after PE. Further larger multicenter randomized controlled studies are needed to confirm these promising findings.