stella
Coronary Artery DiseaseMarch 2017Summary reviewed June 2026

Complete Artery Treatment During Heart Attack Cuts Future Problems by 65%

Researchers tested whether treating all blocked arteries during a heart attack—guided by blood flow measurements—works better than treating only the main blockage. Patients who got complete treatment had 65% fewer heart problems over the next year.

What the trial was testing

The COMPARE-ACUTE enrolled 885 patients with coronary artery disease. The study was sponsored by Maasstad Hospital and tracked outcomes across the full group of patients who matched the trial's eligibility profile.

Researchers followed patients through treatment and into recovery, tracking the outcomes that mattered most for the disease being studied.

What the results showed

Complete artery treatment cut the risk of heart problems by 65% compared to treating just the main blockage.

The New England journal of medicine · 2017 · NCT01399736

These findings — that treating all blocked arteries cut the risk of death, another heart attack, or needing more procedures — were published in the The New England journal of medicine and represent the headline result of the study.

Researchers tracked outcomes across 885 patients enrolled in the trial. The result was consistent enough across the group that the team felt confident reporting it.

What this means for patients

For patients with coronary artery disease, this result changes the calculus on what to ask their care team about. Whether it changes day-to-day care depends on factors like disease subtype, prior treatments, and where the patient is in their care journey.

What you can do now

This approach—using fractional flow reserve (FFR) to guide treatment of all blocked arteries during a heart attack—is now a standard option at many hospitals. If you have multiple blocked arteries during a heart attack, ask your cardiologist whether complete revascularization guided by blood flow measurements is right for you.

Eligibility for the treatments mentioned above depends on specific test results and clinical history. Bring this summary, the trial name, and your most recent labs or pathology report to your next visit.

Open coronary artery disease trials

RecruitingInterventional study

Stellate Ganglion Morphine Infiltration on Myocardial Ischemia-Reperfusion Injury

The goal of this clinical trial is to investigate whether morphine modulates the functions of the stellate ganglion to reduce myocardial ischemia/reperfusion injury in AMI patients. It will also assess the safety of injecting morphine around the stellate ganglion via ultrasound guidance. The main questions it aims to answer are: 1. Does morphine regulate stellate ganglion function to reduce myocardial ischemia/reperfusion injury in AMI patients? 2. What medical problems do participants experience when receiving injected morphine around the stellate ganglion? Researchers will compare morphine to a placebo saline (as a control group) to determine whether stellate ganglion infiltration with morphine effectively treats patients with AMI following primary PCI. Participants will: * Receive a single injection of morphine or saline around the stellate ganglion. * Evaluate the percentage of infarct size 7 days after surgery, or at discharge if the duration is shorter than 7 days. * Record their symptoms and any major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events within 30 days post-surgery.

Hefei, Anhui, China +2 more
RecruitingObservational study

TIRANA-ACS: A Prospective Registry Study for the Targeted Investigation of Residual Inflammation After Non-ST/ ST Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome

This prospective observational study aims to evaluate the prognostic significance of the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) as a predictor of mortality in patients following an episode of Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS). Despite advancements in interventional cardiology and medical therapy, mortality remains significant in post-ACS patients, and early risk stratification is essential for optimizing outcomes. Recent studies have suggested that systemic inflammatory markers, such as NLR, are associated with adverse cardiovascular events. It is an easily obtainable and cost-effective laboratory parameter derived from a routine complete blood count. However, its value as an independent predictor of mortality post-ACS has not yet been fully established in our population. The study will include patients aged, admitted with a confirmed diagnosis of ACS (STEMI or Non-STEMI) and treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). NLR values will be measured from the first blood draw upon hospital admission, 24 and 48 hours post PCI. Patients will be followed up for up to 6 months after discharge through telephone interviews . First, primary outcomes of the study will be the association between NLR values and mortality (all cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality), MACE (MACE was defined as the composite of all-cause mortality, cardiac death, unplanned revascularization, non-fatal myocardial infarction that was attributable and not related to stent failure or unplanned revascularization not related to stent failure) within 6 months post-ACS. Secondary outcomes will include: 1. Differences in mean NLR between STEMI and NSTEMI patients. 2. Association between elevated NLR and the presence of multivessel coronary artery disease on angiography. 3. Correlation of NLR with other biomarkers, including the platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), C-reactive protein (CRP), high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, and maximum troponin levels (as an indicator of myocardial infarction size) This study aims to contribute to the identification of easily accessible and cost-efficient biomarkers that can aid clinicians in early risk stratification of ACS survivors. A strong correlation between high NLR values and increased post-discharge mortality would suggest that inflammation plays a key role in patient prognosis and could potentially influence post-ACS management strategies.

Tirana, Albania