Bivalirudin versus unfractionated heparin during percutaneous coronary intervention

BACKGROUND: Whether bivalirudin is superior to unfractionated heparin in patients with stable or unstable angina who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) after pretreatment with clopidogrel is unknown. METHODS: We enrolled 4570 patients with stable or unstable angina (with normal levels of troponin T and creatine kinase MB) who were undergoing PCI after pretreatment with a 600-mg dose of clopidogrel at least 2 hours before the procedure; 2289 patients were randomly assigned in a double-blind manner to receive bivalirudin, and 2281 to receive unfractionated heparin. The primary end point was the composite of death, myocardial infarction, urgent target-vessel revascularization due to myocardial ischemia within 30 days after randomization, or major bleeding during the index hospitalization (with a net clinical benefit defined as a reduction in the incidence of the end point). The secondary end point was the composite of death, myocardial infarction, or urgent target-vessel revascularization. RESULTS: The incidence of the primary end point was 8.3% (190 patients) in the bivalirudin group as compared with 8.7% (199 patients) in the unfractionated-heparin group (relative risk, 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.77 to 1.15; P=0.57). The secondary end point occurred in 134 patients (5.9%) in the bivalirudin group and 115 patients (5.0%) in the unfractionated-heparin group (relative risk, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.91 to 1.49; P=0.23). The incidence of major bleeding was 3.1% (70 patients) in the bivalirudin group and 4.6% (104 patients) in the unfractionated-heparin group (relative risk, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.90; P=0.008). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with stable and unstable angina who underwent PCI after pretreatment with clopidogrel, bivalirudin did not provide a net clinical benefit (i.e., it did not reduce the incidence of the composite end point of death, myocardial infarction, urgent target-vessel revascularization, or major bleeding) as compared with unfractionated heparin, but it did significantly reduce the incidence of major bleeding. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00262054.)

Diazepam versus fentanyl for premedication during percutaneous coronary intervention: results from the Myocardial Protection by Fentanyl during Coronary Intervention (PROFIT) Trial

BACKGROUND: Sedation is a cornerstone in the premedication for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Benzodiazepines and opioids are frequently used. Previous results suggest that opioids mimic the adaptation to ischemia during repeated balloon inflations and may provide direct myocardial protection in addition to their sedative effect. However, no comparative data exist. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, randomized, controlled, single-blind trial comparing diazepam and fentanyl in 276 patients undergoing elective PCI. Patients were randomized to either diazepam 5 mg sublingually or fentanyl 0.05 mg or 0.1 mg intravenously at least 5 minutes prior to the first balloon inflation. The primary end-point was the postprocedural elevation of myocardial markers of necrosis defined as an elevation of cardiac troponin T > or = 0.01 ng/ml. RESULTS: The three groups had similar baseline clinical, angiographic, and procedural characteristics, with no significant differences in lesion morphology, procedural complexity, or adjunctive medical treatment. No significant variation in the hemodynamic response to the study drugs was observed in the three groups. The rate of postprocedural troponin T elevation was 28% in the diazepam group, 20% in the fentanyl 0.05 mg group, and 30% in the fentanyl 0.1 mg group (P = 0.26). Rates of postprocedural myocardial infarction were 3%, 2%, and 2%, respectively (P = 0.84), with one case of in-hospital death in the diazepam group and no urgent TVR in the whole study population. CONCLUSION: Although providing a well-tolerated alternative to diazepam for sedation during PCI, fentanyl did not provide additional cardioprotection assessed through the postinterventional elevation of cardiac troponin T during elective coronary intervention.

Multi-vessel stenting during primary percutaneous coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction. A single-center experience

BACKGROUND: Recanalization of the culprit lesion is the main goal of primary angioplasty for acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction and multivessel disease are, therefore, usually subjected to staged procedures, with the primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) confined to recanalization of the infarct-related artery (IRA). Theoretically at least, early relief of stenoses of non-infarct-related arteries could promote collateral circulation, which could help to limit the infarct size. However, the safety and feasibility of such an approach has not been adequately established. METHODS: In this single-center prospective study we examined 73 consecutive patients who had an acute STEMI and at least one or more lesions > or = 70% in a major epicardial vessel other than the infarct-related artery. In the first 28 patients, forming the multi-vessel (MV) PCI group, all lesions were treated during the primary procedure. In the following 45 patients, forming the culprit-only (CO) PCI group, only the culprit lesion was treated during the initial procedure, followed by either planned-staged or ischemia-driven revascularization of the non-culprit lesions. Fluoroscopy time and contrast dye amount were compared between both groups, and patients were followed up for one year for major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and other significant clinical events. RESULTS: The two groups were well balanced in terms of clinical characteristics, number of diseased vessels and angiographic characteristics of the culprit lesion. In the MV-PCI group, 2.51 lesions per patient were treated using 2.96 +/- 1.34 stents (1.00 lesions and 1.76 +/- 1.17 stents in the CO-PCI group, both p < 0.001). The fluoroscopy time increased from 10.3 (7.2-16.9) min in the CO-PCI group to 12.5 (8.5-19.3) min in the MV-PCI group (p = 0.22), and the amount of contrast used from 200 (180-250) ml to 250 (200-300) ml, respectively (p = 0.16). Peak CK and CK-MB were significantly lower in patients of the MV-PCI group (843 +/- 845 and 135 +/- 125 vs 1652 +/- 1550 and 207 +/- 155 U/l, p < 0.001 and 0.01, respectively). Similar rates of major adverse cardiac events at one year were observed in the two groups (24% and 28% in multi-vessel and culprit treatment groups, p = 0.73). The incidence of new revascularization in both infarct- and non-infarct-related arteries was also similar (24% and 28%, respectively, p = 0.73). CONCLUSION: We may state from this limited experience that a multi-vessel stenting approach for patients with acute STEMI and multi-vessel disease is feasible and probably safe during routine clinical practice. Our data suggest that this approach may help to limit the infarct size. However, larger studies, perhaps using drug-eluting stents, are still needed to further evaluate the safety and efficiency of this procedure, and whether it is associated with a lower need of subsequent revascularization and lower costs.

Percutaneous coronary intervention for stable coronary artery disease

Patients with significant coronary artery stenoses are at increased risk of future cardiac events. However, in the absence of acute coronary syndrome or recent myocardial infarction and residual ischemia, elective percutaneous coronary intervention has not been shown to improve prognosis. Possible explanations for this might be the limited follow-up time adopted by most randomized trials comparing percutaneous coronary intervention with medical therapy, limited number of patients with proven ischemia enrolled in these trials, and adoption of complex, elaborate techniques that have not proved their usefulness. Published evidence identifies certain indications for percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with stable coronary lesions: demonstration of significant inducible ischemia, particularly in the context of a recent myocardial infarction; detection of unequivocally reduced fractional flow reserve; and specific angiographic features of coronary stenoses. Operators should take into account long-term consequences of adopted techniques rather than immediate angiographic results. We review existing evidence and provide our recommendations in this setting.

Survival and cardiac remodeling benefits in patients undergoing late percutaneous coronary intervention of the infarct-related artery: evidence from a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Our purpose was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of the infarct-related artery (IRA) with medical therapy in patients randomized >12 h after acute myocardial infarction (AMI).

Successful percutaneous coronary intervention after implantation of a CoreValve percutaneous aortic valve

BACKGROUND: The association between aortic valve disease and coronary atherosclerosis is common. In the recent era of percutaneous aortic valve replacement (PAVR), there is little experience with coronary artery intervention after valve implantation. CASE REPORT: To our knowledge, this is the first case of successful percutaneous coronary intervention after implantation of a CoreValve percutaneous aortic valve. We report a case of a 79-year-old female patient who underwent successful coronary artery intervention few months after a CoreValve's percutaneous implantation for severe aortic valve stenosis. Verifying the position of the used wires (crossing from inside the self expanding frame) is of utmost importance before proceeding to coronary intervention. In this case, crossing the aortic valve, coronary angiography, and multivessel stenting were successfully performed. CONCLUSION: Percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with previous CoreValve is feasible and safe.

Increased circulating placental growth factor during percutaneous coronary intervention is associated with applied radiocontrast agent

BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE STUDY: Recent studies have suggested placental growth factor (PlGF) and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) as promising new biomarkers for risk stratification in acute coronary syndromes (ACS). However, little is known about the influence of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) on circulating PlGF and VEGF levels. METHODS: Thirty-five patients with ACS, 27 patients with stable coronary artery disease (sCAD), and nine healthy controls were enrolled in the study. Although all patients with ACS and 14 patients with stable angina pectoris underwent PCI, 13 patients with coronary artery disease required no revascularization (sCAD). PlGF and VEGF plasma concentrations were measured by immunoassay during and at the end of PCI and coronary angiography. RESULTS: Plasma PlGF levels were comparable in patients with ACS and sCAD on admission. Although coronary angiography or heparin alone did not alter PlGF and VEGF levels, immediately after PCI a dramatic increase was seen in circulating PlGF and a decrease in VEGF, which was independent of the clinical presentation of the patients, heparin administration, or the angiographic procedure itself, but was associated with the extent of coronary artery disease and the amount of the injected contrast media. In-vitro experiments revealed that radiocontrast agents induced the release of PlGF from endothelial cells without altering PlGF mRNA expression. CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing PCI exhibit an increase in circulating PlGF, probably caused by posttranslational modifications of radiocontrast agents in endothelial cells. Therefore, analysis of plasma PlGF and VEGF levels may consider the timing of blood sampling with respect to PCI and contrast media exposure.

Cost-effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with stable coronary artery disease and abnormal fractional flow reserve

BACKGROUND The Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation (FAME) 2 trial demonstrated a significant reduction in subsequent coronary revascularization among patients with stable angina and at least 1 coronary lesion with a fractional flow reserve ≤0.80 who were randomized to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) compared with best medical therapy. The economic and quality-of-life implications of PCI in the setting of an abnormal fractional flow reserve are unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS We calculated the cost of the index hospitalization based on initial resource use and follow-up costs based on Medicare reimbursements. We assessed patient utility using the EQ-5D health survey with US weights at baseline and 1 month and projected quality-adjusted life-years assuming a linear decline over 3 years in the 1-month utility improvements. We calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio based on cumulative costs over 12 months. Initial costs were significantly higher for PCI in the setting of an abnormal fractional flow reserve than with medical therapy ($9927 versus $3900, P<0.001), but the $6027 difference narrowed over 1-year follow-up to $2883 (P<0.001), mostly because of the cost of subsequent revascularization procedures. Patient utility was improved more at 1 month with PCI than with medical therapy (0.054 versus 0.001 units, P<0.001). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of PCI was $36 000 per quality-adjusted life-year, which was robust in bootstrap replications and in sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS PCI of coronary lesions with reduced fractional flow reserve improves outcomes and appears economically attractive compared with best medical therapy among patients with stable angina.

Long-term comparison of everolimus-eluting stents with sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stents for percutaneous coronary intervention of saphenous vein grafts

Aims: Newer-generation everolimus-eluting stents (EES) have been shown to improve clinical outcomes compared with early-generation sirolimus-eluting (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Whether this benefit is maintained among patients with saphenous vein graft (SVG) disease remains controversial. Methods and results: We assessed cumulative incidence rates (CIR) per 100 patient years after inverse probability of treatment weighting to compare clinical outcomes. The pre-specified primary endpoint was the composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), and target vessel revascularisation (TVR). Out of 12,339 consecutively treated patients, 288 patients (5.7%) underwent PCI of at least one SVG lesion with EES (n=127), SES (n=103) or PES (n=58). Up to four years, CIR of the primary endpoint were 58.7 for EES, 45.2 for SES and 45.6 for PES with similar adjusted risks between groups (EES vs. SES; HR 0.94, 95% CI: 0.55-1.60, EES vs. PES; HR 1.07, 95% CI: 0.60-1.91). Adjusted risks showed no significant differences between stent types for cardiac death, MI and TVR. Conclusions: Among patients undergoing PCI for SVG lesions, newer-generation EES have similar safety and efficacy to early-generation SES and PES during long-term follow-up to four years.

Multivessel versus culprit vessel percutaneous coronary intervention in ST-elevation myocardial infarction: is more worse?

Aims: We examined what type of STEMI patients are more likely to undergo multivessel PCI (MPCI) in a "real-world" setting and whether MPCI leads to worse or better outcomes compared with single-vessel PCI (SPCI) after stratifying patients by risk. Methods and results: Among STEMI patients enrolled in the Swiss AMIS Plus registry between 2005 and 2012 (n=12,000), 4,941 were identified with multivessel disease. We then stratified patients based on MPCI use and their risk. High-risk patients were identified a priori as those with: 1) left main (LM) involvement (lesions, n=263); 2) out-of-hospital cardiac arrest; or 3) Killip class III/IV. Logistic regression models examined for predictors of MPCI use and the association between MPCI and in-hospital mortality. Three thousand eight hundred and thirty-three (77.6%) patients underwent SPCI and 1,108 (22.4%) underwent MPCI. Rates of MPCI were greater among high-risk patients for each of the three categories: 8.6% vs. 5.9% for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (p<0.01); 12.3% vs. 6.2% for Killip III/IV (p<0.001); and 14.5% vs. 2.7% for LM involvement (p<0.001). Overall, in-hospital mortality after MPCI was higher when compared with SPCI (7.3% vs. 4.4%; p<0.001). However, this result was not present when patients were stratified by risk: in-hospital mortality for MPCI vs. SPCI was 2.0% vs. 2.0% (p=1.00) in low-risk patients and 22.2% vs. 21.7% (p=1.00) in high-risk patients. Conclusions: High-risk patients are more likely to undergo MPCI. Furthermore, MPCI does not appear to be associated with higher mortality after stratifying patients based on their risk.

Prediction of 1-year mortality in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: validation of the logistic clinical SYNTAX (Synergy Between Percutaneous Coronary Interventions With Taxus and Cardiac Surgery) score

OBJECTIVES This study sought to validate the Logistic Clinical SYNTAX (Synergy Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Taxus and Cardiac Surgery) score in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (ACS), in order to further legitimize its clinical application. BACKGROUND The Logistic Clinical SYNTAX score allows for an individualized prediction of 1-year mortality in patients undergoing contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention. It is composed of a "Core" Model (anatomical SYNTAX score, age, creatinine clearance, and left ventricular ejection fraction), and "Extended" Model (composed of an additional 6 clinical variables), and has previously been cross validated in 7 contemporary stent trials (>6,000 patients). METHODS One-year all-cause death was analyzed in 2,627 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention from the ACUITY (Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage Strategy) trial. Mortality predictions from the Core and Extended Models were studied with respect to discrimination, that is, separation of those with and without 1-year all-cause death (assessed by the concordance [C] statistic), and calibration, that is, agreement between observed and predicted outcomes (assessed with validation plots). Decision curve analyses, which weight the harms (false positives) against benefits (true positives) of using a risk score to make mortality predictions, were undertaken to assess clinical usefulness. RESULTS In the ACUITY trial, the median SYNTAX score was 9.0 (interquartile range 5.0 to 16.0); approximately 40% of patients had 3-vessel disease, 29% diabetes, and 85% underwent drug-eluting stent implantation. Validation plots confirmed agreement between observed and predicted mortality. The Core and Extended Models demonstrated substantial improvements in the discriminative ability for 1-year all-cause death compared with the anatomical SYNTAX score in isolation (C-statistics: SYNTAX score: 0.64, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.56 to 0.71; Core Model: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.66 to 0.79; Extended Model: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.70 to 0.83). Decision curve analyses confirmed the increasing ability to correctly identify patients who would die at 1 year with the Extended Model versus the Core Model versus the anatomical SYNTAX score, over a wide range of thresholds for mortality risk predictions. CONCLUSIONS Compared to the anatomical SYNTAX score alone, the Core and Extended Models of the Logistic Clinical SYNTAX score more accurately predicted individual 1-year mortality in patients presenting with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. These findings support the clinical application of the Logistic Clinical SYNTAX score.

Clinical outcome of patients with and without diabetes mellitus after percutaneous coronary intervention with the resolute zotarolimus-eluting stent: 2-year results from the prospectively pooled analysis of the international global RESOLUTE program

OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to describe the process to obtain Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for the expanded indication for treatment with the Resolute zotarolimus-eluting stent (R-ZES) (Medtronic, Inc., Santa Rosa, California) in patients with coronary artery disease and diabetes. BACKGROUND The R-ZES is the first drug-eluting stent specifically indicated in the United States for percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with diabetes. METHODS We pooled patient-level data for 5,130 patients from the RESOLUTE Global Clinical Program. A performance goal prospectively determined in conjunction with the FDA was established as a rate of target vessel failure at 12 months of 14.5%. In addition to the FDA pre-specified cohort of less complex patients with diabetes (n = 878), we evaluated outcomes of the R-ZES in all 1,535 patients with diabetes compared with all 3,595 patients without diabetes at 2 years. RESULTS The 12-month rate of target vessel failure in the pre-specified diabetic cohort was 7.8% (upper 95% confidence interval: 9.51%), significantly lower than the performance goal of 14.5% (p < 0.001). After 2 years, the cumulative incidence of target lesion failure in patients with noninsulin-treated diabetes was comparable to that of patients without diabetes (8.0% vs. 7.1%). The higher risk insulin-treated population demonstrated a significantly higher target lesion failure rate (13.7%). In the whole population, including complex patients, rates of stent thrombosis were not significantly different between patients with and without diabetes (1.2% vs. 0.8%). CONCLUSIONS The R-ZES is safe and effective in patients with diabetes. Long-term clinical data of patients with noninsulin-treated diabetes are equivalent to patients without diabetes. Patients with insulin-treated diabetes remain a higher risk subset. (The Medtronic RESOLUTE Clinical Trial; NCT00248079; Randomized, Two-arm, Non-inferiority Study Comparing Endeavor-Resolute Stent With Abbot Xience-V Stent [RESOLUTE-AC]; NCT00617084; The Medtronic RESOLUTE US Clinical Trial (R-US); NCT00726453; RESOLUTE International Registry: Evaluation of the Resolute Zotarolimus-Eluting Stent System in a 'Real-World' Patient Population [R-Int]; NCT00752128; RESOLUTE Japan-The Clinical Evaluation of the MDT-4107 Drug-Eluting Coronary Stent [RJ]; NCT00927940).

Clinical outcome of patients with stable ischaemic heart disease as compared to those with acute coronary syndromes after percutaneous coronary intervention

Aims: To compare clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) between patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and those with stable ischaemic heart disease (SIHD) stratified by anatomic disease complexity (SYNTAX score). Methods and results: Patient-level data from three all-comers PCI trials were pooled. Patients (n=4,204) were stratified by clinical presentation (i.e., ACS or SIHD) and by SYNTAX score (i.e., lowest vs. two highest tertiles). The major adverse cardiac event (MACE) rates of patients with low-risk SIHD (n=531) and high-risk SIHD (n=1,066) were compared with ACS patients (n=2,607), respectively. At two years, the risk of MACE was higher for high-risk SIHD patients (OR 1.34, 95% CI: 1.08-1.66) and lower for low-risk SIHD patients (OR 0.61, 95% CI: 0.43-0.87) compared with ACS patients, respectively. This difference between high-risk SIHD patients and ACS patients was primarily driven by a higher risk of myocardial infarction (OR 1.64, 95% CI: 1.21-2.21), while there was no difference for cardiac death (OR 0.77, 95% CI: 0.49-1.21) or target lesion revascularisation (OR 1.21, 95% CI: 0.91-1.62). Conclusions: In this pooled analysis, the majority of patients undergoing PCI for SIHD (i.e., with SYNTAX score >8) had a higher risk of MACE than patients with ACS. Trial registration: URL: http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov; unique identifier: NCT00297661 (Sirtax), NCT00389220 (Leaders), NCT00114972 (Resolute-AC).