Impact of coronary artery disease and percutaneous coronary intervention on outcomes in patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Coronary artery disease (CAD) is frequently present in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). While revascularisation affects peri-operative outcome in patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement, the impact of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients undergoing TAVI is not well established.

SPIRIT Women, evaluation of the safety and efficacy of the XIENCE V everolimus-eluting stent system in female patients: referral time for coronary intervention and 2-year clinical outcomes

SPIRIT Women is the first interventional trial dedicated exclusively to women, focusing on symptoms at presentation, referral time to coronary intervention and the safety and performance of the XIENCE V stent.

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.

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).

The Global Digital Divide as Impeded Access to Content

The paper seeks a re-conceptualization of the global digital divide debate. It critically explores the predominant notion, its evolution and measurement, as well as the policies that have been advanced to bridge the digital divide. Acknowledging the complexity of this inequality, the paper aims at analyzing the disparities beyond the connectivity and the skills barriers. Without understating the first two digital divides, it is argued that as the Internet becomes more sophisticated and more integrated into economic, social and cultural processes, a ‘third’ generation of divides becomes critical. These divides are drawn not at the entry to the net but within the net itself, and limit access to content. The increasing barriers to content, although of diverse nature, all relate to some governance characteristics inherent in cyberspace, such as global spillover of local decisions, regulation through code or proliferation of self- and co-regulatory models. It is maintained that as the practice of intervention intensifies in cyberspace, multiple and far-reaching points of control outside formal legal institutions are created, which threaten the availability of public goods and make the pursuit of public objectives difficult. This is an aspect that is rarely addressed in the global digital divide discussions, even in comprehensive analysis and political initiatives such as the World Summit on the Information Society. Yet, the conceptualization of the digital divide as impeded access to content may be key in terms of ensuring real participation and catering for the long-term implications of digital technologies.

Re-Conceptualizing the Global Digital Divide

The article seeks a re-conceptualization of the global digital divide debate. It critically explores the predominant notion, its evolution and measurement, as well as the policies that have been advanced to bridge the digital divide. Acknowledging the complexity of this inequality, the article aims at analyzing the disparities beyond the connectivity and skills barriers. Without understating the first two digital divides, it is argued that as the Internet becomes more sophisticated and more integrated into economic, social, and cultural processes, a “third” generation of divides becomes critical. These divides are drawn not at the entry to the net but within the net itself, and limit access to content. The increasing barriers to content, though of a diverse nature, all relate to some governance characteristics inherent in cyberspace, such as global spillover of local decisions, regulation through code, and proliferation of self- and co-regulatory models. It is maintained that as the practice of intervention intensifies in cyberspace, multiple and far-reaching points of control outside formal legal institutions are created, threatening the availability of public goods and making the pursuit of public objectives difficult. This is an aspect that is rarely addressed in the global digital divide discussions, even in comprehensive analyses and political initiatives such as the World Summit on the Information Society. Yet, the conceptualization of the digital divide as impeded access to content may be key in terms of ensuring real participation and catering for the long-term implications of digital technologies.

Predictors of adverse events among patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention: insights from a pooled analysis of the COMFORTABLE AMI and EXAMINATION trials

Aims: The aim of this study was to identify predictors of adverse events among patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing contemporary primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Methods and results: Individual data of 2,655 patients from two primary PCI trials (EXAMINATION, N=1,504; COMFORTABLE AMI, N=1,161) with identical endpoint definitions and event adjudication were pooled. Predictors of all-cause death or any reinfarction and definite stent thrombosis (ST) and target lesion revascularisation (TLR) outcomes at one year were identified by multivariable Cox regression analysis. Killip class III or IV was the strongest predictor of all-cause death or any reinfarction (OR 5.11, 95% CI: 2.48-10.52), definite ST (OR 7.74, 95% CI: 2.87-20.93), and TLR (OR 2.88, 95% CI: 1.17-7.06). Impaired left ventricular ejection fraction (OR 4.77, 95% CI: 2.10-10.82), final TIMI flow 0-2 (OR 1.93, 95% CI: 1.05-3.54), arterial hypertension (OR 1.69, 95% CI: 1.11-2.59), age (OR 1.68, 95% CI: 1.41-2.01), and peak CK (OR 1.25, 95% CI: 1.02-1.54) were independent predictors of all-cause death or any reinfarction. Allocation to treatment with DES was an independent predictor of a lower risk of definite ST (OR 0.35, 95% CI: 0.16-0.74) and any TLR (OR 0.34, 95% CI: 0.21-0.54). Conclusions: Killip class remains the strongest predictor of all-cause death or any reinfarction among STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI. DES use independently predicts a lower risk of TLR and definite ST compared with BMS. The COMFORTABLE AMI trial is registered at: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00962416. The EXAMINATION trial is registered at: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00828087.

Differences in coronary risk factors, procedural characteristics, mortality and stent thrombosis between two all-comers percutaneous coronary intervention registries from Europe and Japan: a patient-level data analysis of the Bern-Rotterdam and j-Cypher registries

Aims: The reported rate of stent thrombosis (ST) after drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation varies among registries. To investigate differences in baseline characteristics and clinical outcome in European and Japanese all-comers registries, we performed a pooled analysis of patient-level data. Methods and results: The j-Cypher registry (JC) is a multicentre observational study conducted in Japan, including 12,824 patients undergoing SES implantation. From the Bern-Rotterdam registry (BR) enrolled at two academic hospitals in Switzerland and the Netherlands, 3,823 patients with SES were included in the current analysis. Patients in BR were younger, more frequently smokers and presented more frequently with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (MI). Conversely, JC patients more frequently had diabetes and hypertension. At five years, the definite ST rate was significantly lower in JC than BR (JC 1.6% vs. BR 3.3%, p<0.001), while the unadjusted mortality tended to be lower in BR than in JC (BR 13.2% vs. JC 14.4%, log-rank p=0.052). After adjustment, the j-Cypher registry was associated with a significantly lower risk of all-cause mortality (HR 0.56, 95% CI: 0.49-0.64) as well as definite stent thrombosis (HR 0.46, 95% CI: 0.35-0.61). Conclusions: The baseline characteristics of the two large registries were different. After statistical adjustment, JC was associated with lower mortality and ST.

Assessing the cardiology community position on transradial intervention and the use of bivalirudin in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing invasive management: results of an EAPCI survey

AIMS Our aim was to report on a survey initiated by the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) collecting the opinion of the cardiology community on the invasive management of acute coronary syndrome (ACS), before and after the MATRIX trial presentation at the American College of Cardiology (ACC) 2015 Scientific Sessions. METHODS AND RESULTS A web-based survey was distributed to all individuals registered on the EuroIntervention mailing list (n=15,200). A total of 572 and 763 physicians responded to the pre- and post-ACC survey, respectively. The radial approach emerged as the preferable access site for ACS patients undergoing invasive management with roughly every other responder interpreting the evidence for mortality benefit as definitive and calling for a guidelines upgrade to class I. The most frequently preferred anticoagulant in ACS patients remains unfractionated heparin (UFH), due to higher costs and greater perceived thrombotic risks associated with bivalirudin. However, more than a quarter of participants declared the use of bivalirudin would increase after MATRIX. CONCLUSIONS The MATRIX trial reinforced the evidence for a causal association between bleeding and mortality and triggered consensus on the superiority of the radial versus femoral approach. The belief that bivalirudin mitigates bleeding risk is common, but UFH still remains the preferred anticoagulant based on lower costs and thrombotic risks.