Clinical outcomes and revascularization strategies in patients with low-flow, low-gradient severe aortic valve stenosis according to the assigned treatment modality

OBJECTIVES This study compared clinical outcomes and revascularization strategies among patients presenting with low ejection fraction, low-gradient (LEF-LG) severe aortic stenosis (AS) according to the assigned treatment modality. BACKGROUND The optimal treatment modality for patients with LEF-LG severe AS and concomitant coronary artery disease (CAD) requiring revascularization is unknown. METHODS Of 1,551 patients, 204 with LEF-LG severe AS (aortic valve area <1.0 cm(2), ejection fraction <50%, and mean gradient <40 mm Hg) were allocated to medical therapy (MT) (n = 44), surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) (n = 52), or transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) (n = 108). CAD complexity was assessed using the SYNTAX score (SS) in 187 of 204 patients (92%). The primary endpoint was mortality at 1 year. RESULTS LEF-LG severe AS patients undergoing SAVR were more likely to undergo complete revascularization (17 of 52, 35%) compared with TAVR (8 of 108, 8%) and MT (0 of 44, 0%) patients (p < 0.001). Compared with MT, both SAVR (adjusted hazard ratio [adj HR]: 0.16; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.07 to 0.38; p < 0.001) and TAVR (adj HR: 0.30; 95% CI: 0.18 to 0.52; p < 0.001) improved survival at 1 year. In TAVR and SAVR patients, CAD severity was associated with higher rates of cardiovascular death (no CAD: 12.2% vs. low SS [0 to 22], 15.3% vs. high SS [>22], 31.5%; p = 0.037) at 1 year. Compared with no CAD/complete revascularization, TAVR and SAVR patients undergoing incomplete revascularization had significantly higher 1-year cardiovascular death rates (adj HR: 2.80; 95% CI: 1.07 to 7.36; p = 0.037). CONCLUSIONS Among LEF-LG severe AS patients, SAVR and TAVR improved survival compared with MT. CAD severity was associated with worse outcomes and incomplete revascularization predicted 1-year cardiovascular mortality among TAVR and SAVR patients.

Prognostic value of early exercise testing after coronary stent implantation

The clinical value of early exercise stress testing (EST) after coronary stenting to predict long-term clinical outcomes is unknown. Of 1,000 unselected patients who underwent coronary stenting, 446 random patients underwent early EST the day after intervention. Clinical long-term outcomes (41 +/- 20 months) were correlated with normal (n = 314 [70%]) or positive (n = 102 [23%]) EST results. Patients with inconclusive test results (n = 30 [7%]) were excluded from the analysis. Overall mortality was significantly higher in patients with positive EST results (9.3% vs 3.9%, p = 0.04). Major adverse cardiac events and cardiac mortality also tended to be higher in patients with positive stress test results (45.4% vs 35.4%, p = 0.08, and 4.1% vs 1.1%, p = 0.05, respectively). Patients with the combination of positive stress test results and incomplete revascularization appeared to be the group at highest risk for major adverse cardiac events (47.1% vs 33.3% for patients with normal stress test results and complete revascularization, p = NS). Negative stress test results reduced (odds ratio 0.329, 95% confidence interval 0.120 to 0.905, p = 0.031) and a lower ejection fraction increased (odds ratio 0.942, 95% confidence interval 0.897 to 0.989, p = 0.017) the risk for death. In conclusion, an early stress test after coronary stenting provides important prognostic information. Positive stress test results, especially in combination with incomplete revascularization, are associated with higher mortality, a trend toward more repeat revascularization procedures, and higher risk for major adverse cardiac events.

Five-Year Clinical and Angiographic Outcomes of a Randomized Comparison of Sirolimus-Eluting and Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents: Results of the Sirolimus-Eluting Versus Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents for Coronary Revascularization LATE Trial

Background—Long-term comparative data of first-generation drug-eluting stents are scarce. We investigated clinical and angiographic outcomes of sirolimus-eluting (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) at 5 years as part of the Sirolimus-Eluting Versus Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents for Coronary Revascularization (SIRTAX) LATE study. Methods and Results—A total of 1012 patients were randomly assigned to SES or PES. Repeat angiography was completed in 444 of 1012 patients (43.8%) at 5 years. Major adverse cardiac events occurred in 19.7% of SES- and 21.4% of PES-treated patients (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.68 to 1.17; P=0.39) at 5 years. There were no differences between SES and PES in terms of cardiac death (5.8% versus 5.7%; P=0.35), myocardial infarction (6.6% versus 6.9%; P=0.51), and target lesion revascularization (13.1% versus 15.1%; P=0.29). Between 1 and 5 years, the annual rate of target lesion revascularization was 2.0% (95% confidence interval, 1.4% to 2.6%) for SES and 1.4% (95% confidence interval, 0.9% to 2.0%) for PES. Among patients undergoing paired angiography at 8 months and 5 years, delayed lumen loss amounted to 0.37±0.73 mm for SES and 0.29±0.59 mm for PES (P=0.32). The overall rate of definite stent thrombosis was 4.6% for SES and 4.1% for PES (P=0.74), and very late definite stent thrombosis occurred at an annual rate of 0.65% (95% confidence interval, 0.40% to 0.90%). Conclusions—Long-term follow-up of first-generation drug-eluting stents shows no significant differences in clinical and angiographic outcomes between SES and PES. The continuous increase in late lumen loss in conjunction with the ongoing risk of very late stent thrombosis suggests that vascular healing remains incomplete up to 5 years after implantation of first-generation drug-eluting stents.

Screening renal artery angiography in hypertensive patients undergoing coronary angiography and 6-month follow-up after ad hoc percutaneous revascularization

OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence and independent predictors of significant atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis (RAS) in unselected hypertensive patients undergoing coronary angiography and to assess the 6-month outcome of those patients with a significant RAS. METHODS: One thousand, four hundred and three consecutive hypertensive patients undergoing drive-by renal arteriography were analyzed retrospectively. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to identify independent predictors of RAS. In patients with significant RAS (>or=50% luminal narrowing), 6-month follow-up was assessed and outcome was compared between patients with or without renal revascularization. RESULTS: The prevalence of significant RAS was 8%. After multivariate analysis, coronary [odds ratio 5.3; 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.7-10.3; P < 0.0001], peripheral (odds ratio 3.3; 95% CI 2.0-5.5; P < 0.0001), and cerebral artery (odds ratio 2.8; 95% CI 1.5-5.3; P = 0.001) diseases, and impaired renal function (odds ratio 2.9; 95% CI 1.8-4.5; P < 0.0001) were found as independent predictors. At least one of these predictors was present in 96% of patients with RAS. In 74 patients (66%) with significant RAS, an ad hoc revascularization was performed. At follow-up, creatinine clearance was significantly higher in revascularized than in nonrevascularized patients (69.2 vs. 55.5 ml/min per 1.73 m, P = 0.029). By contrast, blood pressure was comparable between both groups, but nonrevascularized patients were taking significantly more antihypertensive drugs as compared with baseline (2.7 vs. 2.1, follow-up vs. baseline; P = 0.0066). CONCLUSION: The prevalence of atherosclerotic RAS in unselected hypertensive patients undergoing coronary angiography was low. Coronary, peripheral, and cerebral artery diseases, and impaired renal function were independent predictors of RAS. Ad hoc renal revascularization was associated with better renal function and fewer intake of antihypertensive drugs at follow-up.

Standardized definitions and clinical endpoints in carotid artery and supra-aortic trunk revascularization trials

Endovascular therapy has emerged as a promising alternative to open surgery for stroke prevention in patients with obstructive disease of the supra-aortic arteries. Although most previous studies have used similar safety and efficacy endpoints, differences in definitions, timing of assessments, and standards of reporting have hampered direct comparisons across various trials.

Controversies in cardiovascular medicine: Chronic stable coronary artery disease: drugs vs. revascularization

Coronary artery disease remains the leading cause of mortality in most industrialized countries, although age-standardized mortality related to coronary artery disease (CAD) has decreased by more than 40% during the last two decades. Coronary atherosclerosis may cause angina pectoris, myocardial infarction, heart failure, arrhythmia, and sudden death. Medical management of atherosclerosis and its manifestation aims at retardation of progression of plaque formation, prevention of plaque rupture, and subsequent events and treatment of symptoms, when these occur as well as treatment of the sequelae of the disease. Revascularization by either percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) is performed as treatment of flow-limiting coronary stenosis to reduce myocardial ischaemia. In high-risk patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS), a routine invasive strategy with revascularization in most patients provides the best outcome with a significant reduction in death and myocardial infarction compared with an initial conservative strategy. Conversely, the benefit of revascularization among patients with chronic stable CAD has been called into question. This review will provide information that revascularization exerts favourable effects on symptoms, quality of life, exercise capacity, and survival, particularly in those with extensive CAD and documented moderate-to-severe ischaemia. Accordingly, CABG and PCI should be considered a valuable adjunct rather than an alternative to medical therapy.

Impact of renal insufficiency on clinical outcomes in patients with critical limb ischemia undergoing endovascular revascularization

Patients with renal insufficiency (RI) are frequently excluded from trials assessing various endovascular revascularization concepts in critical limb ischemia (CLI) although information on clinical outcomes is scarce.

Long-term comparison of everolimus-eluting and sirolimus-eluting stents for coronary revascularization

Objectives This study sought to compare the unrestricted use of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) with sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Background It is unclear whether there are differences in safety and efficacy between EES and SES during long-term follow-up. Methods Using propensity score matching, clinical outcome was compared among 1,342 propensity score–matched pairs of patients treated with EES and SES. The primary outcome was a composite of death, MI, and target vessel revascularization. Results The median follow-up was 1.5 years with a maximum of 3 years. The primary outcome occurred in 14.9% of EES- and 18.0% of SES-treated patients up to 3 years (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.83, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.68 to 1.00, p = 0.056). All-cause mortality (6.0% vs. 6.5%, HR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.68 to 1.25, p = 0.59) was similar, risks of myocardial infarction (MI) (3.3% vs. 5.0%, HR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.42 to 0.92, p = 0.017), and target vessel revascularization (7.0% vs. 9.6%, HR: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.57 to 0.99, p = 0.039) were lower with EES than SES. Definite stent thrombosis (ST) (HR: 0.30, 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.75, p = 0.01) was less frequent among patients treated with EES. The reduced rate of MI with EES was explained in part by the lower risk of definite ST and the corresponding decrease in events associated with ST (HR: 0.25, 95% CI: 0.08 to 0.75, p = 0.013). Conclusions The unrestricted use of EES appears to be associated with improved clinical long-term outcome compared with SES. Differences in favor of EES are driven in part by a lower risk of MI associated with ST.

Benefit of immediate revascularization in women with critical limb ischemia in an intention-to-treat analysis

Evidence for the best treatment strategy in women with critical limb ischemia (CLI) is limited and controversial with studies contradicting each other. Therefore, we determined the benefit of immediate revascularization compared to medical therapy (MT) with optional delayed revascularization in men and women with CLI.

Endovascular Revascularization of Below-the-Knee Arteries: Prospective Short-Term Angiographic and Clinical Follow-up

PURPOSE: To evaluate arterial lesion characteristics and their impact on angiographic and clinical outcomes after endovascular below-the-knee (BTK) revascularization. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between April 2008 and June 2009, 33 patients (mean age 74.9 years) with 34 limbs and 50 arterial segments (mean lesion length 59.3 mm) undergoing endovascular BTK revascularization agreed to undergo prospective clinical and intraarterial angiographic 6-month follow-up evaluation. Clinical indication for BTK revascularization was critical limb ischemia (CLI) in 18 patients and delayed wound healing without hemodynamic evidence of CLI and intermittent claudication (IC) in 15 patients. RESULTS: Binary restenosis was observed in 40% of treated segments at 6 months. Primary sustained clinical improvement was 82.4% and 55.9% at 3 months and 6 months. Lesion length was independently associated with binary restenosis (hazard ratio [HR] 1.013, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.000-1.016, P = .05) and lower rates of primary sustained clinical improvement (HR 1.024, 95% CI 1.006-1.042, P = .008). CONCLUSIONS: Endovascular BTK revascularization yields clinical and angiographic benefits both for patients with IC and for patients with CLI. Although arterial lesion length adversely affects angiographic and clinical outcomes after endovascular revascularization, limb salvage rates were substantially higher compared with the comparatively low patency rates after BTK angioplasty.

Prevalence and densitometric characteristics of incomplete distal renal tubular acidosis in men with recurrent calcium nephrolithiasis

The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence of incomplete distal renal tubular acidosis (idRTA) in men with recurrent calcium nephrolithiasis and its potential impact on bone mineral density. We conducted a retrospective analysis of 150 consecutive, male idiopathic recurrent calcium stone formers (RCSFs), which had originally been referred to the tertiary care stone center of the University Hospital of Berne for further metabolic evaluation. All RCSFs had been maintained on a free-choice diet while collecting two 24-h urine samples and delivered second morning urine samples after 12 h fasting. Among 12 RCSFs with a fasting urine pH >5.8, a modified 3-day ammonium chloride loading test identified idRTA in 10 patients (urine pH >5.32, idRTA group). We matched to each idRTA subject 5 control subjects from the 150 RCSFs, primary by BMI and then by age, i.e., 50 patients, without any acidification defect (non-RTA group) for comparative biochemistry and dual energy X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) analyses. The prevalence of primary idRTA among RCSFs was 6.7% (10/150). Patients with idRTA had significantly higher 2-h fasting and 24-h urine pH (2-h urine pH: 6.6 ± 0.4 vs. 5.2 ± 0.1, p = 0.001; 24-h urine pH: 6.1 ± 0.2 vs. 5.3 ± 0.3, p = 0.001), 24-h urinary calcium excretion (7.70 ± 1.75 vs. 5.69 ± 1.73 mmol/d, p = 0.02), but significantly lower 24-h urinary urea excretion (323 ± 53 vs. 399 ± 114 mmol/d, p = 0.01), urinary citrate levels (2.32 ± 0.82 vs. 3.01 ± 0.72 mmol/d, p = 0.04) and renal phosphate threshold normalized for the glomerular filtration rate (TmPO(4)/GFR: 0.66 ± 0.17 vs. 0.82 ± 0.21, p = 0.03) compared to non-RTA patients. No significant difference in bone mineral density (BMD) was found between idRTA and non-RTA patients for the lumbar spine (LS BMD (g/cm(2)): 1.046 ± 0.245 SD vs. 1.005 ± 0.119 SD, p = 0.42) or femoral neck (FN BMD (g/cm(2)): 0.830 ± 0.135 SD vs. 0.852 ± 0.127 SD). Thus, idRTA occurs in 1 in 15 male RCSFs and should be sought in all recurrent calcium nephrolithiasis patients. Bone mineral density, however, does not appear to be significantly affected by idRTA.

Comparison of titanium-nitride-oxide-coated stents with zotarolimus-eluting stents for coronary revascularization a randomized controlled trial

Objectives This study sought to compare the efficacy of passive stent coating with titanium-nitride-oxide (TiNO) with drug-eluting stents releasing zotarolimus (ZES) (Endeavor, Medtronic, Minneapolis, Minnesota). Background Stent coating with TiNO has been shown to reduce restenosis compared with bare-metal stents in experimental and clinical studies. Methods In an assessor-blind noninferiority study, 302 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention were randomized to treatment with TiNO or ZES. The primary endpoint was in-stent late loss at 6 to 8 months, and analysis was by intention to treat. Results Both groups were well balanced with respect to baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics. The TiNO group failed to reach the pre-specified noninferiority margin for the primary endpoint (in-stent late loss: 0.64 ± 0.61 mm vs. 0.47 ± 0.48 mm, difference: 0.16, upper 1-sided 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.26; pnoninferiority = 0.54), and subsequent superiority testing was in favor of ZES (psuperiority = 0.02). In-segment binary restenosis was lower with ZES (11.1%) than with TiNO (20.5%; psuperiority = 0.04). A stratified analysis of the primary endpoint found particularly pronounced differences between stents among diabetic versus nondiabetic patients (0.90 ± 0.69 mm vs. 0.39 ± 0.38 mm; pinteraction = 0.04). Clinical outcomes showed a similar rate of death (0.7% vs. 0.7%; p = 1.00), myocardial infarction (5.3% vs. 6.7%; p = 0.60), and major adverse cardiac events (21.1% vs. 18.0%, hazard ratio: 1.19, 95% CI: 0.71 to 2.00; p = 0.50) at 1 year. There were no differences in rates of definite or probable stent thrombosis (0.7% vs. 0%; p = 0.51) at 1 year. Conclusions Compared with TiNO, ZES was superior with regard to late loss and binary restenosis. The concept of passive stent coating with TiNO remains inferior to drug-eluting stent technology in reducing restenosis. ([TIDE] Randomized Trial Comparing Titan Stent With Zotarolimus-Eluting Stent: NCT00492908)