Safety and outcome of patients with an acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction transferred for primary coronary intervention: the Neuchâtel experience

BACKGROUND: Transferring patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) for primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) from a community hospital to a PCI centre has been evaluated in randomised trials and shown to be safe and effective. A prolonged transfer time may restrict the benefit of this strategy. AIM: We sought to assess 1) safety of transfer from Neuchâtel to Berne, 2) time intervals of patients transferred either directly from on-site or after evaluation in the local emergency room, and 3) clinical long-term outcome. METHODS AND RESULTS: 42 patients with STEMI eligible for reperfusion therapy were prospectively included between January 2003 and June 2004. Twenty patients (48%, group 1) were directly transferred to the PCI centre from on-site. Twenty-two were transferred after initial treatment in the local emergency room: 11 patients (26%, group 2) presented spontaneously at the hospital and 11 patients (26%, group 3) were admitted by the rescue team. No major complication occurred during transport. Median transport time was 33 minutes. Median time from first healthcare contact to balloon consisted of 131 minutes in group 1, 158 minutes in group 2 and 174 minutes in group 3. The overall rate of Major Adverse Cardiac Events (MACE) at 6 months amounted to 9.5%. CONCLUSIONS: Transfer for primary PCI of our patients with acute STEMI was safe. Direct transfer from on-site to the PCI centre reduced the time of ischaemia. The overall MACE rate was low.

Sirolimus- vs paclitaxel-eluting stents in de novo coronary artery lesions: the REALITY trial: a randomized controlled trial

CONTEXT: Compared with bare metal stents, sirolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents have been shown to markedly improve angiographic and clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary revascularization, but their performance in the treatment of de novo coronary lesions has not been compared in a prospective multicenter study. OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety and efficacy of sirolimus-eluting vs paclitaxel-eluting coronary stents. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized comparative trial (the REALITY trial) conducted between August 2003 and February 2004, with angiographic follow-up at 8 months and clinical follow-up at 12 months. SETTING: Ninety hospitals in Europe, Latin America, and Asia. PATIENTS: A total of 1386 patients (mean age, 62.6 years; 73.1% men; 28.0% with diabetes) with angina pectoris and 1 or 2 de novo lesions (2.25-3.00 mm in diameter) in native coronary arteries. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive a sirolimus-eluting stent (n = 701) or a paclitaxel-eluting stent (n = 685). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary end point was in-lesion binary restenosis (presence of a more than 50% luminal-diameter stenosis) at 8 months. Secondary end points included 1-year rates of target lesion and vessel revascularization and a composite end point of cardiac death, Q-wave or non-Q-wave myocardial infarction, coronary artery bypass graft surgery, or repeat target lesion revascularization. RESULTS: In-lesion binary restenosis at 8 months occurred in 86 patients (9.6%) with a sirolimus-eluting stent vs 95 (11.1%) with a paclitaxel-eluting stent (relative risk [RR], 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61-1.17; P = .31). For sirolimus- vs paclitaxel-eluting stents, respectively, the mean (SD) in-stent late loss was 0.09 (0.43) mm vs 0.31 (0.44) mm (difference, -0.22 mm; 95% CI, -0.26 to -0.18 mm; P<.001), mean (SD) in-stent diameter stenosis was 23.1% (16.6%) vs 26.7% (15.8%) (difference, -3.60%; 95% CI, -5.12% to -2.08%; P<.001), and the number of major adverse cardiac events at 1 year was 73 (10.7%) vs 76 (11.4%) (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.69-1.27; P = .73). CONCLUSION: In this trial comparing sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting coronary stents, there were no differences in the rates of binary restenosis or major adverse cardiac events. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00235092.

Early and late coronary stent thrombosis of sirolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents in routine clinical practice: data from a large two-institutional cohort study

BACKGROUND: Stent thrombosis is a safety concern associated with use of drug-eluting stents. Little is known about occurrence of stent thrombosis more than 1 year after implantation of such stents. METHODS: Between April, 2002, and Dec, 2005, 8146 patients underwent percutaneous coronary intervention with sirolimus-eluting stents (SES; n=3823) or paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES; n=4323) at two academic hospitals. We assessed data from this group to ascertain the incidence, time course, and correlates of stent thrombosis, and the differences between early (0-30 days) and late (>30 days) stent thrombosis and between SES and PES. FINDINGS: Angiographically documented stent thrombosis occurred in 152 patients (incidence density 1.3 per 100 person-years; cumulative incidence at 3 years 2.9%). Early stent thrombosis was noted in 91 (60%) patients, and late stent thrombosis in 61 (40%) patients. Late stent thrombosis occurred steadily at a constant rate of 0.6% per year up to 3 years after stent implantation. Incidence of early stent thrombosis was similar for SES (1.1%) and PES (1.3%), but late stent thrombosis was more frequent with PES (1.8%) than with SES (1.4%; p=0.031). At the time of stent thrombosis, dual antiplatelet therapy was being taken by 87% (early) and 23% (late) of patients (p<0.0001). Independent predictors of overall stent thrombosis were acute coronary syndrome at presentation (hazard ratio 2.28, 95% CI 1.29-4.03) and diabetes (2.03, 1.07-3.83). INTERPRETATION: Late stent thrombosis was encountered steadily with no evidence of diminution up to 3 years of follow-up. Early and late stent thrombosis were observed with SES and with PES. Acute coronary syndrome at presentation and diabetes were independent predictors of stent thrombosis.

Coronary collateral flow in response to endurance exercise training

BACKGROUND: In humans, it is not known whether physical endurance exercise training promotes coronary collateral growth. The following hypotheses were tested: the expected collateral flow reduction after percutaneous coronary intervention of a stenotic lesion is prevented by endurance exercise training; collateral flow supplied to an angiographically normal coronary artery improves in response to exercise training; there is a direct relationship between the change of fitness after training and the coronary collateral flow change. METHODS AND RESULTS: Forty patients (age 61+/-8 years) underwent a 3-month endurance exercise training program with baseline and follow-up assessments of coronary collateral flow. Patients were divided into an exercise training group (n=24) and a sedentary group (n=16) according to the fact whether they adhered or not to the prescribed exercise program, and whether or not they showed increased endurance (VO2max in ml/min per kg) and performance (W/kg) during follow-up versus baseline bicycle spiroergometry. Collateral flow index (no unit) was obtained using pressure sensor guidewires positioned in the coronary artery undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention and in a normal vessel. In the vessel initially undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, there was an increase in collateral flow index among exercising but not sedentary patients from 0.155+/-0.081 to 0.204+/-0.056 (P=0.03) and from 0.189+/-0.084 to 0.212+/-0.077 (NS), respectively. In the normal vessel, collateral flow index changes were from 0.176+/-0.075 to 0.227+/-0.070 in the exercise group (P=0.0002), and from 0.219+/-0.103 to 0.238+/-0.086 in the sedentary group (NS). A direct correlation existed between the change in collateral flow index from baseline to follow-up and the respective alteration of VO2max (P=0.007) and Watt (P=0.03). CONCLUSION: A 3-month endurance exercise training program augments coronary collateral supply to normal vessels, and even to previously stenotic arteries having undergone percutaneous coronary intervention before initiating the program. There appears to be a dose-response relation between coronary collateral flow augmentation and exercise capacity gained.

10-year follow-up of a prospective randomized trial comparing bare-metal stenting with internal mammary artery grafting for proximal, isolated de novo left anterior coronary artery stenosis the SIMA (Stenting versus Internal Mammary Artery grafting) trial

OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to compare the long-term clinical outcome of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) with intracoronary stenting of patients with isolated proximal left anterior descending coronary artery. BACKGROUND: Although numerous trials have compared coronary angioplasty with bypass surgery, none assessed the clinical evaluation in the long term. METHODS: We evaluated the 10-year clinical outcome in the SIMA (Stent versus Internal Mammary Artery grafting) trial. Patients were randomly assigned to stent implantation versus CABG. RESULTS: Of 123 randomized patients, 59 underwent CABG and 62 received a stent (2 patients were excluded). Follow-up after 10 years was obtained for 98% of the randomized patients. Twenty-six patients (42%) in the percutaneous coronary intervention group and 10 patients (17%) in the CABG group reached an end point (p < 0.001). This difference was due to a higher need for additional revascularization. The incidences of death and myocardial infarction were identical at 10%. Progression of the disease requiring additional revascularization was rare (5%) and was similar for the 2 groups. Stent thrombosis occurred in 2 patients (3%). Angina functional class showed no significant differences between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: Both stent implantation and CABG are safe and highly effective in relieving symptoms in patients with isolated, proximal left anterior descending coronary artery stenosis. Stenting with bare-metal stents is associated with a higher need for repeat interventions. The long-term prognosis for these patients is excellent with either mode of revascularization.

Impact of drug-eluting stent selection on long-term clinical outcomes in patients treated for unprotected left main coronary artery disease: the sirolimus vs paclitaxel drug-eluting stent for left main registry (SP-DELFT)

AIM: To compare the long-term relative efficacy and safety of SES and PES in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) disease and to evaluate the role of lesion location and stenting technique in determining outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS: From April 2002 to April 2004, 288 consecutive patients who underwent elective PCI with DES implantation for de novo lesions on ULMCA have been retrospectively selected and analyzed in seven European and US tertiary care centers. All patients had a minimum follow-up of 3 years. SES was used in 152 patients while 136 received PES. Isolated ostial-shaft disease was present in 27% of patients. Distal LM disease (73%) was treated with single and double stent approach in 29.5% and 43.4% of patients respectively. After 3 years, rates of survival free from any of the events investigated, were independent from lesion location and stenting approach and did not differ significantly between SES and PES groups. Freedom from MACE (SES vs. PES) was 76.3% vs. 83.1% in the ostial/shaft group, 80.3% vs. 72.8% in the distal-single stent group and 67.1% vs. 66.2% in the distal-double stent group. Definite stent thrombosis occurred only in 1(0.3%) patient at 439 days. CONCLUSIONS: In elective patients who underwent PCI for de novo lesions in the ostium, shaft or distal ULMCA, long-term clinical outcomes with SES and PES use were similar independently of lesion location and stenting technique.

Longest available clinical outcomes after drug-eluting stent implantation for unprotected left main coronary artery disease: the DELFT (Drug Eluting stent for LeFT main) Registry

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to investigate the long-term safety and efficacy of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation for unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) disease. BACKGROUND: Long-term clinical outcomes after DES implantation for ULMCA disease have not yet been ascertained. METHODS: From April 2002 to April 2004, 358 consecutive patients who underwent PCI with DES implantation for de novo lesions on ULMCA were retrospectively selected and analyzed in 7 European and U.S. tertiary care centers. No patients were excluded from the analysis, and all patients had a minimum follow-up of 3 years. RESULTS: Technical success rate was 100%. Procedural success rate was 89.6%. After 3 years, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE)-free survival in the whole population was 73.5%. According to the Academic Research Consortium definitions, cardiac death occurred in 9.2% of patients, and reinfarction, target lesion revascularization (TLR), and target vessel revascularization (TVR) occurred in 8.6%, 5.8%, and 14.2% of patients, respectively. Definite stent thrombosis occurred in 2 patients (specifically at 0 and 439 days). In elective patients, the 3-year MACE-free survival was 74.2%, with mortality, reinfarction, TLR, and TVR rates of 6.2%, 8.3%, 6.6%, and 16%, respectively. In the emergent group the 3-year MACE-free survival was 68.2%, with mortality, reinfarction, TLR, and TVR rates of 21.4%, 10%, 2.8%, and 7.1%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Routine DES implantation in ULMCA disease seems encouraging, with favorable long-term clinical results.

Simultaneous subacute coronary drug-eluting stent thrombosis in two different vessels of a patient with factor V Leiden mutation

We review the case of a 46-year-old man who underwent elective percutaneous coronary intervention and stenting of the left anterior descending artery and right coronary artery with two sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stents. Four days after angioplasty, he was readmitted with cardiogenic shock due to acute anterior and inferior myocardial infarction. Coronary angiography revealed subacute thrombosis of both stents, and balloon dilation was performed successfully thereafter. The follow-up investigations revealed that the patient was a carrier of factor V Leiden. We hereby discuss the importance of factor V Leiden as the most common cause of hypercoagulable state and its probable role in acute and subacute coronary stent thrombosis in drug-eluting stents.

Rotational atherectomy followed by drug-eluting stent implantation (Rota-DES): a rational approach for complex calcified coronary lesions

Rotational atherectomy has been regaining interest over the last couple of years after it almost has disappeared from most interventional catheterization laboratories for several years due to failure to prove its original concept of improving long term results of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) as was repeatedly shown in studies in the 1990s. Its revival coupled the introduction of drug-eluting stents (DES); these devices have led to treating much more complex lesions and high-risk patients by PCI. However, real-world experience suggested that off-label use of DES is associated with a higher rate of early and late stent thrombosis. Therefore, more attention is now being paid to the initial implantation technique of DES including aggressive lesion preparation to facilitate stent delivery and expansion. The limited studies with rot-ablation and DES showed promising results with no long term safety concerns. In these studies, a subtle observation was made suggesting that rot-ablation prior to DES implantation in such lesions may have an add-on effect on long term outcome compared to DES alone. An ongoing multicenter study is investigating such effect among complex calcified coronary lesions. Even if this additive benefit does not prove true, rot-ablation remains an efficient tool for preparing certain lesions to facilitate effective and safe DES implantation. Therefore, interventional training programs should focus on this difficult technique to bridge the gap of experience which resulted from neglecting it for several years. In this regard, dedicated courses at experienced sites as well as medical simulation may be appropriate.

Endothelin-1 and acute myocardial infarction: a no-reflow mediator after successful percutaneous myocardial revascularization

AIMS: No-reflow after a primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is associated with a high incidence of left ventricular (LV) failure and a poor prognosis. Endothelin-1 (ET-1) is a potent endothelium-derived vasoconstrictor peptide and an important modulator of neutrophil function. Elevated systemic ET-1 levels have recently been reported to predict a poor prognosis in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) treated by primary PCI. We aimed to investigate the relationship between systemic ET-1 plasma levels and no-reflow in a group of AMI patients treated by primary PCI. METHODS AND RESULTS: A group of 51 patients (age 59+/-9.9 years, 44 males) with a first AMI, undergoing successful primary or rescue PCI, were included in the study. Angiographic no-reflow was defined as coronary TIMI flow grade < or =2 or TIMI flow 3 with a final myocardial blush grade < or =2. Blood samples were obtained from all patients on admission for ET-1 levels measurement. No reflow was observed in 31 patients (61%). Variables associated with no-reflow at univariate analysis included culprit lesion of the left anterior coronary descending artery (LAD) (67 vs. 29%, P=0.006) and ET-1 plasma levels (3.95+/-0.7 vs. 3.3+/-0.8 pg/mL, P=0.004). At multivariable logistic regression analysis, ET-1 was the only significant predictor of no-reflow (P=0.03) together with LAD as the culprit vessel (P=0.04). CONCLUSION: ET-1 plasma levels predict angiographic no-reflow after successful primary or rescue PCI. These findings suggest that ET-1 antagonists might be beneficial in the management of no-reflow.

Revascularisation of coronary artery disease in patients with diabetes mellitus

Diabetes mellitus is becoming increasingly prevalent and magnifies the risk of cardiovascular complications. Endothelial dysfunction caused by oxidative stress is a hallmark of diabetes and is responsible for the ubiquitous manifestations of vascular disease in diabetics. Compared with non-diabetic patients, coronary artery disease is more severe and the clinical outcome impaired in diabetic patients undergoing revascularisation. Despite these limitations the benefit of revascularisation therapy is particularly pronounced in diabetics. The optimal revascularisation strategy (coronary artery bypass graft surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention) in diabetic patients with coronary artery disease depends on clinical and anatomical considerations.

Diabetes and acute coronary syndromes

Diabetic patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACSs) are at a high risk for subsequent cardiovascular events but derive, at the same time, greater benefit from evidence-based therapy than non-diabetic individuals. State-of-the-art anti-thrombotic therapy includes a triple anti-platelet combination - aspirin, clopidogrel and glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitors - and unfractionated heparin or enoxaparin. For low- or medium-risk individuals, a treatment based on aspirin, clopidogrel and bivalirudin is a valuable alternative. Prasugrel, a new and more potent inhibitor of the platelet P2Y(12) receptor, has to be regarded as the most promising anti-thrombotic agent for diabetic patients with ACS. This agent may replace clopidogrel - and possibly GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors - in the future. In addition to aggressive anti-thrombotic therapy, diabetic patients should undergo systematic early invasive angiography if presenting with non-ST-segment elevation ACS, and immediate percutaneous coronary intervention if presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Indeed, the benefit derived from these strategies appears to be more pronounced in the diabetic population than in non-diabetic individuals. Despite the benefit, multiple surveys have demonstrated that, in the setting of ACS, diabetic patients receive evidence-based therapy less frequently than non-diabetic counterparts.

Percutaneous closure of a postinfarction ventricular septal defect and an iatrogenic left ventricular free-wall perforation using two Amplatzer muscular VSD occluders

A 83-year-old woman underwent percutaneous closure of postinfarction ventricular septal defect following anteroseptal myocardial infarction and percutaneous coronary intervention with stent implantation of the left anterior descending coronary artery. Postinfarction percutaneous ventricular septal defect closure was initially complicated by an iatrogenic left ventricular free-wall perforation. Both defects were closed using two Amplatzer muscular VSD occluders during the same session.

[The role of percutaneus coronary interventions in the treatment of coronary artery disease]

In industrial countries, cardiovascular diseases remain the primary cause of death. This review summarizes the role of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) in the treatment of coronary heart disease. Interventional therapy of coronary artery disease was initiated in 1977 with the introduction of balloon angioplasty by Andreas Grüntzig in Zurich. Technical progress since has been related to construction and materials of catheters, but also to digital processing of x-ray imaging. Additional methods - rotablation, atherectomy, laser, intravascular ultrasound, and most importantly stent implantation were developed. Only stents significantly changed the procedure. They are today an integral part of PCI.

Comparison of long versus short ("spot") drug-eluting stenting for long coronary stenoses

We compared spot drug-eluting stenting (DES) to full stent coverage for treatment of long coronary stenoses. Consecutive, consenting patients with a long (>20 mm) coronary lesion of nonuniform severity and indication for percutaneous coronary intervention were randomized to full stent coverage of the atherosclerotic lesion with multiple, overlapping stenting (full DES group, n = 90) or spot stenting of hemodynamically significant parts of the lesion only (defined as diameter stenosis >50%; spot DES group, n = 89). At 1-year follow-up, 14 patients with full DES (15.6%) and 5 patients (5.6%) with spot DES had a major adverse cardiac event (MACE; p = 0.031). At 3 years, MACEs occurred in 18 patients with full DES (20%) and 7 patients (7.8%) with spot DES (p = 0.019). Cox proportional hazard model showed that the risk for MACEs was almost 60% lower in patients with spot DES compared to those with full DES (hazard ratio 0.41, 95% confidence interval 0.17 to 0.98, p = 0.044). This association remained even after controlling for age, gender, lesion length, and type of stent used (hazard ratio 0.42, 95% confidence interval 0.17 to 1.00, p = 0.05). In conclusion, total lesion coverage with DES is not necessary in the presence of diffuse disease of nonuniform severity. Selective stenting of only the significantly stenosed parts of the lesion is an appropriate therapeutic alternative in this setting, offering a favorable clinical outcome.