[Preoperative preparation of patients with cardiovascular disease for noncardiac surgery]

Preoperative preparation of patients with cardiovascular disease is best initiated by the general practitioner. Updated Guidelines on Perioperative Cardiovascular Evaluation and Care for Noncardiac Surgery have been published by the American Heart Association und American College of Cardiology (2007). Individual cardiac evaluation must take into account active cardiac conditions, functional capacity, additional clinical risk factors and surgical risk. Stable, asymptomatic patients with normal functional capacity can proceed to elective anesthesia and surgery without further cardiac evaluation. Active cardiac conditions require evaluation and treatment by a cardiology service prior to elective surgery. In stable patients with poor (<4 metabolic equivalents, MET) or unknown functional capacity and clinical risk factors, who are scheduled for intermediate- or high-risk surgery, further cardiac evaluation and preparation is to be considered. Established indicated beta blocker and statin medication is to be continued; timely institution of beta blocker medication (target heart rate, <65 bpm) may be required depending on the risk of surgery, the presence of coronary heart disease, and the number of clinical risk factors present. Following percutaneous coronary intervention, specific waiting periods are required prior to elective surgery. In patients on antiplatelet therapy, the risk of stopping it should be weighed against the benefit of reduction in bleeding complications from the planned surgery.

The HeartQoL: Part II. Validation of a new core health-related quality of life questionnaire for patients with ischemic heart disease

Background: Evaluation of health-related quality of life (HRQL) is important in improving the quality of patient care. The aim of this study was to determine the psychometric properties of the HeartQoL in patients with ischemic heart disease (IHD), specifically angina, myocardial infarction (MI), or ischemic heart failure. Methods: Data for the interim validation of the HeartQoL questionnaire were collected in (a) a cross-sectional survey and (b) a prospective substudy of patients undergoing either a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or referred to cardiac rehabilitation (CR) and were then analyzed to determine the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the HeartQoL questionnaire. Results: We enrolled 6384 patients (angina, n = 2111, 33.1%; MI, n = 2351, 36.8%; heart failure, n = 1922, 30.1%) across 22 countries speaking 15 languages in the cross-sectional study and 730 patients with IHD in the prospective substudy. The HeartQoL questionnaire comprises 14-items with physical and emotional subscales and a global score (range 0–3 (poor to better HRQL). Cronbach’s α was consistently ≥0.80; convergent validity correlations between similar HeartQoL and SF-36 subscales were significant (r ≥ 0.60, p < 0.001); discriminative validity was confirmed with predictor variables: health transition, anxiety, depression, and functional status. HeartQoL score changes following either PCI or CR were significant (p < 0.001) with effect sizes ranging from 0.37–0.64. Conclusion: The HeartQoL questionnaire is reliable, valid, and responsive to change allowing clinicians and researchers to (a) assess baseline HRQL, (b) make between-diagnosis comparisons of HRQL, and (c) evaluate change in HRQL in patients with angina, MI, or heart failure with a single IHD-specific HRQL instrument.

Death by patent foramen ovale in a soccer player

A 34-year-old male patient was referred for primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock and was found to have embolic left coronary artery occlusion and subsegmental pulmonary artery emboli as a consequence of venous thrombosis to trauma to the thigh in the presence of a patent foramen ovale.

First Clinical Experience With Celt ACD(®) : A Femoral Arterial Puncture Closure Device

Introduction This prospective nonrandomized study compared the safety and efficacy of a novel arterial closure device (ACD) in common femoral artery procedures to that of the FDA submitted historical manual pressure control group, who underwent either a diagnostic angiogram (DA) or a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) procedure. Methods and Results A total of 55 patients were enrolled in this study of the novel ACD. Of the 55 patients, 39 were enrolled in the DA group and 16 were enrolled in the PCI group. Six patients were excluded. A device was deployed in 49 patients. Time to hemostasis (TTH), time to ambulation (TTA), device function, and device-related vascular complications were measured. In the device group, the TTH for the combined DA and PCI patients was 32 seconds (0.54 ± 0.93 minutes), significantly lower when compared with 16.0 ± 12.2 minutes (P < 0.0001) for the control group. Overall major vascular complication rate did not differ significantly, device group (1/49) and the historical control group (1/217). TTA in the combined PCI and DA device group was 226.4 ± 231.9 at the German site (site ambulation policy). In the Irish site, the average TTA in the PCI group was 187 minutes (n = 8) and 85 minutes (n = 14) in the DA group. Conclusion The Celt ACD® device is safe, effective, and significantly decreases the TTH compared to manual pressure and has a low vascular complications rate. The device may be effective in early ambulation and discharge of patients postcoronary intervention procedures.

Biolimus-Eluting Stents With Biodegradable Polymer Versus Bare-Metal Stents in Acute Myocardial Infarction: Two-Year Clinical Results of the COMFORTABLE AMI Trial

BACKGROUND This study sought to determine whether the 1-year differences in major adverse cardiac event between a stent eluting biolimus from a biodegradable polymer and bare-metal stents (BMSs) in the COMFORTABLE trial (Comparison of Biolimus Eluted From an Erodible Stent Coating With Bare Metal Stents in Acute ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction) were sustained during long-term follow-up. METHODS AND RESULTS A total of 1061 patients were randomly assigned to biolimus-eluting stent (BES) and BMS at 11 centers, and follow-up rates at 2 years were 96.3%. A subgroup of 103 patients underwent angiography at 13 months. At 2 years, differences in the primary end point of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization continued to diverge in favor of BES-treated patients (5.8%) compared with BMS-treated patients (11.9%; hazard ratio=0.48; 95% confidence interval, 0.31-0.72; P<0.001) with a significant risk reduction during the second year of follow-up (hazard ratio 1-2 years=0.45; 95% confidence interval, 0.20-1.00; P=0.049). Differences in the primary end point were driven by a reduction in target lesion revascularization (3.1% versus 8.2%; P<0.001) and target-vessel reinfarction (1.3% versus 3.4%; P=0.023). The composite of death, any reinfarction and revascularization (14.5% versus 19.3%; P=0.03), and cardiac death or target-vessel myocardial infarction (4.2% versus 7.2%; P=0.036) were less frequent among BES-treated patients compared with BMS-treated patients. The 13-month angiographic in-stent percent diameter stenosis amounted to 12.0±7.2 in BES- and 39.6±25.2 in BMS-treated lesions (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention, BES continued to improve cardiovascular events compared with BMS beyond 1 year.

The Impact of Renal Impairment on Long-Term Safety and Effectiveness of Drug-Eluting Stents

BACKGROUND Renal impairment (RI) is associated with impaired prognosis in patients with coronary artery disease. Clinical and angiographic outcomes of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with the use of drug-eluting stents (DES) in this patient population are not well established. METHODS We pooled individual data for 5,011 patients from 3 trials with the exclusive and unrestricted use of DES (SIRTAX - N = 1,012, LEADERS - N = 1,707, RESOLUTE AC - N = 2,292). Angiographic follow-up was available for 1,544 lesions. Outcomes through 2 years were stratified according to glomerular filtration rate (normal renal function: GFR≥90 ml/min; mild RI: 90

Long-Term Comparison of Everolimus-Eluting and Biolimus-Eluting Stents in All-Comer Patients

AIMS: Second-generation everolimus-eluting stents (EES) are safer and more efficient than first-generation paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES). Third-generation biolimus-eluting stents (BES) have been found to be non-inferior to PES. To date, there is no available comparative study between EES and BES. We aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of BES with biodegradable polymer compared to EES with durable polymer at a follow-up of two years in an unselected population of consecutively enrolled patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: A group of 814 consecutive patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was enrolled between 2007 and 2010, of which 527 were treated with EES and 287 with BES implantation. Clinical outcome was compared in 200 pairs using propensity score matching. The primary endpoint was a composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI) and target vessel revascularisation (TVR) at two-year follow-up. Median follow-up was 22 months. The primary outcome occurred in 11.5% of EES and 10.5% of BES patients (HR 1.11, 95% CI: 0.61-2.00, p=0.74). At two years, there was no significant difference with regard to death (HR 0.49, 95% CI: 0.18-1.34, p=0.17), cardiac death (HR 0.14, 95% CI: 0.02-1.14, p=0.66) or MI (HR 6.10, 95% CI: 0.73-50.9, p=0.10). Stent thrombosis (ST) incidence was evenly distributed between EES (n=2) and BES (n=2) (p-value=1.0). CONCLUSIONS: This first clinical study failed to demonstrate any significant difference regarding safety or efficacy between these two types and generations of drug-eluting stents (DES).

Comparison of everolimus- and biolimus-eluting stents with everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold stents: study protocol of the randomized controlled EVERBIO II

BACKGROUND: Second-generation everolimus-eluting stents (EES) and third generation biolimus-eluting stents (BES) have been shown to be superior to first-generation paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) and second-generation sirolimus-eluting stents (SES). However, neointimal proliferation and very late stent thrombosis is still an unresolved issue of drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation overall. The Absorb™ (Abbott Vascular, Abbott Park, IL, USA) is the first CE approved DES with a bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) thought to reduce long-term complication rates. The EVERBIO II trial was set up to compare the BVS safety and efficacy with both EES and BES in all patients viable for inclusion. METHODS/DESIGN: The EVERBIO II trial is a single-center, assessor-blinded, randomized trial. The study population consists of all patients aged≥18 years old undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Exclusion criterion is where the lesion cannot be treated with BVS (reference vessel diameter>4.0 mm). A total of 240 patients will be enrolled and randomly assigned into 3 groups of 80 with either BVS, EES or BES implantation. All patients will undergo a follow-up angiography study at 9 months. Clinical follow-up for up to 5 years will be conducted by telephone. The primary endpoint is in-segment late lumen loss at 9 months measured by quantitative coronary angiography. Secondary endpoints are patient-oriented major adverse cardiac event (MACE) (death, myocardial infarction and target-vessel revascularization), device-oriented MACE (cardiac death, myocardial infarction and target-lesion revascularization), stent thrombosis according to ARC and binary restenosis at follow-up 12 months angiography. DISCUSSION: EVERBIO II is an independent, randomized study, aiming to compare the clinical efficacy, angiographic outcomes and safety of BVS, EES and BES in all comer patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial listed in clinicaltrials.gov as NCT01711931.

Biolimus-eluting stent with biodegradable polymer improves clinical outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction

OBJECTIVE To investigate clinical outcomes of coronary intervention using a biolimus-eluting stent (BES) compared with a sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in the Limus Eluted from A Durable versus ERodable Stent (LEADERS) coating trial at the final 5-year follow-up. METHODS The LEADERS trial is a multicentre all-comer study, where patients (n=1707) were randomised to percutaneous intervention with either BES containing biodegradable polymer or SES containing durable polymer. Out of 1707 patients enrolled in this trial, 573 patients had percutaneous coronary intervention for AMI (BES=280, SES=293) and were included in the current analysis. Patient-oriented composite endpoint (POCE, including all death, all myocardial infarction (MI) and all revascularisations), major adverse cardiac events (MACE, including cardiac death, MI and clinically indicated target vessel revascularisation) and stent thrombosis were assessed at 5-year follow-up. RESULTS The baseline clinical, angiographic and procedural characteristics were well matched between BES and SES groups. In all patients with AMI, coronary intervention with a BES, compared with SES, significantly reduced POCE (28.9% vs 42.3%; relative risk (RR) 0.61, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.82, p=0.001) at 5-year follow-up. There was also a reduction in MACE rate in the BES group (18.2% vs 25.9%; RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.95, p=0.025); however, there was no difference in cardiac death and stent thrombosis. In patients with ST-elevation MI (STEMI), coronary intervention with BES significantly reduced POCE (24.4% vs 39.3%; RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.85, p=0.006), MACE (12.6% vs 25.0%; RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.83, p=0.008) and cardiac death (3.0% vs 11.4%; RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.75, p=0.007), along with a trend towards reduction in definite stent thrombosis (3.7% vs 8.6%; RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.18, p=0.088), compared with SES. CONCLUSIONS BES, compared with SES, significantly improved safety and efficacy outcomes in patients with AMI, especially those with STEMI, at 5-year follow-up. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER NCT 00389220.

Drug-eluting stents vs. bare metal stents in patients with cardiogenic shock: a comparison by propensity score analysis.

BACKGROUND In patients with cardiogenic shock, data on the comparative safety and efficacy of drug-eluting stents (DESs) vs. bare metal stents (BMSs) are lacking. We sought to assess the performance of DESs compared with BMSs among patients with cardiogenic shock undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS Out of 236 patients with acute coronary syndromes complicated by cardiogenic shock, 203 were included in the final analysis. The primary endpoint included death, and the secondary endpoint of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs) included the composite of death, myocardial infarction, any repeat revascularization and stroke. Patients were followed for a minimum of 30 days and up to 4 years. As stent assignment was not random, we performed a propensity score analysis to minimize potential bias. RESULTS Among patients treated with DESs, there was a lower risk of the primary and secondary endpoints compared with BMSs at 30 days (29 vs. 56%, P < 0.001; 34 vs. 58%, P = 0.001, respectively) and during long-term follow-up [hazard ratio 0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.29-0.65, P < 0.001; hazard ratio 0.49, 95% CI 0.34-0.71, P < 0.001, respectively]. After propensity score adjustment, all-cause mortality was reduced among patients treated with DESs compared with BMSs both at 30 days [adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.26, 95% CI 0.11-0.62; P = 0.002] and during long-term follow-up (adjusted hazard ratio 0.40, 95% CI 0.22-0.72; P = 0.002). The rate of MACCE was lower among patients treated with DESs compared with those treated with BMSs at 30 days (adjusted OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.19-0.95; P = 0.036). The difference in MACCEs between devices approached significance during long-term follow-up (adjusted hazard ratio 0.60, 95% CI 0.34-1.01; P = 0.052). CONCLUSION DESs appear to be associated with improved clinical outcomes, including a reduction in all-cause mortality compared with BMSs among patients undergoing PCI for cardiogenic shock, possibly because of a pacification of the infarct-related artery by anti-inflammatory drug. The results of this observational study require confirmation in an appropriately powered randomized trial.

Reperfusion therapy for ST elevation acute myocardial infarction 2010/2011: current status in 37 ESC countries

AIMS Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) is the preferred reperfusion therapy in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). We conducted this study to evaluate the contemporary status on the use and type of reperfusion therapy in patients admitted with STEMI in the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) member countries. METHODS AND RESULTS A cross-sectional descriptive study based on aggregated country-level data on the use of reperfusion therapy in patients admitted with STEMI during 2010 or 2011. Thirty-seven ESC countries were able to provide data from existing national or regional registries. In countries where no such registries exist, data were based on best expert estimates. Data were collected on the use of STEMI reperfusion treatment and mortality, the numbers of cardiologists, and the availability of PPCI facilities in each country. Our survey provides a brief data summary of the degree of variation in reperfusion therapy across Europe. The number of PPCI procedures varied between countries, ranging from 23 to 884 per million inhabitants. Primary percutaneous coronary intervention and thrombolysis were the dominant reperfusion strategy in 33 and 4 countries, respectively. The mean population served by a single PPCI centre with a 24-h service 7 days a week ranged from 31 300 inhabitants per centre to 6 533 000 inhabitants per centre. Twenty-seven of the total 37 countries participated in a former survey from 2007, and major increases in PPCI utilization were observed in 13 of these countries. CONCLUSION Large variations in reperfusion treatment are still present across Europe. Countries in Eastern and Southern Europe reported that a substantial number of STEMI patients are not receiving any reperfusion therapy. Implementation of the best reperfusion therapy as recommended in the guidelines should be encouraged.

Safety and efficacy of resolute zotarolimus-eluting stents compared with everolimus-eluting stents: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND Although new-generation drug-eluting stents represent the standard of care among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, there remains debate about differences in efficacy and the risk of stent thrombosis between the Resolute zotarolimus-eluting stent (R-ZES) and the everolimus-eluting stent (EES). The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the R-ZES compared with EES in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS AND RESULTS A systematic literature search of electronic resources was performed using specific search terms until September 2014. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed comparing clinical outcomes between patients treated with R-ZES and EES up to maximum available follow-up. The primary efficacy end point was target-vessel revascularization. The primary safety end point was definite or probable stent thrombosis. Secondary safety end points were cardiac death and target-vessel myocardial infarction. Five trials were identified, including a total of 9899 patients. Compared with EES, R-ZES had similar risks of target-vessel revascularization (risk ratio [RR], 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90-1.24; P=0.50), definite or probable stent thrombosis (RR, 1.26; 95% CI, 0.86-1.85; P=0.24), cardiac death (RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.79-1.30; P=0.91), and target-vessel myocardial infarction (RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.89-1.36; P=0.39). Moreover, R-ZES and EES had similar risks of late definite or probable very late stent thrombosis (RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.53-2.11; P=0.87). No evidence of significant heterogeneity was observed across trials. CONCLUSIONS R-ZES and EES provide similar safety and efficacy among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

Aspiration Thrombectomy for Treatment of ST-segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: a Meta-analysis of 26 Randomized Trials in 11 943 Patients.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES There is continued debate about the routine use of aspiration thrombectomy in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Our aim was to evaluate clinical and procedural outcomes of aspiration thrombectomy-assisted primary percutaneous coronary intervention compared with conventional primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. METHODS We performed a meta-analysis of 26 randomized controlled trials with a total of 11 943 patients. Clinical outcomes were extracted up to maximum follow-up and random effect models were used to assess differences in outcomes. RESULTS We observed no difference in the risk of all-cause death (pooled risk ratio = 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-1.04; P = .124), reinfarction (pooled risk ratio = 0.85; 95% confidence interval, 0.67-1.08; P = .176), target vessel revascularization (pooled risk ratio = 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.73-1.00; P = .052), or definite stent thrombosis (pooled risk ratio = 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.49-1.16; P = .202) between the 2 groups at a mean weighted follow-up time of 10.4 months. There were significant reductions in failure to reach Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction 3 flow (pooled risk ratio = 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.81; P < .001) or myocardial blush grade 3 (pooled risk ratio = 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.65-0.89; P = .001), incomplete ST-segment resolution (pooled risk ratio = 0.72; 95% confidence interval, 0.62-0.84; P < .001), and evidence of distal embolization (pooled risk ratio = 0.61; 95% confidence interval, 0.46-0.81; P = .001) with aspiration thrombectomy but estimates were heterogeneous between trials. CONCLUSIONS Among unselected patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, aspiration thrombectomy-assisted primary percutaneous coronary intervention does not improve clinical outcomes, despite improved epicardial and myocardial parameters of reperfusion. Full English text available from:www.revespcardiol.org/en.

First generation versus second generation drug-eluting stents for the treatment of bifurcations: 5-year follow-up of the LEADERS all-comers randomized trial.

BACKGROUND Historically, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of bifurcation lesions was associated with worse procedural and clinical outcomes when compared with PCI of non-bifurcation lesions. Newer generation drug-eluting stents (DES) might improve long-term clinical outcomes after bifurcation PCI. METHODS AND RESULTS The LEADERS trial was a 10-center, assessor-blind, non-inferiority, all-comers trial, randomizing 1,707 patients to treatment with a biolimus A9(TM) -eluting stent (BES) with an abluminal biodegradable polymer or a sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) with a durable polymer (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00389220). Five-year clinical outcomes were compared between patients with and without bifurcation lesions and between BES and SES in the bifurcation lesion subgroup. There were 497 (29%) patients with at least 1 bifurcation lesion (BES = 258; SES = 239). At 5-year follow-up, the composite endpoint of cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI) and clinically-indicated (CI) target vessel revascularization (TVR) was observed more frequently in the bifurcation group (26.6% vs. 22.4%, P = 0.049). Within the bifurcation lesion subgroup, no differences were observed in (cardiac) death or MI rates between BES and SES. However, CI target lesion revascularization (TLR) (10.1% vs. 15.9%, P = 0.0495), and CI TVR (12.0% vs. 19.2%, P = 0.023) rates were significantly lower in the BES group. Definite/probable stent thrombosis (ST) rate was numerically lower in the BES group (3.1% vs. 5.9%, P = 0.15). Very late (>1 year) definite/probable ST rates trended to be lower with BES (0.4% vs. 3.1%, P = 0.057). CONCLUSIONS In the treatment of bifurcation lesions, use of BES led to superior long-term efficacy compared with SES. Safety outcomes were comparable between BES and SES, with an observed trend toward a lower rate of very late definite/probable ST between 1 and 5 years with the BES. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Long-term ticagrelor monotherapy versus standard dual antiplatelet therapy followed by aspirin monotherapy in patients undergoing biolimus-eluting stent implantation: rationale and design of the GLOBAL LEADERS trial

AIMS The GLOBAL LEADERS trial is a superiority study in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, with a uniform use of Biolimus A9-eluting stents (BES) and bivalirudin. GLOBAL LEADERS was designed to assess whether a 24-month antithrombotic regimen with ticagrelor and one month of acetylsalicylic acid (ASA), compared to conventional dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), improves outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS Patients (n >16,000) are randomised (1:1 ratio) to ticagrelor 90 mg twice daily for 24 months plus ASA ≤100 mg for one month versus DAPT with either ticagrelor (acute coronary syndrome) or clopidogrel (stable coronary artery disease) for 12 months plus ASA ≤100 mg for 24 months. The primary outcome is a composite of all-cause mortality or non-fatal, new Q-wave myocardial infarction at 24 months. The key safety endpoint is investigator-reported class 3 or 5 bleeding according to the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) definitions. Sensitivity analysis will be carried out to explore potential differences in outcome across geographic regions and according to specific angiographic and clinical risk estimates. CONCLUSIONS The GLOBAL LEADERS trial aims to assess the role of ticagrelor as a single antiplatelet agent after a short course of DAPT for the long-term prevention of cardiac adverse events, across a wide spectrum of patients, following BES implantation.