Outcome of elderly patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction

AIM: To investigate the outcome of primary percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) in elderly patients (>/=>/=75 years) with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). METHODS AND RESULTS: Between 1995 and 2003, a total of 319 consecutive patients with acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction presenting within 6-12 hr after onset of symptoms were prospectively enrolled in a registry. Of 296 patients undergoing primary PCI, 40 patients were >/=>/=75 years old (group A) and 256 patients younger than 75 years (group B). Elderly patients presented with a lower ejection fraction (49 +/- 14% vs. 53 +/- 13%, P = 0.046) and a higher number of cardiovascular risk factors. PCI success was achieved in 80% (group A) and 91% (group B, P = 0.031), respectively with comparable door-to-balloon times (87 +/- 49 and 95 +/- 79 min, P = ns). Periprocedural complications in both groups were low and major adverse cardiac events (death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization and cardiac rehospitalization) after 6 months amounted to 23% (group A) and 20% (group B, P = ns), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical outcome of elderly patients (>/=>/=75 years) with acute STEMI is favorable and comparable with the middle-aged population. However, procedural success was significantly lower in elderly (80%) compared to younger patients (90%). Acute percutaneous coronary intervention appears to be safe and not associated with higher periprocedural complications, in elderly patients.

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.