Percutaneous coronary interventions in Europe: prevalence, numerical estimates, and projections based on data up to 2004

AIMS: A registry mandated by the European Society of Cardiology collects data on trends in interventional cardiology within Europe. Special interest focuses on relative increases and ratios in new techniques and their distributions across Europe. We report the data through 2004 and give an overview of the development of coronary interventions since the first data collection in 1992. METHODS AND RESULTS: Questionnaires were distributed yearly to delegates of all national societies of cardiology represented in the European Society of Cardiology. The goal was to collect the case numbers of all local institutions and operators. The overall numbers of coronary angiographies increased from 1992 to 2004 from 684 000 to 2 238 000 (from 1250 to 3930 per million inhabitants). The respective numbers for percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) and coronary stenting procedures increased from 184 000 to 885 000 (from 335 to 1550) and from 3000 to 770 000 (from 5 to 1350), respectively. Germany was the most active country with 712 000 angiographies (8600), 249 000 angioplasties (3000), and 200 000 stenting procedures (2400) in 2004. The indication has shifted towards acute coronary syndromes, as demonstrated by rising rates of interventions for acute myocardial infarction over the last decade. The procedures are more readily performed and perceived safer, as shown by increasing rate of "ad hoc" PCIs and decreasing need for emergency coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). In 2004, the use of drug-eluting stents continued to rise. However, an enormous variability is reported with the highest rate in Switzerland (70%). If the rate of progression remains constant until 2010 the projected number of coronary angiographies will be over three million, and the number of PCIs about 1.5 million with a stenting rate of almost 100%. CONCLUSION: Interventional cardiology in Europe is ever expanding. New coronary revascularization procedures, alternative or complementary to balloon angioplasty, have come and gone. Only stenting has stood the test of time and matured to the default technique. Facilitated access to PCI, more complete and earlier detection of coronary artery disease promise continued growth of the procedure despite the uncontested success of prevention.

Effects of percutaneous coronary interventions in silent ischemia after myocardial infarction: the SWISSI II randomized controlled trial

CONTEXT: The effect of a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) on the long-term prognosis of patients with silent ischemia after a myocardial infarction (MI) is not known. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether PCI compared with drug therapy improves long-term outcome of asymptomatic patients with silent ischemia after an MI. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomized, unblinded, controlled trial (Swiss Interventional Study on Silent Ischemia Type II [SWISSI II]) conducted from May 2, 1991, to February 25, 1997, at 3 public hospitals in Switzerland of 201 patients with a recent MI, silent myocardial ischemia verified by stress imaging, and 1- or 2-vessel coronary artery disease. Follow-up ended on May 23, 2006. INTERVENTIONS: Percutaneous coronary intervention aimed at full revascularization (n = 96) or intensive anti-ischemic drug therapy (n = 105). All patients received 100 mg/d of aspirin and a statin. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Survival free of major adverse cardiac events defined as cardiac death, nonfatal MI, and/or symptom-driven revascularization. Secondary measures included exercise-induced ischemia and resting left ventricular ejection fraction during follow-up. RESULTS: During a mean (SD) follow-up of 10.2 (2.6) years, 27 major adverse cardiac events occurred in the PCI group and 67 events occurred in the anti-ischemic drug therapy group (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.33; 95% confidence interval, 0.20-0.55; P<.001), which corresponds to an absolute event reduction of 6.3% per year (95% confidence interval, 3.7%-8.9%; P<.001). Patients in the PCI group had lower rates of ischemia (11.6% vs 28.9% in patients in the drug therapy group at final follow-up; P = .03) despite fewer drugs. Left ventricular ejection fraction remained preserved in PCI patients (mean [SD] of 53.9% [9.9%] at baseline to 55.6% [8.1%] at final follow-up) and decreased significantly (P<.001) in drug therapy patients (mean [SD] of 59.7% [11.8%] at baseline to 48.8% [7.9%] at final follow-up). CONCLUSION: Among patients with recent MI, silent myocardial ischemia verified by stress imaging, and 1- or 2-vessel coronary artery disease, PCI compared with anti-ischemic drug therapy reduced the long-term risk of major cardiac events. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00387231.

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.

Percutaneous coronary revascularization in patients with formerly "refractory angina pectoris in end-stage coronary artery disease" - not "end-stage" after all

BACKGROUND: Patients with refractory angina pectoris in end-stage coronary artery disease represent a severe condition with a higher reduction of life-expectancy and quality of life as compared to patients with stable coronary artery disease. It was the purpose of this study to invasively re-evaluate highly symptomatic patients with formerly diagnosed refractory angina pectoris in end-stage coronary artery disease for feasible options of myocardial revascularization. METHODS: Thirty-four patients formerly characterized as having end stage coronary artery disease with refractory angina pectoris were retrospectively followed for coronary interventions. RESULTS: Of those 34 patients 21 (61.8%) were eventually revascularized with percutaneous interventional revascularization (PCI). Due to complex coronary morphology (angulation, chronic total occlusion) PCI demanded an above-average amount of time (66 +/- 42 minutes, range 25-206 minutes) and materials (contrast media 247 +/- 209 ml, range 50-750 ml; PCI guiding wires 2.0 +/- 1.4, range 1-6 wires). Of PCI patients 7 (33.3%) showed a new lesion as a sign of progression of atherosclerosis. Clinical success rate with a reduction to angina class II or lower was 71.4% at 30 days. Surgery was performed in a total of8 (23.5%) patients with a clinical success rate of 62.5%. Based on an intention-to-treat 2 patients of originally 8 (25%) demonstrated clinical success. Mortality during follow-up (1-18 months) was 4.8% in patients who underwent PCI, 25% in patients treated surgically and 25% in those only treated medically. CONCLUSION: The majority of patients with end-stage coronary artery disease can be treated effectively with conventional invasive treatment modalities. Therefore even though it is challenging and demanding PCI should be considered as a first choice before experimental interventions are considered.

Percutaneous left ventricular assist devices during cardiogenic shock and high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions

Left ventricular assist devices were developed to support the function of a failing left ventricle. Owing to recent technological improvements, ventricular assist devices can be placed by percutaneous implantation techniques, which offer the advantage of fast implantation in the setting of acute left ventricular failure. This article reviews the growing evidence supporting the clinical use of left ventricular assist devices. Specifically, we discuss the use of left ventricular assist devices in patients with cardiogenic shock, in patients with acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction without shock, and during high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions.