Clinical impact of gastrointestinal bleeding in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions.

BACKGROUND The risk factors and clinical sequelae of gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) in the current era of drug-eluting stents, prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy, and potent P2Y12 inhibitors are not well established. We determined the frequency, predictors, and clinical impact of GIB after percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) in a contemporary cohort of consecutive patients treated with unrestricted use of drug-eluting stents. METHODS AND RESULTS Between 2009 and 2012, all consecutive patients undergoing PCI were prospectively included in the Bern PCI Registry. Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) GIB and cardiovascular outcomes were recorded within 1 year of follow-up. Among 6212 patients, 84.1% received new-generation drug-eluting stents and 19.5% received prasugrel. At 1 year, GIB had occurred in 65 patients (1.04%); 70.8% of all events and 84.4% of BARC ≥3B events were recorded >30 days after PCI. The majority of events (64.4%) were related to upper GIB with a more delayed time course compared with lower GIB. Increasing age, previous GIB, history of malignancy, smoking, and triple antithrombotic therapy (ie, oral anticoagulation plus dual antiplatelet therapy) were independent predictors of GIB in multivariable analysis. GIB was associated with increased all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 3.40; 95% confidence interval, 1.67-6.92; P=0.001) and the composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (adjusted hazard ratio, 3.75; 95% confidence interval, 1.99-7.07; P<0.001) and was an independent predictor of all-cause mortality during 1 year. CONCLUSIONS Among unselected patients undergoing PCI, GIB has a profound effect on prognosis. Triple antithrombotic therapy emerged as the single drug-related predictor of GIB in addition to patient-related risk factors within 1 year of PCI. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02241291.

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.

Clinical Outcomes According to Diabetic Status in Patients Treated With Biodegradable Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stents Versus Durable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stents: Prespecified Subgroup Analysis of the BIOSCIENCE Trial.

BACKGROUND Ultrathin strut biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (BP-SES) proved noninferior to durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (DP-EES) for a composite clinical end point in a population with minimal exclusion criteria. We performed a prespecified subgroup analysis of the Ultrathin Strut Biodegradable Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Durable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stent for Percutaneous Coronary Revascularisation (BIOSCIENCE) trial to compare the performance of BP-SES and DP-EES in patients with diabetes mellitus. METHODS AND RESULTS BIOSCIENCE trial was an investigator-initiated, single-blind, multicentre, randomized, noninferiority trial comparing BP-SES versus DP-EES. The primary end point, target lesion failure, was a composite of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically indicated target lesion revascularization within 12 months. Among a total of 2119 patients enrolled between February 2012 and May 2013, 486 (22.9%) had diabetes mellitus. Overall diabetic patients experienced a significantly higher risk of target lesion failure compared with patients without diabetes mellitus (10.1% versus 5.7%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.80; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.27-2.56; P=0.001). At 1 year, there were no differences between BP-SES versus DP-EES in terms of the primary end point in both diabetic (10.9% versus 9.3%; HR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.67-2.10; P=0.56) and nondiabetic patients (5.3% versus 6.0%; HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.58-1.33; P=0.55). Similarly, no significant differences in the risk of definite or probable stent thrombosis were recorded according to treatment arm in both study groups (4.0% versus 3.1%; HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.49-3.41; P=0.60 for diabetic patients and 2.4% versus 3.4%; HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.39-1.25; P=0.23, in nondiabetics). CONCLUSIONS In the prespecified subgroup analysis of the BIOSCIENCE trial, clinical outcomes among diabetic patients treated with BP-SES or DP-EES were comparable at 1 year. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01443104.

Circulating FABP4 Is a Prognostic Biomarker in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome but Not in Asymptomatic Individuals.

OBJECTIVE Blood-borne biomarkers reflecting atherosclerotic plaque burden have great potential to improve clinical management of atherosclerotic coronary artery disease and acute coronary syndrome (ACS). APPROACH AND RESULTS Using data integration from gene expression profiling of coronary thrombi versus peripheral blood mononuclear cells and proteomic analysis of atherosclerotic plaque-derived secretomes versus healthy tissue secretomes, we identified fatty acid-binding protein 4 (FABP4) as a biomarker candidate for coronary artery disease. Its diagnostic and prognostic performance was validated in 3 different clinical settings: (1) in a cross-sectional cohort of patients with stable coronary artery disease, ACS, and healthy individuals (n=820), (2) in a nested case-control cohort of patients with ACS with 30-day follow-up (n=200), and (3) in a population-based nested case-control cohort of asymptomatic individuals with 5-year follow-up (n=414). Circulating FABP4 was marginally higher in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (24.9 ng/mL) compared with controls (23.4 ng/mL; P=0.01). However, elevated FABP4 was associated with adverse secondary cerebrovascular or cardiovascular events during 30-day follow-up after index ACS, independent of age, sex, renal function, and body mass index (odds ratio, 1.7; 95% confidence interval, 1.1-2.5; P=0.02). Circulating FABP4 predicted adverse events with similar prognostic performance as the GRACE in-hospital risk score or N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide. Finally, no significant difference between baseline FABP4 was found in asymptomatic individuals with or without coronary events during 5-year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS Circulating FABP4 may prove useful as a prognostic biomarker in risk stratification of patients with ACS.

Bivalirudin or Unfractionated Heparin in Acute Coronary Syndromes.

Background Conflicting evidence exists on the efficacy and safety of bivalirudin administered as part of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with an acute coronary syndrome. Methods We randomly assigned 7213 patients with an acute coronary syndrome for whom PCI was anticipated to receive either bivalirudin or unfractionated heparin. Patients in the bivalirudin group were subsequently randomly assigned to receive or not to receive a post-PCI bivalirudin infusion. Primary outcomes for the comparison between bivalirudin and heparin were the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) and net adverse clinical events (a composite of major bleeding or a major adverse cardiovascular event). The primary outcome for the comparison of a post-PCI bivalirudin infusion with no post-PCI infusion was a composite of urgent target-vessel revascularization, definite stent thrombosis, or net adverse clinical events. Results The rate of major adverse cardiovascular events was not significantly lower with bivalirudin than with heparin (10.3% and 10.9%, respectively; relative risk, 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81 to 1.09; P=0.44), nor was the rate of net adverse clinical events (11.2% and 12.4%, respectively; relative risk, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.03; P=0.12). Post-PCI bivalirudin infusion, as compared with no infusion, did not significantly decrease the rate of urgent target-vessel revascularization, definite stent thrombosis, or net adverse clinical events (11.0% and 11.9%, respectively; relative risk, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.11; P=0.34). Conclusions In patients with an acute coronary syndrome, the rates of major adverse cardiovascular events and net adverse clinical events were not significantly lower with bivalirudin than with unfractionated heparin. The rate of the composite of urgent target-vessel revascularization, definite stent thrombosis, or net adverse clinical events was not significantly lower with a post-PCI bivalirudin infusion than with no post-PCI infusion. (Funded by the Medicines Company and Terumo Medical; MATRIX ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01433627 .).

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.

Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of New-Generation Versus Early-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents According to Complexity of Coronary Artery Disease: A Patient-Level Pooled Analysis of 6,081 Patients.

OBJECTIVES The purpose of this study was to compare the 2-year safety and effectiveness of new- versus early-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) according to the severity of coronary artery disease (CAD) as assessed by the SYNTAX (Synergy between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery) score. BACKGROUND New-generation DES are considered the standard-of-care in patients with CAD undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. However, there are few data investigating the effects of new- over early-generation DES according to the anatomic complexity of CAD. METHODS Patient-level data from 4 contemporary, all-comers trials were pooled. The primary device-oriented clinical endpoint was the composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target-lesion revascularization (TLR). The principal effectiveness and safety endpoints were TLR and definite stent thrombosis (ST), respectively. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated at 2 years for overall comparisons, as well as stratified for patients with lower (SYNTAX score ≤11) and higher complexity (SYNTAX score >11). RESULTS A total of 6,081 patients were included in the study. New-generation DES (n = 4,554) compared with early-generation DES (n = 1,527) reduced the primary endpoint (HR: 0.75 [95% CI: 0.63 to 0.89]; p = 0.001) without interaction (p = 0.219) between patients with lower (HR: 0.86 [95% CI: 0.64 to 1.16]; p = 0.322) versus higher CAD complexity (HR: 0.68 [95% CI: 0.54 to 0.85]; p = 0.001). In patients with SYNTAX score >11, new-generation DES significantly reduced TLR (HR: 0.36 [95% CI: 0.26 to 0.51]; p < 0.001) and definite ST (HR: 0.28 [95% CI: 0.15 to 0.55]; p < 0.001) to a greater extent than in the low-complexity group (TLR pint = 0.059; ST pint = 0.013). New-generation DES decreased the risk of cardiac mortality in patients with SYNTAX score >11 (HR: 0.45 [95% CI: 0.27 to 0.76]; p = 0.003) but not in patients with SYNTAX score ≤11 (pint = 0.042). CONCLUSIONS New-generation DES improve clinical outcomes compared with early-generation DES, with a greater safety and effectiveness in patients with SYNTAX score >11.

Stent Thrombosis in Drug-Eluting or Bare-Metal Stents in Patients Receiving Dual Antiplatelet Therapy

OBJECTIVES This study sought to compare rates of stent thrombosis and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) (composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) after coronary stenting with drug-eluting stents (DES) versus bare-metal stents (BMS) in patients who participated in the DAPT (Dual Antiplatelet Therapy) study, an international multicenter randomized trial comparing 30 versus 12 months of dual antiplatelet therapy in subjects undergoing coronary stenting with either DES or BMS. BACKGROUND Despite antirestenotic efficacy of coronary DES compared with BMS, the relative risk of stent thrombosis and adverse cardiovascular events is unclear. Many clinicians perceive BMS to be associated with fewer adverse ischemic events and to require shorter-duration dual antiplatelet therapy than DES. METHODS Prospective propensity-matched analysis of subjects enrolled into a randomized trial of dual antiplatelet therapy duration was performed. DES- and BMS-treated subjects were propensity-score matched in a many-to-one fashion. The study design was observational for all subjects 0 to 12 months following stenting. A subset of eligible subjects without major ischemic or bleeding events were randomized at 12 months to continued thienopyridine versus placebo; all subjects were followed through 33 months. RESULTS Among 10,026 propensity-matched subjects, DES-treated subjects (n = 8,308) had a lower rate of stent thrombosis through 33 months compared with BMS-treated subjects (n = 1,718, 1.7% vs. 2.6%; weighted risk difference -1.1%, p = 0.01) and a noninferior rate of MACCE (11.4% vs. 13.2%, respectively, weighted risk difference -1.8%, p = 0.053, noninferiority p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS DES-treated subjects have long-term rates of stent thrombosis that are lower than BMS-treated subjects. (The Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Study [DAPT study]; NCT00977938).

Bivalirudin Versus Heparin Anticoagulation in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: The Randomized BRAVO-3 Trial.

BACKGROUND Anticoagulation is required during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) procedures. Although an optimal regimen has not been determined, heparin is mainly used. Direct thrombin inhibition with bivalirudin may be an effective alternative to heparin as the procedural anticoagulant agent in this setting. OBJECTIVES The goal of this study was to determine whether bivalirudin offers an alternative to heparin as the procedural anticoagulant agent in patients undergoing TAVR. METHODS A total of 802 patients with aortic stenosis were randomized to undergo transfemoral TAVR with bivalirudin versus unfractionated heparin during the procedure. The 2 primary endpoints were major bleeding within 48 h or before hospital discharge (whichever occurred first) and 30-day net adverse clinical events, defined as the combination of major adverse cardiovascular events (all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, or stroke) and major bleeding. RESULTS Anticoagulation with bivalirudin versus heparin did not meet superiority because it did not result in significantly lower rates of major bleeding at 48 h (6.9% vs. 9.0%; relative risk: 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.48 to 1.23; p = 0.27) or net adverse cardiovascular events at 30 days (14.4% vs. 16.1%; relative risk: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.64 to 1.24; risk difference: -1.72; 95% CI: -6.70 to 3.25; p = 0.50); regarding the latter, the prespecified noninferiority hypothesis was met (pnoninferiority < 0.01). Rates of major adverse cardiovascular events at 48 h were not significantly different (3.5% vs. 4.8%; relative risk: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.37 to 1.43; p = 0.35). At 48 h, the bivalirudin group had significantly fewer myocardial infarctions but more acute kidney injury events than the heparin group; at 30 days, these differences were no longer significant. CONCLUSIONS In this randomized trial of TAVR procedural pharmacotherapy, bivalirudin did not reduce rates of major bleeding at 48 h or net adverse cardiovascular events within 30 days compared with heparin. Although superiority was not shown, the noninferiority hypothesis was met with respect to the latter factor. Given the lower cost, heparin should remain the standard of care, and bivalirudin can be an alternative anticoagulant option in patients unable to receive heparin in TAVR. (International, Multi-center, Open-label, Randomized Controlled Trial in Patients Undergoing TAVR to Determine the Treatment Effect [Both Safety and Efficacy] of Using Bivalirudin Instead of UFH [BRAVO-2/3]; NCT01651780).

Republished: Antiplatelet therapy for secondary prevention of coronary artery disease

The choice and duration of antiplatelet therapy for secondary prevention of coronary artery disease (CAD) is determined by the clinical context and treatment strategy. Oral antiplatelet agents for secondary prevention include the cyclo-oxygenase-1 inhibitor aspirin, and the ADP dependent P2Y12 inhibitors clopidogrel, prasugrel and ticagrelor. Aspirin constitutes the cornerstone in secondary prevention of CAD and is complemented by clopidogrel in patients with stable CAD undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Among patients with acute coronary syndrome, prasugrel and ticagrelor improve net clinical outcome by reducing ischaemic adverse events at the expense of an increased risk of bleeding as compared with clopidogrel. Prasugrel appears particularly effective among patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction to reduce the risk of stent thrombosis compared with clopidogrel, and offered a greater net clinical benefit among patients with diabetes compared with patients without diabetes. Ticagrelor is associated with reduced mortality without increasing the rate of coronary artery bypass graft (CABG)-related bleeding as compared with clopidogrel. Dual antiplatelet therapy should be continued for a minimum of 1 year among patients with acute coronary syndrome irrespective of stent type; among patients with stable CAD treated with new generation drug-eluting stents, available data suggest no benefit to prolong antiplatelet treatment beyond 6 months.

Antiplatelet therapy duration following bare metal or drug-eluting coronary stents: the dual antiplatelet therapy randomized clinical trial

IMPORTANCE Despite antirestenotic efficacy of coronary drug-eluting stents (DES) compared with bare metal stents (BMS), the relative risk of stent thrombosis and adverse cardiovascular events is unclear. Although dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) beyond 1 year provides ischemic event protection after DES, ischemic event risk is perceived to be less after BMS, and the appropriate duration of DAPT after BMS is unknown. OBJECTIVE To compare (1) rates of stent thrombosis and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE; composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) after 30 vs 12 months of thienopyridine in patients treated with BMS taking aspirin and (2) treatment duration effect within the combined cohorts of randomized patients treated with DES or BMS as prespecified secondary analyses. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS International, multicenter, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial comparing extended (30-months) thienopyridine vs placebo in patients taking aspirin who completed 12 months of DAPT without bleeding or ischemic events after receiving stents. The study was initiated in August 2009 with the last follow-up visit in May 2014. INTERVENTIONS Continued thienopyridine or placebo at months 12 through 30 after stent placement, in 11,648 randomized patients treated with aspirin, of whom 1687 received BMS and 9961 DES. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Stent thrombosis, MACCE, and moderate or severe bleeding. RESULTS Among 1687 patients treated with BMS who were randomized to continued thienopyridine vs placebo, rates of stent thrombosis were 0.5% vs 1.11% (n = 4 vs 9; hazard ratio [HR], 0.49; 95% CI, 0.15-1.64; P = .24), rates of MACCE were 4.04% vs 4.69% (n = 33 vs 38; HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.57-1.47; P = .72), and rates of moderate/severe bleeding were 2.03% vs 0.90% (n = 16 vs 7; P = .07), respectively. Among all 11,648 randomized patients (both BMS and DES), stent thrombosis rates were 0.41% vs 1.32% (n = 23 vs 74; HR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.19-0.50; P < .001), rates of MACCE were 4.29% vs 5.74% (n = 244 vs 323; HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.62-0.87; P < .001), and rates of moderate/severe bleeding were 2.45% vs 1.47% (n = 135 vs 80; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among patients undergoing coronary stent placement with BMS and who tolerated 12 months of thienopyridine, continuing thienopyridine for an additional 18 months compared with placebo did not result in statistically significant differences in rates of stent thrombosis, MACCE, or moderate or severe bleeding. However, the BMS subset may have been underpowered to identify such differences, and further trials are suggested. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00977938.

Impact of body mass index on long-term clinical outcomes after second-generation drug eluting stent implantation: Insights from the international global RESOLUTE program

BACKGROUND An increased body mass index (BMI) is associated with a high risk of cardiovascular disease and reduction in life expectancy. However, several studies reported improved clinical outcomes in obese patients treated for cardiovascular diseases. The aim of the present study is to investigate the impact of BMI on long-term clinical outcomes after implantation of zotarolimus eluting stents. METHODS Individual patient data were pooled from the RESOLUTE Clinical Program comprising five trials worldwide. The study population was sorted according to BMI tertiles and clinical outcomes were evaluated at 2-year follow-up. RESULTS Data from a total of 5,127 patients receiving the R-ZES were included in the present study. BMI tertiles were as follow: I tertile (≤ 25.95 kg/m(2) -Low or normal weight) 1,727 patients; II tertile (>25.95 ≤ 29.74 kg/m(2) -overweight) 1,695 patients, and III tertile (>29.74 kg/m(2) -obese) 1,705 patients. At 2-years follow-up no difference was found for patients with high BMI (III tertile) compared with patients with normal or low BMI (I tertile) in terms of target lesion failure (I-III tertile, HR [95% CI] = 0.89 [0.69, 1.14], P = 0.341; major adverse cardiac events (I-III tertile, HR [95% CI] = 0.90 [0.72, 1.14], P = 0.389; cardiac death (I-III tertile, HR [95% CI] = 1.20 [0.73, 1.99], P = 0.476); myocardial infarction (I-III tertile, HR [95% CI] = 0.86 [0.55, 1.35], P = 0.509; clinically-driven target lesion revascularization (I-III tertile, HR [95% CI] = 0.75 [0.53, 1.08], P = 0.123; definite or probable stent thrombosis (I-III tertile, HR [95% CI] = 0.98 [0.49, 1.99], P = 0.964. CONCLUSIONS In the present study, the patients' body mass index was found to have no impact on long-term clinical outcomes after coronary artery interventions.

Minimal invasive extracorporeal circulation should become the standard practice in coronary revascularization surgery†.

We read with great interest the large-scale network meta-analysis by Kowalewski et al. comparing clinical outcomes of patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) operated on using minimal invasive extracorporeal circulation (MiECC) or off-pump (OPCAB) with those undergoing surgery on conventional cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) [1]. The authors actually integrated into single study two recently published meta-analysis comparing MiECC and OPCAB with conventional CPB, respectively [2, 3] into a single study. According to the results of this study, MiECC and OPCAB are both strongly associated with improved perioperative outcomes following CABG when compared with CABG performed on conventional CPB. The authors conclude that MiECC may represent an attractive compromise between OPCAB and conventional CPB. After carefully reading the whole manuscript, it becomes evident that the role of MiECC is clearly undervalued. Detailed statistical analysis using the surface under the cumulative ranking probabilities indicated that MiECC represented the safer and more effective intervention regarding all-cause mortality and protection from myocardial infarction, cerebral stroke, postoperative atrial fibrillation and renal dysfunction when compared with OPCAB. Even though no significant statistical differences were demonstrated between MiECC and OPCAB, the superiority of MiECC is obvious by the hierarchy of treatments in the probability analysis, which ranked MiECC as the first treatment followed by OPCAB and conventional CPB. Thus, MiECC does not represent a compromise between OPCAB and conventional CPB, but an attractive dominant technique in CABG surgery. These results are consistent with the largest published meta-analysis by Anastasiadis et al. comparing MiECC versus conventional CPB including a total of 2770 patients. A significant decrease in mortality was observed when MiECC was used, which was also associated with reduced risk of postoperative myocardial infarction and neurological events [4]. Similarly, another recent meta-analysis by Benedetto et al. compared MiECC versus OPCAB and resulted in comparable outcomes between these two surgical techniques [5]. As stated in the text, superiority of MiECC observed in the current network meta-analysis, when compared with OPCAB, could be attributed to the fact that MiECC offers the potential for complete revascularization, whereas OPCAB poses a challenge for unexperienced surgeons; especially when distal marginal branches on the lateral and/or posterior wall of the heart need revascularization. This is reflected by a significantly lower number of distal anastomoses performed in OPCAB when compared with conventional CPB. Therefore, taking into consideration the literature published up to date, including the results of the current article, we advocate that MiECC should be integrated in the clinical practice guidelines as a state-of-the-art technique and become a standard practice for perfusion in coronary revascularization surgery.

Three-year changes of prothrombotic factors in a cohort of South Africans with a high clinical suspicion of obstructive sleep apnea.

A hypercoagulable state might be one important mechanism linking obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) with incident myocardial infarction and stroke. However, previous studies on prothrombotic factors in OSA are not uniform and cross-sectional. We longitudinally studied prothrombotic factors in relation to OSA risk, adjusting for baseline levels of prothrombotic factors, demographics, metabolic parameters, aspirin use, and life style factors. The Berlin Questionnaire and/or neck circumference were used to define high OSA risk in 329 South African teachers (48.0 % male, 44.6 % black) at baseline and at three-year follow-up. Von Willebrand factor (VWF), fibrinogen, D-dimer, plasminogen activator inhibitor-1, clot lysis time (CLT), and soluble urokinase-type plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR) were measured in plasma. At baseline 35.7 % of participants had a high risk of OSA. At follow-up, persistently high OSA risk, persistently low OSA risk, OSA risk remission, and new-onset OSA risk were present in 26.1 %, 53.2 %, 9.4 %, and 11.3 % of participants, respectively. New-onset OSA risk was associated with a significant and longitudinal increase in VWF, fibrinogen, CLT, and suPAR relative to persistently low OSA risk; in VWF, fibrinogen, and suPAR relative to remitted OSA risk; and in VWF relative to persistently high OSA risk. Persistently high OSA risk was associated with an increase in CLT and suPAR relative to persistently low OSA risk and in D-dimer relative to remitted OSA risk. Remitted OSA risk was associated with D-dimer decrease relative to persistently low OSA risk. In OSA, hypercoagulability is a dynamic process with a most prominent three-year increase in individuals with new-onset OSA risk.

Impact of hypertension on the outcome of patients admitted with acute coronary syndrome

OBJECTIVE The role of hypertension and its impact on outcome in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is still debated. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of hypertensive and nonhypertensive ACS patients. METHODS Using data of ACS patients enrolled in the Acute Myocardial Infarction in Switzerland Plus Registry from 1997 to 2013, characteristics at presentation and outcomes in hospital and after 1 year were analyzed. Hypertension was defined as previously diagnosed and treated by a physician. The primary endpoint was mortality. Data were analyzed using multiple logistic regressions. RESULTS Among 41 771 ACS patients, 16 855 (40.4%) were without and 24 916 (59.6%) with preexisting hypertension. Patients with preexisting hypertension had a more favorable in-hospital outcome [odds ratio (OR) in-hospital mortality 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73-0.93; P = 0.022]. The independent predictors of in-hospital mortality for patients with preexisting hypertension were age, Killip class greater than 2, Charlson Comorbidity Index greater than 1, no pretreatment with statins and lower admission systemic blood pressure. Preexisting hypertension was not an independent predictor of 1-year mortality in the subgroup of patients (n = 7801) followed: OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.78-1.47; P = 0.68. Independent predictors of mortality 1 year after discharge for the 4796 patients with preexisting hypertension were age, male sex and comorbidities. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor antagonists and statins prescribed at discharge improved the outcomes. CONCLUSION Outcome of ACS patients with preexisting hypertension was associated with an improved in-hospital prognosis after adjustment for their higher baseline risk. However, this effect was not long-lasting and does not necessarily mean a causal relationship exists. Short-term and long-term management of patients with hypertension admitted with ACS could be further improved.