Perspectives on the 2014 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on Myocardial Revascularization: Fifty Years of Revascularization: Where Are We and Where Are We Heading?

The joint European Society of Cardiology and European Association of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (ESC/EACTS) guidelines on myocardial revascularization collect and summarize the evidence regarding decision-making, diagnostics, and therapeutics in various clinical scenarios of coronary artery disease, including elective, urgent, and emergency settings. The 2014 document updates and extends the effort started in 2010, year of the first edition of these guidelines. Importantly, this latest edition provides a systematic review of all randomized clinical trials performed since 1980, comparing different strategies of myocardial revascularization, including coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), balloon angioplasty, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with bare-metal stents (BMS) and first- and second-generation drug-eluting stents (DES). This review aims to highlight the most relevant novelties introduced by the 2014 edition of the ESC/EACTS myocardial revascularization guidelines as compared with the previous edition and to describe similarities and differences with the American societies' guidelines.

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.

Impact of Diabetic Status on Outcomes After Revascularization With Drug-Eluting Stents in Relation to Coronary Artery Disease Complexity: Patient-Level Pooled Analysis of 6081 Patients.

BACKGROUND Diabetes mellitus and angiographic coronary artery disease complexity are intertwined and unfavorably affect prognosis after percutaneous coronary interventions, but their relative impact on long-term outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents remains controversial. This study determined drug-eluting stents outcomes in relation to diabetic status and coronary artery disease complexity as assessed by the Synergy Between PCI With Taxus and Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) score. METHODS AND RESULTS In a patient-level pooled analysis from 4 all-comers trials, 6081 patients were stratified according to diabetic status and according to the median SYNTAX score ≤11 or >11. The primary end point was major adverse cardiac events, a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and clinically indicated target lesion revascularization within 2 years. Diabetes mellitus was present in 1310 patients (22%), and new-generation drug-eluting stents were used in 4554 patients (75%). Major adverse cardiac events occurred in 173 diabetics (14.5%) and 436 nondiabetic patients (9.9%; P<0.001). In adjusted Cox regression analyses, SYNTAX score and diabetes mellitus were both associated with the primary end point (P<0.001 and P=0.028, respectively; P for interaction, 0.07). In multivariable analyses, diabetic versus nondiabetic patients had higher risks of major adverse cardiac events (hazard ratio, 1.25; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.53; P=0.026) and target lesion revascularization (hazard ratio, 1.54; 95% confidence interval, 1.18-2.01; P=0.002) but similar risks of cardiac death (hazard ratio, 1.41; 95% confidence interval, 0.96-2.07; P=0.08) and myocardial infarction (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.64-1.22; P=0.45), without significant interaction with SYNTAX score ≤11 or >11 for any of the end points. CONCLUSIONS In this population treated with predominantly new-generation drug-eluting stents, diabetic patients were at increased risk for repeat target-lesion revascularization consistently across the spectrum of disease complexity. The SYNTAX score was an independent predictor of 2-year outcomes but did not modify the respective effect of diabetes mellitus. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifiers: NCT00297661, NCT00389220, NCT00617084, and NCT01443104.

Ultrathin Strut Biodegradable Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Durable-Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stent for Percutaneous Coronary Revascularization: 2-Year Results of the BIOSCIENCE Trial.

BACKGROUND No data are available on the long-term performance of ultrathin strut biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (BP-SES). We reported 2-year clinical outcomes of the BIOSCIENCE (Ultrathin Strut Biodegradable Polymer Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Durable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stent for Percutaneous Coronary Revascularisation) trial, which compared BP-SES with durable-polymer everolimus-eluting stents (DP-EES) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS AND RESULTS A total of 2119 patients with minimal exclusion criteria were assigned to treatment with BP-SES (n=1063) or DP-EES (n=1056). Follow-up at 2 years was available for 2048 patients (97%). The primary end point was target-lesion failure, a composite of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically indicated target-lesion revascularization. At 2 years, target-lesion failure occurred in 107 patients (10.5%) in the BP-SES arm and 107 patients (10.4%) in the DP-EES arm (risk ratio [RR] 1.00, 95% CI 0.77-1.31, P=0.979). There were no significant differences between BP-SES and DP-EES with respect to cardiac death (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.62-1.63, P=0.984), target-vessel myocardial infarction (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.60-1.39, P=0.669), target-lesion revascularization (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.81-1.71, P=0.403), and definite stent thrombosis (RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.56-3.44, P=0.485). There were 2 cases (0.2%) of definite very late stent thrombosis in the BP-SES arm and 4 cases (0.4%) in the DP-EES arm (P=0.423). In the prespecified subgroup of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, BP-SES was associated with a lower risk of target-lesion failure compared with DP-EES (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.23-0.99, P=0.043, Pinteraction=0.026). CONCLUSIONS Comparable safety and efficacy profiles of BP-SES and DP-EES were maintained throughout 2 years of follow-up. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01443104.

Revascularization Treatment of Emergency Patients with Acute ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction in Switzerland: Results from a Nationwide, Cross-Sectional Study in Switzerland for 2010-2011

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular diseases are the leading cause of death worldwide and in Switzerland. When applied, treatment guidelines for patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) improve the clinical outcome and should eliminate treatment differences by sex and age for patients whose clinical situations are identical. In Switzerland, the rate at which STEMI patients receive revascularization may vary by patient and hospital characteristics. AIMS: To examine all hospitalizations in Switzerland from 2010-2011 to determine if patient or hospital characteristics affected the rate of revascularization (receiving either a percutaneous coronary intervention or a coronary artery bypass grafting) in acute STEMI patients. DATA AND METHODS: We used national data sets on hospital stays, and on hospital infrastructure and operating characteristics, for the years 2010 and 2011, to identify all emergency patients admitted with the main diagnosis of acute STEMI. We then calculated the proportion of patients who were treated with revascularization. We used multivariable multilevel Poisson regression to determine if receipt of revascularization varied by patient and hospital characteristics. RESULTS: Of the 9,696 cases we identified, 71.6% received revascularization. Patients were less likely to receive revascularization if they were female, and 80 years or older. In the multivariable multilevel Poisson regression analysis, there was a trend for small-volume hospitals performing fewer revascularizations but this was not statistically significant while being female (Relative Proportion = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.86 to 0.97) and being older than 80 years was still associated with less frequent revascularization. CONCLUSION: Female and older patients were less likely to receive revascularization. Further research needs to clarify whether this reflects differential application of treatment guidelines or limitations in this kind of routine data.

The use of invasive myocardial revascularization procedures following myocardial infarction and the effectiveness of these procedures in the biethnic community of Nueces County, Texas, 1988--1991

High levels of poverty and unemployment, and low levels of health insurance coverage may pose barriers to obtaining cardiac care by Mexican Americans. We undertook this study to investigate differences in the use of invasive myocardial revascularization procedures received within the 4-month period following hospitalization for a myocardial infarction (MI) between Mexican Americans and non-Hispanic whites in the Corpus Christi Heart Project (CCHP). The CCHP is a population-based surveillance program for hospitalized MI, percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA), and aortocoronary bypass surgery (ACBS). Medical record data were available for 1706 patients identified over a three-year period. Mexican Americans had significantly lower rates of receiving a PTCA following MI than non-Hispanic Whites (RR: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.44-0.70). No meaningful ethnic difference was seen in the rates of ACBS use. History of PTCA use appeared to interact with ethnicity. Among patients without a history of PTCA use, Mexican Americans were less likely to receive a PTCA than non-Hispanic whites (RR: 0.59; 95% CI: 0.46-0.76). Among patients with a history of PTCA use, however, Mexican Americans were more likely to receive a PTCA than non-Hispanic whites (RR: 1.47; 95% CI: 0.75-2.87).^ Differences in the effectiveness of a first-time PTCA and first-time ACBS between Mexican Americans and non-Hispanic whites in the CCHP were also investigated. Mexican Americans were more likely to receive a 2nd PTCA (RR: 1.56, 95% CI: 1.11-2.17) and suffer a subsequent MI (RR: 1.42, 95% CI: 1.03-1.96) following a first-time PTCA than non-Hispanic whites. No meaningful ethnic differences were found in the rates of death and rates of ACBS following a first-time PTCA. Also, no significant ethnic differences were found in the rates of any of the events following a first-time ACBS. After adjusting for potential demographic, socioeconomic, clinical and angiographic confounders using Cox regression analysis, Mexican Americans were still more likely to receive a 2nd PTCA (HR: 1.38; 95% CI: 0.99-1.93) following a first-time PTCA than non-Hispanic whites. A significant difference in the rates of a subsequent MI following a first-time PTCA persisted (HR: 1.39, 95% CI: 1.01-1.93). (Abstract shortened by UMI.) ^

Pharmacological treatment and perceived health status during 1-year follow up in patients diagnosed with coronary artery disease, but ineligible for revascularization. Results from the Euro Heart Survey on Coronary Revascularization

Background It has been recognized that a clinically significant portion of patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) continue to experience anginal and other related symptoms that are refractory to the combination of medical therapy and revascularization. The Euro Heart Survey on Revascularization (EHSCR) provided an opportunity to assess pharmacological treatment and outcome in patients with proven CAD who were ineligible for revascularization. Methods We performed a secondary analysis of EHS-CR data. After excluding patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction and those in whom revascularization was not indicated, 4409 patients remained in the analyses. We selected two groups: (1) patients in whom revascularization was the preferred treatment option (n = 3777, 86%), and (2) patients who were considered ineligible for revascularization (n = 632, 14%). Results Patient ineligible for revascularization had a worse risk profile, more often had a total occlusion (59% vs. 37%, p < 0.001), were treated more often with ACE-inhibitors (65% vs. 55%, p < 0.001) but less likely with aspirin (83% vs. 88%, p < 0.001). Overall, they had higher case-fatality at 1-year (7.0% vs. 3.7%, p < 0.001). Regarding self-perceived health status, measured via the EuroQol 5D (EQ-5D) questionnaire, these same patients reported more problems on all dimensions of the EQ-5D. Furthermore, in the revascularization group we observed an increase between discharge and 1-year follow up (utility score from 0.85 to 1.00) whereas patients ineligible for revascularization did not improve over time (utility score remained 0.80) Conclusion In this large cohort of European patients with CAD, those considered ineligible for revascularization had more co-morbidities and risk factors, and scored worse on self-perceived health status as compared to revascularized patients in the revascularization group. With the exception of ACE-inhibitors and aspirin, there were no major differences regarding drug treatment between the two groups. Given these clinically significant observations, there appears to be a role for nurse-led, multidisciplinary, rehabilitation teams that target clinically vulnerable patients whose symptoms remain refractory to standard medical care.

Accuracy of strain rate techniques for ientification of viability at dobutamine stress echo: A follow-up study after revascularization

Background. Myocardial viability (VM) assessment based on wall motion scoring (WMS) with dobutamine echo (DbE) is difficult and subjective. New quantitative techniques such as strain rate imaging (SRI) correspond with isotopic techniques but their ability to predict functional recovery (FR) after revascularization is unclear. Methods. Stable post-MI pts (n=43, age 63±9, EF 36±6%) underwent SRI during DbE. WMS evidence of VM was based on lowdose augmentation at DbE. SR, end-systolic strain (ESS), post-systolic strain (PSS) and timing were analyzed at rest and low dose in abnormal segts. Pts were followed for 9±12 months; FR was defined as segt improvement on post-revascularization images. Results: Of 180 segts with abnormal resting function, 83 showed FR and 97 did not. Resting parameters were not predictive of recovery; resting post-systolic shortening had a sensitivity and specificity

Coronary revascularization can improve regional left ventricular volumes in non-transmural scars without contractile reserve

Revascularization (RVS) of scar segts does not lead to recovery of left ventricular (LV) function, but its effect on post-infarct remodeling is unclear. We examined the impact of RVS on regional remodeling in different transmural extents of scar (TME). Dobutamine echo (DbE) and contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (ce- MRI) were performed in 72 pts post MI (age 63±10, EF 49±12%). Pts were selected for RVS (n = 31) or medical treatment (n = 41). Segts were classified as scar if there were no contractile reserve during lowdose DbE.TMEwas measured by ce-MRI; a cutoff of 75% was used to differentiate transmural (TM) from non-transmural (NT) scars. Regional end systolic (ESV) and end diastolic volumes (EDV) were measured at baseline and 12 months follow up.Of 218 segts identified as scar on DbE, 164wereNTand 54 were TM on ce-MRI. Revascularization was performed to 62 NT and 11 TM segts. In the RVS group, there was reverse remodeling with significant reduction in LV volumes in NT (ESV, 6.8±3.2 ml versus 5.8±3.7 ml, p = 0.002; EDV, 10.9±4.9 ml versus 9.8±5.6 ml, p = 0.02), but no significant change in volumes in TM (ESV, 6.9±3.7 ml versus 5.4±2.1 ml, p = 0.09; EDV, 10.2±4.4 ml versus 9.4±4.3 ml, p = 0.5). In the medically treated group, there were no changes in LV volumes in both NT (ESV, 12.0±11.9 ml versus 12.7±13.8 ml, p = 0.3; EDV, 12.5±7.8 ml versus 12.6±9.7 ml, p = 0.8) and TM (ESV, 8.0±3.8 ml versus 7.9±4.6 ml, p = 0.8; EDV, 10.3±4.8 ml versus 10.4±5.4 ml, p = 0.9). Despite absence of contractile reserve on DbE, NT benefit from coronary revascularization with regional reverse LV remodeling.