Faculty Bibliography

Since the advent of percutaneous coronary intervention, enormous advances have been made in the treatment of coronary artery disease. Angioplasty and bare metal stents were plagued by high rates of restenosis leading to repeat revascularization procedures. Examination of the underlying pathophysiology of restenosis led to the development of drug-eluting stents to reduce neointimal hyperplasia. However, as restenosis rates declined, length of dual antiplatelet therapy use and risk of long-term stent thrombosis associated with drug-eluting stents increased. Subsequent generations have improved each facet of stent design. Novel alloys maintain durability and reduce strut thickness to increase deliverability, biocompatible polymers decrease the inflammatory response and improve drug elution kinetics, and new generations of drugs predictably inhibit restenosis. Developments on the horizon include stents with bioabsorbable polymers and platforms. The purpose of this review is to assess the evolution of stent design and the evidence behind each generation and to peer into the future of stent technology.

Although colchicine has been a focus of research, debate and controversy for thousands of years, it was only approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration in 2009. Over the past decade, advances in the knowledge of colchicine pharmacology, drug safety and mechanisms of action have led to changes in colchicine dosing and to potential new uses for this very old drug. In this review, we discuss the pharmacologic properties of colchicine and summarize what is currently known about its mechanisms of action. We then discuss and update the use of colchicine in a variety of illnesses, including rheumatic and, most recently cardiovascular diseases.

Background: Type 2 myocardial infarction (MI) is defined as myocardial necrosis due to an imbalance in supply and demand. Clinical characteristics predisposing to Type 2 MI and medical therapy use remain uncertain. Methods: Charts of patients admitted to NYU Langone Medical Center in 2013 with a diagnosis of secondary myocardial ischemia (ICD9 411.89) or non-primary diagnosis of non-ST-elevation MI (ICD9 410.71) were retrospectively reviewed, following hospital standardization of acute MI ICD9 coding. Cases with suspected/confirmed Type 1 MI or without rise and fall of troponin were excluded. Results: Charts of 104 inpatients with Type 2 MI have been reviewed to date, with evaluation of additional cases ongoing. Conditions associated with and possibly provoking Type 2 MI included sepsis (defined as SIRS with an infectious source, 39%), surgery (37%), anemia (Hgb < 7 mg/dL), bleeding, or transfusion >1 PRBCs (34%), respiratory failure (28%), tachyarrhythmia (21%), hypotension (17%), hypertensive crisis (8%), and bradycardia (2%). Multiple provoking conditions were identified in 74% of cases. See Table for risk factors, procedure use and results and in-hospital outcomes. Inpatient mortality was 3%. Among 92 patients discharged alive and not to hospice, medical regimens included aspirin (65%), statin (66%), ACE inhibition (ACEi) (38%), and beta blocker (65%). Patients with a peak troponin >1.0 ng/mL (35%) were more likely to be discharged on aspirin (p=0.004) and beta-blocker (p=0.027), but not statin or ACEi. Conclusions: Type 2 MI occurs most frequently in the setting of sepsis, surgery, and/or anemia in patients with cardiovascular risk factors, but mechanisms of Type 2 MI remain poorly understood. Rates of outpatient antiplatelet and statin prescription are low at hospital discharge, reflecting physician uncertainty about the role of secondary prevention. Further research into mechanisms is needed to inform management of patients with Type 2 MI

BACKGROUND: Although randomized clinical trials have compared clopidogrel with higher potency ADP receptor inhibitors (ADPris) among patients with myocardial infarction, little is known about the frequency and factors associated with switching between ADPris in clinical practice. METHODS AND RESULTS: We studied 47 040 patients with myocardial infarction treated with percutaneous coronary intervention, who received either clopidogrel or prasugrel within 24 hours of admission at 361 US hospitals from July 2009 to June 2011 using the merged Acute Coronary Treatment and Intervention Outcomes Network Registry-Get With the Guidelines and CathPCI Registry database. Hierarchical logistic regression modeling was used to determine factors independently associated with in-hospital ADPri switching. Among 40 531 patients treated initially in-hospital with clopidogrel, 2125 (5.2%) were discharged on prasugrel; this frequency steadily increased from 0% to 7% during the study period. Among 6509 patients treated initially in-hospital with prasugrel, 751 (11.5%) were discharged on clopidogrel. The frequency of this switch increased from 6% to 18% during the first 2 quarters of the study period and decreased to 9% by the end. Switching clopidogrel to prasugrel was associated with high-risk angiographic characteristics (thrombotic, long, and bifurcating lesions), reinfarction in-hospital, and private health insurance coverage. Older age, previous cerebrovascular event, in-hospital coronary artery bypass grafting, in-hospital bleeding, and warfarin use at discharge were associated with switching prasugrel to clopidogrel. CONCLUSIONS: Clopidogrel and prasugrel are not uncommonly switched in-hospital in patients with myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. In contemporary US practice, in addition to risk for bleeding and recurrent ischemic events, medical drug coverage is a major determinant of ADPri selection.

OBJECTIVEThe aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between diabetes and different phenotypes of peripheral vascular disease (lower extremity peripheral artery disease [PAD], carotid artery stenosis [CAS], and abdominal aortic aneurysm [AAA]).RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSPrevalence of vascular disease was evaluated in 3,696,778 participants of the Life Line Screening survey between 2003 and 2008. PAD was defined as ankle-brachial pressure index <0.90 or prior revascularization, CAS as >/=50% stenosis or prior revascularization, and AAA as infrarenal aortic diameter >/=3 cm or prior repair. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs were assessed using logistic regression modeling.RESULTSDiabetes mellitus was present in 10.8% of participants (n = 399,884). Prevalence of PAD, CAS, and AAA were significantly higher (P < 0.0001) in participants with compared with those without diabetes. After multivariate adjustment for baseline demographics and clinical risk factors, a significant interaction existed between diabetes and vascular disease phenotype (P < 0.0001). Diabetes was associated with increased odds of PAD (OR 1.42 [95% CI 1.41-1.4]; P < 0.0001) and CAS (1.45 [1.43-1.47]; P < 0.0001) but decreased odds of AAA (0.86 [0.84-0.88]; P < 0.0001). The strength of association increased with increasing severity of disease in each vascular phenotype, and this association persisted in the population with asymptomatic vascular disease.CONCLUSIONSIn a large population-based study, the association between diabetes and vascular disease differed according to vascular phenotype. Future studies exploring the mechanism for these vascular-specific differences are needed.

Periprocedural hyperglycemia is an independent predictor of mortality in patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, periprocedural management of blood glucose is not standardized. The effects of routinely continuing long-acting glucose-lowering medications before coronary angiography with possible PCI on periprocedural glycemic control have not been investigated. Patients with diabetes mellitus (DM; n = 172) were randomized to continue (Continue group; n = 86) or hold (Hold group; n = 86) their clinically prescribed long-acting glucose-lowering medications before the procedure. The primary end point was glucose level on procedural access. In a subset of patients (no DM group: n = 25; Continue group: n = 25; and Hold group: n = 25), selected measures of platelet activity that change acutely were assessed. Patients with DM randomized to the Continue group had lower blood glucose levels on procedural access compared with those randomized to the Hold group (117 [97 to 151] vs 134 [117 to 172] mg/dl, p = 0.002). There were two hypoglycemic events in the Continue group and none in the Hold group, and no adverse events in either group. Selected markers of platelet activity differed across the no DM, Continue, and Hold groups (leukocyte platelet aggregates: 8.1% [7.2 to 10.4], 8.7% [6.9 to 11.4], 10.9% [8.6 to 14.7], p = 0.007; monocyte platelet aggregates: 14.0% [10.3 to 16.3], 20.8% [16.2 to 27.0], 22.5% [15.2 to 35.4], p <0.001; soluble p-selectin: 51.9 ng/ml [39.7 to 74.0], 59.1 ng/ml [46.8 to 73.2], 72.2 ng/ml [58.4 to 77.4], p = 0.014). In conclusion, routinely continuing clinically prescribed long-acting glucose-lowering medications before coronary angiography with possible PCI help achieve periprocedural euglycemia, appear safe, and should be considered as a strategy for achieving periprocedural glycemic control.

BACKGROUND: Recent initiatives have focused on primary prevention to delay time to first myocardial infarction (MI). The aim of this study was to evaluate the change in risk factor profile over time in patients without known cardiovascular disease presenting with first MI. METHODS: In the American Heart Association's Get With The Guidelines-Coronary Artery Disease national registry, 100,884 patients without known cardiovascular disease presenting with acute MI from 408 hospitals were evaluated between 2002 and 2008. The time trends of the proportion of patients with cardiovascular risk factors (nonmodifiable: age >45 years for men or >55 years for women, male sex, modifiable: diabetes mellitus, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, tobacco use) were analyzed. Analyses were stratified by non-ST-segment elevation MI (NSTEMI) versus ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI). RESULTS: The proportion of patients with >/=3 of 6 traditional risk factors slightly decreased over time in the NSTEMI (69.5%-66.8%, P < .0001) and STEMI (68.9%-66.4%, P < .0001) cohorts. The proportion of patients with >/=2 of 4 modifiable risk factors increased from 52% to 59% and then declined to 52.1% (P < .0001) in the NSTEMI cohort but declined slightly in the STEMI cohort (50.9%-47.3%, P < .0001). After adjusting for age and gender, the time trend of proportion with diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and tobacco use declined in both cohorts. However, the proportion of patients with hyperlipidemia remained similar. CONCLUSIONS: Although risk factor profiles in patients presenting with first MI have shown improvements over time, the changes are modest.

Coronary angiography is the gold standard for defining obstructive coronary disease. However, radiation exposure remains an unwanted hazard. Patients referred for coronary angiography with abdominal circumference <45 inches and glomerular filtration rate >60 ml/min were randomized to the fluorography (n = 25) or cineangiography (n = 25) group. Patients in the fluorography group underwent coronary angiography using retrospectively stored fluorography with repeat injection under cineangiography only when needed for better resolution per operator's discretion. Patients in the cineangiography group underwent coronary angiography using routine cineangiography. The primary end point was patient radiation exposure measured by radiochromic film. Secondary end points included the radiation output measurement of kerma-area product and air kerma at the interventional reference point (Ka,r) and operator radiation exposure measured by a dosimeter. Patient radiation exposure (158.2 mGy [76.5 to 210.2] vs 272.5 mGy [163.3 to 314.0], p = 0.001), kerma-area product (1,323 muGy.m(2) [826 to 1,765] vs 3,451 muGy.m(2) [2,464 to 4,818], p <0.001), and Ka,r (175 mGy [112 to 252] vs 558 mGy [313 to 621], p <0.001) were significantly lower in the fluorography compared with cineangiography group (42%, 62%, and 69% relative reduction, respectively). Operator radiation exposure trended in the same direction, although statistically nonsignificant (fluorography 2.35 muGy [1.24 to 6.30] vs cineangiography 5.03 muGy [2.48 to 7.80], p = 0.059). In conclusion, the use of fluorography in a select group of patients during coronary angiography, with repeat injection under cineangiography only when needed, was efficacious at reducing patient radiation exposure.