Faculty Bibliography

The concept of a direct association between coronary graft patency and clinical status is generally accepted. However, the relationship is more complex and variable than usually thought. Key issues are the lack of a common definition of graft occlusion and of a standardized imaging protocol for patients undergoing coronary bypass surgery. Factors like the type of graft, the timing of the occlusion, and the amount of myocardium at risk, as well as baseline patients' characteristics, modulate the patency-to-clinical status association. Available evidence suggests that graft occlusion is more often associated with non-fatal events rather than death. Also, graft failure due to competitive flow is generally a benign event, while graft occlusion in a graft-dependent circulation is associated with clinical symptoms. In this systematic review, we summarize the evidence on the association between graft status and clinical outcomes.

Cardiogenic shock (CS) remains the most common cause of mortality in patients with acute myocardial infarction. The SHOCK trial (Should We Emergently Revascularize Occluded Coronaries for Cardiogenic Shock) demonstrated a survival benefit with early revascularization in patients with CS complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMICS) 20 years ago. After an initial improvement in mortality related to revascularization, mortality rates have plateaued. A recent Society of Coronary Angiography and Interventions classification scheme was developed to address the wide range of CS presentations. In addition, a recent scientific statement from the American Heart Association recommended the development of CS centers using standardized protocols for diagnosis and management of CS, including mechanical circulatory support devices (MCS). A number of CS programs have implemented various protocols for treating patients with AMICS, including the use of MCS, and have published promising results using such protocols. Despite this, practice patterns in the cardiac catheterization laboratory vary across health systems, and there are inconsistencies in the use or timing of MCS for AMICS. Furthermore, mortality benefit from MCS devices in AMICS has yet to be established in randomized clinical trials. In this article, we outline the best practices for the contemporary interventional management of AMICS, including coronary revascularization, the use of MCS, and special considerations such as the treatment of patients with AMICS with cardiac arrest.

AIMS/OBJECTIVE:To model the safety and effectiveness of drug-coated stents (DCS) vs. bare-metal stents (BMS) in high bleeding risk (HBR) patients according to the Academic Research Criteria (ARC) criteria. METHODS AND RESULTS/RESULTS:Participants from the LEADERS FREE (LF) and LEADERS FREE (LFII) studies were pooled into one dataset. Participants were treated with 30 days of DAPT. The primary safety (composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis) and effectiveness (target-lesion revascularization) endpoints were compared between DCS and BMS in the subgroup of patients satisfying the ARC-HBR definition using propensity-score modelling. From the 3,635 participants included in the combined LF & LFII dataset, 2,898 (79.7%) satisfied the ARC-HBR criteria (DCS: 1,923; BMS: 975). The primary safety endpoint occurred in 184 (9.8%) and in 132 (13.8%) participants in the DCS and BMS groups, respectively (adjusted HR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.57-0.91; p=0.006). The risk of the primary effectiveness endpoint was also significantly lower with DCS (6.2%) vs. BMS (8.8%) (adjusted HR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.52-0.94; p=0.016). Safety and effectiveness of DCS vs. BMS were consistent according to ARC-HBR status (p interaction = 0.206 and 0.260, respectively). CONCLUSIONS:DCS are safer and more effective than BMS in an ARC-defined HBR population.

Peripheral vascular intervention (PVI) improves quality of life and reduces major adverse limb events in patients with peripheral arterial disease. PVI is commonly performed via the femoral artery, and the most common adverse periprocedural event is a vascular access complication. Transradial access for PVI has the potential to reduce vascular access complications and improve patient outcomes. Further study is needed to elucidate the risks of stroke, acute kidney injury, and radiation exposure in the setting of transradial PVI. As transradial access for PVI progresses, it will be important to build the evidence base along with procedural experience.

BACKGROUND:The evolution and clinical impact of cardiac remodeling after large ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is not well delineated in the current therapeutic era. METHODS:The PRESERVATION I trial longitudinally assessed cardiac structure and function in STEMI patients receiving primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Echocardiograms were performed immediately post-PCI and at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months after STEMI. The extent of cardiac remodeling was assessed in patients with ejection fraction (EF) ≤ 40% after PCI. Patients were stratified by the presence or absence of reverse remodeling, defined as an increase in end-diastolic volume (EDV) of ≤10 mL or decrease in EDV at 1 month, and evaluated for an association with adverse events at 1 year. RESULTS:Of the 303 patients with large STEMI enrolled in PRESERVATION I, 225 (74%) had at least moderately reduced systolic function (mean EF 32 ± 5%) immediately after primary PCI. In the following year, there were significant increases in EF and LV volumes, with the greatest magnitude of change occurring in the first month. At 1 month, 104 patients (46%) demonstrated reverse remodeling, which was associated with a significantly lower rate of death, recurrent myocardial infarction and repeat cardiovascular hospitalization at 1 year (HR 0.44; 95% CI: 0.19-0.99). CONCLUSION:Reduced EF after large STEMI and primary PCI is common in the current therapeutic era. The first month following primary reperfusion is a critical period during which the greatest degree of cardiac remodeling occurs. Patients demonstrating early reverse remodeling have a significantly lower rate of adverse events in the year after STEMI.

AIMS:We aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of different anti-platelet regimens after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug eluting stent (DES) implantation using a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS:RCTs comparing shorter duration (≤6 months) of dual antiplatelet therapy (S-DAPT) with either aspirin (ASA) or P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy against longer duration (≥12 months) DAPT (L-DAPT) after PCI were searched in the MEDLINE, EMBASE and COCHRANE databases. End-points of interest were all-cause death, cardiovascular (CV) death, myocardial infarction (MI), stent thrombosis (ST), major bleeding and major or minor bleeding. Network meta-analyses were performed using frequentist approach. RESULTS:Eighteen RCTs with total of 57,942 patients met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. This included 14 RCTs (N = 28,853) of S-DAPT with ASA monotherapy and 4 RCTs (N = 29,089) with P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy. Compared with L-DAPT, the odds of MI were higher with S-DAPT with ASA monotherapy [OR 1.23; 95% CI 1.01-1.48], but not with P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy [0.98; 0.85-1.14]. Both S-DAPT regimens lowered rates of major bleeding when compared with L-DAPT; ASA monotherapy [0.70; 0.49-1.00] and P2Y12 monotherapy [0.67; 0.45-0.98]. There were no differences in risks of all-cause or CV death between either regimen of S-DAPT and L-DAPT. However, in the acute coronary syndrome subgroup, ASA monotherapy was associated with increased risk of ST [1.55; 1.021-2.36] but P2Y12 monotherapy was not [0.93; 0.58-1.48]. CONCLUSION:Amongst patients undergoing DES implantation, S-DAPT with P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy reduces bleeding without increased risk of MI or ST compared with L-DAPT. Prospective trials are needed to evaluate if S-DAPT with P2Y12 monotherapy is superior to S-DAPT with ASA monotherapy for ischemic protection.