Faculty Bibliography

In this review, we report a contemporary appraisal of the available evidence focusing on adjunctive antithrombotic therapy and technical aspects of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) in patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock (AMICS). Only few randomized trials have been conducted to evaluate the optimal arterial access choice, antithrombotic therapy, stent type, or the role of aspiration thrombectomy in this population. Observational data suggest that a transradial approach should be preferred for experienced operators, although knowledge and experience of transfemoral access is required to place any mechanical support device. In the absence of high-quality evidence to guide choice of the adjunctive antithrombotic drugs to support PCI in patients with AMICS, knowledge of the altered pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics in shock is required to inform decisions. Drug-eluting stents should be favored over bare-metal stents, and routine thrombectomy is not encouraged. Owing to the challenges inherent to the conduct of randomized trials in this acutely ill patient population, concerted multicenter, and international efforts are paramount to orchestrate the development of high-quality evidence to guide clinical practice.

BACKGROUND:Vascular and bleeding complications were commonly reported in transcatheter aortic valve replacement clinical trials. Little is known about complication rates in contemporary US clinical practice or clinical outcomes associated with these complications. METHODS:values for trends were calculated for rates over time, and multivariable logistic regression was used to determine the association between vascular/bleeding complications and in-hospital clinical outcomes. RESULTS:value for trend test <0.0001); however, there was significant variation in rates across hospital sites (adjusted median rate, 11.4%; IQR, 8.9-14.5). Vascular complications were independently associated with 30-day death (adjusted HR, 2.23 [95% CI, 1.80-2.77]) and death (adjusted HR, 1.17 [95% CI, 1.05-1.30]) and rehospitalization (adjusted HR, 1.14 [95% CI, 1.07-1.22]) at 1 year. Bleeding events were also associated with 30-day death (adjusted HR, 3.71 [95% CI, 2.94-4.69]), and with death (adjusted HR, 1.39 [95% CI, 1.23-1.56]) and hospital readmission (adjusted HR, 1.19 [95% CI, 1.11-1.27]) at 1 year. CONCLUSIONS:In patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement in the US, vascular complications and in-hospital bleeding events were common, but rates have declined over time with significant variation in complication rates across hospital sites. Vascular and bleeding complications are both associated with worse short- and long-term clinical outcomes including all-cause mortality. Further innovation to reduce sheath sizes and optimize antithrombotic therapy is necessary to reduce the incidence of these detrimental complications.

Transradial angiography and intervention continues to become increasingly common as an access site for coronary procedures. Since the first "Best Practices" paper in 2013, ongoing trials have shed further light onto the safest and most efficient methods to perform these procedures. Specifically, this document comments on the use of ultrasound to facilitate radial access, the role of ulnar artery access, the utility of non-invasive testing of collateral flow, strategies to prevent radial artery occlusion, radial access for primary PCI and topics that require further study.

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:Direct stenting without pre-dilation or post-dilation has been advocated for saphenous vein graft percutaneous coronary intervention to decrease the incidence of distal embolization, periprocedural myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization. METHODS:We performed a post hoc analysis of patients enrolled in the DIVA (Drug-Eluting Stents Versus Bare Metal Stents in Saphenous Vein Graft Angioplasty; NCT01121224) prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial. Patients were stratified into stent-only and balloon-stent groups. Primary end point was 12-month incidence of target vessel failure (defined as the composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization). Secondary end points included all-cause death, stent thrombosis, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization during follow-up. RESULTS:=0.023) was lower in the stent-only group. Multivariable analysis showed that a higher number of years since coronary artery bypass grafting and >1 target saphenous vein graft lesions were associated with increased target vessel failure during entire follow-up, while preintervention Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction-3 flow was protective. CONCLUSIONS:In patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention of de novo saphenous vein graft lesions, there was no difference in target vessel failure at 12 months and long-term follow-up in the stent-only versus the balloon-stent group; however, the incidence of stent thrombosis was lower in the stent-only group, as was target vessel myocardial infarction. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01121224.

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.

BACKGROUND:Prior randomized controlled trials (RCT) evaluating the optimal antithrombotic therapies for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have not been powered to evaluate ischemic outcomes. We compared double therapy with oral anticoagulation (OAC) and a P2Y12 inhibitor to triple therapy with an OAC + dual antiplatelet therapy in patients with AF requiring PCI. METHODS:Using PRISMA guidelines, we searched for RCTs including patients with AF as an indication for OAC and undergoing PCI or medical management of acute coronary syndrome. The results were pooled using fixed-effects and random-effects models to estimate the overall effect of double therapy versus triple therapy on ischemic and bleeding outcomes. RESULTS:= 64%), as were intracranial hemorrhages (19/5470 vs. 30/4710; fixed effect model OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.31-0.96). CONCLUSIONS:Double therapy in patients with AF requiring OAC following PCI or Acute coronary syndrome has a significantly better safety profile than triple therapy but may be associated with a modest increased risk of stent thrombosis.