Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Stroke represents a potentially calamitous complication among patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous intervention (PCI). Data on the distribution of stroke occurrence post-PCI and its impact on mortality are scarce. OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:We sought to determine the incidence, predictors and impact of stroke on mortality in ACS patients undergoing PCI. METHODS:A total of 19,914 ACS patients underwent PCI in the PROMETHEUS multicenter observational study. We calculated the cumulative stroke incidence at 30 days and 1 year using the Kaplan Meier method. We also compared the distribution of stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), and bleeding across time and evaluated their overlap. Predictors of stroke were identified through multivariable Cox-regression. Stroke, MI, and bleeding were assessed as time-updated covariates to estimate how each impacts subsequent mortality. RESULTS:We found that 244 patients had a stroke within 1 year, a cumulative incidence of 1.5%. Previous cerebrovascular disease was the strongest predictor for post-PCI stroke, followed by ST-elevation MI presentation, hypertension, non-ST-elevation MI presentation, smoking, female sex, and age. Mortality risk was significantly higher among those who had a stroke versus those who did not (adjusted HR 4.84, p < .0001). However, the association attenuated over time with a much larger effect in the first 30 days of its occurrence (adjusted HR 17.7; 95% CI: 12.3-25.4, p < .0001) versus beyond 30 days (adjusted HR 1.22; 95% CI: 0.6-2.46, p = .58). CONCLUSIONS:Stroke occurrence within 1 year was not uncommon for ACS patients undergoing PCI. When compared with MI and bleeding, stroke had a substantial impact on mortality that attenuated rapidly over time.

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:High bleeding risk (HBR) patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention have been widely excluded from randomized device registration trials. The LF study (LEADERS FREE) reported superior outcomes of HBR patients receiving 30-day dual antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention with a polymer-free drug-coated stent (DCS). LFII was designed to assess the reproducibility and generalizability of the benefits of DCS observed in LF to inform the US Food and Drug Administration in a device registration decision. METHODS:LFII was a single-arm study using HBR inclusion/exclusion criteria and 30-day dual antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention with DCS, identical to LF. The 365-day rates of the primary effectiveness (clinically indicated target lesion revascularization) and safety (composite cardiac death and myocardial infarction) end points were reported using a propensity-stratified analysis compared with the LF bare metal stent arm patients as controls. RESULTS:=0.0150 for superiority). Stent thrombosis rates were 2.0% DCS and 2.2% bare metal stent. Major bleeding at 1 year occurred in 7.2% DCS patients and 7.2% bare metal stent. CONCLUSIONS:LFII reproduces the results of the DCS arm of LF in an independent, predominantly North American cohort of HBR patients.

Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) admissions are common and costly. The association between comprehensive ACS care pathways, outcomes, and costs are lacking. From 434,172 low-risk, uncomplicated ACS patients eligible for early discharge (STEMI 35%, UA/NSTEMI 65%) from the Premier database, we identified ACS care pathways, by stratifying low-risk, uncomplicated STEMI and UA/NSTEMI patients by access site for PCI (trans-radial intervention [TRI] vs transfemoral intervention [TFI]) and by length of stay (LOS). Associations with costs and outcomes (death, bleeding, acute kidney injury, and myocardial infarction at 1-year) were tested using hierarchical, mixed-effects regression, and projections of cost savings with change in care pathways were obtained using modeling. In low-risk uncomplicated STEMI patients, compared with TFI and LOS ≥3 days, a strategy of TRI with LOS <3 days and TFI with LOS <3 days were associated with cost savings of $6,206 and $4,802, respectively. Corresponding cost savings for UA/NSTEMI patients were $7,475 and $6,169, respectively. These care-pathways did not show an excess risk of adverse outcomes. We estimated that >$300 million could be saved if prevalence of the TRI with LOS <3 days and TFI with LOS <3 days strategies are modestly increased to 20% and 70%, respectively. In conclusion, we demonstrate the potential opportunity of cost savings by repositioning ACS care pathways in low-risk and uncomplicated ACS patients, toward transradial access and a shorter LOS without an increased risk of adverse outcomes.

BACKGROUND:Adjunctive coronary atherectomy (CA) can be utilized in treating severely calcified coronary lesions; however, the temporal trends, patient selection, and variation in use of CA have not been well described. We sought to assess the trends in usage, interhospital variability, and outcomes with CA among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS:All patients undergoing PCI in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI Registry from July 1, 2009 to December 31, 2016 (N=3 864 377) were analyzed based on utilization of either rotational or orbital CA. Intervals using date of index CA grouped into 2009 Q3 to 2010, 2011 to 2012, 2013 to 2014, and 2015 to 2016 and hospital-level quartiles based on annual CA volumes were evaluated. The primary outcome measure was in-hospital major adverse cardiac events defined as a composite of all-cause mortality, periprocedural myocardial infarction, or stroke. Independent variables associated with outcomes were determined. RESULTS:<0.01). CONCLUSIONS:Although CA is performed infrequently, its use has increased over time. After accounting for potential confounders, higher CA volume was associated with lower risk of major adverse events counterbalanced by small risk of coronary perforation.

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.

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:Impella was approved for mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in 2008, but large-scale, real-world data on its use are lacking. Our objective was to describe trends and variations in Impella use, clinical outcomes, and costs across US hospitals in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) treated with MCS (Impella or intra-aortic balloon pump). METHODS:From the Premier Healthcare Database, we analyzed 48 306 patients undergoing PCI with MCS at 432 hospitals between January 2004 and December 2016. Association analyses were performed at 3 levels: time period, hospital, and patient. Hierarchical models with propensity adjustment were used for association analyses. We examined trends and variations in the proportion of Impella use, and associated clinical outcomes (in-hospital mortality, bleeding requiring transfusion, acute kidney injury, stroke, length of stay, and hospital costs). RESULTS:Among patients undergoing PCI treated with MCS, 4782 (9.9%) received Impella; its use increased over time, reaching 31.9% of MCS in 2016. There was wide variation in Impella use across hospitals (>5-fold variation). Specifically, among patients receiving Impella, there was a wide variation in outcomes of bleeding (>2.5-fold variation), and death, acute kidney injury, and stroke (all ≈1.5-fold variation). Adverse outcomes and costs were higher in the Impella era (years 2008-2016) versus the pre-Impella era (years 2004-2007). Hospitals with higher Impella use had higher rates of adverse outcomes and costs. After adjustment for the propensity score, and accounting for clustering of patients by hospitals, Impella use was associated with death: odds ratio, 1.24 (95% CI, 1.13-1.36); bleeding: odds ratio, 1.10 (95% CI, 1.00-1.21); and stroke: odds ratio, 1.34 (95% CI, 1.18-1.53), although a similar, nonsignificant result was observed for acute kidney injury: odds ratio, 1.08 (95% CI, 1.00-1.17). CONCLUSIONS:Impella use is rapidly increasing among patients undergoing PCI treated with MCS, with marked variability in its use and associated outcomes. Although unmeasured confounding cannot be ruled out, when analyzed by time periods, or at the hospital level or the patient level, Impella use was associated with higher rates of adverse events and costs. More data are needed to define the appropriate role of MCS in patients undergoing PCI.