Faculty Bibliography

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.

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.

The worldwide pandemic caused by the novel acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 has resulted in a new and lethal disease termed coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). Although there is an association between cardiovascular disease and COVID-19, the majority of patients who need cardiovascular care for the management of ischemic heart disease may not be infected with this novel coronavirus. The objective of this document is to provide recommendations for a systematic approach for the care of patients with an acute myocardial infarction (AMI) during the COVID-19 pandemic. There is a recognition of two major challenges in providing recommendations for AMI care in the COVID-19 era. Cardiovascular manifestations of COVID-19 are complex with patients presenting with AMI, myocarditis simulating an ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) presentation, stress cardiomyopathy, non-ischemic cardiomyopathy, coronary spasm, or nonspecific myocardial injury, and the prevalence of COVID-19 disease in the U.S. population remains unknown with risk of asymptomatic spread. This document addresses the care of these patients focusing on 1) the varied clinical presentations; 2) appropriate personal protection equipment (PPE) for health care workers; 3) role of the Emergency Department, Emergency Medical System and the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory; and 4) Regional STEMI systems of care. During the COVID-19 pandemic, primary PCI remains the standard of care for STEMI patients at PCI capable hospitals when it can be provided in a timely fashion, with an expert team outfitted with PPE in a dedicated CCL room. A fibrinolysis-based strategy may be entertained at non-PCI capable referral hospitals or in specific situations where primary PCI cannot be executed or is not deemed the best option.

Importance:Quality of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is commonly assessed by risk-adjusted mortality. However, this metric may result in procedural risk aversion, especially for high-risk patients. Objective:To determine correlation and reclassification between hospital-level disease-specific mortality and PCI procedural mortality among patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Design, Setting, and Participants:This hospital-level observational cross-sectional multicenter analysis included hospitals participating in the Chest Pain-MI Registry, which enrolled consecutive adult patients admitted with a diagnosis of type I non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) or ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), and hospitals in the CathPCI Registry, which enrolled consecutive adult patients treated with PCI with an indication of NSTEMI or STEMI, between April 1, 2011, and December 31, 2017. Exposures:Inclusion into the National Cardiovascular Data Registry Chest Pain-MI and CathPCI registries. Main Outcomes and Measures:For each hospital in each registry, a disease-based excess mortality ratio (EMR-D) for AMI was calculated, which represents a risk-adjusted observed to expected rate of mortality for AMI as a disease using the Chest Pain-MI Registry, and a procedure-based excess mortality ratio (EMR-P) for PCI was calculated using the CathPCI Registry. Results:A subset of 625 sites participated in both registries, with a final count of 776 890 patients from the Chest Pain-MI Registry (509 576 men [65.6%]; 620 981 white [80.0%]; and median age, 64 years [interquartile range, 55-74 years]) and 853 386 patients from the CathPCI Registry (582 701 men [68.3%]; 691 236 white [81.0%]; and median age, 63 years [interquartile range, 54-73 years]). Among the 625 linked hospitals, the Spearman rank correlation coefficient between EMR-D and EMR-P produced a ρ of 0.53 (95% CI, 0.47-0.58), suggesting moderate correlation. Among the highest-performing tertile for disease-based risk-adjusted mortality, 90 of 208 sites (43.3%) were classified into a lower category for procedural risk-adjusted mortality. Among the lowest-performing tertile for disease-based risk-adjusted mortality, 92 of 208 sites (44.2%) were classified into a higher category for procedural risk-adjusted mortality. Bland-Altman plots for the overall linked cohort demonstrate a mean difference between EMR-P and EMR-D of 0.49% (95% CI, -1.61% to 2.58%; P < .001), with procedural mortality higher than disease-based mortality. However, among patients with AMI complicated by cardiogenic shock or cardiac arrest, the mean difference between EMR-P and EMR-D was -0.64% (95% CI, -4.41% to 3.12%; P < .001), with procedural mortality lower than disease-based mortality. Conclusions and Relevance:This study suggests that, for hospitals treating patients with AMI, there is only a moderate correlation between procedural outcomes and disease-based outcomes. Nearly half of hospitals in the highest tertile of performance for PCI performance were reclassified into a lower performance tertile when judged by disease-based metrics. Higher rates of mortality were observed when using disease-based metrics compared with procedural metrics when assessing patients with cardiogenic shock and/or cardiac arrest, signifying what appears to be potential risk avoidance among this highest-risk subset of patients.