Faculty Bibliography

INTRODUCTION:Over the recent years, there has been increased interest in the use of transradial (TR) access for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), including rotational atherectomy (RA). However, a large proportion of operators seem to be reluctant to use TR access for complex PCI including rotational atherectomy for heavily calcified coronary lesions. METHODS:We searched MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov and the Cochrane Library for studies comparing radial versus femoral access in patients undergoing RA. Studies were included if they reported at least one of the following outcomes in each group separately: major adverse cardiac events (MACE), major bleeding, stent thrombosis, myocardial infarction (MI), hospital length of stay, radiation exposure, procedure time, procedure success and all-cause mortality. Odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated and a p-value of <0.05 was considered as a level of significance. RESULTS:, p = 0.0007). There were no significant differences observed in all-cause in-hospital mortality (OR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.69-1.23, p = 0.58); MACE (OR: 0.80, CI: 0.63, 1.02, p = 0.08), stent thrombosis (OR: 0.28, 95%CI: 0.06-1.33 p = 0.11); and MI (OR: 0.43, 95%CI: 0.15-1.24, p = 0.12). There were no significant differences in hospital stay, procedure time or procedure success between the two groups (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION:This meta-analysis of 9153 patients from observational studies demonstrates similar all-cause mortality, MACE, procedural success and procedural time during RA performed using TR access and TF access. However, TR access was associated with decreased access site bleeding and radiation exposure. Given the observational nature of these findings, a randomized controlled trial is warranted for further evidence.

BACKGROUND:It remains uncertain how advances in revascularization techniques, availability of new evidence, and updated guidelines have influenced the annual rates of coronary revascularization in the United States. METHODS:We used the Nationwide Inpatient Sample data from 2005 to 2014 with appropriate weighting to determine national procedural volumes. To present accurately overall percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) rates, PCI with same-day discharge numbers per year were estimated from the available literature and added to annual PCI procedures performed. RESULTS:Annual PCI rate declined from 353 per 100,000 adults in 2005 to 277 per 100,000 adults in 2009 (P < .001) but remained stable thereafter (P = .50). Annual coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) rate declined steadily, at a shallower slope than PCI, from 120 per 100,000 in 2005 to 93 per 100,000 in 2009 (P = .02) but remained stable thereafter (P = .60). Similar trends were seen in men and women. Both PCI and CABG rates were lower in women than men over the study period (PCI, 482 to 324/100,000 in men vs 232 to 153/100,000 in women; CABG, 172 to 118/100,000 in men vs 64 to 38/100,000 in women). Annual PCI rates were higher than CABG rates in patients of all age groups including in younger patients (age < 50) and octogenarians. The proportion of coronary revascularization procedures performed per insurance type remained relatively similar across the study period. CONCLUSIONS:Annual rates of coronary revascularization have changed significantly over time, potentially because of advances in revascularization techniques, availability of new evidence, and updated guidelines. Rates of PCI declined more steeply than CABG before plateauing but remained higher than rates of CABG across the study period.

OBJECTIVES:To evaluate the safety and efficacy of switching to bivalirudin during primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for patients who received preprocedure unfractionated heparin (UFH). BACKGROUND:Current guidelines favor bivalirudin for primary PCI in patients at high risk of bleeding, particularly when femoral access is used. However, patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction frequently receive UFH before arrival in the catheterization laboratory. METHODS:Scientific databases and websites were searched for randomized controlled trials. Patients were divided into those who received heparin with or without glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (heparin group); those switched to bivalirudin during primary PCI from preprocedure UFH (switch group); and those who received bivalirudin without preprocedure UFH (Biv-alone group). Both traditional pairwise meta-analyses using moderator analyses and network meta-analyses using mixed-treatment comparison models were performed. RESULTS:Data from five trials including13,547 patients were analyzed. In mixed-comparison models, switching to bivalirudin during primary PCI was associated with lower rates for all-cause mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) compared to the other strategies. Rates for all-cause mortality, MACEs, and net adverse clinical events (NACEs) were similar for the heparin and Biv-alone groups. Switching strategies was also associated with lower major bleeding rates compared to heparin alone. Similarly, in a standard pairwise model, both the switch and Biv-alone groups were associated with decreased bleeding risk compared to the heparin group. However, only the switch strategy was associated with decreased all-cause mortality (RR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.30-0.75; P = 0.001), MACE (RR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.49-0.91; P = 0.012), and NACE (RR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.41-0.92; P = 0.019) compared with heparin alone. CONCLUSIONS:During primary PCI, use of bivalirudin for those receiving preprocedure UFH was associated decreased rates for major bleeding, NACEs, MACEs, and all-cause mortality compared to heparin +/- GPI. This strategy was also associated with decreased rates for MACEs and all-cause mortality compared to bivalirudin alone without preprocedure UFH.

We sought to determine the risk of obstructive coronary artery disease (oCAD) associated with noncoronary atherosclerosis (cerebrovascular disease [CVD] or peripheral arterial disease [PAD]) and major adverse cardiac events following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

OBJECTIVES:To gain insight into current practice of transradial angiography and intervention in the United States and around the world. BACKGROUND:Transradial access (TRA) has grown worldwide. In a prior survey, there was significant practice variation and there was minimal US participation which limited the generalizability to US operators. METHODS:We used an internet-based survey software program to solicit input from practicing interventional cardiologists from the United States and around the world. US operators were compared with outside the United States (OUS) operators and respondent-level comparisons were made with the prior survey to assess for temporal changes in practice. RESULTS:Between August 2016 and January 1, 2017, 125 interventional cardiologists completed the survey representing 91 countries with the United States having 449 (39.9%) respondents. Preprocedure, noninvasive testing for collateral circulation is used more commonly in the United States (54.1%) than around the world (26.6%) but its use has decreased since 2010. In the US, 48.8% of operators never use ultrasound and 92.6% of OUS operators never use it; only 4.4% overall use ultrasound in >50% of cases. Use of bivalirudin has decreased in the US and OUS. Nearly, 30% of operators do not assess for radial artery patency following hemostasis. US respondents used TRA less commonly for primary PCI for STEMI than their global counterparts. CONCLUSIONS:There is wide variation in how TRA procedures are performed including relatively low rates of adherence to practices that are known to improve outcomes. Further education aimed at increasing use of best practices will impact patient outcomes.

AIMS:Limited data exist on the epidemiology, evaluation, and prognosis of otherwise unexplained anaemia of the elderly in heart failure (HF). Thus, we aimed to determine the incidence of anaemia, to characterize diagnostic testing patterns for potentially reversible causes of anaemia, and to evaluate the independent association between incident anaemia and long-term morbidity and mortality. METHODS AND RESULTS:Within the Cardiovascular Research Network (CVRN), we identified adults age ≥65 years with diagnosed HF between 2005 and 2012 and no anaemia at entry. Incident anaemia was defined using World Health Organization (WHO) haemoglobin thresholds (<13.0 g/dL in men; <12.0 g/dL in women). All-cause death and hospitalizations for HF and any cause were identified from electronic health records. Among 38 826 older HF patients, 22 163 (57.1%) developed incident anaemia over a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 2.9 (1.2-5.6) years. The crude rate [95% confidence interval (CI)] per 100 person-years of incident anaemia was 26.4 (95% CI 26.0-26.7) and was higher for preserved ejection fraction (EF) [29.2 (95% CI 28.6-29.8)] compared with borderline EF [26.5 (95% CI 25.4-27.7)] or reduced EF [26.6 (95% CI 25.8-27.4)]. Iron indices, vitamin B12 level, and thyroid testing were performed in 20.9%, 14.9%, and 40.2% of patients, respectively. Reduced iron stores, vitamin B12 deficiency, and/or hypothyroidism were present in 29.7%, 3.2%, and 18.6% of tested patients, respectively. In multivariable analyses, incident anaemia was associated with excess mortality [hazard ratio (HR) 2.14, 95% CI 2.07-2.22] as well as hospitalization for HF (HR 1.80, 95% CI 1.72-1.88) and any cause (HR 1.77, 95% CI 1.72-1.83). CONCLUSION:Among older adults with HF, incident anaemia is common and independently associated with substantially increased risks of morbidity and mortality. Additional research is necessary to clarify the value of routine evaluation and treatment of potentially reversible causes of anaemia.

BACKGROUND:The role of aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular diseases remains controversial, particularly in the context of contemporary aggressive preventive strategies. METHODS:Relevant randomized clinical trials were included, and risk ratios (RRs) were calculated using random-effects models. Additional moderator analyses were performed to compare the pooled treatment effects from recent trials (those reported after the guidelines of the National Cholesterol Education Program Third Adult Treatment Panel were published in 2001; thus, conducted on the background of contemporary preventive strategies) to the results of older trials. RESULTS:Data from 14 randomized controlled trials involving 164,751 patients were included. Aspirin use decreased myocardial infarction risk by 16% compared with placebo (RR 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75-0.94); however, in the moderator analyses, aspirin was not associated with a decreased risk of myocardial infarction in recent trials, but was in older trials (P-interaction = .02). Overall, aspirin use significantly increased the occurrence of major bleeding (RR 1.49; 95% CI, 1.32-1.69) and hemorrhagic stroke (RR 1.25; 95% CI, 1.01-1.54). In moderator analyses, the risk of major bleeding (P-interaction = .12) or hemorrhagic stroke (P-interaction = .44) with aspirin was not significantly different between the older and new trials. Differences between aspirin and placebo in the risks for all-cause stroke, cardiac death, and all-cause mortality were not found. CONCLUSIONS:In the context of contemporary primary prevention guidelines, the effect of aspirin on myocardial infarction risk was significantly attenuated, whereas its major bleeding and hemorrhagic stroke complications were retained. Therefore, in contemporary practice, routine use of aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular events may have a net harmful effect.