Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:In patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of the culprit lesion reduces the risk of cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction. Whether PCI of nonculprit lesions further reduces the risk of such events is unclear. METHODS:We randomly assigned patients with STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease who had undergone successful culprit-lesion PCI to a strategy of either complete revascularization with PCI of angiographically significant nonculprit lesions or no further revascularization. Randomization was stratified according to the intended timing of nonculprit-lesion PCI (either during or after the index hospitalization). The first coprimary outcome was the composite of cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction; the second coprimary outcome was the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven revascularization. RESULTS:At a median follow-up of 3 years, the first coprimary outcome had occurred in 158 of the 2016 patients (7.8%) in the complete-revascularization group as compared with 213 of the 2025 patients (10.5%) in the culprit-lesion-only PCI group (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60 to 0.91; P = 0.004). The second coprimary outcome had occurred in 179 patients (8.9%) in the complete-revascularization group as compared with 339 patients (16.7%) in the culprit-lesion-only PCI group (hazard ratio, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.61; P<0.001). For both coprimary outcomes, the benefit of complete revascularization was consistently observed regardless of the intended timing of nonculprit-lesion PCI (P = 0.62 and P = 0.27 for interaction for the first and second coprimary outcomes, respectively). CONCLUSIONS:Among patients with STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease, complete revascularization was superior to culprit-lesion-only PCI in reducing the risk of cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction, as well as the risk of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven revascularization. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; COMPLETE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01740479.).

Identification and management of patients at high bleeding risk undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention are of major importance, but a lack of standardization in defining this population limits trial design, data interpretation, and clinical decision-making. The Academic Research Consortium for High Bleeding Risk (ARC-HBR) is a collaboration among leading research organizations, regulatory authorities, and physician-scientists from the United States, Asia, and Europe focusing on percutaneous coronary intervention-related bleeding. Two meetings of the 31-member consortium were held in Washington, DC, in April 2018 and in Paris, France, in October 2018. These meetings were organized by the Cardiovascular European Research Center on behalf of the ARC-HBR group and included representatives of the US Food and Drug Administration and the Japanese Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency, as well as observers from the pharmaceutical and medical device industries. A consensus definition of patients at high bleeding risk was developed that was based on review of the available evidence. The definition is intended to provide consistency in defining this population for clinical trials and to complement clinical decision-making and regulatory review. The proposed ARC-HBR consensus document represents the first pragmatic approach to a consistent definition of high bleeding risk in clinical trials evaluating the safety and effectiveness of devices and drug regimens for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

Identification and management of patients at high bleeding risk undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention are of major importance, but a lack of standardization in defining this population limits trial design, data interpretation, and clinical decision-making. The Academic Research Consortium for High Bleeding Risk (ARC-HBR) is a collaboration among leading research organizations, regulatory authorities, and physician-scientists from the United States, Asia, and Europe focusing on percutaneous coronary intervention-related bleeding. Two meetings of the 31-member consortium were held in Washington, DC, in April 2018 and in Paris, France, in October 2018. These meetings were organized by the Cardiovascular European Research Center on behalf of the ARC-HBR group and included representatives of the US Food and Drug Administration and the Japanese Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency, as well as observers from the pharmaceutical and medical device industries. A consensus definition of patients at high bleeding risk was developed that was based on review of the available evidence. The definition is intended to provide consistency in defining this population for clinical trials and to complement clinical decision-making and regulatory review. The proposed ARC-HBR consensus document represents the first pragmatic approach to a consistent definition of high bleeding risk in clinical trials evaluating the safety and effectiveness of devices and drug regimens for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

We sought to investigate the utilization of prasugrel and its association with outcomes relative to clopidogrel in three typical subgroups of ACS in a real-world setting. Prasugrel is superior to clopidogrel for reducing risk of ischemic events in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), but is associated with an increased risk of bleeding complications. PROMETHEUS was a retrospective multicenter observational study of 19,913 ACS patients undergoing PCI from 8 centers in the United States between 2010 and 2013. Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) were defined as a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke or unplanned revascularization. The study cohort included 3285 (16.5%) patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), 5412 (27.2%) patients with NSTEMI and 11,216 (56.3%) patients with unstable angina (UA). The frequency of prasugrel use at discharge was highest in STEMI and lowest in UA patients, 27.3% versus 22.2% versus 18.9% (p < 0.001). Use of prasugrel vs clopidogrel was associated with a lower rate of MACE in STEMI, NSTEMI, or UA at 1 year, but the differences were attenuated for all groups except for patients with UA (adjusted HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.69-0.94, p = 0.006) after propensity adjusted analysis. After adjustment, there was no difference in bleeding risk between prasugrel and clopidogrel for all groups at 1 year. STEMI patients were more likely to receive prasugrel compared to NSTEMI and UA patients. Prasugrel was associated with reduced adverse outcomes compared with clopidogrel in unadjusted analyses, findings that were largely attenuated upon adjustment and suggest preferential use of prasugrel in low vs high risk patients.

OBJECTIVE:To investigate the use of prasugrel after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in African American (AA) patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). BACKGROUND:AA patients are at higher risk for adverse cardiovascular outcomes after PCI and may derive greater benefit from the use of potent antiplatelet therapy. METHODS:Using the multicenter PROMETHEUS observational registry of ACS patients treated with PCI, we grouped patients by self-reported AA or other races. Clinical outcomes at 90-day and 1-year included non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), major adverse cardiac events (composite of death, MI, stroke, or unplanned revascularization) and major bleeding. RESULTS:The study population included 2,125 (11%) AA and 17,707 (89%) non-AA patients. AA patients were younger, more often female (46% vs. 30%) with a higher prevalence of diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease, and prior coronary intervention than non-AA patients. Although AA patients more often presented with troponin (+) ACS, prasugrel use was much less common in AA vs. non-AA (11.9% vs. 21.4%, respectively, P = 0.001). In addition, the use of prasugrel increased with the severity of presentation in non-AA but not in AA patients. Multivariable logistic regression showed AA race was an independent predictor of reduced use of prasugrel (0.42 [0.37-0.49], P < 0.0001). AA race was independently associated with a significantly higher risk of MI at 90-days and 1 year after PCI. CONCLUSIONS:Despite higher risk clinical presentation and worse 1-year ischemic outcomes, AA race was an independent predictor of lower prasugrel prescription in a contemporary population of ACS patients undergoing PCI.

BACKGROUND:Clinical trial data studies suggest superiority of prasugrel over clopidogrel in patients with diabetes. However, the use, safety and efficacy profile of prasugrel in unselected diabetic patients presenting with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) remain unclear. METHODS:PROMETHEUS was a prospective multicenter observational study of 19,919 ACS PCI patients enrolled between 2010 and 2013. The primary endpoint was 90-day major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), comprising all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke or unplanned revascularization. The safety endpoint was bleeding requiring hospitalization. RESULTS:We identified 7580 (38%) subjects with and 12,329 (62%) without diabetes. Diabetic patients were older and had significantly higher rates of cardiovascular risk factors. However, they were less likely to receive prasugrel (18.2% vs. 21.7%). Use of prasugrel did not increase with the severity of clinical presentation in diabetics, whereas, among non-diabetics, prescription of prasugrel was higher in NSTEMI and STEMI compared to unstable angina. The 90-day and 1-year adjusted risk of MACE was greater in diabetics (at 1 year: 22.7% vs. 16.5%; HR 1.22 [1.14-1.33], p < 0.001). At 1 year, the risk of bleeding was also higher in diabetics (4.9% vs. 4.1%, HR 1.19 [1.01-1.39], p = 0.035). After multivariable adjustment, use of prasugrel was associated with a lower risk of death in diabetic patients both at 90 days and 1 year. CONCLUSIONS:Use of prasugrel in diabetic patients with PCI-treated ACS was lower than in non-diabetics despite their high-risk profile and the severity of their clinical presentation. In diabetics, prasugrel was associated with a lower adjusted risk of 90-day death compared with clopidogrel.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:To investigate the prevalence, predictors and associations between guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) and clinical outcomes in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) from eight academic centers in the United States. BACKGROUND:Evidence for GDMT in patients with AMI comes from randomized controlled trials. The use of GDMT in clinical practice is unknown in this setting. METHODS:PROMETHEUS is a multicenter observational registry comprising 19,914 patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing PCI. Patients with AMI were divided into two groups based on the prescription of GDMT or not (non-GDMT) at discharge. GDMT was defined according to American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) class I recommendations, specifically, dual antiplatelet therapy, statin and beta-blocker for all AMI patients, and additional ACEI/ARB in patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) less than 40%, hypertension, diabetes mellitus (DM) or chronic kidney disease (CKD). The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) defined as a composite of all-cause death, MI, stroke or unplanned target vessel revascularization (TVR) at 1 year. RESULTS:Out of 4,834 patients with AMI, 3,356 (69.4%) patients were discharged on GDMT. Patients receiving GDMT were more often younger and male. Compared with non-GDMT patients, GDMT patients had a significantly lower frequency of comorbidities. Predictors of greater GDMT prescription at discharge were ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), and increased body mass index (BMI), whereas hypertension, prior PCI, anemia and CKD were associated with less GDMT prescription. At 1 year, the use of GDMT was associated with a significantly lower incidence of MACE (13.7% vs. 22.5%; adjusted HR 0.68; 95%CI 0.58-0.80; P < 0.001), death (3.7% vs. 9.4%; adjusted HR 0.61; 95%CI 0.46-0.80; P < 0.001), and unplanned TVR (8.4% vs. 11.3%; adjusted HR 0.76; 95%CI 0.61-0.96; P = 0.020). However, there were no significant differences in the incidence of MI (4.3% vs. 7.0%; adjusted HR 0.75; 95%CI 0.56-1.01; P = 0.056), stroke (1.5% vs. 2.0%; adjusted HR 0.79; 95%CI 0.47-1.34; P = 0.384) between the two groups. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:In a contemporary practice setting in the United States, GDMT was utilized in just over two-thirds of AMI patients undergoing PCI. Predictors of GDMT prescription at discharge included STEMI, BMI and absence of hypertension, CKD, anemia or prior PCI. Use of GDMT was associated with significantly lower risk of 1-year MACE and mortality.

BACKGROUND:The radial artery (RA) is routinely used for both hemodynamic monitoring and for cardiac catheterization. Although cannulation of the RA is usually undertaken through manual palpation, ultrasound (US)-guided access has been advocated as a mean to increase cannulation success rates and to lower RA complications; however, the published data are mixed. We sought to evaluate the impact of US-guided RA access compared with palpation alone on first-pass success to access RA. METHODS AND RESULTS:Meta-analysis of 12 randomized controlled trials comparing US-guided with palpation-guided radial access in 2,432 adult participants was done. Hemodynamic monitoring was the most common reason for RA catheterization. Only 2 randomized controlled trials evaluated patients undergoing cardiac catheterization. Ultrasound-guided radial access was associated with increased first-attempt success rate (risk ratio [RR] 1.35, 95% CI 1.16-1.57]) and decreased failure rate (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.32-0.87). There were no significant differences in the risk of hematoma (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.27-1.06), the mean time to first successful attempt (mean difference 25.13 seconds, 95% CI -1.06 to 51.34) or to any successful attempt (mean difference -4.74 seconds; 95% CI -22.67 to 13.18) between both groups. CONCLUSIONS:Ultrasound-guided technique for RA access has higher first-attempt success and lower failure rate compared with palpation alone, with no significant differences in access site hematoma or time to a successful attempt. These findings support the routine use of US guidance for RA access.