Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Considerable variability remains as regards the appropriate and safe length of stay after elective PCI. We performed a survey of interventional cardiologists to identify current views on appropriate and safe length of stay after PCI. METHODS:We created an online survey using the commercially available SurveyMonkey application. This was sent to interventional cardiologists in the US, Canada and the UK with the assistance of the national interventional cardiology societies (SCAI, CAIC/CCS, BCIS/BCS) as well as being made available on the theheart.org website. RESULTS:505 interventional cardiologists responded, of which 237 were practicing in the US. Of those from the US, 52% were not aware of any guidelines for length of stay and 48% reported that their unit did not have a standard practice for length of stay. Same-day discharge after PCI was practiced as routine by 14% of cardiologists in the US versus 32% of cardiologists from Canada (P = 0.003) and 57% (P < 0.0001) from the UK. Amongst respondents, there was significant variation between respondents and divergence from published SCAI guidelines regarding appropriate length of stay for patient specific and procedural related clinical factors. CONCLUSIONS:There is considerable variation in practice patterns regarding length of stay after PCI. Whilst most cardiologists practice overnight observation, a significant minority utilize same-day discharge. There is also lack of familiarity with published guidelines. This variation and knowledge gap confirms an urgent need for updated guidelines and a concerted effort to educate cardiologists on appropriate post-PCI length of stay. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:The presence of severe coronary artery calcification is associated with higher rates of angiographic complications during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), as well as higher major adverse cardiac events compared with non-calcified lesions. Incorporating orbital atherectomy (OAS) for effective preparation of severely calcified lesions can help maximize the benefits of PCI by attaining maximal luminal gain (or stent expansion) and improve long-term outcomes (by reducing need for revascularization). Areas covered: In this manuscript, the prevalence, risk factors, and impact of coronary artery calcification on PCI are reviewed. Based on current data and experience, the authors review orbital atherectomy technique and best practices to optimize lesion preparation. Expert Commentary: The coronary OAS is the only device approved for use in the U.S. as a treatment for de novo, severely calcified coronary lesions to facilitate stent delivery. Advantages of the device include its ease of use and a mechanism of action that treats bi-directionally, allowing for continuous blood flow during treatment, minimizing heat damage, slow flow, and subsequent need for revascularization. The OAS technique tips reviewed in this article will help inform interventional cardiologists treating patients with severely calcified lesions.

VA Cooperative Studies Program #571 (DIVA) was designed to evaluate the efficacy of drug-eluting stents (DES) for reducing aortocoronary saphenous vein bypass graft (SVG) failure when compared with bare-metal stents (BMS) in participants undergoing stenting of de novo SVG lesions. Participants undergoing clinically indicated stenting of de novo SVG lesions were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to DES or BMS. Randomization was stratified by presence/absence of diabetes mellitus and the number of target SVG lesions (1 vs ≥2) within each participating site. At sites that did not routinely administer 12-months of dual antiplatelet therapy after SVG stenting participants without acute coronary syndromes received 1 month of open-label clopidogrel, followed by 11 months of clopidogrel for those assigned to DES and 11 months of placebo for those assigned to BMS. The primary endpoint was the 12-month incidence of target-vessel failure (defined as the composite of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or target-vessel revascularization). Secondary endpoints included the incidence of other clinical endpoints and the incremental cost-effectiveness of DES relative to BMS. Due to lower-than-anticipated target-vessel failure rates, target enrollment was increased from 519 to 762. The study had randomized 599 participants when recruitment ended in December 2015. The DIVA trial will provide clarity on the appropriate stent type for de novo SVG lesions.

OBJECTIVES:This study sought to compare clinical outcomes in a contemporary acute coronary syndrome (ACS) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) cohort stratified by chronic kidney disease (CKD) status. BACKGROUND:Patients with CKD exhibit high risks for both thrombotic and bleeding events, thus complicating decision making regarding antiplatelet therapy in the setting of ACS. METHODS:The PROMETHEUS study was a multicenter observational study comparing outcomes with prasugrel versus clopidogrel in ACS PCI patients. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 90 days and at 1 year were defined as a composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or unplanned revascularization. Clinically significant bleeding was defined as bleeding requiring transfusion or hospitalization. Cox regression multivariable analysis was performed for adjusted associations between CKD status and clinical outcomes. Hazard ratios for prasugrel versus clopidogrel treatment were generated using propensity score stratification. RESULTS:The total cohort included 19,832 patients, 28.3% with and 71.7% without CKD. CKD patients were older with greater comorbidities including diabetes and multivessel disease. Prasugrel was less often prescribed to CKD versus non-CKD patients (11.0% vs. 24.0%, respectively; p < 0.001). At 1 year, CKD was associated with higher adjusted risk of MACE (1.27; 95% confidence interval: 1.18 to 1.37) and bleeding (1.46; 95% confidence interval: 1.24 to 1.73). Although unadjusted rates of 1-year MACE were lower with prasugrel versus clopidogrel in both CKD (18.3% vs. 26.5%; p < 0.001) and non-CKD (10.9% vs. 17.9%; p < 0.001) patients, associations were attenuated after propensity stratification. Similarly, unadjusted differences in 1-year bleeding with prasugrel versus clopidogrel (6.0% vs. 7.4%; p = 0.18 in CKD patients; 2.6% vs. 3.5%; p = 0.008 in non-CKD patients) were not significant after propensity score adjustment. CONCLUSIONS:Although risks for 1-year MACE were significantly higher in ACS PCI patients with versus without CKD, prasugrel use was 50% lower in patients with renal impairment. Irrespective of CKD status, outcomes associated with prasugrel use were not significant after propensity adjustment. These data highlight the need for randomized studies evaluating the optimal antiplatelet therapy in CKD patients with ACS.

Dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) is considered mandatory after new-generation drug-eluting coronary stent implantation to reduce ischemic complications such as stent thrombosis, but the need for DAPT makes the timing of elective surgery difficult. Interrupting DAPT places patients at risk for stent thrombosis, and surgery in the setting of DAPT may lead to bleeding. The 2016 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guideline recommends delaying elective noncardiac surgery for a minimum 6-month period to reduce ischemic risks after the implantation of a second-generation metallic drug-eluting stent (DES). However, the guideline fails to appropriately stratify surgical patients based on the indication for second-generation metallic DES implantation and other patient characteristics. The Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (Abbott Vascular, Abbott Park, IL), which has a higher propensity for stent thrombosis compared with second-generation metallic DES, also produces DAPT management challenges in patients presenting for elective noncardiac surgery. Due to the novelty of bioresorbable vascular scaffold therapy, there are no guidelines available for the management of patients undergoing elective noncardiac surgery. This review addresses DAPT management in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery less than 12 months after new-generation metallic DES or bioresorbable vascular scaffold implantation and provides further guidance for anesthesiologists who encounter these challenging cases.

Treatment with P2Y12 inhibitors is an integral part of the standard of care for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. However, the most appropriate timing for P2Y12 inhibitor administration remains unclear, and the value of "preloading" with P2Y12 inhibitors prior to cardiac catheterization is controversial. While pre-catheterization treatment with P2Y12 inhibitors is performed with the goal of decreasing adverse cardiovascular events, this potential benefit must be weighed against the increased risk of bleeding complications and operative delay if coronary artery bypass graft surgery is indicated. A number of studies have been conducted to evaluate the utility of preloading with P2Y12 inhibitors prior to cardiac catheterization for varying indications including stable angina and acute coronary syndrome (ACS). In this article, we review the literature and discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the preloading strategy. Several individual studies offer inconclusive and even conflicting findings. However, when taken in sum, these studies allow for several conclusions about the utility of P2Y12 inhibitor pretreatment. The existing literature demonstrate that preloading is associated with some degree of reduction in adverse ischemic events, although this benefit comes with an increased risk of bleeding complications. The appropriateness of preloading therefore varies based on the indication for catheterization, likely justified in patients with ACS but unlikely to benefit patients with stable angina.

Importance:Current comparative outcomes among black and white patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the Veterans Affairs (VA) health system are not known. Objective:To compare outcomes between black and white patients undergoing PCI in the VA health system. Design, Setting, and Participants:This study compared black and white patients who underwent PCI between October 1, 2007, and September 30, 2013, at 63 VA hospitals using data recorded in the VA Clinical Assessment, Reporting, and Tracking System for Cardiac Catheterization Laboratories (CART-CL) program. A generalized linear mixed model with a random intercept for site assessed the relative difference in odds of outcomes between black and white patients. The setting was integrated institutionalized hospital care. Excluded were all patients of other races or those with multiple listed races and those with missing data regarding race or the diagnostic cardiac catheterization. The dates of analysis were January 7, 2016, to April 17, 2017. Exposure:Percutaneous coronary intervention at a VA hospital. Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary outcome was 1-year mortality. Secondary outcomes were 30-day all-cause readmission rates, 30-day acute kidney injury, 30-day blood transfusion, and 1-year readmission rates for myocardial infarction. In addition, variations in procedural and postprocedural care were examined, including the use of intravascular ultrasound, optical coherence tomography, fractional flow reserve measurements, bare-metal stents, postprocedural medications, and radial access. Results:A total of 42 391 patients (13.3% black and 98.4% male; mean [SD] age, 65.2 [9.1] years) satisfied the inclusion and exclusion criteria. In unadjusted analyses, black patients had higher rates of 1-year mortality (7.1% vs 5.9%, P < .001) as well as secondary outcomes of 30-day acute kidney injury (20.8% vs 13.8%, P < .001), 30-day blood transfusion (3.4% vs 2.7%, P < .01), and 1-year readmission rates for myocardial infarction (3.3% vs 2.7%, P = .01) compared with white patients. After adjustment for demographics, comorbidities, and procedural characteristics, odds for 1-year mortality (odds ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.90-1.19) were not different between black and white patients. There were also no differences in secondary outcomes with the exception of a higher rate of adjusted 30-day acute kidney injury (odds ratio, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.10-1.36). Conclusions and Relevance:While black patients had a higher rate of mortality than white patients in unadjusted analyses, race was not independently associated with 1-year mortality among patients undergoing PCI in VA hospitals.

BACKGROUND:Patients receiving oral anticoagulation in addition to dual-antiplatelet therapy are known to be at high risk for bleeding events; thus, the selection of a drug-eluting stent (DES) versus a bare metal stent (BMS) can have important implications for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) presenting with acute myocardial infarction (MI). METHODS AND RESULTS/RESULTS:<0.001). The composite outcome was similar between patients with a DES or BMS at 1 year (22% versus 26%; adjusted hazard ratio: 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76-1.03). CONCLUSIONS:Use of DESs among MI patients with AF has increased over time, but substantial hospital-level variation was observed. Patients with AF meeting indications for anticoagulation are more likely to receive a DES than a BMS, even among those at high predicted risk of both stroke and bleeding.