Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND: Drug-eluting stents (DES) have been in clinical use for nearly a decade; however, the relative short- and long-term efficacy and safety of DES compared with bare-metal stents (BMS) and among the DES types are less well defined. METHODS AND RESULTS: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched for randomized clinical trials, until March 2012, that compared any of the Food and Drug Administration-approved durable stent and polymer DES (sirolimus-eluting stent [SES], paclitaxel-eluting stent [PES], everolimus-eluting stent [EES], zotarolimus-eluting stent [ZES], and ZES-Resolute [ZES-R]) with each other or against BMS for de novo coronary lesions, enrolling at least 100 patients and with follow-up of at least 6 months. Short-term (PES approximately ZES>BMS), with a >42% probability that EES had the lowest target-vessel revascularization rate. There was no increase in the risk of any long-term safety outcomes, including stent thrombosis, with any DES (versus BMS). In addition, there was reduction in myocardial infarction (all DES except PES versus BMS) and stent thrombosis (with EES versus BMS: Rate ratio, 0.51; 95% credibility interval, 0.35-0.73). The safest DES appeared to be EES (>86% probability), with reduction in myocardial infarction and stent thrombosis compared with BMS. Short-term outcomes were similar to long-term outcomes, with SES, ZES-R, and everolimus-eluting stent being the most efficacious and EES being the safest stent. CONCLUSIONS: DES are highly efficacious at reducing the risk of target-vessel revascularization without an increase in any safety outcomes, including stent thrombosis. However, among the DES types, there were considerable differences, such that EES, SES, and ZES-R were the most efficacious and EES was the safest stent.

BACKGROUND: . Unique identifier: NCT00798122

BACKGROUND: A substantial minority of patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) do not have a diameter stenosis of any major epicardial coronary artery on angiography ('no obstruction at angiography') of >/= 50%. We examined the frequency of this finding and its relationship to race and sex. HYPOTHESIS: Among patients with myocardial infarction, younger age, female sex and non-white race are associated with the absence of obstructive coronary artery disease at angiography. METHODS: We reviewed the results of all angiograms performed from May 19, 2006 to September 29, 2006 at 1 private (n = 793) and 1 public (n = 578) urban academic medical center. Charts were reviewed for indication and results of angiography, and for demographics. RESULTS: The cohort included 518 patients with ACS. There was no obstruction at angiography in 106 patients (21%), including 48 (18%) of 258 patients with myocardial infarction. Women were more likely to have no obstruction at angiography than men, both in the overall cohort (55/170 women [32%] vs 51/348 men [15%], P < 0.001) and in the subset with MI (29/90 women [32%] vs 19/168 men [11%], P < 0.001). Black patients were more likely to have no obstruction at angiography relative to any other subgroup (24/66 [36%] vs 41/229 [18%] Whites, 31/150 [21%] Hispanics, and 5/58 [9%] Asians, P = 0.001). Among women, Black patients more frequently had no obstruction at angiography compared with other ethnic groups (16/27 [59%] vs 17/59 [29%] Whites, 17/60 [28%] Hispanics, and 3/19 [6%] Asians, P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A high proportion of a multiethnic sample of patients with ACS were found to have no stenosis >/= 50% in diameter at coronary angiography. This was particularly common among women and Black patients.

OBJECTIVES: We evaluated demographic, clinical, and angiographic factors influencing the selection of coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in diabetic patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) in the BARI 2D (Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation in Type 2 Diabetes) trial. BACKGROUND: Factors guiding selection of mode of revascularization for patients with diabetes mellitus and multivessel CAD are not clearly defined. METHODS: In the BARI 2D trial, the selected revascularization strategy, CABG or PCI, was based on physician discretion, declared independent of randomization to either immediate or deferred revascularization if clinically warranted. We analyzed factors favoring selection of CABG versus PCI in 1,593 diabetic patients with multivessel CAD enrolled between 2001 and 2005. RESULTS: Selection of CABG over PCI was declared in 44% of patients and was driven by angiographic factors including triple vessel disease (odds ratio [OR]: 4.43), left anterior descending stenosis >or=70% (OR: 2.86), proximal left anterior descending stenosis >or=50% (OR: 1.78), total occlusion (OR: 2.35), and multiple class C lesions (OR: 2.06) (all p < 0.005). Nonangiographic predictors of CABG included age >or=65 years (OR: 1.43, p = 0.011) and non-U.S. region (OR: 2.89, p = 0.017). Absence of prior PCI (OR: 0.45, p < 0.001) and the availability of drug-eluting stents conferred a lower probability of choosing CABG (OR: 0.60, p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of diabetic patients with multivessel disease were selected for PCI rather than CABG. Preference for CABG over PCI was largely based on angiographic features related to the extent, location, and nature of CAD, as well as geographic, demographic, and clinical factors. (Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation in Type 2 Diabetes [BARI 2D]; NCT00006305)

BACKGROUND: AVID (Angiography Versus Intravascular ultrasound-Directed stent placement) is a multicenter, randomized controlled trial designed to assess the effect of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)-directed stent placement on the 12-month rate of target lesion revascularization (TLR). METHODS AND RESULTS: After elective coronary stent placement and an optimal angiographic result (<10% stenosis), 800 patients were randomized to Angiography- or IVUS-directed therapy. Blinded IVUS was performed in the Angiography group without further therapy. In the IVUS group, IVUS criteria for optimal stent placement (<10% area stenosis, apposition, and absence of dissection) were applied. Final minimum stent area was 6.90+/-2.43 mm(2) in the Angiography group and 7.55+/-2.82 mm(2) in the IVUS group (P=0.001). In the IVUS group, only 37% with inadequate expansion (<90%) received further therapy. The 12-month TLR rate was 12.0% in the Angiography group and 8.1% in the IVUS group (P=0.08, 95% confidence level [CI], [-8.3% to 0.5%]). When vessels with a distal reference diameter <2.5 mm by core laboratory angiography measurement were excluded from analysis, the 12-month TLR rate was 10.1% in the Angiography group and 4.3% in the IVUS group (P=0.01, 95% CI, [-10.6% to -1.2%]). With a pre-stent angiographic stenosis of > or =70%, the TLR rate was lower in the IVUS group compared with the Angiography group (3.1% versus 14.2%; P=0.002; 95% CI, [-18.4% to -4.2%]). CONCLUSIONS: IVUS-directed bare-metal stent placement results in larger acute stent dimensions without an increase in complications and a significantly lower 12-month TLR rate for vessels > or =2.5 mm by angiography and for vessels with high-grade pre-stent stenosis. However, for the entire sample analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis, IVUS-directed bare-metal stent placement does not significantly reduce the 12-month TLR rate when compared with stent placement guided by angiography alone. In addition, IVUS evaluation of adequate stent expansion is underutilized by experienced operators

OBJECTIVES: We sought to evaluate clinical outcomes of patients with diabetes mellitus in the ACUITY (Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage Strategy) trial, overall and by treatment arm. BACKGROUND: In the ACUITY trial, 13,819 patients with moderate- or high-risk acute coronary syndromes (ACS) were randomized to heparin (unfractionated or enoxaparin) plus glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibition (GPI), bivalirudin plus GPI, or bivalirudin monotherapy. Compared with heparin plus GPI, bivalirudin monotherapy resulted in similar protection from ischemic events with less major bleeding. Whether these results apply to patients with diabetes is unknown. METHODS: We evaluated the impact of diabetes on 30-day net adverse clinical outcomes (composite ischemia [death, myocardial infarction, or unplanned ischemic revascularization] or major bleeding), overall and by antithrombotic strategy. RESULTS: Diabetes was present in 3,852 randomized patients (27.9%). Compared with nondiabetic patients, diabetic patients had higher 30-day rates of net adverse clinical outcomes (12.9% vs. 10.6%; p < 0.001), composite ischemia (8.7% vs. 7.2%; p = 0.003), and major bleeding (5.7% vs. 4.2%; p < 0.001). Among diabetic patients, compared with heparin plus GPI, bivalirudin plus GPI resulted in similar rates of net adverse clinical outcomes (14.0% vs. 13.8%; p = 0.89), while bivalirudin monotherapy resulted in a similar rate of composite ischemia (7.9% vs. 8.9%; p = 0.39) and less major bleeding (3.7% vs. 7.1%; p < 0.001), yielding fewer net adverse clinical outcomes (10.9% vs. 13.8%; p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Diabetic patients with ACS managed invasively have higher rates of composite ischemia and major bleeding. Compared with treatment with heparin plus GPI, bivalirudin monotherapy provides similar protection from ischemic events with less major bleeding, resulting in a significant reduction in net adverse clinical outcomes

Patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have a significant risk of hemorrhagic complications. Predictors of major hemorrhage and its relation to mortality in PCI are not well defined. Baseline and periprocedural predictors of major hemorrhage and its impact on mortality in patients undergoing elective or urgent PCI randomly assigned to heparin plus planned glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor (GPI) versus bivalirudin plus provisional GPIs in the REPLACE-2 Trial were determined. Of 6,001 patients, 3.2% experienced a major hemorrhage. Independent baseline predictors of major hemorrhage included advanced age, female gender, impaired creatinine clearance, and anemia. Independent periprocedural predictors of major hemorrhage included treatment with heparin plus GPI, increased procedural duration, provisional use of GPI, increased time to sheath removal, length of intensive care unit stay, and use of an intra-aortic balloon pump (all p <0.05). Mortality rates were higher in patients with than without major hemorrhage at 30 days (5.1% vs 0.2%), 6 months (6.7% vs 1.0%), and 1 year (8.7% vs 1.9%; p <0.001 for all). Furthermore, major hemorrhage was an independent predictor of 1-year mortality (odds ratio 2.66, 95% confidence interval 1.44 to 4.92, p = 0.002). In conclusion, in patients undergoing elective or urgent PCI, major hemorrhage was an independent predictor of 1-year mortality. A number of baseline and periprocedural factors independently predicted major hemorrhage, including treatment with heparin plus GPI