Faculty Bibliography

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.

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.

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.

AIMS/OBJECTIVE:The 6 Fr Glidesheath Slender (GSS6Fr) is a recently developed thin-walled radial sheath with an outer diameter (OD) that is smaller than the OD of standard 6 Fr sheaths. The purpose of this trial was to clarify whether the use of this new slender sheath would result in similar rates of RAO to a standard 5 Fr sheath in unselected patients undergoing transradial (TR) coronary angiography and/or intervention, and to assess the relative importance of sheath size and haemostasis protocol on the rate of RAO. METHODS AND RESULTS/RESULTS:We conducted a randomised, multicentre, non-inferiority trial comparing the GSS6Fr against the standard GS5Fr in patients undergoing TR coronary angiography and/or intervention. Patients in each group were subsequently randomised to undergo patent haemostasis or the institutional haemostasis protocol. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of RAO at discharge. A total of 1,926 patients were randomised in 12 centres. The incidence of RAO was 3.47% with GSS6Fr compared with 1.74% with GS5Fr (risk difference 1.73%, 95% CI: 0.51-2.95%; pnon-inferiority=0.150). Patients randomised to patent haemostasis had a similar rate of RAO compared with institutional haemostasis (2.61% vs. 2.61%, p=1). There was no difference with regard to all secondary endpoints, including vascular access-site complications, local bleeding and spasm. CONCLUSIONS:In this large multicentre randomised trial, the GSS6Fr was associated with a low event rate for the primary endpoint (RAO), although non-inferiority to the GS5Fr was not met, due to a lower than expected rate of RAO in the GS5Fr group. As compared to institutional haemostasis, the use of patent haemostasis was not associated with a reduced rate of RAO.

OBJECTIVE:To compare the efficacies of various post-percutaneous coronary intervenetion (PCI) bivalirudin doses on net adverse clinical events (NACEs) and mortality. BACKGROUND:In primary PCI, lower risk of bleeding with bivalirudin (vs. unfractionated heparin [UFH]) is counterbalanced by an increased risk of acute stent thrombosis (ST). Several randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and a recent meta-analysis suggest that acute ST risk may be eliminated without compromising the bleeding benefit, but only if the full dose, not a low dose, of bivalirudin is continued post-PCI. However, it is not known whether this improved risk leads to lower rates of NACEs and mortality. METHODS:Scientific databases and Web sites were searched for RCTs. Trials were included if study patients were undergoing primary PCI for acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and were randomly assigned to bivalirudin or UFH treatment. The bivalirudin arm was divided based on post-PCI bivalirudin dosage: The Biv-Full group received 1.75 mg/kg/h, the Biv-Low group, 0.25 mg/kg/h, and the Biv-No group, none. RESULTS:Six RCTs involving 16,842 patients were found. In pairwise meta-analysis, bivalirudin improved 30-day all-cause mortality by 35% and cardiac mortality by 32%, but did not yield a NACE rate better than that achieved with UFH. Subgroup analysis showed the Biv-Full group had a 46% lower NACE rate and 47% lower all-cause mortality than UFH. These effects were not seen in the other two groups. Network meta-analysis yielded similar results. At treatment ranking, the Biv-Full group yielded the best treatment efficacy. CONCLUSIONS:In primary PCI, full-dose bivalirudin infusion for 3-4 hr after PCI appeared to improve NACE rates compared to UFH. It also seemed to be the most effective strategy for improving cardiac mortality and all-cause mortality. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

BACKGROUND:Morbidity and mortality conference is a common educational and quality improvement activity performed in cardiac catheterization laboratories, but best practices for case selection and for maximizing the effectiveness of peer review have not been determined. METHODS AND RESULTS/RESULTS:We reviewed the 10-year percutaneous coronary intervention morbidity and mortality conference experience of an academic medical center. Cases were triggered for review by the occurrence of prespecified procedural events. Summary reports from morbidity and mortality conference discussions were linked to clinical data from the Duke Databank for Cardiovascular Disease to compare baseline and procedural characteristics and to assess postdischarge outcomes. Of 11 786 procedures, from 2004 to 2013, 157 (1.3%) were triggered for review. The most frequent triggering events were cardioversion/defibrillation (72, 0.6%), unplanned use of mechanical circulatory support (64, 0.5%), and major dissection (41, 0.3%). Selected procedures were more likely to include high-risk features, such as ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction, cardiogenic shock, and multivessel disease, and were associated with higher mortality at 30 days. Only a minority of triggering events were caused by controversial or unacceptable physician behavior. CONCLUSIONS:This 10-year experience outlines the processes for conduct of an effective percutaneous coronary intervention morbidity and mortality conference, including a novel approach to case selection and structured peer review leading to actionable quality interventions. The prespecified clinical triggers, captured in the natural workflow by laboratory staff, identified complex cases that were associated with poor patient outcomes.