Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE:We studied the characteristics of patients with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) after expansion of a STEMI registry as part of the STEMI network programme in a metropolitan city and the surrounding area covering ∼26 million inhabitants. DESIGN:Retrospective cohort study. SETTING:Emergency department of 56 health centres. PARTICIPANTS:3015 patients with acute coronary syndrome, of which 1024 patients had STEMI. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE:Characteristics of reperfusion therapy. RESULTS:The majority of patients with STEMI (81%; N=826) were admitted to six academic percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) centres. PCI centres received patients predominantly (56%; N=514) from a transfer process. The proportion of patients receiving acute reperfusion therapy was higher than non-reperfused patients (54% vs 46%, p<0.001), and primary PCI was the most common method of reperfusion (86%). The mean door-to-device (DTD) time was 102±68 min. In-hospital mortality of non-reperfused patients was higher than patients receiving primary PCI or fibrinolytic therapy (9.1% vs 3.2% vs 3.8%, p<0.001). Compared with non-academic PCI centres, patients with STEMI admitted to academic PCI centres who underwent primary PCI had shorter mean DTD time (96±44 min vs 140±151 min, p<0.001), higher use of manual thrombectomy (60.2% vs13.8%, p<0.001) and drug-eluting stent implantation (87% vs 69%, p=0.001), but had similar use of radial approach and intra-aortic balloon pump (55.7% vs 67.2%, and 2.2% vs 3.4%, respectively). In patients transferred for primary PCI, TIMI risk score ≥4 on presentation was associated with a prolonged door-in to door-out (DI-DO) time (adjusted OR 2.08; 95% CI 1.09 to 3.95, p=0.02). CONCLUSIONS:In the expanded JAC registry, a higher proportion of patients with STEMI received reperfusion therapy, but 46% still did not. In developing countries, focusing the prehospital care in the network should be a major focus of care to improve the DI-DO time along with improvement of DTD time at PCI centres. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT02319473.

BACKGROUND:Bioabsorbable cardiac matrix (BCM) is a novel device that attenuates adverse left ventricular (LV) remodeling after large myocardial infarctions in experimental models. OBJECTIVES:This study aimed to analyze whether BCM, compared with saline control, would result in less LV dilation and fewer adverse clinical events between baseline and 6 months. METHODS:In an international, randomized, double-blind, controlled trial, 303 subjects with large areas of infarction despite successful primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) were randomized 2:1 to BCM or saline injected into the infarct-related artery 2 to 5 days after primary PCI. The primary outcome was mean change from baseline in LV end-diastolic volume index (LVEDVI) at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included change in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire score, 6-minute walk time, and New York Heart Association functional class at 6 months. The primary safety endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular death, recurrent MI, target-vessel revascularization, stent thrombosis, significant arrhythmia requiring therapy, or myocardial rupture through 6 months. RESULTS:In total, 201 subjects were assigned to BCM and 102 to saline control. There was no significant difference in change in LVEDVI from baseline to 6 months between the groups (mean change ± SD: BCM 14.1 ± 28.9 ml/m(2) vs. saline 11.7 ± 26.9 ml/m(2); p = 0.49). There was also no significant difference in the secondary endpoints. The rates of the primary safety outcome were similar between the 2 groups (BCM 11.6% vs. saline 9.1%; p = 0.37). CONCLUSIONS:Intracoronary deployment of BCM 2 to 5 days after successful reperfusion in subjects with large myocardial infarction did not reduce adverse LV remodeling or cardiac clinical events at 6 months. (IK-5001 for the Prevention of Remodeling of the Ventricle and Congestive Heart Failure After Acute Myocardial Infarction [PRESERVATION I]; NCT01226563).

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:We evaluated outcomes associated with transradial vs. transfemoral approaches and vorapaxar in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the TRACER trial. BACKGROUND:Vorapaxar reduces ischemic events but increases the risk of major bleeding. METHODS:We compared 30-day and 2-year major adverse cardiac events (MACE: cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, recurrent ischemia with rehospitalization, and urgent coronary revascularization) and noncoronary artery bypass graft (CABG)-related bleedings in 2,192 transradial and 4,880 transfemoral patients undergoing PCI after adjusting for confounding variables, including propensity for transradial access. RESULTS:Overall, 30-day GUSTO moderate/severe and non-CABG TIMI major/minor bleeding occurred less frequently in transradial (0.9% vs. 2.0%, P = 0.001) vs. transfemoral (1.1% vs. 2.5%, P = 0.005) patients. A similar reduction was seen at 2 years (3.3% vs. 4.7%, P = 0.008; 3.3% vs. 4.9%, P < 0.001, respectively). Transradial was associated with an increased risk of ischemic events at 30 days (OR 1.38, 95% CI 1.11-1.72; P = 0.004), driven primarily by increased periprocedural myocardial infarctions. At 2 years, rates of MACE were comparable (HR 1.14, 95% CI 0.98-1.33; P = 0.096). Although bleeding rates were higher with vorapaxar in transfemoral vs. transradial patients, there was no significant treatment interaction. Also, the access site did not modulate the association between vorapaxar and MACE. CONCLUSIONS:Transradial access was associated with lower bleeding rates and similar long-term ischemic outcomes, suggesting transradial access is safer than transfemoral access among ACS patients receiving potent antiplatelet therapies. Because of the nonrandomized allocation of arterial access, these results should be considered exploratory. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

OBJECTIVES:The aim of this study was to provide a quantitative appraisal of the effects on clinical outcomes of radial access for coronary interventions in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). BACKGROUND:Randomized trials investigating radial versus femoral access for percutaneous coronary interventions have provided conflicting evidence. No comprehensive quantitative appraisal of the risks and benefits of each approach is available across the whole spectrum of patients with stable or unstable CAD. METHODS:The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were searched for randomized trials comparing radial versus femoral access for coronary interventions. Data were pooled by meta-analysis using a fixed-effects or a random-effects model, as appropriate. Pre-specified subgroup analyses according to clinical presentation, in terms of stable CAD, non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes, or ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction were performed. RESULTS:Twenty-four studies enrolling 22,843 participants were included. Compared with femoral access, radial access was associated with a significantly lower risk for all-cause mortality (odds ratio [OR]: 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.59 to 0.87; p = 0.001, number needed to treat to benefit [NNTB] = 160), major adverse cardiovascular events (OR: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.75 to 0.94; p = 0.002; NNTB = 99), major bleeding (OR: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.42 to 0.65; p < 0.001; NNTB = 103), and major vascular complications (OR: 0.23; 95% CI: 0.16 to 0.35; p < 0.001; NNTB = 117). The rates of myocardial infarction or stroke were similar in the 2 groups. Effects of radial access were consistent across the whole spectrum of patients with CAD for all appraised endpoints. CONCLUSIONS:Compared with femoral access, radial access reduces mortality and MACE and improves safety, with reductions in major bleeding and vascular complications across the whole spectrum of patients with CAD.

OBJECTIVES:The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of various doses of post-primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) bivalirudin infusion to prevent acute stent thrombosis (AST). BACKGROUND:In several recent randomized controlled trials, bivalirudin infusion was continued post-PCI as either a full PCI dose (Biv-Full) or a reduced dose (Biv-Low) to reduce the risk for AST. The results of these trials varied, so the authors performed a meta-analysis of RCTs to determine whether the risk for AST is dose dependent. METHODS:Scientific databases and Web sites were searched for RCTs. A traditional meta-analysis was performed using moderator analyses and network meta-analysis using mixed-treatment comparison models to compare the efficacy of various bivalirudin doses in reducing AST. RESULTS:Data from 5 trials including 16,294 patients were analyzed. Compared with heparin, bivalirudin increased AST risk 2-fold, but this was ameliorated by continuing Biv-Full (risk ratio: 0.90, 95% confidence interval: 0.32 to 2.54; p = 0.852). This effect was not seen with Biv-Low. Similarly, in mixed-treatment models, no difference in AST rate was found between heparin and Biv-Full (odds ratio: 0.97; 95% confidence interval: 0.36 to 2.21). After 30 days, bivalirudin decreased the risk for major bleeding by 47% compared with heparin; this benefit persisted even with continued Biv-Full post-PCI (risk ratio: 0.29; 95% confidence interval: 0.16 to 0.53; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:Although bivalirudin is associated with a greater risk for AST than heparin post-primary PCI, this limitation may be mitigated by continuing Biv-Full (not Biv-Low) 3 to 4 h post-operatively. The decrease in bleeding risk with bivalirudin compared with heparin is not compromised by this strategy.

OBJECTIVES:The aim of this study was to examine the frequency, associations, and outcomes of native coronary artery versus bypass graft percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with prior coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in the Veterans Affairs (VA) integrated health care system. BACKGROUND:Patients with prior CABG surgery often undergo PCI, but the association between PCI target vessel and short- and long-term outcomes has received limited study. METHODS:A national cohort of 11,118 veterans with prior CABG who underwent PCI between October 2005 and September 2013 at 67 VA hospitals was examined, and the outcomes of patients who underwent native coronary versus bypass graft PCI were compared. Logistic regression with generalized estimating equations was used to adjust for correlation between patients within hospitals. Cox regressions were modeled for each outcome to determine the variables with significant hazard ratios (HRs). RESULTS:During the study period, patients with prior CABG represented 18.5% of all patients undergoing PCI (11,118 of 60,171). The PCI target vessel was a native coronary artery in 73.4% and a bypass graft in 26.6%: 25.0% in a saphenous vein graft and 1.5% in an arterial graft. Compared with patients undergoing native coronary artery PCI, those undergoing bypass graft PCI had higher risk characteristics and more procedure-related complications. During a median follow-up period of 3.11 years, bypass graft PCI was associated with significantly higher mortality (adjusted HR: 1.30; 95% confidence interval: 1.18 to 1.42), myocardial infarction (adjusted HR: 1.61; 95% confidence interval: 1.43 to 1.82), and repeat revascularization (adjusted HR: 1.60; 95% confidence interval: 1.50 to 1.71). CONCLUSIONS:In a national cohort of veterans, almost three-quarters of PCIs performed in patients with prior CABG involved native coronary artery lesions. Compared with native coronary PCI, bypass graft PCI was significantly associated with higher incidence of short- and long-term major adverse events, including more than double the rate of in-hospital mortality.

Vorapaxar, a novel antiplatelet thrombin PAR-1 inhibitor, has been evaluated in the successful TRA2P trial and the failed TRACER trial. The drug is currently approved for post myocardial infarction and peripheral artery disease indications with concomitant use of clopidogrel and/or aspirin. The FDA ruled that the vorapaxar safety profile is acceptable. However, both trials revealed excess diplopia (double vision) usually reversible after vorapaxar. The diplopia risk appears to be small (about 1 extra case per 1,000 treated subjects), but real. Overall, there were 10 placebo and 34 vorapaxar diplopia cases (p=0.018) consistent for TRACER (2 vs 13 cases; p=0.010) and for TRA2P (8 vs 21 cases; p=0.018). Hence, we review the FDA-confirmed evidence and discuss potential causes and implications of such a surprising adverse association, which may be related to off-target PAR receptor mismodulation in the eye.

IMPORTANCE:Many patients undergo cardiac catheterization and/or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) before noncardiac surgery even though these procedures are not routinely indicated. Data on this cohort of patients are limited. OBJECTIVE:To describe the characteristics, angiographic findings, and treatment patterns of clinically stable patients undergoing cardiac catheterization and/or PCI before noncardiac surgery in a large national registry. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:This study is a retrospective, descriptive analysis of National Cardiac Data Registry CathPCI Registry diagnostic catheterization and PCI data from July 1, 2009, through December 31, 2014. Data analysis was performed from April 21, 2015, to January 4, 2016. The study included 194 444 patients from 1046 sites who underwent coronary angiography before noncardiac surgery. Patients with acute coronary syndrome, cardiogenic shock, cardiac arrest, or emergency catheterization were excluded. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:Demographic characteristics, preprocedure noninvasive testing results, angiographic findings, and treatment recommendations are summarized. Among the 27 838 patients who underwent PCI, procedural details, inpatient outcomes, and discharge medications are reported. RESULTS:Of the 194 444 included patients, 113 590 (58.4%) were male, the median age was 65 years (interquartile range, 57-73 years), and 162 532 (83.6%) were white. Most were overweight or obese (152 849 [78.6%]), and 78 847 (40.6%) had diabetes mellitus. Most patients were asymptomatic (117 821 [60.6%]), although 112 302 (57.8%) had been taking antianginal medications within 2 weeks of the procedure. Prior noninvasive stress testing was reported in 126 766 (65.2%), and results were positive in 109 458 (86.3%) of those with stress data. Obstructive disease was present in 93 447 (48.1%). After diagnostic angiography, revascularization with PCI or bypass surgery was recommended in 46 380 patients (23.8%) in the overall cohort, 27 191 asymptomatic patients (23.1%), and 45 083 patients with obstructive disease (48.3%). In the 27 191 patients undergoing PCI, 367 treated lesions (1.3%) were in the left main artery and 3831 (13.8%) in the proximal left anterior descending artery. A total of 11 366 patients (40.8%) received drug-eluting stents. Complications occurred in a few patients, with a catheterization-related mortality rate of 0.05%. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:In the largest contemporary US cohort reported to date, most patients undergoing diagnostic catheterization before noncardiac surgery are asymptomatic. The discovery of obstructive coronary artery disease is common, and although randomized clinical trials have found no benefit in outcomes, revascularization is recommended in nearly half of these patients. The overall findings highlight management patterns in this population and the need for greater evidence-based guidelines and practices.