Faculty Bibliography

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.

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.

BACKGROUND:Identification of the infarct-related artery (IRA) in patients with STEMI using coronary angiography (CA) is often based on the ECG and can be challenging in patients with severe multi-vessel disease. The current study aimed to determine how often percutaneous intervention (PCI) is performed in a coronary artery different from the artery supplying the territory of acute infarction on cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR). METHODS:We evaluated 113 patients from the Reduction of infarct Expansion and Ventricular remodeling with Erythropoetin After Large myocardial infarction (REVEAL) trial, who underwent CMR within 4±2 days of revascularization. Blinded reviewers interpreted CA to determine the IRA and CMR to determine the location of infarction on a 17-segment model. In patients with multiple infarcts on CMR, acuity was determined with T2-weighted imaging and/or evidence of microvascular obstruction. RESULTS:A total of 5 (4%) patients were found to have a mismatch between the IRA identified on CMR and CA. In 4/5 cases, there were multiple infarcts noted on CMR. Thirteen patients (11.5%) had multiple infarcts in separate territories on CMR with 4 patients (3.5%) having multiple acute infarcts and 9 patients (8%) having both acute and chronic infarcts. CONCLUSIONS:In this select population of patients, the identification of the IRA by CA was incorrect in 4% of patients presenting with STEMI. Four patients with a mismatch had an acute infarction in more than one coronary artery territory on CMR. The role of CMR in patients presenting with STEMI with multi-vessel disease on CA deserves further investigation.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW:Patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) and a high risk of bleeding are not ideal candidates for a polymer-based drug-eluting stent (DES) because it requires 6-12 months of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The purpose of this review is to assess the angiographic and clinical outcomes of polymer-free drug-coated stents (PF-DCS) in stable CAD patients with a high bleeding risk. RECENT FINDINGS:Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have compared angiographic and clinical outcomes of PF-DCS with bare-metal stents (BMS), permanent polymer (PP)-DES, or biodegradable polymer (BP)-DES. However, none of these studies particularly recruited patients with stable CAD and a high risk of bleeding. Furthermore, there are limited data available on duration of DAPT following PF-DCS placement. PF-DCS has a better efficacy and similar safety as compared with BMS. PF-DCS with dual drug is noninferior to currently available PP-DES. Further RCTs are needed to assess the safety and efficacy of PF-DCS to BP-DES and PP-DES comparing shorter to standard durations of DAPT.

BACKGROUND:Current guidelines give a class I recommendation to use of embolic protection devices (EPD) for saphenous vein graft (SVG) intervention; however, studies have shown conflicting results. The objective of this meta-analysis is to compare all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events, myocardial infarction (MI), or target vessel revascularization in SVG intervention with and without EPD. METHODS AND RESULTS/RESULTS:=0.30) between the 2 groups. Sensitivity analysis excluding CathPCI Registry study showed no difference in periprocedural MI, late MI, and target vessel revascularization; however, it favored EPD use in all-cause mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events. Further sensitivity analysis including only observational studies revealed no difference in all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events, target vessel revascularization, and late MI. Additional analysis after excluding CathPCI Registry study revealed no difference in outcomes. CONCLUSIONS:This study including 52 893 patients suggests no apparent benefit in routine use of EPD during SVG intervention in the contemporary real-world practice. Further randomized clinical trials are needed in current era to evaluate long-term outcomes in routine use of EPD, and meanwhile, current guideline recommendations on EPD use should be revisited.

Oral Antiplatelet Drugs (OAD) have a proven track record in the risk reduction of major cardiovascular events in patients with cardiovascular disease and normal kidney function. However, major gaps exist in our understanding of their effects on thrombosis and bleeding in chronic kidney disease (CKD). Clinical practice guidelines are ambiguous about use of such drugs in CKD patients, because patients with moderate to severe CKD were systematically excluded from clinical trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of OAD. Paradoxically, CKD patients are at high risk of thrombosis and major bleeding events. Thus, choosing the right combination of OAD for cardiovascular protection in these patients is challenging. Patients with CKD exhibit high rates of OAD hyporesponsiveness. It is, therefore, imperative to explore the mechanisms responsible for poor response to OAD in CKD patients in order to use these drugs more safely and effectively. This review explores suggested mechanisms of platelet dysfucntion in CKD patients and the available evidence on the efficacy and safety of oral antiplatelet drugs in patients with renal dysfunction.