Faculty Bibliography

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.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the safety of drug-eluting stents (DES) when treating patients with failing saphenous vein grafts (SVG). BACKGROUND:DES reduce target vessel revascularization in patients with failing SVGs; however, compared with bare metal stents (BMS), DES have been variably associated with increased mortality. METHODS:Clinical records from National Cardiovascular Data Registry(®) CathPCI Registry(®) (49,325 older individuals [≥65 years] who underwent SVG stenting 2005-2009) were linked to Medicare claims to create a longitudinal record. Death, myocardial infarction (MI), and urgent revascularization with DES versus BMS were evaluated to 3 years using propensity matching (PM). Results were stratified by clinical presentation (acute coronary syndrome [ACS], non-ACS), previous lesion treatment (in-stent, de novo), and graft segment (aortic, body, distal anastomosis). RESULTS:In this older cohort (median age, 75 years), acute presentations were prevalent (ACS, 69%; TIMI flow <3, 45%), and adverse clinical outcomes were common by 3 years (death, 24.5%; MI, 14.6%; urgent revascularization, 29.5%). Among DES patients (n = 31,403), 3-year mortality was lower (vs. BMS) (22.7% vs. 28.0%, P < 0.001; PM hazard ratio [HR] 0.87, 95% confidence interval 0.83-0.91), and no difference was observed in the adjusted risk for MI (PM HR 0.97, 0.91 to 1.03) or urgent revascularization (PM HR 1.04, 0.99-1.08). These findings were independent of clinical presentation, previous lesion treatment, and graft segment (P interaction, ns). CONCLUSIONS:In this large SVG PCI cohort, all-cause mortality was lower among those receiving DES, and no difference in MI or urgent revascularization was observed to 3 years. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

BACKGROUND:Two large trials have reported contradictory results at 1 year after thrombus aspiration in ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). In a 1-year follow-up of the largest randomised trial of thrombus aspiration, we aimed to clarify the longer-term benefits, to help guide clinical practice. METHODS:The trial of routine aspiration ThrOmbecTomy with PCI versus PCI ALone in Patients with STEMI (TOTAL) was a prospective, randomised, investigator-initiated trial of routine manual thrombectomy versus percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) alone in 10,732 patients with STEMI. Eligible adult patients (aged ≥18 years) from 87 hospitals in 20 countries were enrolled and randomly assigned (1:1) within 12 h of symptom onset to receive routine manual thrombectomy with PCI or PCI alone. Permuted block randomisation (with variable block size) was done by a 24 h computerised central system, and was stratified by centre. Participants and investigators were not masked to treatment assignment. The trial did not show a difference at 180 days in the primary outcome of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, cardiogenic shock, or heart failure. However, the results showed improvements in the surrogate outcomes of ST segment resolution and distal embolisation, but whether or not this finding would translate into a longer term benefit remained unclear. In this longer-term follow-up of the TOTAL study, we report the results on the primary outcome (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, cardiogenic shock, or heart failure) and secondary outcomes at 1 year. Analyses of the primary outcome were by modified intention to treat and only included patients who underwent index PCI. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01149044. FINDINGS/RESULTS:Between Aug 5, 2010, and July 25, 2014, 10,732 eligible patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to thrombectomy followed by PCI (n=5372) or to PCI alone (n=5360). After exclusions of patients who did not undergo PCI in each group (337 in the PCI and thrombectomy group and 331 in the PCI alone group), the final study population comprised 10,064 patients (5035 thrombectomy and 5029 PCI alone). The primary outcome at 1 year occurred in 395 (8%) of 5035 patients in the thrombectomy group compared with 394 (8%) of 5029 in the PCI alone group (hazard ratio [HR] 1·00 [95% CI 0·87-1·15], p=0·99). Cardiovascular death within 1 year occurred in 179 (4%) of the thrombectomy group and in 192 (4%) of 5029 in the PCI alone group (HR 0·93 [95% CI 0·76-1·14], p=0·48). The key safety outcome, stroke within 1 year, occurred in 60 patients (1·2%) in the thrombectomy group compared with 36 (0·7%) in the PCI alone group (HR 1·66 [95% CI 1·10-2·51], p=0·015). INTERPRETATION/CONCLUSIONS:Routine thrombus aspiration during PCI for STEMI did not reduce longer-term clinical outcomes and might be associated with an increase in stroke. As a result, thrombus aspiration can no longer be recommended as a routine strategy in STEMI. FUNDING/BACKGROUND:Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Canadian Network and Centre for Trials Internationally, and Medtronic Inc.

Cardiogenic shock is a common clinical condition with high in-hospital mortality. Early application of appropriate interventions for cardiogenic shock-including medical therapies, revascularization, temporary hemodynamic support devices, and durable mechanical circulatory support-may improve outcomes. The number and complexity of therapies for cardiogenic shock are increasing, making time-dependent decision-making more challenging. A multidisciplinary cardiogenic shock team is recommended to guide the rapid and efficient use of these available treatments. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Public reporting of health care data continues to proliferate as consumers and other stakeholders seek information on the quality and outcomes of care. Medicare's Hospital Compare website, the U.S. News & World Report hospital rankings, and several state-level programs are well known. Many rely heavily on administrative data as a surrogate to reflect clinical reality. Clinical data are traditionally more difficult and costly to collect, but more accurately reflect patients' clinical status, thus enhancing the validity of quality metrics. We describe the public reporting effort being launched by the American College of Cardiology and partnering professional organizations using clinical data from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) programs. This hospital-level voluntary effort will initially report process of care measures from the percutaneous coronary intervention (CathPCI) and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) registries of the NCDR. Over time, additional process, outcomes, and composite performance metrics will be reported.

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.

BACKGROUND:Despite several randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses, the ideal anticoagulant for patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains controversial. We performed an updated meta-analysis including recently reported randomized clinical trials that compare bivalirudin and heparin with or without provisional administration of a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor (GPI) for primary PCI. METHODS AND RESULTS/RESULTS:Scientific databases and Web sites were searched for randomized clinical trials. Data from 6 trials involving 14,095 patients were included. The pooled risk ratios (RRs) were calculated using random-effects models. Moderator analyses examined the impact of routine use of GPI, radial access, and P2Y12 inhibitors on safety outcomes. At 30 days, patients receiving bivalirudin had rates of major adverse cardiac events similar to those receiving heparin with or without provisional GPI (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.87-1.19, P = .800), myocardial infarction (RR 1.41, 95% CI 0.94-2.11, P = .089), target vessel revascularization (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.91-2.04, P = .122), and net adverse clinical events (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.64-1.01, P = .069). However, bivalirudin use decreased the risk of all-cause mortality (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.67-0.99, P = .041) and cardiac mortality (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.51-0.91, P = .009) at 30 days, There were higher rates of acute stent thrombosis (RR 3.31, 95% CI 1.79-6.10, P < .001) in patients receiving bivalirudin. Bivalirudin use also decreased the risk of major bleeding at 30 days by 37% (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.44-0.90, P = .012), but bleeding risk varied depending on routine GPI use with heparin (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.23-0.81, P = .009) vs bailout (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.42-1.25, P = .252), predominantly radial access (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.25-1.15, P = .114) vs non-radial access (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.36-0.99, P = .049), and second-generation P2Y12 inhibitor use with bivalirudin (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.40-1.24, P = .226) vs clopidogrel use (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.18-0.85, P = .018). CONCLUSIONS:In primary PCI, relative to heparin, bivalirudin reduces the risk for all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, and major bleeding but yields similar rates of major adverse cardiac event and net adverse clinical event at 30 days. However, the benefit of a reduction in bleeding with bivalirudin appears to be modulated by the concurrent administration of second-generation P2Y12 inhibitors with bivalirudin, using radial access, and avoiding routine GPI use with heparin.