Faculty Bibliography

Anemia is common in older persons and is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. One third of anemic older adults have unexplained anemia of the elderly (UAE). We carried out a randomized, wait list control trial in outpatients with UAE and serum ferritin levels between 20 and 200 ng/mL. Intravenous iron sucrose was given as a 200-mg weekly dose for 5 weeks either immediately after enrollment (immediate intervention group) or following a 12-week wait list period (wait list control group). The primary outcome measure was changed in 6-minute walk test (6MWT) distances from baseline to 12 weeks between the two groups. Hematologic, physical, cognitive, and quality of life parameters were also assessed. The study was terminated early after 19 subjects enrolled. The distance walked in the 6MWT increased a mean 8.05±55.48 m in the immediate intervention group and decreased a mean 11.45±49.46 m in the wait list control group (p=0.443). The hemoglobin increased a mean 0.39±0.46 g/dL in the immediate intervention group and declined a mean 0.39±0.85 g/dL in the wait list control group (p=0.026). Thus, a subgroup of adults with UAE may respond to intravenous iron. Enrollment of subjects into this type of study remains challenging.

BACKGROUND:Stenosis of saphenous vein grafts (SVGs) after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is common and often requires percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) for treatment. However, data for the effectiveness of drug-eluting stents (DES) versus bare-metal stents (BMS) in SVG-PCI are unclear. OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:This study sought to examine the association between DES versus BMS used during SVG PCI and clinical outcomes in the national Veterans Affairs integrated healthcare system. METHODS:We studied a national cohort of 2,471 post-CABG veterans undergoing SVG-PCI between 2008 and 2011 at all Veterans Affairs hospitals and compared clinical outcomes of between those receiving DES and BMS. Clinical outcomes included procedural complications, myocardial infarction (MI), and all-cause mortality. Comparisons were made in a propensity-matched cohort using Cox proportional hazards regression models. RESULTS:DES were used in 1,549 SVG-PCI patients (63%) and the use of DES increased progressively with each calendar year (50% in 2008 to 69% in 2011). Incidence of procedural complications was low and comparable in both groups (2.8% among BMS vs. 2.3% among DES patients; p = 0.54). During long-term (>2 years) follow-up, use of DES was associated with lower mortality than BMS (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.57 to 0.89) and similar rates of MI (HR: 0.94; 95% CI: 0.71 to 1.24) in the propensity-matched cohort. CONCLUSIONS:In a national cohort of veterans, we observed widespread and increasing use of DES during SVG-PCI. In long-term follow-up, compared with BMS, DES use was safe and effective in SVG-PCI patients.

AIMS: The Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) classification has been proposed by consensus to standardize bleeding endpoint definition and reporting in cardiovascular clinical trials. There are no prospective studies on its prognostic impact. METHODS AND RESULTS: We explored the association of BARC-defined bleeding with mortality and compared its prognostic value against two validated bleeding scales: the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) and the Global Utilization of Streptokinase and Tissue Plasminogen Activator for Occluded Coronary Arteries (GUSTO) scales. Non-coronary artery bypass graft (CABG)-related bleedings within the PRODIGY trial were prospectively adjudicated by a blinded Clinical Event Committee and analysed according to multiple statistical modelling. At 2 years, bleeding occurred in 143 patients (7.1%) according to BARC Type 2, 3, or 5; in 50 patients (2.5%) according to TIMI minor or major; and in 61 patients (3.1%) according to GUSTO moderate or severe. One hundred sixty-three patients died (8.1%). After multivariable modelling, BARC Type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding was associated with increased 2-year mortality [hazard ratio (HR): 3.77; 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.37-5.98]. Bleeding Academic Research Consortium Type 3 or 5 was associated with an increased mortality rate at 2 years (adjusted HR: 7.72; 95% CI: 4.75-12.54) similar to that provided by TIMI (HR: 7.64, 95% CI: 4.53-12.87) or GUSTO (HR: 7.36, 95% CI: 4.38-12.34) criteria. CONCLUSIONS: In a contemporary, all-comer percutaneous coronary intervention trial actionable BARC bleedings were associated with increased risk of mortality with BARC Type 3 or 5 bleedings providing a similar mortality risk to that posed by TIMI or GUSTO scales.

BACKGROUND:In the setting of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, timely restoration of normal blood flow is associated with improved myocardial salvage and survival. Despite improvements in door-to-needle and door-to-balloon times, there remains an unmet need with respect to improved symptom-to-door times. A prior report of an implanted device to monitor ST-segment deviation demonstrated very short times to reperfusion among patients with an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) with documented thrombotic occlusion. The goal of the ANALYZE ST study is to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of a novel ST-segment monitoring feature using an existing implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) among patients with known coronary artery disease. METHODS:The ANALYZE ST study is a prospective, nonrandomized, multicenter, pivotal Investigational Device Exemption study enrolling 5,228 patients with newly implanted ICD systems for standard clinical indications who also have a documented history of coronary artery disease. Patients will be monitored for 48 months, during which effectiveness of the device for the purpose of early detection of cardiac injury will be evaluated by analyzing the sensitivity of the ST monitoring feature to identify clinical ACS events. In addition, the safety of the ST monitoring feature will be evaluated through the assessment of the percentage of patients for which monitoring produces a false-positive event over the course of 12 months. CONCLUSIONS:The ANALYZE ST trial is testing the hypothesis that the ST monitoring feature in the Fortify ST ICD system (St. Jude Medical, Inc., St. Paul, MN) (or other ICD systems with the ST monitoring feature) will accurately identify patients with clinical ACS events.

BACKGROUND: Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) have been investigated in small studies in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents did not show a clear effect on left ventricular function or clinical outcome, but some studies suggested an increased risk of thromboembolic events. METHODS: A systematic literature search in MEDLINE was performed, until December 2012. We included randomized clinical trials investigating the effect of ESAs in STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI, with >/=30 days of follow-up. The primary end point was a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and stent thrombosis after PCI. Secondary end point was all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Individual patient data were obtained from 10 of 11 trials, including 97.3% (1,242/1,277) of all patients randomized to control (n = 600) or to ESAs (n = 642). Baseline characteristics were well balanced between the treatment allocations. Mean follow-up time was 248 (+/-131) days. The primary end point occurred in 3.5% (20/577) in the control group and in 2.1% (13/610) in the ESA group (hazard ratio for ESAs, 0.63; 95% CI [0.31-1.27]; P = .20). Mortality occurred in 13 (2.3%) in the control group and 5 (0.8%) in the ESA group (hazard ratio for ESAs, 0.38; 95% CI [0.13-1.06]; P = .06). CONCLUSIONS: Erythropoiesis-stimulating agent administration does not result in an increased risk of adverse cardiac events in STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI. Results of ongoing studies may provide further insight to the potential beneficial clinical effects of ESAs in STEMI patients.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to determine the effect of radial access on outcomes in women undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using a registry-based randomized trial. BACKGROUND: Women are at increased risk of bleeding and vascular complications after PCI. The role of radial access in women is unclear. METHODS: Women undergoing cardiac catheterization or PCI were randomized to radial or femoral arterial access. Data from the CathPCI Registry and trial-specific data were merged into a final study database. The primary efficacy endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding or vascular complications requiring intervention. The primary feasibility endpoint was access site crossover. The primary analysis cohort was the subgroup undergoing PCI; sensitivity analyses were conducted in the total randomized population. RESULTS: The trial was stopped early for a lower than expected event rate. A total of 1,787 women (691 undergoing PCI) were randomized at 60 sites. There was no significant difference in the primary efficacy endpoint between radial or femoral access among women undergoing PCI (radial 1.2% vs. 2.9% femoral, odds ratio [OR]: 0.39; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.12 to 1.27); among women undergoing cardiac catheterization or PCI, radial access significantly reduced bleeding and vascular complications (0.6% vs. 1.7%; OR: 0.32; 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.90). Access site crossover was significantly higher among women assigned to radial access (PCI cohort: 6.1% vs. 1.7%; OR: 3.65; 95% CI: 1.45 to 9.17); total randomized cohort: (6.7% vs. 1.9%; OR: 3.70; 95% CI: 2.14 to 6.40). More women preferred radial access. CONCLUSIONS: In this pragmatic trial, which was terminated early, the radial approach did not significantly reduce bleeding or vascular complications in women undergoing PCI. Access site crossover occurred more often in women assigned to radial access. (SAFE-PCI for Women; NCT01406236).

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Compared with trans-femoral percutaneous coronary intervention (TFI), trans-radial PCI (TRI) has a lower risk of bleeding, access site complications and hospital costs, and is preferred by patients. However, TRI accounts for a minority of PCIs in the US, and there is currently little research that explores why. METHODS/MATERIAL/METHODS:We conducted a national survey in February 2013 to assess perceptions of TRI vs. TFI, and barriers to TRI adoption and implementation among interventional cardiologists employed by the US Veterans Health Administration (VHA), and linked these data to site-level TRI annual rates for 2013. RESULTS:We received 78 completed surveys (32% response rate). Respondents at sites that perform few or no TRIs identified increased radiation exposure as the greatest barrier while at sites that perform a high percentage of TRIs respondents identified the steep learning curve as the greatest barrier. Majorities of survey respondents at all sites rated TRI as superior on 5 of 7 criteria, including patient comfort and bleeding complications, but rated TFI as superior on procedure time and procedure success. CONCLUSIONS:Even interventional cardiologists at sites that perform few or any TRIs recognized the superiority of TRI for patient comfort and safety, but rated it inferior to TFI on procedure time and technical results. Interventional cardiologists at high-TRI labs rated TRI as equivalent on procedure time and technical results. Efforts to increase TRI adoption and implementation may be more successful if they emphasize that procedure times and technical results depend on achieving proficiency.