Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND: Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) have been shown to be non-inferior to second generation drug eluting stents in recent clinical trials. However, the trials were not powered for individual endpoints and there is concern for increased device thrombosis with BVS. METHODS: We performed a systematic search for randomized clinical trials of BVS versus EES. Efficacy outcomes were target lesion revascularization (TLR) and target vessel revascularization (TVR). Safety outcomes were death, myocardial infarction (MI), and device thrombosis. Meta-regression analyses were performed to evaluate the association of device thrombosis with clinical characteristics (percent patients with acute coronary syndrome) and device deployment characteristics (percent with post stent balloon dilation). RESULTS: We identified six RCTs that enrolled 3738 patients. When compared with EES, BVS was associated with similar risk of TLR (RR=1.06; 95% CI 0.73-1.54), TVR (RR=1.00; 95% CI 0.74-1.35), death (RR=1.11; 95% CI 0.53-2.33) and cardiovascular death (RR=1.39; 95% CI 0.43-4.43) but numerically higher MI (RR=1.35; 95% CI 0.98-1.86) and definite or probable device thrombosis (RR=2.11; 95% CI 0.99-4.47). In a sensitivity analysis using the Peto odds ratio method, the risk of definite or probable device thrombosis was significantly increased (OR=2.08; 95% CI 1.06-4.08; P=0.03), although this did not reach statistical significance in four other models. The risk of definite or probable device thrombosis with BVS was reduced in trials where more post stent balloon dilation was used and in patients without acute coronary syndrome. Moreover, trial sequential analysis showed that the cumulative z-curve crossed the conventional boundary and not the trial sequential boundary, indicating lack of robust data to support increased definite or probable device thrombosis with BVS. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with noncomplex obstructive coronary disease, BVS are comparable to EES for most efficacy and safety outcomes except for a numerical increase in device thrombosis and MI. The risk of the latter outcomes was mitigated in trials where more post stent balloon dilation was used and in patients without acute coronary syndrome. Moreover, with only 3738 patients, the trials are underpowered to detect a difference in rare events such as device thrombosis.

BACKGROUND: Although metabolic surgery was originally performed to treat hypercholesterolemia, the effects of contemporary bariatric surgery on serum lipids have not been systematically characterized. METHODS AND RESULTS: MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were searched for studies with >/=20 obese adults undergoing bariatric surgery [Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass (RYGBP), Adjustable Gastric Banding, Bilio-Pancreatic Diversion (BPD), or Sleeve Gastrectomy]. The primary outcome was change in lipids from baseline to one-year after surgery. The search yielded 178 studies with 25,189 subjects (pre-operative BMI 45.5+/-4.8kg/m2) and 47,779 patient-years of follow-up. In patients undergoing any bariatric surgery, compared to baseline, there were significant reductions in total cholesterol (TC; -28.5mg/dL), low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C; -22.0mg/dL), triglycerides (-61.6mg/dL) and a significant increase in high density lipoprotein cholesterol (6.9mg/dL) at one year (P<0.00001 for all). The magnitude of this change was significantly greater than that seen in non-surgical control patients (eg LDL-C; -22.0mg/dL vs -4.3mg/dL). When assessed separately, the magnitude of changes varied greatly by surgical type (Pinteraction<0.00001; eg LDL-C: BPD -42.5mg/dL, RYGBP -24.7mg/dL, Adjustable Gastric Banding -8.8mg/dL, Sleeve Gastrectomy -7.9mg/dL). In the cases of Adjustable Gastric Banding (TC and LDL-C) and Sleeve Gastrectomy (LDL-C), the response at one year following surgery was not significantly different from non-surgical control patients. CONCLUSIONS: Contemporary bariatric surgical techniques produce significant improvements in serum lipids, but changes vary widely, likely due to anatomic alterations unique to each procedure. These differences may be relevant in deciding the most appropriate technique for a given patient.

Patients hospitalized with sepsis may be predisposed to acute myocardial infarction (AMI). The incidence, treatment, and outcomes of AMI in sepsis have not been studied. We analyzed data from the National Inpatient Sample from 2002 to 2011 for patients with a diagnosis of sepsis. The incidence of AMI as a nonprimary diagnosis was evaluated. Propensity score matching was used to identify a cohort of patients with secondary AMI and sepsis with similar baseline characteristics who were managed invasively (defined as cardiac catheterization, percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI], or coronary artery bypass graft [CABG] surgery) or conservatively. The primary outcome was in-hospital all-cause mortality. A total of 2,602,854 patients had a diagnosis of sepsis. AMI was diagnosed in 118,183 patients (4.5%), the majority with non-ST elevation AMI (71.4%). In-hospital mortality was higher in patients with AMI and sepsis than those with sepsis alone (35.8% vs 16.8%, p <0.0001; adjusted odds ratio 1.24, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.26). In patients with AMI, 11,899 patients (10.1%) underwent an invasive management strategy, in which 4,668 patients (39.2%) underwent revascularization. PCI was performed in 3,413 patients (73.1%), CABG in 1,165 (25.0%), and both CABG and PCI in 90 patients (1.9%). In a propensity-matched cohort of 23,708 patients with AMI, invasive management was associated with a lower mortality than conservative management (19.0% vs 33.4%, p <0.001; odds ratio 0.47, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.50). In subgroups that underwent revascularization, the odds of mortality were consistently lower than corresponding matched subjects from the conservative group. In conclusion, myocardial infarction not infrequently complicates sepsis and is associated with a significant increase in in-hospital mortality. Patients managed invasively had a lower mortality than those managed conservatively.