Faculty Bibliography

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/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.

OBJECTIVES:To examine the relationship between periprocedural bleeding complications and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) and mortality outcomes following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and study differences in the prognostic impact of different bleeding definitions. METHODS:We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of PCI studies that evaluated periprocedural bleeding complications and their impact on MACEs and mortality outcomes. A systematic search of MEDLINE and EMBASE was conducted to identify relevant studies. Data from relevant studies were extracted and random effects meta-analysis was used to estimate the risk of adverse outcomes with periprocedural bleeding. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed by considering the I(2) statistic. RESULTS:42 relevant studies were identified including 533 333 patients. Meta-analysis demonstrated that periprocedural major bleeding complications was independently associated with increased risk of mortality (OR 3.31 (2.86 to 3.82), I(2)=80%) and MACEs (OR 3.89 (3.26 to 4.64), I(2)=42%). A differential impact of major bleeding as defined by different bleeding definitions on mortality outcomes was observed, in which the REPLACE-2 (OR 6.69, 95% CI 2.26 to 19.81), STEEPLE (OR 6.59, 95% CI 3.89 to 11.16) and BARC (OR 5.40, 95% CI 1.74 to 16.74) had the worst prognostic impacts while HORIZONS-AMI (OR 1.51, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.05) had the least impact on mortality outcomes. CONCLUSIONS:Major bleeding after PCI is independently associated with a threefold increase in mortality and MACEs outcomes. Different contemporary bleeding definitions have differential impacts on mortality outcomes, with 1.5-6.7-fold increases in mortality observed depending on the definition of major bleeding used.

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.

Bridging for antiplatelet therapy remains a subject of debate with data favoring GP blockers but at a risk of bleeding. This Conversation in Cardiology addresses a key and often asked question about use of alternatives to P2Y12 agents in patients requiring surgery within 6 months after drug eluting stent implantation.

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).