Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:This study sought to assess percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) stenosis in routine U.S. clinical practice. BACKGROUND:Percutaneous coronary intervention for ULMCA stenosis is controversial; however, current use and outcomes of ULMCA PCI in routine U.S. clinical practice have not been described. METHODS:We evaluated 5,627 patients undergoing ULMCA PCI at 693 centers within the National Cardiovascular Data Registry Catheterization Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Registry for temporal trends in PCI use (2004 to 2008), patient characteristics, and in-hospital mortality. Thirty-month mortality and composite major adverse events (death, myocardial infarction, and revascularization) with drug-eluting versus bare-metal stents were compared using inverse probability weighted (IPW) hazard ratios (HRs) in a nonrandomized Medicare-linked (age ≥65 years) patient cohort (n = 2,765). RESULTS:ULMCA PCI was performed in 4.3% of patients with ULMCA stenosis. Unadjusted in-hospital mortality rates ranged from 2.9% for elective cases to 45.1% for emergent/salvage cases. By 30 months, 57.9% of the elderly ULMCA PCI population experienced death, myocardial infarction, or revascularization, and 42.7% died. Patients receiving drug-eluting stents (versus bare-metal stents) had a lower 30-month mortality (IPW HR: 0.84, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.73 to 0.96), but the composite of major adverse events were similar (IPW HR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.84 to 1.06). CONCLUSIONS:In the United States, ULMCA PCI is performed in <5% of patients with ULMCA disease and is generally reserved for those at high procedural risk. Adverse events are common in elderly patients and are related to patient and procedural characteristics, including stent type.

Antiplatelet therapy serves an important role in the management of acute coronary syndromes and in reducing the risk of thrombotic complications from atrial fibrillation. There has been rapid development of newer and more potent antiplatelet therapies over the last several years that have further reduced ischemic complications, but with a trade-off of increased bleeding risk. Bleeding complications associated with antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapies are associated with significantly increased risk of adverse outcomes, including death. Understanding the risk of bleeding associated with antiplatelet agents is critical to developing strategies to mitigate this risk.

Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) have a disproportionate burden of coronary artery disease and commonly undergo revascularization. The role and safety of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using drug-eluting stents (DESs) verses bare-metal stents in patients with CKD not on renal replacement therapy has not been fully evaluated. This study investigated the efficacy and safety of DES in patients with CKD not on renal replacement therapy. Patients were drawn from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Dynamic Registry and were stratified by renal function based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (GFR). Of the 4,157 participants, 1,108 had CKD ("low GFR" <60 ml/min/1.73 m(2)), whereas 3,049 patients had normal renal function ("normal GFR" ≥60 ml/min/1.73 m(2)). For each stratum of renal function we compared risk of death, myocardial infarction, or repeat revascularization between subjects who received DESs and bare-metal stents at the index procedure. Patients with low GFR had higher 1-year rates of death and myocardial infarction and a decreased rate of repeat revascularization compared to patients with normal GFR. Use of DESs was associated with a decreased need for repeat revascularization in the normal-GFR group (adjusted hazard ratio 0.63, 95% confidence interval 0.50 to 0.79, p <0.001) but not in the low-GFR group (hazard ratio 0.69, 95% confidence interval 0.45 to 1.06, p = 0.09). Risks of death and myocardial infarction were not different between the 2 stents in either patient population. In conclusion, presence of CKD predicted poor outcomes after PCI with high rates of mortality regardless of stent type. The effect of DES in decreasing repeat revascularization appeared to be attenuated in these patients.

BACKGROUND:Post hoc analyses of clinical trials suggest that certain patients are eligible for early discharge after ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. The extent to which ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients are discharged early after primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) in current practice is unknown. METHODS:We examined 115,113 patients in the CathPCI Registry to assess temporal trends in length of stay (LOS) after PPCI. Baseline characteristics were compared between patients with LOS ≤2 and >2 days. Predictors of LOS >2 days were determined by logistic regression and adjusted for clustering among centers. Patterns of discharge within 2 days for low-risk patients with no inhospital complications were examined. RESULTS:From January 2005 through March 2009, mean LOS (4.0 ± 3.0 to 3.6 ± 2.7 days) (P for trend <.001) and the proportion of patients discharged after 2 days decreased (72.0%-65.9%), while predicted inhospital mortality risk remained unchanged. Patients with LOS >2 days (n = 77,471; 67.3%) were older and more likely to have had an intra-aortic balloon pump, cardiogenic shock, transfusions, and post-PPCI complications. Of 958 hospitals, 437 (45.6%) discharged at least half of their low-risk patients with no inhospital complications within 2 days. CONCLUSIONS:While the predicted risk profile has remained stable, there has been a significant decrease in LOS after PPCI. Nevertheless, hospitals vary in discharging low-risk and uncomplicated patients early. Discharge within 2 days was associated with specific patient, procedure, and hospital factors. Further study is needed to determine the safety of early discharge among patients undergoing PPCI.

Acute coronary syndromes (ACS) continue to have a large impact on morbidity and mortality in the United States. Over the last two decades, there have been several advancements in the care of patients with ACS. The use of combined antiplatelet and anticoagulants and early invasive risk stratification in high risk patients has improved the rates of major adverse cardiovascular events. However, this treatment strategy increases the risk for bleeding. Studies have found an association between bleeding and subsequent mortality and morbidity in ACS patients; therefore, minimizing bleeding risk has become a priority. This review describes the prevalence of bleeding during ACS management, risk for bleeding, and strategies to reduce bleeding risk.