Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:The role of intraaortic balloon pump (IABP) during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in high-risk acute patients remains debated. Device-related complications and the more complex patient management could explain such lack of clinical benefit. We aimed to assess the impact of transradial versus transfemoral access for PCI requiring IABP support on vascular complications and clinical outcome. METHODS:We retrospectively analyzed 321 consecutive patients receiving IABP support during transfemoral (n = 209) or transradial (n = 112) PCI. Thirty-day net adverse clinical events (NACEs) (composite of postprocedural bleeding, cardiac death, myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization, and stroke) were the primary end point, with access-related bleeding and hospital stay as secondary end points. RESULTS:Cardiogenic shock and hemodynamic instability were the most common indications for IABP support. Cumulative 30-day NACE rate was 50.2%, whereas an access site-related bleeding occurred in 14.3%. Patients undergoing transfemoral PCI had a higher unadjusted rate of NACEs when compared with the transradial group (57.4% vs 36.6%, P < .01), mainly due more access-related bleedings (18.7% vs 6.3%, P < .01). Such increased risk of NACEs was confirmed after propensity score adjustment (hazard ratio 0.57 [0.4-0.9], P = .007), whereas hospital stay appeared comparable in the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS:In this observational registry, high-risk patients undergoing PCI and requiring IABP support appeared to have fewer NACEs if transradial access was used instead of transfemoral, mainly due to fewer access-related bleedings. Given the inherent limitations of this retrospective work, including the inability to adjust for unknown confounders, further controlled studies are warranted to confirm or refute these findings.

Erythropoietin (EPO) was hypothesized to mitigate reperfusion injury, in part via mobilization of endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs). The REVEAL trial found no reduction in infarct size with a single dose of EPO (60,000 U) in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. In a substudy, we aimed to determine the feasibility of cryopreserving and centrally analyzing EPC levels to assess the relationship between EPC numbers, EPO administration, and infarct size. As a prespecified substudy, mononuclear cells were locally cryopreserved before as well as 24 and 48-72 h after primary percutaneous coronary intervention. EPC samples were collected in 163 of 222 enrolled patients. At least one sample was obtained from 125 patients, and all three time points were available in 83 patients. There were no significant differences in the absolute EPC numbers over time or between EPO- and placebo-treated patients; however, there was a trend toward a greater increase in EPC levels from 24 to 48-72 h postintervention in patients receiving ≥30,000 U of EPO (P = 0.099 for CD133(+) cells, 0.049 for CD34(+) cells, 0.099 for ALDH(br) cells). EPC numbers at baseline were inversely related to infarct size (P = 0.03 for CD133(+) cells, 0.006 for CD34(+) cells). Local whole cell cryopreservation and central EPC analysis in the context of a multicenter randomized trial is feasible but challenging. High-dose (≥30,000 U) EPO may mobilize EPCs at 48-72 h, and baseline EPC levels may be inversely associated with infarct size.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:The purpose of this study was to compare in-hospital outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in extreme obesity (EO) (body mass index [BMI] ≥ 40 kg/m²) with those of normal-weight (NW) patients and to examine the influence of access site on outcomes. BACKGROUND:Little is known about the outcomes of PCI in EO patients. METHODS:We analyzed CathPCI Registry data from patients who underwent radial or femoral PCI and were discharged between July 2009 and June 2011 and compared in-hospital outcomes of EO (N = 83,861) with those of NW patients (BMI 20 to 25 kg/m²; N = 217,616). Outcomes included in-hospital mortality and procedural and bleeding complications. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to assess the independent association of EO with outcomes, using previously validated risk models derived from the CathPCI Registry. The role of access site was specifically examined. RESULTS:Compared with NW patients, EO patients were younger (median age 60 vs. 69 years), more likely female (47% vs. 37%), and more likely African American (12% vs. 7%). EO patients had lower unadjusted mortality (1.2% vs. 2.0%); however, after multivariable adjustment, EO was independently associated with increased risk of in-hospital mortality (odds ratio: 1.22; 95% CI: 1.08 to 1.39) in those presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Access site had no effect on bleeding or outcome. CONCLUSIONS:EO patients who underwent PCI were younger and had less bleeding compared with NW patients. After multivariable adjustment for risk, EO was independently associated with higher in-hospital mortality overall and particularly in the patients undergoing STEMI.

Women are at higher risk than men for bleeding and vascular complications after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Compared with femoral access, radial access reduces these complications but may be more challenging in women because of higher rates of radial artery spasm, tortuosity, and occlusion as well as lower rates of procedure success. Whether the safety advantages of radial versus femoral access in women undergoing PCI are outweighed by reduced effectiveness has not been studied. The Study of Access site For Enhancement of PCI for Women is a prospective, randomized clinical trial comparing radial with femoral arterial access in women undergoing PCI. In conjunction with the US Food and Drug Administration's Critical Path Cardiac Safety Research Consortium, this study embeds the randomized clinical trial into the existing infrastructure of the National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI Registry through the National Institute of Health's National Cardiovascular Research Infrastructure. The primary efficacy end point is a composite of bleeding (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium types 2, 3, or 5) or vascular complication requiring intervention occurring at 72 hours after PCI or by hospital discharge. The primary feasibility end point is procedure success. Secondary end points include procedure duration, contrast volume, radiation dose, quality of life, and a composite of 30-day death, vascular complication, or unplanned revascularization.

BACKGROUND:Despite lower risks of access site-related complications with transradial approach (TRA), its clinical benefit for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is uncertain. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical studies comparing TRA and transfemoral approach (TFA) for PCI. METHODS:Randomized trials and observational studies (1993-2011) comparing TRA with TFA for PCI with reports of ischemic and bleeding outcomes were included. Crude and adjusted (for age and sex) odds ratios (OR) were estimated by a hierarchical Bayesian random-effects model with prespecified stratification for observational and randomized designs. The primary outcomes were rates of death, combined incidence of death or myocardial infarction, bleeding, and transfusions, early (≤ 30 days) and late after PCI. RESULTS:We collected data from 76 studies (15 randomized, 61 observational) involving a total of 761,919 patients. Compared with TFA, TRA was associated with a 78% reduction in bleeding (OR 0.22, 95% credible interval [CrI] 0.16-0.29) and 80% in transfusions (OR 0.20, 95% CrI 0.11-0.32). These findings were consistent in both randomized and observational studies. Early after PCI, there was a 44% reduction of mortality with TRA (OR 0.56, 95% CrI 0.45-0.67), although the effect was mainly due to observational studies (OR 0.52, 95% CrI 0.40-0.63, adjusted OR 0.49 [95% CrI 0.37-0.60]), with an OR of 0.80 (95% CrI 0.49-1.23) in randomized trials. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Our results combining observational and randomized studies show that PCI performed by TRA is associated with substantially less risks of bleeding and transfusions compared with TFA. Benefit on the incidence of death or combined death or myocardial infarction is found in observational studies but remains inconclusive in randomized trials.

BACKGROUND:We evaluated the safety, efficacy, and tolerability of elinogrel, a competitive, reversible intravenous and oral P2Y(12) inhibitor that does not require metabolic activation, in patients undergoing nonurgent percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS AND RESULTS/RESULTS:In a randomized, double-blind, dose-ranging phase 2b trial, 652 patients received either 300 or 600 mg of clopidogrel pre-percutaneous coronary intervention followed by 75 mg daily or 80 or 120 mg of IV elinogrel followed by 50, 100, or 150 mg oral elinogrel twice daily. Numerous exploratory safety and efficacy end points were assessed and, as such, had no prespecified primary end point, and the study was not powered to conclusively evaluate its objectives. Thrombolysis in myocardial infarction combined bleeding was increased with elinogrel (hazard ratio, 1.98; 95% confidence interval, 1.10 to 3.57), related largely to increased bleeding requiring medical attention (elinogrel 47/408 [11.5%] versus clopidogrel 13/208 [6.3%]) and occurring primarily at the percutaneous coronary intervention access site. Efficacy end points and postprocedure cardiac enzyme were similar, but there was a nonsignificant higher frequency of periprocedural myocardial infarctions in the elinogrel arms (OR, 1.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.79 to 3.48). There was an increased incidence of dyspnea (elinogrel 50/408 [12.3%] versus clopidogrel 8/208 [3.8%]) and transaminase elevation (alanine transferase/aspartate transferase >3× the upper limit of normal; elinogrel 18/408 [4.4%] versus clopidogrel 2/208 [1.0%]) in the elinogrel arms, but there were no cases of heart block, bradycardia, hypotension, or liver failure. CONCLUSIONS:In patients undergoing nonurgent percutaneous coronary intervention and in comparison with clopidogrel, intravenous and oral elinogrel therapy did not significantly increase thrombolysis in myocardial infarction major or minor bleeding, although bleeding requiring medical attention was more common. The significance of these findings will need to be more definitively determined in future Phase 3 studies. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION/BACKGROUND:URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00751231.