Faculty Bibliography

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.

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.