Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Prior studies have suggested that blacks with acute ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction have increased bleeding risks with fibrinolysis relative to whites, yet these data were quite limited. Additionally, it is unknown whether there are racial differences in bleeding risks among patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction receiving primary percutaneous coronary intervention. METHODS AND RESULTS/RESULTS:We evaluated data on blacks and whites with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction treated with either fibrinolysis or primary percutaneous coronary intervention from the National Registry of Myocardial Infarction (NRMI)-4 and 5 participating centers between July 2000 and December 2006. We compared differences between the 2 groups in rates of in-hospital major bleeding and mortality, adjusted with logistic regression analyses. In fibrinolytic-treated patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction, the bleeding rates were higher among blacks (n=2283) than whites (n=42 243; 10.9% versus 10.3%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.43). Similarly, in patients receiving primary percutaneous coronary intervention, the bleeding rates were higher in blacks (n=2826) than in whites (n=46 332; 10.3% versus 7.8%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 1.13-1.56). Bleeding was associated with higher risk of death in both ethnic groups. However, there was no overall racial difference in in-hospital mortality among those with bleeding or without bleeding treated with either fibrinolysis or primary percutaneous coronary intervention. CONCLUSIONS:Blacks with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction treated with either fibrinolysis or primary percutaneous coronary intervention had a higher risk of bleeding events than their white counterparts. Bleeding was associated with a similar increased risk of death in both ethnic groups treated by either reperfusion strategy.

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.