Faculty Bibliography

Coronary angiography is the gold standard for defining obstructive coronary disease. However, radiation exposure remains an unwanted hazard. Patients referred for coronary angiography with abdominal circumference <45 inches and glomerular filtration rate >60 ml/min were randomized to the fluorography (n = 25) or cineangiography (n = 25) group. Patients in the fluorography group underwent coronary angiography using retrospectively stored fluorography with repeat injection under cineangiography only when needed for better resolution per operator's discretion. Patients in the cineangiography group underwent coronary angiography using routine cineangiography. The primary end point was patient radiation exposure measured by radiochromic film. Secondary end points included the radiation output measurement of kerma-area product and air kerma at the interventional reference point (Ka,r) and operator radiation exposure measured by a dosimeter. Patient radiation exposure (158.2 mGy [76.5 to 210.2] vs 272.5 mGy [163.3 to 314.0], p = 0.001), kerma-area product (1,323 muGy.m(2) [826 to 1,765] vs 3,451 muGy.m(2) [2,464 to 4,818], p <0.001), and Ka,r (175 mGy [112 to 252] vs 558 mGy [313 to 621], p <0.001) were significantly lower in the fluorography compared with cineangiography group (42%, 62%, and 69% relative reduction, respectively). Operator radiation exposure trended in the same direction, although statistically nonsignificant (fluorography 2.35 muGy [1.24 to 6.30] vs cineangiography 5.03 muGy [2.48 to 7.80], p = 0.059). In conclusion, the use of fluorography in a select group of patients during coronary angiography, with repeat injection under cineangiography only when needed, was efficacious at reducing patient radiation exposure.

Background: The Third Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction (MI) designates an increase in cardiac troponin concentration (cTn) > 99th percentile of a normal reference population as the decision level for MI diagnosis. The variability among hospitals in the lab-determined cTn level to diagnose MI [cTn decision level] relative to the assay manufacturer determined 99th percentile has not been well characterized. Methods: We surveyed 93 sites from 15 countries participating in the NHLBI ISCHEMIA trial to ascertain the cTn assay used at their hospital labs, its 99th percentile, as well as the cTn MI decision level. The ratio of cTn MI decision level to cTn 99th percentile was calculated for each lab. Results: Laboratories employed 32 unique cTn assays from 7 manufacturers; 77% used cTnI assays and 23% used cTnT assays. Highly sensitive assays were used in 18 labs (19.4%). The ratio of cTn MI decision level to cTn 99th percentile was <1 at 7 labs (7.5%), equal to 1 at 29 labs (31.2%) and >10 at 18 labs (19.4%) (Figure). Substantial variability was observed in cTn MI decision level even among labs using the same assay. Conclusion: Significant variability exists in the cTn MI decision level used by hospital laboratories relative to the assay cTn 99th percentile. Only one-third of labs follow the Third Universal Definition of MI. These data have important implications for the diagnosis of MI in clinical practice and adjudicating MI endpoints in clinical trials. (Figure Presented)

Background: A meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials (RCT) was performed to evaluate the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding with new oral anticoagulants (NOACs) compared with conventional anticoagulants (CAG). Methods: Electronic databases were searched from January 01, 2001 through February 28, 2013. RCTs comparing NOACs (apixaban, dabigatran, or rivaroxaban) with pharmacologically active CAG were selected. Results: Seventeen RCTs including 91,933 patients met our inclusion criteria. NOACs were associated with a significantly higher GI bleeding compared with conventional anticoagulants [Peto's odds ratio (POR) 1.23, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.10 to 1.36; number needed to harm (NNH)=295 patients]. Trial sequential analysis (TSA) confirms a 20% relative risk increase (RRI) of any GI bleeding with NOACs versus CAG. Compared with controls, risk of GI bleeding was significantly higher with dabigatran (POR 1.31, 1.10 to 1.57; NNH=205) and rivaroxaban (POR 1.35, 1.16 to 1.57; NNH=139) but not with apixaban (POR 0.85, 0.67 to 1.08). TSA support a RRI of 20% for dabigatran and rivaroxaban and showed insufficient data for apixaban. NOACs caused significantly higher risk of any GI bleeding compared with warfarin (NNH=212) and LMWH followed by warfarin (NNH=134), but not against LMWH alone. Conclusion: The GI bleeding risk may differ among NOACs and is definitely higher with dabigatran and rivaroxaban, but we lack sufficient evidence for apixaban. These risks should be addressed in large RCTs. (Table Presented)

Research and development in the field of coronary stent design is a fast-evolving and fascinating journey. A device that was once introduced to salvage acute closure associated with balloon angioplasty is now the standard of care for many patients with coronary artery disease. Newer generation stents are the product of remarkable progress in technology and innovation, driven by the need to make the stents easier to deliver and to improve their safety and efficacy. As such, the design of these stents has become quite sophisticated and complex. The number of available stents has increased giving patients and physicians more choices on one hand, but also created confusion in selecting the optimal stent for a given patient. Although a 'one size fits all' approach may not be reasonable, several randomized trials have attested to the efficacy and safety of newer generation durable polymer drug eluting stents. This article discusses the evidence base to support various stent choices in contemporary practice.

BACKGROUND: Recent initiatives have focused on primary prevention to delay time to first myocardial infarction (MI). The aim of this study was to evaluate the change in risk factor profile over time in patients without known cardiovascular disease presenting with first MI. METHODS: In the American Heart Association's Get With The Guidelines-Coronary Artery Disease national registry, 100,884 patients without known cardiovascular disease presenting with acute MI from 408 hospitals were evaluated between 2002 and 2008. The time trends of the proportion of patients with cardiovascular risk factors (nonmodifiable: age >45 years for men or >55 years for women, male sex, modifiable: diabetes mellitus, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, tobacco use) were analyzed. Analyses were stratified by non-ST-segment elevation MI (NSTEMI) versus ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI). RESULTS: The proportion of patients with >/=3 of 6 traditional risk factors slightly decreased over time in the NSTEMI (69.5%-66.8%, P < .0001) and STEMI (68.9%-66.4%, P < .0001) cohorts. The proportion of patients with >/=2 of 4 modifiable risk factors increased from 52% to 59% and then declined to 52.1% (P < .0001) in the NSTEMI cohort but declined slightly in the STEMI cohort (50.9%-47.3%, P < .0001). After adjusting for age and gender, the time trend of proportion with diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and tobacco use declined in both cohorts. However, the proportion of patients with hyperlipidemia remained similar. CONCLUSIONS: Although risk factor profiles in patients presenting with first MI have shown improvements over time, the changes are modest.

Recent trials have highlighted the comparable mortality benefits and durability of the results for patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) and high surgical risk managed with either transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR). Various national guidelines and international regulatory bodies have approved TAVR, thereby leading to potential wide usage and dissemination of this technique worldwide. Quality-of-life outcomes, in spite of being an important measure of success and acceptability of the procedure, have not been publicized as extensively. For high risk patients with severe AS, implementation of TAVR has resulted in comparable survival, but different and novel adverse events compared with AVR. We present an updated review focusing on the quality-of-life outcomes and issues with this new and important procedural approach.

The prognostic value of ST-segment depression on exercise electrocardiogram (eECG) in the setting of a normal wall motion response in a stress echocardiographic study is not well defined. The aim of the study was to compare outcomes among patients with normal wall motion during stress echocardiography with and without ischemic exercise electrocardiographic changes. A total of 4,233 patients underwent stress echocardiography from 2007 to 2010. The primary outcomes were a composite of all-cause mortality and myocardial infarction. Coronary revascularization was a secondary outcome. A Cox regression model was used for the primary analysis. Ischemic exercise electrocardiographic changes were defined as ST-segment depression of at least 1 mm, on at least 3 consecutive beats, and in at least 2 contiguous leads. A normal stress echocardiogram was present in 2,975 patients; of them, 2,228 (74%) had a normal eECG and 747 (26%) had ischemic changes on eECG. Patients with and without ischemic changes during exercise electrocardiography were similar in age and gender. At 4-years follow-up, 36 patients (2.8%) with a normal eECG experienced a primary end point versus 12 patients (1.9%) in the group with an ischemic exercise electrocardiographic response (p = 0.56). The rate of coronary revascularization was similar between the groups (7.0% and 5.7%, respectively, p = 0.2). There were no differences in the primary outcomes of patients with and without exercise electrocardiographic changes and normal stress echocardiogram (hazard ratio 1.33, 95% confidence interval 0.69 to 2.58). In conclusion, a normal wall motion response even in the setting of an ischemic exercise electrocardiographic response portends a benign prognosis in patients undergoing stress echocardiography.

Numerous clinical trials testing the efficacy of aspirin for the secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease have been published. We reviewed the literature pertaining to aspirin dose in acute coronary syndrome patients. Clinical trials assessing the comparative efficacy of different doses of aspirin are scarce. This complex antiplatelet therapy landscape makes it difficult to identify the best aspirin dose for optimizing efficacy and minimizing risk of adverse events, while complying with the various guidelines and recommendations. Despite this fact, current evidence suggests that aspirin doses of 75-100 mg/day may offer the optimal benefit:risk ratio in acute coronary syndrome patients.

Previous studies have suggested that patients with dyspnea referred for stress testing have high mortality. However, it is not clear whether this is explained by high rates of ischemia. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the incidence of ischemia in patients with dyspnea compared with patients with chest pain referred for stress testing and assess the outcomes of such patients. We systematically searched the electronic databases, MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library, until December 2012 to identify studies of patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease undergoing stress testing. We extracted data on group-specific incidence of stress-induced ischemia and all-cause mortality. In our analyses, we identified and included 6 studies that evaluated a total of 5,753 patients with dyspnea and 24,491 patients with chest pain as the clinical indication for stress testing. There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of ischemia on stress imaging in patients with dyspnea compared with patients with chest pain (37.4% vs 30.2%, odds ratio 1.43, 95% confidence interval 0.99 to 2.06, p = 0.06). However, during the follow-up period, patients with dyspnea had higher all-cause mortality rates compared with patients with chest pain (annual mortality 4.9% vs 2.3%), with odds ratio of 2.57 (95% confidence interval 1.75 to 3.76, p <0.001). In conclusion, in patients undergoing stress testing, those evaluated for dyspnea had a significant increase in all-cause mortality but did not have higher rates of ischemia compared with patients presenting with chest pain. Clinicians evaluating patients with self-reported dyspnea should be aware that these patients represent a high-risk group with increased risk of mortality.