Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE: To assess long-term outcomes of Endeavor Zotarolimus-eluting stent (E-ZES) implantation in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM). Background: Patients with DM and coronary artery disease have lower restenosis with drug-eluting stent (DES) compared with bare-metal stents. Recent data suggest that the E-ZES is inferior to other DES in this population. METHODS: Patient-level data for 601 patients with DM from the ENDEAVOR III and ENDEAVOR IV trials were pooled, of which 337 were treated with E-ZES and 264 were treated with other DES. The primary outcome was target vessel failure (TVF) in the course of 5 years. Outcomes are reported as rates using Kaplan-Meier (KM) survival method and differences between E-ZES and other stent types (sirolimus-eluting stent or paclitaxel-eluting stent) were compared using the log-rank statistic. The independent effect of stent type on TVF was assessed using Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups. Five-year TVF KM rate estimate was numerically lower for E-ZES, but the difference did not reach statistical significance (20.2 vs. 26.9%, P = 0.065). The 5-year KM rate estimates of major adverse cardiac events (17.7 vs. 26.6%, P = 0.012), death (7.6 vs. 15.0%, P = 0.004), and myocardial infarction (1.3 vs. 5.1%, P = 0.011) were also lower for E-ZES versus other DES. Conclusions: Patients with DM implanted with E-ZES have favorable long-term outcomes compared to first-generation DES. Long-term performance of DES should be assessed routinely and may differ from initial performance. (c) 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

BACKGROUND: Studies demonstrate an increase in radiation exposure with transradial approach (TRA) when compared with transfemoral approach (TFA) for coronary angiography. Given the learning curve associated with TRA, it is not known if this increased radiation exposure to patients is seen when procedures are performed by experienced operators. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated 1,696 patients who underwent coronary angiography with or without percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) by experienced operators at a tertiary center from October 2010 to June 2011. Experienced operators were defined as those that perform >75 PCIs/year with >95% of cases performed using the TRA or TFA approach for >/=5 years. The outcomes of interest were dose area product (DAP) and fluoroscopy time (FT). RESULTS: Of the 1,696 patients, 1,382 (81.5%) were performed by experienced femoral operators using TFA and 314 (18.5%) were performed by experienced radial operators using TRA. Most of these cases (65.4%) were diagnostic only (870 TFA and 240 TRA) with both DAP (6040 [3210-8786] vs 5019 [3377-6869] muGy.m, P = .003] and FT [6.2 [4.0-10.3] vs 3.3 [2.6-5.0] minutes, P < .001) significantly higher using TRA versus TFA. For procedures involving PCI, despite similar baseline patient, procedural and lesion characteristics, DAP and FT remained significantly higher using TRA versus TFA (19,649 [11,996-25,929] vs 15,395 [10,078-21,617] muGy.m, P = .02 and 22.1 [13.3-31.0] vs. 13.8 [9.8-20.3] minutes, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: In a contemporary cohort of patients undergoing coronary angiography by experienced operators, TRA was associated with higher radiation exposure when compared with TFA.

BACKGROUND Dual calcium-channel blocker (CCB) with a dihydropyridine (DHP) and a nondihydropyridine (NDHP) has been proposed for hypertension treatment. However, the safety and efficacy of this approach is not well known. METHODS A MEDLINE/EMBASE/CENTRAL search for randomized clinical trials published on this topic from 1966 to February 2012 was performed. Efficacy outcomes of decrease in systolic (SBP) and diastolic (DBP) blood pressures from baseline, changes in heart rate (HR), and adverse effects were compared between dual CCB therapy vs. DHP or NDHP. SBP, DBP, and HR were expressed as weighted mean deviation (WMD). RESULTS A total of 6 studies with 153 patients were included. Dual CCB produced a significantly greater reduction in SBP (21.6+/-9.2 mmHg) from baseline than DHP (10.3+/-6.3 mmHg (WMD = 10.9 mmHg, P < 0.0001)) or NDHP (8.9+/-4.2 mmHg (WMD = 14.1 mmHg, P = 0.002)). Dual CCB therapy reduced DBP from baseline more than either monotherapy (dual CCB = 17.5+/-10.2 mmHg vs. DHP = 11.6+/-8.7 mmHg, WMD = 5.5 mmHg, P < 0.001; and NDHP = 10.5+/-5.6 mmHg, WMD = 5.3 mmHg, P = 0.03). Dual CCB therapy had significantly lower HR compared to DHP (P < 0.001) but was comparable to NDHP (P = 0.12) (Delta change dual CCB = -4.0+/-3.5 vs. DHP = -2.0+/-1.5 and NDHP = -6.0+/-5.0 beats/min). Dual CCB therapy did not increase adverse effects. CONCLUSIONS Dual CCB therapy lowers blood pressure significantly better than CCB monotherapy, without an increase in adverse events. However, given the lack of long-term outcome data on efficacy and safety, dual CCB therapy should be used with restraint, if at all. Large-scale long-term trials are needed to further evaluate such a strategy.