Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND: The role of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the management of stable coronary artery disease remains controversial. Given advancements in medical therapies and stent technology over the last decade, we sought to evaluate whether PCI, when added to medical therapy, improves outcomes when compared with medical therapy alone. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis, searching PubMed, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases, until January 2012, for randomized clinical trials comparing revascularization with PCI to optimal medical therapy (OMT) in patients with stable coronary artery disease. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, and secondary outcomes included cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, subsequent revascularization, and freedom from angina. Primary analyses were based on longest available follow-up with secondary analyses stratified by trial duration, with short-term (/=5 years) time points. We identified 12 randomized clinical trials enrolling 7182 participants who fulfilled our inclusion criteria. For the primary analyses, when compared with OMT, PCI was associated with no significant improvement in mortality (risk ratio [RR], 0.85; 95% CI, 0.71-1.01), cardiac death (RR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.47-1.06), nonfatal myocardial infarction (RR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.70-1.24), or repeat revascularization (RR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.76-1.14), with consistent results over all follow-up time points. Sensitivity analysis restricted to studies in which there was >50% stent use showed attenuation in the effect size for all-cause mortality (RR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.78-1.11) with PCI. However, for freedom from angina, there was a significant improved outcome with PCI, as compared with the OMT group (RR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.06-1.37), evident at all of the follow-up time points. CONCLUSIONS: In this most rigorous and comprehensive analysis in patients with stable coronary artery disease, PCI, as compared with OMT, did not reduce the risk of mortality, cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or revascularization. PCI, however, provided a greater angina relief compared with OMT alone, larger studies with sufficient power are required to prove this conclusively.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to evaluate the risk of cardiac events in patients with normal stress echocardiography (SE) who attained maximal age-predicted heart rate (APHR) compared with those who did not in the setting of both normal and abnormal SE. BACKGROUND: SE is an important tool in the risk stratification and prognosis of patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease (CAD). The prognostic value of a normal but submaximal SE (<85% of maximal APHR) is conflicting. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were searched from 1980 to September 2011 for SE studies reporting cardiac outcomes in patients with known or suspected CAD stratified by achieved APHR. Both hard events (cardiac death and myocardial infarction) and total cardiac events (revascularization procedures in addition to hard events) were analyzed separately. Data on all-cause mortality were obtained when available. RESULTS: Fourteen studies with 11,542 patients followed up for a mean duration of 32 months fulfilled the inclusion criteria. In 8 studies with 4,577 patients, the risk of hard events with normal SE (both exercise and dobutamine) was 70% higher in patients who achieved submaximal compared with those with maximal APHR (annualized event rate 2.08% vs. 0.77%; p = 0.0008; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.25 to 2.31). In 7 studies with 5,798 patients, the risk of total cardiac events with normal SE (both exercise and dobutamine) was 127% higher in patients who achieved submaximal compared with those with maximal APHR (annualized event rate 1.87% vs. 1.02%; p < 0.0001; 95% CI: 1.54 to 3.34). The risk of total cardiac events was 278% higher in patients with abnormal SE with submaximal APHR compared with those with normal SE with submaximal APHR (p < 0.0001; 95% CI: 2.81 to 5.08). There was a trend toward increased all-cause mortality in patients with normal SE with submaximal compared with maximal APHR (relative risk: 1.36; p = 0.15; 95% CI: 0.89 to 2.09). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with submaximal APHR in the setting of normal SE have a higher risk of cardiovascular events than those who attained maximal stress test. Thus, the results of submaximal APHR in the setting of normal SE should be taken into consideration for more accurate risk stratification and prognosis.

Aims: Previous studies have demonstrated an increase in the amount of radiation administered when utilising the radial artery versus the femoral artery for access. However, radiation exposure between experienced radial and femoral operators is not well defined. Methods and results: We retrospectively analysed 1,922 patients who underwent coronary angiography with or without percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and had radiation dose data available for analysis at a tertiary care center from October 2010 to June 2011. Experienced operators were defined as those that perform more than >75 PCIs a year with more 95% of cases performed using the transradial or transfemoral approach for at least 5 years. The outcomes of interest were fluoroscopy time (FT) and dose area product (DAP). Analysis was performed separately for diagnostic only procedures and procedures PCI. Data is presented as median [interquartile range], and statistical analysis was performed using the Mann-Whitney U test. Of the 1,922 patients, 1,565 (81.4%) cases were performed by experienced femoral operators and 357 (18.6%) cases were performed experienced radial operators. The majority of these cases (65.3%) underwent a diagnostic coronary angiogram only (989 femoral and 266 radial). For diagnostic coronary angiography, both total dose area product (DAP) and fluoroscopy time (FT) were significantly higher in transradial versus transfemoral approaches (6038 [3158-8884] vs. 5240 [3517-7429] Gym², p<0.001 and 6.2 [4.0-10.2] vs. 3.6 [2.7-5.4] min, p=0.02). For procedures involving PCI, DAP was not significantly different in transradial versus transfemoral approaches (16,842 [12,017-24,532] vs. 15,577 [10,089-22,203] Gym², p=0.06) although FT was significantly higher (20.4 [13.3-29.6] vs. 14.0 [9.9-20.71] min, p<0.001). Conclusions: In a contemporary cohort of patients undergoing coronary angiography with or without PCI, the transradial approach was associated with higher radiation exposure when compared with transfemoral approach, even in cases performed by experienced operators. While transradial procedures has other advantages (reduced access site complications/bleeding), the amount of radiation administered should be borne in mind while caring for such patients

CONTEXT: beta-Blockers remain the standard of care after a myocardial infarction (MI). However, the benefit of beta-blocker use in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) but no history of MI, those with a remote history of MI, and those with only risk factors for CAD is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To assess the association of beta-blocker use with cardiovascular events in stable patients with a prior history of MI, in those with CAD but no history of MI, and in those with only risk factors for CAD. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Longitudinal, observational study of patients in the Reduction of Atherothrombosis for Continued Health (REACH) registry who were divided into 3 cohorts: known prior MI (n = 14,043), known CAD without MI (n = 12,012), or those with CAD risk factors only (n = 18,653). Propensity score matching was used for the primary analyses. The last follow-up data collection was April 2009. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI, or nonfatal stroke. The secondary outcome was the primary outcome plus hospitalization for atherothrombotic events or a revascularization procedure. RESULTS: Among the 44,708 patients, 21,860 were included in the propensity score-matched analysis. With a median follow-up of 44 months (interquartile range, 35-45 months), event rates were not significantly different in patients with beta-blocker use compared with those without beta-blocker use for any of the outcomes tested, even in the prior MI cohort (489 [16.93%] vs 532 [18.60%], respectively; hazard ratio [HR], 0.90 [95% CI, 0.79-1.03]; P = .14). In the CAD without MI cohort, the associated event rates were not significantly different in those with beta-blocker use for the primary outcome (391 [12.94%]) vs without beta-blocker use (405 [13.55%]) (HR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.79-1.08]; P = .31), with higher rates for the secondary outcome (1101 [30.59%] vs 1002 [27.84%]; odds ratio [OR], 1.14 [95% CI, 1.03-1.27]; P = .01) and for the tertiary outcome of hospitalization (870 [24.17%] vs 773 [21.48%]; OR, 1.17 [95% CI, 1.04-1.30]; P = .01). In the cohort with CAD risk factors only, the event rates were higher for the primary outcome with beta-blocker use (467 [14.22%]) vs without beta-blocker use (403 [12.11%]) (HR, 1.18 [95% CI, 1.02-1.36]; P = .02), for the secondary outcome (870 [22.01%] vs 797 [20.17%]; OR, 1.12 [95% CI, 1.00-1.24]; P = .04) but not for the tertiary outcomes of MI (89 [2.82%] vs 68 [2.00%]; HR, 1.36 [95% CI, 0.97-1.90]; P = .08) and stroke (210 [6.55%] vs 168 [5.12%]; HR, 1.22 [95% CI, 0.99-1.52]; P = .06). However, in those with recent MI (</=1 year), beta-blocker use was associated with a lower incidence of the secondary outcome (OR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.64-0.92]). CONCLUSION: In this observational study of patients with either CAD risk factors only, known prior MI, or known CAD without MI, the use of beta-blockers was not associated with a lower risk of composite cardiovascular events.

BACKGROUND: Young patients (aged