Outcomes of Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Patients With Previous Coronary Bypass Surgery

ObjectivesThis study sought to determine the contemporary clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and previous coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), including those with a saphenous vein graft culprit lesion.BackgroundThe outcome of STEMI patients with previous CABG is reported to be inferior to those without previous CABG, but limited data is available from the primary percutaneous coronary intervention era.MethodsData was extracted from a large, regional STEMI system’s prospective database, which contained 3,542 unique STEMI episodes from March 4, 2003 through April 22, 2012.ResultsPrevious CABG was present in 249 patients (7%). Despite higher comorbidity, patients with versus those without previous CABG had similar in-hospital (4.8% vs. 5.2%; p = 0.82) and 1-year (10.8% vs. 9.1%; p = 0.36) mortality, but 5-year (24.9% vs. 14.2%; p < 0.001) mortality was higher. Patients with previous CABG have similar door-to-balloon times. The culprit vessel was the saphenous vein graft in 84 patients (34%), a native vessel in 104 (42%), with no clear culprit in 59 (24%). The left internal mammary artery graft was not a culprit in any patient. Mortality at 30 days (8.3% vs. 3.9% vs. 1.7%, p = 0.19) and 1 year (14.3% vs. 9.0% vs. 6.8%; p = 0.35) was higher (but not statistically) with a saphenous vein graft culprit and was equivalent at 5 years (25.0% vs. 26.0% vs. 20.3%; p = 0.71).ConclusionsPatients with previous CABG treated in a regional STEMI system have similar outcomes as patients without previous CABG, although 5-year mortality is higher. The most common culprit location was a native vessel (42%). Outcomes have improved significantly compared with historical reports.     

The Association of Previous Revascularization With In-Hospital Outcomes in Acute Myocardial Infarction Patients: Results From the National Cardiovascular Data Registry

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to compare outcomes of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients with a history of coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG), previous percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), or no previous revascularization undergoing primary PCI.BackgroundLimited data exist regarding door-to-balloon times and clinical outcomes of STEMI patients with a history of CABG or PCI undergoing primary PCI.MethodsWe examined 15,628 STEMI patients who underwent primary PCI at 297 sites in the United States. We used multivariable logistic regression analyses to compare door-to-balloon time delays >90 min and in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events (MACCE).ResultsPatients with previous CABG were significantly older and more likely to have multiple comorbidities (p < 0.0001). Previous CABG was associated with a lower likelihood of a door-to-balloon time ≤90 min compared with patients with no previous revascularization. However, no significant differences in door-to-balloon times were noted between patients with previous PCI and those without previous revascularization. The unadjusted MACCE risk was significantly higher in patients with a history of CABG compared with patients without previous revascularization (odds ratio: 1.68, 95% confidence interval: 1.23 to 2.31). However, after multivariable risk adjustment, there were no significant differences in MACCE risk between the 2 groups. No significant differences in in-hospital outcomes were seen in patients with a previous PCI and those without previous revascularization.ConclusionsIn a large cohort of STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI, patients with previous CABG were more likely to have reperfusion delays, yet risk-adjusted, in-hospital outcomes were similar to those without previous revascularization. No significant differences in reperfusion timeliness and in-hospital outcomes were seen in patients with a history of PCI compared with patients without previous revascularization.     

Long-Term Survival Benefit of Revascularization Compared With Medical Therapy in Patients With Coronary Chronic Total Occlusion and Well-Developed Collateral Circulation

ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to compare the long-term clinical outcomes of patients with chronic total occlusion (CTO) and well-developed collateral circulation treated with revascularization versus medical therapy.BackgroundLittle is known about the clinical outcomes and optimal treatment strategies of CTO with well-developed collateral circulation.MethodsWe screened 2,024 consecutive patients with at least 1 CTO detected on coronary angiogram. Of these, we analyzed data from 738 patients with Rentrop 3 grade collateral circulation who were treated with medical therapy alone (n = 236), coronary artery bypass grafting (n = 170) or percutaneous coronary intervention (n = 332; 80.1% successful). Patients who underwent revascularization and medical therapy (revascularization group, n = 502) were compared with those who underwent medical therapy alone (medication group, n = 236) in terms of cardiac death and major adverse cardiac events (MACE), defined as the composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization.ResultsDuring a median follow-up duration of 42 months, multivariate analysis revealed a significantly lower incidence of cardiac death (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.29; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.15 to 0.58; p < 0.01) and MACE (HR: 0.32; 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.49; p < 0.01) in the revascularization group compared with the medication group. After propensity score matching, the incidence of cardiac death (HR: 0.27; 95% CI: 0.09 to 0.80; p = 0.02) and MACE (HR: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.23 to 0.82; p = 0.01) were still significantly lower in the revascularization group than in the medication group.ConclusionsIn patients with coronary CTO and well-developed collateral circulation, aggressive revascularization may reduce the risk of cardiac mortality and MACE.     

The Impact of Downstream Coronary Stenosis on Fractional Flow Reserve Assessment of Intermediate Left Main Coronary Artery Disease: Human Validation

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to determine the impact of downstream coronary stenosis in the left anterior descending coronary artery (LAD) or left circumflex coronary artery (LCx) on the assessment of fractional flow reserve (FFR) across an intermediate left main coronary artery (LMCA) stenosis in humans with the pressure wire positioned in the nondiseased downstream vessel.BackgroundAccurate assessment of intermediate LMCA disease is critical for guiding decisions regarding revascularization. In theory, FFR across an intermediate LMCA stenosis will be affected by downstream disease, even if the pressure wire is positioned in the nondiseased downstream vessel.MethodsAfter percutaneous coronary intervention of the LAD, LCx, or both, an intermediate LMCA stenosis was created with a deflated balloon catheter. FFR was measured in the LAD and LCx coronary arteries before and after creation of downstream stenosis by inflating an angioplasty balloon within the newly placed stent. The true FFR (FFR_true) of the LMCA, measured in the nondiseased downstream vessel in the absence of stenosis in the other vessel, was compared with the apparent FFR (FFR_app) measured in the presence of stenosis.ResultsIn 25 patients, 91 pairs of measurements were made, 71 with LAD stenosis and 20 with LCx stenosis. FFR_true of the LMCA was significantly lower than FFR_app (0.81 ± 0.08 vs. 0.83 ± 0.08, p < 0.001), although the numerical difference was small. This difference correlated with the severity of the downstream disease (r = 0.35, p < 0.001). In all cases in which FFR_app was >0.85, FFR_true was >0.80.ConclusionsIn most cases, downstream disease does not have a clinically significant impact on the assessment of FFR across an intermediate LMCA stenosis with the pressure wire positioned in the nondiseased vessel.     

Clinical Outcomes and Revascularization Strategies in Patients With Low-Flow,Low-Gradient Severe Aortic Valve Stenosis According to the Assigned Treatment Modality

ObjectivesThis study compared clinical outcomes and revascularization strategies among patients presenting with low ejection fraction, low-gradient (LEF-LG) severe aortic stenosis (AS) according to the assigned treatment modality.BackgroundThe optimal treatment modality for patients with LEF-LG severe AS and concomitant coronary artery disease (CAD) requiring revascularization is unknown.MethodsOf 1,551 patients, 204 with LEF-LG severe AS (aortic valve area <1.0 cm², ejection fraction <50%, and mean gradient <40 mm Hg) were allocated to medical therapy (MT) (n = 44), surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) (n = 52), or transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) (n = 108). CAD complexity was assessed using the SYNTAX score (SS) in 187 of 204 patients (92%). The primary endpoint was mortality at 1 year.ResultsLEF-LG severe AS patients undergoing SAVR were more likely to undergo complete revascularization (17 of 52, 35%) compared with TAVR (8 of 108, 8%) and MT (0 of 44, 0%) patients (p < 0.001). Compared with MT, both SAVR (adjusted hazard ratio [adj HR]: 0.16; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.07 to 0.38; p < 0.001) and TAVR (adj HR: 0.30; 95% CI: 0.18 to 0.52; p < 0.001) improved survival at 1 year. In TAVR and SAVR patients, CAD severity was associated with higher rates of cardiovascular death (no CAD: 12.2% vs. low SS [0 to 22], 15.3% vs. high SS [>22], 31.5%; p = 0.037) at 1 year. Compared with no CAD/complete revascularization, TAVR and SAVR patients undergoing incomplete revascularization had significantly higher 1-year cardiovascular death rates (adj HR: 2.80; 95% CI: 1.07 to 7.36; p = 0.037).ConclusionsAmong LEF-LG severe AS patients, SAVR and TAVR improved survival compared with MT. CAD severity was associated with worse outcomes and incomplete revascularization predicted 1-year cardiovascular mortality among TAVR and SAVR patients.     

Validation and Comparison of the Long-Term Prognostic Capability of the SYNTAX Score-II Among 1,528 Consecutive Patients Who Underwent Left Main Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

ObjectivesThis study sought to evaluate the long-term prognostic capacity of the SYNTAX (Synergy Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Taxus and Cardiac Surgery) score II (SS-II) and compare it with other risk scores among patients undergoing left main percutaneous coronary intervention (LM-PCI).BackgroundRecently, the SS-II was developed in an attempt to individualize and help the decision-making process between PCI and coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery in the management of complex coronary artery disease (CAD). However, there is a paucity of data regarding the utility of SS-II in patients undergoing LM-PCI.MethodsData from 1,528 consecutive patients from a single center undergoing unprotected LM-PCI were prospectively collected. The SS-II and other scores were then derived using patients’ baseline clinical characteristics. Patients were stratified according to tertiles of SS-II for PCI: SS-II ≤21 (n = 508), SS-II >21 and ≤28 (n = 480), and >28 (n = 540). Predictive capability for long-term mortality was compared between angiographic scores and scores combining both angiographic and clinical variables.ResultsAt a mean follow-up of 4.4 years, mortality in the first, second, and third SS-II tertiles was 1.8%, 3.5%, and 9.4%, respectively (p < 0.0001). Multivariate analysis showed SS-II to be a strong independent predictor of mortality (hazard ratio: 1.76, 95% confidence interval: 1.10 to 2.82; p = 0.02) after LM-PCI. When compared with the angiographic SS, scores combining both clinical and angiographic variables, such as the SS-II, were superior in terms of long-term prognostication.ConclusionsResults of this large series of consecutive patients who underwent unprotected LM-PCI suggested that the SS-II has better long-term prognostic power in terms of mortality compared with the original purely angiographic SS.     

Randomized Comparison of FFR-Guided and Angiography-Guided Provisional Stenting of True Coronary Bifurcation Lesions: The DKCRUSH-VI Trial (Double Kissing Crush Versus Provisional Stenting Technique for Treatment of Coronary Bifurcation Lesions VI)

ObjectivesThis study sought to compare the outcomes of fractional flow reserve (FFR)–guided and angiography (Angio)–guided provisional side-branch (SB) stenting for true coronary bifurcation lesions.BackgroundAngio-guided provisional SB stenting after stenting of the main vessel provides favorable outcomes for the majority of coronary bifurcation lesions. Whether an FFR-guided provisional stenting approach is superior has not been studied.MethodsA total of 320 patients with single Medina 1,1,1 and 0,1,1 coronary bifurcation lesions undergoing stenting with a provisional SB approach were randomly assigned 1:1 to Angio-guided and FFR-guided groups. SB stenting was performed for Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction flow grade <3, ostial SB stenosis >70%, or greater than type A dissection after main vessel stenting in the Angio-guided group and for SB-FFR <0.80 in the FFR-guided group. The primary endpoint was the 1-year composite rate of major adverse cardiac events (cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and clinically driven target vessel revascularization).ResultsComparing the Angio-guided and FFR-guided groups, treatment of the SB (balloon or stenting) was performed in 63.1% and 56.3% of lesions respectively (p = 0.07); stenting of the SB was attempted in 38.1% and 25.9%, respectively (p = 0.01); and, when attempted, stenting was successful in 83.6% and 73.3% of SBs, respectively (p = 0.01). The 1-year composite major adverse cardiac event rate was 18.1% in both groups (hazard ratio: 0.91, 95% confidence interval: 0.48 to 1.88; p = 1.00). The 1-year target vessel revascularization and stent thrombosis rates were 6.9% and 5.6% (p = 0.82) and 1.3% and 0.6% (p = 0.56) in the Angio-guided and FFR-guided groups, respectively.ConclusionsIn this multicenter, randomized trial, angiographic and FFR guidance of provisional SB stenting of true coronary bifurcation lesions provided similar 1-year clinical outcomes. (Randomized Study on DK Crush Technique Versus Provisional Stenting Technique for Coronary Artery Bifurcation Lesions; ChiCTR-TRC-07000015)     

Impact of Strut Width in Periprocedural Myocardial Infarction: A Propensity-Matched Comparison Between Bioresorbable Scaffolds and the First-Generation Sirolimus-Eluting Stent

ObjectivesThis study aimed to assess the clinical impact of strut width (evaluated by abluminal strut surface area [ASSA]) on periprocedural myocardial infarction (PMI) and clinical outcomes in patients treated with bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) versus first-generation sirolimus-eluting stents (SES).BackgroundTo date, there are no reports on the impact of ASSA on PMI and clinical outcomes.MethodsWe compared the impact of ASSA on outcomes and PMI in propensity-matched patients treated with BRS and SES. The primary outcome was the incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), defined as the combination of all-cause mortality, follow-up myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization, at 30-days and 1-year follow-ups. The secondary endpoint was the incidence of PMI.ResultsAfter propensity-matched analysis, 499 patients (147 BRS patients vs. 352 SES patients) were evaluated. Mean ASSA was higher in patients treated with BRS versus SES (BRS: 132.3 ± 76.7 mm² vs. SES: 67.6 ± 48.4 mm², p < 0.001). MACE was not significantly different between groups (30-days MACE: BRS: 0% vs. SES: 1.4%, p = 0.16, and 1-year MACE: BRS: 15.7% vs. SES: 11.4%, p = 0.67). The incidence of PMI was significantly higher in the BRS group (BRS: 13.1% vs. SES: 7.5%, p = 0.05). Multivariable analyses indicated that treatment of left anterior descending artery and ASSA were independent predictors of PMI.ConclusionsBRS implantation, compared with SES implantation, was associated with a higher incidence of PMI. MACE at 30 days and 1 year were not significantly different. Left anterior descending artery percutaneous coronary intervention and ASSA were independent predictors of PMI.     

Outcomes After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Stents in Patients Treated With Thoracic External Beam Radiation for Cancer

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to assess outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with stents in patients treated with thoracic external beam radiation therapy (EBRT).BackgroundThoracic EBRT for cancer is associated with long-term cardiotoxic sequelae. The impact of EBRT on patients requiring coronary stents is unclear.MethodsWe analyzed outcomes after PCI in cancer survivors treated with curative thoracic EBRT before and after stenting between 1998 and 2012. Reference groups were propensity-matched cohorts with stenting but no EBRT. Primary endpoint was target lesion revascularization (TLR), a clinical surrogate for restenosis. Secondary endpoints included myocardial infarction (MI) and cardiac and overall mortality.ResultsWe identified 115 patients treated with EBRT a median 3.6 years after stenting (group A) and 45 patients treated with EBRT a median 2.2 years before stenting (group B). Long-term mean TLR rates in group A (3.2 vs. 6.6%; hazard ratio: 0.6; 95% confidence interval: 0.2 to 1.6; p = 0.31) and group B (9.2 vs. 9.7%; hazard ratio: 1.2; 95% confidence interval: 0.4 to 3.4; p = 0.79) were similar to rates in corresponding control patients (group A: 1,390 control patients; group B: 439 control patients). Three years post-PCI, group A had higher overall mortality (48.6% vs. 13.9%; p < 0.001) but not MI (4.8% vs. 4.3%; p = 0.93) or cardiac mortality (2.3% vs. 3.6%; p = 0.66) rates versus control patients. There were no significant differences in MI, cardiac, or overall mortality rates in group B.ConclusionsThoracic EBRT is not associated with increased stent failure rates when used before or after PCI. A history of PCI should not preclude the use of curative thoracic EBRT in cancer patients or vice versa. Optimal treatment of cancer should be the goal.     

A Randomized Comparison of Novel Biodegradable Polymer- and Durable Polymer–Coated Cobalt-Chromium Sirolimus-Eluting Stents

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to investigate the hypothesis that a novel biodegradable polymer–coated, cobalt-chromium (CoCr), sirolimus-eluting stent (BP-SES) is noninferior in safety and efficacy outcomes compared with a durable polymer (DP)-SES.BackgroundNo randomized trials have the compared safety and efficacy of BP-SES versus DP-SES on similar CoCr platforms, thereby isolating the effect of the polymer type.MethodsIn this prospective, single-blind, randomized trial conducted at 32 Chinese sites, 2,737 patients eligible for coronary stenting were treated with BP- or DP-SES in a 2:1 ratio. The primary endpoint was 12-month target lesion failure (TLF), a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically indicated target lesion revascularization. Secondary endpoints included TLF components, and definite/probable stent thrombosis.ResultsAt 12 months, the difference in the primary endpoint of TLF between BP-SES (6.3%) and DP-SES (6.1%) groups was 0.25% (95% confidence interval: −1.67% to 2.17%, p for noninferiority = 0.0002), demonstrating noninferiority of BP-SES to DP-SES. Individual TLF components of cardiac death (0.7% vs. 0.6%, p = 0.62), target vessel myocardial infarction (3.6% vs. 4.3%, p = 0.39), and clinically indicated target lesion revascularization (2.6% vs. 2.2%, p = 0.50) were similar, as were low definite/probable stent thrombosis rates (0.4% vs. 0.6%, p = 0.55).ConclusionsIn this large-scale real-world trial, BP-SES was noninferior to DP-SES for 1-year TLF. (Evaluate Safety and Effectiveness of the Tivoli ® DES and the Firebird ® DES for Treatment of Coronary Revascularization; NCT01681381)     

Sex-Related Outcomes in Elderly Patients Presenting With Non–ST-Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome: Insights From the Italian Elderly ACS Study

ObjectivesThis study sought to investigate sex-related differences in treatment and outcomes in elderly patients with non–ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTEACS).BackgroundFemale sex and older age are usually associated with worse outcome in NSTEACS. The Italian Elderly ACS study enrolled NSTEACS patients aged 75 years of age and older in a randomized trial comparing an early aggressive with an initially conservative strategy and in a registry of patients with ≥1 exclusion criteria of the trial.MethodsWe compared sexes in the pooled populations of the trial and registry.ResultsA total of 645 patients (313 from the trial and 332 from the registry), including 301 women (47%), were enrolled. Women were slightly older than men (82.1 ± 5.0 years vs. 81.2 ± 4.5 years; p = 0.02), had lower hemoglobin levels (12.5 ± 1.6 g/dl vs. 13.3 ± 1.9 g/dl; p < 0.001), and underwent fewer coronary revascularizations during the index admission (37.2% vs. 45.0%; p = 0.04). In-hospital adverse event rates were similar in both sexes; severe bleeding was uncommon (0.3% vs. 0%). The 1-year primary endpoint (composite of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, disabling stroke, cardiac rehospitalization, and severe bleeding) occurred less often in women (27.6% vs. 38.7%; p < 0.01). Women not undergoing revascularization showed a 3-fold higher mortality, both in-hospital (8.5% vs. 2.7%; p = 0.05) and at 1 year (21.6% vs. 8.1%; p = 0.002).ConclusionsElderly women had a similar in-hospital outcome and better 1-year outcome compared with men. Coronary revascularization in women was associated with lower 1-year mortality, without an increase in severe bleeding. Elderly women with NSTEACS should always be considered for early revascularization.     

Coronary Vessel Wall Contrast Enhancement Imaging as a Potential Direct Marker of Coronary Involvement: Integration of Findings From CAD and SLE Patients

ObjectivesThis study investigated the feasibility of visual and quantitative assessment of coronary vessel wall contrast enhancement (CE) for detection of symptomatic atherosclerotic coronary artery disease (CAD) and subclinical coronary vasculitis in autoimmune inflammatory disease (systemic lupus erythematosus [SLE]), as well as the association with aortic stiffness, an established marker of risk.BackgroundCoronary CE by cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) is a novel noninvasive approach to visualize gadolinium contrast uptake within the coronary artery vessel wall.MethodsA total of 75 subjects (CAD: n = 25; SLE: n = 27; control: n = 23) underwent CMR imaging using a 3-T clinical scanner. Coronary arteries were visualized by a T2-prepared steady state free precession technique. Coronary wall CE was visualized using inversion-recovery T1 weighted gradient echo sequence 40 min after administration of 0.2 mmol/kg gadobutrol. Proximal coronary segments were visually examined for distribution of CE and quantified for contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) and total CE area.ResultsCoronary CE was prevalent in patients (93%, n = 42) with a diffuse pattern for SLE and a patchy/regional distribution in CAD patients. Compared with control subjects, CNR values and total CE area in patients with CAD and SLE were significantly higher (mean CNR: 3.9 ± 2.5 vs. 6.9 ± 2.5 vs. 6.8 ± 2.0, respectively; p < 0.001; total CE area: median 0.8 [interquartile range (IQR): 0.6 to 1.2] vs. 3.2 [IQR: 2.6 to 4.0] vs. 3.3 [IQR: 1.9 to 4.5], respectively; p < 0.001). Both measures were positively associated with aortic stiffness (CNR: r = 0.61, p < 0.01; total CE area: 0.36, p = 0.03), hypercholesterolemia (r = 0.68, p < 0.001; r = 0.61, p < 0.001) and hypertension (r = 0.40, p < 0.01; r = 0.32, p < 0.05).ConclusionsWe demonstrate that quantification of coronary CE by CNR and total CE area is feasible for detection of subclinical and clinical uptake of gadolinium within the coronary vessel wall. Coronary vessel wall CE may become an instrumental novel direct marker of vessel wall injury and remodeling in subpopulations at risk.     

Randomized Comparison of Everolimus-Eluting Stents and Sirolimus-Eluting Stents in Patients With ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction: RACES-MI Trial

ObjectivesThe aim of the current study was to compare everolimus-eluting stents (EES) with sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) in patients undergoing primary angioplasty.BackgroundDrug-eluting stents may offer benefits in terms of repeat revascularization. However, as shown for first-generation drug-eluting stents, they may be counterbalanced by a potential higher risk of stent thrombosis, especially among patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). No data have been reported so far on the long-term benefits and safety of the new generation of drug-eluting stents in STEMI.MethodsConsecutive STEMI patients admitted within 12 h of symptom onset and undergoing primary angioplasty and stent implantation at a tertiary center with 24-h primary percutaneous coronary intervention capability were randomly assigned to SES or EES. The primary endpoint was a major adverse cardiac event at 3-year follow-up. The secondary endpoints were death, reinfarction, definite or probable stent thrombosis, and target vessel revascularization at 3-year follow-up. No patient was lost to follow-up.ResultsFrom April 2007 to May 2009, 500 patients with STEMI were randomized to EES (n = 250) or SES (n = 250). No difference was observed in terms of baseline demographic and clinical characteristics between the groups. No difference was observed between the groups in terms of number of implanted stents per patient or total stent length. However, a larger reference diameter was observed with SES (3.35 ± 0.51 mm vs. 3.25 ± 0.51 mm, p = 0.001), whereas patients randomized to EES more often received glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (54.4% vs. 42.4%, p = 0.006). Follow-up data were available in all patients (1,095 ± 159 days). No significant difference was observed between EES and SES in major adverse cardiac events (16% vs. 20.8%, adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 0.75 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.5 to 1.13], p = 0.17), cardiac death (4.4% vs. 5.6%, adjusted HR: 0.77 [95% CI: 0.35 to 1.71], p = 0.53), recurrent MI (6.4% vs. 10%, adjusted HR: 0.62 [95% CI: 0.33 to 1.16], p = 0.13), and target vessel revascularization (4.8% vs. 4.8%, adjusted HR: 1.00 [95% CI: 0.45 to 2.32], p = 0.99). However, EES was associated with a significant reduction in stent thrombosis (1.6% vs. 5.2%, adjusted HR: 0.3 [95% CI: 0.1 to 0.92], p = 0.035).ConclusionsThis study shows that among STEMI patients undergoing primary angioplasty, EES has similar efficacy as SES, but is associated with a significant reduction in stent thrombosis. (Randomized Comparison of Everolimus Eluting Stents and Sirolimus Eluting Stent in Patients With ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction [RACES-MI]; NCT01684982)     

Randomized Comparisons Between Different Stenting Approaches for Bifurcation Coronary Lesions With or Without Side Branch Stenosis

ObjectivesThis study sought to evaluate the optimal percutaneous coronary intervention techniques using drug-eluting stents for bifurcation coronary lesions.BackgroundThe optimal bifurcation stenting technique needs to be evaluated.MethodsThe trial included 2 randomization studies separated by the presence of side branch (SB) stenosis for patients having non–left main bifurcation lesions. For 306 patients without SB stenosis, the routine final kissing balloon or leave-alone approaches were compared. Another randomization study compared the crush or single-stent approaches for 419 patients with SB stenosis.ResultsBetween the routine final kissing balloon and leave-alone groups for nondiseased SB lesions, angiographic restenosis occurred in 17.9% versus 9.3% (p = 0.064), comprising 15.1% versus 3.7% for the main branch (p = 0.004) and 2.8% versus 5.6% for the SB (p = 0.50) from 214 patients (69.9%) receiving 8-month angiographic follow-up. Incidence of major adverse cardiac events including death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization over 1 year was 14.0% versus 11.6% between the routine final kissing balloon and leave-alone groups (p = 0.57). In another randomization study for diseased SB lesions, 28.2% in the single-stent group received SB stents. From 300 patients (71.6%) receiving angiographic follow-up, between the crush and single-stent groups, angiographic restenosis rate was 8.4% versus 11.0% (p = 0.44), comprising 5.2% versus 4.8% for the main branch (p = 0.90) and 3.9% versus 8.3% for the SB (p = 0.12). One-year major adverse cardiac events rate between the crush and single-stent groups was 17.9% versus 18.5% (p = 0.84).ConclusionsAngiographic and clinical outcomes were excellent after percutaneous coronary intervention using drug-eluting stents with any stent technique for non–left main bifurcation lesions once the procedure was performed successfully.     

Radial Versus Femoral Access for Coronary Angiography/Intervention in Women With Acute Coronary Syndromes: Insights From the RIVAL Trial (Radial Vs femorAL access for coronary intervention)

ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy and safety of radial versus femoral access in women undergoing coronary angiography/intervention.BackgroundThe risk of bleeding and vascular access site complications are higher in women than in men.MethodsIn a pre-specified RIVAL (RadIal Vs femorAL access for coronary intervention) subgroup analysis, we compared outcomes in women (n = 1,861) and men (n = 5,160) randomized to radial versus femoral access.ResultsOverall, women were at higher risk of major vascular complications compared with men (4.7% vs. 1.7%; p < 0.0001). Major vascular complications were significantly reduced with radial access in women (3.1% vs. 6.1%; hazard ratio [HR]: 0.5; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.32 to 0.78; p = 0.002) and in men (0.7% vs. 2.8%; HR: 0.27; 95% CI: 0.17 to 0.45; p < 0.0001; interaction p = 0.092). Crossover rates were higher with radial compared with femoral access in women (11.1% vs. 1.9%; HR: 5.88; p < 0.0001) and men (6.3% vs. 1.9%; HR: 3.32; p < 0.0001; interaction p = 0.054). Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) success rates were similar irrespective of access site (women: HR: 1.05; p = 0.471; men: HR: 1.00; p = 0.888; interaction p = 0.674), with no differences in PCI complications. In multivariable analyses, female sex was an independent predictor of major vascular complications (HR: 2.39; 95% CI: 1.76 to 3.25; p < 0.0001). There were consistent findings for women and men, with no difference for the primary composite endpoint of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and non–coronary artery bypass grafting bleeding (women: 3.9% vs. 5.0%; HR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.50 to 1.19; men: 3.54% vs. 3.5%; HR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.75 to −1.34; interaction p = 0.325).ConclusionsWomen undergoing coronary angiography and PCI have a higher risk of vascular access site complications compared with men, and radial access is an effective method to reduce these complications.     

Effect of Drug-Coated Balloons in Native Coronary Artery Disease Left With a Dissection

ObjectivesThe authors sought to understand the clinical and angiographic outcomes of dissections left after drug-coated balloon (DCB) angioplasty.BackgroundSecond-generation DCB may be an alternative to stents in selected populations for the treatment of native coronary lesions. However, the use of these devices may be hampered by a certain risk of acute vessel recoil or residual coronary dissection. Moreover, stenting after DCB has shown limited efficacy. Little is known about when a non–flow-limiting dissection is left after DCB angioplasty.MethodsThis was a prospective observational study whose aim was to investigate the outcome of a consecutive series of patients with native coronary artery disease treated with second-generation DCB and residual coronary dissection at 2 Italian centers. We evaluated patient clinical conditions at 1 and 9 months, and angiographic follow up was undertaken at 6 months.ResultsBetween July 2012 and July 2014, 156 patients were treated with DCB for native coronary artery disease. Fifty-two patients had a final dissection, 4 of which underwent prosthesis implantation and 48 were left untreated and underwent angiographic follow-up after 201 days (interquartile range: 161 to 250 days). The dissections were all type A to C, and none determined an impaired distal flow. Complete vessel healing at angiography was observed in 45 patients (93.8%), whereas 3 patients had persistent but uncomplicated dissections, and 3 had binary restenosis (6.2%). Late lumen loss was 0.14 mm (−0.14 to 0.42). Major adverse cardiovascular events occurred in 11 patients in the entire cohort and in 4 of the dissection cohort (7.2% vs. 8.1%; p = 0.48). We observed 8 and 3 target lesion revascularizations, respectively (5.3% vs. 6.2%; p = 0.37).ConclusionsIn this cohort of consecutive patients treated with new-generation DCB and left with a final dissection, this strategy of revascularization seemed associated with the sealing of most of dissections and without significant neointimal hyperplasia.     

Procedural Outcomes of Chronic Total Occlusion Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Report From the NCDR (National Cardiovascular Data Registry)

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to describe contemporary frequency, predictors, and outcomes of chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the United States.BackgroundCTO PCI can provide significant clinical benefits, yet there is limited information on its success and safety in unselected patient populations.MethodsWe analyzed the frequency and outcomes of CTO PCI compared with non-CTO PCI in elective patients, and of successful versus failed CTO PCI between July 1, 2009, and March 31, 2013, in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI Registry. Generalized estimating equations logistic regression modeling was used to generate independent variables associated with procedural success and procedural complications.ResultsDuring the study period, CTO PCI represented 3.8% of the total PCI volume for stable coronary artery disease (22,365 of 594,510). Overall, patients undergoing CTO PCI required greater contrast volume and longer fluoroscopy time and had lower procedural success (59% vs. 96%, p < 0.001) and higher major adverse cardiac event (1.6% vs. 0.8%, p < 0.001) rates than non-CTO PCI patients. On multivariable analysis, several parameters (including older age, current smoking, previous myocardial infarction, previous coronary artery bypass graft, previous peripheral arterial disease, previous cardiac arrest, right coronary artery CTO target vessel, and less operator experience) were associated with a lower likelihood of CTO PCI procedural success, whereas operators’ annual CTO PCI volume was associated with improved success without a significant increase in major complications.ConclusionsCTO PCI is currently performed infrequently in the United States for stable coronary artery disease and is associated with lower procedural success and higher complication rates compared with non-CTO PCI. Procedural success was associated with several patient factors and operator experience.     

Drug-Coated Balloons Versus Second-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents for the Management of Recurrent Multimetal-Layered In-Stent Restenosis

ObjectivesThis study aimed to investigate the clinical outcomes of patients presenting with recurrent drug-eluting stent (DES) in-stent restenosis (ISR) treated with a second-generation DES or with a drug-coated balloon (DCB).BackgroundTo date, there are no reports of DCB treatment and limited data with regard to the efficacy of further DES implantation for recurrent ISR.MethodsBetween January 2008 and December 2013, 171 lesions were assessed for eligibility (82 lesions in the second-generation DES group and 89 lesions in the DCB group).ResultsAcute gain was greater in the second-generation DES group (second-generation DES, 2.09 ± 0.53 mm vs. DCBs, 1.60 ± 0.62 mm, p < 0.001). The rates of major adverse cardiac events were comparable (at 1 year, DES 14.0% vs. DCBs 12.3%; at 2 years, DES 28.8% vs. DCBs 43.5%, p = 0.21). Major adverse cardiac event rates were mainly driven by target lesion revascularization (at 1 year, DES 12.5% vs. DCBs 10.9%; at 2 years, DES 27.7% vs. DCBs 38.3%; p = 0.40). Definite scaffold thrombosis occurred in 2 patients (1 patient in each group). Multivariable analysis revealed ISR recurrence within 1 year (hazard ratio: 2.43, 95% confidence interval: 1.14 to 5.18, p = 0.02) and lesion length (per 10-mm increase) (hazard ratio: 1.15, 95% confidence interval: 1.00 to 1.32, p = 0.049) to be independent predictors of TLR.ConclusionsThe results after both treatments were equivalent. ISR recurrence within 1 year of the first reintervention and lesion length were independent predictors of future target lesion revascularization. Larger studies are required to confirm the late (>1 year) differences with regard to clinical outcomes.     

Outcomes With Cangrelor Versus Clopidogrel on a Background of Bivalirudin: Insights From the CHAMPION PHOENIX (A Clinical Trial Comparing Cangrelor to Clopidogrel Standard Therapy in Subjects Who Require Percutaneous Coronary Intervention [PCI])

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to examine the efficacy and bleeding outcomes of cangrelor in patients in the CHAMPION PHOENIX (A Clinical Trial Comparing Cangrelor to Clopidogrel Standard Therapy in Subjects Who Require Percutaneous Coronary Intervention [PCI]) who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention with bivalirudin.BackgroundCangrelor is a potent intravenous P2Y₁₂ inhibitor with rapid onset and offset. In the CHAMPION PHOENIX, cangrelor compared with clopidogrel significantly reduced 48-h ischemic events including stent thrombosis, without increasing major bleeding. Bivalirudin has demonstrated ischemic outcomes similar to those with heparin plus glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibition, with reduced bleeding but increased early stent thrombosis.MethodsIn the modified intent-to-treat population, 2,059 patients (18.8%) received bivalirudin, with 1,014 patients in the cangrelor treatment arm and 1,045 in the clopidogrel treatment arm.ResultsAt 48 h, the primary endpoint of death, myocardial infarction, ischemia-driven revascularization, or stent thrombosis was lower with cangrelor versus clopidogrel (48 [4.7%] vs. 70 [6.7%]; odds ratio [OR]: 0.68, p = 0.047). Death was similar in both arms (2 [0.2%] vs. 2 [0.2%]). Myocardial infarction was reduced by cangrelor (37 [3.6%] vs. 59 [5.6%]; OR: 0.63, p = 0.03), as was death/myocardial infarction (39 [3.8%] vs. 61 [5.8%]; OR: 0.65, p = 0.04). Cangrelor was associated with a nonsignificant trend toward less stent thrombosis (7 [0.7%] vs. 15 [1.4%]; OR: 0.48, p = 0.10), which was evident within 2 h after percutaneous coronary intervention (p = 0.057). GUSTO (Global Use of Strategies to Open Occluded Arteries) severe bleeding was similar in both arms (2 of 1,021 [0.2%] vs. 2 of 1,055 [0.2%]) as were other bleeding definitions and transfusions. Efficacy and safety results were consistent in patients with stable angina, non–ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome, and ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (p for interaction: 0.62 and 0.29).ConclusionsCangrelor may offer an attractive benefit risk profile when used in combination with bivalirudin.     

Outcomes After Emergency Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Unprotected Left Main Stem Occlusion: The BCIS National Audit of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention 6-Year Experience

ObjectivesThis study sought to evaluate in-hospital outcomes and 3-year mortality of patients presenting with unprotected left main stem occlusion (ULMSO) treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI).BackgroundLimited data exists about management and outcome following presentation with ULMSO.MethodsFrom January 1, 2007 to December 21, 2012, 446,257 PCI cases were recorded in the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society database of all PCI cases in England and Wales. Of those, 568 were patients having emergency PCI for ST-segment elevation infarction (0.6% of all PPCI) who presented with ULMSO (TIMI [Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction] flow grade 0/1 and stenosis >75%), and they were compared with 1,045 emergency patients treated with nonocclusive LMS disease. Follow-up was obtained through linkage with the Office of National Statistics.ResultsPresentation with ULMSO, compared with nonocclusive LMS disease, was associated with a doubling in the likelihood of periprocedural shock (57.9% vs. 27.9%; p < 0.001) and/or intra-aortic balloon pump support (52.5% vs. 27.2%; p < 0.001). In-hospital (43.3% vs. 20.6%; p < 0.001), 1-year (52.8% vs. 32.4%; p < 0.001), and 3-year mortality (73.9% vs 52.3%, p < 0.001) rates were higher in patients with ULMSO, compared with patients presenting with a patent LMS, and were significantly influenced by the presence of cardiogenic shock. ULMSO and cardiogenic shock were independent predictors of 30-day (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.61 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.07 to 2.41], p = 0.02, and HR: 5.43 [95% CI: 3.23 to 9.12], p<0.001, respectively) and 3-year all-cause mortality (HR: 1.52 [95% CI: 1.06 to 2.17], p = 0.02, and HR: 2.98 [95% CI: 1.99 to 4.49], p < 0.001, respectively).ConclusionsIn patients undergoing PPCI for ULMSO, acute outcomes are poor and additional therapies are required to improve outcome. However, long-term outcomes for survivors of ULMSO are encouraging.