Search

The article focuses on study related to analysis of bypass angioplasty revascularization investigation trials outcomes using multistate model of clinical outcomes. Topics discussed include use of cardiovascular clinical trials in detection of treatment effect and composite outcomes, diagnosis of nonfatal Q-wave myocardial infarction in patients and use of regression analysis during the study.

Previous studies have suggested that angiographically detected peristent contrast staining (PSS) at follow-up may predict subsequent very late stent thrombosis. The Harmonizing Outcomes With Revascularization and Stents in Acute Myocardial Infarction (HORIZONS- AMI) trial was a dual-arm, factorial, randomized trial in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarctions. All follow-up angiograms (1,330 lesions in 1,115 patients, median time 13.3 months) without major cardiovascular events before follow-up angiography were analyzed at a core laboratory blinded to clinical events for the presence of PSS (defined as contrast staining outside the stent contour extending to ≥20% of the stent diameter). Corresponding follow-up intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) data (275 lesions in 248 patients) were also evaluated to assess the mechanisms of PSS. PSS was present in 23 patients (2.1%) at follow-up and was not more common with paclitaxel-eluting than with bare-metal stents. All 6 PSS patients with follow-up IVUS had stent malapposition (vs 41.2% malapposition in the follow-up IVUS cohort). Comparing poststent and follow-up IVUS, 2 patients had late acquired and 4 had persistent malapposition; all 6 showed positive vessel remodeling from baseline to follow-up (mean vessel area 22.0 ± 8.0 to 32.4 ± 11.7 mm², p = 0.07). During 3-year follow-up, stent thrombosis developed in no patient with PSS compared with 8 PSS-negative patients (0% vs 0.8%, p = 0.68). The rates of revascularization and major adverse cardiovascular events were also not increased in PSS patients. In conclusion, in the large-scale HORIZONS-AMI trial, PSS at angiographic follow-up was infrequent and was associated with late stent malapposition and positive remodeling but was independent of stent type. Identification of PSS was not associated with subsequent stent thrombosis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Registry Experience at the Washington Hospital Center, DES - Taxus Liberte Versus Xience V (REWARDS TLX) is a physician-initiated, retrospective, real-world, multicenter, observational study for all patients >18 years of age subjected to percutaneous coronary intervention with everolimus-eluting stents (EESs) or paclitaxel-eluting stents (PESs). Outcomes of patients receiving a TAXUS Liberté or XIENCE V drug-eluting stent were compared. Baseline clinical, procedural, and follow-up data at 12 months were collected from 10 clinical centers by an electronic data capture system. The study''s primary end point was major adverse cardiac events: a composite of all-cause death, Q-wave myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, and stent thrombosis. The trial is registered with http://www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01134159). Data were entered for 1,195 patients (PES, n = 595; EES, n = 600). Baseline clinical characteristics were similar except for higher dyslipidemia, systemic hypertension, and family history of coronary artery disease in the EES group. In-hospital outcome was similar between groups, with an overall in-hospital stent thrombosis rate of 0.2%. The primary end point at 12 months was similar (EES 7.8% vs 10.8%, p = 0.082). Overall stent thrombosis rate was lower in the EES group (0.3% vs 1.2%, respectively, p = 0.107); however, target lesion revascularization was similar (PES, hazard ratio 1.46, 95% confidence interval 0.98 to 2.19, p = 0.064). There was no difference in overall mortality between groups. In conclusion, second-generation EESs and PESs demonstrated similar efficacy and safety profiles for broadened patient and lesion subsets compared to a selected population from the pivotal trials. However, for composite efficacy and safety end points, EESs outperformed second-generation PESs. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines for management of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) recommend culprit artery-only revascularization (CULPRIT) based on safety concerns during noninfarct-related artery intervention. However, the data to support this safety concern are scant. Searches were performed in PubMed/EMBASE/CENTRAL for studies evaluating multivessel revascularization versus CULPRIT in patients with STEMI and multivessel disease (MVD). A multivessel revascularization strategy had to be performed at the time of CULPRIT or during the same hospitalization. Early (≤30-day) and long-term outcomes were evaluated. Among 19 studies (23 arms) that evaluated 61,764 subjects with STEMI and MVD, multivessel revascularization was performed in a minority of patients (16%). For early outcomes, there was no significant difference for outcomes of mortality, MI, stroke, and target vessel revascularization, with a 44% decrease in risk of repeat percutaneous coronary intervention and major adverse cardiovascular events (odds ratio 0.68, 95% confidence interval 0.57 to 0.81) with multivessel revascularization compared to CULPRIT. Similarly, for long-term outcomes (follow-up 2.0 ± 1.1 years), there was no difference for outcomes of MI, target vessel revascularization, and stent thrombosis, with 33%, 43%, and 53% decreases in risk of mortality, repeat percutaneous coronary intervention, coronary artery bypass grafting, respectively, and major adverse cardiovascular events (odds ratio 0.60, 95% confidence interval 0.50 to 0.72) with multivessel revascularization compared to CULPRIT. In conclusion, in patients with STEMI and MVD, multivessel revascularization appears to be safe compared to culprit artery-only revascularization. These findings support the need for a large-scale randomized trial to evaluate revascularization strategies in patients with STEMI and MVD. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is the optimal method of reperfusion when performed expeditiously. Factors contributing to delays in PCI for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) have not been thoroughly characterized or quantified. We sought to identify the factors associated with the delays to reperfusion in patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI. Primary PCI was performed in 3,340 patients with STEMI in the international, multicenter Harmonizing Outcomes with Revascularization and Stents in Acute Myocardial Infarction trial. Multivariate analysis was used to identify independent predictors of delay in achieving reperfusion from 38 baseline and procedural variables. A total of 905 patients (27.1%) presented to non-PCI hospitals and were subsequently transferred; the remainder presented to PCI hospitals. The most powerful independent predictor of the interval from symptom onset to arrival at the PCI hospital and the first door-to-balloon time was an initial presentation at a non-PCI hospital (median incremental 58- and 54-minute delay, respectively, both p <0.001). Other independent predictors of prolonged door-to-balloon times included presentation with respiratory failure (42-minute incremental delay, p = 0.003), presentation during off-work hours (11-minute incremental delay, p <0.001), and co-morbid conditions such as diabetes and heart failure. In conclusion, among patients undergoing primary PCI, presentation to a non-PCI hospital was the variable associated with the greatest delay to reperfusion. Systems of care that encourage ambulance diagnosis and direct delivery of patients with STEMI to a PCI hospital might shorten the overall door-to-balloon times and improve the clinical outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent data on drug-eluting stents have shown improved clinical outcomes in patients with diabetes mellitus. However, the relative efficacy and safety of sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) compared with paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) remains controversial. Therefore, a meta-analysis of randomized trials was performed to compare SES with PES exclusively in patients with diabetes. The published research was scanned by formal searches of electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) from January 2001 to April 2009. All randomized trials involving head-to-head comparison of SES versus PES in patients with diabetes were examined for analysis. A total of 5 randomized trials were included in the present meta-analysis, involving 1,173 patients (594 in the SES group, 579 in the PES group). SES were significantly more effective in the reduction of target lesion revascularization (5.1% vs 11.4%, odds ratio [OR] 0.41, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.26 to 0.64, p <0.001) and angiographic binary (≥50%) restenosis (5.6% vs 16.4%, OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.48, p <0.001) compared to PES. In contrast, the differences between SES and PES were not statistically significant with respect to cardiac death (2.2% vs 2.9%, OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.47, p = 0.35), myocardial infarction (1.5% vs 2.6%, OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.31, p = 0.19), and stent thrombosis (0.6% vs 1.2%, OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.84, p = 0.35). In conclusion, SES are superior to PES in reducing the incidences of restenosis and target lesion revascularization in patients with diabetes, with nonsignificant differences in terms of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and stent thrombosis. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

We explored the safety and quality-of-life consequences of treating patients with stable coronary disease and high-risk features initially with optimal medical therapy (OMT) alone compared to OMT plus percutaneous coronary intervention. This was a post hoc analysis of Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive DruG Evaluation (COURAGE) trial patients. We defined high risk as the onset of Canadian Cardiovascular Society class III angina within 2 months or stabilized acute coronary syndrome within 2 weeks of enrollment. The primary end point was death or myocardial infarction after 4.6 years. Of the 2,287 patients enrolled in the COURAGE trial, 264 (12%) were high risk and had a relative risk of 1.56 for death or myocardial infarction (p = 0.0008) compared to those with non–high-risk features. A total of 35 primary events occurred in the OMT group and 32 in the percutaneous coronary intervention plus OMT group (hazard ratio 1.11, 95% confidence interval 0.69 to 1.79; p = 0.68). No significant difference was found in the prevalence of angina between the 2 groups at 1 year. During the first year of follow-up, 30% of the OMT patients crossed over to the revascularization group. In conclusion, an initial strategy of OMT alone for high-risk patients in the COURAGE trial did not result in increased death or myocardial infarction at 4.6 years or worse angina at 1 year, but it was associated with a high rate of crossover to revascularization. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

We evaluated the use and outcomes of drug-eluting stents (DESs) and bare metal stents (BMSs) in a large primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (MI) trial. Recently concerns have been raised with “off-label” use of DESs for short- and long-term clinical outcomes. Limited randomized data exist evaluating DESs versus BMSs in ST-elevation MI. Patients (n = 5,745) in the Assessment of Pexelizumab in Acute Myocardial Infarction (APEX-AMI) trial were categorized by stent type used. Baseline variables and clinical outcomes were collected at 90 days and 6 months. Outcomes by stent type were adjusted for using conventional multivariable predictors of 90-day mortality (age, anterior location, total ST-segment deviation, and Killip class), time to PCI, and Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction grade flow. Stents were deployed (at the investigator''s discretion) in 5,124 patients (89.2%) with acute MI, with DES use in 2,221 (43.3%) and BMS use in 2,903 (56.7%). Patients receiving DESs were younger (median 59 vs 63 years of age, p <0.001), had left anterior descending coronary artery PCI (57.9% vs 48.1%, p <0.001), and often were treated in the United States (58.2%). DES-treated patients had a lower adjusted mortality at 90 days (hazard ratio 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.54 to 0.99, p = 0.046) and trended toward lower mortality (hazard ratio 0.77, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.03, p = 0.084) and recurrent MI (hazard ratio 0.81, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.11, p = 0.186) at 6 months compared with BMSs. In conclusion, in this observational analysis of stent use from a large primary percutaneous intervention for acute MI trial, DESs appear as safe as BMSs with similar 6-month clinical outcomes with regard to death and recurrent MI. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Although pharmacologic therapy has made impressive advances in the past decade and is the mainstay of therapy for heart failure (HF), there is still a large unmet need, because morbidity and mortality remain unacceptably high. Implanted medical devices are gaining increasing utility in this group of patients and have the potential to revolutionize the treatment of HF. The majority of devices in clinical use or under active investigation in HF can be grouped into 1 of 4 categories: devices to monitor the HF condition, devices to treat rhythm disturbances, devices to improve the mechanical efficiency of the heart, and devices to replace part or all of the heart’s function. There are several devices either approved or under development to monitor the HF condition, ranging from interactive weight scales to implantable continuous pressure monitors. The challenge is to demonstrate that this technology can improve patient outcomes. Pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) are used to treat heart rhythms in a broad range of patients with heart disease, but they now have a special place in HF management with the prophylactic use of ICDs in patients who have advanced systolic dysfunction. The Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial (MADIT) II study demonstrated a 29% reduction in all-cause mortality with ICDs in patients with a history of a myocardial infarction and a left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction <0.30. LV and multisite pacing are means of improving the mechanical efficiency of the heart. The concept is to create a more coordinated contraction of the ventricles to overcome the inefficiency associated with conduction system delays, which are common in HF. The acute hemodynamic effect can be impressive and is immediate. Several studies of intermediate duration (3 to 6 months) have consistently demonstrated that biventricular pacing improves symptoms and exercise capacity. Mechanical methods of remodeling the heart into a more efficient shape have been under scrutiny for several years. New methods of restraining the heart with prosthetic material are under investigation in humans, with encouraging pilot results. Heart replacement has been evaluated clinically with LV assist devices for several decades. The Randomized Evaluation of Mechanical Assistance Therapy as an Alternative in Congestive Heart Failure (REMATCH) study has demonstrated a proof of concept for the use of mechanical blood pumps to improve survival, functional capacity, and symptoms. Several assist devices with such features as total implantability, improved durability, and smaller size are now under study; these may further improve the outcomes of patients. One year ago, the world witnessed the first clinical use of a totally implantable total artificial heart. Although the long-term outcomes were limited, the device demonstrated an impressive ability to improve organ function and extend survival in the population facing imminent death. Further development in this field is expected. The use of devices in HF now has a strong foothold, and the potential exists for substantially greater use of a broad range of devices in the near future. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]