Search

Background: Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) has poorer outcomes in disadvantaged populations such as those in regional and remote locations. We compared long-term outcomes associated with presentation to regional or remote hospitals among AMI patients.Methods and Results: Administrative claims data from New South Wales (27% regional and remote residents) was used to identify patients >18 years admitted to any NSW hospital with a principal diagnosis of AMI (ICD10 codes: I21·0-I21·4) between 01/07/2004 and 30/06/2008. Hospital of presentation location with a population of <250,000 was defined as regional and remote while hospitals with a population >250,000 were deemed urban. Receipt of revascularisation and mortality were analysed and adjusted for age, comorbidities and previous revascularisation. Patients were censored at death or end of the follow-up period (31 December 2009). 39,798 patients were identified with 9,393 (23.6%) regional and remote presenters. In multivariable models, regional and remote presentation was associated with reduced rates of revascularisation (OR 0.30 95%CI 0.28-0.32; p<0.001), no impact on overall mortality (HR 1.04 95%CI 0.99-1.02; p=0.11), but with increased mortality for patients presenting with STEMI (HR 1.14; 95% CI 1.06-1.23; p<0.001). The propensity analysis was consistent with these findings.Conclusions: Presentation to a regional and remote hospital was associated with lower revascularisation rates following AMI, but with a higher long-term mortality if presenting with ST segment elevation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A lack of clarity exists about the role of complete coronary revascularization in patients presenting with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.Objectives: The aim of our study was to compare long-term outcomes in terms of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events of 2 different complete coronary revascularization strategies in patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel coronary artery disease: 1-stage percutaneous coronary intervention (1S-PCI) during the index procedure versus multistage percutaneous coronary intervention (MS-PCI) complete coronary revascularization during the index hospitalization.Methods: In the SMILE (Impact of Different Treatment in Multivessel Non ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction Patients: One Stage Versus Multistaged Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) trial, 584 patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 manner to 1S-PCI or MS-PCI. The primary study endpoint was the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events, which were defined as cardiac death, death, reinfarction, rehospitalization for unstable angina, repeat coronary revascularization (target vessel revascularization), and stroke at 1 year.Results: The occurrence of the primary endpoint was significantly lower in the 1-stage group (1S-PCI: n = 36 [13.63%] vs. MS-PCI: n = 61 [23.19%]; hazard ratio [HR]: 0.549 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.363 to 0.828]; p = 0.004). The 1-year rate of target vessel revascularization was significantly higher in the MS-PCI group (1S-PCI: n = 22 [8.33%] vs. MS-PCI: n = 40 [15.20%]; HR: 0.522 [95% CI: 0.310 to 0.878]; p = 0.01; p log-rank = 0.013). When the analyses were limited to cardiac death (1S-PCI: n = 9 [3.41%] vs. MS-PCI: n = 14 [5.32%]; HR: 0.624 [95% CI: 0.270 to 1.441]; p = 0.27) and myocardial infarction (1S-PCI: n = 7 [2.65%] vs. MS-PCI: n = 10 [3.80%]; HR: 0.678 [95% CI: 0.156 to 2.657]; p = 0.46), no significant differences were observed between groups.Conclusions: In multivessel non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients, complete 1-stage coronary revascularization is superior to multistage PCI in terms of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events. (Impact of Different Treatment in Multivessel Non ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction [NSTEMI]Patients: One Stage Versus Multistaged Percutaneous Coronary Intervention [PCI] [SMILE]: NCT01478984). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to determine whether, in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), the reduction in cardiac mortality in those taking bivalirudin compared with unfractionated heparin plus a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor (UFH+GPI) can be fully attributed to reduced bleeding. Background: The association between hemorrhagic complications and mortality may explain the survival benefit with bivalirudin. Methods: A total of 3,602 STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI were randomized to bivalirudin versus UFH+GPI. Three-year cardiac mortality was analyzed in patients with and without major bleeding. Results: When compared with UFH+GPI, bivalirudin resulted in lower 3-year rates of major bleeding (6.9% vs. 10.5%, hazard ratio [HR]: 0.64 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.51 to 0.80], p < 0.0001) and cardiac mortality (2.9% vs. 5.1%, HR: 0.56 [95% CI: 0.40 to 0.80], p = 0.001). Three-year cardiac mortality was reduced in bivalirudin-treated patients with major bleeding (20 fewer deaths with bivalirudin; 5.8% vs. 14.6%, p = 0.025) and without major bleeding (18 fewer deaths with bivalirudin; 2.6% vs. 3.8%, p = 0.048). In a fully-adjusted multivariable model accounting for major bleeding and other adverse events, bivalirudin was still associated with a 43% reduction in 3-year cardiac mortality (adjusted HR: 0.57 [95% CI: 0.39 to 0.83], p = 0.003). Conclusions: Bivalirudin reduces cardiac mortality in patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI, an effect that can only partly be attributed to prevention of bleeding. Further studies are required to identify the nonhematologic benefits of bivalirudin. (Harmonizing Outcomes With Revascularization and Stents in Acute Myocardial Infarction; NCT00433966) [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Objectives: The aim of this study was to understand the impact of attenuated plaque on distal embolization during stent implantation in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Background: Attenuated plaques identified by grayscale intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) might predict transient deterioration in coronary flow and/or no-reflow during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Methods: We analyzed clinical, angiographic, and IVUS data from 364 patients (n = 364 infarct-related arteries) enrolled in the randomized HORIZONS-AMI (Harmonizing Outcomes With Revascularization and Stents in Acute Myocardial Infarction) trial. No-reflow was final Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) flow grade ≤2 in the absence of mechanical obstruction. Attenuated plaque was hypoechoic or mixed atheroma with ultrasound attenuation without calcification. A mean attenuation score was created by measuring the angle of attenuation each 1 mm, scoring the angle as 1 to 4 (corresponding to <90°, 90° to 180°, 180° to 270°, or 270° to 360°, respectively), summing the scores, and normalizing for analysis length. Results: Overall, 284 (78.0%) patients had attenuated plaques; no-reflow occurred in 37 (10.2%). Patients with no-reflow had a higher mean attenuation score (median [interquartile range] 2.2 [0.0 to 2.8] vs. 1.3 [0.7 to 1.8], p < 0.001), lower baseline left ventricular ejection fraction (52.8% [43.2% to 61.5%] vs. 61.4% [52.2% to 68.1%], p = 0.002), and more baseline angiographic thrombus (89.2% vs. 74.1%, p = 0.043) with no differences in post-PCI stent expansion versus patients without no-reflow. Multivariate analysis indicated that mean attenuation score was the strongest predictor of no-reflow. The mean attenuation score that best predicted no-reflow was ≥2 points (90° to 180°, sensitivity of 81.5%, and specificity of 80.5%). Conclusions: Attenuated plaque was present in three-quarters of patients with AMI. The amount of attenuated plaque strongly correlated with no-reflow; the larger the attenuated plaque, the greater the likelihood of no-reflow. (Dual Arm Factorial Randomized Trial in Patients w/ST Segment Elevation AMI to Compare the Results of Using Anticoagulation With Either Unfractionated Heparin + Routine GP IIb/IIIa Inhibition or Bivalirudin + Bail-out GP IIb/IIIa Inhibition; and Primary Angioplasty with stent implantation with Either a Slow Rate-release Paclitaxel-eluting Stent [TAXUS™] or Uncoated Bare Metal Stent [EXPRESS2™]; NCT00433966) [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Objectives: This study sought to evaluate the impact of SYNTAX score (SXscore), and compare its performance in isolation and combination with the PAMI (The Primary Angioplasty in Myocardial Infarction Study) score, for the prediction of 1-year clinical outcomes in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Background: Patients with STEMI were excluded from the original SYNTAX score (SXscore) algorithm. Therefore, the utility of using the SXscore in this patient group remains undefined. Methods: SXscore was calculated retrospectively in 807 patients with STEMI enrolled in the randomized STRATEGY (Single High-Dose Bolus Tirofiban and Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Abciximab and Bare-Metal Stent in Acute Myocardial Infarction) and MULTISTRATEGY (Multicenter Evaluation of Single High-Dose Bolus Tirofiban Versus Abciximab With Sirolimus-Eluting Stent or Bare-Metal Stent in Acute Myocardial Infarction Study) clinical trials. Clinical outcomes of all-cause death, reinfarction, and clinically driven target vessel revascularization were subsequently stratified according to SXscore tertiles: SXLOW ≤9 (n = 311), 9 < SXMID ≤16 (n = 234), SXHIGH >16 (n = 262). Results: At 1-year follow-up, all clinical outcomes including mortality, mortality/reinfarction, major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (a composite of all-cause death, reinfarction and target vessel revascularization), and definite, definite/probable, and any stent thrombosis were all significantly higher in patients in the highest SXscore tertile. SXscore was identified as an independent predictor of mortality, MACE, and stent thrombosis out to 1-year follow-up. The combination SYNTAX-PAMI score led to a net reclassification improvement of 15.7% and 4.6% for mortality and MACE, respectively. The C-statistics for the SXscore, PAMI score, and the combined SYNTAX-PAMI score were 0.65, 0.81, and 0.73 for 1-year mortality, and 0.68, 0.64, and 0.69 for 1-year MACE, respectively. Conclusions: SXscore does have a role in the risk stratification of patients with STEMI having primary percutaneous coronary intervention; however, this ability can be improved through a combination with clinical variables. (Multicentre 2×2 Factorial Randomised Study Comparing Tirofiban Versus Abciximab and SES Versus BMS in AMI; NCT00229515) [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]

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to investigate long-term 3-year clinical outcomes of an everolimus-eluting stent (EES) versus a paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES). Background: Compared with PES, EES reduced target vessel failure and major adverse cardiac events at 2 years. Whether the benefits of EES are sustained at 3 years has not been reported. Methods: In the SPIRIT II (A Clinical Evaluation of the XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in the Treatment of Patients With De Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions) and SPIRIT III (A Clinical Evaluation of the Investigational Device XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System [EECSS] in the Treatment of Subjects With De Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions) trials, 1,302 patients were randomly assigned to EES (n = 892) or PES (n = 410). We report the 3-year clinical follow-up of this patient-level pooled analysis. Results: At 3 years, EES compared with PES resulted in a significant reduction in myocardial infarction (3.8% vs. 6.7%; relative risk [RR]: 0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.34 to 0.94; p = 0.04), and target lesion revascularization (6.8% vs. 12.7%; RR: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.37 to 0.77; p = 0.001). Everolimus-eluting stents resulted in a significant reduction in target vessel failure (13.7% vs. 19.5%; RR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.54 to 0.92; p = 0.01), and major adverse cardiac events (9.1% vs. 16.3%; RR: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.41 to 0.76; p = 0.0004). The cumulative rates of Academic Research Consortium–defined definite or probable stent thrombosis were 1.2% in EES patients and 1.9% in PES patients (RR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.25 to 1.68; p = 0.43). Conclusions: In this patient-level pooled analysis, EES compared with PES resulted in a significant and persistent reduction in target vessel failure and major adverse cardiac events at 3 years due to fewer myocardial infarction and ischemic target lesion revascularization events, which is consistent with superior safety and efficacy of the EES platform. (A Clinical Evaluation of the XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in the Treatment of Patients With De Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions [SPIRIT II]; NCT00180310) (SPIRIT III: A Clinical Evaluation of the Investigational Device XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System [EECSS] in the Treatment of Subjects With De Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions [SPIRIT III]; NCT00180479) [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate outcomes of patients with moderate- and high-risk acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and multivessel coronary artery disease managed with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Background: There is uncertainty about the preferred revascularization strategy for high-risk patients with multivessel disease. Methods: Among 13,819 moderate- and high-risk ACS patients enrolled in the ACUITY (Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage Strategy) trial, 5,627 had multivessel disease (including left anterior descending artery involvement) and were managed by PCI (n = 4,412) or CABG (n = 1,215). Propensity score matching was applied to adjust for differences in baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics, yielding a total of 1,056 patients (528 managed by PCI, and 528 managed by CABG). Results: Propensity-matched patients undergoing CABG had higher 1-month rates of stroke (1.1% vs. 0.0%, p = 0.03) and myocardial infarction (13.3% vs. 8.8%, p = 0.03), received more blood transfusions (40.3% vs. 6.3%, p < 0.0001) and more frequently developed acute renal injury (31.7% vs. 14.2%, p < 0.0001), whereas PCI was associated with higher rates of unplanned revascularization at both 1 month and at 1 year (0.8% vs. 5.2%, p < 0.0001; and 3.8% vs. 16.5%, p < 0.0001, respectively). There were no significant differences between the CABG and PCI groups in 1-month or 1-year mortality (2.5% vs. 2.1%, p = 0.69; and 4.4% vs. 5.7%, p = 0.58, respectively). Conclusions: In this propensity-matched comparison from the ACUITY trial, moderate- and high-risk patients with ACS and multivessel disease treated with PCI rather than CABG had lower rates of peri-procedural stroke, myocardial infarction, major bleeding, and renal injury, with comparable 1-month and 1-year rates of mortality, but more frequently developed recurrent ischemia requiring repeat revascularization procedures during follow-up. (Comparison of Angiomax Versus Heparin in Acute Coronary Syndromes [ACS]; NCT00093158) [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Aim: To examine the impact of primary stent implantation versus balloon angioplasty on long-term outcome (median 8 years) in 117 patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) from randomized trials. Methods: Enrolled patients were those presenting with STEMI within 12 h of symptom onset. Patients were randomized to either Palmaz–Schatz stent implantation (N =25) or balloon angioplasty (N =23) between January and November 1996; or Palmaz–Schatz (N =26), or Cordis coil stent implantation (N =24) or balloon angioplasty (N =19) between February 1998 and March 1999. Results: Patients (67±11 years) arrived to the hospital within median 2.5 h of symptom onset with Killip 1/2/3/4 grade (72/19/7/2%, respectively). The culprit lesion was located in the left anterior descending (50%), right (39%), or left circumflex coronary artery (11%) with TIMI 0/1/2/3 flow (81/5/12/2%, respectively). Clinical/angiographic features were comparable between the 2 groups. During follow-up, there was a significant reduction in cardiac mortality in the stent group (5%) compared to the angioplasty group (17%, log-rank test p =0.04). In addition, the stent group had a lower target lesion revascularization rate (28% versus 52%, p =0.008), and a significantly lower major adverse cardiac event rate (37% versus 67%, p =0.005), than the angioplasty group. Conclusion: Compared to balloon angioplasty, primary stenting resulted in a sustained beneficial effect on cardiac mortality at 8 years. [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]

Background: Antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel and acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) reduces major cardiovascular events in patients with ST and non-ST-segment-elevation acute coronary syndromes (ACS). Recent mechanistic and clinical data suggest that higher loading and maintenance doses of clopidogrel may achieve a more rapid and greater degree of platelet inhibition that translates into improved clinical outcomes, but this is yet to be formally evaluated in an adequately powered randomized trial. Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of (1) a higher loading and initial maintenance dose of clopidogrel compared with the standard-dose regimen and (2) high-dose ASA compared with low-dose ASA in patients with ST or non-ST-segment-elevation ACS managed with an early invasive strategy. Design: Multicenter, international, randomized, 2 x 2 factorial design trial evaluating a clopidogrel high-dose regimen (600 mg loading dose on day 1 followed by 150 mg once daily on days 2 to 7, followed by 75 mg once daily on days 8-30) compared with the standard-dose regimen (300 mg loading dose on day 1, followed by 75 mg once daily on days 2-30) and high-dose ASA (300-325 mg daily) versus low-dose ASA (75-100 mg daily) in patients with ST or non-ST-segment-elevation ACS managed with an early invasive strategy. The clopidogrel dose comparison is double-blind and the ASA dose comparison is open-label. The primary outcome is the composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial (re)infarction or stroke up to day 30. The primary safety outcome is major bleeding. The sample size is 18,000 to 20,000 patients. Conclusions: The CURRENT-OASIS 7 trial will help to define optimal dosing regimens for clopidogrel and ASA in patients with ST and non-ST-segment-elevation ACS treated with an early invasive strategy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista Española de Cardiología (18855857) is the property of Elsevier B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)