Search

Objective: Comparison of transradial versus transfemoral access for complex percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with regard to both complications and long-term outcomes., Background: Radial access has been shown to confer superior results in patients undergoing PCI, especially in patients with acute coronary syndromes. However, radial access has limitations of sheath and device size, which may increase procedure time and result in inferior outcomes., Methods: Patients undergoing PCI for complex lesions, defined as type C according the ACC/AHA classification system, were included in this study. Propensity matching was performed to adjust for differences in baseline characteristics. Transradial patients were then compared to transfemoral patients in regard to procedural, in-hospital, and 6-month outcomes., Results: Among 2142 patients with 2591 lesions treated, 1876 had femoral access and 267 had radial access. Radial access patients were more likely to be male (75% vs. 66%, P = 0.003) and less likely to present with acute myocardial infarction (27% vs. 42%, P < 0.001). Procedural characteristics demonstrated lower use of heparin in the femoral group (17% vs. 73%, P < 0.001) with similarly low use of glycoprotein inhibitors (5.6% vs. 3.4%, P = 0.14). Patients in the femoral group had higher rates of transfusions (3.7% vs. 0%, P = 0.004) and vascular complications (1.7% vs. 0%, P = 0.03). Following propensity matching, there was no difference in mid-term outcomes between radial and femoral groups., Conclusions: In patients with complex coronary lesions undergoing PCI, the radial approach demonstrates similar mid-term outcomes as the femoral approach with a potentially lower rate of complications. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc., (© 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Objective: We evaluate the prevalence of complications and failure rates between the most commonly used "active" anchoring vascular closure device (VCD), AngioSeal™ and the "passive" anchoring VCD, Mynx™, in all-comers undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)., Methods: A total of 4,074 patients between 2008 and 2014, representing an era when both devices were available, were included. Thirty-two percent were acute coronary syndromes (37% STEMI). VCD choice was at the operator's discretion and included AngioSeal (n = 2,910) or Mynx (1,164). Cardiogenic shock or patients receiving intra-aortic balloon pumps were excluded. Safety was assessed by vascular complications defined as either vascular injury (perforation, dissection, acute limb ischemia, arteriovenous fistula, pseudoaneurysm with thrombin injection, or surgical repair) or access-site bleed (hemoglobin droP >3 g/dL requiring transfusion, retroperitoneal bleed, or hematoma >5 cm, or the composite of both. Efficacy was evaluated by device failure and defined as inability to achieve immediate hemostasis or use of additional hemostatic mechanisms. Outcomes at 30-days were evaluated., Results: Groups (AngioSeal vs Mynx) were fairly balanced with regards to bleeding risk factors of gender (male, 65% vs 66%), body mass index (30 ± 6 vs 30 ± 7), heart failure class III/IV (5% vs 6%), chronic kidney disease (15% vs 17%), use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor (5% vs 4%), or bivalirudin (86% vs 88%), all P >0.5. The AngioSeal group was slightly younger (64 ± 12 vs 65 ± 12, P < 0.001) with less peripheral arterial disease (11.3% vs 13.9%, P = 0.03), and increased 7F sheath use compared with Mynx (59% vs 22%, P < 0.001). Safety and efficacy outcomes were similar between groups., Conclusions: AngioSeal and Mynx appear to be equally safe and efficacious VCDs following PCI. The passive anchoring system may prove desirable as no intra-arterial anchor remains upon device removal., (© 2015, Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Objectives: The aim of this study was to determine the risk of scaffold thrombosis (ST) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with placement of an ABSORB bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, California) by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis., Background: PCI with BVS placement holds great potential, but concern has recently been raised regarding the risk of ST., Methods: MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, and meeting abstracts were searched for all studies that included outcomes data for patients after PCI with BVS placement. For studies comparing BVSs with drug-eluting stents (DES), pooled estimates of outcomes, presented as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), were generated with random-effects models., Results: Our analysis included 10,510 patients (8,351 with a BVS and 2,159 with DES) with a follow-up of 6.4 ± 5.1 months and 60 ± 11 years of age; 78% were male, 36% had stable angina, and 59% had acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Among patients with a BVS, cardiovascular death occurred in 0.6%, myocardial infarction (MI) in 2.1%, target lesion revascularization in 2.0%, and definite/probable ST in 1.2% of patients. Of BVS patients, 0.27% had acute ST and 0.57% had subacute ST. Meta-analysis demonstrated that patients who received a BVS were at a higher risk of MI (OR: 2.06, 95% CI: 1.31 to 3.22, p = 0.002) and definite/probable ST (OR: 2.06, 95% CI: 1.07 to 3.98, p = 0.03) compared with patients who received DES, whereas there was a trend toward decreased all-cause mortality with a BVS (OR: 0.40, 95% CI: 0.15 to 1.06, p = 0.06)., Conclusions: Patients undergoing PCI with a BVS had increased definite/probable ST and MI during follow-up compared with DES. Further studies with long-term follow-up are needed to assess the risk of ST with a BVS., (Copyright © 2016 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Clinical presentation of bare metal stent in-stent restenosis (ISR) in patients undergoing target lesion revascularization is well characterized and negatively affects on outcomes, whereas the presentation and outcomes of first- and second-generation drug-eluting stents (DESs) remains under-reported., Methods and Results: The study included 909 patients (1077 ISR lesions) distributed as follows: bare metal stent (n=388), first-generation DES (n=425), and second-generation DES (n=96), categorized into acute coronary syndrome (ACS) or non-ACS presentation mode at the time of first target lesion revascularization. ACS was further classified as myocardial infarction (MI) and unstable angina. For bare metal stent, first-generation DES and second-generation DES, ACS was the clinical presentation in 67.8%, 71.0%, and 66.7% of patients, respectively (P=0.470), whereas MI occurred in 10.6%, 10.1%, and 5.2% of patients, respectively (P=0.273). The correlates for MI as ISR presentation were current smokers (odds ratio, 3.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.78-5.13; P<0.001), and chronic renal failure (odds ratio, 2.73; 95% CI, 1.60-4.70; P<0.001), with a protective trend for the second-generation DES ISR (odds ratio, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.12-1.03; P=0.060). ACS presentations had an independent effect on major adverse cardiac events (death, MI, and re-target lesion revascularization) at 6 months (MI versus non-ACS: adjusted hazard ratio, 4.06; 95% CI, 1.84-8.94; P<0.001; unstable angina versus non-ACS: adjusted hazard ratio, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.01-3.87; P=0.046)., Conclusions: ISR clinical presentation is similar irrespective of stent type. MI as ISR presentation seems to be associated with patient and not device-related factors. ACS as ISR presentation has an independent effect on major adverse cardiac events, suggesting that ISR remains a hazard and should be minimized., (© 2014 American Heart Association, Inc.)

Landmark clinical trials have established the benefit of P2Y12 inhibitors in the setting of acute coronary syndrome and percutaneous coronary intervention. On February 12, 2014, the Medicines Company (Sponsor) presented efficacy and safety data regarding cangrelor to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee. The Sponsor sought approval for 2 indications: (1) in the setting of percutaneous coronary intervention for the reduction of thrombotic cardiovascular events (including stent thrombosis) in patients with coronary artery disease and (2) in the setting of bridging therapy in patients with acute coronary syndrome or with stents who are at increased risk for thrombotic events (such as stent thrombosis) when oral P2Y12 therapy is interrupted because of surgery. The following is a summary of the data presented to the FDA by the Sponsor, the FDA's clinical review of cangrelor. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]