Search

Background: The use of apixaban instead of vitamin K antagonists (VKA) as well as dropping aspirin results in less bleeding and comparable ischemic events in patients with atrial fibrillation and acute coronary syndrome and/or percutaneous coronary intervention treated with a P2Y 12 inhibitor., Objectives: The authors assessed the safety and efficacy of antithrombotic regimens according to HAS-BLED and CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc scores in AUGUSTUS (The Open-Label, 2 × 2 Factorial, Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial to Evaluate the Safety of Apixaban vs. Vitamin K Antagonist and Aspirin vs. Placebo in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation and Acute Coronary Syndrome and/or Percutaneous Coronary Intervention)., Methods: In AUGUSTUS, 4,614 patients were randomized in a 2-by-2 factorial design to open-label apixaban or VKA and blinded aspirin or placebo. The primary endpoint was major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding over 6 months of follow-up. Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess treatment effects by baseline HAS-BLED (≤2 vs ≥3) and CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc (≤2 vs ≥3) scores., Results: Of 4,386 (95.1%) patients with calculable scores, 66.8% had HAS-BLED ≥3 and 81.7% had CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc ≥3. Bleeding rates were lower with apixaban than VKA irrespective of baseline risk (HR: 0.57; 95% CI: 0.41-0.78 [HAS-BLED ≤2]; HR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.59-0.88 [HAS-BLED ≥3]; interaction P = 0.23). Aspirin increased bleeding irrespective of baseline risk (HR: 1.86; 95% CI: 1.36-2.56 [HAS-BLED ≤2]; HR: 1.81; 95% CI: 1.47-2.23 [HAS-BLED ≥3]; interaction P = 0.88). Apixaban resulted in a lower risk of death or hospitalization than VKA without a significant interaction with baseline stroke risk (HR: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.67-1.25 [CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc ≤2]; HR: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.73-0.94 [CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc ≥3]; interaction P = 0.53)., Conclusions: Our findings support the use of apixaban and a P2Y 12 inhibitor without aspirin for most patients with atrial fibrillation and acute coronary syndrome and/or percutaneous coronary intervention, irrespective of a patient's baseline bleeding and stroke risk (NCT02415400)., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures The AUGUSTUS trial and this analysis were supported by Bristol Myers Squibb and Pfizer. Dr Fanaroff has received research grants and consulting fees from the American Heart Association; and has received research grants from Boston Scientific. Dr Lopes has received institutional research grants and consulting fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, Medtronic PLC, and Sanofi; and has received consulting fees from Amgen, Bayer, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr Goodman has received research grant support (eg, steering committee or data and safety monitoring committee) and/or speaker/consulting honoraria (eg, advisory boards) from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, CSL Behring, Daiichi-Sankyo/American Regent, Eli Lilly, Esperion, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, GlaxoSmithKline, HLS Therapeutics, JAMP Pharma, Janssen/Johnson and Johnson, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk A/C, Pendopharm, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Servier, and Valeo Pharma; and has received salary support/honoraria from the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario/University of Toronto (Polo) (Chair), Canadian Heart Research Centre and MD Primer, Canadian VIGOUR Centre, Cleveland Clinic Coordinating Centre for Clinical Research, Duke Clinical Research Institute, New York University Clinical Coordinating Centre, and PERFUSE Research Institute. Dr Thomas has received institutional research grants from Akili Interactive Labs Inc, Amgen Inc, Gilead, and Novartis. Dr Aronson is an employee of Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr Windecker has received Institutional research and educational grants from Abbott, Amgen, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, CSL Behring, Boston Scientific, Biotronik, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Polares, and Sinomed. Dr Mehran has received institutional research grants from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Beth Israel Deaconess, Bristol Myers Squibb/Sanofi, CSL Behring, Eli Lilly/Daiichi-Sankyo, Medtronic, Novartis, and OrbusNeich; has received consulting fees from Boston Scientific, Abbott Vascular, Medscape, Siemens Medical Solutions, Roivant Sciences Inc, and Sanofi; has performed consulting (no fees) for Regeneron Pharmaceuticals; has received institutional consulting fees from Abbott Vascular, Spectranetics/Phillips/Volcano Corporation, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, and Watermark Research; has served as an executive committee member for Janssen Pharmaceuticals and Bristol Myers Squibb; and has <1% equity in Claret Medical and Elixir Medical. Dr Granger has received research grants from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi-Sankyo, Janssen, Pfizer, Armetheon, AstraZeneca, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, GlaxoSmithKline, The Medicines Company, Medtronic Foundation, Medtronic Inc, and Novartis; and has received consulting fees from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi-Sankyo, Janssen, Pfizer, Abbvie, Armetheon, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Hoffmann-La Roche, The Medicines Company, National Institutes of Health, Novartis, Sirtex, Verseon, Apple, Medscape, LLC, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Roche Diagnostics, and Rho Pharmaceuticals. Dr Alexander has received institutional research grants and consulting fees/honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb and CSL Behring; has received institutional research grants from AstraZeneca, CryoLife, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, National Institutes of Health, Sanofi, VoluMetrix, and Boehringer Ingelheim; and has received consulting fees/honoraria from Pfizer, AbbVie Pharmaceuticals, NovoNordisk, Portola Pharmaceuticals, Quantum Genetics, Teikoku Pharmaceuticals, VA Cooperative Studies Program, and Zafgen. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2022 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Antithrombotic treatment in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) presents a balancing act with regard to bleeding and ischemic risks., Objectives: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of 4 antithrombotic regimens by conducting an up-to-date network meta-analysis and to identify the optimal treatment for patients with AF undergoing PCI., Data Sources: Online computerized database (MEDLINE)., Study Selection: Five randomized studies were included (N = 11 542; WOEST, PIONEER AF-PCI, RE-DUAL PCI, AUGUSTUS, ENTRUST-AF PCI)., Data Extraction and Synthesis: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used in this network meta-analysis, in which bayesian random-effects models were applied. The data were analyzed from September 9 to 29, 2019., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary safety outcome was thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) major bleeding and the primary efficacy outcome was trial-defined major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE)., Results: The total number of participants included in the study was 11 532. The mean age of the participants ranged from 70 to 72 years, 69% to 83% were male, 20% to 26% were female, and the participants were predominantly white (>90%). Compared with vitamin K antagonists (VKA) plus dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) (reference), the odds ratios (ORs) (95% credible intervals) for TIMI major bleeding were 0.57 (0.31-1.00) for VKA plus P2Y12 inhibitor, 0.69 (0.40-1.16) for non-VKA oral anticoagulant (NOAC) plus DAPT, and 0.52 (0.35-0.79) for NOAC plus P2Y12 inhibitor. For MACE, using VKA plus DAPT as reference, the ORs (95% credible intervals) were 0.97 (0.64-1.42) for VKA plus P2Y12 inhibitor, 0.95 (0.64-1.39) for NOAC plus DAPT, and 1.03 (0.77-1.38) for NOAC plus P2Y12 inhibitor., Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this study suggest that an antithrombotic regimen of VKA plus DAPT should generally be avoided, because regimens in which aspirin is discontinued may lead to lower bleeding risk and no difference in antithrombotic effectiveness. The use of a NOAC plus a P2Y12 inhibitor without aspirin may be the most favorable treatment option and the preferred antithrombotic regimen for most patients with AF undergoing PCI.

Importance: The antithrombotic treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and coronary artery disease, in particular with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and/or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), poses a significant treatment dilemma in clinical practice., Objective: To study the safety and efficacy of different antithrombotic regimens using a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials in this population., Data Sources: PubMed, EMBASE, EBSCO, and Cochrane databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials comparing antithrombotic regimens., Study Selection: Four randomized studies were included (n = 10 026; WOEST, PIONEER AF-PCI, RE-DUAL PCI, and AUGUSTUS)., Data Extraction and Synthesis: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were used in this systematic review and network meta-analysis between 4 regimens using a Bayesian random-effects model. A pre hoc statistical analysis plan was written, and the review protocol was registered at PROSPERO. Data were analyzed between November 2018 and February 2019., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary safety outcome was Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) major bleeding; secondary safety outcomes were combined TIMI major and minor bleeding, trial-defined primary bleeding events, intracranial hemorrhage, and hospitalization. The primary efficacy outcome was trial-defined major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE); secondary efficacy outcomes were individual components of MACE., Results: The overall prevalence of ACS varied from 28% to 61%. The mean age ranged from 70 to 72 years; 20% to 29% of the trial population were women; and most patients were at high risk for thromboembolic and bleeding events. Compared with a regimen of vitamin K antagonist (VKA) plus dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT; P2Y12 inhibitor plus aspirin), the odds ratios (ORs) for TIMI major bleeding were 0.58 (95% CI, 0.31-1.08) for VKA plus P2Y12 inhibitor, 0.49 (95% CI, 0.30-0.82) for non-VKA oral anticoagulant (NOAC) plus P2Y12 inhibitor, and 0.70 (95% CI, 0.38-1.23) for NOAC plus DAPT. Compared with VKA plus DAPT, the ORs for MACE were 0.96 (95% CI, 0.60-1.46) for VKA plus P2Y12 inhibitor, 1.02 (95% CI, 0.71-1.47) for NOAC plus P2Y12 inhibitor, and 0.94 (95% CI, 0.60-1.45) for NOAC plus DAPT., Conclusions and Relevance: A regimen of NOACs plus P2Y12 inhibitor was associated with less bleeding compared with VKAs plus DAPT. Strategies omitting aspirin caused less bleeding, including intracranial bleeding, without significant difference in MACE, compared with strategies including aspirin. Our results support the use of NOAC plus P2Y12 inhibitor as the preferred regimen post-percutaneous coronary intervention for these high-risk patients with AF. A regimen of VKA plus DAPT should generally be avoided.

Introduction: Traditional and current perception for benefit of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is that patients with stable angina will obtain symptom relief as well as improved exercise capacity after percutaneous revascularization. This common clinical perception is put to test in the ORBITA trial, the first blinded, randomized placebo-controlled clinical study ever conducted.Areas covered: Coronary artery disease, percutaneous coronary intervention, medical therapy.Expert Commentary: The authors found no significant improvement in exercise time, functional status, angina relief and quality of life in the PCI group compared with placebo. A possible explanation for this neutral outcome is that PCI is overvalued in symptom relief and to some extent explained by placebo effects or transient non-cardiac causes of chest pain. However, the chosen exercise tolerance improvement may have been too optimistic in a population with good functional capacity. Also PCI was anatomic and not functional driven, and follow-up duration may have been to short to wear off the placebo effect. While the evidence is not sufficient to alter revascularization guidelines, the message of this 200-patient, high-quality study is potent and will reverberate throughout the cardiology community and warrants further study.

Objective: Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) combines minimally invasive left internal mammary artery (LIMA)-left anterior descending artery (LAD) bypass with percutaneous intervention of non-LAD vessels. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes of HCR to conventional coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery with single internal mammary artery (SIMA) or bilateral internal mammary artery (BIMA) grafting., Methods: Between October 2003 and September 2013, 306 consecutive patients who underwent HCR were compared with 8254 patients who underwent CABG with SIMA (7381; 89.4%) or BIMA (873; 10.6%) at a US academic center. The primary outcome was a composite of 30-day death, myocardial infarction, and stroke (major cerebrovascular and cardiac event [MACCE]). In addition to multiple logistic and linear regression analysis, a propensity score-matched analysis was used to compare HCR with SIMA and with BIMA., Results: The Society of Thoracic Surgeons-predicted risk of mortality was 1.6% for HCR, 2.1% for SIMA, and 1.1% for BIMA (P < .001). Factors associated with HCR use were older age, lower body mass index, history of percutaneous coronary intervention, and 2-vessel disease. In propensity-matched groups, 30-day MACCE rates were comparable (3.3% for HCR vs 1.3% for BIMA [odds ratio (OR), 2.50; P = .12] and vs 3.6% for SIMA [OR, 1.00; P = 1.00]). In-hospital complications were lower after HCR versus SIMA or BIMA (OR, 0.59; P = .033 and OR, 0.55; P = .015, respectively), as was the need for blood transfusion (OR, 0.44; P < .001 and OR, 0.57; P < .001). HCR was associated with shorter hospital stay compared with SIMA (OR, 1.28; P = .038) or BIMA (OR, 1.40; P = .006). No survival difference between matched groups was found at midterm follow-up (HCR vs SIMA: hazard ratio [HR], 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.32-1.38; P = .66; HCR vs BIMA: HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.48-2.29; P = .91)., Conclusions: HCR may represent a safe, less invasive alternative to conventional CABG in carefully selected patients, with similar short-term and midterm outcomes as CABG performed with either SIMA or BIMA grafting., (Copyright © 2016 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of saphenous vein grafts (SVG) poses a high-risk for distal coronary thromboembolic events. Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors are frequently used in hope of reducing the impact of this, although the safety and efficacy of these drugs to improve outcomes in this setting are understudied., Methods: Patients were included if they had prior coronary artery bypass surgery and subsequently underwent PCI of ≥1 SVG graft at a Dutch academic center between 1997 and 2008. These patients were matched 1:1 based on peri-procedural use of abciximab using a propensity-score matching algorithm based on 17 variables. Conditional logistic regression and Cox regression stratified on matched pairs were performed to evaluate the association between abciximab use and MACCE (the composite measure of mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke and repeat revascularization) at 30days and up to 1year., Results: The composite of 30-day MACCE occurred in 18 patients (15.3%) in the abciximab group and 16 patients (13.6%) in the propensity matched control group (OR: 1.13, 95% CI: 0.57-2.21, p=0.73). At 1-year follow-up, MACCE rates were also similar (32.5% vs. 33.9%, HR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.59-1.59). Major bleeding (BARC types 3a-c) was higher in the abciximab group (11.9% vs. 4.2%, OR: 2.80, 95% CI: 1.01-7.77). Ischemic outcomes did not differ among patients with acute coronary syndromes., Conclusion: The use of intravenous abciximab was not associated with improved clinical outcomes up to 1-year among patients undergoing SVG PCI, but was related to more bleeding., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Cardiac ischaemic marker release is associated with adverse clinical outcomes after cardiac surgery. We sought to compare the release of cardiac troponin I (cTnI) after hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) with off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery (OPCAB)., Methods: Using data from a prospective single-centre registry, we compared cTnI measured at postoperative day 1 following one-stage HCR and OPCAB among patients with normal baseline cTnI. Multivariable linear regression analysis was used to adjust for variables that may have influenced cardiac marker release other than the used revascularization strategy., Results: Sixty-five consecutive patients underwent elective HCR (n = 33) or OPCAB (n = 32). Overall, no differences were seen in comorbidities, CABG risk scores and the lesion-specific SYNTAX score. Procedural complications were lower (15.2 vs 34.4%, P = 0.072), but 30-day and 1-year clinical outcomes (death, myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization) were similar between the two groups (3.0 vs 3.1% and 9.1 vs 6.2%, respectively). Post-procedural cTnI release measured at 24 h after surgery was significantly lower following HCR compared with OPCAB [ratio of upper reference level URL: median: 3.5, interquartile range (IQR): 0.8-9.1 vs 12.8, IQR: 6.9-21.8, P = 0.001]. After adjusting for potential confounders, HCR was associated, on average, with cTnI less than half (46%) compared with CABG (P <0.0001)., Conclusions: HCR is associated with lower postoperative cTn release, compared with OPCAB. Further research into the clinical implications of this finding is warranted., (© The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To compare the outcomes between minimally invasive coronary artery bypass (MINI-CAB) and drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation for isolated left anterior descending artery disease., Methods: Randomized and observational comparative publications were identified using MEDLINE and Google Scholar databases (January 2003 to December 2013). Studies without outcomes data, without DES use, or using conventional bypass surgery were excluded. The outcomes of interest were cardiac death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, and periprocedural stroke. Data were compared using the Mantel-Haenszel methods and are presented as odds ratios (ORs), 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and number needed to treat., Results: From 230 publications, we identified 4 studies (2 randomized and 2 observational) with 941 patients (478 had undergone MINI-CAB and 463 DES implantation). The incidence of target vessel revascularization at maximum follow-up (range, 6-60 months) was significantly lower in the MINI-CAB group (OR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.08-0.30; P<.0001; number needed to treat, 13). The incidence of cardiac mortality and MI was similar between the MINI-CAB and DES groups during follow-up (OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.44-2.47; and OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.43-1.58, respectively). In addition, a similar incidence of periprocedural death (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.21-3.47; P=.82), myocardial infarction (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.38-2.58; P=.97), and stroke (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 0.28-6.70; P=.70) was observed between the 2 treatment modalities., Conclusions: Given the available evidence, MINI-CAB will result in lower target vessel revascularization rates but otherwise similar clinical outcomes compared with DESs in patients with left anterior descending artery disease., (Copyright © 2014 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) involves a combination of surgical and percutaneous techniques, which in selected patients may present an alternative to conventional coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG)., Methods and Results: Patients were included who underwent HCR (staged/concurrent) or isolated CABG in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database (July 2011 to March 2013). HCR represented 0.48% (n=950; staged=809, concurrent=141) of the total CABG volume (n=198,622) during the study period, and was performed in one-third of participating centers (n=361). Patients who underwent HCR had higher cardiovascular risk profiles in comparison with patients undergoing CABG. In comparison with CABG, median sternotomy (98.5% for CABG, 61.1% for staged HCR, and 52.5% for concurrent HCR), direct vision harvesting (98.9%, 66.0%, and 68.1%) and cardiopulmonary bypass (83.4%, 45%, and 36.9%) were less frequently used for staged and concurrent HCR, whereas robotic assistance (0.7%, 33.0%, and 30.5%) was more common. After adjustment, no differences were observed for the composite of in-hospital mortality and major morbidity (odds ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.75-1.16; P=0.53 for staged HCR, and odds ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.56-1.56; P=0.80 for concurrent HCR in comparison with CABG). There was no statistically significant association between operative mortality and either treatment group (odds ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval, 0.42-1.30; P=0.29 for staged HCR, and odds ratio, 2.26; 95% confidence interval, 0.99-5.17; P=0.053 for concurrent HCR in comparison with CABG)., Conclusion: HCR, either as a staged or concurrent procedure, is performed in one-third of US hospitals and is reserved for a highly selected patient population. Although HCR may appear to be an equally safe alternative for CABG surgery, further randomized study is warranted., (© 2014 American Heart Association, Inc.)

Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) combines minimally invasive left internal mammary artery-to-left anterior descending coronary artery grafting with percutaneous coronary intervention of non-left anterior descending coronary arteries. The safety and efficacy of HCR in patients≥65 years of age is unknown. In this study, patients aged≥65 years were included who underwent HCR at an academic center from October 2003 to September 2013. These patients were matched 1:4 to similar patients treated with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) using a propensity-score matching algorithm. Conditional logistic regression and Cox regression stratified on matched pairs were performed to evaluate the association between HCR and CABG, and 30-day major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (a composite of mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke), periprocedural complications, and 3-year all-cause mortality. Of 715 patients (143 of whom underwent HCR and 572 CABG) in the propensity score-matched cohort, rates of 30-day major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events were comparable after HCR and CABG (5.6% vs 3.8%, odds ratio 1.46, 95% confidence interval 0.65 to 3.27, p=0.36). Compared with CABG, HCR resulted in fewer procedural complications (9.1% vs 18.2%, p=0.018), fewer blood transfusions (28.0% vs 53.3%, p<0.0001), less chest tube drainage (838±484 vs 1,100±579 cm3, p<0.001), and shorter lengths of stay (<5 days: 45.5% vs 27.4%, p=0.001). Over a 3-year follow-up period, mortality rates were similar after HCR and CABG (13.2% vs 16.6%, hazard ratio 0.81, 95% confidence interval 0.46 to 1.43, p=0.47). Subgroup analyses in high-risk patients (Charlson index≥6, age≥75 years) rendered similar results. In conclusion, although the present data are limited, we found that in older patients, the use of HCR is safe, has fewer procedural complications, entails less blood product use, and results in faster recovery with similar longitudinal outcomes relative to conventional CABG., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) represents a minimally invasive revascularization strategy in which the durability of the internal mammary artery to left anterior descending artery graft is combined with percutaneous coronary intervention to treat remaining lesions. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare clinical outcomes after HCR with conventional coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery., Methods: A comprehensive EMBASE and PUBMED search was performed for comparative studies evaluating in-hospital and 1-year death, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and repeat revascularization., Results: Six observational studies (1 case control, 5 propensity adjusted) comprising 1,190 patients were included; 366 (30.8%) patients underwent HCR (185 staged and 181 concurrent), and 824 (69.2%) were treated with CABG (786 off-pump, 38 on-pump). Drug-eluting stents were used in 328 (89.6%) patients undergoing HCR. Hybrid coronary revascularization was associated with lower in-hospital need for blood transfusions, shorter length of stay, and faster return to work. No significant differences were found for the composite of death, MI, stroke, or repeat revascularization during hospitalization (odds ratio 0.63, 95% CI 0.25-1.58, P = .33) and at 1-year follow-up (odds ratio 0.49, 95% CI 0.20-1.24, P = .13). Comparisons of individual components showed no difference in all-cause mortality, MI, or stroke, but higher repeat revascularization among patients treated with HCR., Conclusions: Hybrid coronary revascularization is associated with lower morbidity and similar in-hospital and 1-year major adverse cerebrovascular or cardiac events rates, but greater requirement for repeat revascularization compared with CABG. Further exploration of this strategy with adequately powered randomized trials is warranted., (Copyright © 2014 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To describe clinical outcome after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) due to graft failure., Background: Limited data are available on outcome after PCI for graft failure-induced ACS in the drug-eluting stent (DES) era., Methods: Patients were identified who underwent PCI either with DES or BMS for ACS due to graft failure between January 2003 and December 2008. Follow-up was performed at 1 year and April 2011. The primary endpoint was the composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), or target vessel revascularization (TVR). Kaplan-Meier estimates were calculated at 1 and 5-year follow-up. Predictors were identified by backward selection in Cox proportional hazards models., Results: A total of 92 patients underwent PCI, of which 77 were treated with bare metal stents (BMS) and 15 with DES. Patient and procedural characteristics were similar in both groups. Mean follow-up was 3.2 years. Five-year composite event rate was 65.9% after BMS vs. 43.4% after DES implantation (P = 0.17). Individual endpoints were comparable in both groups. Recurrence of angina, hospitalization, and repeat interventions were similar. After multivariable adjustment, the use of DES was not associated with a significant reduction in the primary endpoint (HR = 0.44, 0.18-1.04, p = 0.06)., Conclusion: In patients presenting with ACS due to acute graft failure, long-term outcomes remain poor. In a nonrandomized comparison with BMS, DES use was not associated with significant improved long-term clinical outcomes., (Copyright © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) combines bypass grafting of the left anterior descending (LAD) coronary artery with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of non-LAD vessels. HCR has been performed as an alternative to CABG or multi-vessel PCI in thousands of patients since the late 1990s. In this review article, we provide an overview on patient selection, procedural sequence and timing, use of surgical techniques and anti-platelet agents. Additionally, patient recovery, satisfaction, costs and clinical outcomes of individual studies after HCR are evaluated. Future directions are also discussed, including the need for adequately powered randomized trials.

Multiple biomarkers improve prognostication for long-term mortality in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). However, one-third of mortality after STEMI occurs within initial discharge. Our objective was to determine whether multiple biomarkers (glucose, N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR)) predict both short-term as long-term mortality in STEMI. We used a patient-pooled dataset of consecutive STEMI patients, with complete biomarkers, who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in two single centers (Amsterdam and Groningen). With a previously developed multimarker risk score, based on three biomarkers, patients were indicated as low-, intermediate- or high risk. Cumulative 4-year mortality was estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method and compared with a log-rank test. We compared short-term and long-term mortality with a landmark set at 30 days because previous studies have shown that mortality largely occurs within 30 days. A total of 2,355 STEMI-patients were treated with primary PCI. The mortality rates in the low- (n = 1,531), intermediate- (n = 403) and high-risk (n = 421) groups were 4.8, 16.1, and 43.9 %, respectively. The differences were observed at a follow-up up to 30 days (log-rank p < 0.001) as well as after 30 days (log-rank p < 0.001). A multimarker risk score, based on admission levels of glucose, NT-proBNP, and eGFR identifies STEMI patients at low-, intermediate-, and high-risk for short-term and long-term mortality.

Aims: To describe long-term outcome following surgical and percutaneous revascularization in graft failure., Methods: We analyzed consecutive patients with graft failure after heart-team assignment to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or redo coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) between 2003 and 2008. The primary endpoint was the composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI) or target vessel revascularization (TVR). Kaplan-Meier event rate estimates were calculated up to a 5-year follow-up. Independent predictors for outcomes were identified by backward selection in a multivariable Cox proportional hazard model., Results: We identified 287 patients treated for graft failure: 243 with PCI and 44 with redo CABG. Patients undergoing PCI more frequently presented with ST-elevated myocardial infarction (STEMI) (P < 0.001), multivessel disease (P < 0.001), vein graft failure (P = 0.04), a history of MI (P < 0.001) and shorter time-to-graft failure (P = 0.001). Bare-metal stents (BMS) were used in 81.3% of the PCI-treated lesions and drug-eluting stents (DES) in 18.7%. The median follow-up was 3.9 years. Five-year rate of composite all-cause death, MI or TVR was 57.6% after PCI and 51% after CABG (P = 0.51). Repeat revascularization [TVR and target lesion revascularization (TLR)] was 30.7 and 21.3% after PCI, and 8.0 and 3.2% following CABG (P = 0.009; P = 0.008). In the PCI group, BMS was associated with higher rates of TVR (35.1 vs. 12.6%; P = 0.04) and TLR (24.8 vs. 7.6%; P = 0.04), but similar rate of death or MI compared with DES. Independent predictors for the primary outcome were creatinine [hazard ratio 1.008 per μmol/l, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.005-1.011, P < 0.001] and peak creatine kinase MB (hazard ratio 1.001 per U/l, 95% CI 1.000-1.002, P = 0.027)., Conclusion: Clinical outcomes are similarly poor after heart-team triage for surgical or percutaneous intervention in patients with graft failure. Repeat revascularization occurred more frequent after PCI, particularly following BMS implantation.

Patients with diabetes mellitus are prone to a diffuse and rapidly progressive form of coronary artery disease. As a result, diabetic patients undergoing coronary revascularization are at higher risk of cardiovascular events compared with nondiabetic patients. Due to marked advances of stent device technology and adjunctive pharmacology, percutaneous coronary intervention has been regarded as an efficient revascularization strategy in diabetic patients. Numerous randomized trials and large observational registries have compared the efficacy and safety of bare-metal stents and drug-eluting stents, as well as several DE platforms. This article systematically reviews the cumulative evidence from key clinical studies and tries to help guide the physician in making informed decisions on the optimal stent type for patients with diabetes mellitus.

The article focuses on a study which compares the effectiveness of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with multivessel coronary disease for long-term mortality and morbidity. The study employed data from bibliographical databases such as MEDLINE and Exerpta Medica. The study concludes that CABG is more effective than PCI in controlling long-term mortality and morbidity.