Search

Background: Current evidence suggests that percutaneous coronary intervention for unprotected left main coronary artery disease (LMPCI) in selected patients is a safe alternative to coronary artery bypass grafting. However, real-world long-term survival data is limited., Methods: We analyzed 24,644 patients from the MIG (Melbourne Interventional Group) registry between 2005 and 2020. We compared baseline clinical and procedural characteristics, in-hospital and 30-day outcomes, and long-term survival between unprotected LMPCI and non-LMPCI among patients without ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, cardiogenic shock, or cardiac arrest., Results: Unprotected LMPCI patients (n = 185) were significantly older (mean age 72.0 vs. 64.6 years, p < 0.001), had higher prevalence of impaired ejection fraction (EF <50 %; 27.3 % vs. 14.9 %, p < 0.001) and lower estimated glomerular filtration rate < 60 ml/min/1.73m 2 (40.9 % vs. 21.5 %, p < 0.001), and had greater use of intravascular ultrasound (21 % vs. 1 %, p < 0.001) and drug-eluting stents (p < 0.001). LMPCI was associated with longer hospital stay (4 days vs. 2 days, p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in other in-hospital outcomes, 30-day mortality (0.6 % vs. 0.6 %, p = 0.90), and major adverse cardiac events (1.7 % vs. 3 %, p = 0.28). Although the unadjusted Kaplan-Meier survival to 8 years was significantly less with LMPCI compared to non-LMPCI (p < 0.01), LMPCI was not a predictor of long-term survival up to 8 years after Cox regression analysis (HR 0.67, 95 % CI 0.40-1.13, p = 0.13)., Conclusion: In this study, non-emergent unprotected LMPCI was uncommonly performed, and IVUS was underutilized. Despite greater co-morbidities, LMPCI patients had comparable 30-day outcomes to non-LMPCI, and LMPCI was not an independent predictor of long-term mortality., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Dion Stub reports a relationship with National Heart Foundation of Australia that includes: funding grants. Dion Stub reports a relationship with National Health and Medical Research Council that includes: funding grants., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

After restoration of coronary perfusion in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), discrete severe stenotic coronary lesions are not always apparent. There remains ambiguity whether drug-eluting stent (DES) insertion or initial medical management is best practice. We sought to assess short-term clinical outcomes in patients presenting with STEMI without initial stent insertion. Patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention for STEMI between 2014 and 2020 were prospectively enrolled and assessed for inclusion. Patients presenting with in-stent restenosis or stent thrombosis, or who did not survive to hospital discharge were excluded. Of 13,871 patients presenting, 456 (3.3%) were treated without initial stenting. These patients were older than those treated with DES (66.1 ± 13.6 vs 62.3 ± 12.4 years, p <0.001), had higher rates of diabetes (23.5% vs 16.0%, p <0.001) and previous revascularization with either percutaneous coronary intervention (14.0% vs 7.3%, p <0.001) or coronary artery bypass graft (3.5% vs 1.8%, p = 0.008). Thirty-day mortality was elevated in patients treated without stenting compared to those receiving DES (4.2% vs 0.9%, p <0.001), as were rates of myocardial infarction (1.3% vs 0.5%, p = 0.026) and major adverse cardiac events (10.5% vs 2.4%, p <0.001). After propensity matching, a trend toward increased mortality remained (4.2% vs 2.0%, p = 0.055). In conclusion, a no-stenting initial strategy, compared with DES insertion, is associated with increased 30-day mortality in those presenting with STEMI without severe stenosis. These data suggest when appropriate, current-generation DES insertion should be undertaken., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors have no competing interests to declare., (Crown Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: High systolic blood pressure (SBP) increases cardiac afterload, whereas low diastolic blood pressure (DBP) may lead to impaired coronary perfusion. Thus, wide pulse pressure (high systolic, low diastolic [HSLD]) may contribute to myocardial ischemia and also be a predictor of adverse cardiovascular events., Objectives: The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between pre-procedural blood pressure and long-term outcome following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)., Methods: The study included 10,876 consecutive patients between August 2009 and December 2016 from the Melbourne Interventional Group registry undergoing PCI with pre-procedural blood pressure recorded. Patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, cardiogenic shock, and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest were excluded. Patients were divided into 4 groups according to SBP (high ≥120 mm Hg, low <120 mm Hg) and DBP (high >70 mm Hg, low ≤70 mm Hg)., Results: Mean pulse pressure was 60 ± 21 mm Hg. Patients with HSLD were older and more frequently women, with higher rates of hypercholesterolemia, renal impairment, diabetes, and multivessel and left main disease (all p ≤ 0.0001). There was no difference in 30-day major adverse cardiac events, but at 12 months the HSLD group had a greater incidence of myocardial infarction (p = 0.018) and stroke (p = 0.013). Long-term mortality was highest for HSLD (7.9%) and lowest for low systolic, high diastolic (narrow pulse pressure) at 2.1% (p = 0.0002). Cox regression analysis demonstrated significantly lower long-term mortality in the low systolic, high diastolic cohort (hazard ratio: 0.50; 99% confidence interval: 0.25 to 0.98; p = 0.04)., Conclusions: Pulse pressure at the time of index PCI is associated with long-term outcomes following PCI. A wide pulse pressure may serve as a surrogate marker for risk following PCI and represents a potential target for future therapies., (Copyright © 2019 American College of Cardiology Foundation. All rights reserved.)

Background: Although dual antiplatelet therapy is the standard of care in non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTEACS), it remains unclear when a second antiplatelet agent should be initiated. We sought to assess the safety and efficacy of pre-treatment with clopidogrel in patients with NSTEACS undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)., Methods: We analysed baseline clinical and procedural characteristics of 6817 patients with NSTEACS who underwent PCI from the Melbourne Interventional Group registry from 2005 to 2012. Patients were included in the pre-treatment group if clopidogrel was administered prior to cardiac catheterisation. We assessed 30-day mortality, myocardial infarction (MI) and major adverse cardiovascular events. The safety endpoint was in-hospital bleeding., Results: Of the 6817 patients, only 2951 (43%) received pre-treatment with clopidogrel. Patients in the pre-treatment group were more likely to present with unstable angina (70.8% vs 68.2%, P = 0.02) and have a history of MI (35.6% vs 23.6%, P < 0.01) but were less likely to have PCI within 24 h of admission (17.2% vs 25.2%, P < 0.01). There was no difference between the groups in 30-day mortality (0.9% vs 1.4%, P = 0.06), MI (2.0% vs 2.2%, P = 0.52) or major adverse cardiovascular event (3.7% vs 4.2%, P = 0.25). There was no difference in bleeding complications (1.9% vs 1.9%, P = 0.94)., Conclusions: Pre-treatment with dual antiplatelet therapy in NSTEACS is not routine clinical practice in Australia. Pre-treatment appears safe but is not associated with improved short-term clinical outcomes., (© 2015 Royal Australasian College of Physicians.)