Search

Background: High bleeding risk (HBR) patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention have been widely excluded from randomized device registration trials. The LF study (LEADERS FREE) reported superior outcomes of HBR patients receiving 30-day dual antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention with a polymer-free drug-coated stent (DCS). LFII was designed to assess the reproducibility and generalizability of the benefits of DCS observed in LF to inform the US Food and Drug Administration in a device registration decision., Methods: LFII was a single-arm study using HBR inclusion/exclusion criteria and 30-day dual antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention with DCS, identical to LF. The 365-day rates of the primary effectiveness (clinically indicated target lesion revascularization) and safety (composite cardiac death and myocardial infarction) end points were reported using a propensity-stratified analysis compared with the LF bare metal stent arm patients as controls., Results: A total of 1203 LFII patients were enrolled with an average 1.7 HBR criteria per patient, including 60.7% >75 years of age, 34.1% on anticoagulants, and 14.7% with renal failure. Propensity-adjusted 365-day clinically indicated target lesion revascularization was significantly lower with DCS (7.2% versus 9.2%; hazard ratio, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.52-0.98]; P =0.0338 for superiority), as was the primary safety (cardiac death and myocardial infarction) composite (9.3% versus 12.4%; hazard ratio, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.55-0.94]; P =0.0150 for superiority). Stent thrombosis rates were 2.0% DCS and 2.2% bare metal stent. Major bleeding at 1 year occurred in 7.2% DCS patients and 7.2% bare metal stent., Conclusions: LFII reproduces the results of the DCS arm of LF in an independent, predominantly North American cohort of HBR patients.

Background: Considerable variability remains as regards the appropriate and safe length of stay after elective PCI. We performed a survey of interventional cardiologists to identify current views on appropriate and safe length of stay after PCI., Methods: We created an online survey using the commercially available SurveyMonkey application. This was sent to interventional cardiologists in the US, Canada and the UK with the assistance of the national interventional cardiology societies (SCAI, CAIC/CCS, BCIS/BCS) as well as being made available on the theheart.org website., Results: 505 interventional cardiologists responded, of which 237 were practicing in the US. Of those from the US, 52% were not aware of any guidelines for length of stay and 48% reported that their unit did not have a standard practice for length of stay. Same-day discharge after PCI was practiced as routine by 14% of cardiologists in the US versus 32% of cardiologists from Canada (P = 0.003) and 57% (P < 0.0001) from the UK. Amongst respondents, there was significant variation between respondents and divergence from published SCAI guidelines regarding appropriate length of stay for patient specific and procedural related clinical factors., Conclusions: There is considerable variation in practice patterns regarding length of stay after PCI. Whilst most cardiologists practice overnight observation, a significant minority utilize same-day discharge. There is also lack of familiarity with published guidelines. This variation and knowledge gap confirms an urgent need for updated guidelines and a concerted effort to educate cardiologists on appropriate post-PCI length of stay. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc., (© 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Objectives: This study sought to determine the effect of radial access on outcomes in women undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using a registry-based randomized trial., Background: Women are at increased risk of bleeding and vascular complications after PCI. The role of radial access in women is unclear., Methods: Women undergoing cardiac catheterization or PCI were randomized to radial or femoral arterial access. Data from the CathPCI Registry and trial-specific data were merged into a final study database. The primary efficacy endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding or vascular complications requiring intervention. The primary feasibility endpoint was access site crossover. The primary analysis cohort was the subgroup undergoing PCI; sensitivity analyses were conducted in the total randomized population., Results: The trial was stopped early for a lower than expected event rate. A total of 1,787 women (691 undergoing PCI) were randomized at 60 sites. There was no significant difference in the primary efficacy endpoint between radial or femoral access among women undergoing PCI (radial 1.2% vs. 2.9% femoral, odds ratio [OR]: 0.39; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.12 to 1.27); among women undergoing cardiac catheterization or PCI, radial access significantly reduced bleeding and vascular complications (0.6% vs. 1.7%; OR: 0.32; 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.90). Access site crossover was significantly higher among women assigned to radial access (PCI cohort: 6.1% vs. 1.7%; OR: 3.65; 95% CI: 1.45 to 9.17); total randomized cohort: (6.7% vs. 1.9%; OR: 3.70; 95% CI: 2.14 to 6.40). More women preferred radial access., Conclusions: In this pragmatic trial, which was terminated early, the radial approach did not significantly reduce bleeding or vascular complications in women undergoing PCI. Access site crossover occurred more often in women assigned to radial access. (SAFE-PCI for Women; NCT01406236)., (Copyright © 2014 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)