Search

Case-based implementation of the 2017 ESC Focused Update on Dual Antiplatelet Therapy in Coronary Artery Disease. Guidelines are presented throughout several case scenarios so the readership may better understand the research questions through case scenarios.

Flash pulmonary edema is characteristically sudden in onset with rapid resolution once appropriate therapy has been instituted (Messerli et al., 2011). Acute increase of left ventricular (LV) end diastolic pressure is the usual cause of sudden decompensated cardiac failure in this patient population. Presence of bilateral renal artery stenosis or unilateral stenosis in combination with a single functional kidney in the susceptible cohort is usually blamed for this condition. We describe a patient who presented with flash pulmonary edema in the setting of normal coronary arteries. Our case is distinct as our patient developed flash pulmonary edema secondary to unilateral renal artery stenosis in the presence of bilateral functioning kidneys. Percutaneous stent implantation in the affected renal artery resulted in rapid resolution of pulmonary edema.

ObjectivesThis study sought to report the 5-year outcomes of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) in an all-comers population undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).BackgroundThe medium-term 1 and 2-year results of the prospective randomized COMPARE trial (A Trial of Everolimus-Eluting Stents and Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents for Coronary Revascularization in Daily Practice) showed superior clinical outcomes with EES compared with PES in an all-comers PCI population. Whether this benefit is sustained over longer-term follow-up is unknown. Furthermore, systematic long-term follow-up data on these metallic drug eluting stents with durable polymers are scarce.MethodsWe randomly assigned 1,800 patients undergoing PCI to EES or PES. The pre-specified composite primary endpoint was death, myocardial infarction (MI), or target vessel revascularization (TVR).ResultsFollow-up at 5 years was completed in 1,791 (99.5%) patients. Treatment with EES compared with PES led to a relative risk reduction of the primary endpoint by 27% (18.4% vs. 25.1%, p = 0.0005), driven by lower rates of MI (7.0% vs. 11.5%, p = 0.001) and TVR (7.4% vs. 11.4%, p = 0.003), but not with mortality (9.0% vs. 10.3%, relative risk 0.88, p = 0.36). Moreover, patients treated with EES compared with PES had lower rates of definite/probable stent thrombosis at 5 years (3.1% vs. 5.9%, p = 0.005). The hazard curves for TVR, MI, and stent thrombosis diverge over the first 3 years and, subsequently, progress in parallel.ConclusionsThe early- and medium-term superiority of EES over PES measured both by safety and efficacy endpoints is sustained at 5 years in this all-comer population. (A Trial of Everolimus-Eluting Stents and Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents for Coronary Revascularization in Daily Practice [COMPARE]; NCT01016041)