Search

BACKGROUND: Elevated B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) is reflective of impaired cardiac function and is associated with worse prognosis among patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). We sought to assess the association between baseline BNP, adverse outcomes, and the relative efficacy of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in patients with left main CAD. METHODS: The EXCEL trial (Evaluation of XIENCE Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization) randomized patients with left main CAD and low or intermediate SYNTAX scores (Synergy Between PCI With TAXUS and Cardiac Surgery) to PCI with everolimus-eluting stents versus CABG. The primary end point was the composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. We used multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression to assess the associations between normal versus elevated BNP (≥100 pg/mL), randomized treatment, and the 3-year risk of adverse events. RESULTS: BNP at baseline was elevated in 410 of 1037 (39.5%) patients enrolled in EXCEL. Patients with elevated BNP levels were older and more frequently had additional cardiovascular risk factors and lower left ventricular ejection fraction than those with normal BNP, but had similar SYNTAX scores. Patients with elevated BNP had significantly higher 3-year rates of the primary end point (18.6% versus 11.7%; adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16-2.28; P=0.005) and higher mortality (11.5% versus 3.9%; adjusted HR, 2.49; 95% CI, 1.48-4.19; P=0.0006), both from cardiovascular and noncardiovascular causes. In contrast, there were no significant differences in the risks of myocardial infarction, stroke, ischemia-driven revascularization, stent thrombosis, graft occlusion, or major bleeding. A significant interaction ( Pinteraction=0.03) was present between elevated versus normal BNP and treatment with PCI versus CABG for the adjusted risk of th

Background: Despite the well-established benefits of secondary cardiovascular prevention, the importance of concurrent medical therapy in clinical trials of coronary revascularization is often overlooked. Objectives: The goal of this study was to assess compliance with guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) in clinical trials and its potential impact on the comparison between percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Methods: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and MEDLINE were searched from 2005 to August 2017. Clinical trial registries and reference lists of relevant studies were also searched. Randomized controlled trials comparing PCI with drug-eluting stents versus CABG and reporting medical therapy after revascularization were included. The study outcome was compliance with GDMT, defined as the following: 1) any antiplatelet agent plus beta-blocker plus statin (GDMT1); and 2) any antiplatelet agent plus beta-blocker plus statin plus angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker (GDMT2). Data collection and analysis were performed according to the methodological recommendations of The Cochrane Collaboration. Results: From a total of 439 references, 5 trials were included based on our inclusion and exclusion criteria. Overall, compliance with GDMT1 was low and decreased over time from 67% at 1 year to 53% at 5 years. Compliance with GDMT2 was even lower and decreased from 40% at 1 year to 38% at 5 years. Compliance with both GDMT1 and GDMT2 was higher in PCI than in CABG at all time points. Meta-regression suggested an association between lower use of GDMT1 and adverse clinical outcomes in PCI versus CABG at 5 years. Conclusions: Compliance with GDMT in contemporary clinical trials remains suboptimal and is significantly lower after CABG than after PCI, which may influence the comparison of clinical trial endpoints between those study groups.

Background: There is limited information on the incidence and prognostic impact of new-onset atrial fibrillation (NOAF) following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD). Objectives: This study sought to determine the incidence of NOAF following PCI and CABG for LMCAD and its effect on 3-year cardiovascular outcomes. Methods: In the EXCEL (Evaluation of XIENCE Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization) trial, 1,905 patients with LMCAD and low or intermediate SYNTAX scores were randomized to PCI with everolimus-eluting stents versus CABG. Outcomes were analyzed according to the development of NOAF during the initial hospitalization following revascularization. Results: Among 1,812 patients without atrial fibrillation on presentation, NOAF developed at a mean of 2.7 ± 2.5 days after revascularization in 162 patients (8.9%), including 161 of 893 (18.0%) CABG-treated patients and 1 of 919 (0.1%) PCI-treated patients (p < 0.0001). Older age, greater body mass index, and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction were independent predictors of NOAF in patients undergoing CABG. Patients with versus without NOAF had a significantly longer duration of hospitalization, were more likely to be discharged on anticoagulant therapy, and had an increased 30-day rate of Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction major or minor bleeding (14.2% vs. 5.5%; p < 0.0001). By multivariable analysis, NOAF after CABG was an independent predictor of 3-year stroke (6.6% vs. 2.4%; adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 4.19; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.74 to 10.11; p = 0.001), death (11.4% vs. 4.3%; adjusted HR: 3.02; 95% CI: 1.60 to 5.70; p = 0.0006), and the primary composite endpoint of death, MI, or stroke (22.6% vs. 12.8%; adjusted HR: 2.13; 95% CI: 1.39 to 3.25; p = 0.0004). Conclusions: In patients with LMCAD undergoing revascularization in the EXCEL trial, NOAF was c

Aims: To investigate if recent technical and procedural developments in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) significantly influence outcomes in appropriately selected patients with three-vessel (3VD) coronary artery disease. Methods and results: The SYNTAX II study is a multicenter, all-comers, open-label, single arm study that investigated the impact of a contemporary PCI strategy on clinical outcomes in patients with 3VD in 22 centres from four European countries. The SYNTAX-II strategy includes: heart team decision-making utilizing the SYNTAX Score II (a clinical tool combining anatomical and clinical factors), coronary physiology guided revascularisation, implantation of thin strut bio-resorbable-polymer drug-eluting stents, intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guided stent implantation, contemporary chronic total occlusion revascularisation techniques and guideline-directed medical therapy. The rate of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE [composite of all-cause death, cerebrovascular event, any myocardial infarction and any revascularisation]) at one year was compared to a predefined PCI cohort from the original SYNTAX-I trial selected on the basis of equipoise 4-year mortality between CABG and PCI. As an exploratory endpoint, comparisons were made with the historical CABG cohort of the original SYNTAX-I trial. Overall 708 patients were screened and discussed within the heart team; 454 patients were deemed appropriate to undergo PCI. At one year, the SYNTAX-II strategy was superior to the equipoise-derived SYNTAX-I PCI cohort (MACCE SYNTAX-II 10.6% vs. SYNTAX-I 17.4%; HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.39-0.85, P= 0.006). This difference was driven by a significant reduction in the incidence of MI (HR 0.27, 95% CI 0.11-0.70, P= 0.007) and revascularisation (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.37-0.9, P = 0.015). Rates of all-cause death (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.27-1.73, P = 0.43) and stroke (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.10-4.89, P = 0.71) were similar. The rate of definite stent thrombosis wa

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the current study was to estimate adverse event rates while awaiting myocardial revascularization and review criteria for prioritizing patients. METHODS: A PubMed search was performed on 19 January 2015, to identify English-language, original, observational studies reporting adverse events while awaiting coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Rates of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI) and emergency revascularization were calculated as occurrence rates per 1000 patient-weeks and pooled using random-effects models. RESULTS: The search yielded 1323 articles, of which 22 were included with 66 410 patients and 607 675 patient-weeks on the wait list. When awaiting CABG, rates per 1000 patient-weeks were 1.1 [95% confidence interval 0.9-1.3] for death, 1.0 [0.6-1.6] for non-fatal MI and 1.8 [0.8-4.1] for emergency revascularization. Subgroup analyses demonstrated consistent outcomes, and sensitivity analyses demonstrated comparable event rates with low heterogeneity. Higher urgency of revascularization was based primarily on angiographic complexity, angina severity, left ventricular dysfunction and symptoms on stress testing, and such patients with a semi-urgent status had a higher risk of death than patients awaiting elective revascularization (risk ratio at least 2.8). Individual studies identified angina severity and left ventricular dysfunction as most important predictors of death when awaiting CABG. Adverse rates per 1000 patient-weeks for patients awaiting PCI were 0.1 [95% confidence interval 0.0-0.4] for death, 0.4 [0.1-1.2] for non-fatal MI and 0.7 [0.4-1.4] for emergency revascularization but were based on only a few old studies. CONCLUSIONS: Rates of death, non-fatal MI and emergency revascularization when awaiting myocardial revascularization are infrequent but higher in specific patients. Countries that not yet have treatment recommendations related to waiting times should consider i

Stable complex coronary artery disease can be treated with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), or medical therapy. Multidisciplinary decision-making has gained more emphasis over the recent years to select the most optimal treatment strategy for individual patients with stable complex coronary artery disease. However, the so-called 'Heart Team' concept has not been widely implemented. Yet, decision-making has shown to remain suboptimal; there is large variability in PCI-to-CABG ratios, which may predominantly be the consequence of physician-related factors that have raised concerns regarding overuse, underuse, and inappropriate selection of revascularization. In this review, we summarize these and additional data to support the statement that a multidisciplinary Heart Team consisting of at least a clinical/non-invasive cardiologist, interventional cardiologist, and cardiac surgeon, can together better analyse and interpret the available diagnostic evidence, put into context the clinical condition of the patient as well as consider individual preference and local expertise, and through shared decision-making with the patient can arrive at a most optimal joint treatment strategy recommendation for patients with stable com