Impact of thrombus aspiration use for the treatment of stent thrombosis on early patient outcomes

BACKGROUND

Recent data suggest a clinical benefit with the systematic use of thrombus aspiration (TA) for the treatment of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Nevertheless, the impact of TA as a treatment strategy for stent thrombosis (ST) is unknown. This study aimed to analyze the impact of TA use for the treatment of ST on patient outcomes.

METHODS

From 2003 to 2008, 91 consecutive patients who presented with a definite ST were included in this analysis. We compared procedural success rates and the incidence of the composite criteria death-recurrent MI-recurrent ST at 30 days in patients who were treated with TA (TA group, n = 36) versus those who were not (No-TA group, n = 55).

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups except for the body mass index: 26.2 +/- 5.4 vs. 29.3 +/- 6.2 in the TA and No- TA groups, respectively (p = 0.028). ST presented more likely as STEMI in the TA group: 86.1% vs. 67.3% (p = 0.043). Except for TA use, there was no difference in the treatment therapeutics between groups, including for glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors. The rate of procedural success was higher in the TA group than in the No-TA group: 88.9% vs. 70.9% (p = 0.043). The incidence of the endpoint of death-recurrent MI-recurrent ST was significantly lower in the TA group: 22.2% vs. 47.2% (p = 0.026). By multivariate analysis, TA use was independently associated with a decrease in the composite criteria (HR = 0.45, p = 0.039).

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that TA use for ST treatment permits an improvement in patient outcomes at 30 days with a significant decrease in the incidence of the composite criteria death-recurrent MI-recurrent ST. Further prospective studies are needed, however, to definitively address the benefit of TA use in this particular setting.

Long-term follow-up after deferring angioplasty in asymptomatic patients with moderate noncritical in-stent restenosis

BACKGROUND

Many patients with in-stent restenosis (ISR) are angina-free, but the optimal treatment for these patients remains uncertain.

HYPOTHESIS

In cases with asymptomatic moderate noncritical ISR. deferral of the intervention may be safe and associated with favorable clinical outcome.

METHODS

We evaluated the long-term clinical outcome of asymptomatic patients (Group 1, n = 98) with moderate noncritical ISR (< 70% diameter stenosis) after intervention was deferred, and compared it with that of patients (Group 2, n = 655) without restenosis. After repeat angioplasty was deferred, all patients were treated medically and later underwent angioplasty only in the case of clinical recurrence.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups. Clinical follow-up was available in all patients at 26.3+/-15.9 months. Twenty patients died during the follow-up: 1 in Group 1 and 19 in Group 2. Target lesion revascularization was performed in 3 patients in Group 1 and 11 patients in Group 2 during follow-up (p = NS), and new lesion revascularization in 2 patients in Group 1 and 27 patients in Group 2 (p = NS). Event-free survival rate (cardiac death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization) was 86.7+/-6.1% in Group 1 and 84.8+/-2.2% in Group 2 at the end of follow-up (p = NS). Major adverse cardiac events were only associated with the presence of diabetic mellitus (hazards ratio 2.65, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.48-4.73, p<0.01). The percentage of patients receiving antianginal medication was similar between the two groups at the end of the study (p = NS).

CONCLUSIONS

Asymptomatic patients with moderate noncritical ISR have a good prognosis and similar clinical outcome as those without ISR, suggesting that it may be safe to defer repeat angioplasty in these patients until angina recurrence.

Differences between early, intermediate, and late angioplasty after coronary artery bypass grafting

The aim of the present study was to identify patients with recurrent ischemia after coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) treated by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Graft failure after CABG may be managed conservatively or treated by surgery or PCI. We thought to investigate clinical, angiographic, and procedural characteristics in relation to clinical outcome. This was a retrospective single-center study. Patients who underwent revascularization by PCI with a previous CABG were analyzed. Patients were divided in 3 groups, depending on interval between CABG and index PCI: group 1, interval <72 hours; group 2, interval between 72 hours and 1 year; group 3, interval >1 year. Two hundred twenty-one patients were studied. Clinical characteristics and survival curves were comparable in groups 2 and 3. Postoperative creatine kinase MB and troponin values were significantly higher in group 1 (P = 0.000). From group 1, significantly more patients (10.5%) required emergency CABG after the index PCI than compared with group 2 (2.1%) and group 3 (0%), (P = 0.003). There were more off-pump CABGs in group 1 than in the other 2 groups. Group 1 received less PCIs in native ungrafted vessels compared with the other 2 groups. Mortality in group 1 (18.4%) was higher than in the other 2 groups (7.4 and 4.5%, respectively; P < 0.05). Mortality in group 1 was higher in the acute phase of follow-up. PCI performed less than 72 hours after CABG is feasible but accompanied by a higher mortality and redo CABG. This outcome is probably related to the high-risk patient category.

Appropriate use of drug-eluting stents: balancing the reduction in restenosis with the concern of late thrombosis

Restenosis is a serious occurrence that can lead not only to recurrent angina and repeat revascularisation but also to acute coronary syndromes. Drug-eluting stents revolutionised interventional cardiology owing to their pronounced ability to reduce restenosis compared with bare-metal stents. Attention has now shifted to safety of these devices because of evidence suggesting an association with late stent thrombosis. Findings of randomised clinical trials have not shown that drug-eluting stents result in excess mortality after 4-5 years of follow-up. Current recommendations are that individuals with a drug-eluting stent should receive at least 12 months of uninterrupted dual antiplatelet treatment; patients must understand the importance of this long-term regimen. Patients' assessment should focus on bleeding abnormalities, pre-existing disorders that need anticoagulation treatment, and possible future surgical procedures, since these factors could all contraindicate use of drug-eluting stents. Many people will do well with a bare-metal stent, whereas for individuals with a high likelihood of restenosis and late thrombosis, medical management or surgical revascularisation might be preferred options.

Coronary in-stent restenosis in diabetic patients after implantation of sirolimus or paclitaxel drug-eluting coronary stents

It is now emerging that, in patients who are at high risk for cardiovascular complications and, in particular, those with diabetes, the occurrence of late restenosis and thrombosis after treatment of coronary artery disease with drug-eluting stents is higher than earlier reports have suggested. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess the prevalence of in-stent restenosis in a cohort of consecutive patients with diabetes treated for coronary disease in 2005 with drug-eluting stents [either sirolimus (58%) or paclitaxel (42%)]. The duration of follow-up was 9.0+/-3.4 months [mean+/-1 standard deviation (S.D.)]. A total of 154 patients (type 2 diabetes: 91%) were included in the study (age: 66+/-10 years), and the total number of implanted stents was 184. Two subjects died from cardiac causes, while myocardial infarction and (un)stable angina were observed in 3 (2%) and 39 (25%) patients, respectively. In-stent restenosis, appraised by angiography, was observed in 17 individuals (11%) after a mean follow-up of five months. Mean HbA(1c) in patients with restenosis was 7.6+/-1.8%. There was no difference in the rate of restenosis with sirolimus-(n=8) compared with paclitaxel-(n=9) eluting stents. Male gender, oral therapy for diabetes and stent diameter were predictors of in-stent restenosis. In conclusion, even over a medium-term period, in-stent restenosis remains a potential risk for coronary diabetic patients treated with drug-eluting devices.

Coronary stenting versus balloon angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction: A meta-regression analysis of randomized trials

INTRODUCTION

Although stenting has been shown to reduce the need for target vessel revascularization (TVR) in acute myocardial infarction (AMI), the benefits in terms of mortality and reinfarction are still unclear. Previous meta-analyses have failed to include all currently available randomized trials. The aim of the current study was to perform an updated meta-analysis to evaluate the benefits of coronary stenting for AMI in terms of mortality, reinfarction, and TVR, and whether these benefits correlated with the patient's risk profile.

METHODS

The literature was scanned by formal searches of electronic databases (MEDLINE and CENTRAL) from January 1990 to September 2006. We examined all completed, published, randomized trials of coronary stenting for AMI. The following key words were used for study selection: randomized trial, myocardial infarction, reperfusion, primary angioplasty, rescue angioplasty, stenting, and balloon angioplasty. Information on study design, type of stent, inclusion and exclusion criteria, primary endpoint, number of patients, angiographic and clinical outcome, were extracted by two investigators. Disagreements were resolved by consensus.

RESULTS

A total of 13 randomized trials were identified and analyzed involving 6922 patients (3460 or 50% randomized to stent and 3462 or 50% to balloon). Stenting was not associated with a significant reduction in 30-day (2.9% versus 3.0%, p=0.81) and 1-year mortality (5.1% versus 5.2%, p=0.81), as compared to balloon angioplasty. However, a significant relationship was observed between patient's risk profile and mortality benefits from coronary stenting at 30-day (beta -0.63 [-25.4; -2.45], p=0.022) and 1-year follow-up (beta -0.61 [-15.9; -0.76], p=0.034). Stenting was associated with benefits in terms of TVR at both 30-day (3.1% versus 5.1%, p<0.0001) and 6 to 12 months (11.3% versus 18.4%, p<0.0001) follow-up, without any difference in terms of reinfarction.

CONCLUSIONS

Among AMI patients undergoing primary angioplasty, coronary stent implantation, when anatomically and technically feasible, may be considered, in addition to benefits in terms of TVR, to reduce mortality in high-risk patients, who may be identified by the use of validated risk scores.

Emerging therapies for refractory angina

In recent years, improvements in both pharmacologic and revascularization therapies have greatly increased life expectancy for patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). As patients with more extensive CAD live longer, many develop myocardial ischemia and clinical angina that is not amenable to traditional revascularization therapy. Patients with severe, symptomatic, chronic CAD have been described as having refractory angina; they have also been termed "no-option" patients. This article discusses clinical management of this unique and growing group of patients and emerging therapeutic options including pharmacologic agents, enhanced external counterpulsation therapy, therapeutic angiogenesis, neurostimulation, and transmyocardial revascularization.

Impact of diabetes mellitus on long-term outcomes in the drug-eluting stent era

BACKGROUND

Diabetes mellitus is associated with an increased risk of restenosis, stent thrombosis, and death after percutaneous coronary interventions. Little is known about the late outcome of patients with diabetes mellitus who receive drug-eluting stents (DES).

METHODS

This study includes a prospective database of 2557 consecutive patients with coronary artery disease who underwent DES implantation in native coronary arteries in 2 German hospitals. The primary end points of the study were mortality and clinical restenosis (target lesion revascularization). Secondary end points were binary angiographic restenosis, stent thrombosis, and the composite of death or myocardial infarction.

RESULTS

Within a median follow-up period of 2.3 years, stent thrombosis occurred in 14 patients with diabetes versus 17 patients without diabetes: 3-year Kaplan-Meier estimates of stent thrombosis were 2.2% versus 1.0%, with a relative risk of 2.17 (95% CI 1.09-4.33, P = .027). Binary angiographic restenosis was observed in 87 patients with diabetes and 208 patients without diabetes (15.2% vs 13.5%, P = .32). Target lesion revascularization was needed in 93 patients with diabetes and 219 patients without diabetes (12.8% vs 12.0%, P = .56). There were 93 deaths among diabetic patients versus 118 deaths among nondiabetic patients: 3-year Kaplan-Meier estimates of mortality were 17.3% versus 7.8%, with a relative risk of 2.10 (95% CI 1.61-2.74, P < .001). After adjustment in the multivariable analyses, diabetes remained an independent predictor of 3-year mortality with a hazard ratio of 1.63 (95% CI 1.23-2.17, P < .001), but not of angiographic (P = .92) or clinical restenosis (P = .97).

CONCLUSION

Although DES attenuate diabetes-associated excess risk of restenosis, risk of death and thrombotic complications remains higher in patients with diabetes than in nondiabetic patients in the DES era.

Coronary artery bypass is superior to drug-eluting stents in multivessel coronary artery disease

Percutaneous intervention for the treatment of multivessel coronary artery disease continues to displace coronary artery bypass graft surgery. But controlled trials of percutaneous intervention versus coronary bypass, in meta-analysis, have shown a significant survival advantage for coronary bypass. Studies of bare metal stents have not presented any data to prompt reversal of this conclusion for all but the small portion of patients most suited for stenting. Drug-eluting stents have no survival advantage compared with bare metal stents. Data from real-world registries have shown that the current therapy of multivessel disease patients has resulted in a relative excess mortality of as much as 46% in patients with initial stenting compared with patients with initial coronary bypass. Ethical considerations demand that patients with multivessel disease be informed of the documented mortality benefit of coronary bypass graft surgery.

Meta-analysis of randomized trials on drug-eluting stents vs. bare-metal stents in patients with acute myocardial infarction

AIMS

To compare the efficacy and safety of drug-eluting stents vs. bare-metal stents in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We performed a meta-analysis of eight randomized trials comparing drug-eluting stents (sirolimus-eluting or paclitaxel-eluting stents) with bare-metal stents in 2786 patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. All patients were followed up for a mean of 12.0-24.2 months. Individual data were available for seven trials with 2476 patients. The primary efficacy endpoint was the need for reintervention (target lesion revascularization). The primary safety endpoint was stent thrombosis. Other outcomes of interest were death and recurrent myocardial infarction. Drug-eluting stents significantly reduced the risk of reintervention, hazard ratio of 0.38 (95% CI, 0.29-0.50), P < 0.001. The overall risk of stent thrombosis: hazard ratio of 0.80 (95% CI, 0.46-1.39), P = 0.43; death: hazard ratio of 0.76 (95% CI, 0.53-1.10), P = 0.14; and recurrent myocardial infarction: hazard ratio of 0.72 (95% CI, 0.48-1.08, P = 0.11) was not significantly different for patients receiving drug-eluting stents vs. bare-metal stents.

CONCLUSION

The use of drug-eluting stents in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction is safe and improves clinical outcomes by reducing the risk of reintervention compared with bare-metal stents.

Transition from bare metal to drug eluting stenting in contemporary US practice: effect on incidence and predictors of clinically driven target lesion revascularization

BACKGROUND

The performance of drug eluting stents (DES) and impact on every day practice in the USA, where complex, nonselective cases are the rule, remain unknown.

METHODS

The Brigham and Women's Hospital interventional experience in the bare metal stents (BMS) (6/2002 to 2/2003) and after abrupt and near universal adoption of DES (4/2003 to 9/2004) were compared. Demographic, procedural and in-hospital outcomes for all consecutive cases where investigated. Predictors and angiographic characteristics of patients returning for clinically driven target lesion revascularization (TLR) in both eras were analyzed.

RESULTS

Of 2,555 DES cases (3,061 lesions, 87.9% Cypher, 12.1% Taxus), 47 underwent TLR during follow-up (68 lesions, 2.2%). Of the 1,731 BMS cases (1,798 lesions), 162 underwent clinically indicated TLR (209 lesions, 11.6%), representing an 81% DES era TLR risk reduction. Multivariate predictors of TLR in the DES era: left main lesion (LM) (odds ratio (OR) 7.65, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.33-17.53, P<0.01, treatment of restenosis (OR 5.96, CI 3.21-11.08, P<0.01), and diabetes (OR 1.68, CI 0.92-3.04, P=0.07). Predictors of restenosis in the BMS era included additional clinical, lesion, and stent characteristics, while LM lesion was absent. Angiographic patterns of stent restenosis differed in the DES (focal) and BMS (diffuse) era.

CONCLUSIONS

The transition from BMS to DES in the setting of a large USA hospital practice is safe and associated with significant reduction in clinically driven TLR. Treatment of specific lesions types (repeat restenosis, distal LM) and diabetic patients remain suboptimal and warrant further investigation.

Outlook of drug-eluting stent implantation for unprotected left main disease: insights on long-term clinical predictors

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has been increasingly employed to treat unprotected left main coronary artery (LMCA) stenosis, with variable success. This strategy has been applied to patients undergoing drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation for unprotected LMCA stenosis.

METHODS

From April 2003 to June 2006, 114 consecutive patients with de novo unprotected LMCA stenosis underwent PCI with DES, and were followed over a mean period of 17.1 +/- 9.1 months. The primary endpoint of the study was the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (cardiac death, myocardial infarction [MI] or target lesion revascularization [TLR]).

RESULTS

LMCA stenting was successfully performed in all patients. In-hospital mortality was 3.5%, with no in-hospital non-fatal MI or emergency coronary artery bypass grafts. During the follow-up period, the all-cause mortality rate was 7.9%, with 3.5% cardiac-related deaths. TLR was performed in 7.9% of patients, and the MACE rate was 14.9%. All non-surviving patients were at high surgical risk (EuroSCORE > 6) and had a significantly higher EuroSCORE than surviving patients that patients with a EuroSCORE < or = 11 had significantly improved survival rates over those with a EuroSCORE > 11 (p < 0.0001). Moreover, most of the patients who died of cardiac causes were diabetic (71.4% vs. 26.6%; p < 0.05). Acute coronary syndromes, as clinical presentation, and non-ostial LMCA disease were also significantly more common within non-surviving patients (100% vs. 67%; p < 0.05, and 92.3% vs. 66.3%; p = 0.05, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Stenting of unprotected LMCA appears to be associated with a favorable mid-term outlook, especially in selected patients.

Treatment of drug-eluting stent restenosis with the same versus different drug-eluting stent

OBJECTIVE

The authors aimed to compare the clinical outcomes with repeat drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation utilizing the same type versus an alternate DES type for in-stent restenosis (ISR) of DES.

BACKGROUND

: DES are proven as an effective treatment for bare metal ISR.

METHODS

A cohort of 116 patients previously treated with a sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) or a paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) who presented with angiographic ISR were treated with repeat DES. Of these, 62 (53.4%) were treated with different DES and 54 (46.6%) were treated with the same DES. This cohort was followed for clinical events at 30 days, 6 months, and 1 year.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were similar except for more diabetes among patients receiving the different type of DES. Of the 116, overall 16.4% of the DES were implanted for previous ISR and 2.6% had previously received brachytherapy. At 6 months, the overall target vessel revascularization (TVR) rate was 12.2% for the entire cohort. The TVR-major adverse cardiac event (MACE) rate for the patients treated with different DES was 14.5% and 16.7% for the same DES (P = 0.750). Overall TVR rate at 1 year was 28.8%. The TVR-MACE was 32.6% for different DES and 35.0% for the same DES (P = 0.814).

CONCLUSIONS

Reimplantation of DES for the treatment of DES ISR (same or different) is safe but associated with a high rate of recurrences at 1 year regardless of the initial DES type. Other treatment modalities for ISR of DES should be considered to further improve the overall TVR-MACE.

Usefulness of preprocedural N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide in predicting angiographic no-reflow phenomenon during stent implantation in patients with ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction

The no-reflow phenomenon after primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is associated with larger infarct size, worse functional recovery, and higher incidence of complication after acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). The aim of this study was to assess the relation between preprocedural N-terminal pro-brain-type natriuretic peptide (NT-pro-BNP) and angiographic no-reflow phenomenon. We measured preprocedural serum NT-pro-BNP level in 159 consecutive patients with acute STEMI (aged 63 +/- 12 years; 72% men) before PCI. Angiographic no-reflow after PCI was defined as Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) flow grade <3. Baseline characteristics, including time from chest pain onset, between the no-reflow (n = 67) and normal-reflow groups (n = 92) were similar. NT-pro-BNP was significantly higher in the no-reflow group than the normal reflow group (1,982 +/- 3,314 vs 415 +/- 632 pg/ml; p = 0.005). Also, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, monocytes, and troponin-T were significantly higher in the no-reflow group than the normal-reflow group. In the no-reflow group, NT-pro-BNP was much higher in patients with TIMI flow grade 0 (n = 41; 2,290 +/- 3,495 pg/ml) than those with TIMI grade 1 or 2 (n = 26; 1,575 +/- 2,340 pg/ml), but without significant difference. The area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve for NT-pro-BNP was 0.78, and the optimal cut-off value identified using receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis was 500 pg/ml. At the standard cut-off value of >500 pg/ml, increased NT-pro-BNP showed a high probability of no-reflow phenomenon (odds ratio 4.42, 95% confidence interval 1.15 to 17.00, p = 0.028). In conclusion, preprocedural NT-pro-BNP may be a strong predictor of the development of no-reflow phenomenon after PCI in patients with acute STEMI.