Repeat interventions as a long-term treatment strategy in the management of progressive coronary artery disease

Comparison of effectiveness of atorvastatin 10 mg versus 80 mg in reducing major cardiovascular events and repeat revascularization in patients with previous percutaneous coronary intervention (post hoc analysis of the Treating to New Targets [TNT] Study)

The Treating to New Targets (TNT) study demonstrated that intensive atorvastatin therapy to achieve low-density lipoprotein cholesterol concentrations well below recommended target levels provides an incremental clinical benefit in patients with stable coronary artery disease. This post hoc analysis of the TNT study was conducted to investigate whether this benefit extends to patients with previous percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). A total of 10,001 patients with clinically evident coronary artery disease, including 5,407 patients with previous PCI, were randomized to atorvastatin 10 or 80 mg/day and followed for a median of 4.9 years. The primary end point was the occurrence of a first major cardiovascular event. Revascularization, a component of a secondary end point, was also examined. In patients with previous PCI, mean low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels at study end were 79.5 mg/dl in the 80-mg arm and 100.8 mg/dl in the 10-mg arm. First major cardiovascular events occurred in 230 patients (8.6%) receiving high-dose atorvastatin and 289 patients (10.6%) receiving low-dose atorvastatin (hazard ratio 0.79, 95% confidence interval 0.67 to 0.94, p = 0.008). Repeat revascularization during follow-up (PCI or coronary artery bypass grafting) was performed in 466 patients (17.3%) in the 80-mg arm and 624 patients (22.9%) in the 10-mg arm (hazard ratio 0.73, 95% confidence interval 0.65 to 0.82, p <0.0001). In conclusion, intensive lipid lowering to a mean low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level of 79.5 mg/dl (2.1 mmol/L) with atorvastatin 80 mg/day in patients with previous PCI reduces major cardiovascular events by 21% and repeat revascularizations by 27% compared with a less intensive lipid-lowering regimen.

Recurrent unstable angina after directional coronary atherectomy is related to the extent of initial coronary plaque inflammation

OBJECTIVES

This study was performed to evaluate the relationship between plaque inflammation of the initial culprit lesion and the incidence of recurrent angina for one year after directional coronary atherectomy (DCA).

BACKGROUND

A positive correlation between coronary plaque inflammation and angiographic restenosis has been reported.

METHODS

A total of 110 patients underwent DCA. Cryostat sections were immunohistochemically stained with monoclonal antibodies CD68 (macrophages), CD-3 (T lymphocytes) and alpha-actin (smooth muscle cells [SMCs]). The SMC and macrophage contents were planimetrically quantified as a percentage of the total tissue area. T lymphocytes were counted as the number of cells/mm2. The patients were followed for one year to document recurrent unstable angina pectoris (UAP) or stable angina pectoris (SAP).

RESULTS

Recurrent UAP developed in 16 patients, whereas recurrent SAP developed in 17 patients. The percent macrophage areas were larger in patients with recurrent UAP (27 +/- 12%) than in patients with recurrent SAP (8 +/- 4%; p = 0.0001) and those without recurrent angina (18 +/- 14%; p = 0.03). The number of T lymphocytes was also greater in patients with recurrent UAP (25 +/- 14 cells/mm2) than in patients with recurrent SAP (14 +/- 8 cells/mm2; p = 0.02) and those without recurrent angina (14 +/- 12 cells/mm2; p = 0.002). Multiple stepwise logistic regression analysis identified macrophage areas and T lymphocytes as independent predictors for recurrent UAP.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a positive association between the extent of initial coronary plaque inflammation and the recurrence of unstable angina during long-term follow-up after DCA. These results underline the role of ongoing smoldering plaque inflammation in the recurrence of unstable angina after coronary interventions.

Randomized comparison of primary stenting and provisional balloon angioplasty guided by flow velocity measurement. Doppler Endpoints Balloon Angioplasty Trial Europe (DEBATE) II Study Group

BACKGROUND

Coronary stenting improves outcomes compared with balloon angioplasty, but it is costly and may have other disadvantages. Limiting stent use to patients with a suboptimal result after angioplasty (provisional angioplasty) may be as effective and less expensive.

METHODS AND RESULTS

To analyze the cost-effectiveness of provisional angioplasty, patients scheduled for single-vessel angioplasty were first randomized to receive primary stenting (97 patients) or balloon angioplasty guided by Doppler flow velocity and angiography (523 patients). Patients in the latter group were further randomized after optimization to either additional stenting or termination of the procedure to further investigate what is "optimal." An optimal result was defined as a flow reserve >2.5 and a diameter stenosis <36%. Bailout stenting was needed in 129 patients (25%) who were randomized to balloon angioplasty, and an optimal result was obtained in 184 of the 523 patients (35%). There was no significant difference in event-free survival at 1 year between primary stenting (86.6%) and provisional angioplasty (85.6%). Costs after 1 year were significantly higher for provisional angioplasty (EUR 6573 versus EUR 5885; P:=0.014). Results after the second randomization showed that stenting was also more effective after optimal balloon angioplasty (1-year event free survival, 93.5% versus 84.1%; P:=0. 066).

CONCLUSIONS

After 1 year of follow-up, provisional angioplasty was more expensive and without clinical benefit. The beneficial value of stenting is not limited to patients with a suboptimal result after balloon angioplasty.

Gene therapy for restenosis: are we ready?

The application of gene therapy techniques to the clinical problem of coronary restenosis has generated tremendous attention and enthusiasm. Use of gene transfer technology to prevent a common intractable illness would represent a watershed event for human gene therapy. However, the time is not yet right to initiate gene therapy trials for restenosis. The biology of restenosis is incompletely understood, catheter-based gene delivery is poorly adapted to the coronary circulation, and current gene transfer vectors are ill-suited for safe and effective gene delivery to the coronary artery wall. Basic research designed to overcome these obstacles is currently more appropriate than the initiation of clinical trials.

Revascularization of patients with coronary artery disease: the interventional cardiologist's perspective

In the majority of patients with chronic coronary artery disease, treatment is aimed at palliation or prolongation of disease-free intervals and consists of either pharmacologic therapy or coronary revascularization. As a result of continuous refinements and improvements in both surgical and catheter-based revascularization techniques, modalities, and adjunctive pharmacologic therapy, an increasing number of patients may benefit from coronary revascularization. This also engenders difficult choices for the physicians responsible for selecting the most appropriate treatment. To achieve and provide optimal patient care an open and principled discussion with all parties involved is mandatory and must be based on the integration of clinical experience and data from both basic and clinical research. The purpose of this article is to provide the interventional cardiologist's view on the treatment of patients with atherosclerotic coronary artery disease.