Long-term clinical outcome in the Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation Registry: comparison with the randomized trial. BARI Investigators

Mortality After Multivessel Revascularization in Patients With Diabetes and Acute Coronary Syndromes

Background

The optimal revascularization strategy in patients with diabetes and multivessel disease in the setting of a non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) is unknown.

Objectives

The purpose of this study was to compare all-cause mortality between coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) among patients with diabetes and NSTEMI.

Methods

All patients with diabetes and multivessel disease admitted for NSTEMI in Ontario, Canada, between April 2009 and March 2020 were included. Those with previous CABG, PCI in the previous 90 days, or shock were excluded. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Propensity score matching was used to account for confounding. Patients who had a cardiac surgeon consultation and then received PCI were classified as being potentially ineligible for CABG.

Results

The cohort included 4,649 CABG and 6,760 PCI patients (mean age: 67.8 ± 11.5 years; 70.4% males), resulting in 2,385 matched pairs. CABG was associated with reduced all-cause mortality compared to PCI over a median follow-up of 5.5 years (5-year estimates: 23.4% vs 26.5%; HR: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.80-0.98; P = 0.021). However, no significant differences in mortality were observed between CABG and PCI patients without a surgical consultation (2,130 pairs; HR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.86-1.08), while CABG was associated with reduced mortality when compared against PCI patients who had received a surgical consultation (388 pairs; HR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.58-0.88; P = 0.002).

Conclusions

While CABG was associated with reduced all-cause mortality compared to multivessel PCI in patients with diabetes and NSTEMI, CABG benefit was seen only against PCI patients potentially ineligible for CABG after receiving a preprocedure surgical consultation.

Impella Versus Non-Impella for Nonemergent High-Risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

The benefit of mechanical circulatory support with Impella (Abiomed, Inc., Danvers, Massachusetts) for high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (HR-PCI) is uncertain. PROTECT III registry data showed improved outcomes with Impella compared with historical data (PROTECT II) but lack a direct comparison with the HR-PCI cohort without Impella support. We retrospectively identified patients meeting the PROTECT III inclusion criteria for HR-PCI and compared this group (non-Impella cohort [NonIMP]) with the outcomes data from the PROTECT III registry (Impella cohort). Baseline differences were balanced using inverse propensity weighting. The coprimary outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in-hospital and at 90 days. A total of 283 patients at great risk did not receive Impella support; 200 patients had 90-day event ascertainment and were included in the inverse propensity weighting analysis and compared with 504 patients in the Impella cohort group. After calibration, few residual differences remained between groups. The primary outcome was not different in-hospital (3.0% vs 4.8%, p = 0.403) but less in NonIMP at 90 days (7.5% vs 13.8%, p = 0.033). Periprocedural vascular complications, bleeding, and transfusion rate did not differ between groups; however, acute kidney injury occurred more frequently in the NonIMP group (10.5% vs 5.4%, p = 0.023). In conclusion, under identical HR-PCI inclusion criteria for Impella use in PROTECT III, an institutional non-Impella-supported HR-PCI cohort showed similar MACE in-hospital but fewer MACE at 90 days, whereas there was no signal for periprocedural harm with Impella use. These results do not support routine usage of Impella for patients with HR-PCI.

The heart team: the multidisciplinary approach to coronary artery disease

The recommendation to employ a heart team to guide revascularization has persisted for over a decade. Despite evidence for improved adherence to guidelines, widespread adoption of the heart team approach has been limited. This review delves into the history of the guidelines endorsing the use of a heart team and the supporting data. Additionally, it outlines some attributes of a successful heart team, and how the heart team has been run at several large academic centers. Finally, it reviews some of the barriers to a heart team and future considerations.

Impact of Statin Therapy in Heart Failure Patients: Results of a Large Real-World Experience

Background

The use of statins in patients with heart failure (HF) is controversial. In patients without HF, statins reduce atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) risk, including HF-related events. However, in some large studies, no benefit was seen in statin-treated HF patients.

Objectives

The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of statin therapy in HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

Methods

Intermountain Healthcare medical records identified patients with a HF diagnosis and an ejection fraction of ≤40%. Patients prescribed and not prescribed a statin were compared for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (death, myocardial infarction, stroke) (median of 4.5 years follow-up). Statin use was defined as use at or after a HF diagnosis but at least 60 days before MACE or end of follow-up. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to determine the relationship between statin use and outcomes.

Results

A total of 15,010 patients (n = 9,641 [64%] on statins) were studied. Statin use was associated with more frequent ASCVD risk factors yet a lower risk of MACE risk (adjusted HR: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.51-0.56; P < 0.0001). Benefit was similar for primary and secondary prevention patients and for prior and new statin prescriptions. Using time-varying hazard ratio analysis, the longer the patient was on a statin, the greater the reduction in risk of MACE (P < 0.0001).

Conclusions

These results suggest a potential benefit of selective statin use in the real-world management of HFrEF patients with ASCVD or at high ASCVD risk.

2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Coronary Artery Revascularization: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The guideline for coronary artery revascularization replaces the 2011 coronary artery bypass graft surgery and the 2011 and 2015 percutaneous coronary intervention guidelines, providing a patient-centric approach to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with significant coronary artery disease undergoing coronary revascularization as well as the supporting documentation to encourage their use.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2019 to September 2019, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, CINHL Complete, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2021, were also considered.

STRUCTURE

Coronary artery disease remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. Coronary revascularization is an important therapeutic option when managing patients with coronary artery disease. The 2021 coronary artery revascularization guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with coronary artery disease who are being considered for coronary revascularization, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests.

Approach to stable angina in patients with advanced chronic kidney disease

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Chronic kidney disease is one of the major risk factors for coronary artery disease. Both end-stage renal disease (ESRD) and advanced chronic kidney disease patients have atypical presentations of coronary artery disease (CAD) due to modifications in cardinal symptoms and clinical presentation. Data on evaluation and management of coronary artery or stable angina is limited in advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients due to a limited number of trials. There are sparse data supporting either percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass graft in advanced CKD patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

The ISCHEMIA-CKD trial to date is the most extensive prospective randomized study looking at advanced CKD patients study looking at advanced CKD stage 4/5 patients randomized to medical treatment alone vs. invasive strategy for moderate to severe myocardial ischemia. There was no evidence found that an initial invasive strategy compared with conservative strategy with maximal medical management resulted in reduced risk of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction in patients with advanced CKD and coronary artery disease with stable angina.

SUMMARY

In this review, we will discuss the existing data on assessment and management of stable coronary artery disease/stable angina. And how this extrapolates to the application in advanced CKD patients awaiting kidney transplant.

ApPropRiateness of myOcardial revascUlarization assessed by SYNTAX Scores in patients with type 2 diabetes melliTus: the PROUST study

INTRODUCTION

Results of currently available trials have shown divergent outcomes in diabetic patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Current guidelines do not recommend PCI in patients with diabetes and a SYNTAX score ≥ 23.

AIM

To compare all-cause 4-year mortality after revascularization for complex coronary artery disease (CAD) in diabetics.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The study group comprised consecutive patients with three-vessel CAD and/or unprotected left main CAD (≥ 50% diameter stenosis) without major hemodynamic instability, who were treated in two institutions with PCI or referred for CABG.

RESULTS

Out of 342 diabetics, 177 patients underwent PCI and 165 patients were referred for CABG. The incidence of all-cause death was different between diabetics treated with PCI or CABG at 4 years (16/177, 9.0% vs. 26/165, 15.8%, respectively, p = 0.03). The difference was not evident in non-diabetics (PCI: 41/450, 9.1% vs. CABG: 19/249, 7.6%, p = 0.173). In diabetics, there was a higher incidence of all-cause mortality in PCI patients with intermediate-high (≥ 23) SYNTAX scores compared with those with low (0-22) SYNTAX scores (10/56, 17.9% vs. 6/121, 5.0%, respectively, p < 0.01). On the other hand, diabetics who underwent CABG showed similar mortality rates irrespective of the SYNTAX scores (SYNTAX 0-22: 3/29, 10.3%; SYNTAX ≥ 23: 23/136, 11.9%, p = 0.46). In the subgroup analysis, there was no interaction according to presence or absence of left main CAD (p for interaction = 0.12) as well as according to diabetes status (p for interaction = 0.38), whereas gender and SYNTAX scores were differentiators between PCI and CABG with a p for interaction < 0.1.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis supports recent evidence that diabetes is not a differentiator between PCI and CABG.

Long-Term Outcomes Following Heart Team Revascularization Recommendations in Complex Coronary Artery Disease

Background The Heart Team ( HT ) comprises integrated interdisciplinary decision making. Current guidelines assign a Class Ic recommendation for an HT approach to complex coronary artery disease ( CAD ). However, there remains a paucity of data in regard to hard clinical end points. The aim was to determine characteristics and outcomes in patients with complex CAD following HT discussion. Methods and Results This observational study was conducted at St Thomas' Hospital (London, UK). Case mixture included unprotected left main, 2-vessel (including proximal left anterior descending artery) CAD , 3-vessel CAD , or anatomical and/or clinical equipoise. HT strategy was defined as optimal medical therapy ( OMT ) alone, OMT +percutaneous coronary intervention ( PCI ), or OMT +coronary artery bypass grafting. From April 2012 to 2013, 51 HT meetings were held and 398 cases were discussed. Patients tended to have multivessel CAD (74.1%), high SYNTAX (Synergy between PCI with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery) scores (median, 30; interquartile range, 23-39), and average age 69±11 years. Multinomial logistic regression analysis performed to determine variables associated with HT strategy demonstrated decreased likelihood of undergoing PCI compared with OMT in older patients with chronic kidney disease and peripheral vascular disease. The odds of undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting compared with OMT decreased in the presence of cardiogenic shock and left ventricular dysfunction and increased in younger patients with 3-vessel CAD . Three-year survival was 60.8% (84 of 137) in the OMT cohort, 84.3% (107 of 127) in the OMT + PCI cohort, and 90.2% in the OMT +coronary artery bypass grafting cohort (92 of 102). Conclusions In our experience, the HT approach involved a careful selection process resulting in appropriate patient-specific decision making and good long-term outcomes in patients with complex CAD .

Effect of Intermittent Pneumatic Compression on Preventing Deep Vein Thrombosis Among Stroke Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and subsequent pulmonary embolism (PE) are common complications of stroke. However, the effect of intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) for patients after stroke is uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of IPC in reducing the risk of DVT, PE, and mortality in stroke patients.

METHODS

We searched leading medical databases including Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Wanfang, CNKI, and CBM, from inception to June 2, 2017. Studies comparing IPC with no IPC in stroke patients were included. Agreement was measured using simple agreement and kappa statistics. The rates of PE, DVT, and mortality were compared. The results were pooled using a fixed effects model to evaluate the differences between the IPC and control groups. If there was significant heterogeneity in the pooled result, a random effect model was used.

RESULTS

We identified seven randomized controlled trials that included 3,551 stroke patients. The average calculated κ for the various parameters was κ = 0.96 (0.70-1). Overall, IPC significantly reduced the incidence of DVT in stroke patients (risk ratio [RR] = 0.50; 95% confidence interval [CI 0.27, 0.94]). At the same time, IPC increased IPC-related adverse events (RR = 5.71; 95% CI [3.40, 9.58]). Though IPC was associated with a significant increase in survival by 4.5 days during 6 months of follow-up (148-152 days; 95% CI [-0.2, 9.1]), there was a mean gain of only 0.9 days (26.7-27.6 days; 95% CI [2.1, 3.9]) in quality-adjusted survival during the 6-month follow-up. Overall, sensitivity analyses did not alter these findings.

LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION

This review provides an important basis for preventing DVT in stroke patients, especially in hemorrhagic stroke patients. IPC significantly reduces the risk of DVT and significantly improves survival in a wide variety of patients who are immobile after stroke. However, IPC does not significantly improve quality-adjusted survival. Clinicians should take functional status and quality of life into consideration when making decisions for stroke patients.

Revascularization for Advanced Coronary Artery Disease in Type 2 Diabetic Patients: Choosing Wisely Between PCI and Surgery

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) are at an increased risk of systemic atherosclerosis and advanced coronary artery disease (CAD). Herein, we review clinical trials comparing surgical to percutaneous revascularization in the context of the unique pathophysiology in this patient population, and seek to answer the question of optimal strategy of revascularization.

RECENT FINDINGS

Early studies showed a signal towards benefit of surgical revascularization over percutaneous revascularization in this group, but there was a paucity of randomized clinical trials (RCT) to directly support this finding. The Future Revascularization Evaluation in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus: Optimal Management of Multivessel Disease (FREEDOM), a large-scale international RCT, was then undertaken and established the benefit of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) over percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in terms of mortality, myocardial infarction and repeat revascularization; CABG was inferior to PCI with regards to stroke. The quality of life and cost effectiveness also demonstrated a long-term benefit for surgery. The decision as to choice of mode of revascularization in patients with T2DM and advanced CAD depends upon a multitude of factors, including the coronary anatomy, co-morbidities and the patient's surgical risk. These factors influence the recommendation of the cardiovascular team, which should result in a balanced presentation of the short and long-term risks and benefits of either mode of revascularization to the patient and his/her family.

Surgical Versus Percutaneous Coronary Revascularization for Multivessel Disease in Diabetic Patients With Non–ST-Segment–Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome

Background—

The preferred revascularization strategy for diabetic patients with acute coronary syndromes and multivessel coronary artery disease is uncertain. We evaluated the outcomes of diabetic patients with moderate and high-risk acute coronary syndrome and multivessel disease managed with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).

Methods and Results—

Among 13 819 moderate and high-risk acute coronary syndrome patients enrolled in the Acute Catheterization and Early Intervention Triage Strategy (ACUITY) trial, 1772 diabetic patients had multivessel disease with left anterior descending artery involvement and were managed by PCI (n=1349) or CABG (n=423). Propensity scoring was applied to adjust for differences in baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics, yielding a total of 326 matched patients (163 managed by PCI and 163 managed by CABG). At 30 days, treatment with PCI compared with CABG was associated with lower rates of major bleeding (15.3% versus 55.6%; P <0.0001), blood transfusions (9.2% versus 43.2%; P <0.0001), and acute kidney injury (13.4% versus 33.6%; P <0.0001), but more unplanned revascularization procedures (6.9% versus 1.9%; P =0.03). At 1 year PCI was associated with higher rates of repeat revascularization procedures (19.5% versus 5.2%; P =0.0001), with nonsignificantly different rates of myocardial infarction, stroke, and death at either 30 days or 1 year.

Conclusions—

In the large-scale ACUITY trial, diabetic patients with acute coronary syndrome and multivessel disease treated with PCI rather than CABG had less bleeding and acute kidney injury, greater need for repeat revascularization procedures, and comparable rates of myocardial infarction, stroke, and death through 1-year follow-up.

Clinical Trial Registration—

URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00093158.

Pulmonary embolism response teams

OPINION STATEMENT

Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a complex and multidimensional pathophysiology, the diagnosis and management of which spans multiple disciplines. The high morbidity and associated mortality of "massive" and "submassive" acute PE may require prompt, definitive management; however, current consensus guidelines in this domain are not supported by high-level evidence. Randomized clinical trials comparing available pharmacologic and invasive treatment modalities-including anticoagulation, thrombolysis, and embolectomy-have not been conducted and continue to be challenging to conceptualize, design, and execute. Consequently, time-sensitive therapeutic determinations are largely not standardized, and rendered on a case-by-case basis in part depending on institutional practices and expertises. Chronic sequelae of PE, such as chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension and right heart failure, are increasingly identified as conditions necessitating longitudinal specialty care. These and other challenges have created a niche for a multidisciplinary team which can respond rapidly to unstable patient scenarios, appropriately deploy resources, and offer highly specialized acute and chronic management of PE. The Massachusetts General Hospital Pulmonary Embolism Response Team (PERT), modeled after existing rapid response and collaborative care teams, is a novel approach that combines this clinical service with the development of an educational and research framework to advance the care of patients with PE.

What the cardiothoracic surgeon wants to know from the radiologist: from X-ray reporting to imaging consultancy and Heart Team membership

In the early days of cardiac surgery, the pretreatment multidisciplinary discussion involved a presentation of the case history and diagnostic imaging by the clinical cardiologist. At this time, most, if not all, cardiac imaging techniques were in the hands of the cardiologist. If the radiologist made a report, this was done relatively late in the clinical process and only concerned the perioperative radiographs. In recent years, multidisciplinary decision-making in the context of a Heart Team has gained an increasingly important role in the process of decision-making with regard to the available therapy options in individual patients. Nevertheless, the concept of the Heart Team is still evolving. The minimal requirements for the Heart Team include the presence of the attending cardiologist, an interventional cardiologist and a cardiac surgeon. Those members of the Heart Team should be aware of the local possibilities, should correctly make conclusions about the available data and should put this information into the clinical context and preference of the patient. In addition, in areas where expertise in cardiac imaging such as CT and MRI is relevant, this would explicitly require expertise of the Heart Team in these specific areas, most often by involving a radiologist, to provide the optimal joint treatment strategy recommendation.

Surgical ineligibility and mortality among patients with unprotected left main or multivessel coronary artery disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention

BACKGROUND

Decisions to proceed with surgical versus percutaneous revascularization for multivessel coronary artery disease are often based on subtle clinical information that may not be captured in contemporary registries. The present study sought to evaluate the association between surgical ineligibility documented in the medical record and long-term mortality among patients with unprotected left main or multivessel coronary artery disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

METHODS AND RESULTS

All subjects undergoing nonemergent percutaneous coronary intervention for unprotected left main or multivessel coronary artery disease were identified at 2 academic medical centers from 2009 to 2012. Documentation of surgical ineligibility was assessed through review of electronic medical records. Cox proportional hazard models adjusted for known mortality risk factors were created to assess long-term mortality in patients with and without documentation of surgical ineligibility. Among 1013 subjects with multivessel coronary artery disease, 218 (22%) were deemed ineligible for coronary artery bypass graft surgery. The most common explicitly cited reasons for surgical ineligibility in the medical record were poor surgical targets (24%), advanced age (16%), and renal insufficiency (16%). After adjustment for known risk factors, documentation of surgical ineligibility remained independently associated with an increased risk of in-hospital (odds ratio, 6.26; 95% confidence interval, 2.16-18.15; P<0.001) and long-term mortality (hazard ratio, 2.98; 95% confidence interval, 1.88-4.72, P<0.001) after percutaneous coronary intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Documented surgical ineligibility is common and associated with significantly increased long-term mortality among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with unprotected left main or multivessel coronary disease, even after adjustment for known risk factors for adverse events during percutaneous revascularization.

Outcomes for patients with the same disease treated inside and outside of randomized trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

It is unclear whether participation in a randomized controlled trial (RCT), irrespective of assigned treatment, is harmful or beneficial to participants. We compared outcomes for patients with the same diagnoses who did ("insiders") and did not ("outsiders") enter RCTs, without regard to the specific therapies received for their respective diagnoses.

METHODS

By searching the MEDLINE (1966-2010), Embase (1980-2010), CENTRAL (1960-2010) and PsycINFO (1880-2010) databases, we identified 147 studies that reported the health outcomes of "insiders" and a group of parallel or consecutive "outsiders" within the same time period. We prepared a narrative review and, as appropriate, meta-analyses of patients' outcomes.

RESULTS

We found no clinically or statistically significant differences in outcomes between "insiders" and "outsiders" in the 23 studies in which the experimental intervention was ineffective (standard mean difference in continuous outcomes -0.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.1 to 0.04) or in the 7 studies in which the experimental intervention was effective and was received by both "insiders" and "outsiders" (mean difference 0.04, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.13). However, in 9 studies in which an effective intervention was received only by "insiders," the "outsiders" experienced significantly worse health outcomes (mean difference -0.36, 95% CI -0.61 to -0.12).

INTERPRETATION

We found no evidence to support clinically important overall harm or benefit arising from participation in RCTs. This conclusion refutes earlier claims that trial participants are at increased risk of harm.

Revascularisation versus medical treatment in patients with stable coronary artery disease: network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether revascularisation improves prognosis compared with medical treatment among patients with stable coronary artery disease.

DESIGN

Bayesian network meta-analyses to combine direct within trial comparisons between treatments with indirect evidence from other trials while maintaining randomisation.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

A strategy of initial medical treatment compared with revascularisation by coronary artery bypass grafting or Food and Drug Administration approved techniques for percutaneous revascularization: balloon angioplasty, bare metal stent, early generation paclitaxel eluting stent, sirolimus eluting stent, and zotarolimus eluting (Endeavor) stent, and new generation everolimus eluting stent, and zotarolimus eluting (Resolute) stent among patients with stable coronary artery disease.

DATA SOURCES

Medline and Embase from 1980 to 2013 for randomised trials comparing medical treatment with revascularisation.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

All cause mortality.

RESULTS

100 trials in 93,553 patients with 262,090 patient years of follow-up were included. Coronary artery bypass grafting was associated with a survival benefit (rate ratio 0.80, 95% credibility interval 0.70 to 0.91) compared with medical treatment. New generation drug eluting stents (everolimus: 0.75, 0.59 to 0.96; zotarolimus (Resolute): 0.65, 0.42 to 1.00) but not balloon angioplasty (0.85, 0.68 to 1.04), bare metal stents (0.92, 0.79 to 1.05), or early generation drug eluting stents (paclitaxel: 0.92, 0.75 to 1.12; sirolimus: 0.91, 0.75 to 1.10; zotarolimus (Endeavor): 0.88, 0.69 to 1.10) were associated with improved survival compared with medical treatment. Coronary artery bypass grafting reduced the risk of myocardial infarction compared with medical treatment (0.79, 0.63 to 0.99), and everolimus eluting stents showed a trend towards a reduced risk of myocardial infarction (0.75, 0.55 to 1.01). The risk of subsequent revascularisation was noticeably reduced by coronary artery bypass grafting (0.16, 0.13 to 0.20) followed by new generation drug eluting stents (zotarolimus (Resolute): 0.26, 0.17 to 0.40; everolimus: 0.27, 0.21 to 0.35), early generation drug eluting stents (zotarolimus (Endeavor): 0.37, 0.28 to 0.50; sirolimus: 0.29, 0.24 to 0.36; paclitaxel: 0.44, 0.35 to 0.54), and bare metal stents (0.69, 0.59 to 0.81) compared with medical treatment.

CONCLUSION

Among patients with stable coronary artery disease, coronary artery bypass grafting reduces the risk of death, myocardial infarction, and subsequent revascularisation compared with medical treatment. All stent based coronary revascularisation technologies reduce the need for revascularisation to a variable degree. Our results provide evidence for improved survival with new generation drug eluting stents but no other percutaneous revascularisation technology compared with medical treatment.

The heart team approach to coronary revascularization--have we crossed the lines of evidence-based medicine?

Evidence-based medicine demands considerable time and decision-making skills to navigate through the proliferating data. A hierarchical "pyramid of evidence" has been formulated to help categorize data quality. The hierarchical data are processed into recommendations in Practice Guideline statements. Recently, both American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Society for Cardiac Angiography and Interventions and European Society of Cardiology guidelines for percutaneous coronary intervention embraced a new "heart team approach" as the preferred method to optimize revascularization decision making in cases of complex coronary anatomy. This extrapolation of a research method to the broad clinical practice has potential limitations. We suggest that both the need for a new method to optimize patient triage for the various revascularization strategies and the method to optimize decision making should be discussed. Published data suggest only minor deviations from guideline-based indications. Furthermore, traditional clinical judgment may result in a better patient outcome than arbitrary treatment assignment by rigid set of criteria. In conclusion, the need for a new decision-making process in the choice of revascularization strategy should be further explored and supported by scientific evidence.

Clinical trial participation improves outcome: a matched historical cohort study

BACKGROUND

Well-conducted, investigator-led randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for evaluating the efficacy of new treatments and are a key component of evidence-based medicine. It is unclear whether participating in an RCT is beneficial to the individual before the results of RCTs are known.

PURPOSE

In a matched historical cohort study, we examined whether participation in RCTs was associated with improved health outcomes.

METHODS

Participants in the Action in Diabetes and Vascular Disease: Preterax and Diamicron MR Controlled Evaluation (ADVANCE), Ongoing Telmisartan Alone and in Combination with Ramipril Global Endpoint Trial (ONTARGET), or Telmisartan Randomized Assessment Study in ACE-intolerant Subjects with Cardiovascular Disease (TRANSCEND) studies and non-participant controls were selected from patients attending outpatient clinics at Middlemore Hospital between 2001 and 2003.

RESULTS

A total of 251 RCT participants and 502 randomly selected patients not enrolled in a trial but who met study entry criteria were matched for age, gender, and ethnicity. There was a significant difference in all-cause mortality for trial participants versus non-participants over the study period (unadjusted relative risk reduction (RRR) = 63%; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 28%-81%) and a significant reduction in cardiovascular mortality (unadjusted RRR = 81%; 95% CI = 17%-95%) favouring RCT participants. Allowing for co-morbidity, the adjusted RRR of all-cause mortality associated with trial participation was 55% (95% CI = 10%-77%). Active treatment in an RCT was found to be less explanatory than trial participation. The adjusted RRR for cardiovascular mortality associated with active treatment in a trial was 86% (95% CI = -2% to 98%), with trial participation found to be less explanatory than active treatment.

LIMITATIONS

The main limitations of this trial relate to its design as a retrospective study with a historical cohort comparison group. Limitations include lack of complete data for some patients, bias in selection of the comparison group, and the effects of confounding variables. However, the study design and analysis were planned so as to minimize these as much as possible.

CONCLUSION

This study revealed significantly lower all-cause mortality among participants in industry-sponsored RCTs compared with non-participants who received routine hospital outpatient care. This effect was independent of study drug.

Change in enrollment patterns, patient selection, and clinical outcomes with the availability of drug-eluting stents in the Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation 2 Diabetes trial

BACKGROUND

In the BARI 2D trial, patients with type 2 diabetes and stable coronary artery disease were randomized to prompt revascularization versus intensive medical therapy (IMT). This analysis sought to evaluate how the availability of drug-eluting stents (DESs) has changed practice and outcomes.

METHODS

In BARI 2D, 1,605 patients were in the percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)-intended stratum. As DES became available midway through recruitment, we report clinical outcomes among patients who underwent IMT versus prompt PCI with bare-metal stents (BMSs) or DES up to 4 years.

RESULTS

In North America, after DES became available, selection for the PCI-intended stratum increased from 73% to 79% (P = .003). Fewer BMS than DES patients had total occlusions treated or underwent rotational atherectomy (5.6% vs 9.7%, P = .02, and 1.2% vs 3.7%, P < .01, respectively). Subsequent revascularization (IMT 39%, BMS 29%, DES 21%, P < .01) and target vessel revascularization (BMS 16.1% vs DES 9.6%, P = .03) were lower with DES. Angina at 2 years tended to be less common with DES (IMT 39%, BMS 37%, DES 29%, P = .04, for 3 groups, P = .07 for DES vs BMS). The composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke was IMT 16.0%, BMS 20.5%, DES 17.5%; P = .80.

CONCLUSIONS

When DES became available in North America, patients were more likely to be selected into the PCI-intended stratum. Compared with patients receiving BMS, those receiving DES tended to have less target vessel revascularization and angina.

Late proximal coronary artery stenosis complicating percutaneous endovascular catheterisation procedures

BACKGROUND

Late-onset proximal coronary artery stenosis caused by preceding percutaneous catheterisation procedures remains under-surveyed.

METHODS

From 1993, all patients undergoing percutaneous coronary procedures and a second session within 3 years were included except those ever treated by coronary bypass surgery or chest radiotherapy during this 3-year period. Emergence of a new lesion or worsening of an initially insignificant lesion to >50% of diameter stenosis at the never-treated ostial/proximal coronary segment on the follow-up angiogram was defined as late coronary stenosis caused by the previous catheterisation procedure and was analysed.

RESULTS

From January 1993 to December 2005, 3240 patients who underwent 5025 procedures met the inclusion criteria. Of them, 23 patients experienced an event of late coronary artery stenosis (overall incidence 0.46%), and interventional procedures, specifically shaped catheters (Voda, XB, Amplatz Left) and atherosclerosis vulnerability correlated with risks of adverse events. Most of these events could be managed by contemporary medical, interventional, or surgical strategies, yet hazards of mortality and long-term restenosis still existed from this catheter-induced complication.

CONCLUSIONS

Percutaneous catheterisation procedures could be complicated by late proximal coronary artery stenosis. Thus, when conducting these procedures, operators should select and manipulate catheters with caution, especially in patients with susceptible clinical characteristics.

CARBOHYDRATE METABOLISM DISORDERS AND CORONARY HEART DISEASE: PROGNOSTIC VALUE AND REVASCULARISATION EFFECTIVENESS

This literature review presents the data on the prevalence and prognostic value of carbohydrate metabolism disorders, such as Type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM) and pre-diabetes — fasting hyperglycaemia and impaired glucose tolerance), among patients with coronary heart disease (CHD). The authors present the results of large studies on comparative effectiveness of modern pharmacological treatment and myocardial revascularisation (percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass graft surgery) in patients with CHD and DM. 

Risk of stroke with percutaneous coronary intervention compared with on-pump and off-pump coronary artery bypass graft surgery: Evidence from a comprehensive network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Although some trials have reported that on-pump coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery may be associated with higher rates of stroke than percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), whether stroke is more common after off-pump CABG compared with PCI is unknown. We therefore sought to determine whether off-pump CABG is associated with an increased risk of stroke compared with PCI by means of network meta-analysis.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CABG vs PCI were searched through MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane databases, and proceedings of international meetings.

RESULTS

Eighty-three RCTs with 22,729 patients randomized to on-pump CABG (n = 10,957), off-pump CABG (n = 7,119), or PCI (n = 4,653) were analyzed. Thirty-day rates of stroke were significantly lower in patients treated with PCI compared with either off-pump CABG (odds ratio [OR]; 0.39, 95% CI, 0.19-0.83) or on-pump CABG (OR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.12-0.47). Compared with on-pump CABG, off-pump CABG was associated with significantly lower 30-day risk of stroke (OR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.41-0.95). However, in sensitivity analyses restricted to high-quality studies, studies with more than either 100 or 1,000 patients, or studies with protocol definition or adjudication of stroke by a clinical events committee, the precision of the point estimate for the 30-day risk of stroke between off-pump vs on-pump CABG was markedly reduced.

CONCLUSIONS

Percutaneous coronary intervention is associated with lower 30-day rates of stroke than both off-pump and on-pump CABG. Further studies are required to determine whether the risk of stroke is reduced with off-pump CABG compared with on-pump CABG.

The rationale for Heart Team decision-making for patients with stable, complex coronary artery disease

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 complex coronary artery disease. In addition, other aspects of Heart Team decision-making are discussed: the organization and logistics, involvement of physicians, patients, and assisting personnel, the need for validation, and its limitations.

Clinical evidence versus patients' perception of coronary revascularization

Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have been developed as revascularization techniques for coronary artery disease. CABG offers a survival advantage over medical therapy, especially for high-risk coronary patients, whereas PCI is the most frequent initial procedure to treat multi-vessel coronary artery disease, because it is less invasive. However, PCI has been found to confer no additional benefit with respect to myocardial infarction (MI) or death. The SYNTAX trial compared the outcomes of patients with left main and/or three-vessel coronary artery disease treated with CABG versus PCI using drug-eluting stents. The 4-year results showed that all-cause mortality and cardiac death were both significantly higher in the PCI group than in the CABG group. Despite extensive evidence of the advantages of CABG over PCI with respect to death or MI, PCI is recommended more often and CABG less often than indicated in the guidelines. Patients with coronary artery disease should receive unbiased information about the risks and benefits of each procedure and the alternatives. A multidisciplinary approach, referred to as "the Heart Team", could help to improve the informed consent process when recommending revascularization treatment for coronary artery disease.