Long-Term Clinical Outcomes Following Revascularization in High-Risk Coronary Anatomy Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease

Deferred Versus Performed Revascularization for Left Main Coronary Disease With Hemodynamic Significance

BACKGROUND

The majority of randomized controlled trials of revascularization decision-making excludes left main coronary artery disease (LMD). Therefore, contemporary clinical outcomes of patients with stable coronary artery disease and LMD with proven ischemia remain poorly understood. The aim of this study was to assess the long-term clinical outcomes of physiologically significant LMD according to the treatment strategies of revascularization versus revascularization deferral.

METHODS

In this international multicenter registry of stable LMD interrogated with the instantaneous wave-free ratio, patients with physiologically significant ischemia (instantaneous wave-free ratio ≤0.89) were analyzed according to the coronary revascularization (n=151) versus revascularization deferral (n=74). Propensity score matching was performed to adjust for baseline clinical characteristics. The primary end point was a composite of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization of left main stem. The secondary end points were as follows: cardiac death or spontaneous LMD-related myocardial infarction; and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization of left main stem.

RESULTS

At a median follow-up period of 2.8 years, the primary end point occurred in 11 patients (14.9%) in the revascularized group and 21 patients (28.4%) in the deferred group (hazard ratio, 0.42 [95% CI, 0.20-0.89]; P=0.023). For the secondary end points, cardiac death or LMD-related myocardial infarction occurred significantly less frequently in the revascularized group (0.0% versus 8.1%; P=0.004). The rate of ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization of left main stem was also significantly lower in the revascularized group (5.4% versus 17.6%; hazard ratio, 0.20 [95% CI, 0.056-0.70]; P=0.012).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients who underwent revascularization for stable coronary artery disease and physiologically significant LMD determined by instantaneous wave-free ratio, the long-term clinical outcomes were significantly improved as compared with those in whom revascularization was deferred.

Evolving concepts of the vulnerable atherosclerotic plaque and the vulnerable patient: implications for patient care and future research

Understanding the natural history of coronary artery atherosclerosis is necessary to determine prognosis and prescribe effective therapies. Traditional management of coronary artery disease has focused on the treatment of flow-limiting anatomical obstructions that lead to ischaemia. In most scenarios, revascularization of these atherosclerotic plaques has not substantially improved freedom from death or myocardial infarction, questioning the utility of contemporary revascularization strategies to improve prognosis. Advances in non-invasive and invasive imaging techniques have helped to identify the characteristics of obstructive and non-obstructive plaques that are precursors for plaque progression and future acute coronary syndromes as well as cardiac death. These 'vulnerable plaques' develop as a consequence of systemic inflammation and are prone to inducing thrombosis. Vulnerable plaques most commonly have a large plaque burden with a well-formed necrotic core and thin fibrous cap and are metabolically active. Perivascular adipose tissue might, in some patients, be used as a surrogate for coronary inflammation and predict future risk of adverse cardiac events. Vulnerable plaques can be identified in their quiescent state, offering the potential for therapeutic passivation. In this Review, we describe the biological and compositional features of vulnerable plaques, the non-invasive and invasive diagnostic modalities to characterize vulnerable plaques, the prognostic utility of identifying vulnerable plaques, and the future studies needed to explore the value of intensified pharmacological and focal treatments of vulnerable plaques.

Clinical outcomes of subcutaneous vs. transvenous implantable defibrillator therapy in a polymorbid patient cohort

Background

The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) has been designed to overcome lead-related complications and device endocarditis. Lacking the ability for pacing or resynchronization therapy its usage is limited to selected patients at risk for sudden cardiac death (SCD).

Objective

The aim of this single-center study was to assess clinical outcomes of S-ICD and single-chamber transvenous (TV)-ICD in an all-comers population.

Methods

The study cohort comprised a total of 119 ICD patients who underwent either S-ICD (n = 35) or TV-ICD (n = 84) implantation at the University Hospital Frankfurt from 2009 to 2017. By applying an inverse probability-weighting (IPW) analysis based on the propensity score including the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) to adjust for potential extracardiac comorbidities, we aimed for head-to-head comparison on the study composite endpoint: overall survival, hospitalization, and device-associated events (including appropriate and inappropriate shocks or system-related complications).

Results

The median age of the study population was 66.0 years, 22.7% of the patients were female. The underlying heart disease was ischemic cardiomyopathy (61.4%) with a median LVEF of 30%. Only 52.9% had received an ICD for primary prevention, most of the patients (67.3%) had advanced heart failure (NYHA class II–III) and 16.8% were in atrial fibrillation. CCI was 5 points in TV-ICD patients vs. 4 points for patients with S-ICD (p = 0.209) indicating increased morbidity. The composite endpoint occurred in 38 patients (31.9 %), revealing no significant difference between patients implanted with an S-ICD or TV-ICD (unweighted HR 1.50, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.78–2.90; p = 0.229, weighted HR 0.94, 95% CI, 0.61–1.50, p = 0.777). Furthermore, we observed no difference in any single clinical endpoint or device-associated outcome, neither in the unweighted cohort nor following inverse probability-weighting.

Conclusion

Clinical outcomes of the S-ICD and TV-ICD revealed no differences in the composite endpoint including survival, freedom of hospitalization and device-associated events, even after careful adjustment for potential confounders. Moreover, the CCI was evaluated in a S-ICD cohort demonstrating higher survival rates than predicted by the CCI in young, polymorbid (S-)ICD patients.

[Coronary revascularization: Interventional therapy or coronary bypass surgery]

Coronary artery disease remains the leading cause of death and is responsible for myocardial infarction, heart failure and angina. Therapy combines optimal control of cardiovascular risk factors with coronary revascularization performed by interventional therapy or bypass surgery. While interventional therapy is preferred for single or two vessel disease, interdisciplinary heart team decision should be reached for complex lesion, three vessel or left main disease. Both revascularization strategies perform similar for low level complexity three vessel or left main disease while coronary bypass surgery proved superior for more complex coronary artery disease. Heart team decision should be based on vascular anatomy and expected revascularization success under consideration of operative risk and patient preference.

Influence of study discontinuation during the run-in period on the estimated efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan in the PARAGON-HF trial

AIMS

The 4822 patients randomized in the PARAGON-HF trial were a subset of 5746 initially eligible patients who entered sequential run-in periods. We identified patient factors associated with study discontinuation during the run-in period and estimated the implications of these discontinuations for the overall study result.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We utilized multivariable logistic regression models to identify patient factors associated with study discontinuation during the run-in period. The efficacy of sacubitril/valsartan in a broader cohort approximating the full run-in population was estimated by weighting randomized patients according to the inverse probability of run-in completion. A total of 924 (16.1%) subjects failed to complete the run-in period. In multivariable models, non-completion was associated with region other than Central Europe, lower systolic blood pressure, lower serum sodium, lower haemoglobin, lower estimated glomerular filtration rate, higher N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide, higher New York Heart Association functional class, prior heart failure (HF) hospitalization, and lack of prior use of renin-angiotensin system inhibitors or beta-blocker. In repeat analysis of the effect of randomized treatment in PARAGON-HF giving greater weight to participants resembling those who failed to complete the run-in period, the incidence of HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular death was higher, and sacubitril/valsartan treatment reduced the composite of total HF hospitalizations and cardiovascular death compared with valsartan (rate ratio 0.86; 95% confidence interval 0.74-1.00).

CONCLUSION

Patients with more advanced HF were at higher risk for non-completion of the run-in period in PARAGON-HF. Re-analysis of study outcomes accounting for the effect of run-in non-completion did not alter the estimated treatment effects of sacubitril/valsartan vs. valsartan.

2020: Entwicklungen in der kardialen Computertomographie

Die Entwicklung der kardialen Computertomographie (CT) im Jahr 2020 war durch 3 dominante Schwerpunkte im Bereich der koronaren Bildgebung gekennzeichnet: 1) die prognostische Bedeutung der Plaquebildung, 2) die Möglichkeit ihrer volumetrischen Quantifizierung und 3) den Bedeutungsgewinn in den Leitlinien, verstärkt durch die zunehmende Anwendung in der Therapie von strukturellen Herzerkrankungen. Die Veröffentlichung der Ergebnisse von ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches) hat den Blick auf die anatomische Charakterisierung der koronaren Herzkrankheit gelenkt, die Visualisierung der koronaren Plaquebildung. Nicht zuletzt als Ergebnis von „machine learning“/künstlicher Intelligenz hat sich die Möglichkeit herauskristallisiert, die koronare Plaquebildung automatisiert und volumetrisch zu erfassen. Diese beiden Entwicklungen haben die Frage nach der prognostischen Dominanz des Ischämienachweises aufgeworfen, der sekundär aus der Plaquebildung resultiert. Auch hat sich das Verständnis der Pathophysiologie der koronaren Herzerkrankung verändert: Die Ausprägung des (nicht verkalkten) Plaquevolumens, seine Lokalisierung und Dynamik scheinen als Merkmale der Vulnerabilität im Vergleich zur Fokussierung auf ein großes Atherom oder expansives Remodeling einzelner Plaques bedeutsamer zu sein. In den Leitlinien ist die koronare CT-Angiographie (CTA) sowohl bei den akuten Koronarsyndromen ohne ST-Hebung als auch den chronischen Koronarsyndromen an die erste Stelle gerückt – gleichberechtigt mit den klassischen bildgebenden Ischämietests. Unabhängig davon gewinnt die kardiale CT zunehmend an Bedeutung für die Therapieplanung von Vitien (insbesondere der Aorten- und Trikuspidalklappe), aber auch anderer struktureller Herzerkrankungen (z. B. Verschluss des linken Vorhofohrs, LAA).

Long-Term Clinical Outcomes Following Revascularization in High-Risk Coronary Anatomy Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease

Background The ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches) trial failed to show a reduction in hard clinical end points with an early invasive strategy in stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD). However, the influence of left main disease and high-risk coronary anatomy was left unaddressed. In a large angiographic disease-based registry, we examined the modulating effect of revascularization on long-term outcomes in anatomically high-risk SIHD. Methods and Results 9016 patients with SIHD with high-risk coronary anatomy (3 vessel disease with ≥70% stenosis in all 3 epicardial vessels or left main disease ≥50% stenosis [isolated or in combination with other disease]) were selected for study from April 1, 2002 to March 31, 2016. The primary composite of all-cause death or myocardial infarction (MI) was compared between revascularization versus conservative management. A total of 5487 (61.0%) patients received revascularization with either coronary artery bypass graft surgery (n=3312) or percutaneous coronary intervention (n=2175), while 3529 (39.0%) patients were managed conservatively. Selection for coronary revascularization was associated with improved all-cause death/MI as well as longer survival compared with selection for conservative management (Inverse Probability Weighted hazard ratio [IPW-HR] 0.62; 95% CI 0.58 to 0.66; P<0.001; IPW-HR 0.57; 95% CI 0.53-0.61; P<0.001, respectively). Similar risk reduction was noted with percutaneous coronary intervention (IPW-HR 0.64, 95% CI 0.59-0.70, P<0.001) and coronary artery bypass graft surgery (IPW-HR 0.61; 95% CI 0.57-0.66; P<0.001). Conclusions Revascularization in patients with SIHD with high-risk coronary anatomy was associated with improved long-term outcome compared with conservative therapy. As such, coronary anatomical profile should be considered when contemplating treatment for SIHD.