Battistina Castiglioni

Survival Benefits of Invasive Versus Conservative Strategies in Heart Failure in Patients With Reduced Ejection Fraction and Coronary Artery Disease: A Meta-Analysis.

Background— Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction caused by ischemic heart disease is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. It remains unclear whether revascularization by either coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) carries benefits or risks in this group of stable patients compared with medical treatment. Methods and Results— We performed a meta-analysis of available studies comparing different methods of revascularization (PCI or CABG) against each other or medical treatment in patients with coronary artery disease and left ventricular ejection fraction ⩽40%. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality; myocardial infarction, revascularization, and stroke were also analyzed. Twenty-one studies involving a total of 16 191 patients were included. Compared with medical treatment, there was a significant mortality reduction with CABG (hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.61–0.72; P<0.001) and PCI (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.62–0.85; P<0.001). When compared with PCI, CABG still showed a survival benefit (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.75–0.90; P<0.001). Conclusions— The present meta-analysis indicates that revascularization strategies are superior to medical treatment in improving survival in patients with ischemic heart disease and reduced ejection fraction. Between the 2 revascularization strategies, CABG seems more favorable compared with PCI in this particular clinical setting.

Intracoronary ST segment evolution during primary coronary stenting predicts infarct zone recovery.

In patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI), early ST segment elevation resolution on ECG predicts myocardial reperfusion and LV recovery. Intracoronary ECG is more sensitive than surface ECG to detect regional ischemia. In patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), we investigated if failed myocardial reperfusion, despite successful infarct vessel recanalization, could be rapidly and easily identified by intracoronary ST segment monitoring from guidewire recording. We recorded intracoronary and standard ECG during primary coronary stenting (PCI) in 50 patients with AMI (59 ± 11 years; anterior AMI in 66%). All patients had a successful PCI and underwent 2D echocardiography soon after PCI and 6 months later. Following PCI, intracoronary ST resolution ≥ 50% from baseline was documented in 39 patients (78%; group A; from 11 ± 8 to 1 ± 2 mm) but not in 11 (22%; group B; from 11 ± 8 to 8 ± 5 mm). Group A had slightly shorter ischemic time (202 ± 94 vs. 238 ± 112 min in B; P = 0.2) and smaller peak CK values (2,752 ± 2,038 vs. 4,802 ± 3,671 U/L in B; P = 0.02). After PCI, ST resolution was found on standard ECG in 34 (87%) group A and in 3 (27%) group B patients. At 6‐month follow‐up, left ventricular ejection fraction was greater in group A (47% ± 8% vs. 39% ± 8% in B; P < 0.001) with improved wall motion score index (from 2.2 ± 0.3 to 1.7 ± 0.3 in A; from 2.3 ± 0.4 to 2.1 ± 0.4 in B; P < 0.001). There were no significant differences between intracoronary and standard ECG for sensitivity (92% vs. 86%) and specificity (62% vs. 57%) to predict improved infarct zone recovery after 6 months. ST elevation resolution on intracoronary recording during PCI predicts infarct zone recovery. Monitoring ST segment evolution by intracoronary ECG allows prompt and inexpensive identification in the catheterization laboratory of those patients without myocardial reperfusion, who may require adjunctive therapeutic interventions after successful infarct vessel recanalization. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 2005;64:53–60.

Stent coronarico e chirurgia: la gestione perioperatoria della terapia antiaggregante nel paziente portatore di stent coronarico candidato a intervento chirurgico

Abstract The management of antiplatelet therapy in patients with coronary stents undergoing surgery is a growing clinical problem and often represents a matter of debate between cardiologists and surgeons. It has been estimated that about 4-8% of patients undergoing coronary stenting need to undergo surgery within the next year. Surgery represents one of the most common reasons for premature antiplatelet therapy discontinuation, which is associated with a significant increase in mortality and major adverse cardiac events, in particular stent thrombosis. In addition, surgery confers an additional risk of perioperative cardiac ischemic events, being high in these patients because of the pro-inflammatory and pro-thrombotic effects of surgery. Current international guidelines recommend to postpone non-urgent surgery for at least 6 weeks after bare metal stent implantation and for 6-12 months after drug-eluting stent implantation. However, these recommendations provide little support with regard to managing antiplatelet therapy in the perioperative phase in case of urgent operations and/or high hemorrhagic risk. Furthermore, ischemic and hemorrhagic risk is not defined in detail on the basis of clinical and procedural characteristics. Finally, guidelines shared with cardiologists and surgeons are lacking. The present consensus document provides practical recommendations on the management of antiplatelet therapy in the perioperative period in patients with coronary stents undergoing surgery. Cardiologists and surgeons contributed equally to its creation. An ischemic risk stratification has been provided on the basis of clinical and procedural data. All surgical interventions have been defined on the basis of the hemorrhagic risk. A consensus on the most appropriate antiplatelet regimen in the perioperative phase has been reached on the basis of the ischemic and hemorrhagic risk. Dual antiplatelet therapy should not be withdrawn for surgery at low bleeding risk, whereas aspirin should be continued perioperatively in the majority of surgical operations. In the event of interventions at high risk for both bleeding and ischemic events, when oral antiplatelet therapy withdrawal is required, perioperative treatment with short-acting intravenous glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (tirofiban or eptifibatide) should be considered.The management of antiplatelet therapy in patients with coronary stents undergoing surgery is a growing clinical problem and often represents a matter of debate between cardiologists and surgeons. It has been estimated that about 4-8% of patients undergoing coronary stenting need to undergo surgery within the next year. Surgery represents one of the most common reasons for premature antiplatelet therapy discontinuation, which is associated with a significant increase in mortality and major adverse cardiac events, in particular stent thrombosis. In addition, surgery confers an additional risk of perioperative cardiac ischemic events, being high in these patients because of the pro-inflammatory and pro-thrombotic effects of surgery. Current international guidelines recommend to postpone non-urgent surgery for at least 6 weeks after bare metal stent implantation and for 6-12 months after drug-eluting stent implantation. However, these recommendations provide little support with regard to managing antiplatelet therapy in the perioperative phase in case of urgent operations and/or high hemorrhagic risk. Furthermore, ischemic and hemorrhagic risk is not defined in detail on the basis of clinical and procedural characteristics. Finally, guidelines shared with cardiologists and surgeons are lacking. The present consensus document provides practical recommendations on the management of antiplatelet therapy in the perioperative period in patients with coronary stents undergoing surgery. Cardiologists and surgeons contributed equally to its creation. An ischemic risk stratification has been provided on the basis of clinical and procedural data. All surgical interventions have been defined on the basis of the hemorrhagic risk. A consensus on the most appropriate antiplatelet regimen in the perioperative phase has been reached on the basis of the ischemic and hemorrhagic risk. Dual antiplatelet therapy should not be withdrawn for surgery at low bleeding risk, whereas aspirin should be continued perioperatively in the majority of surgical operations. In the event of interventions at high risk for both bleeding and ischemic events, when oral antiplatelet therapy withdrawal is required, perioperative treatment with short-acting intravenous glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (tirofiban or eptifibatide) should be considered.

LombardIMA: A regional registry for coronary angioplasty in ST-elevation myocardial infarction

Background Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has been shown to be the best reperfusion therapy for acute myocardial infarction with ST-elevation (STEMI), but data from registries show differences in patient populations and outcomes between randomized trials and real life. Objectives We sought to provide information about the current status of this treatment with a registry collecting data in Lombardy, the most densely populated region in Italy, with widespread availability of cathlabs and a well-established network for the treatment of STEMI. Methods and results Patient enrolment was performed by 32 hub centres recruiting 3901 STEMI patients who underwent PCI procedures within 12 h of the onset of symptoms, of whom 3317 patients underwent primary PCI, 376 ‘facilitated’ PCI, and 208 rescue PCI in cathlabs located, in 77% of cases, in the same hospital of admission. In-hospital and 30-day total death were 4.4 and 6.6%, respectively. At multivariate analysis independent negative predictors of 30-day mortality were Killip class 3–4, number of involved ECG leads, chronic renal failure and age, whereas positive predictors were ST resolution more than 50% and postprocedural grade 3 thrombolysis in myocardial infarction flow. Conclusions LombardIMA PCI registry enrolled STEMI patients representing a real-world population treated with PCI. Findings presented in this study may provide a benchmark for similar registries undertaken in other Italian regions and may be helpful to assess future possible developments of care for STEMI patients.

Defining high-risk patients with ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention: a comparison among different scoring systems and clinical definitions.

BACKGROUND Identification of high-risk patients with ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction (STEMI) is of the utmost importance for adequate patient stratification and evaluation of additive treatments. However, there is no consensus on the optimal definition of high-risk patients. METHODS We therefore compared 5 scoring systems in the assessment of the risk of 30-day mortality in 3214 patients with STEMI treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). RESULTS Clinical scores showed a large variability in risk stratifying patients. Identification of high-risk patients ranged from 15% (PAMI score ≥ 9) to 66% (McNamara definition). McNamara, Antoniucci and Brodie definitions had the best sensitivity (0.87-0.88 and 95% confidence intervals (CI) ranging from 0.82-0.93) while PAMI ≥ 9 had the best specificity (0.87 with 95% CI of 0.86-0.88), while its sensitivity was quite low (0.42). In a sample size simulation of a trial aimed at demonstrating a 33% difference in 30-day mortality between two hypothetical treatments, the number of STEMI patients needed to be screened varied from 4712 for the Brodie definition to 9038 for the PAMI ≥ 9 score. CONCLUSIONS There is a large variability in risk stratification, sensitivity, specificity and predictive values among different scoring systems. These considerations should be taken into account when designing randomised trials.