Claudio Moretti

Radial Versus Femoral Randomized Investigation in ST-Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome The RIFLE-STEACS (Radial Versus Femoral Randomized Investigation in ST-Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome) Study

OBJECTIVES The purpose of this study was to assess whether transradial access for ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome undergoing early invasive treatment is associated with better outcome compared with conventional transfemoral access. BACKGROUND In patients with acute coronary syndrome, bleeding is a significant predictor of worse outcome. Access site complications represent a significant source of bleeding for those patients undergoing revascularization, especially when femoral access is used. METHODS The RIFLE-STEACS (Radial Versus Femoral Randomized Investigation in ST-Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome) was a multicenter, randomized, parallel-group study. Between January 2009 and July 2011, 1,001 acute ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome patients undergoing primary/rescue percutaneous coronary intervention were randomized to the radial (500) or femoral (501) approach at 4 high-volume centers. The primary endpoint was the 30-day rate of net adverse clinical events (NACEs), defined as a composite of cardiac death, stroke, myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization, and bleeding). Individual components of NACEs and length of hospital stay were secondary endpoints. RESULTS The primary endpoint of 30-day NACEs occurred in 68 patients (13.6%) in the radial arm and 105 patients (21.0%) in the femoral arm (p = 0.003). In particular, compared with femoral, radial access was associated with significantly lower rates of cardiac mortality (5.2% vs. 9.2%, p = 0.020), bleeding (7.8% vs. 12.2%, p = 0.026), and shorter hospital stay (5 days first to third quartile range, 4 to 7 days] vs. 6 [range, 5 to 8 days]; p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS Radial access in patients with ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome is associated with significant clinical benefits, in terms of both lower morbidity and cardiac mortality. Thus, it should become the recommended approach in these patients, provided adequate operator and center expertise is present. (Radial Versus Femoral Investigation in ST Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome [RIFLE-STEACS]; NCT01420614).

Radial Versus Femoral Randomized Investigation in ST Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome: the RIFLE STEACS Study

OBJECTIVES The purpose of this study was to assess whether transradial access for ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome undergoing early invasive treatment is associated with better outcome compared with conventional transfemoral access. BACKGROUND In patients with acute coronary syndrome, bleeding is a significant predictor of worse outcome. Access site complications represent a significant source of bleeding for those patients undergoing revascularization, especially when femoral access is used. METHODS The RIFLE-STEACS (Radial Versus Femoral Randomized Investigation in ST-Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome) was a multicenter, randomized, parallel-group study. Between January 2009 and July 2011, 1,001 acute ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome patients undergoing primary/rescue percutaneous coronary intervention were randomized to the radial (500) or femoral (501) approach at 4 high-volume centers. The primary endpoint was the 30-day rate of net adverse clinical events (NACEs), defined as a composite of cardiac death, stroke, myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization, and bleeding). Individual components of NACEs and length of hospital stay were secondary endpoints. RESULTS The primary endpoint of 30-day NACEs occurred in 68 patients (13.6%) in the radial arm and 105 patients (21.0%) in the femoral arm (p = 0.003). In particular, compared with femoral, radial access was associated with significantly lower rates of cardiac mortality (5.2% vs. 9.2%, p = 0.020), bleeding (7.8% vs. 12.2%, p = 0.026), and shorter hospital stay (5 days first to third quartile range, 4 to 7 days] vs. 6 [range, 5 to 8 days]; p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS Radial access in patients with ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome is associated with significant clinical benefits, in terms of both lower morbidity and cardiac mortality. Thus, it should become the recommended approach in these patients, provided adequate operator and center expertise is present. (Radial Versus Femoral Investigation in ST Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome [RIFLE-STEACS]; NCT01420614).

Favorable Long-Term Outcome After Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation in Nonbifurcation Lesions That Involve Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery A Multicenter Registry

Background— The presence of a lumen narrowing at the ostium and the body of an unprotected left main coronary artery but does not require bifurcation treatment is a class I indication of surgical revascularization. Methods and Results— A total of 147 consecutive patients who had a stenosis in the ostium and/or the midshaft of an unprotected left main coronary artery (treatment of the bifurcation not required) and were electively treated with percutaneous coronary intervention and sirolimus-eluting stents (n=107) or paclitaxel-eluting stents (n=40) in 5 centres were included in this registry. In 72 patients (almost 50%), intravascular ultrasound guidance was performed. Procedural success was achieved in 99% of the patients; in 1 patient with stenosis in the left main coronary artery ostium, a >30% residual stenosis persisted at the end of the procedure, and the patient was referred for coronary artery bypass graft surgery. During hospitalization, no patients experienced a Q-wave myocardial infarction or died. One patient died 19 days after the procedure because of pulmonary infection. At long-term clinical follow-up (886±308 days), 5 patients had died; 7 patients had target vessel revascularization (5 repeat percutaneous coronary interventions and 2 coronary artery bypass graft surgeries), and of these only 1 patient had a target lesion revascularization. Angiographic follow-up was performed in 106 patients (72%) with a late loss of −0.01 mm. Restenosis in the left main trunk occurred only in 1 patient (0.9%). Conclusions— Percutaneous coronary intervention with sirolimus-eluting stents or paclitaxel-eluting stents implantation in nonbifurcation left main coronary artery lesions appears safe with a long-term major adverse clinical event rate of 7.4% and a restenosis rate of 0.9%.

A collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis on 1278 patients undergoing percutaneous drug-eluting stenting for unprotected left main coronary artery disease ☆

BACKGROUND Cardiac surgery is the standard treatment for unprotected left main disease (ULM). Drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation has been recently reported in patients with ULM but with unclear results. We systematically reviewed outcomes of percutaneous DES implantation in ULM. METHODS Several databases were searched for clinical studies reporting on > or = 20 patients and > or = 6-month follow-up. The primary end point was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs; ie, death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization [TVR]) at the longest follow-up. Incidence and adjusted risk estimates were pooled with generic inverse variance random-effect methods (95% CIs). RESULTS From 823 initial citations, 16 studies were included (1278 patients, median follow-up 10 months). Eight were uncontrolled registries, 5 nonrandomized comparisons between DES and bare-metal stents and 3 nonrandomized comparisons between DES and CABG, with no properly randomized trial. Meta-analysis for DES-based PCI showed, at the longest follow-up, rates of 16.5% (11.7%-21.3%) MACE, 5.5% (3.4%-7.7%) death, and 6.5% (3.7%-9.2%) TVR. Comparison of DES versus bare-metal stent disclosed adjusted odds ratios for MACE of 0.34 (0.16-0.71), and DES versus CABG showed adjusted odds ratios for MACE plus stroke of 0.46 (0.24-0.90). Meta-regression showed that disease location predicted MACE (P = .001) and TVR (P = .020), whereas high-risk features predicted death (P = .027). CONCLUSIONS Clinical studies report apparently favorable early and midterm results in selected patients with ULM. However, given their limitations in validity and the inherent risk for DES thrombosis, results from randomized trials are still needed to definitely establish the role of DES implantation instead of the reference treatment, surgery.

Longest available clinical outcomes after drug-eluting stent implantation for unprotected left main coronary artery disease: the DELFT (Drug Eluting stent for LeFT main) Registry.

OBJECTIVES The purpose of this study was to investigate the long-term safety and efficacy of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation for unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) disease. BACKGROUND Long-term clinical outcomes after DES implantation for ULMCA disease have not yet been ascertained. METHODS From April 2002 to April 2004, 358 consecutive patients who underwent PCI with DES implantation for de novo lesions on ULMCA were retrospectively selected and analyzed in 7 European and U.S. tertiary care centers. No patients were excluded from the analysis, and all patients had a minimum follow-up of 3 years. RESULTS Technical success rate was 100%. Procedural success rate was 89.6%. After 3 years, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE)-free survival in the whole population was 73.5%. According to the Academic Research Consortium definitions, cardiac death occurred in 9.2% of patients, and reinfarction, target lesion revascularization (TLR), and target vessel revascularization (TVR) occurred in 8.6%, 5.8%, and 14.2% of patients, respectively. Definite stent thrombosis occurred in 2 patients (specifically at 0 and 439 days). In elective patients, the 3-year MACE-free survival was 74.2%, with mortality, reinfarction, TLR, and TVR rates of 6.2%, 8.3%, 6.6%, and 16%, respectively. In the emergent group the 3-year MACE-free survival was 68.2%, with mortality, reinfarction, TLR, and TVR rates of 21.4%, 10%, 2.8%, and 7.1%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS Routine DES implantation in ULMCA disease seems encouraging, with favorable long-term clinical results.

Late and very late stent thrombosis following drug-eluting stent implantation in unprotected left main coronary artery: a multicentre registry

AIMS To evaluate the occurrence of late and very late stent thrombosis (ST) following elective drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation in unprotected left main coronary artery (LMCA) stenosis in a large multicentre registry. METHODS AND RESULTS All 731 consecutive patients who had sirolimus- or paclitaxel-eluting stent electively implanted in de novo lesions on unprotected LMCA in five centres were included. ST was defined according to Academic Research Consortium definitions. Four (0.5%) patients had a definite ST: three early (two acute and one subacute) and one late ST, no cases of very late definite ST were recorded. All patients survived from the event. Three patients had a probable ST. Therefore, 7/731 (0.95%) patients had a definite or a probable ST and all were on dual antiplatelet therapy at the time of the event. Possible (eight late and 12 very late) ST occurred in 20 (2.7%) patients. At 29.5 ± 13.7 months follow-up, a total of 45 (6.2%) patients had died; 31 (4.2%) of cardiac death. Ninety five (12.9%) patients had a target-vessel and 76 (10.4%) a target-lesion revascularization. Angiographic follow-up was performed in 548 patients (75%): restenosis occurred in 77 (14.1%) patients. CONCLUSION Elective treatment of LMCA stenosis with DES appears safe with a 0.9% incidence of definite and probable ST at 29.5 ± 13.7 months.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials appraising the impact of cilostazol after percutaneous coronary intervention

BACKGROUND Drug-eluting stents reduce the risk of restenosis after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) but may pose a risk of thrombosis. Cilostazol, an oral antiplatelet agent with pleiotropic effects including inhibition of neointimal hyperplasia, could hold the promise of preventing both restenosis and thrombosis. We systematically reviewed randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on the angiographic and clinical impact of cilostazol after PCI. METHODS We searched RCT in BioMedCentral, CENTRAL, clinicaltrials.gov, EMBASE, and PubMed (November 2007). Coprimary end points were binary angiographic restenosis and repeat revascularization, abstracted and pooled by means of random-effect relative risks (RRs). Small study/publication bias was appraised with multiple methods. RESULTS A total of 23 RCTs were included (5428 patients), with median follow-up of 6 months. Pooled analysis showed that cilostazol was associated with statistically significant reductions in binary angiographic restenosis (RR = 0.60 [0.49-0.73], P < .001) and repeat revascularization (RR = 0.69 [0.55-0.86], P = .001). Cilostazol appeared also safe, with no significant increase in the risk of stent thrombosis (RR = 1.35 [0.71-2.57], P = .36) or bleeding (RR = 0.71 [0.43-1.16], P = .17). However, small study bias was evident for both binary restenosis (P < .001) and repeat revascularization (P < .001), suggesting that at least part of the apparent benefits of cilostazol could be due to this type of confounding effect. CONCLUSIONS Cilostazol appears effective and safe in reducing the risk of restenosis and repeat revascularization after PCI, but available evidence is limited by small study effects. Awaiting larger RCTs, this inexpensive treatment can be envisaged in selected patients in which drug-eluting stents are contraindicated or when there is a need for neointimal hyperplasia inhibition.

TIMI, GRACE and alternative risk scores in Acute Coronary Syndromes: A meta-analysis of 40 derivation studies on 216,552 patients and of 42 validation studies on 31,625 patients.

BACKGROUND Acute coronary syndromes (ACS) represent a difficult challenge for physicians. Risk scores have become the cornerstone in clinical and interventional decision making. METHODS AND RESULTS PubMed was systematically searched for ACS risk score studies. They were divided into ACS studies (evaluating Unstable Angina; UA, Non ST Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction; NSTEMI, and ST Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction; STEMI), UA/NSTEMI studies or STEMI studies. The c-statistics of validation studies were pooled when appropriate with random-effect methods. 7 derivation studies with 25,525 ACS patients and 15 validation studies including 257,654 people were formally appraised. Pooled analysis of GRACE scores, both at short (0.82; 0.80-0.89 I.C 95%) and long term follow up (0.84; 0.82-0.87; I.C 95%) showed the best performance, with similar results to Simple Risk Index (SRI) derivation cohorts at short term. For NSTEMI/UA, 18 derivation studies with 56,560 patients and 18 validation cohorts with 56,673 patients were included. Pooled analysis of validations studies showed c-statistics of 0.54 (95% CI = 0.52-0.57) and 0.67 (95% CI = 0.62-0.71) for short and long term TIMI validation studies, and 0.83 (95% CI = 0.79-9.87) and 0.80 (95% CI = 0.74-0.89) for short and long term GRACE studies. For STEMI, 15 studies with 134,557 patients with derivation scores, and 17 validation studies with 187,619 patients showed a pooled c-statistic of 0.77 (95% CI = 0.71-0.83) and 0.77 (95% CI = 0.72-0.85) for TIMI at short and long term, and a pooled c-statistic of 0.82 (95% CI = 0.81-0.83) and 0.81 (95% CI = 0.80-0.82) for GRACE at short and long terms respectively. CONCLUSIONS TIMI and GRACE are the risk scores that up until now have been most extensively investigated, with GRACE performing better. There are other potentially useful ACS risk scores available however these have not undergone rigorous validation. This study suggests that these other scores may be potentially useful and should be further researched.

Remote ischaemic preconditioning in coronary artery bypass surgery: a meta-analysis

Aim Randomised trials exploring remote ischaemic preconditioning (RIPC) in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery have yielded conflicting data regarding potential cardiovascular and renal protection, and are individually flawed by small sample size. Methods Three investigators independently searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases to identify randomised trials testing RIPC in patients undergoing CABG. Results Nine studies with 704 patients were included. Standardised mean difference of troponin I and T release showed a significant decrease (−0.36 (95% CI −0.62 to −0.09)). This difference held true after excluding the trials with cross-clamp fibrillation, the study with off-pump CABG and studies using a flurane as anaesthetic agent (−0.41 (95% CI −0.69 to −0.12), −0.38 (95% CI −0.70 to −0.07) and −0.37 (95% CI −0.63 to −0.12), respectively). A similar trend was also obtained for patients with multivessel disease (−0.41 (95% CI −0.73 to −0.08)). The trials evaluating postoperative creatinine reported a non-significant reduction (0.02 (95% CI −0.09 to 0.13)). Moreover, the length of in-hospital stay was not influenced by the kind of treatment (weighted mean difference 0.27 (95% CI −0.24 to 0.79)). Conclusion RIPC reduced the release of troponin in patients undergoing CABG. Larger randomised trials are needed to clarify the presence of a causal relationship between RIPC-induced troponin release and clinical adverse events.

Acute coronary syndromes in human immunodeficiency virus patients: a meta-analysis investigating adverse event rates and the role of antiretroviral therapy

AIMS Highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) dramatically reduces human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-associated morbidity and mortality, but adverse effects of HAART are becoming an increasing challenge, especially in the setting of acute coronary syndromes (ACS). We thus performed a comprehensive review of studies focusing on ACS in HIV patients. METHODS AND RESULTS MEDLINE/PubMed was systematically screened for studies reporting on ACS in HIV patients. Baseline, treatment, and outcome data were appraised and pooled with random-effect methods computing summary estimates [95% confidence intervals (CIs)]. A total of 11 studies including 2442 patients were identified, with a notably low prevalence of diabetes [10.86 (4.11, 17.60); 95% CI]. Rates of in-hospital death were 8.00% (2.8, 12.5; 95% CI), ascribable to cardiovascular events for 7.90% (2.43, 13.37; 95% CI), with 2.31% (0.60, 4.01; 95% CI) developing cardiogenic shock. At a median follow-up of 25.50 months (11.25, 42; 95% CI), no deaths were recorded, with an incidence of 9.42% of acute myocardial infarction (2.68, 16.17; 95% CI) and of 20.18% (9.84, 30.51; 95% CI) of percutaneous coronary revascularization. Moreover, pooled analysis of the studies reporting incidence of acute myocardial infarction in patients exposed to protease inhibitors showed an overall significant risk of 2.68 (odds ratio 1.89, 3.89; 95% CI). CONCLUSION Human immunodeficiency virus patients admitted for ACS face a substantial short-term risk of death and a significant long-term risk of coronary revascularization and myocardial infarction, especially if receiving protease inhibitors.