Erlend Eriksen

Percutaneous coronary angioplasty versus coronary artery bypass grafting in treatment of unprotected left main stenosis (NOBLE): a prospective, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is the standard treatment for revascularisation in patients with left main coronary artery disease, but use of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for this indication is increasing. We aimed to compare PCI and CABG for treatment of left main coronary artery disease. METHODS In this prospective, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial, patients with left main coronary artery disease were enrolled in 36 centres in northern Europe and randomised 1:1 to treatment with PCI or CABG. Eligible patients had stable angina pectoris, unstable angina pectoris, or non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Exclusion criteria were ST-elevation myocardial infarction within 24 h, being considered too high risk for CABG or PCI, or expected survival of less than 1 year. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events (MACCE), a composite of all-cause mortality, non-procedural myocardial infarction, any repeat coronary revascularisation, and stroke. Non-inferiority of PCI to CABG required the lower end of the 95% CI not to exceed a hazard ratio (HR) of 1·35 after up to 5 years of follow-up. The intention-to-treat principle was used in the analysis if not specified otherwise. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, number NCT01496651. FINDINGS Between Dec 9, 2008, and Jan 21, 2015, 1201 patients were randomly assigned, 598 to PCI and 603 to CABG, and 592 in each group entered analysis by intention to treat. Kaplan-Meier 5 year estimates of MACCE were 29% for PCI (121 events) and 19% for CABG (81 events), HR 1·48 (95% CI 1·11-1·96), exceeding the limit for non-inferiority, and CABG was significantly better than PCI (p=0·0066). As-treated estimates were 28% versus 19% (1·55, 1·18-2·04, p=0·0015). Comparing PCI with CABG, 5 year estimates were 12% versus 9% (1·07, 0·67-1·72, p=0·77) for all-cause mortality, 7% versus 2% (2·88, 1·40-5·90, p=0·0040) for non-procedural myocardial infarction, 16% versus 10% (1·50, 1·04-2·17, p=0·032) for any revascularisation, and 5% versus 2% (2·25, 0·93-5·48, p=0·073) for stroke. INTERPRETATION The findings of this study suggest that CABG might be better than PCI for treatment of left main stem coronary artery disease. FUNDING Biosensors, Aarhus University Hospital, and participating sites.

Impact of Pressure Recovery on Echocardiographic Assessment of Asymptomatic Aortic Stenosis: A SEAS Substudy

OBJECTIVES The aim of this analysis was to assess the diagnostic importance of pressure recovery in evaluation of aortic stenosis (AS) severity. BACKGROUND Although pressure recovery has previously been demonstrated to be particularly important in assessment of AS severity in groups of patients with moderate AS or small aortic roots, it has never been evaluated in a large clinical patient cohort. METHODS Data from 1,563 patients in the SEAS (Simvastatin and Ezetimibe in Aortic Stenosis) study was used. Inner aortic diameter was measured at annulus, sinus, sinotubular junction, and supracoronary level. Aortic valve area index (AVAI) was calculated by continuity equation and pressure recovery and pressure recovery adjusted AVAI (energy loss index [ELI]), by validated equations. Primarily, sinotubular junction diameter was used to calculate pressure recovery and ELI, but pressure recovery and ELI calculated at different aortic root levels were compared. Severe AS was identified as AVAI and ELI < or =0.6 cm(2)/m(2). Patients were grouped into tertiles of peak transaortic velocity. RESULTS Pressure recovery increased with increasing peak transaortic velocity. Overestimation of AS severity by unadjusted AVAI was largest in the lowest tertile and if pressure recovery was assessed at the sinotubular junction. In multivariate analysis, a larger difference between AVAI and ELI was associated with lower peak transaortic velocity (beta = 0.35) independent of higher left ventricular ejection fraction (beta = -0.049), male sex (beta = -0.075), younger age (beta = 0.093), and smaller aortic sinus diameter (beta = 0.233) (multiple R(2) = 0.18, p < 0.001). Overall, 47.5% of patients classified as having severe AS by AVAI were reclassified to nonsevere AS when pressure recovery was taken into account. CONCLUSIONS For accurate assessment of AS severity, pressure recovery adjustment of AVA must be routinely performed. Estimation of pressure recovery at the sinotubular junction is suggested.

Factors Influencing Left Ventricular Structure and Stress-Corrected Systolic Function in Men and Women With Asymptomatic Aortic Valve Stenosis (a SEAS Substudy)

To identify determinants of left ventricular (LV) structure and stress-corrected systolic function in men and women with asymptomatic aortic stenosis (AS), Doppler echocardiography was performed at baseline in 1,046 men and 674 women 28 to 86 years of age (mean 67 +/- 10) recruited in the Simvastatin Ezetimibe in Aortic Stenosis (SEAS) study evaluating placebo-controlled combined simvastatin and ezetimibe treatment in AS. LV hypertrophy was less prevalent in women despite older age, higher systolic blood pressure, and smaller aortic valve area/body surface area (all p values <0.05). In logistic regression analyses, LV hypertrophy was independently associated with male gender, severity of AS, hypertension, higher systolic blood pressure, and lower stress-corrected midwall shortening (scMWS) or stress-corrected fractional shortening (scFS; all p values <0.01). In men aortic regurgitation also was a predictor of LV hypertrophy (p <0.05). Women had greater scFS and scMWS when corrected for LV size or geometry (all p values <0.001). In multivariate analyses, female gender predicted 11% greater scFS and 4% greater scMWS independent of age, body mass index, heart rate, aortic valve area, LV mass, relative wall thickness, aortic regurgitation, hypertension, and end-systolic stress (R(2) = 0.23 and 0.59, respectively, p <0.001). In conclusion, the major determinants of LV hypertrophy in patients with asymptomatic AS are male gender, severity of AS, and concomitant hypertension. Women have higher stress-corrected indexes of systolic function independent of LV geometry or size, wall stress, older age, or more concomitant hypertension.

Original ResearchImpact of Pressure Recovery on Echocardiographic Assessment of Asymptomatic Aortic Stenosis: A SEAS Substudy

OBJECTIVES The aim of this analysis was to assess the diagnostic importance of pressure recovery in evaluation of aortic stenosis (AS) severity. BACKGROUND Although pressure recovery has previously been demonstrated to be particularly important in assessment of AS severity in groups of patients with moderate AS or small aortic roots, it has never been evaluated in a large clinical patient cohort. METHODS Data from 1,563 patients in the SEAS (Simvastatin and Ezetimibe in Aortic Stenosis) study was used. Inner aortic diameter was measured at annulus, sinus, sinotubular junction, and supracoronary level. Aortic valve area index (AVAI) was calculated by continuity equation and pressure recovery and pressure recovery adjusted AVAI (energy loss index [ELI]), by validated equations. Primarily, sinotubular junction diameter was used to calculate pressure recovery and ELI, but pressure recovery and ELI calculated at different aortic root levels were compared. Severe AS was identified as AVAI and ELI < or =0.6 cm(2)/m(2). Patients were grouped into tertiles of peak transaortic velocity. RESULTS Pressure recovery increased with increasing peak transaortic velocity. Overestimation of AS severity by unadjusted AVAI was largest in the lowest tertile and if pressure recovery was assessed at the sinotubular junction. In multivariate analysis, a larger difference between AVAI and ELI was associated with lower peak transaortic velocity (beta = 0.35) independent of higher left ventricular ejection fraction (beta = -0.049), male sex (beta = -0.075), younger age (beta = 0.093), and smaller aortic sinus diameter (beta = 0.233) (multiple R(2) = 0.18, p < 0.001). Overall, 47.5% of patients classified as having severe AS by AVAI were reclassified to nonsevere AS when pressure recovery was taken into account. CONCLUSIONS For accurate assessment of AS severity, pressure recovery adjustment of AVA must be routinely performed. Estimation of pressure recovery at the sinotubular junction is suggested.

Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support Versus Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump for Treating Cardiogenic Shock: Meta-Analysis

In patients with cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction (AMI), mortality remains high despite advances in treatment. Short-term percutaneous circulatory support devices provide superior hemodynamic support compared with the intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP). American guidelines have

Long-term impact of chronic total occlusion recanalisation in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction

Background During primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), a concurrent chronic total occlusion (CTO) is found in 10% of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Long-term benefits of CTO-PCI have been suggested; however, randomised data are lacking. Our aim was to determine mid-term and long-term clinical outcome of CTO-PCI versus CTO-No PCI in patients with STEMI with a concurrent CTO. Methods The Evaluating Xience and left ventricular function in PCI on occlusiOns afteR STEMI (EXPLORE) was a multicentre randomised trial that included 302 patients with STEMI after successful primary PCI with a concurrent CTO. Patients were randomised to either CTO-PCI or CTO-No PCI. The primary end point of the current study was occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE): cardiac death, coronary artery bypass grafting and MI. Other end points were 1-year left ventricular function (LVF); LV-ejection fraction and LV end-diastolic volume and angina status. Results The median long-term follow-up was 3.9 (2.1–5.0) years. MACE was not significantly different between both arms (13.5% vs 12.3%, HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.98; P=0.93). Cardiac death was more frequent in the CTO-PCI arm (6.0% vs 1.0%, P=0.02) with no difference in all-cause mortality (12.9% vs 6.2%, HR 2.07, 95% CI 0.84 to 5.14; P=0.11). One-year LVF did not differ between both arms. However, there were more patients with freedom of angina in the CTO-PCI arm at 1 year (94% vs 87%, P=0.03). Conclusions In this randomised trial involving patients with STEMI with a concurrent CTO, CTO-PCI was not associated with a reduction in long-term MACE compared to CTO-No PCI. One-year LVF was comparable between both treatment arms. The finding that there were more patients with freedom of angina after CTO-PCI at 1-year follow-up needs further investigation. Clinical trial registration EXPLORE trial number NTR1108 www.trialregister.nl.

Percutaneous Mechanical Circulatory Support Versus Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump for Treating Cardiogenic Shock

In patients with cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction (AMI), mortality remains high despite advances in treatment. Short-term percutaneous circulatory support devices provide superior hemodynamic support compared with the intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP). American guidelines have

Impella Versus Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump For Treatment Of Cardiogenic Shock: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

In patients with cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction (AMI), mortality remains high despite advances in treatment. Short-term percutaneous circulatory support devices provide superior hemodynamic support compared with the intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP). American guidelines have

Impact of collateralisation to a concomitant chronic total occlusion in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a subanalysis of the EXPLORE randomised controlled trial

Objective The impact on cardiac function of collaterals towards a concomitant chronic total coronary occlusion (CTO) in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) has not been investigated yet. Therefore, we have evaluated the impact of well-developed collaterals compared with poorly developed collaterals to a concomitant CTO in STEMI. Methods and results In the EXPLORE trial, patients with STEMI and a concomitant CTO were randomised to either CTO percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or no-CTO PCI. Collateral grades were scored angiographically using the Rentrop grade classification. Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV) at 4 months were measured using cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. Well-developed collaterals (Rentrop grades 2–3) to the CTO were present in 162 (54%) patients; these patients had a significantly higher LVEF at 4 months (46.2±11.4% vs 42.1±12.7%, p=0.004) as well as a trend for a lower LVEDV (208.2±55.7 mL vs 222.6±68.5 mL, p=0.054) when compared with patients with poorly developed collaterals to the CTO. There was no significant difference in the total amount of scar in the two groups. Event rates were statistically comparable between patients with well-developed collaterals and poorly developed collaterals to the CTO at long-term follow-up. Conclusions In patients with STEMI and a concomitant CTO, the presence of well-developed collaterals to a concomitant CTO is associated with a better LVEF at 4 months. However, this effect on LVEF did not translate into improvement in clinical outcome. Therefore, the presence of well-developed collaterals is important, but should not solely guide in the clinical decision-making process regarding any additional revascularisation of a concomitant CTO in patients with STEMI. Clinical trial registration NTR1108.