Ganesh Athappan

Influence of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Strategy and Valve Design on Stroke After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement : A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review of Literature

OBJECTIVES The study undertook a systematic review to establish and compare the risk of stroke between the 2 widely used approaches (transfemoral [TF] vs. transapical [TA]) and valve designs (CoreValve, Medtronic, Minneapolis, Minnesota vs. Edwards Valve, Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, California) for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). BACKGROUND There has been a rapid adoption and expansion in the use of TAVR. The technique is however far from perfect and requires further refinement to alleviate safety concerns that include stroke. METHODS All studies reporting on the risk of stroke after TAVR were identified using an electronic search and pooled using established meta-analytical guidelines. RESULTS 25 multicenter registries and 33 single-center studies were included in the analysis. There was no difference in pooled 30-day stroke post-TAVR between the TF and TA approach in multicenter (2.8% [95% confidence interval (CI): 2.4 to 3.4] vs. 2.8% [95% CI: 2.0 to 3.9]) and single-center studies (3.8% [95% CI: 3.1 to 4.6] vs. 3.4% [95% CI: 2.5 to 4.5]). Similarly, there was no difference in pooled 30-day stroke post TAVR between the CoreValve and Edwards Valve in multicenter (2.4% [95% CI: 1.9 to 3.2] vs. 3.0% [95% CI: 2.4 to 3.7]) and single-center studies (3.8% [95% CI: 2.8 to 4.9] vs. 3.2% [95% CI: 2.4 to 4.3]). There was a decline in stroke risk with experience and technological advancement. There was no difference in the outcome of 30-day stroke between TAVR and surgical aortic valve replacement. CONCLUSIONS Our findings suggest that the risk of 30-day stroke after TAVR is similar between the approaches and valve types. There has been a decline in stroke risk after TAVR with improvements in valve technology, patient selection, and operator experience.

Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis : A Meta-Analysis of Drug-Eluting Stents Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting

OBJECTIVES The goal of this study was to provide a systematic review comparing the long-term outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DES) versus coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) for unprotected left main coronary artery (UPLM) stenosis. BACKGROUND One-year outcomes from randomized controlled trials, observational studies, and pooled analyses have demonstrated the safety and efficacy of PCI of the UPLM when compared with CABG. However, there remain concerns over the sustainability of PCI with DES at longer follow-up. METHODS Studies published between January 2000 and December 2012 of PCI versus CABG for UPLM stenosis were identified using an electronic search and reviewed using meta-analytical techniques. RESULTS Twenty-four studies comprising 14,203 patients were included in the analysis. There was no significant difference for all-cause mortality between PCI or CABG at 1 year (odds ratio [OR]: 0.792, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.53 to 1.19), 2 years (OR: 0.920, 95% CI: 0.67 to 1.26), 3 years (OR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.60 to 1.48), 4 years (OR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.53 to 1.33), and 5 years (OR: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.57 to 1.08). The need for target vessel revascularization (TVR) was significantly higher in patients undergoing PCI at all time points. The occurrence of stroke, however, was significantly less frequent in patients treated with PCI. The occurrence of nonfatal myocardial infarction showed a statistically significant trend towards a lower incidence in CABG patients at 1 year (OR: 1.62, 95% CI: 1.05 to 2.50), 2 years (OR: 1.60, 95% CI: 1.09 to 2.35), and 3 years (OR: 2.06, 95% CI: 1.36 to 3.1). There was no significant difference in combined major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS Our findings suggest that PCI with DES is a safe and durable alternative to CABG for the revascularization of UPLM stenosis in select patients at long-term follow-up.

Late Stroke: Comparison of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Patients With Multivessel Disease and Unprotected Left Main Disease A Meta-Analysis and Review of Literature

Background and Purpose— Studies have suggested that the early excess risk of stroke in coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) may be compensated for by a slow but progressive catch-up phenomenon in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We therefore undertook this analysis to compare the temporal stroke risk between PCI and CABG in patients with unprotected left main stenosis and multivessel coronary artery disease. Methods— Studies of PCI versus CABG for unprotected left main stenosis and multivessel disease published between January 1994 (stent era) and July 2013 were identified using an electronic search and reviewed using meta-analytic techniques. Results— We selected 57 reports for the meta-analysis by applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The analysis was performed on 80 314 patient records. There was a significantly lower risk of cumulative stroke in patients undergoing PCI with stenting at 1 year (odds ratio [OR], 0.55; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.42–0.71), 2 years (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.66–0.92), 3 years (OR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.67–0.92), 4 years (OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.56–0.97), and 5 years (OR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.69–0.91). There was no significant difference in the incidence of stroke because of the small sample size (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.46–1.08) at >5 years between PCI and CABG. Similar results were observed on subgroup analysis (multi-vessel coronary artery disease, unprotected left main, diabetics, and randomized trials) and for stroke within 30 days. Late stroke (stroke >30 days) was similar between the 2 groups. Conclusions— There is a significantly lower risk of stroke within 30 days and cumulative stroke with PCI as compared with CABG up to year 5. There is no late catch up of stroke in the PCI arm. The risk of stroke should be weighed in deciding between revascularization strategies.

Clinical and economic studies of eptifibatide in coronary stenting

Platelet adhesion and aggregation at the site of coronary stenting can have catastrophic clinical and economic consequences. Therefore, effective platelet inhibition is vital during and after percutaneous coronary intervention. Eptifibatide is an intravenous antiplatelet agent that blocks the final common pathway of platelet aggregation and thrombus formation by binding to glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptors on the surface of platelets. In clinical studies, eptifibatide was associated with a significant reduction of mortality, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. However, recent trials conducted in the era of dual antiplatelet therapy and newer anticoagulants failed to demonstrate similar results. The previously seen favorable benefit of eptifibatide was mainly offset by the increased risk of bleeding. Current American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines recommend its use as an adjunct in high-risk patients who are undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with traditional anticoagulants (heparin or enoxaparin), who are not otherwise at high risk of bleeding. In patients receiving bivalirudin (a newer safer anticoagulant), routine use of eptifibatide is discouraged except in select situations (eg, angiographic complications). Although older pharmacoeconomic studies favor eptifibatide, in the current era of P2Y12 inhibitors and newer safer anticoagulants, the increased costs associated with bleeding make the routine use of eptifibatide an economically nonviable option. The cost-effectiveness of eptifibatide with the use of strategies that decrease the bleeding risk (eg, transradial access) is unknown. This review provides an overview of key clinical and economic studies of eptifibatide well into the current era of potent antiplatelet agents, novel safer anticoagulants, and contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention.

Comparative efficacy of different modalities for treatment of right heart thrombi in transit: A pooled analysis

The objective was to compare the efficacy of treatment options for right heart thrombi (RHT) in transit. All published reports between 1992 and 2013 were identified and pooled. We analyzed 328 patients with RHT and pulmonary embolism (PE). The treatments administered were none in 11 patients (3.4%), anticoagulation (AC) with heparin in 70 patients (21.3%), thrombolytics in 122 patients (37.2%), catheter-related treatments in five patients (1.5%) and surgical embolectomy in 120 patients (36.6%). The overall short-term mortality for the entire cohort was 23.2%. The mortality rate associated with no therapy was highest at 90.9%. The mortality associated with AC alone was significantly higher than surgical embolectomy or thrombolysis (37.1% vs 18.3% vs 13.7%, respectively). In univariate analysis, any therapy was better than no therapy with a favorable odds of 16.92 (95% CI 2.05–139.87) for AC, 61.76 (95% CI 7.42–513.81) for thrombolysis and 44.54 (95% CI 5.42–366.32) for surgical embolectomy. In multivariate analysis with age and hemodynamic status entered as covariates, thrombolytic therapy was better than AC with favorable odds of 4.83 (95% CI 1.52–15.36). Similarly, there was a trend in favor of surgical embolectomy with an odds of 2.61 (95% CI 0.90–7.58). The estimated probability of survival in hemodynamically unstable patients with AC, surgical embolectomy and thrombolysis was 47.7%, 70.45% and 81.5%, respectively. There was no significantly increased risk of complications with thrombolytic therapy. In conclusion, left untreated, patients with RHT and PE have very high mortality. Aggressive management with thrombolysis or surgical thrombectomy may be more effective than AC alone in the management of these patients.

Clinical and economic studies of eptifibatide in coronary stenting [Corrigendum]

[This corrects the article on p. 603 in vol. 10, PMID: 25120366.].

OPTIMAL MEDICAL THERAPY COMPARED TO REVASCULARIZATION FOR STABLE CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE: EVIDENCE FROM A COMPREHENSIVE MIXED TREATMENT COMPARISON

Current recommendations from scientific societies to support revascularization over optimal medical therapy (OMT) to prolong survival in stable coronary artery disease (CAD) originate from trials conducted in the 1970s. Our objective was therefore to compare OMT to revascularization strategies of