Jinfeng Xu

Everolimus-Eluting Stents or Bypass Surgery for Multivessel Coronary Disease

BACKGROUND Results of trials and registry studies have shown lower long-term mortality after coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG) than after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) among patients with multivessel disease. These previous analyses did not evaluate PCI with second-generation drug-eluting stents. METHODS In an observational registry study, we compared the outcomes in patients with multivessel disease who underwent CABG with the outcomes in those who underwent PCI with the use of everolimus-eluting stents. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were the rates of myocardial infarction, stroke, and repeat revascularization. Propensity-score matching was used to assemble a cohort of patients with similar baseline characteristics. RESULTS Among 34,819 eligible patients, 9223 patients who underwent PCI with everolimus-eluting stents and 9223 who underwent CABG had similar propensity scores and were included in the analyses. At a mean follow-up of 2.9 years, PCI with everolimus-eluting stents, as compared with CABG, was associated with a similar risk of death (3.1% per year and 2.9% per year, respectively; hazard ratio, 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93 to 1.17; P=0.50), higher risks of myocardial infarction (1.9% per year vs. 1.1% per year; hazard ratio, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.29 to 1.77; P<0.001) and repeat revascularization (7.2% per year vs. 3.1% per year; hazard ratio, 2.35; 95% CI, 2.14 to 2.58; P<0.001), and a lower risk of stroke (0.7% per year vs. 1.0% per year; hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.76; P<0.001). The higher risk of myocardial infarction with PCI than with CABG was not significant among patients with complete revascularization but was significant among those with incomplete revascularization (P=0.02 for interaction). CONCLUSIONS In a contemporary clinical-practice registry study, the risk of death associated with PCI with everolimus-eluting stents was similar to that associated with CABG. PCI was associated with a higher risk of myocardial infarction (among patients with incomplete revascularization) and repeat revascularization but a lower risk of stroke. (Funded by Abbott Vascular.).

Prognostic Value of Fasting Versus Nonfasting Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Levels on Long-Term Mortality Insight From the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey III (NHANES-III)

Background— National and international guidelines recommend fasting lipid panel measurement for risk stratification of patients for prevention of cardiovascular events. However, the prognostic value of fasting versus nonfasting low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is uncertain. Methods and Results— Patients enrolled in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey III (NHANES-III), a nationally representative cross-sectional survey performed from 1988 to 1994, were stratified on the basis of fasting status (≥8 or <8 hours) and followed for a mean of 14.0 (±0.22) years. Propensity score matching was used to assemble fasting and nonfasting cohorts with similar baseline characteristics. The risk of outcomes as a function of LDL-C and fasting status was assessed with the use of receiver operating characteristic curves and bootstrapping methods. The interaction between fasting status and LDL-C was assessed with Cox proportional hazards modeling. Primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcome was cardiovascular mortality. One-to-one matching based on propensity score yielded 4299 pairs of fasting and nonfasting individuals. For the primary outcome, fasting LDL-C yielded prognostic value similar to that for nonfasting LDL-C (C statistic=0.59 [95% confidence interval, 0.57–0.61] versus 0.58 [95% confidence interval, 0.56–0.60]; P =0.73), and LDL-C by fasting status interaction term in the Cox proportional hazards model was not significant ( P interaction=0.11). Similar results were seen for the secondary outcome (fasting versus nonfasting C statistic=0.62 [95% confidence interval, 0.60–0.66] versus 0.62 [95% confidence interval, 0.60–0.66]; P =0.96; P interaction=0.34). Conclusions— Nonfasting LDL-C has prognostic value similar to that of fasting LDL-C. National and international agencies should consider reevaluating the recommendation that patients fast before obtaining a lipid panel. # CLINICAL PERSPECTIVE {#article-title-45}Background— National and international guidelines recommend fasting lipid panel measurement for risk stratification of patients for prevention of cardiovascular events. However, the prognostic value of fasting versus nonfasting low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is uncertain. Methods and Results— Patients enrolled in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey III (NHANES-III), a nationally representative cross-sectional survey performed from 1988 to 1994, were stratified on the basis of fasting status (≥8 or <8 hours) and followed for a mean of 14.0 (±0.22) years. Propensity score matching was used to assemble fasting and nonfasting cohorts with similar baseline characteristics. The risk of outcomes as a function of LDL-C and fasting status was assessed with the use of receiver operating characteristic curves and bootstrapping methods. The interaction between fasting status and LDL-C was assessed with Cox proportional hazards modeling. Primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcome was cardiovascular mortality. One-to-one matching based on propensity score yielded 4299 pairs of fasting and nonfasting individuals. For the primary outcome, fasting LDL-C yielded prognostic value similar to that for nonfasting LDL-C (C statistic=0.59 [95% confidence interval, 0.57–0.61] versus 0.58 [95% confidence interval, 0.56–0.60]; P=0.73), and LDL-C by fasting status interaction term in the Cox proportional hazards model was not significant (Pinteraction=0.11). Similar results were seen for the secondary outcome (fasting versus nonfasting C statistic=0.62 [95% confidence interval, 0.60–0.66] versus 0.62 [95% confidence interval, 0.60–0.66]; P=0.96; Pinteraction=0.34). Conclusions— Nonfasting LDL-C has prognostic value similar to that of fasting LDL-C. National and international agencies should consider reevaluating the recommendation that patients fast before obtaining a lipid panel.

Revascularization in Patients With Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease and Chronic Kidney Disease: Everolimus-Eluting Stents Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery

BACKGROUND Randomized trials of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) routinely exclude patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). OBJECTIVES This study evaluated outcomes of PCI versus CABG in patients with CKD. METHODS Patients with CKD who underwent PCI using everolimus-eluting stents were propensity-score matched to patients who underwent isolated CABG for multivessel coronary disease in New York. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and repeat revascularization. RESULTS Of 11,305 patients with CKD, 5,920 patients were propensity-score matched. In the short term, PCI was associated with a lower risk of death (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.55; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.35 to 0.87), stroke (HR: 0.22; 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.42), and repeat revascularization (HR: 0.48; 95% CI: 0.23 to 0.98) compared with CABG. In the longer term, PCI was associated with a similar risk of death (HR: 1.07; 95% CI: 0.92 to 1.24), higher risk of MI (HR: 1.76; 95% CI: 1.40 to 2.23), a lower risk of stroke (HR: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.41 to 0.76), and a higher risk of repeat revascularization (HR: 2.42; 95% CI: 2.05 to 2.85). In the subgroup with complete revascularization with PCI, the increased risk of MI was no longer statistically significant (HR: 1.18; 95% CI: 0.67 to 2.09). In the 243 matched pairs of patients with end-stage renal disease on hemodialysis, PCI was associated with significantly higher risk of death (HR: 2.02; 95% CI: 1.40 to 2.93) and repeat revascularization (HR: 2.44; 95% CI: 1.50 to 3.96) compared with CABG. CONCLUSIONS In patients with CKD, CABG is associated with higher short-term risk of death, stroke, and repeat revascularization, whereas PCI with everolimus-eluting stents is associated with a higher long-term risk of repeat revascularization and perhaps MI, with no long-term mortality difference. In the subgroup on dialysis, the results favored CABG over PCI.

Everolimus Eluting Stents Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery for Patients With Diabetes Mellitus and Multivessel Disease

Background—In patients with diabetes mellitus and multivessel disease, coronary artery bypass graft surgery and percutaneous coronary intervention are treatment options. However, there is paucity of data comparing coronary artery bypass graft surgery against newer generation stents. Methods and Results—Patients included in the New York State registries who had diabetes mellitus and underwent isolated coronary artery bypass graft surgery or percutaneous coronary intervention with everolimus eluting stent (EES) for multivessel disease were included. Propensity score matching was used to assemble a cohort with similar baseline characteristics. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and repeat revascularization. Short-term (within 30 days) and long-term outcomes were evaluated. Among 16 089 patients with diabetes mellitus and multivessel disease, 8096 patients with similar propensity scores were included. At short-term, EES was associated with a lower risk of death (hazard ratio [HR] =0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.34–0.98; P=0.04) and stroke (HR=0.14; 95% CI, 0.06–0.30; P<0.0001) but higher risk of MI (HR=2.44; 95% CI, 1.13–5.31; P=0.02). At long-term, EES was associated with a similar risk of death (425 [10.50%] versus 414 [10.23%] events; HR=1.12; 95% CI, 0.96–1.30; P=0.16), a lower risk of stroke (118 [2.92%] versus 157 [3.88%] events; HR=0.76; 95% CI, 0.58–0.99; P=0.04) but a higher risk of MI (260 [6.42%] versus 166 [4.10%] events; HR=1.64; 95% CI, 1.32–2.04; P<0.0001) and repeat revascularization (889 [21.96%] versus 421 [10.40%] events; HR=2.42; 95% CI, 2.12–2.76; P<0.0001). The higher risk of MI was not seen in the subgroup of EES patients who underwent complete revascularization (HR=1.37; 95% CI, 0.76–2.47; P=0.30). Conclusions—In patients with diabetes mellitus and multivessel disease, EES was associated with lower upfront risk of death and stroke when compared with coronary artery bypass graft surgery. However, at long-term, EES was associated with similar risk of death, a higher risk of MI (in those with incomplete revascularization), and repeat revascularization but a lower risk of stroke.

Association Between Anemia, Bleeding, and Transfusion with Long-term Mortality Following Noncardiac Surgery

BACKGROUND Preoperative anemia is a well-established risk factor for short-term mortality in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery, but appropriate thresholds for transfusion remain uncertain. The objective of this study was to determine long-term outcomes associated with anemia, hemorrhage, and red blood cell transfusion in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. METHODS We performed a long-term follow-up study of consecutive subjects undergoing hip, knee, and spine surgery between November 1, 2008 and December 31, 2009. Clinical data were obtained from administrative and laboratory databases, and retrospective record review. Preoperative anemia was defined as baseline hemoglobin < 13 g/dL for men and < 12 g/dL for women. Hemorrhage was defined by International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision coding. Data on long-term survival were collected from the Social Security Death Index database. Logistic regression models were used to identify factors associated with long-term mortality. RESULTS There were 3050 subjects who underwent orthopedic surgery. Preoperative anemia was present in 17.6% (537) of subjects, hemorrhage occurred in 33 (1%), and 766 (25%) received at least one red blood cell transfusion. Over 9015 patient-years of follow-up, 111 deaths occurred. Anemia (hazard ratio [HR] 3.91; confidence interval [CI], 2.49-6.15) and hemorrhage (HR 5.28; 95% CI, 2.20-12.67) were independently associated with long-term mortality after multivariable adjustment. Red blood cell transfusion during the surgical hospitalization was associated with long-term mortality (HR 3.96; 95% CI, 2.47-6.34), which was attenuated by severity of anemia (no anemia [HR 4.39], mild anemia [HR 2.27], and moderate/severe anemia [HR 0.81]; P for trend .0015). CONCLUSIONS Preoperative anemia, perioperative bleeding, and red blood cell transfusion are associated with increased mortality at long-term follow-up after noncardiac surgery. Strategies to minimize anemia and bleeding should be considered for all patients, and restrictive transfusion strategies may be advisable. Further investigation into mechanisms of these adverse events is warranted.

Rates of Invasive Management of Cardiogenic Shock in New York Before and After Exclusion From Public Reporting.

IMPORTANCE Reduced rates of cardiac catheterization, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) are an unintended consequence of public reporting of cardiogenic shock outcomes in New York. OBJECTIVES To evaluate whether the referral rates for cardiac catheterization, PCI, or CABG have improved in New York since cardiogenic shock was excluded from public reporting in 2008 and compare them with corresponding rates in Michigan, New Jersey, and California. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction from 2002 to 2011 were identified using the National Inpatient Sample. Propensity score matching was used to assemble a cohort of patients with cardiogenic shock with similar baseline characteristics in New York and Michigan. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Percutaneous coronary intervention (primary outcome), invasive management (cardiac catheterization, PCI, or CABG), revascularization (PCI or CABG), and CABG were evaluated with reference to 3 calendar year periods: 2002-2005 (time 1: cardiogenic shock included in publicly reported outcomes), 2006-2007 (time 2: cardiogenic shock excluded on a trial basis), and 2008 and thereafter (time 3: cardiogenic shock excluded permanently) in New York and compared with Michigan. RESULTS Among 2126 propensity score-matched patients representing 10 795 (weighted) patients with myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock in New York and Michigan, 905 (42.6%) were women and mean (SE) age was 69.5 (0.3) years. A significantly higher proportion of the patients underwent PCI (time 1 vs 2 vs 3: 31.1% vs 39.8% vs 40.7% [OR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.12-2.01; P = .005 for time 3 vs 1]), invasive management (time 1 vs 2 vs 3: 59.7% vs 70.9% vs 73.8% [OR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.37-2.47; P < .001 for time 3 vs 1]), or revascularization (43.1% vs 55.9% vs 56.3% [OR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.26-2.20; P < .001 for time 3 vs 1]) after the exclusion of cardiogenic shock from public reporting in New York. However, during the same periods, a greater proportion of patients underwent PCI (time 1 vs 2 vs 3: 41.2% vs 52.6% vs 57.8% [OR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.45-2.56; P < .001 for time 3 vs 1]), invasive management (time 1 vs 2 vs 3: 64.4% vs 80.5% vs 78.6% [OR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.47-2.74; P < .001 for time 3 vs 1]), or revascularization (51.2% vs 65.8% vs 68.0% [OR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.50-2.66; P < .001 for times 3 vs 1]) in Michigan. Results were largely similar in several sensitivity analyses comparing New York with New Jersey or California. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Although the rates of PCI, invasive management, and revascularization have increased substantially after the exclusion of cardiogenic shock from public reporting in New York, these rates remain consistently lower than those observed in other states without public reporting.

The assessment of thrombotic markers utilizing ionic versus non-ionic contrast during coronary angiography and intervention trial.

To determine how two different types of iodinated contrast media (CM), low‐osmolar ionic dimer ioxaglate (Hexabrix) and iso‐osmolar non‐ionic dimer iodixanol (Visipaque), affect multiple indices of hemostasis.

Prognostic Value of Fasting vs. Non-Fasting Low Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Levels on Long-term Mortality: Insight from the National Health and Nutrition Survey III (NHANES-III)

Background— National and international guidelines recommend fasting lipid panel measurement for risk stratification of patients for prevention of cardiovascular events. However, the prognostic value of fasting versus nonfasting low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is uncertain. Methods and Results— Patients enrolled in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey III (NHANES-III), a nationally representative cross-sectional survey performed from 1988 to 1994, were stratified on the basis of fasting status (≥8 or <8 hours) and followed for a mean of 14.0 (±0.22) years. Propensity score matching was used to assemble fasting and nonfasting cohorts with similar baseline characteristics. The risk of outcomes as a function of LDL-C and fasting status was assessed with the use of receiver operating characteristic curves and bootstrapping methods. The interaction between fasting status and LDL-C was assessed with Cox proportional hazards modeling. Primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcome was cardiovascular mortality. One-to-one matching based on propensity score yielded 4299 pairs of fasting and nonfasting individuals. For the primary outcome, fasting LDL-C yielded prognostic value similar to that for nonfasting LDL-C (C statistic=0.59 [95% confidence interval, 0.57–0.61] versus 0.58 [95% confidence interval, 0.56–0.60]; P =0.73), and LDL-C by fasting status interaction term in the Cox proportional hazards model was not significant ( P interaction=0.11). Similar results were seen for the secondary outcome (fasting versus nonfasting C statistic=0.62 [95% confidence interval, 0.60–0.66] versus 0.62 [95% confidence interval, 0.60–0.66]; P =0.96; P interaction=0.34). Conclusions— Nonfasting LDL-C has prognostic value similar to that of fasting LDL-C. National and international agencies should consider reevaluating the recommendation that patients fast before obtaining a lipid panel. # CLINICAL PERSPECTIVE {#article-title-45}Background— National and international guidelines recommend fasting lipid panel measurement for risk stratification of patients for prevention of cardiovascular events. However, the prognostic value of fasting versus nonfasting low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is uncertain. Methods and Results— Patients enrolled in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey III (NHANES-III), a nationally representative cross-sectional survey performed from 1988 to 1994, were stratified on the basis of fasting status (≥8 or <8 hours) and followed for a mean of 14.0 (±0.22) years. Propensity score matching was used to assemble fasting and nonfasting cohorts with similar baseline characteristics. The risk of outcomes as a function of LDL-C and fasting status was assessed with the use of receiver operating characteristic curves and bootstrapping methods. The interaction between fasting status and LDL-C was assessed with Cox proportional hazards modeling. Primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcome was cardiovascular mortality. One-to-one matching based on propensity score yielded 4299 pairs of fasting and nonfasting individuals. For the primary outcome, fasting LDL-C yielded prognostic value similar to that for nonfasting LDL-C (C statistic=0.59 [95% confidence interval, 0.57–0.61] versus 0.58 [95% confidence interval, 0.56–0.60]; P=0.73), and LDL-C by fasting status interaction term in the Cox proportional hazards model was not significant (Pinteraction=0.11). Similar results were seen for the secondary outcome (fasting versus nonfasting C statistic=0.62 [95% confidence interval, 0.60–0.66] versus 0.62 [95% confidence interval, 0.60–0.66]; P=0.96; Pinteraction=0.34). Conclusions— Nonfasting LDL-C has prognostic value similar to that of fasting LDL-C. National and international agencies should consider reevaluating the recommendation that patients fast before obtaining a lipid panel.

Reply to Letters Regarding Article, “Prognostic Value of Fasting Versus Nonfasting Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Levels on Long-Term Mortality: Insight From the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey III (NHANES-III)”

We appreciate the letters by Aldasouqi et al and Horne et al about our article.1 Their thought-provoking comments further strengthen the call to abandon fasting lipid panels in the majority of patients. Aldasouqi et al outline the potential dangers of the fasting requirement in patients with diabetes mellitus. Obtaining fasting lipid panels in diabetics poses risks because they may experience significant hypoglycemia if required to fast; additionally, there is the inconvenience of a second visit. Hypoglycemic episodes may lead to a number of complications, including confusion and loss of consciousness, road traffic accidents, seizures, and even death. Two major …

Prognostic Value of Fasting Versus Nonfasting Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Levels on Long-Term MortalityCLINICAL PERSPECTIVE: Insight From the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey III (NHANES-III)

Background— National and international guidelines recommend fasting lipid panel measurement for risk stratification of patients for prevention of cardiovascular events. However, the prognostic value of fasting versus nonfasting low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is uncertain. Methods and Results— Patients enrolled in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey III (NHANES-III), a nationally representative cross-sectional survey performed from 1988 to 1994, were stratified on the basis of fasting status (≥8 or <8 hours) and followed for a mean of 14.0 (±0.22) years. Propensity score matching was used to assemble fasting and nonfasting cohorts with similar baseline characteristics. The risk of outcomes as a function of LDL-C and fasting status was assessed with the use of receiver operating characteristic curves and bootstrapping methods. The interaction between fasting status and LDL-C was assessed with Cox proportional hazards modeling. Primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcome was cardiovascular mortality. One-to-one matching based on propensity score yielded 4299 pairs of fasting and nonfasting individuals. For the primary outcome, fasting LDL-C yielded prognostic value similar to that for nonfasting LDL-C (C statistic=0.59 [95% confidence interval, 0.57–0.61] versus 0.58 [95% confidence interval, 0.56–0.60]; P =0.73), and LDL-C by fasting status interaction term in the Cox proportional hazards model was not significant ( P interaction=0.11). Similar results were seen for the secondary outcome (fasting versus nonfasting C statistic=0.62 [95% confidence interval, 0.60–0.66] versus 0.62 [95% confidence interval, 0.60–0.66]; P =0.96; P interaction=0.34). Conclusions— Nonfasting LDL-C has prognostic value similar to that of fasting LDL-C. National and international agencies should consider reevaluating the recommendation that patients fast before obtaining a lipid panel. # CLINICAL PERSPECTIVE {#article-title-45}Background— National and international guidelines recommend fasting lipid panel measurement for risk stratification of patients for prevention of cardiovascular events. However, the prognostic value of fasting versus nonfasting low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is uncertain. Methods and Results— Patients enrolled in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey III (NHANES-III), a nationally representative cross-sectional survey performed from 1988 to 1994, were stratified on the basis of fasting status (≥8 or <8 hours) and followed for a mean of 14.0 (±0.22) years. Propensity score matching was used to assemble fasting and nonfasting cohorts with similar baseline characteristics. The risk of outcomes as a function of LDL-C and fasting status was assessed with the use of receiver operating characteristic curves and bootstrapping methods. The interaction between fasting status and LDL-C was assessed with Cox proportional hazards modeling. Primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcome was cardiovascular mortality. One-to-one matching based on propensity score yielded 4299 pairs of fasting and nonfasting individuals. For the primary outcome, fasting LDL-C yielded prognostic value similar to that for nonfasting LDL-C (C statistic=0.59 [95% confidence interval, 0.57–0.61] versus 0.58 [95% confidence interval, 0.56–0.60]; P=0.73), and LDL-C by fasting status interaction term in the Cox proportional hazards model was not significant (Pinteraction=0.11). Similar results were seen for the secondary outcome (fasting versus nonfasting C statistic=0.62 [95% confidence interval, 0.60–0.66] versus 0.62 [95% confidence interval, 0.60–0.66]; P=0.96; Pinteraction=0.34). Conclusions— Nonfasting LDL-C has prognostic value similar to that of fasting LDL-C. National and international agencies should consider reevaluating the recommendation that patients fast before obtaining a lipid panel.