Jinqing Yuan

Transradial Versus Transfemoral Method of Percutaneous Coronary Revascularization for Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Disease: Comparison of Procedural and Late-Term Outcomes

OBJECTIVES This study intended to compare outcomes between transradial (TR) and transfemoral (TF) percutaneous revascularization in high-risk coronary anatomy. BACKGROUND The feasibility, efficacy and safety between TR and TF methods of percutaneous coronary revascularization for unprotected left main coronary artery (UPLM]) disease have not been compared. METHODS Among 821 consecutive patients with UPLM disease treated with percutaneous revascularization by either TR (n = 353) or TF (n = 468) vascular access, procedural outcomes, resource use, in-hospital bleeding, and late clinical events were compared according to vascular access method. RESULTS Clinical and angiographic characteristics were similar between groups, except that TR patients less commonly presented with unstable angina and had less UPLM bifurcation disease requiring treatment with 2 stents. No significant differences were observed between TR and TF methods for procedural success (97% TF vs. 96% TR, p = 0.57) or total procedural time. However, duration of hospital stay and in-hospital occurrence of Thrombosis In Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) major or minor bleeding (0.6% vs. 2.8%, p = 0.02) were significantly lower with TR access. Using propensity score modeling (254 matched pairs), over a mean follow-up period of 17 months, rates of cardiovascular death (1.2% vs. 2.0%, p = 0.48), nonfatal myocardial infarction (4.7% vs. 2.4%, p = 0.16), stent thrombosis (0.8% vs. 2.8%, p = 0.10) and any target vessel revascularization (6.0% vs. 6.7%, p = 0.72) did not statistically differ among TR and TF groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS In contrast to TF vascular access, TR percutaneous coronary revascularization for UPLM disease is feasible and associated with similar procedural success, abbreviated hospitalization, reduced bleeding, and comparable late-term clinical safety and efficacy.

Impact of new oral or intravenous P2Y12 inhibitors and clopidogrel on major ischemic and bleeding events in patients with coronary artery disease: A meta-analysis of randomized trials

OBJECTIVE New P2Y12 inhibitors can be classified as oral (prasugrel and ticagrelor) and intravenous drugs (cangrelor and elinogrel). These P2Y12 inhibitors might be superior to clopidogrel for reducing ischemic events in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). We performed a meta-analysis of randomized trials that compared new oral or intravenous P2Y12 inhibitors with clopidogrel to determine their efficacy and safety in patients. METHODS AND RESULTS Twelve randomized, placebo-controlled studies and two subgroup analyses of included studies on ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) were included. The database consisted of 82,784 patients, with 43,875 (53%) on new oral P2Y12 inhibitors and 38909 (47%) on intravenous P2Y12 inhibitors compared with clopidogrel. The primary efficacy endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACEs). The primary safety endpoint was thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) major bleeding. New oral P2Y12 inhibitors significantly decreased MACEs (odds ratio: 0.85, p<0.0001 for the whole cohort; OR: 0.77, p=0.04 for STEMI) and all-cause death (OR: 0.88, p=0.04 for the whole cohort; OR: 0.77, p=0.01 for STEMI). Among new intravenous P2Y12 inhibitors, only cangrelor significantly decreased the risk of MACEs. An increase in TIMI major bleeding was observed only by prasugrel among the new P2Y12 inhibitors. CONCLUSIONS New oral P2Y12 inhibitors reduce ischemic events, but there is no obvious increase in major bleeding in patients with CAD, and the risk/benefit ratio is particularly favorable for STEMI patients. Moreover, only cangrelor is beneficial for ischemic events in patients on new intravenous P2Y12 inhibitors.

Long-term outcomes of complete versus incomplete revascularization after drug-eluting stent implantation in patients with multivessel coronary disease

A limited number of studies on the impact of complete revascularization (CR) vs. incomplete revascularization (IR) on long‐term outcomes in patients with multivessel coronary disease (MVD) in current percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) practice have yielded inconsistent results.

Comparison between one-stent versus two-stent technique for treatment of left main bifurcation lesions: A large single-center data.

Comparisons between one‐ and two‐stent strategies for unprotected left main (UPLM) coronary bifurcation disease have yielded inconsistent results. This large‐sample, long‐term follow‐up study comparatively assessed stenting strategy impact in patients with distal left main disease.

Drug-eluting stents for the treatment of ostial coronary lesions: comparison of sirolimus-eluting stent with paclitaxel-eluting stent.

BackgroundTreatment of ostial coronary lesions represents a challenge for interventional cardiologists. The efficacy of drug-eluting stents (DES) has been demonstrated as improving the outcomes of patients in a few studies. It is not known, however, which DES, sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) versus paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES), is superior for the treatment of ostial lesions. MethodsIn this retrospective study, 95 consecutive patients with de-novo ostial lesions underwent coronary SES (n=47, lesions=48) or PES implantation (n=45, lesions=47), and quantitative coronary analysis was performed at the time of stent implantation and subsequently at 8 months post stenting. Ostial lesion was defined as ≥50% diameter stenosis rising within 3 mm of either left anterior descending coronary artery or left circumflex artery or right coronary artery measured by quantitative coronary analysis. Major adverse cardiac events including death, thrombosis, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization were compared between the two groups. ResultsBaseline clinical and angiographic characteristics were well balanced between the two groups. At 8 months clinical and angiographic follow-up, overall major adverse cardiac events and target lesion revascularization rates were similar in both groups (6.4 vs. 11.2%, P=0.184; 4.3 vs. 8.9%, P=0.170, respectively). The in-stent and in-segment restenosis were, however, significantly higher in PES group compared with SES group (15.5 vs. 0%, P=0.001; 22.2 vs. 4.3%, P=0.003). Similarly, the late loss in both in-stent and in-segment was significantly higher in the PES group than in SES group (0.65±0.67 vs. 0.16±0.18 mm; 0.68±0.65 vs. 0.15±0.12 mm; P<0.001, respectively). ConclusionIn this small sample-size, nonrandomized, and nonprospective study, the data indicated that implantation of DES appears safe and effective for the treatment of patients with de-novo ostial coronary lesions, but SES implantation showed more favorable results in respect of restenosis compared with PES implantation.

Association of PEAR1 genetic variants with platelet reactivity in response to dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel in the Chinese patient population after percutaneous coronary intervention

INTRODUCTION Platelet Endothelial Aggregation Receptor-1 (PEAR1) is a recently reported platelet transmembrane protein which plays an important role in platelet aggregation. The aim of this study was to investigate whether PEAR1 genetic variations were associated with platelet reactivity as assessed by adenosine diphosphate(ADP)-induced platelet aggregation in Chinese patients treated with aspirin and clopidogrel. METHODS Patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were enrolled in the study. All patients were on dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel. ADP-induced platelet aggregation was measured by thromboelastography and defined as percent inhibition of platelet aggregation (IPA). Patients (n=204) with IPA <30% were identified as high on-treatment platelet reactivity (HPR). Patients (n=201) with IPA >70% were identified as low on-treatment platelet reactivity (LPR). Sixteen single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) of PEAR1 were determined by a method of improved multiple ligase detection reaction. RESULTS Among the 16 SNPs examined by univariate analysis, 5 SNPs were significantly associated with ADP-induced platelet aggregation. Minor allele C at rs11264580 (p=0.033), minor allele G at rs2644592 (p=0.048), minor allele T at rs3737224 (p=0.033) and minor allele T at rs41273215 (p=0.025) were strongly associated with HPR, whereas homozygous TT genotype at rs57731889 (p=0.009) was associated with LPR. Multivariate logistic regression analysis further revealed that the minor allele T at rs41273215 (p=0.038) was an independent predictor of HPR and the homozygous TT genotype at rs57731889 (p=0.003) was an independent predictor of LPR. CONCLUSIONS PEAR1 genetic variations were strongly associated with ADP-induced platelet aggregation in Chinese patients with CHD treated with aspirin and clopidogrel. These genetic variations may contribute to the variability in platelet function. The utility of PEAR1 genetic variants in the assessment and prediction of cardiovascular risk warrants further investigation.

Costs and Benefits Associated With Transradial Versus Transfemoral Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in China

Background Transradial percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has been increasingly adopted in clinical practice, given its potential advantages over transfemoral intervention; however, the impact of different access strategies on costs and clinical outcomes remains poorly defined, especially in the developing world. Methods and Results Using data from a consecutive cohort of 5306 patients undergoing PCI in China in 2010, we compared total hospital costs and in‐hospital outcomes for transradial intervention (TRI) and transfemoral intervention. Patients receiving TRI (n=4696, 88.5%) were slightly younger (mean age 57.4 versus 59.5 years), less often women (21.6% versus 33.1%), more likely to undergo PCI for single‐vessel disease, and less likely to undergo PCI for triple‐vessel or left main diseases. The unadjusted total hospital costs were 57 900 Chinese yuan (¥57 900; equivalent to 9190 US dollars [

Relationship Between ABCB1 Polymorphisms, Thromboelastography and Risk of Bleeding Events in Clopidogrel-Treated Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction

9190]) for TRI and ¥67 418 (

Is there delayed restenosis in patients with coronary artery disease treated with sirolimus-eluting stent?

10,701) for transfemoral intervention. After adjusting for all observed patient and procedural characteristics using the propensity score inverse probability weighting method, TRI was associated with a lower total cost (adjusted difference ¥8081 [

Effect of platelet receptor gene polymorphisms on outcomes in ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients after percutaneous coronary intervention

1283]). More than 80% of the cost difference was related to lower PCI‐related costs (adjusted difference −¥5162 [−