Jorge F. Saucedo

Regional Angiogenesis With Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor in Peripheral Arterial Disease A Phase II Randomized, Double-Blind, Controlled Study of Adenoviral Delivery of Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor 121 in Patients With Disabling Intermittent Claudication

Background—“Therapeutic angiogenesis” seeks to improve perfusion by the growth of new blood vessels. The Regional Angiogenesis with Vascular Endothelial growth factor (RAVE) trial is the first major randomized study of adenoviral vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) gene transfer for the treatment of peripheral artery disease (PAD). Methods and Results—This phase 2, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was designed to test the efficacy and safety of intramuscular delivery of AdVEGF121, a replication-deficient adenovirus encoding the 121-amino-acid isoform of vascular endothelial growth factor, to the lower extremities of subjects with unilateral PAD. In all, 105 subjects with unilateral exercise-limiting intermittent claudication during 2 qualifying treadmill tests, with peak walking time (PWT) between 1 to 10 minutes, were stratified on the basis of diabetic status and randomized to low-dose (4×109 PU) AdVEGF121, high-dose (4×1010 PU) AdVEGF121, or placebo, administered as 20 intramuscular injections to the index leg in a single session. The primary efficacy end point, change in PWT (&Dgr;PWT) at 12 weeks, did not differ between the placebo (1.8±3.2 minutes), low-dose (1.6±1.9 minutes), and high-dose (1.5±3.1 minutes) groups. Secondary measures, including &Dgr;PWT, ankle-brachial index, claudication onset time, and quality-of-life measures (SF-36 and Walking Impairment Questionnaire), were also similar among groups at 12 and 26 weeks. AdVEGF121 administration was associated with increased peripheral edema. Conclusions—A single unilateral intramuscular administration of AdVEGF121 was not associated with improved exercise performance or quality of life in this study. This study does not support local delivery of single-dose VEGF121 as a treatment strategy in patients with unilateral PAD.

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery for Patients With Medically Refractory Myocardial Ischemia and Risk Factors for Adverse Outcomes With Bypass: A Multicenter, Randomized Trial

Abstract BACKGROUND Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) are being applied to high-risk populations, but previous randomized trials comparing revascularization methods have excluded a number of important high-risk groups. OBJECTIVES This five-year, multicenter, randomized clinical trial was designed to compare long-term survival among patients with medically refractory myocardial ischemia and a high risk of adverse outcomes assigned to either a CABG or a PCI strategy, which could include stents. METHODS Patients from 16 Veterans Affairs Medical Centers were screened to identify myocardial ischemia refractory to medical management and the presence of one or more risk factors for adverse outcome with CABG, including prior open-heart surgery, age >70 years, left ventricular ejection fraction RESULTS A total of 232 patients was randomized to CABG and 222 to PCI. The 30-day survivals for CABG and PCI were 95% and 97%, respectively. Survival rates for CABG and PCI were 90% versus 94% at six months and 79% versus 80% at 36 months (log-rank test, p = 0.46). CONCLUSIONS Percutaneous coronary intervention is an alternative to CABG for patients with medically refractory myocardial ischemia and a high risk of adverse outcomes with CABG.

Use of evidence-based therapies in short-term outcomes of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction in patients with chronic kidney disease: a report from the National Cardiovascular Data Acute Coronary Treatment and Intervention Outcomes Network registry.

Background Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a risk factor for myocardial infarction (MI) and death. Our goal was to characterize the association between CKD severity and short-term outcomes and the use of in-hospital evidence-based therapies among patients with STEMI and NSTEMI.Background— Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a risk factor for myocardial infarction (MI) and death. Our goal was to characterize the association between CKD severity and short-term outcomes and the use of in-hospital evidence-based therapies among patients with ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) and non–ST-segment elevation MI (NSTEMI). Methods and Results— The study sample was drawn from the Acute Coronary Treatment and Intervention Outcomes Network registry, a nationwide sample of STEMI (n=19 029) and NSTEMI (n=30 462) patients. Estimated glomerular filtration rate was calculated with the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease equation in relation to use of immediate (first 24 hours) therapies and early (first 48 hours) cardiac catheterization as well as in-hospital major bleeding events and death. Overall, 30.5% and 42.9% of patients with STEMI and NSTEMI, respectively, had CKD. Regardless of MI type, patients with progressively more severe CKD had higher rates of death. For STEMI, the odds ratio for stage 3a, 3b, 4, and 5 CKD compared with patients with no CKD was 2.49, 3.72, 4.82, and 7.97, respectively (Ptrend<0.0001). For NSTEMI, the analogous odds ratios were 1.81, 2.41, 3.50, and 4.09 (P for trend <0.0001). In addition, patients with progressively more severe CKD were less likely to receive immediate evidence-based therapies including aspirin, &bgr;-blockers, or clopidogrel, were less likely to undergo any reperfusion (STEMI) or revascularization (NSTEMI), and had higher rates of bleeding. Conclusions— Reports over the past decade have highlighted the importance of CKD among patients with MI. Data from this contemporary cohort suggest that patients with CKD still receive fewer evidence-based therapies and have substantially higher mortality rates.

Early revascularization is associated with improved survival in elderly patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: a report from the SHOCK Trial Registry

Aims The SHould we emergently revascularize Occluded Coronaries in cardiogenic shocK (SHOCK) Trial showed no benefit of early revascularization in patients aged ≥75 years with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock. We examined the effect of age on treatment and outcomes of patients with cardiogenic shock in the SHOCK Trial Registry. Methods and results We compared clinical and treatment factors in patients in the SHOCK Trial Registry with shock due to pump failure aged <75 years \batchmode \documentclass[fleqn,10pt,legalpaper]{article} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amsmath} \pagestyle{empty} \begin{document} \((n=588)\) \end{document} and ≥75 years \batchmode \documentclass[fleqn,10pt,legalpaper]{article} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amsmath} \pagestyle{empty} \begin{document} \((n=277)\) \end{document}, and 30-day mortality of patients treated with early revascularization <18 hours since onset of shock and those undergoing a later or no revascularization procedure. After excluding early deaths covariate-adjusted relative risk and 95% confidence intervals were calculated to compare the revascularization strategies within the two age groups. Older patients more often had prior myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, renal insufficiency, other comorbidities, and severe coronary anatomy. In-hospital mortality in the early vs. late or no revascularization groups was 45 vs. 61% for patients aged <75 years \batchmode \documentclass[fleqn,10pt,legalpaper]{article} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amsmath} \pagestyle{empty} \begin{document} \((p=0.002)\) \end{document} and 48 vs. 81% for those aged ≥75 years \batchmode \documentclass[fleqn,10pt,legalpaper]{article} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amsmath} \pagestyle{empty} \begin{document} \((p=0.0003)\) \end{document}. After exclusion of 65 early deaths and covariate adjustment, the relative risk was 0.76 (0.59, 0.99; \batchmode \documentclass[fleqn,10pt,legalpaper]{article} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amsmath} \pagestyle{empty} \begin{document} \(p=0.045\) \end{document}) in patients aged <75 years and 0.46 (0.28, 0.75; \batchmode \documentclass[fleqn,10pt,legalpaper]{article} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amsmath} \pagestyle{empty} \begin{document} \(p=0.002\) \end{document}) in patients aged ≥75 years. Conclusions Elderly patients with myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock are less likely to be treated with invasive therapies than younger patients with shock. Covariate-adjusted modeling reveals that elderly patients selected for early revascularization have a lower mortality rate than those receiving a revascularization procedure later or never.

A pharmacodynamic comparison of prasugrel vs. high-dose clopidogrel in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and coronary artery disease: results of the Optimizing anti-Platelet Therapy In diabetes MellitUS (OPTIMUS)-3 Trial

Aims Patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) have increased platelet reactivity and reduced platelet response to clopidogrel compared with patients without DM. Prasugrel, a more potent antiplatelet agent, is associated with greater reductions in ischaemic events compared with clopidogrel, particularly in patients with DM. The aim of this study was to perform serial pharmacodynamic assessments of prasugrel with high-dose clopidogrel in patients with DM. Methods and results Optimizing anti-Platelet Therapy In diabetes MellitUS (OPTIMUS)-3 was a prospective, randomized, double-blind, crossover study in patients with type 2 DM and coronary artery disease (CAD). Patients (n= 35) were randomly assigned to either prasugrel 60 mg loading dose (LD)/10 mg maintenance dose (MD) or clopidogrel 600 mg LD/150 mg MD over two 1-week treatment periods separated by a 2-week washout period. Platelet function was assessed by VerifyNow® P2Y12 assay, light transmission aggregometry, and vasodilator-stimulated phosphoprotein phosphorylation at 0, 1, 4, and 24 h and 7 days. Greater platelet inhibition by VerifyNow® P2Y12 was achieved by prasugrel compared with clopidogrel at 4 h post-LD (least squares mean, 89.3 vs. 27.7%, P< 0.0001; primary endpoint). The difference in platelet inhibition between prasugrel and clopidogrel was significant from 1 h through 7 days (P < 0.0001). Similar results were obtained using all other platelet function measures. Prasugrel resulted in fewer poor responders at all time points irrespective of definition used. Conclusion In patients with type 2 DM and CAD, standard-dose prasugrel is associated with greater platelet inhibition and better response profiles during both the loading and maintenance periods when compared with double-dose clopidogrel. Clinical trial identifier: www.clinicaltrials.gov—NCT00642174

Increased Platelet Inhibition After Switching From Maintenance Clopidogrel to Prasugrel in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes: Results of the SWAP (SWitching Anti Platelet) Study

OBJECTIVES The objective was to evaluate the pharmacodynamic response of switching patients on maintenance phase clopidogrel therapy after an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) to prasugrel. BACKGROUND Prasugrel P2Y(12) receptor blockade is associated with greater pharmacodynamic platelet inhibition and reduction of ischemic complications compared with that of clopidogrel in ACS patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. The pharmacodynamic effects of switching patients during maintenance phase clopidogrel therapy after an ACS event to prasugrel are unknown. METHODS The SWAP (SWitching Anti Platelet) study was a phase 2, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, active-control trial. After a run-in of daily open-label clopidogrel 75 mg with aspirin therapy for 10 to 14 days, patients were randomly assigned to 1 of the following 3 treatments: placebo loading dose (LD)/clopidogrel 75 mg maintenance dose (MD), placebo LD/prasugrel 10 mg MD, or prasugrel 60 mg LD/10 mg MD. Platelet function was evaluated at 2 h, 24 h, 7 days, and 14 days using light transmittance aggregometry, VerifyNow P2Y(12) assay, and vasodilator-stimulated phosphoprotein phosphorylation. RESULTS A total of 139 patients were randomized, of whom 100 were eligible for analysis. Maximum adenosine diphosphate-induced platelet aggregation (20 μM) by light transmittance aggregometry at 1 week (primary end point) was lower after prasugrel MD compared with clopidogrel MD (41.1% vs. 55.0%, p < 0.0001), and was also lower in the prasugrel LD+MD group compared with clopidogrel MD (41.0% vs. 55.0%, p < 0.0001). At 2 h, a prasugrel LD resulted in higher platelet inhibition compared with the other regimens. Similar results were found using light transmittance aggregometry with 5 μM adenosine diphosphate, VerifyNow P2Y(12), and vasodilator-stimulated phosphoprotein phosphorylation assays. CONCLUSIONS For patients receiving maintenance clopidogrel therapy after an ACS event, switching from clopidogrel to prasugrel is associated with a further reduction in platelet function by 1 week using prasugrel MD or within 2 h with the administration of a prasugrel LD. (A Pharmacodynamic Comparison of Prasugrel [LY640315] Versus Clopidogrel in Subjects With Acute Coronary Syndrome Who Are Receiving Clopidogrel [SWAP]; NCT00356135).

Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary bypass graft surgery for diabetic patients with unstable angina and risk factors for adverse outcomes with bypass: Outcome of diabetic patients in the AWESOME randomized trial and registry

OBJECTIVES This study compared survival after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with survival after coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) among diabetics in the Veterans Affairs AWESOME (Angina With Extremely Serious Operative Mortality Evaluation) study randomized trial and registry of high-risk patients. BACKGROUND Previous studies indicate that CABG may be superior to PCI for diabetics, but no comparisons have been made for diabetics at high risk for surgery. METHODS Over five years (1995 to 2000), 2,431 patients with medically refractory myocardial ischemia and at least one of five risk factors (prior CABG, myocardial infarction within seven days, left ventricular ejection fraction <0.35, age >70 years, or an intra-aortic balloon being required to stabilize) were identified. A total of 781 were acceptable for CABG and PCI, and 454 consented to be randomized. The 1,650 patients not acceptable for both CABG and PCI constitute the physician-directed registry, and the 327 who were acceptable but refused to be randomized constitute the patient-choice registry. Diabetes prevalence was 32% (144) among randomized patients, 27% (89) in the patient-choice registry, and 32% (525) in the physician-directed registry. The CABG and PCI survival rates were compared using Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank tests. RESULTS The respective CABG and PCI 36-month survival rates for diabetic patients were 72% and 81% for randomized patients, 85% and 89% for patient-choice registry patients, and 73% and 71% for the physician-directed registry patients. None of the differences was statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS We conclude that PCI is a relatively safe alternative to CABG for diabetic patients with medically refractory unstable angina who are at high risk for CABG.

Optimal Timing of Intervention in Non–ST-Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndromes Insights From the CRUSADE (Can Rapid risk stratification of Unstable angina patients Suppress ADverse outcomes with Early implementation of the ACC/AHA guidelines) Registry

Background— Recent studies indicate that a routine invasive approach for patients with unstable angina (UA) and non–ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) yields improved outcomes compared with a conservative approach, but the optimal timing of this approach remains open to debate. Methods and Results— We used day of hospital presentation as an instrumental variable to study the impact of timing of cardiac catheterization and revascularization therapy on acute outcomes (death, reinfarction, stroke, cardiogenic shock, or congestive heart failure) among patients with UA and NSTEMI. Between January 2001 and September 2003, 56 352 patients with UA or NSTEMI were treated at 310 US hospitals participating in the CRUSADE national quality improvement initiative. Weekend patients were defined as those who presented to the hospital between 5 pm on Friday and 7 am on Sunday. All other patients were classified as weekday. Weekday patients were similar to weekend patients in terms of demographics, clinical characteristics, and the use of medical therapies in the first 24 hours. Although overall rates of cardiac catheterization and revascularization were similar for the 2 groups, median time to catheterization was significantly longer for weekend than for weekday patients (46.3 versus 23.4 hours, P<0.0001). This delay was not associated with increased in-hospital adverse events, including death (weekend 4.4% versus weekday 4.1%, P=0.23), recurrent MI (2.9% versus 3.0%, P=0.36), or their combination (6.6% versus 6.6%, P=0.86). These findings were not affected by risk adjustment or use of alternative definitions of weekend versus weekday presentation. When weekend presentation was used as the basis for an instrumental variable analysis, we found that catheterization within the first 12 hours of presentation was associated with a nonsignificant trend toward reduced in-hospital mortality (absolute risk reduction 1.9%; 95% CI 6.7% lower to 2.9% higher; P=0.43) that decreased with longer treatment delays. Conclusions— Although weekend presentation is associated with a delay in invasive management among patients with UA and NSTEMI, in the context of contemporary medical therapy, this does not increase adverse events. Weekend presentation appears to fulfill accepted criteria as an instrumental variable for studying the optimal timing of invasive management for acute coronary syndrome patients. Using weekend status as an instrumental variable, we found no significant benefit to early catheterization, although we could not exclude an important risk reduction, particularly for catheterization within 12 hours of presentation.

Use of Emergency Medical Service Transport Among Patients With ST-Segment–Elevation Myocardial Infarction Findings From the National Cardiovascular Data Registry Acute Coronary Treatment Intervention Outcomes Network Registry–Get With the Guidelines

Background— Activation of emergency medical services (EMS) is critical for the early triage and treatment of patients experiencing ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction, yet data regarding EMS use and its association with subsequent clinical care are limited. Methods and Results— We performed an observational analysis of 37 634 ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction patients treated at 372 US hospitals participating in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry Acute Coronary Treatment and Intervention Outcomes Network Registry–Get With the Guidelines between January 2007 and September 2009, and examined independent patient factors associated with EMS transportation versus patient self-transportation. We found that EMS transport was used in only 60% of ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction patients. Older patients, those living farther from the hospital, and those with hemodynamic compromise were more likely to use EMS transport. In contrast, race, income, and education level did not appear to be associated with the mode of transport. Compared with self-transported patients, EMS-transported patients had significantly shorter delays in both symptom-onset-to-arrival time (median, 89 versus 120 minutes; P<0.0001) and door-to-reperfusion time (median door-to-balloon time, 63 versus 76 minutes; P<0.0001; median door-to-needle time, 23 versus 29 minutes; P<0.0001). Conclusions— Emergency medical services transportation to the hospital is underused among contemporary ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction patients. Nevertheless, use of EMS transportation is associated with substantial reductions in ischemic time and treatment delays. Community education efforts are needed to improve the use of emergency transport as part of system-wide strategies to improve ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction reperfusion care.

Troponin Criteria for Myocardial Infarction After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

BACKGROUND The universal definition of myocardial infarction specifies creatine kinase-MB fraction (CKMB) or troponin values more than 3 times the 99th percentile of the upper reference limit as diagnostic after percutaneous coronary intervention, with a preference for the use of troponin. METHODS Outcomes of 4930 patients with elective coronary stent placement between July 1, 2004, and September 30, 2007, as part of the EVENT (Evaluation of Drug Eluting Stents and Ischemic Events) registry were analyzed to test the association between 1-year mortality and postprocedure elevation of either CKMB or troponin. All values were normalized to the individual clinical center myocardial infarction diagnostic levels. RESULTS Myocardial infarction occurred in 7.2% of patients by the CKMB criteria and in 24.3% of patients by the troponin criteria of greater than 3 times the diagnostic level. Both CKMB (hazard ratio [HR], 1.38; 95% CI, 1.22-1.55) and troponin (HR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.18-1.54) as continuous values were associated with 1-year mortality. The mortality effect of a more than 3-fold increase was greater for CKMB (adjusted HR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.5-4.1) than for troponin (adjusted HR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.1-2.5). A troponin threshold more than 20 times the diagnostic level provided similar frequency (7.0%) and mortality risk (adjusted HR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.6-4.3) as a 3-fold increase in CKMB. A regression spline model of the relationship between troponin and 1-year mortality demonstrated that the hazard of mortality increased from 1.02 at 3-fold to 1.67 at 20-fold troponin elevation. CONCLUSION Troponin and CKMB elevations after percutaneous coronary intervention are associated with increased 1-year mortality rates, but thresholds for similar event frequency and mortality hazard are much higher for troponin than for CKMB.