Kanhaiya L. Poddar

Triple Versus Dual Antiplatelet Therapy in Patients With Acute ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Background— Whether triple antiplatelet therapy is superior or similar to dual antiplatelet therapy in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention in the era of drug-eluting stents remains unclear. Methods and Results— A total of 4203 ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients who underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents were analyzed retrospectively in the Korean Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry (KAMIR). They received either dual (aspirin plus clopidogrel; dual group; n=2569) or triple (aspirin plus clopidogrel plus cilostazol; triple group; n=1634) antiplatelet therapy. The triple group received additional cilostazol at least for 1 month. Various major adverse cardiac events at 8 months were compared between these 2 groups. Compared with the dual group, the triple group had a similar incidence of major bleeding events but a significantly lower incidence of in-hospital mortality. Clinical outcomes at 8 months showed that the triple group had significantly lower incidences of cardiac death (adjusted odds ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.32 to 0.84; P=0.007), total death (adjusted odds ratio, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.41 to 0.89; P=0.010), and total major adverse cardiac events (adjusted odds ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval, 0.58 to 0.95; P=0.019) than the dual group. Subgroup analysis showed that older (>65 years old), female, and diabetic patients got more benefits from triple antiplatelet therapy than their counterparts who received dual antiplatelet therapy. Conclusions— Triple antiplatelet therapy seems to be superior to dual antiplatelet therapy in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents. These results may provide the rationale for the use of triple antiplatelet therapy in these patients.

Prevalence and outcomes of unoperated patients with severe symptomatic mitral regurgitation and heart failure: comprehensive analysis to determine the potential role of MitraClip for this unmet need.

To the Editor: Mitral valve (MV) surgery is recommended in patients with severe symptomatic mitral regurgitation (MR) [(1)][1]. The role of MV surgery is unclear in patients with severe MR secondary to left ventricular (LV) dysfunction [(1)][1]. Many patients with severe MR are at high surgical

Meta-Analysis of Multivessel Coronary Artery Revascularization Versus Culprit-Only Revascularization in Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Multivessel Disease

American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines for management of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) recommend culprit artery-only revascularization (CULPRIT) based on safety concerns during noninfarct-related artery intervention. However, the data to support this safety concern are scant. Searches were performed in PubMed/EMBASE/CENTRAL for studies evaluating multivessel revascularization versus CULPRIT in patients with STEMI and multivessel disease (MVD). A multivessel revascularization strategy had to be performed at the time of CULPRIT or during the same hospitalization. Early (≤30-day) and long-term outcomes were evaluated. Among 19 studies (23 arms) that evaluated 61,764 subjects with STEMI and MVD, multivessel revascularization was performed in a minority of patients (16%). For early outcomes, there was no significant difference for outcomes of mortality, MI, stroke, and target vessel revascularization, with a 44% decrease in risk of repeat percutaneous coronary intervention and major adverse cardiovascular events (odds ratio 0.68, 95% confidence interval 0.57 to 0.81) with multivessel revascularization compared to CULPRIT. Similarly, for long-term outcomes (follow-up 2.0 ± 1.1 years), there was no difference for outcomes of MI, target vessel revascularization, and stent thrombosis, with 33%, 43%, and 53% decreases in risk of mortality, repeat percutaneous coronary intervention, coronary artery bypass grafting, respectively, and major adverse cardiovascular events (odds ratio 0.60, 95% confidence interval 0.50 to 0.72) with multivessel revascularization compared to CULPRIT. In conclusion, in patients with STEMI and MVD, multivessel revascularization appears to be safe compared to culprit artery-only revascularization. These findings support the need for a large-scale randomized trial to evaluate revascularization strategies in patients with STEMI and MVD.

Low-molecular-weight heparin versus unfractionated heparin in acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents

BACKGROUND Whether low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) is superior to unfractionated heparin (UFH) in acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DESs) remains unclear. METHODS A total of 3,372 STEMI patients who underwent primary PCI with DESs received either LMWH (n = 1,531 patients, subcutaneous enoxaparin 1 mg/kg, bid for 3-5 days plus reduced dose of UFH [50 U/kg] during PCI) or UFH alone (n = 1,841 patients, intravenous bolus injection of 5,000 U, followed by 24,000 U/d infusion for at least 48 hours). The bleeding events and clinical outcomes during in-hospital and at 8 months were compared. RESULTS The incidences of major and minor bleeding events were similar between the 2 groups. Multivariable Cox regression analysis showed that LMWH group had lower incidences of cardiac death (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.55, 95% CI 0.39-0.77, P < .001), total death (adjusted OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.37-0.68, P < .001), and total major adverse cardiac events (adjusted OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.62-0.95, P = .017) at 8 months as compared with UFH group. Similar results were obtained across different subgroups including different DESs, age, and sex. CONCLUSIONS The LMWH enoxaparin combined with reduced dose of UFH (50 U/kg) administration as an adjunctive antithrombotic therapy in STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI with DESs seems to be safe and efficacious. However, randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm this conclusion.

Outcomes in Patients With Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement and Left Main Stenting : The TAVR-LM Registry

BACKGROUND A percutaneous approach with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of the left main coronary artery (LM) is frequently used in high-risk patients with coexisting aortic stenosis and LM disease. Outcomes of TAVR plus LM PCI have not been previously reported. OBJECTIVES The primary objective of the TAVR-LM registry is to evaluate clinical outcomes in patients undergoing TAVR plus LM PCI. METHODS Clinical, echocardiographic, computed tomographic, and angiographic characteristics were retrospectively collected in 204 patients undergoing TAVR plus LM PCI. In total, 128 matched patient pairs were generated by performing 1:1 case-control matching between 167 patients with pre-existing LM stents undergoing TAVR and 1,188 control patients undergoing TAVR without LM revascularization. RESULTS One-year mortality (9.4% vs. 10.2%, p = 0.83) was similar between the TAVR plus LM PCI cohort and matched controls. One-year mortality after TAVR plus LM PCI was not different in patients with unprotected compared with protected LMs (7.8% vs. 8.1%, p = 0.88), those undergoing LM PCI within 3 months compared with those with LM PCI greater than 3 months before TAVR (7.4% vs. 8.6%, p = 0.61), and those with ostial versus nonostial LM stents (10.3% vs. 15.6%, p = 0.20). Unplanned LM PCI performed because of TAVR-related coronary complication, compared with planned LM PCI performed for pre-existing LM disease, resulted in increased 30-day (15.8% vs. 3.4%, p = 0.013) and 1-year (21.1% vs. 8.0%, p = 0.071) mortality. CONCLUSIONS Despite the anatomic proximity of the aortic annulus to the LM, TAVR plus LM PCI is safe and technically feasible, with short- and intermediate-term clinical outcomes comparable with those in patients undergoing TAVR alone. These results suggest that TAVR plus LM PCI is a reasonable option for patients who are at high risk for surgery.

Predicting vascular complications during transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement using computed tomography: a novel area-based index.

Computed tomography (CT) imaging has not been systematically studied for predicting vascular complications during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).

Unrestricted Use of 2 New-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction : A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

OBJECTIVES This study sought to compare everolimus-eluting stents (EES) with zotarolimus-eluting stents (ZES) in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). BACKGROUND There is a paucity of data to exclusively evaluate the safety and efficacy of second-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) in the setting of AMI. METHODS The present study enrolled 3,309 AMI patients treated with ZES (n = 1,608) or EES (n = 1,701) in a large-scale, prospective, multicenter registry-KAMIR (Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry). Propensity score matching was applied to adjust for differences in baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics, producing a total of 2,646 patients (1,343 receiving ZES, and 1,343 receiving EES). Target lesion failure (TLF) was defined as the composite of cardiac death, recurrent nonfatal myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization. Major clinical outcomes at 1 year were compared between the 2 propensity score-matched groups. RESULTS After propensity score matching, baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics were similar between the 2 groups. Clinical outcomes of the propensity score-matched patients showed that, despite similar incidences of recurrent nonfatal myocardial infarction and in-hospital and 1-year mortality, patients in the EES group had significantly lower rates of TLF (6.5% vs. 8.7%, p = 0.029) and probable or definite stent thrombosis (0.3% vs. 1.6%, p < 0.001), compared with those in the ZES group. Furthermore, there was a numerically lower rate of target lesion revascularization (1.2% vs. 2.2%, p = 0.051) in the EES group than in the ZES group. CONCLUSIONS In this propensity-matched comparison, EES seems to be superior to ZES in reducing TLF and stent thrombosis in patients with AMI.

Impact of Severe Mitral Regurgitation on Postoperative Outcomes After Noncardiac Surgery

OBJECTIVE Preoperative cardiac risk assessment scoring systems traditionally do not include valvular regurgitation as a criterion for adverse outcome prediction. We sought to determine the impact of significant mitral regurgitation on postoperative outcomes after planned noncardiac surgeries. METHODS Patients with significant mitral regurgitation (moderate-severe or severe) undergoing noncardiac surgery were identified using surgical and echocardiographic databases at the Cleveland Clinic. The mechanism of mitral regurgitation was identified and classified as ischemic or nonischemic. By using propensity score analysis, we obtained 4 matched controls (patients undergoing noncardiac surgery without mitral regurgitation) for each case. The primary outcome was defined as a composite of 30-day mortality, myocardial infarction, heart failure, and stroke. Secondary outcomes included 30-day mortality, myocardial infarction, heart failure, stroke, and atrial fibrillation. RESULTS A total of 298 cases and 1172 controls were included in the study. The incidence of primary outcome was significantly higher among patients with mitral regurgitation (22.2%) compared with controls (16.4%, P=.02). Analysis of the secondary outcomes revealed significant differences in perioperative heart failure (odds ratio, 1.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-2.0) and perioperative myocardial infarction (odds ratio, 2.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-7.3). Of patients with mitral regurgitation, those with ischemic mitral regurgitation had significantly more events than those with nonischemic mitral regurgitation (39.2% vs 13.3%, P<.001). CONCLUSIONS Patients undergoing noncardiac surgery with significant ischemic mitral regurgitation are at higher risk of a composite adverse postoperative outcome, including short-term mortality, heart failure, myocardial infarction, and stroke.

Impact of low-dose aspirin on coronary artery spasm as assessed by intracoronary acetylcholine provocation test in Korean patients.

High-dose aspirin has been reported to aggravate coronary artery spasm (CAS). However, it is unknown whether low-dose aspirin (LDA; 100 mg) has deleterious impact on CAS. We assessed the impact of LDA on CAS induced by intracoronary acetylcholine (ACh) provocation test. A total of 2789 consecutive patients without significant coronary artery disease who underwent ACh test between November 2004 and March 2010 were enrolled. The patients were divided into two groups: the aspirin group taking LDA before ACh test (n=221) and the no aspirin group not taking aspirin (n=2568). At baseline, the prevalence of old age, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and hyperlipidemia were higher in the aspirin group. During the ACh test, the incidence of significant CAS, ischemic chest pain, as well as severe and multivessel spasm was higher in the aspirin group. The response rate to lower ACh dose was higher in the aspirin group. Multivariate analysis showed that the previous use of LDA was an independent predictor of CAS (adjusted odds ratio, 1.6, 95% confidence interval, 1.0-2.3; p=0.031). However, it is likely that the association of LDA and CAS that we have observed is not causal but may be hypothesis generating due to significant baseline differences. Further, male gender, old age, lipid-lowering drugs, baseline spasm, and myocardial bridge were independent predictors of CAS. LDA was more frequently associated with CAS and ischemic symptoms, as well as severe and multivessel spasm, suggesting the patients who have received LDA would require more intensive medical therapies and close follow up.

‘Smoker's paradox’ in young patients with acute myocardial infarction

Of the patients suffering from acute myocardial infarction (AMI), smokers are younger than non‐smokers, which may be a major confounding factor causing ‘smokers paradox’. Therefore, in the present study we evaluated the ‘smokers paradox’ in young patients with AMI. In all, 1218 young AMI patients (≤ 45 years of age), comprising 990 smokers and 228 non‐smokers, were enrolled in the present study. In‐hospital and 8 months clinical outcomes were compared between the smokers and non‐smokers. Baseline clinical characteristics showed that smokers were more likely to be male (97.9% vs 72.4%; P < 0.001) and had a higher rate of ST‐segment elevation myocardial infarction (71.3% vs 59.5%; P = 0.001) than non‐smokers. Clinical outcomes showed that smokers had lower rates of in‐hospital cardiac death (0.8% vs 3.5%; P = 0.004), total death (0.8% vs 3.5%; P = 0.004) and 8 months cardiac death (1.1% vs 3.9%; P = 0.006) and total death (1.3% vs 4.4%; P = 0.005) than non‐smokers. Multivariable logistic analysis showed that current smoking was an independent protective predictor of 8 months cardiac death (odds ratio (OR) 0.25; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07–0.92; P = 0.037) and total death (OR 0.26; 95% CI 0.09–0.82; P = 0.021). Subgroup analysis in patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention after AMI showed that current smoking was an independent protective predictor of 8 months total major adverse cardiac events (OR 0.47; 95% CI 0.23–0.97; P = 0.041). Current smoking seems to be associated with better clinical outcomes in young patients with AMI, suggesting the existence of the ‘smokers paradox’ in this particular subset of patients.