Marije M. Vis

Use of clopidogrel with or without aspirin in patients taking oral anticoagulant therapy and undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: an open-label, randomised, controlled trial

BACKGROUND If percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is required in patients taking oral anticoagulants, antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel is indicated, but such triple therapy increases the risk of serious bleeding. We investigated the safety and efficacy of clopidogrel alone compared with clopidogrel plus aspirin. METHODS We did an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial in 15 centres in Belgium and the Netherlands. From November, 2008, to November, 2011, adults receiving oral anticoagulants and undergoing PCI were assigned clopidogrel alone (double therapy) or clopidogrel plus aspirin (triple therapy). The primary outcome was any bleeding episode within 1 year of PCI, assessed by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00769938. FINDINGS 573 patients were enrolled and 1-year data were available for 279 (98·2%) patients assigned double therapy and 284 (98·3%) assigned triple therapy. Mean ages were 70·3 (SD 7·0) years and 69·5 (8·0) years, respectively. Bleeding episodes were seen in 54 (19·4%) patients receiving double therapy and in 126 (44·4%) receiving triple therapy (hazard ratio [HR] 0·36, 95% CI 0·26-0·50, p<0·0001). In the double-therapy group, six (2·2%) patients had multiple bleeding events, compared with 34 (12·0%) in the triple-therapy group. 11 (3·9%) patients receiving double therapy required at least one blood transfusion, compared with 27 (9·5%) patients in the triple-therapy group (odds ratio from Kaplan-Meier curve 0·39, 95% CI 0·17-0·84, p=0·011). INTERPRETATION Use of clopiogrel without aspirin was associated with a significant reduction in bleeding complications and no increase in the rate of thrombotic events. FUNDING Antonius Ziekenhuis Foundation, Strect Foundation.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of intra-aortic balloon pump therapy in ST-elevation myocardial infarction : should we change the guidelines?

Aims Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation (IABP) in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) with cardiogenic shock is strongly recommended (class IB) in the current guidelines. We performed meta-analyses to evaluate the evidence for IABP in STEMI with and without cardiogenic shock. Methods and results Medical literature databases were scrutinized to identify randomized trials comparing IABP with no IABP in STEMI. In absence of randomized trials, cohort studies of IABP in STEMI with cardiogenic shock were identified. Two separate meta-analyses were performed respectively. The first meta-analysis included seven randomized trials (n = 1009) of STEMI. IABP showed neither a 30-day survival benefit nor improved left ventricular ejection fraction, while being associated with significantly higher stroke and bleeding rates. The second meta-analysis included nine cohorts of STEMI patients with cardiogenic shock (n = 10529). In patients treated with thrombolysis, IABP was associated with an 18% [95% confidence interval (CI), 16-20%; P < 0.0001] decrease in 30 day mortality, albeit with significantly higher revascularization rates compared to patients without support. Contrariwise, in patients treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention, IABP was associated with a 6% (95% CI, 3-10%; P < 0.0008) increase in 30 day mortality. Conclusion The pooled randomized data do not support IABP in patients with high-risk STEMI. The meta-analysis of cohort studies in the setting of STEMI complicated by cardiogenic shock supported IABP therapy adjunctive to thrombolysis. In contrast, the observational data did not support IABP therapy adjunctive to primary PCI. All available observational data concerning IABP therapy in the setting of cardiogenic shock is importantly hampered by bias and confounding. There is insufficient evidence endorsing the current guideline recommendation for the use of IABP therapy in the setting of STEMI complicated by cardiogenic shock. Our meta-analyses challenge the current guideline recommendations.

Factors associated with cardiac conduction disorders and permanent pacemaker implantation after percutaneous aortic valve implantation with the CoreValve prosthesis

BACKGROUND Cardiac conduction disorders and requirement for permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) are not uncommon after surgical aortic valve replacement and have important clinical implications. We aimed to investigate the incidence of cardiac conduction disorders after percutaneous aortic valve implantation (PAVI) and to identify possible clinical factors associated with their development. METHODS We studied 34 patients (mean age 80 +/- 8 years, 18 male) who underwent PAVI with the CoreValve bioprosthesis (Corevalve Inc, Irvine, CA). Electrocardiographic evaluation was performed pre- and postprocedurally, and at 1-week and 1-month follow-up. Other clinical variables were obtained from the medical history, echocardiography, and angiography. RESULTS After PAVI, 7 patients required PPI, all of whom developed total atrioventricular block within 3 days postprocedurally. A smaller left ventricular outflow tract diameter (20.3 +/- 0.5 vs 21.6 +/- 1.8 cm, P = .01), more left-sided heart axis (-20 degrees +/- 29 degrees vs 19 degrees +/- 36 degrees , P = .02), more mitral annular calcification (10 +/- 1 vs 5 +/- 4 mm, P = .008), and a smaller postimplantation indexed effective orifice area (0.86 +/- 0.20 vs 1.10 +/- 0.26 cm(2)/m(2), P = .04) were associated with PPI. The incidence of new left bundle-branch block (LBBB) was 65% and was associated with a deeper implantation of the prosthesis: 10.2 +/- 2.3 mm in the new-LBBB group versus 7.7 +/- 3.1 mm in the non-LBBB group (P = .02). CONCLUSIONS Percutaneous aortic valve implantation with the CoreValve prosthesis results in a high incidence of total atrioventricular block requiring PPI and new-onset LBBB. Preexisting disturbance of cardiac conduction, a narrow left ventricular outflow tract, and the severity of mitral annular calcification predict the need for permanent pacing, whereas the only factor shown to be predictive for new-onset LBBB is the depth of prosthesis implantation.

Bioresorbable Scaffolds versus Metallic Stents in Routine PCI

BACKGROUND Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds were developed to overcome the shortcomings of drug‐eluting stents in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We performed an investigator‐initiated, randomized trial to compare an everolimus‐eluting bioresorbable scaffold with an everolimus‐eluting metallic stent in the context of routine clinical practice. METHODS We randomly assigned 1845 patients undergoing PCI to receive either a bioresorbable vascular scaffold (924 patients) or a metallic stent (921 patients). The primary end point was target‐vessel failure (a composite of cardiac death, target‐vessel myocardial infarction, or target‐vessel revascularization). The data and safety monitoring board recommended early reporting of the study results because of safety concerns. This report provides descriptive information on end‐point events. RESULTS The median follow‐up was 707 days. Target‐vessel failure occurred in 105 patients in the scaffold group and in 94 patients in the stent group (2‐year cumulative event rates, 11.7% and 10.7%, respectively; hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85 to 1.48; P=0.43); event rates were based on Kaplan–Meier estimates in time‐to‐event analyses. Cardiac death occurred in 18 patients in the scaffold group and in 23 patients in the stent group (2‐year cumulative event rates, 2.0% and 2.7%, respectively), target‐vessel myocardial infarction occurred in 48 patients in the scaffold group and in 30 patients in the stent group (2‐year cumulative event rates, 5.5% and 3.2%), and target‐vessel revascularization occurred in 76 patients in the scaffold group and in 65 patients in the stent group (2‐year cumulative event rates, 8.7% and 7.5%). Definite or probable device thrombosis occurred in 31 patients in the scaffold group as compared with 8 patients in the stent group (2‐year cumulative event rates, 3.5% vs. 0.9%; hazard ratio, 3.87; 95% CI, 1.78 to 8.42; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS In this preliminary report of a trial involving patients undergoing PCI, there was no significant difference in the rate of target‐vessel failure between the patients who received a bioresorbable scaffold and the patients who received a metallic stent. The bioresorbable scaffold was associated with a higher incidence of device thrombosis than the metallic stent through 2 years of follow‐up. (Funded by Abbott Vascular; AIDA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01858077.)

Presence of Older Thrombus Is an Independent Predictor of Long-Term Mortality in Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Treated With Thrombus Aspiration During Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Background— Routine thrombus aspiration is frequently used during primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction to prevent distal embolization. Recently, evidence of clinical benefit was published. In 50% of the ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients with an onset of symptoms <12 hours before, thrombi were shown to be >1 day old. This observation illustrates that plaque rupture and coronary occlusion are significantly separated in time. In the present study, we correlate the presence of fresh versus older thrombus with long-term mortality. Methods and Results— Thrombus aspiration was performed in 1315 patients treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention with 3 devices (Rescue, Export, and Proxis). Aspirated material was fixed in formalin and processed for histopathology. If possible, thrombus age was classified as either fresh only (<1 day) or older (>1 day). We identified fresh thrombus in 552 patients and older thrombus in 372 patients. The cumulative Kaplan-Meier estimate of all-cause mortality at 4 years was significantly higher in patients with older thrombus (16.0%) compared with patients with fresh thrombus (7.4%), with a hazard ratio of 1.82 (95% confidence interval, 1.17 to 2.85; P=0.008). Multivariate analysis identified the presence of older thrombus, in addition to other established predictors, as an independent predictor (hazard ratio, 1.83; 95% confidence interval, 1.14 to 2.93; P=0.01) of long-term mortality. Conclusion— Our study demonstrates that the presence of older thrombus, in addition to other established predictors, is an independent predictor of long-term mortality in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction treated with thrombus aspiration during primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

Initial experience and clinical evaluation of the Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) in real-world practice: the AMC Single Centre Real World PCI Registry.

AIMS To report procedural and midterm clinical outcomes after the use of the second-generation Absorb everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold (Absorb BVS) in a real-world percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) registry. METHODS AND RESULTS All patients assigned to treatment with the Absorb BVS in the Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, between August 2012 and August 2013 were included in a prospective registry. A total of 135 patients were included in the study, including 53 (39%) acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients (13% ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction [STEMI]). In total 159 lesions were treated, including 102 (62%) with a type B2 or C classification. Pre- and post-procedural quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) analyses showed an acute gain of 1.37±0.53 mm. An angiographic success rate was achieved in 152 (96%) of the lesions. Six-month follow-up was available in 97% of the patients. Six-month cumulative target vessel failure (composite of all-cause mortality, any myocardial infarction [MI] and target vessel revascularisation [TVR]) rate was 8.5%, including a 3.0% MI, 3.0% definite scaffold thrombosis, 6.3% target lesion revascularisation, and an 8.5% TVR rate. CONCLUSIONS The use of the Absorb BVS in a cohort reflecting daily clinical practice is feasible and associated with good procedural safety and angiographic success rate. In addition, six-month follow-up is associated with acceptable clinical outcomes.

Genous™ endothelial progenitor cell capturing stent vs. the Taxus Liberté stent in patients with de novo coronary lesions with a high-risk of coronary restenosis: a randomized, single-centre, pilot study

Aims The purpose of this study was to evaluate the GenousTM endothelial progenitor cell capturing stent vs. the Taxus Liberté paclitaxel-eluting stent in patients with de novo coronary lesions with a high-risk of coronary restenosis. Methods and results We randomly assigned 193 patients with lesions carrying a high risk of restenosis to have the Genous stent or the Taxus stent implanted. Lesions were considered high risk of restenosis if one of the following applied: chronic total occlusion, lesion length >23 mm, vessel diameter <2.8 mm, or any lesion in a diabetic patient. At 1-year, the rate of the primary end point, target vessel failure (TVF), was 17.3% in the Genous stent group when compared with 10.5% in the Taxus stent group [risk difference (RD) 6.8%, 95% CI −3.1 to 16.7%], a difference predominantly due to a higher incidence of repeat revascularization in patients treated with the Genous stent. In contrast, no stent thrombosis was observed in the Genous stent group compared to 4 stent thromboses in the Taxus stent group (RD −4.2%; 95% CI −10.3 to 0.3%). Repeat angiography between 6 and 12 months in a subgroup of patients showed a significantly higher late loss in the Genous stent compared with the Taxus stent (1.14 ± 0.64 and 0.55 ± 0.61 mm). Conclusion In patients with lesions carrying a high risk of restenosis, the Genous stent resulted in a non-significant higher rate of TVF compared with the Taxus stent mainly due to more repeat revascularizations in the Genous stent group. There were four stent thromboses with Taxus stent, none with the Genous stent.

Effects of left ventricular unloading by Impella Recover LP2.5 on coronary hemodynamics

We studied the effects of LV unloading by the Impella on coronary hemodynamics by simultaneously measuring intracoronary pressure and flow and the derived parameters fractional flow reserve (FFR), coronary flow velocity reserve (CFVR), and coronary microvascular resistance (MR).

Left ventricular unloading in acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients is safe and feasible and provides acute and sustained left ventricular recovery

To the Editor: Unloading the left ventricle (LV) after ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) in addition to reperfusion therapy may reduce infarct size and may give the myocardium time to recuperate from ischemic stunning ([1][1]). This may be particularly true in STEMI patients with

The Impella 2.5 and 5.0 devices for ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients presenting with severe and profound cardiogenic shock: The Academic Medical Center intensive care unit experience*

Objective:Cardiogenic shock remains an important therapeutic challenge, with high in-hospital mortality rates. Mechanical circulatory support may be beneficial in these patients. Since the efficacy of the intra-aortic balloon pump seems limited, new percutaneously placed mechanical left ventricular support devices, such as the Impella system, have been developed for this purpose. Our current purpose was to describe our experience with the Impella system in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction presenting in profound cardiogenic shock, who were admitted to our intensive care unit for mechanical ventilation. Methods:From January 2004 through August 2010, a total of 34 ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients with profound cardiogenic shock were admitted to our intensive care unit and treated with either the Impella 2.5 or the Impella 5.0 device. Baseline and follow-up characteristics were collected retrospectively. Measurements and Main Results:Within the study cohort, 25 patients initially received treatment with the Impella 2.5, whereas nine patients received immediate Impella 5.0 support. Eight out of 25 patients in the Impella 2.5 group were upgraded to 5.0 support. After 48 hrs, 14 of 25 patients in the 2.5 group were alive, five of whom had been upgraded. In the 5.0 group, eight out of nine patients were alive. After 30 days, six of 25 patients in the 2.5 group were alive, three of whom had been upgraded. In the 5.0 group, three of nine patients were alive at 30 days. Conclusions:In ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients with severe and profound cardiogenic shock, our initial experience suggests improved survival in patients who received immediate Impella 5.0 treatment, as well as in patients who were upgraded from 2.5 to 5.0 support, when compared to patients who received only Impella 2.5 support.