Michael J. Attubato

Short- and Long-Term Outcomes With Drug-Eluting and Bare-Metal Coronary Stents A Mixed-Treatment Comparison Analysis of 117 762 Patient-Years of Follow-Up From Randomized Trials

Background— Drug-eluting stents (DES) have been in clinical use for nearly a decade; however, the relative short- and long-term efficacy and safety of DES compared with bare-metal stents (BMS) and among the DES types are less well defined. Methods and Results— PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched for randomized clinical trials, until March 2012, that compared any of the Food and Drug Administration–approved durable stent and polymer DES (sirolimus-eluting stent [SES], paclitaxel-eluting stent [PES], everolimus-eluting stent [EES], zotarolimus-eluting stent [ZES], and ZES-Resolute [ZES-R]) with each other or against BMS for de novo coronary lesions, enrolling at least 100 patients and with follow-up of at least 6 months. Short-term (⩽1 year) and long-term efficacy (target-vessel revascularization, target-lesion revascularization) and safety (death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis) outcomes were evaluated and trial-level data pooled by both mixed-treatment comparison and direct comparison analyses. From 76 randomized clinical trials with 117 762 patient-years of follow-up, compared with BMS, each DES reduced long-term target-vessel revascularization (39%–61%), but the magnitude varied by DES type (EES∼SES∼ZES-R>PES∼ZES>BMS), with a >42% probability that EES had the lowest target-vessel revascularization rate. There was no increase in the risk of any long-term safety outcomes, including stent thrombosis, with any DES (versus BMS). In addition, there was reduction in myocardial infarction (all DES except PES versus BMS) and stent thrombosis (with EES versus BMS: Rate ratio, 0.51; 95% credibility interval, 0.35–0.73). The safest DES appeared to be EES (>86% probability), with reduction in myocardial infarction and stent thrombosis compared with BMS. Short-term outcomes were similar to long-term outcomes, with SES, ZES-R, and everolimus-eluting stent being the most efficacious and EES being the safest stent. Conclusions— DES are highly efficacious at reducing the risk of target-vessel revascularization without an increase in any safety outcomes, including stent thrombosis. However, among the DES types, there were considerable differences, such that EES, SES, and ZES-R were the most efficacious and EES was the safest stent.Background— Drug-eluting stents (DES) have been in clinical use for nearly a decade; however, the relative short- and long-term efficacy and safety of DES compared with bare-metal stents (BMS) and among the DES types are less well defined. Methods and Results— PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched for randomized clinical trials, until March 2012, that compared any of the Food and Drug Administration–approved durable stent and polymer DES (sirolimus-eluting stent [SES], paclitaxel-eluting stent [PES], everolimus-eluting stent [EES], zotarolimus-eluting stent [ZES], and ZES-Resolute [ZES-R]) with each other or against BMS for de novo coronary lesions, enrolling at least 100 patients and with follow-up of at least 6 months. Short-term (≤1 year) and long-term efficacy (target-vessel revascularization, target-lesion revascularization) and safety (death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis) outcomes were evaluated and trial-level data pooled by both mixed-treatment comparison and direct comparison analyses. From 76 randomized clinical trials with 117 762 patient-years of follow-up, compared with BMS, each DES reduced long-term target-vessel revascularization (39%–61%), but the magnitude varied by DES type (EES∼SES∼ZES-R>PES∼ZES>BMS), with a >42% probability that EES had the lowest target-vessel revascularization rate. There was no increase in the risk of any long-term safety outcomes, including stent thrombosis, with any DES (versus BMS). In addition, there was reduction in myocardial infarction (all DES except PES versus BMS) and stent thrombosis (with EES versus BMS: Rate ratio, 0.51; 95% credibility interval, 0.35–0.73). The safest DES appeared to be EES (>86% probability), with reduction in myocardial infarction and stent thrombosis compared with BMS. Short-term outcomes were similar to long-term outcomes, with SES, ZES-R, and everolimus-eluting stent being the most efficacious and EES being the safest stent. Conclusions— DES are highly efficacious at reducing the risk of target-vessel revascularization without an increase in any safety outcomes, including stent thrombosis. However, among the DES types, there were considerable differences, such that EES, SES, and ZES-R were the most efficacious and EES was the safest stent. # Clinical Perspective {#article-title-141}

ICRF-187 Permits Longer Treatment With Doxorubicin in Women With Breast Cancer

PURPOSE To test potential protection by ICRF-187 against cumulative doxorubicin-dose-related cardiac toxicity, we conducted a randomized clinical trial in 150 women with advanced breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients received fluorouracil (5FU) 500 mg/m2, doxorubicin 50 mg/m2, and cyclophosphamide 500 mg/m2 every 21 days intravenously (IV) (control regimen, 74 patients), or the same regimen preceded by ICRF-187 1,000 mg/m2 IV (experimental regimen, 76 patients). RESULTS We previously reported that ICRF-187 in this dose and schedule provides cardiac protection and does not substantially alter the noncardiac toxicity or antitumor efficacy of the control regimen. In this updated analysis of the entire patient cohort, we provide additional support for these findings and demonstrate that patients in the ICRF-187 group received more cycles (median, 11) and higher cumulative doses (median, 500 mg/m2) of doxorubicin than patients in the control group (median, nine cycles, P less than .01; and 441 mg/m2, P less than .05). Twenty-six patients in the ICRF-187 group received doxorubicin doses of at least 700 mg/m2, and among them, 11 patients received 1,000 mg/m2 or more. Only three patients in the control group received doxorubicin doses of 700 mg/m2; the maximum dose administered to one patient in this group was 950 mg/m2. ICRF-187 cardiac protection was demonstrated by difference in incidence of clinical congestive heart failure (CHF; two patients in the ICRF-187 group v 20 in the control group; P less than .0001) and by differences in resting left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) determined by multigated radionuclide (MUGA) scan from baselines and that required patient removal from study (five patients in the ICRF-187 group had a decrease in LVEF to less than 0.45 or a decrease from the baseline LVEF of 0.20 or more v 32 in the control group; P less than .000001). Among the 30 patients who had an assessable endomyocardial biopsy at cumulative doxorubicin 450 mg/m2, none of 16 in the ICRF-187 group and six of 14 in the control group had a score of 2 (P less than .05). ICRF-187 cardiac protection was observed in patients with and without prior chest-wall radiation or other risk factors for developing doxorubicin cardiac toxicity. CONCLUSION By protecting against cumulative doxorubicin-induced cardiac toxicity, ICRF-187 permits significantly greater doses of doxorubicin to be administered to patients with greater safety.

Mechanisms of Myocardial Infarction in Women Without Angiographically Obstructive Coronary Artery Disease

Background— There is no angiographically demonstrable obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) in a significant minority of patients with myocardial infarction, particularly women. We sought to determine the mechanism(s) of myocardial infarction in this setting using multiple imaging techniques. Methods and Results— Women with myocardial infarction were enrolled prospectively, before angiography, if possible. Women with ≥50% angiographic stenosis or use of vasospastic agents were excluded. Intravascular ultrasound was performed during angiography; cardiac magnetic resonance imaging was performed within 1 week. Fifty women (age, 57±13 years) had median peak troponin of 1.60 ng/mL; 11 had ST-segment elevation. Median diameter stenosis of the worst lesion was 20% by angiography; 15 patients (30%) had normal angiograms. Plaque disruption was observed in 16 of 42 patients (38%) undergoing intravascular ultrasound. There were abnormal myocardial cardiac magnetic resonance imaging findings in 26 of 44 patients (59%) undergoing cardiac magnetic resonance imaging, late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) in 17 patients, and T2 signal hyperintensity indicating edema in 9 additional patients. The most common LGE pattern was ischemic (transmural/subendocardial). Nonischemic LGE patterns (midmyocardial/subepicardial) were also observed. Although LGE was infrequent with plaque disruption, T2 signal hyperintensity was common with plaque disruption. Conclusions— Plaque rupture and ulceration are common in women with myocardial infarction without angiographically demonstrable obstructive coronary artery disease. In addition, LGE is common in this cohort of women, with an ischemic pattern of injury most evident. Vasospasm and embolism are possible mechanisms of ischemic LGE without plaque disruption. Intravascular ultrasound and cardiac magnetic resonance imaging provide complementary mechanistic insights into female myocardial infarction patients without obstructive coronary artery disease and may be useful in identifying potential causes and therapies. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00798122.

Long-Term Clinical Outcome in the Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation Registry Comparison With the Randomized Trial

Background-The Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation (BARI) included 4039 patients with multivessel coronary artery disease; 1829 consented to randomization, and 2010 did not but were followed up in a registry. Thus, we can evaluate the outcome of physician-guided versus random assignment of percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) versus coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG). Methods and Results-We compared the baseline features and outcomes for PTCA and CABG in the overall registry and its predesignated subgroups. We assessed the impact of treatment by choice versus random assignment by comparing the results in the registry with those of the randomized trial. Statistical adjustments for differences in baseline characteristics were made. Within the registry, nearly twice as many patients were selected for PTCA (1189) as CABG (625); mortality at 7 years was similar for PTCA (13.9%) and CABG (14.2%) (P=0.66) before and after adjustment for baseline differences between patients selected for PTCA versus CABG (adjusted RR, 1.02; P=0.86). In contrast to the randomized trial, the 7-year mortality rate of treated diabetics in the registry was equally high (26%) with PTCA or CABG. Seven-year mortality was higher for patients undergoing PTCA in the randomized trial than in the registry (19.1% versus 13.9%, P<0.01) but not for those undergoing CABG (15.6% versus 14.2%, P=0.57). The adjusted relative mortality risk for PTCA in the randomized versus registry population was 1.17 (P=0.16). Conclusions-BARI physicians were able to select PTCA rather than CABG for 65% of registry patients who underwent revascularization without compromising long-term survival either in the overall population or in treated diabetics.

A Randomized Controlled Trial of Angiography Versus Intravascular Ultrasound-Directed Bare-Metal Coronary Stent Placement (The AVID Trial)

Background—AVID (Angiography Versus Intravascular ultrasound-Directed stent placement) is a multicenter, randomized controlled trial designed to assess the effect of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)-directed stent placement on the 12-month rate of target lesion revascularization (TLR). Methods and Results—After elective coronary stent placement and an optimal angiographic result (<10% stenosis), 800 patients were randomized to Angiography- or IVUS-directed therapy. Blinded IVUS was performed in the Angiography group without further therapy. In the IVUS group, IVUS criteria for optimal stent placement (<10% area stenosis, apposition, and absence of dissection) were applied. Final minimum stent area was 6.90±2.43 mm2 in the Angiography group and 7.55±2.82 mm2 in the IVUS group (P=0.001). In the IVUS group, only 37% with inadequate expansion (<90%) received further therapy. The 12-month TLR rate was 12.0% in the Angiography group and 8.1% in the IVUS group (P=0.08, 95% confidence level [CI], [−8.3% to 0.5%]). When vessels with a distal reference diameter <2.5 mm by core laboratory angiography measurement were excluded from analysis, the 12-month TLR rate was 10.1% in the Angiography group and 4.3% in the IVUS group (P=0.01, 95% CI, [−10.6% to −1.2%]). With a prestent angiographic stenosis of ≥70%, the TLR rate was lower in the IVUS group compared with the Angiography group (3.1% versus 14.2%; P=0.002; 95% CI, [−18.4% to −4.2%]). Conclusions—IVUS-directed bare-metal stent placement results in larger acute stent dimensions without an increase in complications and a significantly lower 12-month TLR rate for vessels ≥2.5 mm by angiography and for vessels with high-grade prestent stenosis. However, for the entire sample analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis, IVUS-directed bare-metal stent placement does not significantly reduce the 12-month TLR rate when compared with stent placement guided by angiography alone. In addition, IVUS evaluation of adequate stent expansion is underutilized by experienced operators.

Survival Following Coronary Angioplasty Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery in Anatomic Subsets in Which Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery Improves Survival Compared With Medical Therapy Results From the Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation (BARI)

OBJECTIVES We sought to compare survival after coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) and percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) in high-risk anatomic subsets. BACKGROUND Compared with medical therapy, CABG decreases mortality in patients with three-vessel disease and two-vessel disease involving the proximal left anterior descending artery (LAD), particularly if left ventricular (LV) dysfunction is present. How survival after PTCA and CABG compares in these high-risk anatomic subsets is unknown. METHODS In the Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation (BARI), 1,829 patients with multivessel disease were randomized to an initial strategy of PTCA or CABG between 1988 and 1991. Stents and IIb/IIIa inhibitors were not utilized. Since patients in BARI with diabetes mellitus had greater survival with CABG, separate analyses of patients without diabetes were performed. RESULTS Seven-year survival among patients with three-vessel disease undergoing PTCA and CABG (n = 754) was 79% versus 84% (p = 0.06), respectively, and 85% versus 87% (p = 0.36) when only non-diabetics (n = 592) were analyzed. In patients with three-vessel disease and reduced LV function (ejection fraction <50%), seven-year survival was 70% versus 74% (p = 0.6) in all PTCA and CABG patients (n = 176), and 82% versus 73% (p = 0.29) among non-diabetic patients (n = 124). Seven-year survival was 87% versus 84% (p = 0.9) in all PTCA and CABG patients (including diabetics) with two-vessel disease involving the proximal LAD (n = 352), and 78% versus 71% (p = 0.7) in patients with two-vessel disease involving the proximal LAD with reduced LV function (n = 72). CONCLUSION In high-risk anatomic subsets in which survival is prolonged by CABG versus medical therapy, revascularization by PTCA and CABG yielded equivalent survival over seven years.

Safety and efficacy of bivalirudin monotherapy in patients with diabetes mellitus and acute coronary syndromes: a report from the ACUITY (Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage Strategy) trial.

OBJECTIVES We sought to evaluate clinical outcomes of patients with diabetes mellitus in the ACUITY (Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage Strategy) trial, overall and by treatment arm. BACKGROUND In the ACUITY trial, 13,819 patients with moderate- or high-risk acute coronary syndromes (ACS) were randomized to heparin (unfractionated or enoxaparin) plus glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibition (GPI), bivalirudin plus GPI, or bivalirudin monotherapy. Compared with heparin plus GPI, bivalirudin monotherapy resulted in similar protection from ischemic events with less major bleeding. Whether these results apply to patients with diabetes is unknown. METHODS We evaluated the impact of diabetes on 30-day net adverse clinical outcomes (composite ischemia [death, myocardial infarction, or unplanned ischemic revascularization] or major bleeding), overall and by antithrombotic strategy. RESULTS Diabetes was present in 3,852 randomized patients (27.9%). Compared with nondiabetic patients, diabetic patients had higher 30-day rates of net adverse clinical outcomes (12.9% vs. 10.6%; p < 0.001), composite ischemia (8.7% vs. 7.2%; p = 0.003), and major bleeding (5.7% vs. 4.2%; p < 0.001). Among diabetic patients, compared with heparin plus GPI, bivalirudin plus GPI resulted in similar rates of net adverse clinical outcomes (14.0% vs. 13.8%; p = 0.89), while bivalirudin monotherapy resulted in a similar rate of composite ischemia (7.9% vs. 8.9%; p = 0.39) and less major bleeding (3.7% vs. 7.1%; p < 0.001), yielding fewer net adverse clinical outcomes (10.9% vs. 13.8%; p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS Diabetic patients with ACS managed invasively have higher rates of composite ischemia and major bleeding. Compared with treatment with heparin plus GPI, bivalirudin monotherapy provides similar protection from ischemic events with less major bleeding, resulting in a significant reduction in net adverse clinical outcomes.

Factors related to the selection of surgical versus percutaneous revascularization in diabetic patients with multivessel coronary artery disease in the BARI 2D (Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation in Type 2 Diabetes) trial.

OBJECTIVES We evaluated demographic, clinical, and angiographic factors influencing the selection of coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in diabetic patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) in the BARI 2D (Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation in Type 2 Diabetes) trial. BACKGROUND Factors guiding selection of mode of revascularization for patients with diabetes mellitus and multivessel CAD are not clearly defined. METHODS In the BARI 2D trial, the selected revascularization strategy, CABG or PCI, was based on physician discretion, declared independent of randomization to either immediate or deferred revascularization if clinically warranted. We analyzed factors favoring selection of CABG versus PCI in 1,593 diabetic patients with multivessel CAD enrolled between 2001 and 2005. RESULTS Selection of CABG over PCI was declared in 44% of patients and was driven by angiographic factors including triple vessel disease (odds ratio [OR]: 4.43), left anterior descending stenosis >or=70% (OR: 2.86), proximal left anterior descending stenosis >or=50% (OR: 1.78), total occlusion (OR: 2.35), and multiple class C lesions (OR: 2.06) (all p < 0.005). Nonangiographic predictors of CABG included age >or=65 years (OR: 1.43, p = 0.011) and non-U.S. region (OR: 2.89, p = 0.017). Absence of prior PCI (OR: 0.45, p < 0.001) and the availability of drug-eluting stents conferred a lower probability of choosing CABG (OR: 0.60, p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS The majority of diabetic patients with multivessel disease were selected for PCI rather than CABG. Preference for CABG over PCI was largely based on angiographic features related to the extent, location, and nature of CAD, as well as geographic, demographic, and clinical factors. (Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation in Type 2 Diabetes [BARI 2D]; NCT00006305).

Venous changes occurring during the valsalva maneuver: Evaluation by intravascular ultrasound

Abstract The Valsalva maneuver, originally described in 1704, is a widely used physiologic technique for the non-invasive evaluation of heart murmurs and ventricular function.1–3 The maneuver consists of forceful expiration against a closed glottis, resulting in an increase in intrathoracic pressure and a decrease in venous return to the heart. Although the hemodynamic changes occurring during the various stages of the maneuver have been well documented, the associated venous changes have not been precisely described. Intravascular ultrasound allows for the accurate evaluation of the dimensions of vascular structures.4,5 In this study, we assessed the changes in area and circumference that occurred in an intrathoracic vein, the superior vena cava, and an extrathoracic vein, the right internal jugular, during the strain phase (phase 2) of the Valsalva maneuver. From these measurements, we wished to determine whether the decrease in venous flow to the heart during the Valsalva maneuver was due to the elevated pressure in the right atrium secondary to the elevated intrathoracic pressure, or to direct external compression of the superior vena cava by the elevated intrathoracic pressure.

Radiation exposure during coronary angiography via transradial or transfemoral approaches when performed by experienced operators

BACKGROUND Studies demonstrate an increase in radiation exposure with transradial approach (TRA) when compared with transfemoral approach (TFA) for coronary angiography. Given the learning curve associated with TRA, it is not known if this increased radiation exposure to patients is seen when procedures are performed by experienced operators. METHODS We retrospectively evaluated 1,696 patients who underwent coronary angiography with or without percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) by experienced operators at a tertiary center from October 2010 to June 2011. Experienced operators were defined as those that perform >75 PCIs/year with >95% of cases performed using the TRA or TFA approach for ≥5 years. The outcomes of interest were dose area product (DAP) and fluoroscopy time (FT). RESULTS Of the 1,696 patients, 1,382 (81.5%) were performed by experienced femoral operators using TFA and 314 (18.5%) were performed by experienced radial operators using TRA. Most of these cases (65.4%) were diagnostic only (870 TFA and 240 TRA) with both DAP (6040 [3210-8786] vs 5019 [3377-6869] μGy·m(2), P = .003] and FT [6.2 [4.0-10.3] vs 3.3 [2.6-5.0] minutes, P < .001) significantly higher using TRA versus TFA. For procedures involving PCI, despite similar baseline patient, procedural and lesion characteristics, DAP and FT remained significantly higher using TRA versus TFA (19,649 [11,996-25,929] vs 15,395 [10,078-21,617] μGy·m(2), P = .02 and 22.1 [13.3-31.0] vs. 13.8 [9.8-20.3] minutes, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS In a contemporary cohort of patients undergoing coronary angiography by experienced operators, TRA was associated with higher radiation exposure when compared with TFA.