Miroslaw Ferenc

Intraaortic balloon support for myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock.

BACKGROUND In current international guidelines, intraaortic balloon counterpulsation is considered to be a class I treatment for cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. However, evidence is based mainly on registry data, and there is a paucity of randomized clinical trials. METHODS In this randomized, prospective, open-label, multicenter trial, we randomly assigned 600 patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction to intraaortic balloon counterpulsation (IABP group, 301 patients) or no intraaortic balloon counterpulsation (control group, 299 patients). All patients were expected to undergo early revascularization (by means of percutaneous coronary intervention or bypass surgery) and to receive the best available medical therapy. The primary efficacy end point was 30-day all-cause mortality. Safety assessments included major bleeding, peripheral ischemic complications, sepsis, and stroke. RESULTS A total of 300 patients in the IABP group and 298 in the control group were included in the analysis of the primary end point. At 30 days, 119 patients in the IABP group (39.7%) and 123 patients in the control group (41.3%) had died (relative risk with IABP, 0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.79 to 1.17; P=0.69). There were no significant differences in secondary end points or in process-of-care measures, including the time to hemodynamic stabilization, the length of stay in the intensive care unit, serum lactate levels, the dose and duration of catecholamine therapy, and renal function. The IABP group and the control group did not differ significantly with respect to the rates of major bleeding (3.3% and 4.4%, respectively; P=0.51), peripheral ischemic complications (4.3% and 3.4%, P=0.53), sepsis (15.7% and 20.5%, P=0.15), and stroke (0.7% and 1.7%, P=0.28). CONCLUSIONS The use of intraaortic balloon counterpulsation did not significantly reduce 30-day mortality in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction for whom an early revascularization strategy was planned. (Funded by the German Research Foundation and others; IABP-SHOCK II ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00491036.).

Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (IABP-SHOCK II): final 12 month results of a randomised, open-label trial

BACKGROUND In current international guidelines the recommendation for intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) use has been downgraded in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction on the basis of registry data. In the largest randomised trial (IABP-SHOCK II), IABP support did not reduce 30 day mortality compared with control. However, previous trials in cardiogenic shock showed a mortality benefit only at extended follow-up. The present analysis therefore reports 6 and 12 month results. METHODS The IABP-SHOCK II trial was a randomised, open-label, multicentre trial. Patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction who were undergoing early revascularisation and optimum medical therapy were randomly assigned (1:1) to IABP versus control via a central web-based system. The primary efficacy endpoint was 30 day all-cause mortality, but 6 and 12 month follow-up was done in addition to quality-of-life assessment for all survivors with the Euroqol-5D questionnaire. A masked central committee adjudicated clinical outcomes. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment allocation. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00491036. FINDINGS Between June 16, 2009, and March 3, 2012, 600 patients were assigned to IABP (n=301) or control (n=299). Of 595 patients completing 12 month follow-up, 155 (52%) of 299 patients in the IABP group and 152 (51%) of 296 patients in the control group had died (relative risk [RR] 1·01, 95% CI 0·86-1·18, p=0·91). There were no significant differences in reinfarction (RR 2·60, 95% CI 0·95-7·10, p=0·05), recurrent revascularisation (0·91, 0·58-1·41, p=0·77), or stroke (1·50, 0·25-8·84, p=1·00). For survivors, quality-of-life measures including mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain or discomfort, and anxiety or depression did not differ significantly between study groups. INTERPRETATION In patients undergoing early revascularisation for myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock, IABP did not reduce 12 month all-cause mortality. FUNDING German Research Foundation; German Heart Research Foundation; German Cardiac Society; Arbeitsgemeinschaft Leitende Kardiologische Krankenhausärzte; University of Leipzig--Heart Centre; Maquet Cardiopulmonary; Teleflex Medical.

Randomized trial on routine vs. provisional T-stenting in the treatment of de novo coronary bifurcation lesions.

Aims We investigated whether routine T-stenting reduces restenosis of the side branch as compared with provisional T-stenting in patients with de novo coronary bifurcation lesions. Methods and results Our randomized study assigned 101 patients with a coronary bifurcation lesion to routine T-stenting with sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) in both branches and 101 patients to provisional T-stenting with SES placement in the main branch followed by kissing-balloon angioplasty and provisional SES placement in the side branch only for inadequate results. Primary endpoint was per cent diameter stenosis of the side branch at 9 month angiographic follow-up. Angiographic follow-up in 192 (95%) patients revealed a per cent stenosis of the side branch of 23.0 ± 20.2% after provisional T-stenting (19% with side-branch stent) and of 27.7 ± 24.8% (P = 0.15) after routine T-stenting (98.2% with side-branch stent). The corresponding binary restenosis rates were 9.4 and 12.5% (P = 0.32), prompting re-intervention in 5.0 and 7.9% (P = 0.39), respectively. In the main branch, binary restenosis rates were 7.3% after provisional and 3.1% after routine T-stenting (P = 0.17). The overall 1 year incidence of target lesion re-intervention was 10.9% after provisional and 8.9% after routine T-stenting (P = 0.64). Conclusions Routine T-stenting with SES did not improve the angiographic outcome of percutaneous coronary intervention of coronary bifurcation lesions as compared with stenting of the main branch followed by kissing-balloon angioplasty and provisional side-branch stenting.

Randomized Evaluation of the Effects of Filter-Based Distal Protection on Myocardial Perfusion and Infarct Size After Primary Percutaneous Catheter Intervention in Myocardial Infarction With and Without ST-Segment Elevation

Background—In acute myocardial infarction, distal embolization of debris during primary percutaneous catheter intervention may curtail microvascular reperfusion of the infarct region. Our randomized trial investigated whether distal protection with a filter device can improve microvascular perfusion and reduce infarct size after primary percutaneous catheter intervention. Methods and Results—We enrolled 200 patients who had angina within 48 hours after onset of pain plus at least 1 of 3 additional criteria: ST-segment elevation, elevated myocardial marker proteins, and angiographic evidence of thrombotic occlusion. Among the patients included (83% men; mean age, 62±12 years), 100 were randomly assigned to the filter-wire group and 100 to the control group. The primary end point was the maximal adenosine-induced Doppler flow velocity in the recanalized infarct artery; the secondary end point was infarct size estimated by the volume of delayed enhancement on nuclear MRI. ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction was present in 68.5% of the patients; the median time from onset of pain was 6.9 hours. In the filter-wire group, maximal adenosine-induced flow velocity was 34±17 compared with 36±20 cm/s in the control group (P=0.46). Infarct sizes, assessed in 82 patients in the filter-wire group and 78 patients in the control group, were 11.8±9.3% of the left ventricular mass in the filter-wire group and 10.4±9.4% in the control group (P=0.33). Thirty-day mortality was 2% in filter-wire group and 3% in the control group. Conclusions—The filter wire as an adjunct to primary percutaneous catheter intervention in myocardial infarction with and without ST-segment elevation did not improve reperfusion or reduce infarct size.

Abciximab and heparin versus bivalirudin for non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND The combination of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors and heparin has not been compared with bivalirudin in studies specifically involving patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We compared the two treatments in this patient population. METHODS Immediately before PCI, we randomly assigned, in a double-blind manner, 1721 patients with acute non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction to receive abciximab plus unfractionated heparin (861 patients) or bivalirudin (860 patients). The study tested the hypothesis that abciximab and heparin would be superior to bivalirudin with respect to the primary composite end point of death, large recurrent myocardial infarction, urgent target-vessel revascularization, or major bleeding within 30 days. Secondary end points included the composite of death, any recurrent myocardial infarction, or urgent target-vessel revascularization (efficacy end point) and major bleeding (safety end point) within 30 days. RESULTS The primary end point occurred in 10.9% of the patients in the abciximab group (94 patients) and in 11.0% in the bivalirudin group (95 patients) (relative risk with abciximab, 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74 to 1.32; P=0.94). Death, any recurrent myocardial infarction, or urgent target-vessel revascularization occurred in 12.8% of the patients in the abciximab group (110 patients) and in 13.4% in the bivalirudin group (115 patients) (relative risk, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.25; P=0.76). Major bleeding occurred in 4.6% of the patients in the abciximab group (40 patients) as compared with 2.6% in the bivalirudin group (22 patients) (relative risk, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.10 to 3.07; P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS Abciximab and unfractionated heparin, as compared with bivalirudin, failed to reduce the rate of the primary end point and increased the risk of bleeding among patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction who were undergoing PCI. (Funded by Nycomed Pharma and others; ISAR-REACT 4 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00373451.).

Consensus from the 7th European Bifurcation Club meeting.

1. Sussex Cardiac Centre, Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals, United Kingdom; 2. Department of Cardiology B, SkejbyHospital, University of Aarhus, Denmark; 3. Clinica San Rocco, Brescia, Italy; 4 Institut Cardiovasculaire Paris Sud, Massy,France; 5 Clinique Saint Augustin, Bordeaux, France; 6. Hospital Reina Sofia, Cordoba, Spain; 7 . Herz-Zentrum BadKrozingen, Bad Krozingen, Germany; 8. Institute for Cardiovascular Diseases, Clinical Center of Serbia, Belgrade, Serbia

Percutaneous coronary intervention for bifurcation lesions: 2008 consensus document from the fourth meeting of the European Bifurcation Club

The bestapproach to manage a bifurcation to achieve optimal proceduraloutcomes and, more importantly, long-term success with lowrestenosis rates and low MACE rates is still heavily debated. Thisdebate has predominantly stemmed from a lack of randomiseddata, which may explain why therapeutic strategies have beenlargely based on the personal clinical experiences of highly skilledoperators practising in high-volume centres. Although the treatmentstrategy for bifurcation lesions has rapidly improved over the years,the lower procedural success, especially as the result of abrupt sidebranch (SB) closure with single stent strategies, together with therisk of thrombosis and restenosis associated with the complex twostent techniques, remains a predictor of adverse clinical outcome.The incidence of bifurcation lesions, the technical difficultiesinherent in their treatment, the lower success rate, and highercomplication and restenosis rates observed in this setting comparedwith non-bifurcation lesions have prompted intense researchactivity and have made coronary bifurcation stenting the focus ofspecific sessions in major interventional cardiology meetings.The European Bifurcation Club (EBC) was founded in 2004 in orderto devise a common terminology for the description and treatmentof bifurcation lesions and to exchange ideas on the clinical,technical, and fundamental aspects of the specific treatmentstrategies implemented in this setting. EBC meetings are heldannually. The fourth meeting was convened in Prague onSeptember 26-27, 2008, with the agenda to reach a consensus onthe current state of the art of percutaneous bifurcation treatment.The present report represents a synthesis of the findings from thismeeting, and also incorporates a literature review from the field ofbifurcation intervention. Topics covered in this consensusdocument include state-of-the-art in bifurcation stentingtechniques, discussions of the anatomical changes at carina level

Bivalirudin Versus Heparin Plus a Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa Inhibitor in Patients With Non–ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention After Clopidogrel Pretreatment Pooled Analysis from the ACUITY and ISAR-REACT 4 Trials

Background—The optimal antithrombotic therapy for patients with non–ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention is not well defined. We investigated the efficacy and safety of bivalirudin versus heparin plus a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor (GPI) in patients with non–ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention after clopidogrel pretreatment. Methods and Results—This study included 3798 clopidogrel-pretreated patients with non–ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, who were randomly assigned to receive bivalirudin (n=1928) or heparin (unfractionated heparin or enoxaparin; n=1870) plus a GPI in the setting of the Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage Strategy (ACUITY) and Intracoronary Stenting and Antithrombotic Regimen: Rapid Early Action for Coronary Treatment (ISAR-REACT) 4 trials. Major end points were a composite of death, recurrent myocardial infarction or urgent target vessel revascularization (efficacy end point), major bleeding (safety end point), and the composite of death, recurrent myocardial infarction, urgent target vessel revascularization, or major bleeding (net adverse clinical events [NACE]) at 30 days. The incidence of the efficacy end point was 10.6% (n=205) in the bivalirudin group versus 10.2% (n=191) in the heparin plus a GPI group (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.85–1.27; P=0.69). The incidence of safety end point was 3.4% (n=66) in the bivalirudin group versus 6.3% (n=117) in the heparin plus a GPI group (OR, 0.54 [0.40–0.72]; P<0.001). NACE occurred in 258 patients (13.4%) in the bivalirudin group versus 275 patients (14.7%) in the heparin plus a GPI group (OR, 0.90 [0.76–1.06]; P=0.21). Conclusions—NACE rates were not significantly different between bivalirudin and heparin plus a GPI in patients with non–ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention after clopidogrel pretreatment. Although no significant difference in efficacy was seen in terms of suppression of adverse ischemic events, bivalirudin was superior to heparin plus a GPI in terms of reducing bleeding events. Clinical Trial Registration—URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique Identifier: NCT00093158 and NCT00373451.

Long-term outcome of percutaneous catheter intervention for de novo coronary bifurcation lesions with drug-eluting stents or bare-metal stents

BACKGROUND The purpose of this study was to assess the long-term risks and benefits of drug-eluting stents (DESs) compared with bare-metal stents (BMSs) for treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions. METHODS Our registry comprised 1,038 patients treated for coronary bifurcation lesion according to the provisional T-stenting strategy who were followed up for 3 years. RESULTS Target lesion revascularization rates were 24.3% for BMSs (n = 337), 15.6% for sirolimus-eluting stents (SESs, n = 422), and 17.3% for paclitaxel-eluting stents (PESs, n = 279) (P = .003 BMSs vs DESs, P = .54 SESs vs PESs). The respective incidences were 11.4%, 9.5%, and 14.8% (P = .65, P = .13) for death and myocardial infarction and 9.9%, 6.5%, and 10.6% (P = .72, P = .19) for death. Propensity score adjusted hazard ratios (95% CI) for DESs versus BMSs were 0.49 (0.35-0.68, P < .001) for target lesion revascularization, 0.94 (0.64-1.40, P = .078) for death and myocardial infarction, and 0.85 (0.55-1.32, P = .47) for death. We did not find any significant differences between SESs and PESs, except for an increased risk of death after PESs compared with SESs (but not BMSs) in the subgroup receiving a side-branch stent (adjusted hazard ratio 2.45, 95% CI 1.05-5.73, P = .035). CONCLUSIONS Compared with BMSs, both PESs and SESs substantially reduced the long-term need for repeated revascularization but did not increase the risk of death and myocardial infarction.

The EBC TWO Study (European Bifurcation Coronary TWO) A Randomized Comparison of Provisional T-Stenting Versus a Systematic 2 Stent Culotte Strategy in Large Caliber True Bifurcations

Background—For the treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions, a provisional strategy is superior to systematic 2-stent techniques for the most bifurcation lesions. However, complex anatomies with large side branches (SBs) with significant ostial disease length are considered by expert consensus to warrant a 2-stent technique upfront. This consensus view has not been scientifically assessed. Methods and Results—Symptomatic patients with large caliber true bifurcation lesions (SB diameter ≥2.5 mm) and significant ostial disease length (≥5 mm) were randomized to either a provisional T-stent strategy or a dual stent culotte technique. Two hundred patients aged 64±10 years, 82% male, were randomized in 20 European centers. The clinical presentations were stable coronary disease (69%) and acute coronary syndromes (31%). SB stent diameter (2.67±0.27 mm) and length (20.30±5.89 mm) confirmed the extent of SB disease. Procedural success (provisional 97%, culotte 94%) and kissing balloon inflation (provisional 95%, culotte 98%) were high. Sixteen percent of patients in the provisional group underwent T-stenting. The primary end point (a composite of death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization at 12 months) occurred in 7.7% of the provisional T-stent group versus 10.3% of the culotte group (hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.78–1.34; P=0.53). Procedure time, x-ray dose, and cost all favored the simpler procedure. Conclusions—When treating complex coronary bifurcation lesions with large stenosed SBs, there is no difference between a provisional T-stent strategy and a systematic 2-stent culotte strategy in a composite end point of death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization at 12 months. Clinical Trial Registration—URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT 01560455.