Nicoletta De Cesare

Radial versus femoral access in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing invasive management: a randomised multicentre trial

BACKGROUND It is unclear whether radial compared with femoral access improves outcomes in unselected patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing invasive management. METHODS We did a randomised, multicentre, superiority trial comparing transradial against transfemoral access in patients with acute coronary syndrome with or without ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction who were about to undergo coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention. Patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to radial or femoral access with a web-based system. The randomisation sequence was computer generated, blocked, and stratified by use of ticagrelor or prasugrel, type of acute coronary syndrome (ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, troponin positive or negative, non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome), and anticipated use of immediate percutaneous coronary intervention. Outcome assessors were masked to treatment allocation. The 30-day coprimary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events, defined as death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, and net adverse clinical events, defined as major adverse cardiovascular events or Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) major bleeding unrelated to coronary artery bypass graft surgery. The analysis was by intention to treat. The two-sided α was prespecified at 0·025. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01433627. FINDINGS We randomly assigned 8404 patients with acute coronary syndrome, with or without ST-segment elevation, to radial (4197) or femoral (4207) access for coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention. 369 (8·8%) patients with radial access had major adverse cardiovascular events, compared with 429 (10·3%) patients with femoral access (rate ratio [RR] 0·85, 95% CI 0·74-0·99; p=0·0307), non-significant at α of 0·025. 410 (9·8%) patients with radial access had net adverse clinical events compared with 486 (11·7%) patients with femoral access (0·83, 95% CI 0·73-0·96; p=0·0092). The difference was driven by BARC major bleeding unrelated to coronary artery bypass graft surgery (1·6% vs 2·3%, RR 0·67, 95% CI 0·49-0·92; p=0·013) and all-cause mortality (1·6% vs 2·2%, RR 0·72, 95% CI 0·53-0·99; p=0·045). INTERPRETATION In patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing invasive management, radial as compared with femoral access reduces net adverse clinical events, through a reduction in major bleeding and all-cause mortality. FUNDING The Medicines Company and Terumo.

Comparison of Angioplasty With Infusion of Tirofiban or Abciximab and With Implantation of Sirolimus-Eluting or Uncoated Stents for Acute Myocardial Infarction: The MULTISTRATEGY Randomized Trial

CONTEXT Abciximab infusion and uncoated-stent implantation is a complementary treatment strategy to reduce major adverse cardiac events in patients undergoing angioplasty for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). It is uncertain whether there may be similar benefits in replacing abciximab with high-dose bolus tirofiban. Similarly, the use of drug-eluting stents in this patient population is currently discouraged because of conflicting results on efficacy reported in randomized trials and safety concerns reported by registries. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the effect of high-dose bolus tirofiban and of sirolimus-eluting stents as compared with abciximab infusion and uncoated-stent implantation in patients with STEMI undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS An open-label, 2 x 2 factorial trial of 745 patients presenting with STEMI or new left bundle-branch block at 16 referral centers in Italy, Spain, and Argentina between October 2004 and April 2007. INTERVENTIONS High-dose bolus tirofiban vs abciximab infusion and sirolimus-eluting stent vs uncoated stent implantation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES For drug comparison, at least 50% ST-segment elevation resolution at 90 minutes postintervention with a prespecified noninferiority margin of 9% difference (relative risk, 0.89); for stent comparison, the rate of major adverse cardiac events, defined as the composite of death from any cause, reinfarction, and clinically driven target-vessel revascularization within 8 months. RESULTS ST-segment resolution occurred in 302 of 361 patients (83.6%) who had received abciximab infusion and 308 of 361 (85.3%) who had received tirofiban infusion (relative risk, 1.020; 97.5% confidence interval, 0.958-1.086; P < .001 for noninferiority). Ischemic and hemorrhagic outcomes were similar in the tirofiban and abciximab groups. At 8 months, major adverse cardiac events occurred in 54 patients (14.5%) with uncoated stents and 29 (7.8%) with sirolimus stents (P = .004), predominantly reflecting a reduction of revascularization rates (10.2% vs 3.2%). The incidence of stent thrombosis was similar in the 2 stent groups. CONCLUSIONS In patients with STEMI undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, compared with abciximab, tirofiban therapy was associated with noninferior resolution of ST-segment elevation at 90 minutes following coronary intervention, whereas sirolimus-eluting stent implantation was associated with a significantly lower risk of major adverse cardiac events than uncoated stents within 8 months after intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00229515.

Intensifying Platelet Inhibition With Tirofiban in Poor Responders to Aspirin, Clopidogrel, or Both Agents Undergoing Elective Coronary Intervention Results From the Double-Blind, Prospective, Randomized Tailoring Treatment With Tirofiban in Patients Showing Resistance to Aspirin and/or Resistance to Clopidogrel Study

Background— Inhibition of platelet aggregation after aspirin or clopidogrel intake varies greatly among patients, and previous studies have suggested that poor response to oral antiplatelet agents may increase the risk of thrombotic events, especially after coronary angioplasty. Whether this reflects suboptimal platelet inhibition per se, which might benefit from more potent antiplatelet agents such as tirofiban, is unknown. Methods and Results— We screened 1277 patients to enroll 93 aspirin, 147 clopidogrel, and 23 dual poor responders, based on a point-of-care assay, who underwent elective coronary angioplasty at 10 European sites for stable or low-risk unstable coronary artery disease. Patients were randomly assigned in a double-blind manner to receive either tirofiban (n=132) or placebo (n=131) on top of standard aspirin and clopidogrel therapy. The primary end point, consisting of troponin I/T elevation at least 3 times the upper limit of normal, was attained in 20.4% (n=27) in the tirofiban group compared with 35.1% (n=46) in the placebo group (relative risk, 0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.39 to 0.88; P=0.009). The rate of major adverse cardiovascular events within 30 days in the tirofiban group also was reduced (3.8% versus 10.7%; P=0.031). The overall incidence of bleeding was low, likely explained by a substantial use of the transradial approach, and did not differ between the 2 groups. Conclusions— In low-risk patients according to clinical presentation who had poor responsiveness to standard oral platelet inhibitors via a point-of-care assay, intensified platelet inhibition with tirofiban lowers the incidence of myocardial infarction after elective coronary intervention.

Bivalirudin or Unfractionated Heparin in Acute Coronary Syndromes

BACKGROUND Conflicting evidence exists on the efficacy and safety of bivalirudin administered as part of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with an acute coronary syndrome. METHODS We randomly assigned 7213 patients with an acute coronary syndrome for whom PCI was anticipated to receive either bivalirudin or unfractionated heparin. Patients in the bivalirudin group were subsequently randomly assigned to receive or not to receive a post-PCI bivalirudin infusion. Primary outcomes for the comparison between bivalirudin and heparin were the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) and net adverse clinical events (a composite of major bleeding or a major adverse cardiovascular event). The primary outcome for the comparison of a post-PCI bivalirudin infusion with no post-PCI infusion was a composite of urgent target-vessel revascularization, definite stent thrombosis, or net adverse clinical events. RESULTS The rate of major adverse cardiovascular events was not significantly lower with bivalirudin than with heparin (10.3% and 10.9%, respectively; relative risk, 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81 to 1.09; P=0.44), nor was the rate of net adverse clinical events (11.2% and 12.4%, respectively; relative risk, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.03; P=0.12). Post-PCI bivalirudin infusion, as compared with no infusion, did not significantly decrease the rate of urgent target-vessel revascularization, definite stent thrombosis, or net adverse clinical events (11.0% and 11.9%, respectively; relative risk, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.11; P=0.34). CONCLUSIONS In patients with an acute coronary syndrome, the rates of major adverse cardiovascular events and net adverse clinical events were not significantly lower with bivalirudin than with unfractionated heparin. The rate of the composite of urgent target-vessel revascularization, definite stent thrombosis, or net adverse clinical events was not significantly lower with a post-PCI bivalirudin infusion than with no post-PCI infusion. (Funded by the Medicines Company and Terumo Medical; MATRIX ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01433627.).

Comparison of nifedipine, propranolol and isosorbide dinitrate on angiographic progression and regression of coronary arterial narrowings in angina pectoris

Calcium antagonists and beta blockers may retard or inhibit atherogenesis. This study investigated whether nifedipine or propranolol influences coronary atherosclerosis in humans. In selected patients with effort angina and proven coronary artery disease, the cineangiographic pattern after 2-year therapy with nifedipine (group 1, 39 patients), propranolol (group 2, 36 patients) or isosorbide dinitrate (group 3, 38 patients) was compared to that before treatment. The disease evolved to a different extent in the 3 groups. Patients with evidence of progression of old narrowings and appearance of new narrowings were significantly fewer in group 1 (31% and 10%) than in group 2 (53% and 34%) and group 3 (47% and 29%). The number of stenoses with evidence of progression was significantly smaller after nifedipine (14), and larger after propranolol (39) compared with group 3 (24). Thus, nifedipine seemed more protective than the other 2 drugs against coronary atherosclerosis. The coronary risk factors were normal in the nifedipine group and remained so with treatment, suggesting that they were dissociated from influences on atherosclerosis. The evolution, as judged by the number of narrowings with progression, appeared significantly (p less than 0.01) worse with propranolol than with isosorbide dinitrate. Propranolol caused unfavorable modifications of serum lipids; there was a 28% increase in total triglycerides and a 25% decrease in high density lipoprotein cholesterol at 12 months in group 2.

Emergency percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction complicated by out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: Early and medium-term outcome

BACKGROUND The role of emergency reperfusion therapy in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) resuscitated after an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) has not been clearly established yet. The aim of this study was to evaluate the in-hospital and postdischarge outcomes of STEMI patients surviving OHCA and undergoing emergency angioplasty (percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI]) within an established regional network. METHODS We prospectively collected data on 2,617 consecutive patients with STEMI treated with emergency PCI in 2005; in-hospital and 6-month outcomes of 99 patients who had experienced OHCA were compared with those of 2,518 patients without OHCA. The OHCA patients also underwent a cerebral performance evaluation after 12 months. RESULTS OHCA patients were at higher clinical risk at presentation (cardiogenic shock 26% vs 5%, P < .0001). Percutaneous coronary intervention was successful in 80% of the OHCA and 89% of the non-OHCA patients (P = NS). In-hospital mortality rates were 22% and 3%, respectively (P < .0001). Independent predictors of in-hospital mortality among OHCA patients were longer delay between the call to the emergency medical system and the start of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (odds ratio [OR] 3.5, P = .03), nonshockable initial rhythms (OR 10.5, P = .002), cardiogenic shock (OR 3.05, P = .035), and a Glasgow Coma Scale score of 3 on admission (OR 2.9, P = .032). The 6-month composite rate of death, myocardial infarction, and revascularization among OHCA patients surviving the acute phase was comparable to that of non-OHCA patients (16% vs 13.9%, P = NS), and 87% of them showed a favorable neurologic recovery after 1 year. CONCLUSIONS Resuscitated OHCA patients undergoing emergency PCI for STEMI have worse clinical presentation and higher in-hospital mortality compared to those without OHCA. However, subsequent cardiac events are similar, and neurologic recovery is more favorable than reported in most previous series.

Long-Term Clinical Outcome Based on Aspirin and Clopidogrel Responsiveness Status After Elective Percutaneous Coronary Intervention A 3T/2R (Tailoring Treatment With Tirofiban in Patients Showing Resistance to Aspirin and/or Resistance to Clopidogrel) Trial Substudy

OBJECTIVES The purpose of this study was to investigate the long-term outcome after elective percutaneous coronary intervention in low-risk patients screened for aspirin and/or clopidogrel responsiveness in the 3T/2R (Tailoring Treatment With Tirofiban in Patients Showing Resistance to Aspirin and/or Resistance to Clopidogrel) trial. BACKGROUND The impact of aspirin and/or clopidogrel poor response on long-term outcome is debated. METHODS Aspirin and clopidogrel response was measured with the VerifyNow system aspirin and P2Y12 assays. After percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), death, stroke, and myocardial infarction were assessed up to 1 year. RESULTS Overall, 1,277 patients were screened, and 826 (65%) were treated with PCI. In all, 124 patients were found to be aspirin poor responders, and there were 179 clopidogrel poor responders (totally, 278 poor responders). The 1-year end point was significantly higher in poor responders as compared to full responders (15.8% vs. 8.6%, p=0.002), which is principally due to more myocardial infarction occurrence. At multivariable analysis, clopidogrel poor response emerged as an independent predictor (hazard ratio: 1.15, 95% confidence interval: 1.03 to 1.28). Receiver-operator characteristic analysis identifies≤23 of percentage of platelet inhibition and ≥208 of P2Y12 reactivity units as optimal cut offs to predict 1-year end point. Excluding periprocedural events, also peri-PCI myocardial infarction, which is strongly related to aspirin/clopidogrel poor response, was an independent predictor (hazard ratio: 1.25, 95% confidence interval: 1.14 to 1.37). Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor administration reduces this risk in poor responders (21.2% vs. 34.7%, p=0.02), but not in full responders (6.3% vs. 6.5%, p=0.8). CONCLUSIONS Poor response to clopidogrel is an independent predictor of periprocedural myocardial infarction and worse 1-year outcome in low-risk patients undergoing PCI, whereas poor response to aspirin failed to predict a worse outcome. Contrary to what was observed in poor responders, glycoprotein IIb/IIa inhibitor therapy failed to provide a benefit in aspirin and/or clopidogrel full responders.

Prediction of 1-year clinical outcomes using the SYNTAX score in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention

OBJECTIVES This study sought to evaluate the impact of SYNTAX score (SXscore), and compare its performance in isolation and combination with the PAMI (The Primary Angioplasty in Myocardial Infarction Study) score, for the prediction of 1-year clinical outcomes in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention. BACKGROUND Patients with STEMI were excluded from the original SYNTAX score (SXscore) algorithm. Therefore, the utility of using the SXscore in this patient group remains undefined. METHODS SXscore was calculated retrospectively in 807 patients with STEMI enrolled in the randomized STRATEGY (Single High-Dose Bolus Tirofiban and Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Abciximab and Bare-Metal Stent in Acute Myocardial Infarction) and MULTISTRATEGY (Multicenter Evaluation of Single High-Dose Bolus Tirofiban Versus Abciximab With Sirolimus-Eluting Stent or Bare-Metal Stent in Acute Myocardial Infarction Study) clinical trials. Clinical outcomes of all-cause death, reinfarction, and clinically driven target vessel revascularization were subsequently stratified according to SXscore tertiles: SX(LOW) ≤ 9 (n = 311), 9 < SX(MID) ≤ 16 (n = 234), SX(HIGH) >16 (n = 262). RESULTS At 1-year follow-up, all clinical outcomes including mortality, mortality/reinfarction, major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (a composite of all-cause death, reinfarction and target vessel revascularization), and definite, definite/probable, and any stent thrombosis were all significantly higher in patients in the highest SXscore tertile. SXscore was identified as an independent predictor of mortality, MACE, and stent thrombosis out to 1-year follow-up. The combination SYNTAX-PAMI score led to a net reclassification improvement of 15.7% and 4.6% for mortality and MACE, respectively. The C-statistics for the SXscore, PAMI score, and the combined SYNTAX-PAMI score were 0.65, 0.81, and 0.73 for 1-year mortality, and 0.68, 0.64, and 0.69 for 1-year MACE, respectively. CONCLUSIONS SXscore does have a role in the risk stratification of patients with STEMI having primary percutaneous coronary intervention; however, this ability can be improved through a combination with clinical variables. (Multicentre 2×2 Factorial Randomised Study Comparing Tirofiban Versus Abciximab and SES Versus BMS in AMI; NCT00229515).

Clinical, angiographic and procedural correlates of quantitative coronary dimensions after directional coronary atherectomy

To define the clinical, angiographic and procedural correlates of quantitative coronary dimensions after directional coronary atherectomy, 400 lesions in 378 patients were analyzed with use of qualitative morphologic and quantitative angiographic methods. Successful atherectomy, defined by a less than 75% residual area stenosis, tissue retrieval and the absence of in-hospital ischemic complications, was performed in 351 lesions (87.7%). After atherectomy, minimal cross-sectional area increased from 1.2 +/- 1.1 to 6.6 +/- 4.4 mm2 (p less than 0.001) and percent area stenosis was reduced from 87 +/- 10% to 31 +/- 42% (p less than 0.001). By univariate analysis, device size (p less than 0.001) and left circumflex artery lesion location (p = 0.004) were associated with a larger final minimal cross-sectional area. Conversely, restenotic lesion (p = 0.002), lesion length greater than or equal to 10 mm (p = 0.018) and lesion calcification (p = 0.035) were quantitatively associated with a smaller final minimum cross-sectional area. With use of stepwise multivariate analysis to control for the reference area, atherectomy device size (p = 0.003) and left circumflex lesion location (p = 0.007) were independently associated with a larger final minimal cross-sectional area, whereas restenotic lesion (p = 0.010), diffuse proximal disease (p = 0.033), lesion length greater than or equal to 10 mm (p = 0.026) and lesion calcification (p = 0.081) were significantly correlated with a smaller final minimal cross-sectional area. The number of specimens excised, the number of atherectomy passes and atherectomy balloon inflation pressure did not correlate with the final minimal cross-sectional area. Thus, directional atherectomy results in marked improvement of coronary lumen dimensions, at least in part correlated with the presence of certain clinical, angiographic and procedural factors at the time of atherectomy.

Coronary adrenergic hyperreactivity in patients with syndrome X and abnormal electrocardiogram at rest

Syndrome X is characterized by an abnormal vasomotility of coronary microvessels. It is unknown whether the presence of an ischemic-like pattern in the electrocardiogram at rest (T-wave inversion) reflects a more severe vasomotion disturbance. Changes in coronary sinus flow (thermodilution) and epicardial vessel diameter (quantitative angiography) during adrenergic activation were measured with a standard cold pressor test in patients with syndrome X whose electrocardiogram at rest was normal (group 1: 17 patients) or showed stable, symmetrically inverted T waves (group 2: 22 patients). Cold pressor test increased mean blood pressure and rate-pressure product to a similar extent in both groups, increased coronary sinus flow in group 1 (88 +/- 29 to 119 +/- 36 ml/min; p less than 0.05) and not in group 2 (109 +/- 37 vs 104 +/- 36 ml/min; p = not significant), and decreased coronary resistance in group 1 (1.38 +/- 0.42 to 1.19 +/- 0.38 mm Hg/ml/min; p less than 0.05) and augmented it in group 2 (1.06 +/- 0.32 to 1.28 +/- 0.43 mm Hg/ml/min; p less than 0.02). During cold stimulus, the proximal and middle segments of epicardial arteries showed negligible changes in their lumen, whereas the distal segment dilated in group 1 (1.81 +/- 0.27 to 2.01 +/- 0.32 mm; p less than 0.05) and constricted in group 2 (1.82 +/- 0.12 to 1.62 +/- 0.20 mm; p less than 0.05). Differences in coronary hemodynamic and angiographic responses between the groups were statistically significant (p less than 0.05).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)