Topol, Eric J.

Background The purpose of this study was to identify the predictors and sequelae of distal embolization from a multicenter, randomized trial of saphenous vein graft intervention. The CAVEAT-II trial demonstrated that saphenous vein graft directional coronary atherectomy (DCA) was associated with greater angiographic success and less need for repeat intervention compared with percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) but at the cost of more acute complications—notably distal embolization. Methods and Results In CAVEAT-II, 305 patients were randomly assigned to DCA (149 patients) or PTCA (156 patients) for lesions with >60% diameter stenosis in vein grafts ≥3 mm in diameter. Distal embolization occurred in 20 patients (13.4%) assigned to DCA and 8 patients (5.1%) assigned to PTCA ( P =.011). Independent predictors of distal embolization were use of DCA (71% in distal embolization patients versus 47% in patients without distal embolization, P =.011) and presence of thrombus (39% in distal embolization patients versus 14% in patients without distal embolization, P <.00). In-hospital adverse events were more frequent after distal embolization: 71% versus 20%, odds ratio plus (95% confidence intervals) 9.87 (4.65, 20.94). At 12-month follow-up, adverse event rates were also higher in patients with distal embolization (odds ratio, 3.05 [1.95, 4.76]). Conclusions In this first prospective multicenter trial of saphenous vein graft intervention, distal embolization was more common after DCA than PTCA and in lesions containing thrombus. It also was associated with worse in-hospital and 12-month outcomes. The risk and sequelae of distal embolization should be considered when choosing a treatment strategy for vein graft disease.

Background —Cardiogenic shock is usually considered a sequela of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. There are limited prospective data on the incidence and significance of shock in non−ST-segment elevation patients. This study assessed the incidence and outcomes of cardiogenic shock developing after enrollment among patients with and without ST-segment elevation in the Global Use of Strategies To Open Occluded Coronary Arteries (GUSTO)-IIb trial. Methods and Results —Among 12 084 patients in GUSTO-IIb who did not present with cardiogenic shock, 4092 (34%) had and 7991 (66%) did not have ST-segment elevation on the enrollment ECG. Cardiogenic shock developed in 4.2% of ST-segment elevation patients compared with 2.5% of patients without ST-segment elevation (odds ratio, 0.581; 95% CI, 0.472 to 0.715; P <0.001). Shock developed significantly later among patients without ST-segment elevation. There were significant differences in baseline characteristics between shock patients with and without ST-segment elevation: Patients without ST-segment elevation were older, more frequently had diabetes mellitus and 3-vessel disease, but had less TIMI grade 0 flow at angiography. Regardless of the initial ECG, mortality was high: 63% among patients with ST-segment elevation and 73% in those without ST-segment elevation. Conclusions —Cardiogenic shock occurs in the setting of acute ischemic syndromes regardless of whether ST-segment elevation is present. The incidence, patient characteristics, timing, clinical course, and angiographic findings differ between the 2 groups. Mortality from cardiogenic shock is similarly high among patients with and without ST-segment elevation.

Background and Purpose —Intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) is a highly morbid disease process. Perihematomal edema is reported to contribute to clinical deterioration and death. Recent experimental observations indicate that clotting of the intrahematomal blood is the essential prerequisite for hyperacute perihematomal edema formation rather than blood-brain barrier disruption. Methods —We compared a series of patients with spontaneous ICH (SICH) to a series of patients with thrombolysis-related ICH (TICH). All patients were imaged within 3 hours of clinical onset. We reviewed relevant neuroimaging features, emphasizing and quantifying perihematomal edema. We then analyzed clinical and radiological differences between the 2 ICH types and determined whether these factors were associated with perihematomal edema. Results —TICHs contained visible perihematomal edema less than half as often as SICHs (31% versus 69%, P <0.001) and had both lower absolute edema volumes (0 cc [25th, 75th percentiles: 0, 6] versus 6 cc [0, 13], P <0.0001) and relative edema volumes (0.16 [0.10, 0.33] versus 0.55 [0.40, 0.83], P <0.0001). Compared with SICHs, TICHs were 3 times larger in volume (median [25th, 75th percentiles] volume 69 cc [30, 106] versus 21 cc [8, 45], P <0.0001), 4 times more frequently lobar in location (62% versus 15%, P <0.001), 80 times more frequently contained blood-fluid level(s) (86% versus 1%, P <0.001), and were more frequently multifocal (22% versus 0%, P <0.001). Conclusions —The striking qualitative and quantitative lack of perihematomal edema observed in the thrombolysis-related ICHs compared with the SICHs provides the first substantial, although indirect, human evidence that intrahematomal blood clotting is a plausible pathogenetic factor in hyperacute perihematomal edema formation.

Background— Statins primarily metabolized by cytochrome P450 3A4 (CYP3A4) reportedly reduce clopidogrel’s metabolism to active metabolite, thus attenuating its inhibition of platelet aggregation ex vivo. However, the clinical impact of this interaction has not been evaluated. Methods and Results— Clopidogrel for the Reduction of Events During Observation (CREDO) was a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial comparing pretreatment (300 mg) and 1-year (75 mg/d) clopidogrel therapy (clopidogrel) with no pretreatment and 1-month clopidogrel therapy (75 mg/d) (control) after a planned percutaneous coronary intervention. All patients received aspirin. The 1-year primary end point was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke. We performed a post hoc analysis to evaluate the clinical efficacy of concomitant clopidogrel and statin administration, categorizing baseline statin use to those predominantly CYP3A4-metabolized (atorvastatin, lovastatin, simvastatin, and cerivastatin) (CYP3A4-MET) or others (pravastatin and fluvastatin) (non-CYP3A4-MET). Of the 2116 patients enrolled, 1001 received a CYP3A4-MET and 158 a non-CYP3A4-MET statin. For the overall study population, the primary end point was significantly reduced in the clopidogrel group (8.5% versus 11.5%, RRR 26.9%; P =0.025). This clopidogrel benefit was similar with statin use, irrespective of treatment with a CYP3A4-MET (7.6% clopidogrel, 11.8% control, RRR 36.4%, 95% CI 3.9 to 57.9; P =0.03) or non-CYP3A4-MET statin (5.4% clopidogrel, 13.6% control, RRR 60.6%, 95% CI −23.9 to 87.4; P =0.11). Patients given atorvastatin or pravastatin had similar 1-year event rates. Additionally, concomitant therapy with statins had no impact on major or minor bleeding rates. Conclusions— Although ex vivo testing has suggested a potential negative interaction when coadministering a CYP3A4-metabolized statin with clopidogrel, this was not clinically observed statistically in a post hoc analysis of a placebo-controlled study.