Feit, Frederick

Thienopyridine administration has a class Ia recommendation in patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes (ACS). Despite this many physicians withhold this treatment until after angiography because of concerns over the minority of patients who may require coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG). We sought to evaluate the one year composite ischemic outcomes (death, myocardial infarction, revascularization) in ACS patients requiring CABG based on thienopyridine exposure and timing of CABG. Methods: In the ACUITY trial, thienopyridine administration and timing was left to investigators’ discretion. In the subset of patients requiring CABG, the one year composite ischemic outcome was compared in those not exposed to thienopyridines (group A), those who received thienopyridine and went to CABG ≤120 hours from the last dose (group B) and those who received thienopyridine and went to CABG >120 hours after the last dose (group C). Major bleeding was defined based on ACUITY definitions. Results: CABG was performed in 1539 (11.1%) patients. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics among the three groups. Mean time from angiography to CABG, major bleeding, and 1-year composite ischemia are presented in the table below. Conclusions: Based on our analysis of ACS patients undergoing CABG in the ACUITY trial, those who received thienopyridine preoperatively and went to CABG >120 hours from the last dose had improved one year composite ischemic outcomes compared to those not exposed or those who received thienopyridine and went to CABG ≤120 hours after the last dose.

Background: In the ACUITY Trial, patients (pts) with chronic renal insufficiency (CRI) had significantly higher rates of ischemic events and major bleeding compared to pts without CRI at 30 days. Bivalirudin (Biv) monotherapy provided similar protection from ischemic events but with significantly less bleeding compared to heparin + a GPIIb/IIIa inhibitor (Hep+GPI). The impact of a Biv alone strategy on one year mortality is unknown. Methods: Pts with moderate and high risk acute coronary syndromes (ACS) were randomized to Hep + GPI, Biv + GPI, or Biv monotherapy. CRI was defined as baseline creatinine clearance (CrCl) <60 mL/min. We evaluated the impact of CRI and antithrombotic strategy on composite ischemia (death, MI, or revascularization) and mortality at one year. Results: Of the pts enrolled, 12,933 had baseline CrCl data: 2468 (19.1%) pts had CrCl ≥60 mL/min and 10,465 (80.9%) pts had CrCl <60 mL/min. Rates of major bleeding at 30 days in pts with CRI were significantly lower with Biv alone vs Hep+GPI (6.2% vs 9.8%, p<0.01). Pts with CRI had higher mortality at one year compared to those without CRI (8.7% vs 3.0%, p<0.001). There was no difference in composite ischemia for pts who received Biv monotherapy vs Hep + GPI (23.0% vs 21.4%, p=0.10). One year mortality by antithrombin strategy is shown in the Figure . Conclusions: CRI in pts with ACS is associated with higher rates of one year mortality. In these high risk pts, Biv monotherapy improved early clinical outcomes compared to Hep + GPI by reducing major bleeding, and resulted in similar rates of one year mortality. Cumulative Mortality at One Year, Patients with CRI

Background— The Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation 2 Diabetes (BARI 2D) trial assigned patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus to prompt coronary revascularization plus intensive medical therapy versus intensive medical therapy alone and reported no significant difference in mortality. Among patients selected for coronary artery bypass graft surgery, prompt coronary revascularization was associated with a significant reduction in death/myocardial infarction/stroke compared with intensive medical therapy. We hypothesized that clinical and angiographic risk stratification would affect the effectiveness of the treatments overall and within revascularization strata. Methods and Results— An angiographic risk score was developed from variables assessed at randomization; independent prognostic factors were myocardial jeopardy index, total number of coronary lesions, prior coronary revascularization, and left ventricular ejection fraction. The Framingham Risk Score for patients with coronary disease was used to summarize clinical risk. Cardiovascular event rates were compared by assigned treatment within high-risk and low-risk subgroups. Overall, no outcome differences between the intensive medical therapy and prompt coronary revascularization groups were seen in any risk stratum. The 5-year risk of death/myocardial infarction/stroke was 36.8% for intensive medical therapy compared with 24.8% for prompt coronary revascularization among the 381 coronary artery bypass graft surgery–selected patients in the highest angiographic risk tertile ( P =0.005); this treatment effect was amplified in patients with both high angiographic and high Framingham risk (47.3% intensive medical therapy versus 27.1% prompt coronary revascularization; P =0.010; hazard ratio=2.10; P =0.009). Treatment group differences were not significant in other clinical-angiographic risk groups within the coronary artery bypass graft surgery stratum, or in any subgroups within the percutaneous coronary intervention stratum. Conclusion— Among patients with diabetes mellitus and stable ischemic heart disease, a strategy of prompt coronary artery bypass graft surgery significantly reduces the rate of death/myocardial infarction MI/stroke in those with extensive coronary artery disease or impaired left ventricular function. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00006305.

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.

Background —Patients with treated diabetes in the randomized-trial segment of the Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation (BARI) who were randomized to initial revascularization with PTCA had significantly worse 5-year survival than patients assigned to CABG. This treatment difference was not seen among diabetic patients eligible for BARI who opted to select their mode of revascularization. We hypothesized that differences in patient characteristics, assessed and unmeasured, together with the treatment selection in the registry, at least partially account for this discrepancy. Methods and Results —Among diabetics taking insulin or oral hypoglycemic drugs at entry, angiographic and clinical presentations were comparable between randomized and registry patients. However, more registry patients were white, and registry diabetics tended to be more educated and more physically active and to report better quality of life. Procedural characteristics and in-hospital complications were comparable. The 5-year all-cause mortality rate was 34.5% in randomized diabetic patients assigned to PTCA versus 19.4% in CABG patients ( P =0.0024; relative risk [RR]=1.87); corresponding cardiac mortality rates were 23.4% and 8.2%, respectively ( P =0.0002; RR=3.10). The CABG benefit was more apparent among patients requiring insulin. In the registry, all-cause mortality was 14.4% for PTCA versus 14.9% for CABG ( P =0.86, RR=1.10), with corresponding cardiac mortality rates of 7.5% and 6.0%, respectively ( P =0.73; RR=1.07). These RRs in the registry increased to 1.29 and 1.41, respectively, after adjustment for all known differences between treatment groups. Conclusions —BARI registry results are not inconsistent with the finding in the randomized trial that initial CABG is associated with better long-term survival than PTCA in treated diabetic patients with multivessel coronary disease suitable for either surgical or catheter-based revascularization.