de Lemos, James A

Background— Current guidelines recommend surgical revascularization (coronary artery bypass graft [CABG]) over percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with diabetes mellitus and multivessel coronary artery disease. Few data are available describing revascularization patterns among these patients in the setting of non–ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction. Methods and Results— Using Acute Coronary Treatment and Intervention Outcomes Network Registry–Get with the Guidelines (ACTION Registry–GWTG), we compared the in-hospital use of different revascularization strategies (PCI versus CABG versus no revascularization) in diabetes mellitus patients with non–ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction who had angiography, demonstrating multivessel coronary artery disease between July 2008 and December 2014. Factors associated with use of CABG versus PCI were identified using logistic multivariable regression analyses. A total of 29 769 patients from 539 hospitals were included in the study, of which 10 852 (36.4%) were treated with CABG, 13 760 (46.2%) were treated with PCI, and 5157 (17.3%) were treated without revascularization. The overall use of revascularization increased over the study period with an increase in the proportion undergoing PCI (45% to 48.9%; P trend =0.0002) and no change in the proportion undergoing CABG (36.1% to 34.7%; p trend =0.88). There was significant variability between participating hospitals in the use of PCI and CABG (range: 22%–100%; 0%–78%, respectively; P value <0.0001 for both). Patient-level, but not hospital-level, characteristics were statistically associated with the use of PCI versus CABG, including anatomic severity of the disease, early treatment of adenosine diphosphate receptor antagonists at presentation, older age, female sex, and history of heart failure. Conclusions— Among patients with diabetes mellitus and multivessel coronary artery disease presenting with non–ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction, only one third undergo CABG during the index admission. Furthermore, the use of PCI, but not CABG, increased modestly over the past 6 years.

Background— A noninvasive biomarker that could accurately diagnose acute rejection (AR) in heart transplant recipients could obviate the need for surveillance endomyocardial biopsies. We assessed the performance metrics of a novel high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I (cTnI) assay for this purpose. Methods and Results— Stored serum samples were retrospectively matched to endomyocardial biopsies in 98 cardiac transplant recipients, who survived ≥3 months after transplant. AR was defined as International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation grade 2R or higher cellular rejection, acellular rejection, or allograft dysfunction of uncertain pathogenesis, leading to treatment for presumed rejection. cTnI was measured with a high-sensitivity assay (Abbott Diagnostics, Abbott Park, IL). Cross-sectional analyses determined the association of cTnI concentrations with rejection and International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation grade and the performance metrics of cTnI for the detection of AR. Among 98 subjects, 37% had ≥1 rejection episode. cTnI was measured in 418 serum samples, including 35 paired to a rejection episode. cTnI concentrations were significantly higher in rejection versus nonrejection samples (median, 57.1 versus 10.2 ng/L; P <0.0001) and increased in a graded manner with higher biopsy scores ( P trend <0.0001). The c -statistic to discriminate AR was 0.82 (95% confidence interval, 0.76–0.88). Using a cut point of 15 ng/L, sensitivity was 94%, specificity 60%, positive predictive value 18%, and negative predictive value 99%. Conclusions— A high-sensitivity cTnI assay seems useful to rule out AR in cardiac transplant recipients. If validated in prospective studies, a strategy of serial monitoring with a high-sensitivity cTnI assay may offer a low-cost noninvasive strategy for rejection surveillance.