Bhatt, Deepak L

Background Elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is performed to relieve symptoms of angina. Identifying patients who will benefit symptomatically after PCI would be clinically advantageous but robust predictors of symptom resolution are ill-defined. Methods Prospective indexing of baseline angina status, clinical, and procedural characteristics were collected over a 5-year period in a regional revascularization registry. At 1-year follow-up, angina resolution was assessed. We performed a stepwise selection algorithm to identify predictors of persistent angina at 1 year. Results A total of 777 patients were included in the analysis and the median follow-up was 387 days. Mean age of the cohort was 66.6 years, 23.8% were female and 23.3% had baseline Canadian Cardiovascular Society class 3 or 4 angina. Overall, 13.1% had persistent angina. The only predictor of persistent angina was the presence of a residual chronic total occlusion after PCI with odds ratio of 3.06 (95% confidence interval, 1.81–5.17). Residual stenoses 50–69%, 70–89%, and 90–99% were not associated with residual angina after PCI. Conclusion Most patients achieved symptom resolution with PCI and optimal medical therapy. A residual chronic total occlusion after PCI was associated with persistent angina. Other degrees of stenoses were not associated with persistent angina.

A growing number of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with stent implantation also have atrial fibrillation. This poses challenges for their optimal antithrombotic management because patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing PCI require oral anticoagulation for the prevention of cardiac thromboembolism and dual antiplatelet therapy for the prevention of coronary thrombotic complications. The combination of oral anticoagulation and dual antiplatelet therapy substantially increases the risk of bleeding. Over the last decade, a series of North American Consensus Statements on the Management of Antithrombotic Therapy in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention have been reported. Since the last update in 2018, several pivotal clinical trials in the field have been published. This document provides a focused updated of the 2018 recommendations. The group recommends that in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing PCI, a non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant is the oral anticoagulation of choice. Dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and a P2Y 12 inhibitor should be given to all patients during the peri-PCI period (during inpatient stay, until time of discharge, up to 1 week after PCI, at the discretion of the treating physician), after which the default strategy is to stop aspirin and continue treatment with a P2Y 12 inhibitor, preferably clopidogrel, in combination with a non–vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (ie, double therapy). In patients at increased thrombotic risk who have an acceptable risk of bleeding, it is reasonable to continue aspirin (ie, triple therapy) for up to 1 month. Double therapy should be given for 6 to 12 months with the actual duration depending on the ischemic and bleeding risk profile of the patient, after which patients should discontinue antiplatelet therapy and receive oral anticoagulation alone.

Abstract Aims Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI) is the gold standard, guideline-recommended revascularization strategy in patients presenting with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). However, there are limited data on its use and effectiveness among patients with active cancer presenting with STEMI. Methods and results All STEMI hospitalizations between 2004 and 2015 from the National Inpatient Sample were retrospectively analysed, stratified by cancer type. Propensity score matching was performed to estimate the average treatment effect of pPCI in each cancer on in-hospital adverse events, including major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) and its individual components, and compare treatment effect between cancer and non-cancer patients. Out of 1 870 815 patients with STEMI, 38 932 (2.1%) had a current cancer diagnosis [haematological: 11 251 (28.9% of all cancers); breast: 4675 (12.0%); lung: 9538 (24.5%); colon: 3749 (9.6%); prostate: 9719 (25.0%)]. Patients with cancer received pPCI less commonly than those without cancer (from 54.2% for lung cancer to 70.6% for haematological vs. 82.3% in no cancer). Performance of pPCI was strongly associated with lower adjusted probabilities of MACCE and all-cause mortality in the cancer groups compared with the no cancer group. There was no significant difference in estimated average pPCI treatment effect between the cancer groups and non-cancer group. Conclusion Primary percutaneous coronary intervention is underutilized in STEMI patients with current cancer despite its significantly lower associated rates of in-hospital all-cause mortality and MACCE that is comparable to patients without cancer. Further work is required to assess the long-term benefit and safety of pPCI in this high-risk group.

Background: Direct stenting without pre-dilation or post-dilation has been advocated for saphenous vein graft percutaneous coronary intervention to decrease the incidence of distal embolization, periprocedural myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization. Methods: We performed a post hoc analysis of patients enrolled in the DIVA (Drug-Eluting Stents Versus Bare Metal Stents in Saphenous Vein Graft Angioplasty; NCT 01121224) prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial. Patients were stratified into stent-only and balloon-stent groups. Primary end point was 12-month incidence of target vessel failure (defined as the composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization). Secondary end points included all-cause death, stent thrombosis, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization during follow-up. Results: Of the 575 patients included in this substudy, 185 (32%) patients underwent stent-only percutaneous coronary intervention. Patients in the stent-only versus balloon-stent group had similar baseline characteristics and similar incidence of target vessel failure at 12-months (15% versus 19%; hazard ratio, 1.34 [95% CI, 0.86–2.08]; P =0.19). During long-term follow-up (median of 2.7 years), the incidence of definite stent thrombosis (1% versus 5%; hazard ratio, 9.20 [95% CI, 1.23–68.92]; P =0.0085), the composite of definite or probable stent thrombosis (5% versus 11%; hazard ratio, 2.52 [95% CI, 1.23–5.18]; P =0.009), and target vessel myocardial infarction (8% versus 14%; hazard ratio, 1.92 [95% CI, 1.08–3.40]; P =0.023) was lower in the stent-only group. Multivariable analysis showed that a higher number of years since coronary artery bypass grafting and >1 target saphenous vein graft lesions were associated with increased target vessel failure during entire follow-up, while preintervention Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction-3 flow was protective. Conclusions: In patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention of de novo saphenous vein graft lesions, there was no difference in target vessel failure at 12 months and long-term follow-up in the stent-only versus the balloon-stent group; however, the incidence of stent thrombosis was lower in the stent-only group, as was target vessel myocardial infarction. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT 01121224.

AbstractObjectivesThe aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of peripheral artery disease (PAD) and its association with in‐hospital outcomes after endovascular transcatheter aortic valve replacement (EV‐TAVR).BackgroundTAVR is an established treatment for patients at prohibitive, high, or intermediate surgical risk. PAD is a significant comorbidity in the determination of surgical risk. However, data on association of PAD with outcomes after EV‐TAVR are limited.MethodsPatients in the National Inpatient Sample who underwent EV‐TAVR between January 1, 2012 and September 30, 2015 were evaluated. The primary outcome was in‐hospital mortality.ResultsA total of 51,685 patients underwent EV‐TAVR during the study period. Of these, 12,740 (24.6%) had a coexisting diagnosis of PAD. The adjusted odds for in‐hospital mortality [OR 1.08 (95% CI 0.83–1.41)], permanent pacemaker implantation [OR 0.98 (0.85–1.14)], conversion to open aortic valve replacement [OR 1.05 (0.49–2.26)], or acute myocardial infarction [OR 1.31(0.99–1.71)] were not different in patients with versus without PAD. However, patients with PAD had greater adjusted odds of vascular complications [OR 1.80 (1.50–2.16)], major bleeding [OR 1.20 (1.09–1.34)], acute kidney injury (AKI) [OR 1.19 (1.05–1.36)], cardiac complications [aOR 1.21 (1.01–1.44)], and stroke [OR 1.39(1.10–1.75)] compared with patients without PAD. Length of stay (LOS) was significantly longer for patients with PAD [7.23 (0.14) days vs. 7.11 (0.1) days, p < 0.001].ConclusionOf patients undergoing EV‐TAVR, ~25% have coexisting PAD. PAD was not associated with increased risk of in‐hospital mortality but was associated with higher risk of vascular complications, major bleeding, AKI, stroke, cardiac complications, and longer LOS.