Lower Rates Of Repeat Revascularization Research Articles

The Current State of Coronary Revascularization: Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery Versus Percutaneous Coronary Interventions.

The optimal revascularization strategy for coronary artery disease depends on various factors, such as disease complexity, patient characteristics, and preferences. Including a heart team in complex cases is crucial to ensure optimal outcomes. Decision-making between percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting must consider each patient's clinical profile and coronary anatomy. While current practice guidelines offer some insight into the optimal revascularization approach for the various phenotypes of coronary artery disease, the evidence to support either strategy continues to evolve and grow. Given the large amount of contemporary data on revascularization, this review aims to comprehensively summarize the literature on coronary artery bypass grafting and percutaneous coronary intervention in patients across the spectrum of coronary artery disease phenotypes. Contemporary evidence suggests that for patients with triple vessel disease, coronary artery bypass grafting is preferred over percutaneous coronary intervention due to better long-term outcomes, including lower rates of death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization. Similarly, for patients with left main coronary artery disease, both percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting can be considered, as they have shown similar efficacy in terms of major adverse cardiac events, but there may be a slightly higher risk of death with percutaneous coronary intervention. For proximal left anterior descending artery disease, both percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting are viable options, but coronary artery bypass grafting has shown lower rates of repeat revascularization and better relief from angina. The Synergy Between PCI with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery score can help in decision-making by predicting the risk of adverse events and guiding the choice between percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting. European and American guidelines both agree with including a heart team that can develop and lay out individualized, optimal treatment options with respect for patient preferences. The debate between coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention in multiple different scenarios will continue to develop as technology and techniques improve for both procedures. Risk factors, pre, peri, and post-procedural complications involved in both revascularization strategies will continue to be mitigated to optimize outcomes for those patients for which coronary artery bypass grafting or percutaneous coronary intervention provide ultimate benefit. Methods to avoid unnecessary revascularization continue to develop as well as percutaneous technology that may allow patients to avoid surgical intervention when possible. With such changes, revascularization guidelines for specific patient populations may change in the coming years, which can serve as a limitation of this time-dated review.

Effect of Frailty on the Long-Term Prognosis of Elderly Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction.

To investigate the effect of frailty on the long-term prognosis of elderly patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). The data of 238 AMI patients (aged ≥75 years) were retrospectively reviewed. They were divided into two groups according to the Modified Frailty Index (mFI): frailty group (mFI≥0.27, n=143) and non-frailty group (mFI<0.27, n=95). The major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACEs) and Kaplan-Meier survival curves of the two groups were compared. Multivariate Cox regression analysis was used to identify the risk factors for MACEs. The frailty group showed a significantly older age as well as a higher N-terminal proB-type natriuretic peptide level, Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events score, and CRUSADE bleeding score compared with the non-frailty group (P<0.05). A significantly greater proportion of patients with combined heart failure, atrial fibrillation, comorbidity, and activities of daily living score of <60 was also observed in the frailty group compared with the non-frailty group (P<0.05). At 36 months after AMI, the frailty group vs the non-frailty group showed a significantly poorer survival (log-rank P=0.005), higher incidence of MACEs (50.35 vs 29.47, P=0.001), higher overall mortality rate (20.98% vs 7.37%, P=0.006), higher 30-day mortality rate (13.99% vs 5.26%, P=0.033), higher major bleeding rate (14.69% vs 5.26, P=0.018), and lower repeat revascularization rate (2.10% vs 8.42%, P=0.03). Frailty, type 2 diabetes, and N-terminal proB-type natriuretic peptide ≥1800 pg/mL were independent risk factors for MACEs. Frailty is an independent risk factor affecting the long-term prognosis of elderly patients with AMI.

A comparison of drug-eluting stent and coronary artery bypass grafting in mildly to moderately ischemic heart failure.

AimsThe best revascularization strategy for patients with ischaemic heart failure (IHF) remains unclear. Current evidence and guidelines mainly focus on patients with severe ischaemic heart failure (ejection fraction [EF] < 35%). There are limited data comparing clinical outcomes of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) with implantation of drug‐eluting stents (DESs) in patients with mild to moderate ischaemic heart failure (EF 35–50%). It is therefore unknown whether percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with DES implantation can provide comparable outcomes to CABG in these patients.Methods and resultsFrom January 2016 to December 2017, we enrolled patients with mildly to moderately reduced EF (35–50%) who had undergone PCI with DESs or CABG. Patients with a history of CABG, presented with acute ST‐elevation myocardial infarction (MI) or acute heart failure, and patients who had undergone CABG concomitant valvular or aortic surgery were excluded. Propensity score‐matching analysis was performed between the two groups. Kaplan–Meier analysis and multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression were applied to assess all‐cause mortality and individual end points. A total of 2050 patients (1330 PCIs and 720 CABGs) were included, and median follow‐up was 45 months (interquartile range 40 to 54). There were significant differences in all‐cause death between the two groups: 77 patients in the PCI group and 27 in the CABG group (DES vs. CABG: 5.8% vs. 3.8%, P = 0.045). After propensity score matching for the entire population, 601 matched pairs were obtained. The long‐term cumulative rate of all‐cause death was significantly different between the two groups (DES vs. CABG: 5.8% vs. 2.7%, P = 0.006). No differences were found in the rates of cardiac death (DES vs. CABG: 4.8% vs. 3.0%, P = 0.096), recurrent MI (DES vs. CABG: 4.0% vs. 2.8%, P = 0.234), and stroke (DES vs. CABG: 6.8% vs. 5.2%, P = 0.163). The rate of repeat coronary revascularization was significantly higher in the PCI group than in the CABG group (12.1% vs. 6.0%, P = 0.000).ConclusionsConsidering the higher long‐term survival rate and lower repeat‐revascularization rate, CABG may be superior to DES implantation in patients with mildly to moderately reduced EF (35–50%) and significant CAD.

Abstract 11234: The Impact of Median Yearly Income on Structural Heart Disease Procedural Outcomes

Introduction: The association of socioeconomic status with health outcomes is well known. This study used zip codes as a surrogate for income and compared outcomes post-procedure and at 6 and 12 months following TAVR at an urban hospital. Methods: We performed a retrospective study on patients undergoing TAVR at the University of Illinois-Chicago(UIC) in Chicago, Illinois between March 2018 and June 2020. Using income data from the US Census Bureau, patients were placed into 2 groups: zip codes with a median income less than the national urban mean income of $54,296 (LMI) and greater than the average urban mean yearly income (GMI).Primary outcomes included composite MACE (CV death, MI and/or CVA), length of stay, and all-cause death. Secondary outcomes included CHF exacerbation, and repeat revascularization. Outcomes were analyzed at hospital discharge, 6 months and 12 months. T and Chi square tests were used to analyze continuous/categorical variables, respectively. Results: We analyzed 114 patients, 84 patients were categorized as LMI and 30 patients were categorized as GMI. 94.3% of the LMI group was Black, while only 62% of the GMI group was Black. Age and gender distributions were similar between groups. Initial post procedural outcomes showed no statistical difference between the LMI and GMI. The LMI group trended towards a longer length of stay than the GMI group (p=0.1). A history of heart failure was greater in the LMI group (p = 0.025). At 6 months there was a lower repeat revascularization rate in the LMI group compared to the GMI group (0% vs. 1.8%, p = 0.017). However, other outcomes including composite MACE (9.6% vs. 1.8%, p=0.3) and all cause death (6.1% vs. 0.9%p=0.4) were statistically similar. At 12 months only 112 patients had recorded outcomes. At this time, repeat revascularization was still significantly different (0% vs. 2.6%, p = 0.005) but all other outcomes remained nonsignificant. Results: Post TAVR, patients in the GMI group experienced a higher rate of repeat coronary revascularization as compared to the LMI group, although, the composite event rate was similar. Further investigation into this observation is warranted; however, overall outcomes between patients from poorer communities seems to be similar to wealthier communities.

Repeat Revascularization over 10 Years Following Carotid Endarterectomy or Carotid Stent Placement: An Analysis of Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy Versus Stenting Trial

To identify rates of and factors associated with repeat revascularization in a large cohort of patients prospectively followed over 10 years in Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial. We compared the effect of carotid angioplasty and stenting (CAS) versus carotid endarterectomy (CEA) on risk of repeat revascularization after adjusting for age, sex, symptomatic status, and initial severity of stenosis (≥70% vs. <70%) using Cox proportional hazards analysis. We used Kaplan-Meier analysis to assess repeat revascularization-free survival for the overall cohort. Repeat revascularization was performed in 90 (3.9%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.1%-4.8%) of 2318 patients; 6 (6.7%, 95% CI 2.5%-14.0%) patients experienced the composite end point of any stroke, myocardial infarction, ordeath within 30 days after repeat revascularization. Therewas no difference in risk of repeat revascularization in patients who underwent CAS (compared with CEA) as theindex procedure (hazard ratio 0.92, 95% CI 0.69-1.23, P=0.5765). Patient's age (hazard ratio 1.01, 95% CI 1.01-1.02, P < 0.0001) was associated with performance of repeat revascularization. Mean ± SD repeat revascularization-free survival was 8.2 ± 0.1 years and 8.0 ± 0.1 years for CAS and CEA, respectively (log-rank test P= 0.0823). A low rate of repeat revascularization was seen without any significant difference among patients who underwent CEA or CAS over 10 years. The 6.7% rate of composite end point within 30 days after procedure highlights the need for standardizing the indications for repeat revascularization.

Different revascularization strategies for patients with coronary artery disease complicating reduced ejection fraction

Objectives: To explore the short and long term outcomes of coronary artery disease(CAD) patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) after two different revascularization strategies. Methods: The CAD patients with HFrEF who had undegone successful revascularization from January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2014 in Anzhen Hospital were analyzed based on registries. The baseline characteristics, changes of left heart function and the MACCE after a mean follow-up of 3.1 years were compared. Results: A total of 1 813 CAD patients with HFrEF who had undergone successful PCI (n=687) or CABG (n=1 126) satisfied the inclusion criteria were included. The age of all patients included was (59.6±10.0) years and male patients accounted for 83.1%. For the coronary angiographic features, the CABG group showed higher SYNTAX score (27.3±10.2 vs 31.1±10.4, P<0.01) and greater left ventricular end diastolic diameter (LVEDD) [(59.8±7.2) vs (57.9±7.7)mm, P<0.001]. The LVEF before revascularization was similar in PCI and CABG group [(35.8±5.1)% vs (35.9±4.6)%, P>0.05]. At three-month, one-year or three-year follow-up after revascularization, the improvement of LVEF was similar in the two groups (P>0.05). After multivariable adjustment, three-year outcomes revealed that the risks of all-cause mortality and cardiac death were not statistically significant between CABG and PCI group (16.3% vs 14.3%, HR=1.5, 95%CI: 1.2-2.1, P=0.07; 8.5% vs 8.2%, HR=1.3, 95%CI: 1.1-1.4, P=0.20). With regards to other endpoints, CABG group had a higher rate of stroke (6.2% vs 2.9%, HR=2.9, 95%CI:2.3-3.6, P<0.01) but a lower rate of repeat revascularization (6.5% vs 15.1%, HR=0.5, 95%CI:0.3-0.7, P<0.01) compared to PCI group. And for patients with SYNTAX score≥33, PCI group showed a comparable risk of all-cause mortality or cardiac death (HR=0.8, 95%CI: 0.4-1.3, P=0.06; HR=0.7, 95%CI:0.4-1.0, P=0.90). Conclusions: In CAD patients with HFrEF who had undergone successful revascularization, PCI is not inferior to CABG for long-term survival. PCI should be taken into consideration to become an alternative strategy in patients with left ventricular dysfunction.

Hybrid coronary revascularization vs. percutaneous coronary interventions for multivessel coronary artery disease.

OBJECTIVEHybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) combines a minimally invasive surgical approach to the left anterior descending (LAD) artery with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for non-LAD diseased coronary arteries. It is associated with shorter hospital lengths of stay and recovery times than conventional coronary artery bypass surgery, but there is little information comparing it to isolated PCI for multivessel disease. Our objective is to compare long-term outcomes of HCR and PCI for patients with multivessel disease.METHODSThis cohort study used data from New York’s cardiac surgery and PCI registries in 2010−2016 to examine mortality and repeat revascularization rates for patients with multivessel coronary artery disease who underwent HCR and PCI. Cox proportional hazards methods were used to reduce selection bias. Patients were followed for a median of four years.RESULTSThere was a total of 335 HCR patients (1.2%) and 25,557 PCI patients (98.8%) after exclusions. There was no difference in 6-year risk adjusted survival between HCR and PCI patients (83.17% vs. 81.65%, adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) = 0.90 (95% CI: 0.67−1.20). However, HCR patients were more likely to be free from repeat revascularization in the LAD artery (91.13% vs. 83.59%, aHR = 0.51 (95% CI: 0.34−0.77)). CONCLUSIONSFor patients with multi-vessel coronary artery disease, HCR is rarely performed. There are no differences in mortality rates after four years, but HCR is associated with lower repeat revascularization rates in the LAD artery, presumably due to better longevity in left arterial mammary grafts.

Clinical Outcomes Following Coronary Bifurcation PCI Techniques: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis Comprising 5,711 Patients

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to compare clinical outcomes of different bifurcation percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) techniques. BackgroundDespite several randomized trials, the optimal PCI technique for bifurcation lesions remains a matter of debate. Provisional stenting has been recommended as the default technique for most bifurcation lesions. Emerging data support double-kissing crush (DK-crush) as a 2-stent technique. MethodsPubMed and Scopus were searched for randomized controlled trials comparing PCI bifurcation techniques for coronary bifurcation lesions. Outcomes of interest were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Secondary outcomes of interest were cardiac death, myocardial infarction, target vessel or lesion revascularization, and stent thrombosis. Summary odds ratios (ORs) were estimated using Bayesian network meta-analysis. ResultsTwenty-one randomized controlled trials including 5,711 patients treated using 5 bifurcation PCI techniques were included. Investigated techniques were provisional stenting, T stenting/T and protrusion, crush, culotte, and DK-crush. Median follow-up duration was 12 months (interquartile range: 9 to 36 months). When all techniques were considered, patients treated using the DK-crush technique had less occurrence of MACE (OR: 0.39; 95% credible interval: 0.26 to 0.55) compared with those treated using provisional stenting, driven by a reduction in target lesion revascularization (OR: 0.36; 95% credible interval: 0.22 to 0.57). No differences were found in cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis among analyzed PCI techniques. No differences in MACE were observed among provisional stenting, culotte, T stenting/T and protrusion, and crush. In non–left main bifurcations, DK-crush reduced MACE (OR: 0.42; 95% credible interval: 0.24 to 0.66). ConclusionsIn this network meta-analysis, DK-crush was associated with fewer MACE, driven by lower rates of repeat revascularization, whereas no significant differences among techniques were observed for cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and stent thrombosis. A clinical benefit of 2-stent techniques was observed over provisional stenting in bifurcation with side branch lesion length ≥10 mm.

Sex difference in clinical outcomes of Chinese patients with atrial fibrillation and coronary stenting according to age.

Sex differences in the clinical outcomes of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and coronary stenting should be assessed according to age. We analyzed the clinical data of all patients with nonvalvular AF who underwent coronary stenting between January 2010 and June 2015 in 12 hospitals of Beijing, China. A total of 2,146 patients (71.8% men and 28.2% women) were included in the study. The mean age of the patients was 66.6±9.4 years. Women in this study were older and had higher prevalence of hypertension, diabetes, chronic kidney disease (CKD), and anemia. Smoking history was found to be higher in men, and women were less likely to be current smokers. The mean follow-up duration was 39.7 months. Women younger than 65 years had a remarkably higher mortality (11.2% vs. 5.3%, p=0.012) and a significantly lower rate of repeat revascularization (1.6% vs. 6.3%, p=0.034) than men. Female gender remained an independent predictor for all-cause mortality [hazard ratio (HR)=2.03, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.09-3.79, p=0.025], along with heart failure (HR=3.64, 95% CI: 2.02-6.57, p<0.001) and CKD (HR=2.46, 95% CI: 1.09-5.57, p=0.031) after multivariate regression analysis. No significant difference was noted between men and women with regard to mortality, ischemic events, and major bleeding in elderly patients. In Chinese patients younger than 65 years with AF and coronary stenting, female gender was independently associated with increased mortality; men were more likely to receive repeat revascularization possibly due to the current smoking. Whether it was a biological difference or a recognition disparity of the disease between men and women warrants further investigation.

Meta-Analysis Comparing Complete Versus Infarct-Related Artery Revascularization in Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Multivessel Coronary Disease

A strategy of complete revascularization (CR) versus infarct-related artery revascularization (IRA) in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) continues to be a subject of debate. We performed an updated meta-analysis to compare the 2 strategies. Outcomes of interest included major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, stroke, repeat revascularization, myocardial infarction, and contrast-induced nephropathy. Ten randomized trials including 7,423 patients (CR = 3,574 and IRA = 3,849), with a follow-up of 2.0±0.8 years were included. There was a significant reduction in MACE with CR versus IRA (10.7% vs 18.6%, relative risk [RR] 0.64, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.51 to 0.81, p = 0.002, I2 = 66%), with higher risk reduction with immediate versus stages revascularization (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.5 vs RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.89, P-interaction = 0.002). Complete revascularization was associated with lower rates of repeat revascularization (4.0% vs 11.7%, RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.70, p<0.0001, I2 = 81%), and a nonsignificant trend toward lower cardiovascular mortality (2.8% vs 3.7%, RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.03, p = 0.08, I2 = 0%). However, there was no difference between the 2 strategies in all-cause mortality (4.6% vs 4.8%, RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.12, p = 0.36, I2 = 0%), myocardial infarction (5.2% vs 6.5%, RR 0.73, 95% CI, 0.58 to 1.08, p = 0.08, I2 = 30%), stroke (1.5% vs 1.2%, RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.56 to 2.29, p = 0.33, I2 = 14%), or contrast-induced nephropathy (1.6% vs 1.2%, RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.15, p = 0.78, I2 = 0%). In conclusion, CR in patients with STEMI is associated with significant reduction in MACE compared with IRA. This reduction is derived mainly by the low rates of repeat revascularization in the CR group.

Multiple Versus Single Arterial Coronary Bypass Graft Surgery for Multivessel Disease

BackgroundDespite recent guideline statements, there is still wide practice variation in the use of multiple arterial grafts (MAGs) versus single arterial grafts (SAGs) for patients with multivessel disease undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery. This may be related to differences in findings between observational and randomized controlled studies. ObjectivesThis study sought to compare intermediate-term MAG and SAG outcomes with enhanced matching to reduce selection bias. MethodsNew York’s cardiac registry identified 63,402 multivessel disease patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2014, to compare outcomes (median follow-up 6.5 years) for patients receiving SAGs and MAGs. SAG and MAG patients were propensity matched using 38 baseline characteristics to reduce selection bias. The primary endpoint was mortality, and secondary endpoints included repeat revascularization and a composite endpoint of mortality, acute myocardial infarction, and stroke. ResultsBefore matching, 20% of procedures employed MAG. At 1 year, there was no mortality difference between matched MAG and SAG patients (2.4% vs. 2.2%, adjusted hazard ratio [AHR]: 1.11; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.93 to 1.32). At 7 years, MAG patients had lower mortality (12.7% vs. 14.3%, AHR: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.79 to 0.93), a lower composite outcome (20.2% vs. 22.8%, AHR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.83 to 0.93), and a lower repeat revascularization rate (11.7% vs. 14.6%, AHR: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.74 to 0.87). At 7 years, the subgroups for which MAG did not have a lower mortality rate included patients with off-pump surgery, 2-vessel disease with right coronary artery disease, recent acute myocardial infarction, renal dysfunction, and patient ≥70 years of age. ConclusionsMortality and the composite outcome were similar between MAG and SAG patients at 1 year, but lower for MAG after 7 years. Patients of higher volume MAG surgeons experienced lower MAG mortality.

Comparison of Two-Year Outcomes of Acute Myocardial Infarction Caused by Coronary Artery Spasm Versus that Caused by Coronary Atherosclerosis

The study compared the 2-year outcomes of patients diagnosed with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) triggered by coronary artery atherosclerosis and AMI caused by coronary artery spasm. A total of 36,797 patients in the Korea AMI Registry were grouped into 2 categories-(1) AMI due to coronary artery spasm without stenotic lesion (CAS-AMI, n = 484); and (2) AMI induced by coronary artery atherosclerosis (CAA-AMI, n = 36,313). The major clinical outcomes of the 2 groups were compared over a 2-year clinical follow-up period. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) were defined as the composite of total death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization. The incidence of MACE (7.1% vs 11.1%; p = 0.007) and repeat revascularization (0.4% vs 4.2%; p <0.001) in the CAS-AMI group were significantly lower than in the CAA-AMI group at 2 years. However, the incidence of total death and nonfatal myocardial infarction was similar in both the groups. Aborted cardiac arrest was strongly associated with 2-year mortality in the CAS-AMI group (hazard ratios 13.5, 95% confidence interval 5.34 to 34.15, p <0.001) The incidence of MACE in CAS-AMI patients was significantly lower than in the CAA-AMI group of patients up to 2 years due to the relatively lower rate of repeat revascularization in CAS-AMI patients. However, the incidence of total death or nonfatal myocardial infarction in CAS-AMI patients was not different from that of patients with CAA-AMI.

Meta-analysis of fractional flow reserve guided complete revascularization versus infarct related artery only revascularization in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel coronary artery disease.

Multivessel coronary artery disease is found in 30-50% of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (MI) and is associated with adverse outcomes. It is not yet clear if outcomes are improved by utilizing fractional flow reserve (FFR) guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of noninfarct related artery (non-IRA) along with primary PCI. To evaluate this, we performed a metanalysis of published randomized controlled trials by performing systematic search of PubMed, Medline, Google Scholar and Cochrane Central. Three studies met the inclusion criteria, with total of 1633 patients; 689 underwent FFR-guided complete revascularization and 944 underwent IRA only revascularization. FFR-guided PCI of non-IRA along with primary PCI led to significant reduction of major adverse cardiovascular events (composite of death, MI and repeat revascularization) compared to PCI of IRA only [odds ratio (OR) = 0.55; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.42-0.72; P < 0.001]. This difference was primarily due to significant reduction in repeat revascularization (OR = 0.37; 95% CI = 0.26-0.53; P < 0.001). The rates of all-cause mortality (OR = 1.24; 95% CI = 0.65-2.35; P = 0.51) and MI (OR = 0.79; 95% CI = 0.46-1.36; P = 0.48) were similar in two groups. This meta-analysis demonstrated that FFR-guided PCI of non-IRA along with primary PCI was associated with lower rate of major adverse cardiovascular events compared with PCI of IRA-only in patients with ST-elevation MI and multivessel disease. The difference was driven by lower rate of repeat revascularization in FFR-guided PCI of non-IRA group.

The Effect of Clinical Care Location on Clinical Outcomes After Peripheral Vascular Intervention in Medicare Beneficiaries

ObjectivesModifications in reimbursement rates by Medicare in 2008 have led to peripheral vascular interventions (PVI) being performed more commonly in outpatient and office-based clinics. The objective of this study was to determine the effects of this shift in clinical care setting on clinical outcomes after PVI. BackgroundModifications in reimbursement have led to peripheral vascular intervention (PVI) being more commonly performed in outpatient hospital settings and office-based clinics. MethodsUsing a 100% national sample of Medicare beneficiaries from 2010 to 2012, we examined 30-day and 1-year rates of all-cause mortality, major lower extremity amputation, repeat revascularization, and all-cause hospitalization by clinical care location of index PVI. ResultsA total of 218,858 Medicare beneficiaries underwent an index PVI between 2010 and 2012. Index PVIs performed in inpatient settings were associated with higher 1-year rates of all-cause mortality (23.6% vs. 10.4% and 11.7%; p < 0.001), major lower extremity amputation (10.1% vs. 3.7% and 3.5%; p < 0.001), and all-cause repeat hospitalization (63.3% vs. 48.5% and 48.0%; p < 0.001), but lower rates of repeat revascularization (25.1% vs. 26.9% vs. 38.6%; p < 0.001) when compared with outpatient hospital settings and office-based clinics, respectively. After adjustment for potential confounders, patients treated in office-based clinics remained more likely than patients in inpatient hospital settings to require repeat revascularization within 1 year across all specialties. There was also a statistically significant interaction effect between location of index revascularization and geographic region on the occurrence of all-cause hospitalization, repeat revascularization, and lower extremity amputation. ConclusionsIndex PVI performed in office-based settings was associated with a higher hazard of repeat revascularization when compared with other settings. Differences in clinical outcomes across treatment settings and geographic regions suggest that inconsistent application of PVI may exist and highlights the need for studies to determine optimal delivery of PVI in clinical practice.

Outcomes following percutaneous coronary revascularization among South Asian and Chinese Canadians

BackgroundPrevious data suggest significant ethnic differences in outcomes following percutaneous coronary revascularization (PCI), though previous studies have focused on subgroups of PCI patients or used administrative data only. We sought to compare outcomes in a population-based cohort of men and women of South Asian (SA), Chinese and “Other” ethnicity.MethodsUsing a population-based registry, we identified 41,792 patients who underwent first revascularization via PCI in British Columbia, Canada, between 2001 and 2010. We defined three ethnic groups (SA, 3904 [9.3%]; Chinese, 1345 [3.2%]; and all “Others” 36,543 [87.4%]). Differences in mortality, repeat revascularization (RRV) and target vessel revascularization (TVR), at 30 days and from 31 days to 2 years were examined.ResultsAdjusted mortality from 31 days to 2 years was lower in Chinese patients than in “Others” (hazard ratio [HR] 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.53-0.97), but not different between SAs and “Others”. SA patients had higher RRV at 30 days (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.30; 95% CI: 1.12-1.51) and from 31 days to 2 years (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.17; 95% CI: 1.06-1.30) compared to “Others”. In contrast, Chinese patients had a lower rate of RRV from 31 days to 2 years (adjusted HR 0.79; 95% CI: 0.64-0.96) versus “Others”. SA patients also had higher rates of TVR at 30 days (adjusted OR 1.35; 95% CI: 1.10-1.66) and from 31 days to 2 years (adjusted HR 1.19; 95% CI: 1.06-1.34) compared to “Others”. Chinese patients had a lower rate of TVR from 31 days to 2 years (adjusted HR 0.76; 95% CI: 0.60-0.96).ConclusionsSA had higher RRV and TVR rates while Chinese Canadians had lower rates of long-term RRV, compared to those of “Other” ethnicity. Further research to elucidate the reasons for these differences could inform targeted strategies to improve outcomes.

Characteristics and outcomes of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention within 1 year of coronary artery bypass graft surgery

The aim of this study was to examine the clinical and procedural outcomes of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) within 1 year of coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG). CABG is the preferred revascularization strategy for patients with complex coronary artery disease due to a lower rate of repeat revascularization. Despite advances in surgical technique and medical therapy, >5% of patients require repeat revascularization within 1 year of CABG. Patients who underwent PCI within 1 year of CABG were identified from a prospective registry with data on over 20,000 PCI procedures (April 2000-June 2011). 203 post-CABG patients underwent 228 PCI procedures on 390 lesions during this period. 45% of patients had elective PCI while 55% had PCI on an urgent basis. 81% of PCI was performed in native coronary arteries, usually following graft failure in a previously grafted vessel (60%) or in an ungrafted native vessel (21%). Patients who required PCI within 1 year of CABG were more likely to present on an urgent basis and have PCI performed in grafted native coronary vessels. However, nearly third of the patients had PCI to an ungrafted native vessel or to a lesion in the native vessel where the graft was still patent. Further studies are needed to determine whether the use of hybrid revascularization strategies (combination CABG and planned PCI) in appropriate patients could reduce the need for urgent PCI within the first year after CABG. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Using Drug-Eluting Stents Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting for Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.

Current guidelines suggest that coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) should be the preferred revascularization method for unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis. In light of evidence from recent randomized trials, we assessed whether percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using drug-eluting stents is as safe and effective as CABG for the treatment of unprotected left main coronary artery disease. Digital databases and manual searches were performed for randomized trials comparing PCI and CABG for unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis. Among 3887 potentially relevant studies, 5 met inclusion criteria. The primary safety end point was defined as the composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. Secondary end points included a clinical effectiveness composite, which was defined as all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or repeat revascularization. Summary estimates were obtained using random-effects modeling. In total, 4594 patients were included in the analysis. There was no significant difference in the primary safety end point between the revascularization strategies (odds ratio [OR], 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79-1.17; P=0.73). However, when compared with CABG, PCI was less effective (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.18-1.58; P<0.001) because of significantly higher rates of repeat revascularization (OR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.53-2.23; P<0.001). The incidence of all-cause death (OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.78-1.35; P=0.61), myocardial infarction (OR, 1.46; 95% CI, 0.88-2.45; P=0.08), and stroke (OR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.39-1.97; P=0.53) did not differ between PCI and CABG. PCI using drug-eluting stents and CABG are equally safe methods of revascularization for patients at low surgical risk with significant unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis. However, CABG is associated with significantly lower rates of repeat revascularization.

TCT-244 Lower rates of repeat revascularization among patients with prior coronary artery bypass grafting is partly due to lack of adequate target vessels

TCT-244 Lower rates of repeat revascularization among patients with prior coronary artery bypass grafting is partly due to lack of adequate target vessels

Ischemia-Guided Percutaneous Revascularization

Submit Manuscript | http://medcraveonline.com The study of Hachamovitch et al. [3] emphasized the relationship between inducible ischemia on SPECT and the presence of shortterm survival benefits with early revascularization vs. medical therapy.Revascularization was associated with a reduction in mortality for patients having moderate to severe ischemia. The cut-off level of ischemic myocardium, assessed by summed stress scores, to predict lower mortality using revascularization was approximately 10-12.5% [3]. Kim et al. [4] supported the benefit of ischemia-guided revascularization with myocardial perfusion imaging for patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. The outcomes of ischemia-guided revascularization were retrospectively compared with those of non ischemiaguided revascularization in a registry of 5,340 patients with multivessel coronary disease comprising 2,587 percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) with drug-eluting stents and 2,753 coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgeries. The incidence of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) was significantly lower in the ischemia-guided than in the non ischemia-guided group, primarily driven by the lower repeat revascularization rate. Subgroup analysis showed that ischemiaguided reduced the risk of MACCE in PCI but not in CABG patients [4]. Several diagnostic modalities are available for use as tools to establish the initial diagnosis, assess disease severity, and select the appropriate treatment strategy in symptomatic patients suspected of having SCAD. In relation to this point, a multicenter study performed in Japan hypothesise that the choice of the initial diagnostic test might influence the treatment strategy. They showed that patients receiving initial SPECT had a lower rate of revascularization than those receiving coronary angiography [5]. In relation to invasive methods assessing ischemia, fractional flow reserve (FFR) is considered nowadays the elective way for invasive assessment of physiological stenosis significance and a decisive tool for decision making in coronary revascularization. The recently published ESC guidelines on the management of stable coronary artery disease endorse the use of FFR for risk stratification. FFR is calculated as the ratio of distal coronary pressure to aortic pressure measured during maximal hyperaemia. A normal value for FFR is 1.0. Stenoses with a FFR >0.80 are hardly ever associated with exercise-induced ischaemia [6]. The principal utility of FFR is in certain situations when it is not clear whether an intermediate angiographic lesion causes ischemia. The use of FFR in the catheterization laboratory accurately identifies which lesions should be revascularized and improves the outcome in most elective clinical and angiographic conditions, as compared with the situation where revascularization decisions are simply made on the basis of angiographic appearance of the lesion [7]. The DEFER study evaluated the 5-year outcomes in 325 patients assigned to 3 groups: deferred group (FFR ≥0.75 without PCI), PCI group (FFR ≥0.75 with PCI), and a control group (FFR <0.75 with PCI). 5-year event-free survival rates were similar in the deferred and PCI groups, with a risk of cardiac death or MI in patients with normal FFR inferior to 1% per year [8]. FAME study evaluated angio-guided versus FFR-guided percutaneous revascularization in patients with multivessel disease. Routine measurement of FFR in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease who were undergoing PCI with drug-eluting stents significantly reduced the rate of the composite end point of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization at one year of follow up [9]. The 2-year outcome report of the FAME study supported the safety of deferring PCI for non ischemic lesions [10]. Of interest, a sub analysis of the FAME study also showed that angiography is inaccurate in assessing the functional significance of a coronary stenosis when compared with the FFR in the 50% to 70% category but also in the 70% to 90% angiographic severity category [11]. The FAME-2 trial tested the benefits, for SCAD, of FFR-guided PCI plus optimal medical therapy with optimal medical treatment alone. PCI group had significant lower rate of primary endpoint event: death, MI, or urgent revascularization. Also there was a lower rate of urgent revascularization in the PCI group than in the medical therapy group [12].

Abstract 380: Comparison of 6-Year Outcomes of Bare-metal and Paclitaxel-eluting Stents: Results from New York Cardiac Registries

Background: Coronary stents are commonly used in percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). Bare-metal stents (BMS) as the first generation stent and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) as a second generation stent are widely deployed in PCIs. However, the long-term comparative effectiveness of BMS vs PES in the real practice remains unclear. Our aim was to assess a comprehensive set of 6-year clinical outcomes of all patients undergoing PCI with either BMS or PES placement and to determine comparative effectiveness of BMS vs PES in “off-label” (ST Segment Elevation Myocardial , totally occluded lesions, left main disease, multiple vessels diseased, bypassed graft lesions, and ejection fraction75 years, and diabetes) patient subgroups. Methods: A 6-year longitudinal database was created by linking data from the New York State (NYS) PCI registry, the NYS Cardiac Surgery Reporting System (CSRS) registry, the Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System (SPARCS), the National Death Index (NDI) file, and the U.S. Census data (2010) for patients undergoing PCI with BMS or PES placement from January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2007. Outcomes included all-cause mortality, acute myocardial infarction (AMI), subsequent coronary revascularizations (PCI or coronary artery bypass graft surgery) and target-vessel PCI (TVPCI). Propensity score-matched patients undergoing BMS or PES (n=13,879 pairs) were compared with respect to 6-year outcomes using Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox proportional hazards regression models applied to propensity-matched patients. Results: There were no significant differences in demographics, comorbidities, clinical profile, vessel/lesion related risk factors, and hospital/physician level characteristics between BMS and PES after propensity score matching. Kaplan-Meier estimates indicated that there were significant differences between BMS and PES for 6-year all-cause mortality (BMS: 26.87%, PES: 22.0%, Log-rank P&lt;0.001), AMI (BMS: 8.91%, PES: 8.89%, P=0.045), repeat revascularization (BMS: 34.14%, PES: 36.27%, P=0.004), and TVPCI (BMS: 15.43%, PES: 15.28%, P=0.01). After further adjustment with Cox models, PES use was associated with significantly lower occurrence of 6-year all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio : 0.74, P&lt;0.001), AMI (AHR: 0.91, P=0.04), and TVPCI (AHR: 0.92, P=0.02) but higher occurrence of 6-year repeat revascularization (AHR: 1.08, P=0.001). The reason why BMS had lower repeat revascularization rate was because of its lower rate of repeat PCI in non-target vessels. For “off-label” and “high-risk” subgroups, PES had superior or non-inferior outcomes relative to BMS. Conclusion: Overall, PES improved clinical outcomes compared to BMS at 6 years. For each “off-label” or “high-risk” subgroup, the comparative effectiveness of PES vs BMS varied by the outcome assessed.