Appropriate revascularization in stable angina: lessons from the BARI 2D trial

Development of a risk score to identify patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and multivessel coronary artery disease who can defer bypass surgery

BACKGROUND

Current American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guidelines provide a class I recommendation for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) to be treated with coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG). However, these patients are heterogeneous in terms of the risks and benefits associated with CABG. We sought to develop a risk score to identify low-risk patients with diabetes and multivessel CAD in whom CABG can be safely deferred.

METHODS

Patients in the CABG strata randomized to intensive medical therapy (IMT) in the Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation 2 Diabetes (BARI 2D) trial who experienced death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke were compared with those who did not. We developed a risk score for death, MI, or stroke using a Cox proportional hazards model that included the following variables: age, history of heart failure, history of hypercholesterolemia, history of stroke, transient ischemic attack, serum creatinine, insulin use, myocardial jeopardy index, and HbA1c.

RESULTS

Among patients with a risk score less than the median, those randomized to IMT or prompt CABG experienced similar rates of event-free survival at 5 years (77.8% vs. 83.2%, logrank P = 0.24). Among patients with a risk score greater than the median, those randomized to IMT experienced worse rates of event-free survival at 5 years than those randomized to prompt CABG (60.3% vs 73.2%, logrank P = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

A novel risk score identifies low-risk patients with diabetes and stable, symptomatic multivessel CAD in whom CABG can be safely deferred.

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes between the Ostial Versus Non-Ostial Culprit in Proximal Left Anterior Descending Artery Acute Myocardial Infarction

Percutaneous coronary interventions to the proximal left anterior descending artery (pLAD)-acute myocardial infarction (AMI) are still challenging, especially in the ostial pLAD. Clinical outcomes of the ostial pLAD-AMI were not well investigated. The aim of the present study was to compare clinical outcomes of the ostial pLAD-AMI with those of the non-ostial pLAD-AMI. The primary endpoint was the major cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as the composite of cardiac death, AMI, stent thrombosis (ST), target lesion revascularization (TLR), and target vessel revascularization (TVR). Between January 2009 and March 2016, a total of 401 pLAD-AMI were included as the study population and were divided into 78 ostial pLAD-AMI (the ostial pLAD group), and 323 non-ostial pLAD-AMI (the non-ostial pLAD group). The median follow-up duration was 414 days. The MACE tended to be higher in the ostial pLAD group (8.0% at 30 days, 19.9% at 400 days) than in the non-ostial pLAD group (4.4% at 30 days, 12.9% at 400 days) without reaching statistical significance (P = 0.087). The prevalence of cardiac death was significantly higher in the ostial pLAD group (6.6% at 30 days, 9.5% at 400 days) as compared with the non-ostial pLAD group (3.1% at 30 days, 4.5% at 400 days) (P = 0.034). There were no significant differences in ST, AMI, TLR, or TVR. We concluded that, as compared with the non-ostial pLAD-AMI, the clinical outcomes of the ostial pLAD-AMI, especially cardiac death, tended to be worse, requiring special attention to the ostial pLAD-AMI.

Survival outcomes post percutaneous coronary intervention: Why the hype about stent type? Lessons from a healthcare system in India

A prospective, multicenter study was initiated by the Government of Maharashtra, India, to determine predictors of long-term outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for coronary artery disease, and to compare the effectiveness of drug-eluting stents (DESs) and bare-metal stents (BMSs) in patients undergoing PCI under government-funded insurance. The present analysis included 4595 patients managed between August 2012 and November 2016 at any of 110 participating centers. Using the classical multivariable regression and propensity-matching approach, we found age to be the most important predictor of 1-year mortality and target lesion revascularization at 1 year post-PCI. However, using machine learning methods to account for unmeasured confounders and bias in this large observational study, we determined total stent length and number of stents deployed as the most important predictors of 1-year survival, followed by age and employment status. The unadjusted death rates were 5.0% and 3.8% for the BMS and DES groups, respectively (p = 0.185, log-rank test). The rate of re-hospitalization (p<0.001) and recurrence of unstable angina (p = 0.08) was significantly lower for DESs than for BMSs. Increased use of DES after 2015 (following establishment of a price cap on DESs) was associated with a sharp decrease in adjusted hazard ratios of DESs versus BMSs (from 0.94 in 2013 to 0.58 in 2016), suggesting that high price was limiting DES use in some high-risk patients. Since stented length and stent number were the most important predictors of survival outcomes, adopting an ischemia-guided revascularization strategy is expected to help improve outcomes and reduce procedural costs. In the elderly, PCI should be reserved for cases where the benefits outweigh the higher risk of the procedure. As unemployed patients had poorer long-term outcomes, we expect that implementation of a post-PCI cardiovascular rehabilitation program may improve long-term outcomes.

Finding the Gatekeeper to the Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory: Coronary CT Angiography or Stress Testing?

Functional capacity is a robust predictor of clinical outcomes, and stress testing is used in current practice paradigms to guide referral to invasive coronary angiography. However, invasive coronary angiography is driven by ongoing symptoms, as well as risk of adverse outcomes. The limitations of current functional testing-based paradigms might be avoided by using coronary computed tomographic angiography (CCTA) for exclusion of obstructive coronary artery disease. The growth of CCTA has been supported by comparative prognostic evidence with CCTA and functional testing, as well as radiation dose reduction. Use of CCTA for physiological evaluation of coronary lesion-specific ischemia may facilitate evaluation of moderate stenoses, designation of the culprit lesion, and prediction of benefit from revascularization. The potential of CCTA to serve as an effective gatekeeper to invasive coronary angiography will depend, in part, on the adoption of these new developments, as well as definition of the benefit of detecting high-risk plaque for guiding the management of selected patients.