Long term outcome and cost-effectiveness of stenting versus balloon angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction

Systematic review and meta-analysis of short-term outcomes with drug-coated balloons vs. stenting in acute myocardial infarction

The role of drug-coated balloons (DCBs) in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) remains controversial. We performed a meta-analysis of all published studies comparing the outcomes of DCBs vs. stenting in AMI patients. Four studies with 497 patients (534 lesions) were included (three randomized controlled trials and one observational study). During a mean follow-up of 9 months (range 6-12 months), DCBs were associated with similar risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (5% vs. 4.4%; OR 1.24, 95% CI: [0.34, 4.51], p = 0.74, I² = 35%), all-cause mortality (0.02% vs. 0.04%; OR 077, 95% CI: [0.15, 3.91], p = 0.75, I² = 25%), cardiac death (0.01% vs. 0.02%; OR 0.64, 95% CI: [0.16, 2.64], p = 0.54), myocardial infarction (0% vs. 1.4%; OR 0.18, 95% CI: [0.01, 3.56], p = 0.26), and target lesion revascularization (3.7% vs. 2%; OR 1.74, 95% CI: [0.42, 7.13], p = 0.44, I² = 17%) compared with stenting. During a mean follow-up of 7 months (range 6-9 months), DCBs had similar late lumen loss compared with stenting (mean difference 0.04 mm, 95% CI [- 0.21-0.28], p = 0.77, I² = 92%). In patients with AMI, there was no statistical difference in the incidence of clinical and angiographic outcomes between AMI patients treated with DCB and DES. Larger studies with longer-term follow-up are needed to assess the clinical utility of DCBs in this setting.

ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: Historical perspective and new horizons

After a brief history of the emergence of modern therapy for acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction, we discuss the issues that dominate ongoing studies and are the focus of intense debates. The role of angiography, pharmacotherapy, thrombus aspiration, management of multi-vessel disease, mechanical complications and cardiogenic shock and the quest for myocardial salvage are discussed.

Up to 15-Year Survival of Men and Women after Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Paid by the Brazilian Public Healthcare System in the State of Rio de Janeiro, 1999-2010

Background

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is the most frequently used invasive therapy for ischemic heart disease (IHD). Studies able to provide information about PCI's effectiveness should be conducted in a population of real-world patients.

Objectives

To assess the survival rate of IHD patients treated with PCI in the state of Rio de Janeiro (RJ).

Methods

Administrative (1999-2010) and death (1999-2014) databases of dwellers aged ≥ 20 years old in the state of RJ submitted to one single PCI paid by the Brazilian public healthcare system (SUS) between 1999 and 2010 were linked. Patients were grouped as follows: 20-49 years old, 50-69 years old and ≥ 70 years old, and PCI in primary PCI, with stent and without stent placement (bare metal stent). Survival probabilities in 30 days, one year and 15 years were estimated by using the Kaplan-Meier method. Cox hazards regression models were used to compare risks among sex, age groups and types of PCI. Test results with a p-value < 0.05 were deemed statistically significant.

Results

Data of 19,263 patients (61 ± 11 years old, 63.6% men) were analyzed. Survival rates of men vs. women in 30 days, one year and 15 years were: 97.3% (97.0-97.6%) vs. 97.1% (96.6-97.4%), 93.6% (93.2-94.1%) vs. 93.4% (92.8-94.0%), and 55.7% (54.0-57.4%) vs. 58.1% (55.8-60.3%), respectively. The oldest age group was associated with lower survival rates in all periods. PCI with stent placement had higher survival rates than those without stent placement during a two-year follow-up. After that, both procedures had similar survival rates (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.82-1.00).

Conclusions

In a population of real-world patients, women had a higher survival rate than men within 15 years after PCI. Moreover, using a bare-metal stent failed to improve survival rates after a two-year follow-up compared to simple balloon angioplasty.

The decline effect in cardiovascular medicine: is the effect of cardiovascular medicine and stent on cardiovascular events decline over the years?

The term decline effect is referred to a diminution of scientifically discovered effects over time. Reasons for the decline effect are multifaceted and include publication bias, selective reporting, outcomes reporting bias, regression to the mean, scientific paradigm shift, overshadowing and habituation, among others. Such effects can be found in cardiovascular medicines through medications (e.g., aspirin, antithrombotics, proton pump inhibitor, beta-blockers, statins, estrogen/progestin, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor etc.), as well as with interventional devices (e.g., angioplasty, percutaneous coronary intervention, stents). The scientific community should understand the various dimensions of the decline effects, and effective steps should be undertaken to prevent or recognize such decline effects in cardiovascular medicines.

Short term cost effectiveness of a regional myocardial infarction network

AIMS

Myocardial infarction networks have been shown to improve guideline adherent therapy and outcomes in patients presenting with acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Our objective was to assess the short term cost effectiveness of a network structure.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Outcome data and reimbursement data for the index hospital stay were gathered in consecutive patients with acute STEMI (n = 536) admitted to any of the hospitals in a 350.000 inhabitant rural network area during the years 2002 (n = 185), 2005 (n = 163) and 2008 (n = 188). Network structure was established between 2002 and 2005 aiming for identical treatment of all acute STEMI patients during 24 h/7d a week with primary angioplasty. Patient baseline characteristics in the different years were quite comparable. From 2002 to 2005 regional hospital mortality in STEMI patients decreased from 16% to 9%. Lower mortality under network conditions was confirmed in 2008. Reimbursement data of different years were standardized to exclude effects not induced by the network. The mean initial costs per saved live during the index stay were €7727 with a 95%-confidence interval of €-3.500 to €36.700 (referenced to the German reimbursement in 2005).

CONCLUSION

The short term cost effectiveness of a myocardial infarction network organisation is within well accepted boundaries under conditions of the German reimbursement system.

Crossing borders: factors affecting differences in cost-effectiveness of smoking cessation interventions between European countries

OBJECTIVES

Many different factors affect the transferability of cost-effectiveness results between countries. The objective is to quantify the impact of nine potential causes of variation in cost-effectiveness of pharmacological smoking cessation therapies (SCTs) between The Netherlands (reference case), Germany, Sweden, UK, Belgium, and France.

METHODS

The life-time benefits of smoking cessation were calculated using the Benefits of Smoking Cessation on Outcomes model, following a cohort of smokers making an unaided quit attempt, or using nicotine replacement therapy (NRT), bupropion, or varenicline. We investigated the impact of between-country differences in nine factors-demography, smoking prevalence, mortality, epidemiology and costs of smoking-related diseases, resource use and unit costs of SCTs, utility weights and discount rates-on the incremental net monetary benefit (INMB), using a willingness-to-pay (WTP) of euro20,000 per quality adjusted life year (QALY).

RESULTS

The INMB of 1000 quit attempts with NRT versus unaided, varies from euro0.39 million (Germany) to euro1.47 million (France). The differences between the countries were primarily due to differences in discount rates, causing the INMB to change between -65% to +62%, incidence and mortality rates (epidemiology) of smoking-related diseases (-43% to +35%) and utility weights. Impact also depended on the WTP for a QALY and time horizon: at a low WTP or a short time horizon, the resource use and unit costs of SCTs had the highest impact on INMB.

CONCLUSIONS

Although all INMBs were positive, there were significant differences across countries. These were primarily related to choice of discount rate and epidemiology of diseases.

Coronary stenting versus balloon angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction: A meta-regression analysis of randomized trials

INTRODUCTION

Although stenting has been shown to reduce the need for target vessel revascularization (TVR) in acute myocardial infarction (AMI), the benefits in terms of mortality and reinfarction are still unclear. Previous meta-analyses have failed to include all currently available randomized trials. The aim of the current study was to perform an updated meta-analysis to evaluate the benefits of coronary stenting for AMI in terms of mortality, reinfarction, and TVR, and whether these benefits correlated with the patient's risk profile.

METHODS

The literature was scanned by formal searches of electronic databases (MEDLINE and CENTRAL) from January 1990 to September 2006. We examined all completed, published, randomized trials of coronary stenting for AMI. The following key words were used for study selection: randomized trial, myocardial infarction, reperfusion, primary angioplasty, rescue angioplasty, stenting, and balloon angioplasty. Information on study design, type of stent, inclusion and exclusion criteria, primary endpoint, number of patients, angiographic and clinical outcome, were extracted by two investigators. Disagreements were resolved by consensus.

RESULTS

A total of 13 randomized trials were identified and analyzed involving 6922 patients (3460 or 50% randomized to stent and 3462 or 50% to balloon). Stenting was not associated with a significant reduction in 30-day (2.9% versus 3.0%, p=0.81) and 1-year mortality (5.1% versus 5.2%, p=0.81), as compared to balloon angioplasty. However, a significant relationship was observed between patient's risk profile and mortality benefits from coronary stenting at 30-day (beta -0.63 [-25.4; -2.45], p=0.022) and 1-year follow-up (beta -0.61 [-15.9; -0.76], p=0.034). Stenting was associated with benefits in terms of TVR at both 30-day (3.1% versus 5.1%, p<0.0001) and 6 to 12 months (11.3% versus 18.4%, p<0.0001) follow-up, without any difference in terms of reinfarction.

CONCLUSIONS

Among AMI patients undergoing primary angioplasty, coronary stent implantation, when anatomically and technically feasible, may be considered, in addition to benefits in terms of TVR, to reduce mortality in high-risk patients, who may be identified by the use of validated risk scores.

Cost-effectiveness of varenicline compared with bupropion, NRT, and nortriptyline for smoking cessation in the Netherlands

OBJECTIVE

To examine the cost-effectiveness of varenicline, a new pharmacotherapy to support smoking cessation, compared with the currently available pharmacologic alternatives in the Netherlands.

METHODS

The BENESCO-model was used to estimate the long-term health and economic benefits of smoking cessation for a cohort of smokers making a one-time quit attempt. The cohort represented the population of Dutch smokers with respect to gender, age, and prevalence of the smoking-related diseases included in the model: COPD, lung cancer, CHD, stroke, and asthma exacerbations. The model compared the cumulative incidence of smoking-related diseases, (quality-adjusted) life years, intervention costs, and direct medical costs between the cohort treated with varenicline and the same cohort either untreated (unaided cessation) or treated with bupropion, nortriptyline or NRT. The time horizon was lifetime. Future costs were discounted at 4%, health outcomes at 1.5%.

RESULTS

The cost of varenicline per additional quitter ranged from 1030 Euro compared with NRT to 4270 Euro compared with nortriptyline. When including the savings due to the reduction in incidence of smoking-related diseases, varenicline generated net savings compared with bupropion and NRT. Compared with nortriptyline and unaided cessation, varenicline was estimated to cost 1650 Euro/QALY and 320 Euro/QALY gained, respectively. At a willingness-to-pay as low as 5000/QALY gained, the probability that varenicline was cost-effective was more than 80% compared to bupropion, NRT, and unaided cessation and about 60% compared to nortriptyline.

CONCLUSION

Treatment with varenicline for smoking cessation is cost-effective compared with nortriptyline and unaided cessation and even cost-saving compared with bupropion and NRT.

A quantitative estimate of bare-metal stenting compared with balloon angioplasty in patients with acute myocardial infarction: angiographic measures in relation to clinical outcome

We performed a systematic review of all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from the pre-drug-eluting-stent era comparing bare-metal stenting (BMS) with balloon angioplasty in patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) to examine coronary angiographic parameters of infarct-related vessel patency and to relate the angiographic measures to clinical outcome. The search was restricted to published RCTs in humans. 10 RCTs, (6192 patients) were analysed. Compared with balloon angioplasty, BMS was associated with reduced rates of reocclusion (6.7% vs 10.1%, OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.96, p = 0.03) and restenosis (23.9% vs 39.3%, OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.59, p<0.001), but not with reduced rates of subacute thrombosis (1.7% in both groups). BMS showed a reduction in target vessel revascularisation (TVR; 12.2% vs 19.2%, OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.69, p<0.001), but not in mortality (5.3% vs 5.1%) or reinfarction (3.9% vs 4%). The findings of this study support BMS placement in acute MI. The discrepancy between angiographic and clinical parameters has important implications for future studies investigating further technical improvements in mechanical reperfusion therapy.

Angioscopic evaluation of neointima coverage: sirolimus drug-eluting stent versus bare metal stent

BACKGROUND

The process of neointima formation after bare metal stent (BMS) implantation has been previously elucidated by angioscopic observations; however, that after drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation has not been clarified. Therefore, we compared the angioscopic appearance of neointima over DESs with that over BMSs 6 months after implantation.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients who received an implantation of a BMS (n = 13) or a sirolimus DES (n = 24) were included in this study. Angiographic and angioscopic examinations were performed at 6 months. The color of the stented lesion (white or yellow), coverage of stent by neointima (not covered, covered by a thin layer, or buried under neointima), and thrombus at the stented lesion (presence or absence) were angioscopically evaluated. Of the 24 lesions in which a DES was implanted, 11 (46%) had a part where the stent strut had no coverage, 21 (88%) had a part where it was covered by a thin layer, and 11 (46%) had a part where it was buried under neointima. Of the 13 lesions in which a BMS was implanted, 1 (8%) lesion had a part where the stent strut had no coverage, 4 (31%) lesions had a part where it was covered by a thin layer, and 13 (100%) lesions had a part where it was buried under neointima. The prevalence of a stent buried under neointima (46% vs 100%, P = .001) was lower and that of thrombus (42% vs 8%, P = .03) was higher in DES-implanted lesions as compared with BMS-implanted lesions. The prevalence of thrombus (64% vs 17%, P = .005) was higher in the yellow area than in the white area when a DES was implanted.

CONCLUSION

Sirolimus DESs, as compared with BMSs, were poorly covered by neointima and were accompanied by thrombus especially when there was a yellow plaque under the stents. Thus, the thrombogenic potential in DES-implanted lesions may be sustained by the inhibition of neointima formation over thrombogenic plaques.

Long-term outcome after primary stenting versus balloon angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction

The objective of the present prospective multicenter case-control study was to investigate the long-term clinical outcome (5 years) of primary stenting compared to primary percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) without stenting (POBA) in patients with acute myocardial infarction at 7 cardiovascular centers in Hokkaido, Japan. Forty-one patients with acute myocardial infarction treated with successful primary stenting (stent group: case) and paired with 41 matched control subjects with acute myocardial infarction treated by successful primary PTCA without stenting (POBA group: control) were analyzed. After 1 year, the stent group had a lower incidence of the combined clinical endpoint (death, rehospitalization due to congestive heart failure, nonfatal myocardial infarction, repeat angioplasty, CABG, or cerebrovascular events) compared to the POBA group (17.1% versus 39.0%, P = 0.049). After 5 years, the incidences of congestive heart failure and cardiac death were the same in both groups. However, compared to the POBA group, the stent group had a lower combined clinical endpoint (34.1% versus 61.0%, P = 0.027). The Kaplan-Meier event-free survival curves of the stent group showed a significantly lower occurrence of clinical events compared to the POBA group (P = 0.0116). Multiple logistic regression analysis of clinical events identified age > or = 69 years (P = 0.0092, odds ratio = 4.179) and stenting (P = 0.0158, odds ratio = 0.279) as explanatory factors. Compared with POBA, primary stenting for acute myocardial infarction results in a better long-term clinical outcome.

Can the published cost analysis data for delivery of an efficient primary angioplasty service be applied to the modern National Health Service?

Despite the clinical benefits and safety profile of primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), the health care system in the UK has been slow to adopt this strategy as first line management for ST segment elevation myocardial infarction. The cost implications of a 24 hour a day, seven days per week primary PCI service and the absence of an existing efficient working model within the National Health Service (NHS) framework are two of the major deterrents for provision of such a service. The existent cost effectiveness data for primary PCI is critically reviewed, with particular reference to the NHS.

Coronary stenting and abciximab in primary angioplasty for ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction

Advances in anti-platelet therapy and improvement of stent deployment techniques have improved the safety and efficacy of stenting in the setting of ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). However, in randomized trials, routine coronary stenting does not reduce mortality and re-infarction, compared to balloon angioplasty. Further, the benefits in target vessel revascularization seem to be reduced when applied to unselected patients with STEMI. Direct stenting represents an attractive strategy with potential benefits in terms of myocardial perfusion. Future large randomized trials are needed to evaluate whether this strategy has a significant impact on outcome, and to provide a cost-benefit analysis of the unrestricted use of drug-eluting stents in this high-risk subset of patients. The additional use of abciximab reduces mortality in primary angioplasty. Since the feasibility of long-distance transportation has been shown in several randomized trials, early pharmacological pre-treatment may confer further advantages by early recanalization and shorter ischaemic time, particularly in high-risk patients. Further randomized trials are needed to clarify the potential benefits from early abciximab administration and the potential role of small molecules in primary angioplasty for STEMI.

Is routine stenting for acute myocardial infarction superior to balloon angioplasty? A randomised comparison in a large cohort of unselected patients

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the impact of routine stenting, compared with balloon angioplasty, in unselected patients presenting with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI).

DESIGN

Randomised trial.

SETTING

Tertiary referral centre.

PARTICIPANTS

All patients presenting with STEMI randomly assigned to stenting or balloon angioplasty. No exclusion criteria were applied.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

The primary end point was combined death or reinfarction at one year's follow up.

RESULTS

1683 consecutive patients with STEMI were randomly assigned before angiography to stenting (n = 849) or balloon angioplasty (n = 834). A total of 785 patients (92.5%) in the stent group and 763 patients (91.5%) in the balloon group actually underwent primary angioplasty. The groups were comparable in terms of postprocedural TIMI (thrombolysis in myocardial infarction) flow, myocardial blush grade, and distal embolisation. No difference was observed in clinical outcome at both intention to treat (14% v 12.5%, not significant) and actual treatment analyses (12.4% v 11.3%, not significant).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with balloon angioplasty, routine stenting does not seem to reduce death and reinfarction in a large cohort of unselected patients with STEMI.

Primary stenting versus primary balloon angioplasty for treating acute myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND

Balloon angioplasty following myocardial infarction (MI) reduces death, non-fatal MI and stroke compared to thrombolytic reperfusion. However up to 50% of patients experience restenosis and 3% to 5% recurrent myocardial infarction. Therefore, primary stenting may offer additional benefits compared to balloon angioplasty in patients with acute myocardial infarction.

OBJECTIVES

To examine whether primary stenting compared to primary balloon angioplasty reduces clinical outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Pascal, Index medicus and The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (The Cochrane Library) from 1979 to March 2002.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of primary stenting or balloon angioplasty prior to the invasive procedure; intervention in native coronary arteries within 24 hours after onset of symptoms of myocardial infarction; report of death or reinfarction; and follow-up of at least 1 month. Trials were excluded when randomisation occurred after an invasive procedure and if they exclusively included patients with cardiogenic shock.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently selected and extracted data from identified trials. Outcomes included mortality, reinfarction, coronary artery bypass grafting, target vessel revascularization, need for vascular repair or blood transfusion. Peto odds ratios were calculated. To explore the stability of the overall treatment effect various sensitivity analyses were performed.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine trials of 4433 participants. Odds ratios for mortality after stenting compared to balloon angioplasty at 30 days, 6 and 12 months were 1.16 (95% CI 0.78 to 1.73), 1.27 (95% CI 0.89 to 1.83), and 1.06 (95% CI 0.77 to 1.45). At 30 days, 6 and 12 months odds ratios for reinfarction after stenting compared to balloon angioplasty were 0.52 (95% CI 0.31 to 0.87), 0.67 (95% CI 0.45 to 1.00), and 0.67 (95% CI 0.45-0.98) and odds ratio for target vessel revascularization after stenting compared to balloon angioplasty were 0.45 (95%CI 0.34 to 0.60), 0.42 (95% CI 0.35 to 0.51), and 0.47 (95% CI 0.38 to 0.57). The odds ratio for post-interventional bleeding complications after stenting compared to balloon angioplasty was 1.34 (95% CI 0.95 to 1.88; test of heterogeneity p > 0.1).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence to suggest that primary stenting reduces mortality when compared to balloon angioplasty. Stenting seems to be associated with a reduced risk of reinfarction and target vessel revascularization, but potential confounding due to unbalanced post-interventional antithrombotic/anticoagulant therapies can not be ruled out on basis of this review.

Color of culprit lesion at 6 months after plain old balloon angioplasty versus stenting in patients with acute myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND

Although the healing process of disrupted yellow plaques at myocardial infarction (MI) culprit lesions has been reported, the effect of stenting on this process has not been clarified. Stenting has been reported to deteriorate the endothelial function after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Therefore, we compared the angioscopic morphology of culprit lesions at 6 months after plain old balloon angioplasty (POBA) and stenting to clarify the effect of stenting on the healing of disrupted culprit plaques of acute MI.

METHODS

Patients with acute MI who had yellow culprit plaque, successful reperfusion therapy with POBA (n = 21) or stenting (n = 22), and a successful 6-month follow-up angioscopic examination were included in this study. Oral ticlopidine (200 mg/day) was administered for 3 to 6 months after stenting.

RESULTS

At 6 months after reperfusion therapy, the color of the culprit lesion became white in significantly more patients treated with stenting than treated with POBA (50% vs 14%; P = .01). However, the prevalence of thrombus appeared to be higher in patients treated with stenting than in patients treated with POBA (27% vs 5%; P = .04). Although there was some difference in the patients' characteristics in the groups, logistic regression analysis revealed no significant influence of those factors on the color of or on the prevalence of thrombus at the culprit lesion.

CONCLUSIONS

Coronary stenting in patients with acute MI leads to the disappearance of yellow color at a significantly higher rate than POBA; however, whether it stabilizes the plaque requires further investigation.

Primary Angioplasty for the Treatment of Acute ST-Segment Elevated Myocardial Infarction: An Evidence-Based Analysis

One of the longest running debates in cardiology is about the best reperfusion therapy for patients with evolving acute myocardial infarction (MI). Percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (ANGIOPLASTY) is a surgical treatment to reopen a blocked coronary artery to restore blood flow. It is a type of percutaneous (through-the-skin) coronary intervention (PCI) also known as balloon angioplasty. When performed on patients with acute myocardial infarction, it is called primary angioplasty. Primary angioplasty is an alternative to thrombolysis, clot-dissolving drug therapy, for patients with acute MI associated with ST-segment elevation (STEMI), a change recorded with an electrocardiogram (ECG) during chest pain.This review of the clinical benefits and policy implications of primary angioplasty was requested by the Ontario Health Technology Advisory Committee and prompted by the recent publication of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in the New England Journal of Medicine (1) that compared referred primary angioplasty with on-site thrombolysis. The Medical Advisory Secretariat reviewed the literature comparing primary angioplasty with thrombolysis and other therapies (pre-hospital thrombolysis and facilitated angioplasty, the latter approach consisting of thrombolysis followed by primary angioplasty irrespective of response to thrombolysis) for acute STEMI.There have been many RCTs and meta-analyses of these RCTs comparing primary angioplasty with thrombolysis and these were the subject of this analysis. Results showed a statistically significant reduction in mortality, reinfarction, and stroke for patients receiving primary angioplasty. Although the individual trials did not show significant improvements in mortality alone, they did show it for the outcomes of nonfatal reinfarction and stroke, and for an end point combining mortality, reinfarction, and stroke. However, researchers have raised concerns about these studies.A main concern with the large RCTs is that they lack consistency in methods. Furthermore, there is some question as to their generalizability to practice in Ontario. Across the RCTs, there were differences in the type of thrombolytic drug, the use of stenting versus balloon-only angioplasty, and the use of the newer antiplatelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa. The largest trial did not offer routine follow-up angioplasty for patients receiving thrombolysis, which is the practice in Ontario, and the meta-analysis included trials with streptokinase, an agent seldom used in hospitals in Ontario. Thus, the true magnitude of mortality benefit can only be surmised from head-to-head comparisons of current standard therapies for primary angioplasty and for thrombolysis.By taking a more restrictive sample of the available studies, the Medical Advisory Secretariat conducted a review that was more consistent with patterns of practice in Ontario and selected trials that used accelerated alteplase as the thrombolytic agent.Results from this meta-analysis suggest that the rates for primary angioplasty are significantly better for mortality, reinfarction, and stroke, in the short term (30 days), and for mortality, reinfarction, and the combined end point at 6 months. When primary angioplasty was compared with in-hospital thrombolysis, results showed a significant reduction in adverse event rates associated with primary angioplasty. However, 1 large RCT of pre-hospital thrombolysis (i.e., thrombolysis given by paramedics before arriving at the hospital) compared with primary angioplasty documented that pre-hospital thrombolysis is an equivalent intervention to primary thrombolysis in terms of survival. Furthermore, a meta-analysis of studies that compared pre-hospital thrombolysis with in-hospital thrombolysis showed a reduction in all hospital mortality rates in favour of pre-hospital thrombolysis, supporting the findings of the pre-hospital thrombolysis study. (2)Clinical trials to date have reported that hospital stay is often reduced for patients who receive primary angioplasty compared with thrombolysis. Using a cost-analysis performed alongside the only study from Ontario, the Medical Advisory Secretariat concluded that there might be savings associated with primary angioplasty. These savings may partly offset the investment the provincial government would have to make to increase access to this technology. These savings should also be shown outside of a clinical trial protocol if the overall efficiencies of primary angioplasty are to be verified.Based on this health technology policy analysis, the Medical Advisory Secretariat concludes that primary angioplasty has advantages with respect to mortality and combined end points compared with in-hospital thrombolysis (Level 1 evidence). However, pre-hospital thrombolysis improves survival compared with in-hospital thrombolysis (Level 1 evidence) and is equivalent to primary angioplasty (Level 1 evidence).Results from the literature review raise concerns about the loss of therapeutic advantage due to treatment delays, time lapse from symptom onset to revascularization, time-of-day variations, the hospital volume of procedures, and the ability of hospitals to achieve in practice what RCTs have shown.Furthermore, questions relevant to applying primary angioplasty widely, involve the diagnosis by paramedics, ambulance diversion protocols, paramedic training, and inter-hospital transfer protocols. These logistical considerations need to be addressed to realise the potential to improve patient outcomes. In its analysis, the Medical Advisory Secretariat concludes that it is unrealistic to reorganise the emergency medical services across Ontario to fully implement a primary angioplasty program.Finally, it is important to evaluate the potential of this technology in the context of Ontario's health system. This includes urban and rural considerations, the ability to expand access to primary angioplasty and to minimize symptom-to-assessment time through a diverse strategy including public awareness. Therefore, a measured, evaluative approach to adopting this technology is warranted.Furthermore, the alternative approach to pre-hospital or early thrombolysis, especially within 120 minutes from onset of symptoms, should be considered when developing the approach to improving outcomes for acute MI. This could include efforts to decrease the symptom-to-thrombolysis time through strategies such as a concerted public education program to expedite presentation to emergency rooms after onset of symptoms, a pre-hospital ECG and thrombolysis checklist in ambulances to reduce door-to-needle time on arrival at emergency rooms, and, especially in remote areas, access to pre-hospital thrombolysis.The Medical Advisory Secretariat therefore recommends that this analysis of primary angioplasty be viewed in the overall context of all interventions for the management of acute MI and, in particular, of improving access to primary angioplasty and maximising the use of early thrombolysis.Outcomes for patients with acute MI can be improved if efforts are made to optimise the interval from symptom onset to thrombolysis or angioplasty. This will require concerted efforts, including public awareness through education to reduce the symptom-to-emergency room time, and maximising efficiencies in door-to-intervention times for primary angioplasty and for early thrombolysis.Primary angioplasty and early thrombolysis cannot be considered in isolation from one another. For example, patients who have persistent STEMI 90 minutes after receiving thrombolysis should be considered for angioplasty ("rescue angioplasty"). Furthermore, for patients with acute MI who are in cardiac shock, primary angioplasty is considered the preferred intervention. The concomitant use of primary angioplasty and thrombolysis ("facilitated angioplasty") is considered experimental and has no place in routine management of acute MI at this time. In remote parts of the province, consideration should be given to introducing pre-hospital thrombolysis as the preferred intervention through upgrading a select number of paramedics to advanced care status.

Cardiac protection during acute myocardial infarction: Where do we stand in 2004?

Despite better outcomes with early coronary artery reperfusion for the treatment of acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (MI), morbidity and mortality from acute myocardial infarction (AMI) remain significant, the incidence of congestive heart failure continues to increase, and there is a need to provide better cardioprotection (therapy that reduces the amount of necrosis that may be coupled with better clinical outcome) in the setting of AMI. Since the introduction of the concept of cardiac protection over a quarter of a century ago, various interventions have been investigated to reduce myocardial infarct size. Intravenous beta-blockers administered in the early hours of infarction were clearly shown to be of benefit. Intravenous adenosine appeared promising for anterior wall AMIs, as did cariporide in some studies. Glucose-insulin-potassium infusion was beneficial in certain subgroups of patients, particularly diabetics. A variety of other medications were studied with negative or marginal results. The best strategy to limit infarct size is early reperfusion with percutaneous coronary stenting or thrombolytic therapy. Stenting is superior and should be adopted whenever there is a qualified laboratory available. Available resources should focus on decreasing time from onset of symptoms to start of reperfusion and maintaining vessel patency. Future studies powered to better assess clinical outcome are needed for adjunctive therapy with adenosine, K(ATP) channel openers, Na(+)/H(+) exchange inhibitors, and hypothermia.

Prognostic Assessment of Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction Treated With Primary Angioplasty

Background— The aim of this study was to create a practical score for risk stratification in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) treated with primary angioplasty and to assess the feasibility of early discharge in low-risk patients.

Methods and Results— A prognostic score was built according to 30-day mortality rates in 1791 patients undergoing primary angioplasty for STEMI. For the identified low-risk patients without any contraindication to early discharge, we estimated and compared the costs of conventional care (prolonged 24-hour hospitalization) with the costs of shifting the care from inpatient to outpatient setting (early discharge) between 48 and 72 hours. Independent predictors of 30-day mortality included in the score were age, anterior infarction, Killip class, ischemic time, postprocedural Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) flow, and multivessel disease. This score was able to identify a large cohort (73.4%) of low-risk (score ≤3) patients, with a good discriminatory capacity ( c statistic=0.907). The mortality rate was 0.1% at 2 days and 0.2% between 2 and 10 days in patients with a score ≤3. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for late discharge in low-risk patients was estimated at 1949.33. Therefore, this policy would save 1 life per 1097 low-risk patients, at additional costs of 194 933.33, in comparison with an early discharge policy.

Conclusions— This score is a practical and useful index for risk stratification after primary angioplasty for STEMI, with a significant impact on clinical decision-making and the related costs. It reliably identifies a large group of patients at very low risk, who may safely be discharged early after primary angioplasty.

Recommendations on percutaneous coronary intervention for the reperfusion of acute ST elevation myocardial infarction

Little information is currently available from the various societies of cardiology on primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Since primary PCI is the main method of reperfusion in AMI in many centres, and since of all cardiac emergencies AMI represents the most urgent situation for PCI, recommendations based on scientific evidence and expert experience would be useful for centres practising primary PCI, or those looking to establish a primary PCI programme. To this aim, a task force for primary PCI in AMI was formed to develop a set of recommendations to complement and assist clinical judgment. This paper represents the product of their recommendations.

Impact of coronary artery stents on mortality and nonfatal myocardial infarction: meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing a strategy of routine stenting with that of balloon angioplasty

BACKGROUND

A strategy of routine stenting has been shown to reduce the need for target-vessel revascularization compared with a strategy of balloon angioplasty alone; however, the impact on mortality and frequency of nonfatal myocardial infarction is unclear. The aim of this study was to provide a quantitative comparison of the impact of coronary stenting on the rates of mortality and myocardial infarction with that of balloon angioplasty with provisional stenting.

METHODS

We performed a meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing routine coronary stenting to percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA), including only those trials that used combination antiplatelet therapy (aspirin and a thienopyridine) as an adjuvant to stenting. Such trials included: the Belegian Netherlands Stent Study (BENESTENT) II, Optimal Coronary Balloon Angioplasty With Provisional Stenting Versus Primary Stent (OCBAS), Balloon Optimization vs Stent Study (BOSS), Evaluation of Platelet IIb/IIIa Inhibitor for Stenting (EPISTENT), Optimum Percutaneous Transluminal Coronary Angioplasty Compared With Routine Stent Strategy (OPUS-1), French Optimal Stenting Trial (FROST), Angioplasty or Stent (AS), and Doppler Endpoint Stenting International Investigation (DESTINI) trials for de novo coronary artery lesions; the Stent vs Percutaneous Angioplasty in Chronic Total Occlusion (SPACTO), Total Occlusion Study of Canada (TOSCA), Stent or Angioplasty after Recanalization of Chronic Coronary Occlusions (SARECCO), and Mayo-Japan Investigation for Chronic Total Occlusion (MAJIC) trials for coronary occlusions; the Primary Angioplasty Versus Stent Implantation in Acute Myocardial Infarction (PASTA), Gianturco-Roubin in Acute Myocardial Infarction (GRAMI), Florence Randomized Elective Stenting in Acute Coronary Occlusions (FRESCO), Immediate Coronary Angioplasty with Elective Wiktor Stent Implantation Compared with Conventional Balloon Angioplasty in Acute Myocardial Infarction (STENTUIM-2), Stent Primary Angioplasty in MI (Stent-PAMI), Zwolle, and Controlled Abciximab and Device Investigation to Lower Late Angioplasty Complications (CADILLAC) trials for acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction; and the Intracoronary Stenting or Angioplasty for Restenosis Reduction in Small Arteries (ISAR-SMART), Park, Stenting in Small Arteries (SISA), and Bestent in Small Arteries (BESMART) trials for small vessels.

RESULTS

The 23 trials enrolled 10,347 patients, with 5130 patients randomized to receive stent and 5217 patients randomized to receive balloon angioplasty. A total of 902 (17 %) of patients crossed over from a strategy of balloon angioplasty to stent placement because of the inability to achieve a satisfactory result with a balloon. No significant difference was observed between the stent group and PTCA group in the rates of death or myocardial infarction, despite a significant reduction in the frequency of major adverse cardiac events (odds ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.50-0.70; P <.001), which was driven entirely by a reduction in target vessel revascularization.

CONCLUSIONS

An initial strategy of stent placement versus balloon angioplasty with provisional stenting is associated with a similar mortality rate and frequency of nonfatal myocardial infarction after a mean follow-up period of 12.8 months. Patients who underwent stent placement had a significantly lower risk of major adverse cardiac events only when target revascularization is included as an end point.

Clinical outcomes of primary stenting versus balloon angioplasty in patients with myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

PURPOSE

To examine whether primary stenting as compared with primary balloon angioplasty reduces clinical outcomes in patients with myocardial infarction.

METHODS

Major medical databases from 1979 to March 2002 were searched for randomized controlled trials that compared primary stenting with balloon angioplasty in patients with myocardial infarction. Two independent reviewers selected and extracted data from identified trials. The outcomes were mortality at 30 days, 6 months, and 12 months; recurrent events; and bleeding.

RESULTS

Nine trials with a total of 4433 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The odds ratios for mortality after stenting as compared with balloon angioplasty were 1.17 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.78 to 1.74) at 30 days, 1.07 (95% CI: 0.76 to 1.52) at 6 months, and 1.09 (95% CI: 0.80 to 1.50) at 12 months (P for heterogeneity >0.1 for each comparison). The odds ratios for reinfarction after stenting as compared with balloon angioplasty were 0.52 (95% CI: 0.31 to 0.87) at 30 days, 0.67 (95% CI: 0.45 to 1.00) at 6 months, and 0.67 (95% CI: 0.45 to 0.99) at 12 months; for target vessel revascularization, they were 0.46 (95% CI: 0.34 to 0.61) at 30 days, 0.42 (95% CI: 0.35 to 0.51) at 6 months, and 0.48 (95% CI: 0.39 to 0.59) at 12 months (P for heterogeneity >0.1 for all estimates with the exception of reinfarction at 12 months where P=0.08). The odds ratio for postinterventional bleeding complications after stenting as compared with balloon angioplasty was 1.34 (95% CI: 0.95 to 1.88; P for heterogeneity >0.1).

CONCLUSION

Compared with balloon angioplasty, primary stenting is not associated with lower mortality, but is associated with a lower risk of reinfarction and target vessel revascularization.

Angiographic predictors of left ventricular ejection fraction after successful angioplasty in acute myocardial infarction: An angiographic risk score for use in the catheterization laboratory

We investigated the value of angiographic parameters in patients with successful primary angioplasty using a simple angiographic risk score. In 608 consecutive patients, we assessed the infarct-related artery, antegrade flow before treatment, presence of distal embolization, and myocardial blush grade after coronary angioplasty. LAD-related infarction (OR = 8.4; 3 points), TIMI 0-2 flow before angioplasty (OR = 2.2; 1 point), myocardial blush 0 or 1 (OR = 2.5; 1 point), and distal embolization (OR = 2.2; 1 point) were independent predictors of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) < or = 40% after successful angioplasty. Patients with 0 (minimum) or 1 point have LVEF of 49.5% +/- 8.4% and 30-day mortality of 0.8%. Patients with 2-3 points have LVEF of 44.9% +/- 10.3% and 30-day mortality of 2.8%. Patients with 4 points have LVEF of 38.2% +/- 10.8% and 30-day mortality of 2.7%. Patients with 5-6 (maximum) points have LVEF of 32.0% +/- 9.4% and 30-day mortality of 6.9%. A simple angiographic score predicts LVEF and mortality in patients when leaving the catheterization laboratory after successful primary angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction.

Long-term resource use and cost of percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty versus stenting in the elderly: a retrospective claims data analysis

OBJECTIVE

Although the benefits of coronary stenting have been demonstrated in several large clinical trials, controversy remains as to whether stenting results in long-term cost savings compared to percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA). The objective of this study was to evaluate the resource use and cost (Medicare payment) of PTCA versus bare stent in actual practice over a 2-year period.

METHODS

The data for this study came from the 1996 through 1998 Standard Analytic Files that contain 5% of Medicare claims. The rates of repeat revascularization procedures and hospitalizations were reported at 1 and 2 years. Costs associated with inpatient admission, outpatient procedures, physician services, skilled nursing facility admissions, and home health-care services were included to perform a comprehensive assessment. Regression analysis was performed to test for cost differences controlling for case-mix variation between the patient groups.

RESULTS

The selection process yielded 3782 PTCA patients and 2690 stent patients for analysis. The rate of revascularization was 26.7% for the PTCA group and 22.2% for the stent group at 2 years. The mean total cost for the initial procedure was 13,724 dollars for PTCA and 15,021 dollars for stenting. At 2 years, the total cumulative cost was 32,654 dollars for the PTCA group and 32,102 dollars for the stent group, a difference that was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

Although the difference in the rate of repeat revascularization procedures between PTCA and stenting is not as large as those reported in clinical trials, bare stents are cost-neutral when compared to PTCA for the Medicare population.

Assessment of indications in interventional cardiology: appropriateness and necessity of coronary angiography and revascularization

In this study we present appropriateness and necessity assessments of coronary angiographies and revascularizations to determine adherence to Swiss guidelines by using the computerized second-opinion system (SOS) as a reference. We prospectively compared SOS ratings with ratings of treating cardiologists and surgeons for 203 coronary angiographies and 100 percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasties. We also retrospectively assessed indications of 103 coronary artery bypass grafts. SOS ratings of appropriate, uncertain, and inappropriate indications for coronary angiography were 85.5%, 10%, and 4.5%, respectively, and 99.5%, 0.5%, and 0%, respectively, for revascularization. Corresponding clinicians' ratings were 95%, 4%, and 1% and 100%, 0%, and 0%, respectively. SOS ratings of necessary, uncertain, and unnecessary indications for angiography were 82.4%, 17.6%, and 0%, respectively, and 97%, 3%, and 0%, respectively, for revascularization. Corresponding clinicians' values were 88.2%, 10.6%, and 1.2% and 98%, 2%, and 0%, respectively. Significant statistical differences for coronary angiography were found for patients with acute myocardial infarction and for patients within 12 weeks of myocardial infarction. A high accordance between estimated SOS and clinically estimated appropriateness of procedures was found, which might suggest that the guidelines are valid. Regular validation and updating of the guidelines is highlighted. Possible overuse of angiography in patients within 12 weeks of myocardial infarction may need further investigation.

A break-even price calculation for the use of sirolimus-eluting stents in angioplasty

BACKGROUND

One of the major complications of angioplasty is the early occurrence of restenosis requiring a repeat procedure. When bare-metal stents are used, clinical restenosis results in a repeat procedure in 10% to 15% of cases. Based on the results of an international, randomized clinical trial, the use of sirolimus-eluting stents reduces this risk.

OBJECTIVES

The aims of this study were to calculate the theoretical break-even price for sirolimus-eluting stents in France, the Netherlands, and the United States, and to determine the additional health care cost per patient.

METHODS

The break-even price was calculated by adding the savings resulting from a 15% decrease in the rate of clinical restenosis to the price of bare-metal stents. Costs were computed from the viewpoint of the health care system, exclusive of other societal costs.

RESULTS

The break-even prices were 1291 Euro to 1489 Euro in France, 2028 Euro in the Netherlands, and 2708 Euroin the United States (1.00 Euro = 1.00 US dollar in purchasing power parity). These results indicate that the commercial price of sirolimuseluting stents will increase hospital spending for patients undergoing angioplasty by 17% to 55% per patient.

CONCLUSION

This additional cost to the health care system should be discussed in view of possible productivity savings and improved quality of life for patients.

Does coronary stenting affect microvascular circulation in patients with anterior acute myocardial infarction? Comparison with balloon angioplasty

The impact of coronary stenting on microvascular circulation in the infarct area was compared with that of balloon angioplasty in 94 patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) who underwent coronary revascularization within 6h of onset: 49 patients were treated with balloon angioplasty alone, and 45 were treated with coronary stenting. Microvascular circulation after revascularization was assessed by Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) flow grade analysis and ST segment analysis. TIMI flow grade was assessed on the final angiographic image after coronary intervention, and the ST segment was assessed on the 12-lead electrocardiogram recordings just before revascularization and on return to the coronary care unit. The distributions of TIMI flow grade and change in sigmaST (5.1 +/- 10.8 vs 5.1 +/- 9.9mm) were similar between the 2 groups. Predischarge left ventricular ejection fraction (54 +/- 14 vs 54 +/- 15%) and in-hospital outcome were also similar between the 2 groups. The data suggest that coronary stenting did not influence microvascular circulation (improvement or detriment) in patients with reperfused AMI.

Angiographic determinants of infarct size after successful percutaneous intervention for acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction: the impact of distal embolisation

BACKGROUND

We investigated the impact of distal embolisation and other angiographic determinants in patients after successful primary angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction.

METHODS

Angiographic data were assessed on the coronary angiogram carried out immediately after successful (TIMI 2 or 3) coronary angioplasty in 631 consecutive patients with acute myocardial infarction. Embolisation was defined as a distal filling defect with an abrupt 'cutoff' in ≥1 of the peripheral coronary artery branches of the infarct-related artery, distal to the site of angioplasty. Endpoints were left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and enzymatic infarct size.

RESULTS

Left anterior descending artery related myocardial infarction, impaired myocardial blush and distal embolisation were independent determinants of infarct size. Distal embolisation was present in 102 patients (16%) and was associated with a larger enzymatic infarct size (LDH Q₄₈ 2250 vs. 1532, p=0.001) and a lower LVEF (41% vs. 44%, p=0.04). There was no difference in the frequency of distal embolisation between patients treated with or without stents.

CONCLUSIONS

In successful primary angioplasty, infarct-related artery, impaired myocardial blush and distal embolisation are independent determinants of infarct size. Distal embolisation can be visualised in 16% of the patients and is associated with a larger enzymatic infarct size and lower LVEF. Intracoronary stenting is not associated with an increased risk of distal embolisation during primary angioplasty.