Percutaneous coronary revascularization in patients with formerly "refractory angina pectoris in end-stage coronary artery disease" - not "end-stage" after all

No Option? Maybe just a matter of time, as in No Option for now?

The No Option coronary patient may have options after all. Rethinking the state of the No Option patient at follow-up may be more fruitful than expected. Reviewing videos by more experienced interventionalists AND surgeons may also yield more options.

Revascularization in "no option" patients with refractory angina: Frequency, etiology and outcomes

BACKGROUND

A significant proportion of patients with complex, advanced coronary artery disease have refractory angina (RA) despite maximal pharmacological therapy and are deemed suboptimal candidates for revascularization. These patients are frequently termed "no-option" patients. However, despite this designation, many subsequently undergo coronary revascularization. We sought to determine the incidence, etiology and outcome of revascularization in "no-option" patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We examined a comprehensive, prospective RA database to identify 342 of 1363 (25.1%) patients who subsequently underwent revascularization after a median interval of 2.2 years from the "no-option" diagnosis. Coronary revascularization was achieved by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (n = 274, 20.1%), coronary bypass graft surgery (n = 44, 3.2%) or both (n = 24, 1.8%). During a median follow-up of 5.1 years, patients who underwent revascularization had lower annual mortality (2% vs. 4.4%, P < .001). Detailed paired angiographic records were available for 181 PCI patients with a combined 302 lesions. Of these interventions, 48% were for a new lesion, 31% for an existing lesion and 21% for restenosis. The location was a native vessel in 77% and a bypass graft in 23%.

CONCLUSIONS

The "no-option" or non-revascularizable designation is frequently based on angiography at a single time-point. However, coronary artery disease is a progressive and dynamic process and new lesions often develop in such patients. Given the association between revascularization and better survival, careful consideration should be given to repeat revascularization in patients with refractory angina previously classified as "no-option".

Spinal cord stimulation for long-term treatment of severe angina pectoris: what does the evidence say?

Patients who continue to suffer from severe and disabling angina pectoris, despite optimum treatment in terms of conventional pharmacological therapy and/or revascularization procedures, have been termed as having refractory angina pectoris. The future group of patients with refractory angina pectoris will be different from today’s patients and represent a ‘moving target’ as risk factors, efficacy of treatment and indications continue to change. Spinal cord stimulation (SCS) is today considered as first-line treatment of refractory angina pectoris, by the European Society of Cardiology, with an anti-ischemic effect. There is strong evidence for SCS giving symptomatic benefits (decrease in anginal attacks), improved quality of life and improvement of functional status. In addition, SCS seems to be cost effective with a ‘break-even’ after approximately 15–16 months.

Improvement in health-related quality of life after therapy with omeprazole in patients with coronary artery disease and recurrent angina-like chest pain. A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of the SF-36 survey

Background

Many patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) have overlapping gastroenterological causes of recurrent chest pain, mainly due to gastroesophageal reflux (GER) and aspirin-induced gastrointestinal tract damage. These symptoms can be alleviated by proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). The study addressed whether omeprazole treatment also affects general health-related quality of life (HRQL) in patients with CAD.

Study

48 patients with more than 50% narrowing of the coronary arteries on angiography without clinically overt gastrointestinal symptoms were studied. In a double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over study design, patients were randomized to take omeprazole 20 mg bid or a placebo for two weeks, and then crossed over to the other study arm. The SF-36 questionnaire was completed before treatment and again after two weeks of therapy.

Results

Patients treated with omeprazole in comparison to the subjects taking the placebo had significantly greater values for the SF-36 survey (which relates to both physical and mental health), as well as for bodily pain, general health perception, and physical health. In comparison to the baseline values, therapy with omeprazole led to a significant increase in the three summarized health components: total SF-36; physical and mental health; and in the following detailed health concept scores: physical functioning, limitations due to physical health problems, bodily pain and emotional well-being.

Conclusions

A double dose of omeprazole improved the general HRQL in patients with CAD without severe gastrointestinal symptoms more effectively than the placebo.

Recent advances in the management of chronic stable angina II. Anti-ischemic therapy, options for refractory angina, risk factor reduction, and revascularization

The objectives in treating angina are relief of pain and prevention of disease progression through risk reduction. Mechanisms, indications, clinical forms, doses, and side effects of the traditional antianginal agents - nitrates, β-blockers, and calcium channel blockers - are reviewed. A number of patients have contraindications or remain unrelieved from anginal discomfort with these drugs. Among newer alternatives, ranolazine, recently approved in the United States, indirectly prevents the intracellular calcium overload involved in cardiac ischemia and is a welcome addition to available treatments. None, however, are disease-modifying agents. Two options for refractory angina, enhanced external counterpulsation and spinal cord stimulation (SCS), are presented in detail. They are both well-studied and are effective means of treating at least some patients with this perplexing form of angina. Traditional modifiable risk factors for coronary artery disease (CAD) - smoking, hypertension, dyslipidemia, diabetes, and obesity - account for most of the population-attributable risk. Individual therapy of high-risk patients differs from population-wide efforts to prevent risk factors from appearing or reducing their severity, in order to lower the national burden of disease. Current American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines to lower risk in patients with chronic angina are reviewed. The Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Evaluation (COURAGE) trial showed that in patients with stable angina, optimal medical therapy alone and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with medical therapy were equal in preventing myocardial infarction and death. The integration of COURAGE results into current practice is discussed. For patients who are unstable, with very high risk, with left main coronary artery lesions, in whom medical therapy fails, and in those with acute coronary syndromes, PCI is indicated. Asymptomatic patients with CAD and those with stable angina may defer intervention without additional risk to see if they will improve on optimum medical therapy. For many patients, coronary artery bypass surgery offers the best opportunity for relieving angina, reducing the need for additional revascularization procedures and improving survival. Optimal medical therapy, percutaneous coronary intervention, and surgery are not competing therapies, but are complementary and form a continuum, each filling an important evidence-based need in modern comprehensive management.