Risk stratification and interventional cardiology: Robert L. Frye Lecture

Identification of independent risk factors for restenosis following bare-metal stent implantation: Role of bare-metal stents in the era of drug-eluting stents

In the era of drug-eluting stents (DESs), the ability of clinicians to predict which patients have a low risk of coronary restenosis following bare-metal stent (BMS) implantion is likely to be of benefit. The study population consisted of 2,711 patients who underwent BMS implantation in 3,770 lesions between 1995 and 2004. With clinical and 6 month follow-up angiographic data, we retrospectively sought to identify the independent risk predictors of restenosis, applied a previously proposed prediction model and assessed the characteristics of patients with a low likelihood of coronary restenosis within 6 months of BMS implantation. A 6-month follow-up coronary angiography was performed in 65.0% of the patients who had undergone the BMS implantation and the rate of restenosis was 26.6%. Using multivariate analysis, diabetes [odds ratio (OR), 1.294; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.094–1.483; P=0.005], current smoking (OR, 1.294; 95% CI, 1.094–1.483; P=0.002), a reference vessel diameter of <3.25 mm (OR, 1.238; 95% CI, 1.021–1.501; P<0.001), a lesion length of >30 mm (OR, 1.645; 95% CI, 1.336–2.026; P<0.001), ostial lesion (OR, 1.858; 95% CI, 1.437–2.402; P<0.001), post-stenting minimal luminal diameter (OR, 0.576; 95% CI, 0.484–0.685; P<0.001) and bifurcation lesion (OR, 1.353; 95% CI, 1.070–1.711; P=0.012) were identified as significant independent predictors of restenosis. However, the accuracy of the prediction obtained with the current model, which used the clinical and angiographic variables correlated with the risk of restenosis, was poor. Various clinical and angiographic independent risk variables were revealed to be correlated with the risk of restenosis following BMS implantation in the present large dataset. Certain groups of patients with a relatively low risk of restenosis may be considered for BMS implantation as an alternative to DESs. However, the prediction models used at present are incomplete and further studies are required.

A pilot study to examine relationships among external counterpulsation, cardiac output, functional capacity, and quality of life

This study examined the relationships among external counterpulsation (a noninvasive treatment for angina), cardiac output, functional limitations, and quality of life. Patients significantly improved their distance walked from the beginning to the end of the external counterpulsation program yet did not perceive differences in angina or quality of life.

What is the evidence for percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass graft in ischemic cardiomyopathy?

Coronary artery disease has supplanted hypertension as the leading cause of congestive heart failure in the United States. The recognition that contraction abnormalities could accrue from gradual stunning, or longer-term 'hibernation,' raised the possibility that revascularization of viable but hypocontractile elements could improve myocardial performance. This review focuses on the data from randomized trials and registries regarding the potential benefits and risks of either coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention for patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction secondary to coronary artery disease. For patients with medically refractory angina and ischemic cardiomyopathy, revascularization with CABG or percutaneous coronary intervention is recommended. The ongoing National Institutes of Health-sponsored Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure (STICH) trial, a multicenter, prospective, randomized trial comparing contemporary medical therapy with CABG for patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy, should provide important information regarding patients who do not have angina. The conclusion of this review is that a trial of medical therapy vs. percutaneous coronary intervention could be of additional value, especially for patients at particularly high risk, when undergoing CABG.