Ad Hoc Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Stable Patients With Multivessel or Unprotected Left Main Disease

BACKGROUND

There is very little information about the use of ad hoc percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in stable patients with multivessel (MV) disease or unprotected left main (LM) disease patients for whom a heart team approach is recommended.

OBJECTIVE

To identify the extent of ad hoc PCI utilization for patients with multivessel disease or left main disease, and to explore the inter-hospital variation in ad hoc PCI utilization for those patients.

METHODS

New York State's cardiac registries were used to examine the use and variation in use of ad hoc PCI for MV/LM disease as a percentage of all MV/LM PCIs and revascularizations (PCIs plus coronary artery bypass graft procedures) during 2018 to 2019 in New York.

RESULTS

After exclusions, 6,425 of the 8,196 stable PCI patients with MV/LM disease (78.4%) underwent ad hoc PCI, ranging from 58.7% for patients with unprotected LM disease to 85.4% for patients with 2-vessel proximal left anterior descending (PLAD) disease. Ad hoc PCIs comprised 35.1% of all revascularizations, ranging from 11.5% for patients with unprotected LM disease to 63.9% for patients with 2-vessel PLAD disease. The risk-adjusted utilization of ad hoc PCI as a percentage of all revascularizations varied widely among hospitals (eg, from 15% in the first quartile to 46% in the last quartile for 3-vessel disease).

CONCLUSIONS

Ad hoc PCIs occur frequently even among patients with MV/LM disease. This is particularly true among patients with 2-vessel PLAD disease. The frequency of ad hoc PCIs is lower but still high among patients with diabetes and low ejection fraction and higher in hospitals without surgery on-site (SOS). Given the magnitude of hospital- and physician-level variation in the use of ad hoc PCIs for such patients, consideration should be given to a systems approach to achieving heart team consultation and shared decision making that is consistent for SOS and non-SOS hospitals.

Comparison of Contemporary Drug-Eluting Stents in Patients Undergoing Complex High-Risk Indicated Procedures

BACKGROUND

Limited data are available on the relative performances of diverse contemporary drug-eluting stents (DES) in patients undergoing complex high-risk indicated procedures (CHIP).

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of contemporary second-generation DES for CHIP patients in "real-world" settings.

METHODS

Of 28,843 patients enrolled in the IRIS-DES registry, a total of 6,645 patients with CHIP characteristics who received 5 different types of contemporary DES were finally included: 3,752 with cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stents (CoCr-EES), 1,258 with Resolute zotarolimus-eluting stents (Re-ZES), 864 with platinum-chromium EES (PtCr-EES), 437 with ultrathin strut biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stents (UT-SES), and 334 with bioresorbable polymer SES (BP-SES). The primary outcome was target-vessel failure (a composite of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, and target-vessel revascularization) at 12 months.

RESULTS

At 12 months, the rate of target-vessel failure was highest in the CoCr-EES (7.1%) group; intermediate in the Re-ZES (5.0%), PtCr-EES (4.6%), and BP-SES (4.2%) groups; and lowest in the UT-SES (3.8%) group (overall long-rank P = 0.001). In multiple-treatment propensity-score analysis, the adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for target-vessel failure were significantly lower in the Re-ZES (HR: 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.52-0.97), the UT-SES (HR: 0.52; 95% CI: 0.29-0.95), and BP-SES (HR: 0.33; 95% CI: 0.16-0.70) groups than in the CoCr-EES group (referent).

CONCLUSIONS

In this contemporary PCI registry, we observed the differential risks of target-vessel failure according to various types of contemporary DES in patients with CHIP characteristics. However, owing to inherent selection bias, the results should be considered hypothesis-generating, highlighting the need for further randomized trials. (Evaluation of the First, Second, and New Drug-Eluting Stents in Routine Clinical Practice [IRIS-DES]; NCT01186133).

Effectiveness and Safety of Contemporary Drug-Eluting Stents in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus

BACKGROUND

Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a well-known risk factor for adverse cardiovascular events in patients receiving percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Limited data are available on the relative performance of different types of contemporary drug-eluting stents (DES) for diabetic patients.

OBJECTIVES

The authors investigated the effectiveness and safety profiles of several contemporary DES in patients with DM in a "real-world" clinical setting.

METHODS

Among 24,516 patients enrolled in a multicenter, prospective registry, 7,823 patients with DM were treated with 4 contemporary DES: 2,877 with a cobalt chromium everolimus-eluting stent (EES), 789 with a biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stent, 2,286 with a platinum chromium-EES, and 1,871 with a Resolute zotarolimus-eluting stent. The primary outcome was target vessel failure (TVF) (a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization).

RESULTS

The median follow-up duration was 2.9 years. Observed 3-year rates of TVF were not significantly different according to different DES types. On multigroup propensity-score analysis, the adjusted HRs for TVF were similar in between-group comparisons: biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stent (HR: 0.94; 95% CI: 0.76-1.16; P = 0.57), platinum chromium-EES (HR: 0.94; 95% CI: 0.81-1.09; P = 0.41), and Resolute zotarolimus-eluting stent (HR: 1.01; 95% CI: 0.86-1.18; P = 0.93) compared with the cobalt chromium-EES (reference). This trend was maintained in patients with non-insulin- and insulin-treated DM.

CONCLUSIONS

In this multicenter clinical-practice PCI registry, no significant between-group differences were found for a 3-year risk of TVF in patients with DM undergoing PCI with various types of contemporary DES. (Evaluation of the First, Second, and New Drug-Eluting Stents in Routine Clinical Practice [IRIS-DES]; NCT01186133).

Incidence and Impact of Thrombocytopenia in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Drug-Eluting Stents

Platelets are crucial in the pathophysiology of coronary artery disease and are a major target of antithrombotic agents in patients receiving percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We sought to evaluate the incidence and prognostic impact of thrombocytopenia on clinical outcomes in patients undergoing PCI with drug-eluting stents (DES). We evaluated consecutive patients who received PCI with DES in the IRIS-DES registry between April 2008 and December 2017. Patients were divided into 2 groups based on the presence of thrombocytopenia (platelet count <150 × 10⁹/L) at baseline. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, and secondary outcomes included the composite outcome of death, myocardial infarction (MI), and stroke, and major bleeding. Complete follow-up data were available for 1 to 5 years (median, 3.1). Among 26,553 eligible patients, 1,823 (6.9%) had thrombocytopenia at baseline. At 5 years, the incidences of all-cause mortality (15.6% vs 8.1%, p <0.001), composite outcome (23.2% vs 15.6%, p <0.001), and major bleeding (3.7% vs 2.2%, p <0.001) were significantly higher in patients with thrombocytopenia than in those without thrombocytopenia. In multivariable Cox proportional-hazards models, thrombocytopenia was significantly associated with increased risks of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio 1.26, 95% confidence interval 1.07 to 1.48, p = 0.01) and major bleeding (hazard ratio 1.41, 95% confidence interval 1.04 to 1.91, P=0.03). In conclusion, among who patients underwent PCI with DES, the incidence of thrombocytopenia was 6.9%. Baseline thrombocytopenia was significantly associated with increased risks of mortality and major bleeding.

Ad hoc percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with stable coronary artery disease: A report from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI Registry

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) may be performed in the same procedure as diagnostic coronary angiography (ad hoc PCI). This study aimed to evaluate current rates of ad hoc PCI use and associated risks of adverse outcomes in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD).

METHODS

We identified 550,742 patients with stable CAD who underwent PCI in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI Registry from 2009 to 2017. We compared in-hospital bleeding, acute kidney injury (AKI), and mortality between patients receiving ad hoc versus non-ad hoc PCI using logistic regression with inverse probability weighted propensity adjustment.

RESULTS

Between 2009 and 2017, 82.9% of patients underwent ad hoc PCI. Patients who did not undergo ad hoc PCI had higher prevalence of peripheral vascular disease, heart failure, chronic kidney disease, and coronary artery bypass graft. Ad hoc PCI was associated with lower bleeding risk (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.83, 95% CI 0.79-0.87) but no differences in risks of AKI (aOR 0.95, 95% CI 0.90-1.00) or mortality (aOR 1.09, 95% CI 0.97-1.23) compared with non-ad hoc PCI. Ad hoc PCI was associated with AKI risk in patients with glomerular filtration rate <30 mL/min (interaction P < .001), mortality risk in multivessel PCI (interaction P = .031), and risks of AKI and mortality in PCI of chronic total occlusions (interaction P = .045 and .002, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Ad hoc PCI is extremely common among US patients with stable CAD and is associated with lower bleeding risk but no differences in risks of AKI or mortality compared with non-ad hoc PCI.

Ad hoc vs. Non-ad hoc Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Strategies in Patients With Stable Coronary Artery Disease

BACKGROUND

Few studies have evaluated the prevalence and clinical outcomes of ad hoc percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), performing diagnostic coronary angiography and PCI in the same session, in stable coronary artery disease (CAD) patients.Methods and Results:From the CREDO-Kyoto PCI/CABG registry cohort-2, 6,943 patients were analyzed as having stable CAD and undergoing first PCI. Ad hoc PCI and non-ad hoc PCI were performed in 1,722 (24.8%) and 5,221 (75.1%) patients, respectively. The cumulative 5-year incidence and adjusted risk for all-cause death were not significantly different between the 2 groups (15% vs. 15%, P=0.53; hazard ratio: 1.15, 95% confidence interval: 0.98-1.35, P=0.08). Ad hoc PCI relative to non-ad hoc PCI was associated with neutral risk for myocardial infarction, any coronary revascularization, and bleeding, but was associated with a trend towards lower risk for stroke (hazard ratio: 0.78, 95% confidence interval: 0.60-1.02, P=0.06).

CONCLUSIONS

Ad hoc PCI in stable CAD patients was associated with at least comparable 5-year clinical outcomes as with non-ad hoc PCI. Considering patients' preference and the cost-saving, the ad hoc PCI strategy might be a safe and attractive option for patients with stable CAD, although the prevalence of ad hoc PCI was low in the current study population.

Optimal medical therapy and percutaneous coronary intervention for stable angina: why patients should 'be taking' and 'keep taking' the tablets

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

Cardioprotective drug regimens improve outcomes in patients with stable coronary artery disease. Revascularization is recommended for the persistence of symptoms despite optimal medical therapy (OMT) or in patients likely to derive prognostic benefit. Our objective is to comment on recent evidence that initiation of OMT is suboptimal in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) but conversely adherence to medication may be higher in patients treated with PCI.

COMMENT

Large randomized controlled trials demonstrate that the risk of death or myocardial infarction is similar in patients treated by OMT alone and those treated with PCI and OMT. Despite the recommendations of international practice guidelines, OMT remains underutilized in recent analyses of patients referred for PCI. Notwithstanding the underutilization of proven therapies, a recent study suggests that adherence to medication is significantly higher in patients treated with PCI than in those treated with OMT alone. We discuss the potential factors that may contribute to underprescription of OMT and predict adherence in patients undergoing PCI.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

Contemporary studies continue to demonstrate underutilization of OMT in patients referred for PCI but increased medication adherence in patients treated by PCI. We argue for increased recognition of OMT as the definitive treatment for stable angina, so that we can be sure those patients who require PCI 'are taking' and 'keep taking' the tablets.