Incidence, Predictors, and Impact of Hospital Readmission After Revascularization for Left Main Coronary Disease.

BACKGROUND: The frequency of and relationship between hospital readmissions and outcomes after revascularization for left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD) are unknown. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to study the incidence, predictors, and clinical impact of readmissions following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for LMCAD. METHODS: In the EXCEL (XIENCE Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization) trial, 1,905 patients with LMCAD were randomized to PCI vs CABG. The cumulative incidence of readmissions was analyzed with multivariable Anderson-Gill and joint frailty models to account for recurrent events and the competing risk of death. The impact of readmission on subsequent mortality within 5-year follow-up was determined in a time-adjusted Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: Within 5 years, 1,868 readmissions occurred in 851 of 1,882 (45.2%) hospital survivors (2.2 ± 1.9 per patient with readmission[s], range 1-16), approximately one-half for cardiovascular causes and one-half for noncardiovascular causes (927 [49.6%] and 941 [50.4%], respectively). One or more readmissions occurred in 463 of 942 (48.6%) PCI patients vs 388 of 940 (41.8%) CABG patients (P = 0.003). After multivariable adjustment, PCI remained an independent predictor of readmission (adjusted HR: 1.22; 95% CI: 1.10-1.35; P < 0.0001), along with female sex, comorbidities, and the extent of CAD. Readmission was independently associated with subsequent all-cause death, with interaction testing indicating a higher risk after PCI than CABG (adjusted HR: 5.72; 95% CI: 3.42-9.55 vs adjusted HR: 2.72; 95% CI: 1.64-4.88, respectively; Pint = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: In the EXCEL trial, readmissions during 5-year follow-up after revascularization for LMCAD were common and more frequent after PCI than CABG. Readmissions were associated with an increased risk of all-cause death, more so after PCI than with CABG.

Complete Revascularization and Angina-Related Health Status in the ISCHEMIA Trial.

BACKGROUND: The impact of complete revascularization (CR) on angina-related health status (symptoms, function, quality of life) in chronic coronary disease (CCD) has not been well studied. OBJECTIVES: Among patients with CCD randomized to invasive (INV) vs conservative (CON) management in ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches), we compared the following: 1) the impact of anatomic and functional CR on health status compared with incomplete revascularization (ICR); and 2) the predicted impact of achieving CR in all INV patients compared with CON. METHODS: Multivariable regression adjusting for patient characteristics was used to compare 12-month health status after independent core laboratory-defined CR vs ICR in INV patients who underwent revascularization. Propensity-weighted modeling was then performed to estimate the treatment effect had CR or ICR been achieved in all INV patients, compared with CON. RESULTS: Anatomic and functional CR were achieved in 43.3% and 57.8% of 1,641 INV patients, respectively. Among revascularized patients, CR was associated with improved Seattle Angina Questionnaire Angina Frequency compared with ICR after adjustment for baseline differences. After modeling CR and ICR in all INV patients, patients with CR and ICR each had greater improvements in health status than CON, with better health status with CR than ICR. The projected benefits of CR were most pronounced in patients with baseline daily/weekly angina and not seen in those with no angina. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with CCD in ISCHEMIA, health status improved more with CR compared with ICR or CON, particularly in those with frequent angina. Anatomic and functional CR provided comparable improvements in quality of life. (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches [ISCHEMIA]; NCT01471522).

Impact of Complete Revascularization in the ISCHEMIA Trial.

BACKGROUND: Anatomic complete revascularization (ACR) and functional complete revascularization (FCR) have been associated with reduced death and myocardial infarction (MI) in some prior studies. The impact of complete revascularization (CR) in patients undergoing an invasive (INV) compared with a conservative (CON) management strategy has not been reported. OBJECTIVES: Among patients with chronic coronary disease without prior coronary artery bypass grafting randomized to INV vs CON management in the ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches) trial, we examined the following: 1) the outcomes of ACR and FCR compared with incomplete revascularization; and 2) the potential impact of achieving CR in all INV patients compared with CON management. METHODS: ACR and FCR in the INV group were assessed at an independent core laboratory. Multivariable-adjusted outcomes of CR were examined in INV patients. Inverse probability weighted modeling was then performed to estimate the treatment effect had CR been achieved in all INV patients compared with CON management. RESULTS: ACR and FCR were achieved in 43.4% and 58.4% of 1,824 INV patients. ACR was associated with reduced 4-year rates of cardiovascular death or MI compared with incomplete revascularization. By inverse probability weighted modeling, ACR in all 2,296 INV patients compared with 2,498 CON patients was associated with a lower 4-year rate of cardiovascular death or MI (difference -3.5; 95% CI: -7.2% to 0.0%). In comparison, the event rate difference of cardiovascular death or MI for INV minus CON in the overall ISCHEMIA trial was -2.4%. Results were similar but less pronounced with FCR. CONCLUSIONS: The outcomes of an INV strategy may be improved if CR (especially ACR) is achieved. (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches [ISCHEMIA]; NCT01471522).

Randomized Trial of Anticoagulation Strategies for Noncritically Ill Patients Hospitalized With COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Prior studies of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation in patients with COVID-19 have reported conflicting results. OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine the safety and effectiveness of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation in noncritically ill patients with COVID-19. METHODS: Patients hospitalized with COVID-19 not requiring intensive care unit treatment were randomized to prophylactic-dose enoxaparin, therapeutic-dose enoxaparin, or therapeutic-dose apixaban. The primary outcome was the 30-day composite of all-cause mortality, requirement for intensive care unit-level of care, systemic thromboembolism, or ischemic stroke assessed in the combined therapeutic-dose groups compared with the prophylactic-dose group. RESULTS: Between August 26, 2020, and September 19, 2022, 3,398 noncritically ill patients hospitalized with COVID-19 were randomized to prophylactic-dose enoxaparin (n = 1,141), therapeutic-dose enoxaparin (n = 1,136), or therapeutic-dose apixaban (n = 1,121) at 76 centers in 10 countries. The 30-day primary outcome occurred in 13.2% of patients in the prophylactic-dose group and 11.3% of patients in the combined therapeutic-dose groups (HR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.69-1.04; P = 0.11). All-cause mortality occurred in 7.0% of patients treated with prophylactic-dose enoxaparin and 4.9% of patients treated with therapeutic-dose anticoagulation (HR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.52-0.93; P = 0.01), and intubation was required in 8.4% vs 6.4% of patients, respectively (HR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.58-0.98; P = 0.03). Results were similar in the 2 therapeutic-dose groups, and major bleeding in all 3 groups was infrequent. CONCLUSIONS: Among noncritically ill patients hospitalized with COVID-19, the 30-day primary composite outcome was not significantly reduced with therapeutic-dose anticoagulation compared with prophylactic-dose anticoagulation. However, fewer patients who were treated with therapeutic-dose anticoagulation required intubation and fewer died (FREEDOM COVID [FREEDOM COVID Anticoagulation Strategy]; NCT04512079).

Impact of Periprocedural Adverse Events After PCI and CABG on 5-Year Mortality: The EXCEL Trial.

BACKGROUND: The relative risks for different periprocedural major adverse events (MAE) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) on subsequent mortality have not been described. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the association between periprocedural MAE occurring within 30 days postprocedure and early and late mortality after left main coronary artery revascularization by PCI and CABG. METHODS: In the EXCEL (Evaluation of XIENCE Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization) trial, patients with left main disease were randomized to PCI vs CABG. The associations between 12 prespecified nonfatal MAE and subsequent 5-year all-cause and cardiovascular death in 1,858 patients were examined using logistic regression. RESULTS: One or more nonfatal MAE occurred in 111 of 935 patients (11.9%) after PCI and 419 of 923 patients (45.4%) after CABG (P < 0.0001). Patients with MAE were older and had more baseline comorbidities. Within 5 years, all-cause death occurred in 117 and 87 patients after PCI and CABG, respectively. Experiencing an MAE was a strong independent predictor of 5-year mortality after both PCI (adjusted OR: 4.61; 95% CI: 2.71-7.82) and CABG (adjusted OR: 3.25; 95% CI: 1.95-5.41). These associations were present within the first 30 days and between 30 days and 5 years postprocedure. Major or minor bleeding with blood transfusion ≥2 U was an independent predictor of 5-year mortality after both procedures. Stroke, unplanned revascularization for ischemia, and renal failure were significantly associated with mortality only after CABG. CONCLUSIONS: In the EXCEL trial, nonfatal periprocedural MAE were strongly associated with early and late mortality after both PCI and CABG for left main disease.

Endoscopic vs Open Vein Harvest in Drug-Eluting Stents or Bypass Surgery for Left Main Disease Trial.

BACKGROUND: We investigated outcomes of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) with endoscopic vein harvest (EVH) vs open vein harvest (OVH) within the Evaluation of XIENCE Versus CABG (EXCEL) trial. METHODS: All patients in EXCEL randomized to CABG were included in this study. For this analysis, the primary end points were ischemia-driven revascularization (IDR) and graft stenosis or occlusion at 5 years. Additional end points were as follows: a composite of death from any cause, stroke, or myocardial infarction; bleeding; blood product transfusion; major arrhythmia; and infection requiring antibiotics. Event rates were based on Kaplan-Meier estimates in time-to-first-event analyses. RESULTS: Of the 957 patients randomized to CABG, 686 (71.7%) received at least 1 venous graft with 257 (37.5%) patients in the EVH group and 429 (62.5%) patients in the OVH group. At 5 years, IDR was higher (11.5% vs 6.7%; P = .047) in the EVH group. At 5 years, rates of graft stenosis or occlusion (9.7% vs 5.4%; P = .054) and the primary end point (17.4% vs 20.9%; P = .27) were similar. In-hospital bleeding (11.3% vs 13.8%; P = .35), in-hospital blood product transfusion (12.8% vs 13.1%; P = .94), and infection requiring antibiotics within 1 month (13.6% vs 16.8%; P = .27) were similar between EVH and OVH patients. Major arrhythmia in the hospital (19.8% vs 13.5%; P = .03) and within 1 month (21.8% vs 15.4%; P = .03) was higher in EVH patients. CONCLUSIONS: IDR at 5 years was higher in the EVH group. EVH and OVH patients had similar rates of graft stenosis or occlusion and the composite of death, stroke, or myocardial infarction at 5 years.

Anticoagulation in Patients With COVID-19: JACC Review Topic of the Week.

Clinical, laboratory, and autopsy findings support an association between coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) and thromboembolic disease. Acute COVID-19 infection is characterized by mononuclear cell reactivity and pan-endothelialitis, contributing to a high incidence of thrombosis in large and small blood vessels, both arterial and venous. Observational studies and randomized trials have investigated whether full-dose anticoagulation may improve outcomes compared with prophylactic dose heparin. Although no benefit for therapeutic heparin has been found in patients who are critically ill hospitalized with COVID-19, some studies support a possible role for therapeutic anticoagulation in patients not yet requiring intensive care unit support. We summarize the pathology, rationale, and current evidence for use of anticoagulation in patients with COVID-19 and describe the main design elements of the ongoing FREEDOM COVID-19 Anticoagulation trial, in which 3,600 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 not requiring intensive care unit level of care are being randomized to prophylactic-dose enoxaparin vs therapeutic-dose enoxaparin vs therapeutic-dose apixaban. (FREEDOM COVID-19 Anticoagulation Strategy [FREEDOM COVID]; NCT04512079).

White blood cell count and clinical outcomes after left main coronary artery revascularization: insights from the EXCEL trial.

BACKGROUND: Prior studies have reported an association between elevated white blood cell count (WBCc) and worse clinical outcomes after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We assessed the prognostic impact of WBCc in patients undergoing revascularization for left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD). METHODS: In Evaluation of XIENCE Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization (EXCEL), 1905 patients with LMCAD and low or intermediate SYNTAX scores were randomized to PCI with everolimus-eluting stents versus CABG. The 1895 patients with baseline WBCc available were grouped in tertiles of WBCc (mean 5.6 ± 0.8, 7.5 ± 0.5, and 10.1 ± 1.6 × 109/L). RESULTS: Five-year rates of the primary endpoint (death, myocardial infarction or stroke) were similar across increasing WBCc tertiles (21.2, 18.9, and 21.6%; P = 0.46). Individual components of the primary endpoint, Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 3-5 bleeding, stent thrombosis or graft occlusion and ischemia-driven revascularization were all similar across WBCc tertiles. By multivariable analysis, WBCc as a continuous variable was not an independent predictor of adverse events (hazard radio per 1 × 109/L: 1.02; 95% CI, 0.97-1.08; P = 0.43). Results were consistent in the PCI and CABG arms individually. CONCLUSION: There was no association between baseline WBCc and 30-day or 5-year clinical outcomes after PCI or CABG. The absence of a clear incremental increase in events with increasing WBCc in the current analysis indicates that WBCc should not routinely be used as a prognostic marker or to guide revascularization decisions in patients with LMCAD.

Outcomes of Vascular Closure Device Use After Transfemoral Coronary Intervention: Insights From the EXCEL Trial.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the safety and efficacy of using vascular closure devices (VCDs) in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for left main coronary artery disease (LM-CAD). BACKGROUND: VCDs provide rapid hemostasis for patients undergoing PCI with transfemoral access (TFA); however, the safety and efficacy of VCDs continues to be debated. METHODS: We analyzed data from the EXCEL trial in patients with LM-CAD in whom PCI was performed via TFA with vs without VCD. The primary endpoint was a composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke. Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 2-5 bleeding at 30 days was also assessed. Propensity-score matching analysis was used. RESULTS: Among 694 patients with LM-CAD undergoing TFA-PCI, 423 (61.0%) received VCDs (collagen plug, 320 [75.7%]; suture mediated, 55 [13.0%]; others, 48 [11.3%]). Patients with and without VCD use had similar 30-day rates of BARC type 2-5 bleeding (5.0% vs 6.7%, respectively; P=.30) and BARC type 3-5 bleeding (2.1% vs 3.7%, respectively; P=.20). There were no significant differences in the rates of death, MI, or stroke in patients with and without VCD use at 30 days (4.7% vs 4.1%, respectively; P=.74) or at 5 years (20.3% vs 24.2%, respectively; P=.16). These results were similar after adjustment. CONCLUSION: In the EXCEL trial, LM-CAD PCI via TFA using VCD was associated with similar 30-day rates of bleeding and comparable early and late major adverse cardiovascular events compared with manual compression.

Optimal dual antiplatelet therapy duration for bioresorbable scaffolds: an individual patient data pooled analysis of the ABSORB trials.

BACKGROUND: Compared with everolimus-eluting metallic stents, the Absorb bioresorbable scaffold (BRS) results in increased rates of myocardial infarction (MI) and scaffold thrombosis (ST) during its three-year bioresorption phase. It is unknown whether prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) duration might decrease the risk of ischaemic events. AIMS: We sought to evaluate the impact of DAPT duration on ischaemic and bleeding outcomes following BRS implantation. METHODS: We conducted an individual patient data pooled analysis from four ABSORB randomised trials and one prospective ABSORB registry. Study endpoints were MI, ST, bleeding, and death up to three-year follow-up. Propensity score-adjusted Cox regression analysis was used to account for baseline differences related to DAPT duration. RESULTS: The five ABSORB studies included 2,973 patients. DAPT use was 91.7%, 53.2%, and 48.0% at 1, 2, and 3 years, respectively. DAPT use within the first year after BRS implantation was associated with markedly lower risks of MI (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.17, 95% CI: 0.10-0.32; p<0.0001) and ST (aHR 0.08, 95% CI: 0.03-0.19; p<0.0001). Conversely, DAPT use between 1 and 3 years did not significantly affect the risk of MI (aHR 1.04, 95% CI: 0.70-1.55; p=0.84) or ST (aHR 0.86, 95% CI: 0.42-1.75; p=0.67). DAPT did not have major effects upon bleeding or death in either period. CONCLUSIONS: DAPT use during the first year after BRS implantation was strongly associated with lower risks of ST and MI. However, a benefit of ongoing DAPT use between 1 and 3 years after BRS implantation was not apparent.

Novel Supreme Drug-Eluting Stents With Early Synchronized Antiproliferative Drug Delivery to Inhibit Smooth Muscle Cell Proliferation After Drug-Eluting Stents Implantation in Coronary Artery Disease: Results of the PIONEER III Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Accelerated endothelial healing after targeted antiproliferative drug delivery may limit the long-term inflammatory response of drug-eluting stents (DESs). The novel Supreme DES is designed to synchronize early drug delivery within 4 to 6 weeks of implantation, leaving behind a prohealing permanent base layer. Whether the Supreme DES is safe and effective in the short term and can improve long-term clinical outcomes is not known. METHODS: In an international, 2:1 randomized, single-blind trial, we compared treatment with Supreme DES to durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (DP-EES) in patients with acute and chronic coronary syndromes. The primary end point was target lesion failure-a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically driven target lesion revascularization. The trial was designed to demonstrate noninferiority (margin of 3.58%) of the Supreme DES at 12 months compared with DP-EES (URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03168776). RESULTS: From October 2017 to July 2019, a total of 1629 patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to the Supreme DES (N=1086) or DP-EES (N=543). At 12 months, target lesion failure occurred in 57 of 1057 patients (5.4%) in the Supreme DES group and in 27 of 532 patients (5.1%) in the DP-EES group (absolute risk difference, 0.32% [95% CI, -1.87 to 2.5]; Pnoninferiority=0.002]. There were no significant differences in rates of device success, clinically driven target lesion revascularization, or stent thrombosis at 12 months, and the safety composite of cardiovascular death and target vessel myocardial infarction was 3.5% versus 4.6% (hazard ratio, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.46-1.25]) with Supreme DES compared with DP-EES, although rates of combined clinically and non-clinically driven target lesion revascularization at 12 months were higher with Supreme DES. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with acute and chronic coronary syndromes undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, the Supreme DES proved to be noninferior to the standard DP-EES. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03168776.

Standardizing the Definition and Analysis Methodology for Complete Coronary Artery Revascularization.

Guideline-based medical therapy is the foundation of treatment for individuals with coronary artery disease. However, revascularization with either percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting may be beneficial in patients with acute coronary syndromes, refractory symptoms, or in other specific scenarios (eg, left main disease and heart failure). While the goal of percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting is to achieve complete revascularization, anatomical and ischemic definitions of complete revascularization and their methodology for assessment remain highly variable. Such lack of consensus invariably contributes to the absence of standardized approaches for invasive treatment of coronary artery disease. Herein, we propose a novel, comprehensive, yet pragmatic algorithm with both anatomical and ischemic parameters that aims to provide a systematic method to assess complete revascularization after percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting in both clinical practice and clinical trials.

Identification of vulnerable plaques and patients by intracoronary near-infrared spectroscopy and ultrasound (PROSPECT II): a prospective natural history study.

BACKGROUND: Near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) and intravascular ultrasound are promising imaging modalities to identify non-obstructive plaques likely to cause coronary-related events. We aimed to assess whether combined NIRS and intravascular ultrasound can identify high-risk plaques and patients that are at risk for future major adverse cardiac events (MACEs). METHODS: PROSPECT II is an investigator-sponsored, multicentre, prospective natural history study done at 14 university hospitals and two community hospitals in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. We recruited patients of any age with recent (within past 4 weeks) myocardial infarction. After treatment of all flow-limiting coronary lesions, three-vessel imaging was done with a combined NIRS and intravascular ultrasound catheter. Untreated lesions (also known as non-culprit lesions) were identified by intravascular ultrasound and their lipid content was assessed by NIRS. The primary outcome was the covariate-adjusted rate of MACEs (the composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, unstable angina, or progressive angina) arising from untreated non-culprit lesions during follow-up. The relations between plaques with high lipid content, large plaque burden, and small lumen areas and patient-level and lesion-level events were determined. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02171065. FINDINGS: Between June 10, 2014, and Dec 20, 2017, 3629 non-culprit lesions were characterised in 898 patients (153 [17%] women, 745 [83%] men; median age 63 [IQR 55-70] years). Median follow-up was 3·7 (IQR 3·0-4·4) years. Adverse events within 4 years occurred in 112 (13·2%, 95% CI 11·0-15·6) of 898 patients, with 66 (8·0%, 95% CI 6·2-10·0) arising from 78 untreated non-culprit lesions (mean baseline angiographic diameter stenosis 46·9% [SD 15·9]). Highly lipidic lesions (851 [24%] of 3500 lesions, present in 520 [59%] of 884 patients) were an independent predictor of patient-level non-culprit lesion-related MACEs (adjusted odds ratio 2·27, 95% CI 1·25-4·13) and non-culprit lesion-specific MACEs (7·83, 4·12-14·89). Large plaque burden (787 [22%] of 3629 lesions, present in 530 [59%] of 898 patients) was also an independent predictor of non-culprit lesion-related MACEs. Lesions with both large plaque burden by intravascular ultrasound and large lipid-rich cores by NIRS had a 4-year non-culprit lesion-related MACE rate of 7·0% (95% CI 4·0-10·0). Patients in whom one or more such lesions were identified had a 4-year non-culprit lesion-related MACE rate of 13·2% (95% CI 9·4-17·6). INTERPRETATION: Combined NIRS and intravascular ultrasound detects angiographically non-obstructive lesions with a high lipid content and large plaque burden that are at increased risk for future adverse cardiac outcomes. FUNDING: Abbott Vascular, Infraredx, and The Medicines Company.

Antithrombotic regimens for percutaneous coronary intervention of the left main coronary artery: The EXCEL trial.

OBJECTIVES: We compared the effect of bivalirudin or heparin and use or nonuse of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPI) on the outcome of left main coronary artery (LMCA) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the randomized EXCEL trial. BACKGROUND: The optimal antithrombotic regimen to support PCI of the LMCA remains controversial because of low representation of this subset in clinical trials. METHODS: The PCI cohort (n = 928) in EXCEL was divided according to bivalirudin versus heparin antithrombin treatment and compared for the primary composite endpoint of death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke at 30 days and 5 years. RESULTS: Bivalirudin was used in 319 patients (34.4%). The composite endpoint at 30 days occurred in 7.2% versus 3.8% bivalirudin and heparin patients, respectively, p = .02; at 5 years, the composite endpoint occurred in 26.3% versus 19.9% bivalirudin and heparin patients, respectively, p = .02. Major bleeding was more frequent in bivalirudin patients (4.1% versus 1.3%, p = .008). There were no differences in stent thrombosis between the groups. Bivalirudin use was an independent predictor of the 30-day composite endpoint (OR 2.88, 95% CI 1.28-6.48, p = .01) but not of the 5-year composite endpoint (OR 1.30, 95% CI 0.84-2.02, p = .23). GPI use was infrequent (n = 67, 7.2%) and was not associated with adverse outcomes. CONCLUSION: Among patients undergoing LMCA PCI in the EXCEL trial, procedural use of bivalirudin was associated with greater rates of periprocedural MI and the 30-day composite endpoint without reducing bleeding complications. Five-year outcomes were similar. GPIs were used infrequently and were not associated with clinical outcomes.

Impact of lesion preparation strategies on outcomes of left main PCI: The EXCEL trial.

OBJECTIVES: We examined outcomes according to lesion preparation strategy (LPS) in patients with left main coronary artery (LMCA) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the EXCEL trial. BACKGROUND: The optimal LPS for LMCA PCI is unclear. METHODS: We categorized LPS hierarchically (high to low) as: (a) rotational atherectomy (RA); (b) cutting or scoring balloon (CSB); (c) balloon angioplasty (BAL); and d) direct stenting (DIR). The primary endpoint was 3-year MACE; all-cause death, stroke, or myocardial infarction. RESULTS: Among 938 patients undergoing LMCA PCI, RA was performed in 6.0%, CSB 9.5%, BAL 71.3%, and DIR 13.2%. In patients treated with DIR, BAL, CSB, and RA, respectively, there was a progressive increase in SYNTAX score, LMCA complex bifurcation, trifurcation or calcification, number of stents, and total stent length. Any procedural complication occurred in 10.4% of cases overall, with the lowest rate in the DIR (7.4%) and highest in the RA group (16.1%) (ptrend  = .22). There were no significant differences in the 3-year rates of MACE (from RA to DIR: 17.9%, 20.2%, 14.5%, 14.7%; p = .50) or ischemia-driven revascularization (from RA to DIR: 16.8%, 10.8%, 12.3%, 14.2%; p = .65). The adjusted 3-year rates of MACE did not differ according to LPS. CONCLUSIONS: The comparable 3-year outcomes suggest that appropriate lesion preparation may be able to overcome the increased risks of complex LMCA lesion morphology.

Implications of Alternative Definitions of Peri-Procedural Myocardial Infarction After Coronary Revascularization.

BACKGROUND: Varying definitions of procedural myocardial infarction (PMI) are in widespread use. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to determine the rates and clinical relevance of PMI using different definitions in patients with left main coronary artery disease randomized to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery in the EXCEL (Evaluation of XIENCE versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization) trial. METHODS: The pre-specified protocol definition of PMI (PMIProt) required a large elevation of creatine kinase-MB (CK-MB), with identical threshold for both procedures. The Third Universal Definition of MI (types 4a and 5) (PMIUD) required lesser biomarker elevations but with supporting evidence of myocardial ischemia, different after PCI and CABG. For the PMIUD, troponins were used preferentially (available in 49.5% of patients), CK-MB otherwise. The multivariable relationship between each PMI type and 5-year mortality was determined. RESULTS: PMIProt occurred in 34 of 935 (3.6%) patients after PCI and 56 of 923 (6.1%) patients after CABG (difference -2.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -4.4% to -0.5%; p = 0.015). The corresponding rates of PMIUD were 37 (4.0%) and 20 (2.2%), respectively (difference 1.8%; 95% CI: 0.2% to 3.4%; p = 0.025). Both PMIProt and PMIUD were associated with 5-year cardiovascular mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 2.18 [95% CI: 1.13 to 4.23] and 2.87 [95% CI: 1.44 to 5.73], respectively). PMIProt was associated with a consistent hazard of cardiovascular mortality after both PCI and CABG (pinteraction = 0.86). Conversely, PMIUD was strongly associated with cardiovascular mortality after CABG (adjusted HR: 11.94; 95% CI: 4.84 to 29.47) but not after PCI (adjusted HR: 1.14; 95% CI: 0.35 to 3.67) (pinteraction = 0.004). Results were similar for all-cause mortality and with varying PMIUD biomarker definitions. Only large biomarker elevations (CK-MB ≥10× upper reference limit and troponin ≥70× upper reference limit) were associated with mortality. CONCLUSIONS: The rates of PMI after PCI and CABG vary greatly with different definitions. In the EXCEL trial, the pre-specified PMIProt was associated with similar hazard after PCI and CABG, whereas PMIUD was strongly associated with mortality after CABG but not after PCI. (EXCEL Clinical Trial [EXCEL]; NCT01205776).

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Vulnerable Coronary Atherosclerotic Plaque.

BACKGROUND: Acute coronary syndromes most commonly arise from thrombosis of lipid-rich coronary atheromas that have large plaque burden despite angiographically appearing mild. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to examine the outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of non-flow-limiting vulnerable plaques. METHODS: Three-vessel imaging was performed with a combination intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) and near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) catheter after successful PCI of all flow-limiting coronary lesions in 898 patients presenting with myocardial infarction (MI). Patients with an angiographically nonobstructive stenosis not intended for PCI but with IVUS plaque burden of ≥65% were randomized to treatment of the lesion with a bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) plus guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) versus GDMT alone. The primary powered effectiveness endpoint was the IVUS-derived minimum lumen area (MLA) at protocol-driven 25-month follow-up. The primary (nonpowered) safety endpoint was randomized target lesion failure (cardiac death, target vessel-related MI, or clinically driven target lesion revascularization) at 24 months. The secondary (nonpowered) clinical effectiveness endpoint was randomized lesion-related major adverse cardiac events (cardiac death, MI, unstable angina, or progressive angina) at latest follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 182 patients were randomized (93 BVS, 89 GDMT alone) at 15 centers. The median angiographic diameter stenosis of the randomized lesions was 41.6%; by near-infrared spectroscopy-IVUS, the median plaque burden was 73.7%, the median MLA was 2.9 mm2, and the median maximum lipid plaque content was 33.4%. Angiographic follow-up at 25 months was completed in 167 patients (91.8%), and the median clinical follow-up was 4.1 years. The follow-up MLA in BVS-treated lesions was 6.9 ± 2.6 mm2 compared with 3.0 ± 1.0 mm2 in GDMT alone-treated lesions (least square means difference: 3.9 mm2; 95% confidence interval: 3.3 to 4.5; p < 0.0001). Target lesion failure at 24 months occurred in similar rates of BVS-treated and GDMT alone-treated patients (4.3% vs. 4.5%; p = 0.96). Randomized lesion-related major adverse cardiac events occurred in 4.3% of BVS-treated patients versus 10.7% of GDMT alone-treated patients (odds ratio: 0.38; 95% confidence interval: 0.11 to 1.28; p = 0.12). CONCLUSIONS: PCI of angiographically mild lesions with large plaque burden was safe, substantially enlarged the follow-up MLA, and was associated with favorable long-term clinical outcomes, warranting the performance of an adequately powered randomized trial. (PROSPECT ABSORB [Providing Regional Observations to Study Predictors of Events in the Coronary Tree II Combined with a Randomized, Controlled, Intervention Trial]; NCT02171065).

Impact of left ventricular ejection fraction on clinical outcomes after left main coronary artery revascularization: results from the randomized EXCEL trial.

AIM: To evaluate the impact of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) on 3-year outcomes in patients with left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in the EXCEL trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: The EXCEL trial randomized patients with LMCAD to PCI with everolimus-eluting stents (n = 948) or CABG (n = 957). Among 1804 patients with known baseline LVEF, 74 (4.1%) had LVEF <40% [heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF)], 152 (8.4%) LVEF 40-49% [heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF)] and 1578 (87.5%) LVEF ≥50% (heart failure with preserved ejection fraction). Patients with HFrEF vs. HFmrEF vs. preserved LVEF experienced a longer postoperative hospital stay (9.0 vs. 7.0 vs. 6.0 days, P = 0.02) with greater peri-procedural complications after CABG, while hospital stay after PCI was unaffected by LVEF (1.5 vs. 2.0 vs. 1.0 days, P = 0.20). The composite primary endpoint of death, stroke, or myocardial infarction at 3 years was 29.3% (PCI) vs. 27.6% (CABG) in patients with HFrEF, 16.2% vs. 15.0% in patients with HFmrEF, and 14.5% vs. 14.6% in those with preserved LVEF, respectively (Pinteraction  = 0.90). Smoothing spline analysis demonstrated that the 3-year risk of all-cause death increased when LVEF decreased, both in patients undergoing CABG and PCI. CONCLUSION: In the EXCEL trial, the composite rate of death, stroke or myocardial infarction at 3 years was significantly higher in patients with HFrEF compared with HFmrEF or preserved LVEF, driven by an increased rate of all-cause death. No significant differences after PCI vs. CABG were observed among patients with HFrEF, HFmrEF and preserved LVEF. Longer-term follow-up could provide important insights on differences in clinical outcomes that might emerge over time. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT01205776.

Mortality After Repeat Revascularization Following PCI or CABG for Left Main Disease: The EXCEL Trial.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate the incidence and impact on mortality of repeat revascularization after index percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD). BACKGROUND: The impact on mortality of the need of repeat revascularization following PCI or CABG in patients with unprotected LMCAD is unknown. METHODS: All patients with LMCAD and site-assessed low or intermediate SYNTAX (Synergy Between PCI With Taxus and Cardiac Surgery) scores randomized to PCI (n = 948) or CABG (n = 957) in the EXCEL (Evaluation of XIENCE Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization) trial were included. Repeat revascularization events were adjudicated by an independent clinical events committee. The effect of repeat revascularization on mortality through 3-year follow-up was examined in time-varying Cox regression models. RESULTS: During 3-year follow-up, there were 346 repeat revascularization procedures among 185 patients. PCI was associated with higher rates of any repeat revascularization (12.9% vs. 7.6%; hazard ratio: 1.73; 95% confidence interval: 1.28 to 2.33; p = 0.0003). Need for repeat revascularization was independently associated with increased risk for 3-year all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio: 2.05; 95% confidence interval: 1.13 to 3.70; p = 0.02) and cardiovascular mortality (adjusted hazard ratio: 4.22; 95% confidence interval: 2.10 to 8.48; p < 0.0001) consistently after both PCI and CABG (pint = 0.85 for both endpoints). Although target vessel revascularization and target lesion revascularization were both associated with an increased risk for mortality, target vessel non-target lesion revascularization and non-target vessel revascularization were not. CONCLUSIONS: In the EXCEL trial, repeat revascularization during follow-up was performed less frequently after CABG than PCI and was associated with increased mortality after both procedures. Reducing the need for repeat revascularization may further improve long-term survival after percutaneous or surgical treatment of LMCAD. (EXCEL Clinical Trial; NCT01205776).

Impact of non-respect of SYNTAX score II recommendation for surgery in patients with left main coronary artery disease treated by percutaneous coronary intervention: an EXCEL substudy.

OBJECTIVES: The SYNTAX score II (SSII) was developed from the SYNTAX trial to predict the 4-year all-cause mortality after left main or multivessel disease revascularization and to facilitate the decision-making process. The SSII provides the following treatment recommendations: (i) coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (equipoise risk), (ii) CABG preferred (excessive risk for PCI) or (iii) PCI preferred (excessive risk for CABG). We sought to externally validate SSII and to investigate the impact of not abiding by the SSII recommendations in the randomized EXCEL trial of PCI versus CABG for left main disease. METHODS: The calibration plot of predicted versus observed 4-year mortality was constructed from individual values of SSII in EXCEL. To assess overestimation versus underestimation of predicted mortality risk, an optimal fit regression line with slope and intercept was determined. Prospective treatment recommendations based on SSII were compared with actual treatments and all-cause mortality at 4 years. RESULTS: SSII variables were available from EXCEL trial in 1807/1905 (95%) patients. For the entire cohort, discrimination was possibly helpful (C statistic = 0.670). SSII-predicted all-cause mortality at 4 years overestimated the observed mortality, particularly in the highest-risk percentiles, as confirmed by the fit regression line [intercept 2.37 (1.51-3.24), P = 0.003; slope 0.67 (0.61-0.74), P < 0.001]. When the SSII-recommended treatment was CABG, randomized EXCEL patients treated with PCI had a trend towards higher mortality compared with those treated with CABG (14.1% vs 5.3%, P = 0.07) in the as-treat population. In the intention-to-treat population, patients randomized to PCI had higher mortality compared with those randomized to CABG (15.1% vs 4.1%, P = 0.02), when SSII recommended CABG. CONCLUSIONS: In the EXCEL trial of patients with left main disease, the SSII-predicted 4-year mortality overestimated the 4-year observed mortality with a possibly helpful discrimination. Non-compliance with SSII CABG treatment recommendations (i.e. randomized to PCI) was associated with higher 4-year all-cause mortality.