Pharmacomechanical Catheter-Directed Thrombolysis With the Bashir Endovascular Catheter for Acute Pulmonary Embolism: The RESCUE Study.

BACKGROUND: Catheter-directed thrombolysis (CDT) has been associated with rapid recovery of right ventricular (RV) function. The Bashir catheter was developed for enhanced thrombolysis in large vessels such as the pulmonary arteries (PAs) with lower doses of tissue plasminogen activator (tPA). OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of tPA infused using a pharmacomechanical (PM) CDT device called the Bashir endovascular catheter in patients with intermediate-risk acute pulmonary embolism (PE). METHODS: Patients with symptoms of acute PE with computed tomographic evidence of RV dilatation were enrolled. The Bashir catheter was used to deliver 7 mg tPA into each PA over 5 hours. The primary efficacy endpoint was the core laboratory-assessed change in computed tomographic angiography-derived RV/left ventricular (LV) diameter ratio at 48 hours, and the primary safety endpoint was serious adverse events (SAEs) including major bleeding at 72 hours. RESULTS: At 18 U.S. sites, 109 patients were enrolled. The median device placement time was 15 minutes. At 48 hours after PM-CDT, the RV/LV diameter ratio decreased by 0.56 (33.3%; P < 0.0001). PA obstruction as measured by the refined modified Miller index was reduced by 35.9% (P < 0.0001). One patient (0.92%) had 2 SAEs: a retroperitoneal bleed (procedure related) and iliac vein thrombosis (device related). Two other procedure-related SAEs were epistaxis and non-access site hematoma with anemia. CONCLUSIONS: PM-CDT with the Bashir endovascular catheter is associated with a significant reduction in RV/LV diameter ratio and a very low rate of adverse events or major bleeding in patients with intermediate-risk acute PE. The notable finding was a significant reduction in PA obstruction with low-dose tPA. (Recombinant tPA by Endovascular Administration for the Treatment of Submassive PE Using CDT for the Reduction of Thrombus Burden [RESCUE]; NCT04248868).

Short- and long- term health related quality-of-life and anginal status after randomisation to coronary stenting versus bypass surgery for the treatment of multivessel disease: results of the Arterial Revascularisation Therapy Study (ARTS).

BACKGROUND: Health related quality-of-life (HRQL) beyond one year of treatment of multivessel coronary artery disease with stenting or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is yet unknown. The Arterial Revascularisation Therapy Study (ARTS) was designed to compare CABG and stenting in multivessel disease. METHODS AND RESULTS: HRQL was evaluated at baseline, at 1- month and at 6-, 12- and 36 months after revascularisation using the Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) in patients randomised to stenting (n=483) versus CABG (n=492). Both stenting and CABG resulted in significant improvement of HRQL and anginal status. Although there was a trend for better HRQL after CABG up to one year, the disparity between the two procedures decreased long-term. Most of the difference between the two procedures was attributed to repeat interventions in the stent group; at three years, 19% of stent patients versus 13% of CABG patients (p<0.0001) had undergone a repeat intervention. On most of the SF-36 scores, there was no difference between diabetics and non-diabetics, with diabetic patients having a worse score only on general health and physical functioning at all time points (p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Both stenting and CABG resulted in a significant improvement in HRQL especially up to one year, but CABG was associated with less angina at all time points. There was a trend for better HRQL after CABG, but this difference was mainly attributed to repeat revascularisation in the stent group. Based on these findings, patients should select for themselves whether or not they would prefer the improved HRQL benefits after CABG, or whether they would prefer more angina after PCI and avoid a major operation.

Five-year outcomes after coronary stenting versus bypass surgery for the treatment of multivessel disease: the final analysis of the Arterial Revascularization Therapies Study (ARTS) randomized trial.

OBJECTIVES: The long-term (five-year) comparative results of treatment of multivessel coronary artery disease with stenting or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is at present unknown. BACKGROUND: The Arterial Revascularization Therapies Study (ARTS) was designed to compare CABG and stenting in patients with multivessel disease. METHODS: A total of 1,205 patients with the potential for equivalent revascularization were randomly assigned to CABG (n = 605) or stent implantation (n = 600). The primary clinical end point was freedom from major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) at one year; MACCE at five-year follow-up constituted the final secondary end point. RESULTS: At five years, there were 48 and 46 deaths in the stent and CABG groups, respectively (8.0% vs. 7.6%; p = 0.83; relative risk [RR], 1.05; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71 to 1.55). Among 208 diabetic patients, mortality was 13.4% in the stent group and 8.3% in the CABG group (p = 0.27; RR, 1.61; 95% CI, 0.71 to 3.63). Overall freedom from death, stroke, or myocardial infarction was not significantly different between groups (18.2% in the stent group vs. 14.9% in the surgical group; p = 0.14; RR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.58). The incidence of repeat revascularization was significantly higher in the stent group (30.3%) than in the CABG group (8.8%; p < 0.001; RR, 3.46; 95% CI, 2.61 to 4.60). The composite event-free survival rate was 58.3% in the stent group and 78.2% in the CABG group (p < 0.0001; RR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.60 to 2.28). CONCLUSIONS: At five years there was no difference in mortality between stenting and surgery for multivessel disease. Furthermore, the incidence of stroke or myocardial infarction was not significantly different between the two groups. However, overall MACCE was higher in the stent group, driven by the increased need for repeat revascularization.

Relationship of late loss in lumen diameter to coronary restenosis in sirolimus-eluting stents.

BACKGROUND: Observed rates of restenosis after drug-eluting stenting are low (<10%). Identification of a reliable and powerful angiographic end point will be useful in future trials. METHODS AND RESULTS: Late loss (postprocedural minimum lumen diameter minus 8-month minimum lumen diameter) was measured in the angiographic cohorts of the SIRIUS (n=703) and E-SIRIUS (n=308) trials. Two techniques, the standard normal approximation and an optimized power transformation, were used to predict binary angiographic restenosis rates and compare them with observed restenosis rates. The mean in-stent late loss observed in the SIRIUS trial was 0.17+/-0.45 mm (sirolimus) versus 1.00+/-0.70 mm (control). If a normal distribution was assumed, late loss accurately estimated in-stent binary angiographic restenosis for the control arm (predicted 35.4% versus observed 35.4%) but underestimated it in the sirolimus arm (predicted 0.6% versus observed 3.2%). Power transformation improved the reliability of the estimate in the sirolimus arm (predicted 3.2% [CI 1.0% to 6.7%]) with similar improvements in the E-SIRIUS trial (predicted 4.0% [CI 1.2% to 7.0%] versus observed 3.9%). In the sirolimus-eluting stent arm, in-stent late loss correlated better with target-lesion revascularization than in-segment late loss (c-statistic=0.915 versus 0.665). CONCLUSIONS: Because distributions of late loss with a low mean are right-skewed, the use of a transformation improves the accuracy of predicting low binary restenosis rates. Late loss is monotonically correlated with the probability of restenosis and yields a more efficient estimate of the restenosis process in the era of lower binary restenosis rates.

Protected carotid-artery stenting versus endarterectomy in high-risk patients.

BACKGROUND: Carotid endarterectomy is more effective than medical management in the prevention of stroke in patients with severe symptomatic or asymptomatic atherosclerotic carotid-artery stenosis. Stenting with the use of an emboli-protection device is a less invasive revascularization strategy than endarterectomy in carotid-artery disease. METHODS: We conducted a randomized trial comparing carotid-artery stenting with the use of an emboli-protection device to endarterectomy in 334 patients with coexisting conditions that potentially increased the risk posed by endarterectomy and who had either a symptomatic carotid-artery stenosis of at least 50 percent of the luminal diameter or an asymptomatic stenosis of at least 80 percent. The primary end point of the study was the cumulative incidence of a major cardiovascular event at 1 year--a composite of death, stroke, or myocardial infarction within 30 days after the intervention or death or ipsilateral stroke between 31 days and 1 year. The study was designed to test the hypothesis that the less invasive strategy, stenting, was not inferior to endarterectomy. RESULTS: The primary end point occurred in 20 patients randomly assigned to undergo carotid-artery stenting with an emboli-protection device (cumulative incidence, 12.2 percent) and in 32 patients randomly assigned to undergo endarterectomy (cumulative incidence, 20.1 percent; absolute difference, -7.9 percentage points; 95 percent confidence interval, -16.4 to 0.7 percentage points; P=0.004 for noninferiority, and P=0.053 for superiority). At one year, carotid revascularization was repeated in fewer patients who had received stents than in those who had undergone endarterectomy (cumulative incidence, 0.6 percent vs. 4.3 percent; P=0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with severe carotid-artery stenosis and coexisting conditions, carotid stenting with the use of an emboli-protection device is not inferior to carotid endarterectomy.

Drug-eluting stent task force: final report and recommendations of the working committees on cost-effectiveness/economics, access to care, and medicolegal issues.

Coronary artery disease remains a major health problem worldwide. Since introduction of percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty and stents, much progress has been made. Percutaneous coronary intervention, however, has been limited by restenosis (repeat obstruction of arteries that have been previously treated. Introduction of drug-eluting stents (DESs) in April 2003 was a major breakthrough in preventing restenosis. In March 2003, The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) published a position statement on the clinical implications of DESs, recommending an evidence-based adoption strategy. Subsequently, in May 2003, SCAI formed a multidisciplinary Drug Eluting Stent (DES) Task Force to address the significant nonclinical ramifications posed by DESs: medicolegal, financial, and access to care. The Task Force included representatives from physician societies, industry, academia, the reimbursement community, and health policy organizations. The resultant report presents analyses, options, and recommendations regarding those nonclinical issues based on the collective experience and knowledge of the Task Force members. The Task Force trusts that this report will be of value to the diverse constituencies involved with introduction of this important new technology.

Paradigm shifts in cardiovascular medicine.

Cardiovascular medicine is changing rapidly with the development, testing, and introduction of new diagnostic and therapeutic methods. New interventional techniques such as the use of drug-eluting stents have important implications for the care of individual patients and the delivery and economics of health care in general. Drug-eluting stents have been shown to improve outcomes among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention by significantly reducing restenosis rates. Two randomized trials have documented that per 100 patients treated with the sirolimus drug-eluting stent, 12.5 to 13.6 patients avoided the need for subsequent target lesion revascularization, when compared with patients treated with conventional stents. The economic effect of the introduction of these stents, which are projected to be two to three times as expensive as conventional stents, is complex and depends on which segment of health care is considered. These stents will be favorably received by patients, physicians, employers, and society as well as payers. However, hospitals may be adversely affected by having increased procedural costs for the stents, along with fewer procedures for evaluation and treatment of restenosis and probably decreased surgical volumes. Drug-eluting stents are only the first of many new technologic advances that will affect cardiovascular care. These procedures have many features in common, including: 1). replacement of major surgical procedures with less invasive approaches; and 2). redistribution of costs, with a decrease in hospital profits but potentially lower costs of health care delivery for society as a whole.

Conflict of interest.

The clinical research enterprise is increasingly scrutinized, in part because of the issue of conflict of interest. The issue is broad and its implications touch on a wide range of concerns, from the safety of patient care to the viability of a large industry. Numerous constituencies are affected by conflict of interest, and representatives of all of them convened in November 2002 for a one-and-a-half day discussion of the issues as well as possible solutions to both the perception and the actuality of such conflict. Participants included medical journal editors, news reporters, physician investigators, representatives of institutional conflict-of-interest oversight committees, representatives of the medical products industry, and Federal regulators. The resulting manuscript provides a review of the issues as well as desirable ways for each of the players to monitor themselves; each section thus contains provocative recommendations for eliminating conflict of interest to ensure that our vibrant health care system continues to foster exciting new advances to improve patient care.