γ-Glutamyl Transferase and Long-Term Survival in the SYNTAXES Trial: Is It Just the Liver?

BACKGROUND: Recently, machine learning algorithms have identified preprocedural γ-glutamyl transferase (GGT) as a significant predictor of long-term mortality after coronary revascularization in the SYNTAX (Synergy Between PCI [Percutaneous Coronary Intervention] With Taxus and Cardiac Surgery) trial. The aim of the present study is to investigate the impact of preprocedural GGT on 10-year all-cause mortality in patients with complex coronary artery disease after revascularization. METHODS AND RESULTS: The SYNTAX trial was a randomized trial comparing PCI with coronary artery bypass grafting in 1800 patients with complex coronary artery disease. The present report is a post hoc subanalysis of the SYNTAXES (Synergy Between PCI With Taxus and Cardiac Surgery Extended Survival) trial, an investigator-driven extended 10-year follow-up of the SYNTAX trial. The association between preprocedural GGT and 10-year all-cause mortality was investigated. The mean values of GGT for men and women were 43.5 (SD, 48.5) and 36.4 (SD, 46.1) U/L, respectively. In multivariable Cox regression models adjusted by traditional risk factors, GGT was an independent predictor for all-cause death at 10-year follow-up, and each SD increase in log-GGT was associated with a 1.24-fold risk of all cause death at 10-year follow-up (95% CI, 1.10-1.40). According to previously reported sex-related GGT thresholds, patients with higher GGT level had a 1.74-fold risk of all-cause death at 10-year follow-up (95% CI, 1.32-2.29) compared with patients with lower GGT level. CONCLUSIONS: Preprocedural GGT is an independent predictor of 10-year mortality after coronary revascularization in patients with complex coronary artery disease. In patients with elevated GGT, strong secondary prevention may be required after revascularization and must be studied prospectively. REGISTRATION: URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03417050.

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.

Impact of Incomplete Revascularization After PCI in Left Main Disease: The EXCEL Trial.

BACKGROUND: The importance of complete revascularization after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with left main coronary artery disease is uncertain. We investigated the clinical impact of complete revascularization in patients with left main coronary artery disease undergoing PCI in the EXCEL trial (Evaluation of XIENCE Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization). METHODS: Composite rates of death or myocardial infarction (MI) following PCI during 5-year follow-up were examined in 903 patients based on core laboratory definitions of anatomic and functional complete revascularization, residual SYNTAX score (The Synergy Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Taxus and Cardiac Surgery), and residual Jeopardy Score (rJS). RESULTS: The risk of death or MI did not vary based on anatomic, functional, or residual SYNTAX score complete revascularization but did differ according to the rJS (5-year rates 17.6%, 19.5%, and 38.9% with rJS 0, 2, and ≥4, respectively; P=0.006). The higher rate of death or MI with rJS≥4 versus rJS≤2 was driven conjointly by increased mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.29 [95% CI, 1.11-4.71]; P=0.02) and spontaneous MI (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.89 [95% CI, 1.17-7.17]; P=0.02). The most common location for untreated severe stenoses in the rJS≥4 group was the left circumflex artery (LCX), and the post-PCI absence, compared with the presence, of any untreated lesion with diameter stenosis ≥70% in the LCX was associated with reduced 5-year rates of death or MI (18.9% versus 35.2%; hazard ratio, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.32-0.74]; P<0.001). The risk was the highest for residual ostial/proximal LCX lesions. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing PCI in EXCEL trial, incomplete revascularization according to the rJS was associated with increased rates of death and spontaneous MI. Post-PCI untreated high-grade lesions in the LCX (especially the ostial/proximal LCX) drove these outcomes. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01205776.

Device innovation in cardiovascular medicine: a report from the European Society of Cardiology Cardiovascular Round Table.

Research performed in Europe has driven cardiovascular device innovation. This includes, but is not limited to, percutaneous coronary intervention, cardiac imaging, transcatheter heart valve implantation, and device therapy of cardiac arrhythmias and heart failure. An important part of future medical progress involves the evolution of medical technology and the ongoing development of artificial intelligence and machine learning. There is a need to foster an environment conducive to medical technology development and validation so that Europe can continue to play a major role in device innovation while providing high standards of safety. This paper summarizes viewpoints on the topic of device innovation in cardiovascular medicine at the European Society of Cardiology Cardiovascular Round Table, a strategic forum for high-level dialogue to discuss issues related to the future of cardiovascular health in Europe. Devices are developed and improved through an iterative process throughout their lifecycle. Early feasibility studies demonstrate proof of concept and help to optimize the design of a device. If successful, this should ideally be followed by randomized clinical trials comparing novel devices vs. accepted standards of care when available and the collection of post-market real-world evidence through registries. Unfortunately, standardized procedures for feasibility studies across various device categories have not yet been implemented in Europe. Cardiovascular imaging can be used to diagnose and characterize patients for interventions to improve procedural results and to monitor devices long term after implantation. Randomized clinical trials often use cardiac imaging-based inclusion criteria, while less frequently trials randomize patients to compare the diagnostic or prognostic value of different modalities. Applications using machine learning are increasingly important, but specific regulatory standards and pathways remain in development in both Europe and the USA. Standards are also needed for smart devices and digital technologies that support device-driven biomonitoring. Changes in device regulation introduced by the European Union aim to improve clinical evidence, transparency, and safety, but they may impact the speed of innovation, access, and availability. Device development programmes including dialogue on unmet needs and advice on study designs must be driven by a community of physicians, trialists, patients, regulators, payers, and industry to ensure that patients have access to innovative care.