International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches (ISCHEMIA) trial: Rationale and design.

BACKGROUND: Prior trials comparing a strategy of optimal medical therapy with or without revascularization have not shown that revascularization reduces cardiovascular events in patients with stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD). However, those trials only included participants in whom coronary anatomy was known prior to randomization and did not include sufficient numbers of participants with significant ischemia. It remains unknown whether a routine invasive approach offers incremental value over a conservative approach with catheterization reserved for failure of medical therapy in patients with moderate or severe ischemia. METHODS: The ISCHEMIA trial is a National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute supported trial, designed to compare an initial invasive or conservative treatment strategy for managing SIHD patients with moderate or severe ischemia on stress testing. Five thousand one-hundred seventy-nine participants have been randomized. Key exclusion criteria included estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <30 mL/min, recent myocardial infarction (MI), left ventricular ejection fraction <35%, left main stenosis >50%, or unacceptable angina at baseline. Most enrolled participants with normal renal function first underwent blinded coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) to exclude those with left main coronary artery disease (CAD) and without obstructive CAD. All randomized participants receive secondary prevention that includes lifestyle advice and pharmacologic interventions referred to as optimal medical therapy (OMT). Participants randomized to the invasive strategy underwent routine cardiac catheterization followed by revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery, when feasible, as selected by the local Heart Team to achieve optimal revascularization. Participants randomized to the conservative strategy undergo cardiac catheterization only for failure of OMT. The primary endpoint is a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), hospitalization for unstable angina, hospitalization for heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. Assuming the primary endpoint will occur in 16% of the conservative group within 4 years, estimated power exceeds 80% to detect an 18.5% reduction in the primary endpoint. Major secondary endpoints include the composite of CV death and nonfatal MI, net clinical benefit (primary and secondary endpoints combined with stroke), angina-related symptoms and disease-specific quality of life, as well as a cost-effectiveness assessment in North American participants. Ancillary studies of patients with advanced chronic kidney disease and those with documented ischemia and non-obstructive coronary artery disease are being conducted concurrently. CONCLUSIONS: ISCHEMIA will provide new scientific evidence regarding whether an invasive management strategy improves clinical outcomes when added to optimal medical therapy in patients with SIHD and moderate or severe ischemia.

Comparison of drug-eluting and bare metal stents in large coronary arteries: findings from the NHLBI dynamic registry.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of drug-eluting stents (DES) compared to bare-metal stents (BMS) for patients with large coronary vessels. BACKGROUND: Randomized trials have demonstrated that DES reduce the risk of target vessel revascularization (TVR) compared to BMS. This benefit is less pronounced as artery diameter increases. Whether DES are superior to BMS for larger coronary arteries in the setting of routine clinical practice is unknown. METHODS: We analyzed data from 869 patients undergoing de novo lesion PCI with reference vessel diameter greater than or equal to 3.5 mm in the NHLBI Dynamic Registry according to whether they were treated with DES or BMS. Patients were followed for 3 years for the occurrence of cardiovascular events. RESULTS: At 3-year follow-up, rates of TVR at 3 years were similar and low in both groups (4.4% vs. 3.7%, P = 0.62). After adjustment for differences in baseline characteristics, the adjusted hazard ratio for 3-year MI for DES was 1.85 (95% CI 0.93-3.7, P = 0.08), for TVR at 3 years 1.14 (95% CI 0.52-2.49, P = 0.75) and for mortality 0.89 (95%CI 0.49-1.62, P = 0.71). CONCLUSIONS: In our study of the unrestricted use of DES for patients with lesions in larger diameter coronary arteries, first generation DES did not reduce 3-year risk of TVR. Our findings do not support the preferred use of DES over BMS for patients with lesions located in arteries >3.5 mm. It is unknown whether secondary generation DES can offer better outcome compared to BMS in large coronary vessels. Further study on this issue is warranted.

Liberal versus restrictive transfusion thresholds for patients with symptomatic coronary artery disease.

BACKGROUND: Prior trials suggest it is safe to defer transfusion at hemoglobin levels above 7 to 8 g/dL in most patients. Patients with acute coronary syndrome may benefit from higher hemoglobin levels. METHODS: We performed a pilot trial in 110 patients with acute coronary syndrome or stable angina undergoing cardiac catheterization and a hemoglobin <10 g/dL. Patients in the liberal transfusion strategy received one or more units of blood to raise the hemoglobin level ≥10 g/dL. Patients in the restrictive transfusion strategy were permitted to receive blood for symptoms from anemia or for a hemoglobin <8 g/dL. The predefined primary outcome was the composite of death, myocardial infarction, or unscheduled revascularization 30 days post randomization. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar between groups except age (liberal, 67.3; restrictive, 74.3). The mean number of units transfused was 1.6 in the liberal group and 0.6 in the restrictive group. The primary outcome occurred in 6 patients (10.9%) in the liberal group and 14 (25.5%) in the restrictive group (risk difference = 15.0%; 95% confidence interval of difference 0.7% to 29.3%; P = .054 and adjusted for age P = .076). Death at 30 days was less frequent in liberal group (n = 1, 1.8%) compared to restrictive group (n = 7, 13.0%; P = .032). CONCLUSIONS: The liberal transfusion strategy was associated with a trend for fewer major cardiac events and deaths than a more restrictive strategy. These results support the feasibility of and the need for a definitive trial.

A randomized, controlled, multicenter trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of Zotarolimus- vs. Paclitaxel-eluting stents in de novo occlusive lesions in coronary arteries: five-year results from the ZOMAXX I trial.

BACKGROUND: The ZOMAXX I trial tested the noninferiority of a zotarolimus-eluting coronary stent (ZoMaxx(™) ) when compared with a paclitaxel-eluting coronary stent (Taxus(™) Express(2™) ) in a randomized trial of percutaneous intervention for de novo coronary artery stenosis. Angiographic analysis at the primary endpoint of 9 months has been reported previously. The purpose of this follow-on analysis was to describe the clinical results of the ZoMaxx and Taxus cohorts of the ZOMAXX I trial after 5 years. METHODS AND RESULTS: In the ZOMAXX I trial, 199 patients received a ZoMaxx stent and 197 patients received a Taxus stent at 29 investigative sites in Europe, Australia, and New Zealand. The two groups were generally well matched with respect to both clinical and lesional characteristics, including the incidence of diabetes (ZoMaxx 22% vs. Taxus 26%; P = 0.29), reference vessel diameter (ZoMaxx 2.79 ± 0.43 mm vs. Taxus 2.81 ± 0.46 mm; P = 0.65), and lesion length (ZoMaxx 14.9 ± 5.7 mm vs. Taxus 14.6 ± 5.5; P = 0.61). Through 5 years of follow-up, a total of 21 patients had died, six patients had withdrawn, nine had been lost to follow-up, and 13 missed their 5-year visit, leaving a total of 347 patients for analysis (169 ZoMaxx and 178 Taxus). At the 5-year time point, there were no significant differences in any clinical metric including ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (TLR; ZoMaxx 10.6% vs. Taxus 7.1%; P = 0.29), Q-wave myocardial infarction (ZoMaxx 1.5% vs. Taxus 1.0%; P = 0.99), definite/probable stent thrombosis (ZoMaxx 1.5% vs. Taxus 3.0%; P = 0.34), and cardiac death (ZoMaxx 3.0% vs. Taxus 1.0%; P = 0.28). CONCLUSIONS: After 5 years, the differences in clinical outcome between patients treated with ZoMaxx vs. Taxus stents did not reach statistical significance. However, the nominally higher rate of ischemia-driven TLR (10.6 vs. 7.1%) and the previously reported higher rate of restenosis after 9 months suggest that the ZoMaxx stent afforded less neointimal inhibition when compared with Taxus. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Direct stenting compared to balloon predilation in drug-eluting stents: one-year outcomes from the DEScover Registry.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to examine the determinants and outcomes of direct stenting (DS) compared to predilation with drug-eluting stents (DES). BACKGROUND: Limited data suggest that DS with DES is feasible and may reduce restenosis compared to predilation. Whether DS improves clinical outcomes in unselected patients treated with DES is unknown. METHODS: DEScover is a prospective, multicenter, observational study of percutaneous coronary intervention that enrolled patients in 2005. The analysis cohort included 4,210 patients who received a DES and had a single lesion treated with DS (n = 1,651) or predilation (n = 2,559) at the discretion of the operator. Multivariable analysis was performed for 1-year outcomes. RESULTS: DS was performed in 39.2% of patients. The direct stent patients were younger, less often male, and had a lesser extent of CAD. DS was performed less often in patients presenting with an acute myocardial infarction (MI) and more often in stable angina and elective procedures. Lesion characteristics differed with DS performed less often for calcified lesions, high-grade stenoses (>90%), and bifurcation lesions. Lesion postdilation was less common in direct stent patients (42.1% vs. 50.7%, P = 0.0001). Complete procedural success was similar (99.8% vs. predilation 99.7%, P = 0.46). At 1 year, there was no difference in the adjusted hazard ratios of death (0.67, 0.44-1.04, P = 0.08), MI (1.05, 0.66-1.67, P = 0.83), stent thrombosis (0.38, 0.13-1.14, P = 0.08), TLR (0.75, 0.48-1.17, P = 0.21), TVR (0.89, 0.64-1.23, P = 0.47), and major adverse coronary event (0.88, 0.71-1.09, P = 0.24). CONCLUSIONS: DS with DES is commonly performed in clinical practice and results in similar long-term outcomes as predilation.

Revascularization for left main and multivessel coronary artery disease in the drug-eluting stent era: integration of recent drug-eluting stent trials.

As older patients comprise a greater proportion of the population, the incidence of multivessel and left main coronary artery disease is increasing. Given the improvements in percutaneous coronary intervention, more patients are suitable for this revascularization strategy. However, the optimal revascularization strategy remains a moving target. Numerous trials, extending from the bypass surgery versus medical therapy era to the most current drug-eluting stent versus bypass surgery era, provide information to select the most appropriate revascularization strategy. The objective of this review is to summarize these data.

Clinical and Quality-of-Life Outcomes Following Invasive vs Conservative Treatment of Patients With Chronic Coronary Disease Across the Spectrum of Kidney Function.

Importance: Prior trials of invasive vs conservative management of chronic coronary disease (CCD) have not enrolled patients with severe chronic kidney disease (CKD). As such, outcomes across kidney function are not well characterized. Objectives: To evaluate clinical and quality-of-life (QoL) outcomes across the spectrum of CKD following conservative and invasive treatment strategies. Design, Setting, and Participants: Participants from the International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches (ISCHEMIA) and ISCHEMIA-Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) trials were categorized by CKD stage: stage 1 (estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR] 90 mL/min/1.73m2 or greater), stage 2 (eGFR 60-89 mL/min/1.73m2), stage 3 (eGFR 30-59 mL/min/1.73m2), stage 4 (eGFR 15-29 mL/min/1.73m2), or stage 5 (eGFR less than 15 mL/min/1.73m2 or receiving dialysis). Enrollment took place from July 26, 2012, through January 31, 2018, with a median follow-up of 3.1 years. Data were analyzed from January 2020 to May 2021. Interventions: Initial invasive management of coronary angiography and revascularization with guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) vs initial conservative management of GDMT alone. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary clinical outcome was a composite of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI). The primary QoL outcome was the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) summary score. Results: Among the 5956 participants included in this analysis (mean [SD] age, 64 [10] years; 1410 [24%] female and 4546 [76%] male), 1889 (32%), 2551 (43%), 738 (12%), 311 (5%), and 467 (8%) were in CKD stages 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, respectively. By self-report, 18 participants (<1%) were American Indian or Alaska Native; 1676 (29%), Asian; 267 (5%), Black; 861 (16%), Hispanic or Latino; 18 (<1%), Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander; 3884 (66%), White; and 13 (<1%), multiple races or ethnicities. There was a monotonic increase in risk of the primary composite end point (3-year rates, 9.52%, 10.72%, 18.42%, 34.21%, and 38.01% respectively), death, cardiovascular death, MI, and stroke in individuals with higher CKD stages. Invasive management was associated with an increase in stroke (3-year event rate difference, 1%; 95% CI, 0.3 to 1.7) and procedural MI (1.6%; 95% CI, 0.9 to 2.3) and a decrease in spontaneous MI (-2.5%; 95% CI, -3.9 to -1.1) with no difference in other outcomes; the effect was similar across CKD stages. There was heterogeneity of treatment effect for QoL outcomes such that invasive management was associated with an improvement in angina-related QoL in individuals with CKD stages 1 to 3 and not in those with CKD stages 4 to 5. Conclusions and Relevance: Among participants with CCD, event rates were inversely proportional to kidney function. Invasive management was associated with an increase in stroke and procedural MI and a reduced risk in spontaneous MI, and the effect was similar across CKD stages with no difference in other outcomes, including death. The benefit for QoL with invasive management was not observed in individuals with poorer kidney function.

A comparison of bare-metal and drug-eluting stents for off-label indications.

BACKGROUND: Recent reports suggest that off-label use of drug-eluting stents is associated with an increased incidence of adverse events. Whether the use of bare-metal stents would yield different results is unknown. METHODS: We analyzed data from 6551 patients in the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Dynamic Registry according to whether they were treated with drug-eluting stents or bare-metal stents and whether use was standard or off-label. Patients were followed for 1 year for the occurrence of cardiovascular events and death. Off-label use was defined as use in restenotic lesions, lesions in a bypass graft, left main coronary artery disease, or ostial, bifurcated, or totally occluded lesions, as well as use in patients with a reference-vessel diameter of less than 2.5 mm or greater than 3.75 mm or a lesion length of more than 30 mm. RESULTS: Off-label use occurred in 54.7% of all patients with bare-metal stents and 48.7% of patients with drug-eluting stents. As compared with patients with bare-metal stents, patients with drug-eluting stents had a higher prevalence of diabetes, hypertension, renal disease, previous percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary-artery bypass grafting, and multivessel coronary artery disease. One year after intervention, however, there were no significant differences in the adjusted risk of death or myocardial infarction in patients with drug-eluting stents as compared with those with bare-metal stents, whereas the risk of repeat revascularization was significantly lower among patients with drug-eluting stents. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with off-label indications, the use of drug-eluting stents was not associated with an increased risk of death or myocardial infarction but was associated with a lower rate of repeat revascularization at 1 year, as compared with bare-metal stents. These findings support the use of drug-eluting stents for off-label indications.

Percutaneous coronary intervention of moderate to severe calcified coronary lesions: insights from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Dynamic Registry.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of drug eluting stents (DES) when compared with bare metal stents (BMS) in patients with moderate to severe calcified coronary lesions. BACKGROUND: Calcified coronary lesions present unique technical challenges during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and it is not known if DES are as safe and as effective in the presence of calcium, as randomized trials typically exclude this common patient subset. METHODS: We evaluated patients with PCI of a single calcified lesion enrolled across five recruitment waves in the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Dynamic Registry between 1997 and 2006. Patients were divided into two groups based on the stent type- BMS and DES. The primary efficacy outcome was the need for repeat revascularization at 1 year and the primary safety outcome was a composite of death and myocardial infarction at 1 year. RESULTS: Among the 1,537 patients included in the analysis, 884 (57%) underwent PCI with BMS and 653 (43%) with DES. DES use was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of repeat revascularization (10.0% vs. 15.3%; P = 0.003) with no significant higher risk of primary safety outcome (9.3% vs. 10.5%; P = 0.45) when compared to the BMS group. In a propensity score adjusted analysis, DES use was associated with a significantly lower risk in repeat revascularization (HR = 0.57; 95% CI 0.40-0.82; P = 0.002) and no significant difference in the risk of death and myocardial infarction (HR = 0.78; 95% CI 0.53-1.15; P = 0.20) compared to BMS group. CONCLUSION: In this large multicenter registry of patients with a moderate to severe calcified coronary lesion, use of DES compared to BMS was associated with significant reduction in the risk of repeat revascularization without any increase in death and myocardial infarction.

Association of an INSIG2 obesity allele with cardiovascular phenotypes is gender and age dependent.

BACKGROUND: The INSIG2 gene has been implicated in cholesterol metabolism and a single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) near INSIG2 has been shown to be associated with obesity. We sought to determine the relationship of the INSIG2 SNP to cardiovascular disease (CVD) related phenotypes. METHODS AND RESULTS: Nine hundred forty six patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in wave 5 of the multicenter NHLBI Dynamic Registry were genotyped using RT-PCR/TaqMan/allelic discrimination for the rs7566605 SNP near the INSIG2 gene. Clinical variables analyzed include demographics, medical history, and procedural details. The prevalence of peripheral vascular disease (PVD) was significantly higher in older men (≥65 years) who were either homozygous or carriers of the obesity/lipid risk allele ("C") compared to non-carriers (odds ratio 3.4, p = 0.013) using a logistic regression model incorporating history of hypercholesterolemia, history of hypertension, cerebrovascular disease, history of diabetes, and BMI. A similar relationship with cerebrovascular disease was found in older (>65) women (odds ratio 3.4, p = 0.013). The INSIG2 SNP was not associated with BMI, nor with other clinical variables. CONCLUSION: Age and gender may influence the association of the INSIG2 obesity SNP with PVD and cerebrovascular disease in patients with pre-existing CVD.

Beneficial effects of statins after percutaneous coronary intervention.

BACKGROUND: Evidence about the efficacy of statin treatment among patients after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is very limited. The rapid advancement in PCI technology and near universal use of adjunctive cardioprotective medications make it necessary to formally assess the effect of statin therapy on cardiac events after PCI. DESIGN: This was a multicenter prospective cohort study. METHODS: Patients who received stent implantation and survived to hospital discharge from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Dynamic Registry from 2004 to 2006 formed the study cohort. Patients with cardiogenic shock, in-hospital adverse events [including myocardial infarction and coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG)], liver disease, renal disease, alcoholism, or drug abuse were excluded. The occurrences of death, CABG, and repeat PCI, and repeat revascularization were collected over 1-year follow-up. RESULTS: Of the 3227 patients evaluated, 2737 (85%) were prescribed a statin at discharge. By 1-year follow-up, incident events were 98 deaths, 44 CABG, 290 repeat PCI procedures, and 328 repeat revascularizations. After propensity score adjustment, postdischarge statin therapy was associated with lower risks of death [hazard ratio (HR): 0.58, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.36-0.93, P = 0.02], CABG (HR: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.24-1.00, P = 0.05), and repeat revascularization (HR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.56-1.00, P = 0.05). CONCLUSION: These results support the routine use of statin therapy after PCI.

Postmarket evaluation of breakthrough technologies.

Cardiovascular procedures performed in the United States have more than tripled in the last decade, a trend that is expected to continue with the aging of the population, coupled with epidemics of obesity and diabetes mellitus. Helping to drive this increase are new medical devices that address conditions previously treated by medication alone. Many of these novel devices receive expedited reviews before Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval and are rapidly adopted into clinical practice. However, recent high-profile cases involving potentially dangerous defects in widely used medical devices have increased concerns about the adequacy of premarket trials and postmarket surveillance in establishing the safety of these devices. In response to these concerns, the American College of Cardiology and the Duke Clinical Research Institute sponsored a "think tank" of experts representing the industry, regulatory authorities, academic medicine, and professional societies to examine these concerns and propose possible solutions. This group examined case studies including drug-eluting stents and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators. Challenges inherent in the current system, including the difficulty of establishing accurate event rates for medical devices and potential disincentives for the industry to conduct comprehensive monitoring, were discussed. Possible solutions to these problems included improving and enforcing current regulations, considering creative study design strategies that link pre- and postmarket data, declaring postmarket surveillance a public health issue, creating financial incentives for participation in postmarketing studies, using more relevant animal models, encouraging postmortem device retrieval, and aligning professional societies with the FDA to evaluate breakthrough technologies and communicate findings to patients and clinicians.

Outcomes of 6906 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention in the era of drug-eluting stents: report of the DEScover Registry.

BACKGROUND: The DEScover Registry was designed to characterize patients selected for drug-eluting stents (DES) in routine clinical practice and their outcomes in the United States. METHODS AND RESULTS: From January to June 2005, data were collected on 6906 patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention at 140 medical centers. Baseline characteristics and outcomes were compared on the basis of treatment with > or =1 bare-metal (BMS; n=397), sirolimus-eluting (SES; n=3873), or paclitaxel-eluting (PES; n=2636) stent. Clinical characteristics and the types of lesion treated for BMS patients differed substantially from those treated with DES, but minimal differences were noted between DES patients receiving SES or PES. At 1 year, the unadjusted cumulative incidence of death/myocardial infarction was higher in BMS than in DES patients (9.0% versus 5.2%; P=0.002) but similar in SES and PES patients (5.2% versus 5.3%; P=0.64). After adjustment, risk of death/MI was not significantly lower in DES- compared with BMS-treated patients (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval, 0.52 to 1.07). Although target vessel revascularization occurred less often in DES patients (9.5% versus 6.0%; P=0.007), rates were similar between SES and PES patients (6.3% versus 5.5%; P=0.20). Rates of stent thrombosis were similar among BMS (0.8%), SES (0.5%), and PES (0.8%) patients. CONCLUSIONS: In DEScover, differences in patient selection were observed between BMS and DES patients but not between SES and PES patients. DES use resulted in lower rates of clinically driven repeat revascularization with similar rates of stent thrombosis. These observations confirm the effectiveness and safety of both SES and PES in unselected patients.

Sirolimus-eluting stents versus standard stents in patients with stenosis in a native coronary artery.

BACKGROUND: Preliminary reports of studies involving simple coronary lesions indicate that a sirolimus-eluting stent significantly reduces the risk of restenosis after percutaneous coronary revascularization. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind trial comparing a sirolimus-eluting stent with a standard stent in 1058 patients at 53 centers in the United States who had a newly diagnosed lesion in a native coronary artery. The coronary disease in these patients was complex because of the frequent presence of diabetes (in 26 percent of patients), the high percentage of patients with longer lesions (mean, 14.4 mm), and small vessels (mean, 2.80 mm). The primary end point was failure of the target vessel (a composite of death from cardiac causes, myocardial infarction, and repeated percutaneous or surgical revascularization of the target vessel) within 270 days. RESULTS: The rate of failure of the target vessel was reduced from 21.0 percent with a standard stent to 8.6 percent with a sirolimus-eluting stent (P<0.001)--a reduction that was driven largely by a decrease in the frequency of the need for revascularization of the target lesion (16.6 percent in the standard-stent group vs. 4.1 percent in the sirolimus-stent group, P<0.001). The frequency of neointimal hyperplasia within the stent was also decreased in the group that received sirolimus-eluting stents, as assessed by both angiography and intravascular ultrasonography. Subgroup analyses revealed a reduction in the rates of angiographic restenosis and target-lesion revascularization in all subgroups examined. CONCLUSIONS: In this randomized clinical trial involving patients with complex coronary lesions, the use of a sirolimus-eluting stent had a consistent treatment effect, reducing the rates of restenosis and associated clinical events in all subgroups analyzed.

Comparison of outcome in patients with ST-elevation versus non-ST-elevation acute myocardial infarction treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Dynamic Registry).

Patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non-STEMI (NSTEMI) are increasingly being treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and we sought to determine risk of adverse outcomes by type of MI. Patients enrolled in the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Dynamic Registry from 1999 to 2004 who presented with an acute MI as an indication for PCI were studied. Baseline data and in-hospital and 1-year outcomes were compared based on ST-segment elevation (STEMI, n = 903; NSTEMI, n = 583) at presentation. Patients with STEMI were younger, had fewer co-morbidities, and had less extensive coronary artery disease than did patients with NSTEMI. Angiographic success and periprocedural complications were similar by MI type. In-hospital coronary artery bypass grafting, stroke, bleeding and recurrent MI were similar but mortality was higher in patients with STEMI (4.0% vs 1.4%, p = 0.004). Cardiogenic shock was associated with the greatest risk of in-hospital death (odds ratio 26.7, 95% confidence interval 11.4 to 62.3, p = 0.0001), but STEMI was also independently predictive of mortality. At 1 year, there was no influence of MI type on outcome. Age, cardiogenic shock, renal disease, peripheral vascular disease, and cancer were predictive of death and MI. Multivessel disease and a larger number of >50% lesions were associated with the need for repeat revascularization. In conclusion, STEMI was associated with a higher likelihood of in-hospital death than was NSTEMI, but long-term outcomes after PCI were independent of MI type. At 1 year, associated co-morbidities were strongly associated with death and MI, whereas only angiographic characteristics predicted the need for repeat revascularization.

Gender-based outcomes in percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents (from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Dynamic Registry).

Gender-based outcomes have not been evaluated in unselected patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DESs). We investigated whether gender influences the relative safety and efficacy of DESs compared with bare metal stents (BMSs) in routine clinical practice. Using the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Dynamic Registry, in-hospital and 1-year outcomes were stratified by gender in patients who received > or =1 DES (486 women, 974 men) or BMS (631 women, 1,132 men). There were significant baseline differences by gender, including older age and a higher prevalence of co-morbidities in women and more previous coronary artery disease in men. There were no gender-related differences in in-hospital myocardial infarction, coronary artery bypass grafting, and death in those treated with BMSs or DESs. Antiplatelet use and stent thrombosis (1.3% of women vs 1.2% of men, p = 0.85) were similar at 1 year with DESs. At 1 year, patients with DESs had a lower rate of repeat PCI (14.1% in women vs 9.5%, p = 0.02; 12.0% in men vs 8.8%, p = 0.02). Adjusted 1-year outcomes in patients with BMSs and DESs, including death and myocardial infarction, were independent of gender. Use of DESs was the only factor, other than age, that conferred a lower risk for the need for repeat PCI in women (relative risk 0.61, 95% confidence interval 0.41 to 0.89, p = 0.01) and men (relative risk 0.68, 95% confidence interval 0.51 to 0.91, p = 0.001). In conclusion, the widespread use of DESs is safe and has decreased clinically driven revascularization compared with BMSs equally in women and men.

Outcomes and complications associated with off-label and untested use of drug-eluting stents.

CONTEXT: Limited data exist regarding use of drug-eluting stents outside of approved indications in real-world settings. OBJECTIVES: To determine the frequency, safety, and effectiveness of drug-eluting stents for off-label (restenosis, bypass graft lesion, long lesions, vessel size outside of information for use recommendation) and untested (left main, ostial, bifurcation, or total occlusion lesions) indications in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Observational, prospective, multicenter registry to evaluate in-hospital, 30-day, and 1-year outcomes among patients undergoing PCI between January and June 2005 in 140 US academic and community medical centers. Of 7752 PCI-treated patients, 6993 (90%) received drug-eluting stents; of these, 5851 (84%) received no other devices. Standard, off-label, and untested use was determined in 5541 (95%) of these 5851 patients, constituting the study cohort. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Frequency of off-label and untested use, 1-year repeat target vessel revascularization, and composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stent thrombosis at in-hospital follow-up and during 1 year of follow-up. RESULTS: Of 5541 patients receiving drug-eluting stents, 2588 (47%) received stents for off-label or untested indications. Adjusted in-hospital risk of death, MI, or stent thrombosis was not statistically different with off-label or untested vs standard use. At 30 days, the risk of this composite end point was significantly higher with off-label use (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 2.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.24-3.48; P = .005) but not untested use (adjusted HR, 1.45; 95% CI, 0.79-2.67; P = .23). Excluding early events, this end point was not different at 1 year with off-label use (adjusted HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.79-1.54; P = .57) or untested use (adjusted HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.60-1.38; P = .66). At 1 year, compared with standard use, significantly higher rates of target vessel revascularization were associated with off-label use (adjusted HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.13-1.98; P = .005) and untested use (adjusted HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.10-2.02; P = .01), although absolute rates were low (standard, 4.4% [n = 113]; off-label, 7.6% [n = 95]; untested, 6.7% [n = 72]). CONCLUSIONS: In contemporary US practice, off-label and untested use of drug-eluting stents is common. Compared with standard use, relative early safety is lower with off-label use, and the long-term effectiveness is lower with both off-label and untested use. However, the absolute event rates remain low.