Use of regadenoson for measurement of fractional flow reserve.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the use of regadenoson to adenosine for measurement of fractional flow reserve (FFR). BACKGROUND: FFR is an accepted method to assess the functional significance of intermediate coronary artery stenoses and uses adenosine to induce maximal hyperemia. The use of the selective A2a receptor agonist regadenoson for FFR is not established. METHODS: Fifty-seven patients undergoing clinically indicated FFR assessment of intermediate coronary stenoses were included. For the initial assessment of FFR, hyperemia was achieved by a standard intravenous adenosine infusion (140 mcg/kg/min). After a washout period of 10 min, FFR was reassessed using regadenoson as a single 0.4 mg intravenous bolus. FFR measurements were recorded at baseline and following maximal hyperemia with both agents. RESULTS: Mean age was 57 ± 8 years and 47 were male. Sixty coronary lesions were evaluated and were located in the left anterior descending in 34, the left circumflex in 9, right coronary in 15, and left main coronary artery in 2. Mean ( ± SD) FFR following adenosine and regadenoson was 0.79 ( ± 0.09) and 0.79 (±0.09), respectively, P = NS. Time to FFR nadir was shorter with regadenoson compared to adenosine, 36.6 ± 24 versus 66 ± 0.19 sec, P < 0.0001, respectively. No patients experienced any significant side effects related to regadenoson. CONCLUSIONS: Regadenoson is a viable alternative to intravenous adenosine for achieving maximal hyperemia during FFR assessment. Compared to adenosine, regadenoson has a similar hemodynamic response, achieves more rapid hyperemia, is easier to use, and has an excellent side-effect profile.

Percutaneous left ventricular support for high-risk PCI and cardiogenic shock: who gets what?

BACKGROUND: Temporary use of a percutaneous left ventricular assist device (PLVAD) may be beneficial in patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and those with cardiogenic shock (CS). METHODS: Seventy-four consecutive patients undergoing high-risk PCI and those with CS receiving intraaortic balloon pump (IABP), TandemHeart (TH), or Impella device (IMP) were enrolled. Patient undergoing high-risk PCI (n=57) and those treated for CS (n=17) were analyzed as separate cohorts. Patients undergoing IABP-assisted PCI were compared to those undergoing PLVAD (TH and IMP)-assisted PCI. The primary end point was in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular events, and the secondary end point was in-hospital vascular complications. RESULTS: For the high-risk PCI cohort (n=57), 22 received PLVAD and 35 received IABP. Patients receiving IABP were younger and less likely to have a prior myocardial infarction (MI) and less likely to be on dialysis compared to those receiving PLVAD support. Patients receiving PLVAD support had a higher baseline Syntax score, had a higher prevalence of unprotected left main disease, underwent treatment of more coronary lesions, received more coronary stents, and more likely received drug-eluting stents compared to those receiving IABP support. The primary and secondary end points were similar between both groups. For the CS cohort (n=17), 4 received PLVAD and 13 received IABP. Patients receiving PLVAD support were more likely to have a prior MI, had a lower ejection fraction, underwent treatment of more coronary lesions, and received more coronary stents compared to those receiving IABP support. The primary and secondary end points were similar between both groups. CONCLUSIONS: IABP compared with PLVAD use for high-risk PCI and CS is associated with significantly different baseline patient, clinical, procedural, and angiographic characteristics. In-hospital clinical outcome was similar between both groups in both the high-risk PCI and the CS cohorts. When physicians have access to each of these devices, short-term clinical outcome appears to be similar.

Guideline adherence after ST-segment elevation versus non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines recommend similar medical therapy for patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non-ST-segment elevation MI (NSTEMI). METHODS AND RESULTS: Using the Get with the Guidelines-Coronary Artery Disease registry (GWTG-CAD), we analyzed data including 72 352 patients (48 966, NSTEMI; 23 386, STEMI) from 237 US sites between May 1, 2006 and March 21, 2010. Performance and quality measures were compared between NSTEMI and STEMI patients. NSTEMI patients were older and had a higher rate of medical comorbidities compared with STEMI patients, including prior coronary artery disease (38.5% versus 24.7%; P<0.0001), heart failure (17.5% versus 6.2%; P<0.0001), hypertension (70.8% versus 59.1%; P<0.0001) and diabetes mellitus (34.9 versus 23.3%; P<0.0001). Adjusting for confounding variables, STEMI patients were more likely to receive aspirin within 24 hours 98.5% versus 97.1% (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.63; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.32-2.02), be discharged on aspirin 98.5% versus 97.3% (AOR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.19-1.49), ß-blockers 98.2% versus 96.9% (AOR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.35-1.63), or lipid-lowering medication for low-density lipoprotein level >100 mg/dL 96.8% versus 91.0% (AOR, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.61-2.13). STEMI patients were also more likely to receive ß-blockers within 24 hours of hospital arrival 93.9% versus 90.8% (AOR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.37-1.79) and the following discharge medications: angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blocking agents 85.3% versus 77.4% (AOR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.51-1.75), clopidogrel 85.6% versus 67.0% (AOR, 2.42; 95% CI, 2.23-2.61) or lipid-lowering medications 94.8% versus 88.0% (AOR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.56-1.86). CONCLUSIONS: Among hospitals participating in GWTG-CAD, adherence with guideline-based medical therapy was high for patients with both STEMI and NSTEMI. Yet, there is still room for further improvement, particularly in the care of NSTEMI patients.