Non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes with previous coronary artery bypass grafting: a meta-analysis of invasive vs. conservative management.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: A routine invasive strategy is recommended in the management of higher risk patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACSs). However, patients with previous coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery were excluded from key trials that informed these guidelines. Thus, the benefit of a routine invasive strategy is less certain in this specific subgroup. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted. A comprehensive search was performed of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Eligible studies were RCTs of routine invasive vs. a conservative or selective invasive strategy in patients presenting with NSTE-ACS that included patients with previous CABG. Summary data were collected from the authors of each trial if not previously published. Outcomes assessed were all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, myocardial infarction, and cardiac-related hospitalization. Using a random-effects model, risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. RESULTS: Summary data were obtained from 11 RCTs, including previously unpublished subgroup outcomes of nine trials, comprising 897 patients with previous CABG (477 routine invasive, 420 conservative/selective invasive) followed up for a weighted mean of 2.0 (range 0.5-10) years. A routine invasive strategy did not reduce all-cause mortality (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.97-1.29), cardiac mortality (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.70-1.58), myocardial infarction (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.65-1.23), or cardiac-related hospitalization (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.78-1.40). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first meta-analysis assessing the effect of a routine invasive strategy in patients with prior CABG who present with NSTE-ACS. The results confirm the under-representation of this patient group in RCTs of invasive management in NSTE-ACS and suggest that there is no benefit to a routine invasive strategy compared to a conservative approach with regard to major adverse cardiac events. These findings should be validated in an adequately powered RCT.

Inorganic nitrate benefits contrast-induced nephropathy after coronary angiography for acute coronary syndromes: the NITRATE-CIN trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN), also known as contrast-associated acute kidney injury (CA-AKI) underlies a significant proportion of the morbidity and mortality following coronary angiographic procedures in high-risk patients and remains a significant unmet need. In pre-clinical studies inorganic nitrate, which is chemically reduced in vivo to nitric oxide, is renoprotective but this observation is yet to be translated clinically. In this study, the efficacy of inorganic nitrate in the prevention of CIN in high-risk patients presenting with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) is reported. METHODS: NITRATE-CIN is a double-blind, randomized, single-centre, placebo-controlled trial assessing efficacy of inorganic nitrate in CIN prevention in at-risk patients presenting with ACS. Patients were randomized 1:1 to once daily potassium nitrate (12 mmol) or placebo (potassium chloride) capsules for 5 days. The primary endpoint was CIN (KDIGO criteria). Secondary outcomes included kidney function [estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR)] at 3 months, rates of procedural myocardial infarction, and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 12 months. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03627130. RESULTS: Over 3 years, 640 patients were randomized with a median follow-up of 1.0 years, 319 received inorganic nitrate with 321 received placebo. The mean age of trial participants was 71.0 years, with 73.3% male and 75.2% Caucasian; 45.9% had diabetes, 56.0% had chronic kidney disease (eGFR <60 mL/min) and the mean Mehran score of the population was 10. Inorganic nitrate treatment significantly reduced CIN rates (9.1%) vs. placebo (30.5%, P < .001). This difference persisted after adjustment for baseline creatinine and diabetes status (odds ratio 0.21, 95% confidence interval 0.13-0.34). Secondary outcomes were improved with inorganic nitrate, with lower rates of procedural myocardial infarction (2.7% vs. 12.5%, P = .003), improved 3-month renal function (between-group change in eGFR 5.17, 95% CI 2.94-7.39) and reduced 1-year MACE (9.1% vs. 18.1%, P = .001) vs. placebo. CONCLUSIONS: In patients at risk of renal injury undergoing coronary angiography for ACS, a short (5 day) course of once-daily inorganic nitrate reduced CIN, improved kidney outcomes at 3 months, and MACE events at 1 year compared to placebo.

The effect of CTCA guided selective invasive graft assessment on coronary angiographic parameters and outcomes: Insights from the BYPASS-CTCA trial.

BACKGROUND: Computed tomography cardiac angiography (CTCA) is recommended for the evaluation of patients with prior coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. The BYPASS-CTCA study demonstrated that CTCA prior to invasive coronary angiography (ICA) in CABG patients leads to significant reductions in procedure time and contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN), alongside improved patient satisfaction. However, whether CTCA information was used to facilitate selective graft cannulation at ICA was not protocol mandated. In this post-hoc analysis we investigated the influence of CTCA facilitated selective graft assessment on angiographic parameters and study endpoints. METHODS: BYPASS-CTCA was a randomized controlled trial in which patients with previous CABG referred for ICA were randomized to undergo CTCA prior to ICA, or ICA alone. In this post-hoc analysis we assessed the impact of selective ICA (grafts not invasively cannulated based on the CTCA result) following CTCA versus non-selective ICA (imaging all grafts irrespective of CTCA findings). The primary endpoints were ICA procedural duration, incidence of CIN, and patient satisfaction post-ICA. Secondary endpoints included the incidence of procedural complications and 1-year major adverse cardiac events. RESULTS: In the CTCA cohort (n â€‹= â€‹343), 214 (62.4%) patients had selective coronary angiography performed, whereas 129 (37.6%) patients had non-selective ICA. Procedure times were significantly reduced in the selective CTCA â€‹+ â€‹ICA group compared to the non-selective CTCA â€‹+ â€‹ICA group (-5.82min, 95% CI -7.99 to -3.65, p â€‹< â€‹0.001) along with reduction of CIN (1.5% vs 5.8%, OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.98). No difference was seen in patient satisfaction with the ICA, however procedural complications (0.9% vs 4.7%, OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.09-0.87) and 1-year major adverse cardiac events (13.1% vs 20.9%, HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.32-0.96) were significantly lower in the selective group. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with prior CABG, CTCA guided selective angiographic assessment of bypass grafts is associated with improved procedural parameters, lower complication rates and better 12-month outcomes. Taken in addition to the main findings of the BYPASS-CTCA trial, these results suggest a synergistic approach between CTCA and ICA should be considered in this patient group. REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03736018.

Computed Tomography Cardiac Angiography Before Invasive Coronary Angiography in Patients With Previous Bypass Surgery: The BYPASS-CTCA Trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with previous coronary artery bypass grafting often require invasive coronary angiography (ICA). However, for these patients, the procedure is technically more challenging and has a higher risk of complications. Observational studies suggest that computed tomography cardiac angiography (CTCA) may facilitate ICA in this group, but this has not been tested in a randomized controlled trial. METHODS: This study was a single-center, open-label randomized controlled trial assessing the benefit of adjunctive CTCA in patients with previous coronary artery bypass grafting referred for ICA. Patients were randomized 1:1 to undergo CTCA before ICA or ICA alone. The co-primary end points were procedural duration of the ICA (defined as the interval between local anesthesia administration for obtaining vascular access and removal of the last catheter), patient satisfaction after ICA using a validated questionnaire, and the incidence of contrast-induced nephropathy. Linear regression was used for procedural duration and patient satisfaction score; contrast-induced nephropathy was analyzed using logistic regression. We applied the Bonferroni correction, with P<0.017 considered significant and 98.33% CIs presented. Secondary end points included incidence of procedural complications and 1-year major adverse cardiac events. RESULTS: Over 3 years, 688 patients were randomized with a median follow-up of 1.0 years. The mean age was 69.8±10.4 years, 108 (15.7%) were women, 402 (58.4%) were White, and there was a high burden of comorbidity (85.3% hypertension and 53.8% diabetes). The median time from coronary artery bypass grafting to angiography was 12.0 years, and there were a median of 3 (interquartile range, 2 to 3) grafts per participant. Procedure duration of the ICA was significantly shorter in the CTCA+ICA group (CTCA+ICA, 18.6±9.5 minutes versus ICA alone, 39.5±16.9 minutes [98.33% CI, -23.5 to -18.4]; P<0.001), alongside improved mean ICA satisfaction scores (1=very good to 5=very poor; -1.1 difference [98.33% CI, -1.2 to -0.9]; P<0.001), and reduced incidence of contrast-induced nephropathy (3.4% versus 27.9%; odds ratio, 0.09 [98.33% CI, 0.04-0.2]; P<0.001). Procedural complications (2.3% versus 10.8%; odds ratio, 0.2 [95% CI, 0.1-0.4]; P<0.001) and 1-year major adverse cardiac events (16.0% versus 29.4%; hazard ratio, 0.4 [95% CI, 0.3-0.6]; P<0.001) were also lower in the CTCA+ICA group. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with previous coronary artery bypass grafting, CTCA before ICA leads to reductions in procedure time and contrast-induced nephropathy, with improved patient satisfaction. CTCA before ICA should be considered in this group of patients. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT03736018.