Risk Burden of Cancer in Patients Treated With Abbreviated Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After PCI: Analysis of Multicenter Controlled High-Bleeding Risk Trials.

BACKGROUND: Oncological patients with coronary artery disease face an elevated risk of hemorrhagic and ischemic events following percutaneous coronary intervention. Despite medical guidelines recommending minimal dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) duration for patients with cancer, dedicated data on abbreviated DAPT in this population is lacking. This study aims to evaluate the occurrence of ischemic and hemorrhagic events in patients with cancer compared with other high-bleeding risk individuals. METHODS: Patient-level data from 4 high-bleeding risk coronary drug-eluting stent studies (ONYX One, LEADERS FREE, LEADERS FREE II, and SENIOR trials) treated with short DAPT were analyzed. The comparison focused on patients with high-bleeding risk with and without cancer, assessing 1-year rates of net adverse clinical events (all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, revascularization, and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium [BARC] types 3 to 5 bleeding) and major adverse clinical events (all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke). RESULTS: A total of 5232 patients were included, of whom 574 individuals had cancer, and 4658 were at high-bleeding risk without previous cancer. Despite being younger with fewer risk factors, patients with cancer had higher net adverse clinical event (HR, 1.25; P=0.01) and major adverse clinical event (HR, 1.26; P=0.02), primarily driven by all-cause mortality and major bleeding (BARC 3-5), but not myocardial infarction, stroke, stent thrombosis, or repeat revascularization. Cancer was an independent predictor of net adverse clinical event (P=0.005), major adverse clinical event (P=0.01), and major bleeding (P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: The present work is the first report on abbreviated DAPT dedicated to patients with cancer. Cancer is a major marker of adverse outcomes and these events had high lethality. Despite short DAPT, patients with cancer experienced higher rates of major bleeding compared with patients without cancer with high-bleeding risk, which occurred mainly after DAPT discontinuation. These findings reinforce the need for a more detailed and individualized stratification of those patients. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifiers: NCT03344653, NCT01623180, NCT02843633, NCT0284.

Polymer-free drug-coated vs. bare-metal coronary stents in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery: a subgroup analysis of the LEADERS FREE trial.

AIMS: To compare the outcomes of patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery (NCS) after PCI with either a drug-coated stent (DCS) or a bare-metal stent (BMS), followed by 1-month dual antiplatelet therapy and to explore the impact of the timing of NCS. METHODS: This is a subgroup analysis of the LEADERS FREE trial. The primary safety end point was a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis, and the primary efficacy end point was clinically driven target lesion revascularization (TLR). RESULTS: Out of 2432 patients included in the LEADERS FREE trial, 278 (11.4%) underwent NCS within 1 year after PCI. Among NCS patients, the 1-year safety end point was numerically lower with DCS; however, this difference was not significant as compared to BMS (4.7% vs. 10.1%, HR: 0.459 [0.178-1.183], p = 0.099), clinically driven TLR was significantly lower after DCS (2.4% vs. 8.3%, HR: 0.281 [0.079-0.996], p = 0.036), and BARC 3-5 bleeding was similar with DCS vs. BMS (10.2% vs. 7.5%, p = 0.438). In patients treated with BMS, NCS within 3 months after PCI was associated with higher incidence of the safety end point than NCSs performed later: 14.9% vs. 4.4%, HR: 3.586 [1.012-12.709], p = 0.034. The timing of surgery had no impact on patients treated with DCS (4.7% vs. 4.7%, p = 0.947). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing NCS after PCI, DCS-treated patients had a lower probability of clinically driven TLR compared with BMS. However, there was no significant difference in the occurrence of the primary composite safety end point or bleeding complications. Early NCS after BMS-PCI was associated with impaired safety, while the timing of NCS had no such influence after DCS implantation.

Validation of high bleeding risk criteria and definition as proposed by the academic research consortium for high bleeding risk.

AIMS: To validate the set of clinical and biochemical criteria proposed by consensus by the Academic Research Consortium (ARC) for High Bleeding Risk (HBR) for the identification of HBR patients. These criteria were categorized into major and minor, if expected to carry in isolation, respectively, ≥4% and <4% Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 3 or 5 bleeding risk within 1-year after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). High bleeding risk patients are those meeting at least 1 major or 2 minor criteria. METHODS AND RESULTS: All patients undergoing PCI at Bern University Hospital, between February 2009 and September 2018 were prospectively entered into the Bern PCI Registry (NCT02241291). Age, haemoglobin, platelet count, creatinine, and use of oral anticoagulation were prospectively collected, while the remaining HBR criteria except for planned surgery were retrospectively adjudicated. A total of 16 580 participants with complete ARC-HBR criteria were included. After assigning 1 point to each major and 0.5 point to each minor criterion, we observed for every 0.5 score increase a step-wise augmentation of BARC 3 or 5 bleeding rates at 1 year ranging from 1.90% among patients fulfilling no criterion, through 4.01%, 5.98%, 7.42%, 8.60%, 12.21%, 12.29%, and 17.64%. All major and five out of six minor criteria, conferred in isolation a risk for BARC 3 or 5 bleeding at 1 year exceeding 4% at the upper limit of the 95% confidence intervals. CONCLUSION: All major and the majority of minor ARC-HBR criteria identify in isolation patients at HBR.

Drug-coated versus bare-metal stents for elderly patients: A predefined sub-study of the LEADERS FREE trial.

BACKGROUND: The randomized, LEADERS FREE trial showed superior safety and efficacy of a polymer-free DCS vs. a bare metal stent in high-bleeding risk patients with only one month dual antiplatelet treatment. We report characteristics and outcomes of the pre-specified group of elderly patients (aged ≥75). METHODS: Age >75 was one of the trial's inclusion criteria. The main additional criteria were: need for oral anticoagulants, recent bleeding, anemia, chronic renal failure and cancer. All patients received 1month DAPT only. Both primary endpoints (efficacy: clinically driven TLR and safety: composite of cardiac death, MI and stent thrombosis) as well as bleeding were recorded up to 390days. RESULTS: 1564 elderly patients (63.4% of the population) were enrolled with a mean of 2 inclusion criteria/patient. The primary safety endpoint was reached less frequently in DCS than BMS patients (10.7 vs. 14.3%, p=0.03), as was the primary efficacy endpoint (5.8 vs. 10.8% p=0.0003). Major bleeding rates were high and similar in both groups (7.3 vs. 8.2%, p=0.55). For the 562 (23.4%) patients with age as sole entry criterion, trends were similar for DCS and BMS patients respectively: safety endpoint (7.3%vs.11.4% p=0.10) and Cd TLR (4.7 vs. 13.2% p=0.0003), but for both groups, major bleeding occurred less frequently than for elderly patients with more comorbid conditions (3.6%vs. 2.8%). CONCLUSION: Compared to a BMS, use of a DCS together with a short one-month DAPT course was associated with significant safety and efficacy benefits for the elderly patients enrolled in LEADERS FREE.

Left bundle-branch block in patients with acute myocardial infarction: Presentation, treatment, and trends in outcome from 1997 to 2016 in routine clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: Whether patients with acute myocardial infarction presenting with new or presumed new left bundle-branch block (LBBB) should be treated in the same way as those presenting with ST-elevation (STE) is still a matter of debate. METHODS: Data from 28,358 patients enrolled in AMIS Plus from 1997 to 2016 were analyzed to evaluate differences in treatment and outcome of patients presenting with LBBB (n=2295) or STE (n=26,090) on their initial electrocardiogram using descriptive statistics and multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: LBBB patients were older (75.0 vs 64.3 years, P<.001) with a greater burden of risk factors and comorbidities. They were admitted 80 minutes later and more frequently in Killip III/IV (20% vs 7%, P<.001). Even after adjustment for age and gender, LBBB patients were less likely to receive aspirin (odds ratio [OR] 0.40, 95% CI 0.34-0.47), P2Y12 inhibitors (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.45-0.54), ß-blockers (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.76-0.89), and statins (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.63-0.76) or undergo percutaneous coronary interventions (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.35-0.42). Crude in-hospital mortality of patients with LBBB was 16.2% versus 6.5% for patients with STE, but adjusted OR was 1.07 (95% CI 0.93-1.24). Mortality of LBBB patients decreased from 22.6% in 1997-2001 to 11.9% in 2012-2016. CONCLUSIONS: Acute myocardial infarction patients with new or presumed new LBBB presence are at high risk of morbidity and mortality. They were treated less aggressively, and although mortality has halved during the last 20 years, there may be room for further improvement. Additional studies are needed to better identify those patients with LBBB who may maximally benefit from an early invasive treatment strategy.

Treatment and outcomes of patients with recurrent myocardial infarction: A prospective observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about differences in therapies and outcomes of patients with first myocardial infarction (MI) or recurrent MI (reMI). This study aimed to evaluate the impact of prior MI on therapies and outcomes in patients who presented with ST-elevation MI (STEMI). METHODS: All STEMI patients enrolled from 2002 to 2014 in the AMIS Plus registry were included. Outcome was analyzed using logistic multivariate regression. RESULTS: From 19,665 STEMI patients, 2845 (14%) had reMI. These patients were older (69.5y vs. 64.2y; p<0.001), more frequently male, with more risk factors (hypertension, dyslipidemia), and more comorbidities. Patients with reMI presented 25min earlier than those with first MI, were more frequently in Killip class 3/4 (12% vs. 7%; p<0.001), and were less likely to receive guideline-recommended drug therapy: aspirin (93% vs. 97%; p<0.001), P2Y12 inhibitors (76% vs. 83%; p<0.001), or statins (73% vs. 77%; p<0.001), or undergo primary percutaneous coronary intervention (77% vs. 87%; p<0.001). These patients developed more frequently cardiogenic shock (7% vs. 5%; p<0.001) and reinfarction (2% vs. 1%; p<0.001) during hospitalization, and had higher crude mortality (10% vs. 5%; p<0.001) than patients without prior MI. Prior MI was an independent predictor of in-hospital mortality in STEMI patients (OR 1.27; 95% CI 1.05-1.53; p<0.001). A subgroup (n=4486) was followed 1 year after discharge (3893 with first MI and 593 with reMI at initial hospitalization). Crude mortality was 2.9% for patients with first MI vs. 6.7% for those with reMI (OR 1.68, 95% CI 1.14-2.47; p=0.008). CONCLUSIONS: Although patients with reMI are high-risk patients, they were less likely to receive evidence-based treatment and had worse in-hospital and 1-year outcomes compared to patients with first MI. Short- and long-term management of patients with recurring MI should be improved.

Outcome of patients admitted with acute coronary syndrome on palliative treatment: insights from the nationwide AMIS Plus Registry 1997-2014.

OBJECTIVE: Compliance with guidelines is increasingly used to benchmark the quality of hospital care, however, very little is known on patients admitted with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and treated palliatively. This study aimed to evaluate the baseline characteristics and outcomes of these patients. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Eighty-two Swiss hospitals enrolled patients from 1997 to 2014. PARTICIPANTS: All patients with ACS enrolled in the AMIS Plus registry (n=45,091) were analysed according to three treatment groups: palliative treatment, defined as use of aspirin and analgesics only and no reperfusion; conservative treatment, defined as any treatment including antithrombotics or anticoagulants, heparins, P2Y12 inhibitors, GPIIb/IIIa but no pharmacological or mechanical reperfusion; and reperfusion treatment (thrombolysis and/or percutaneous coronary intervention during initial hospitalisation). The primary outcome measure was in-hospital mortality and the secondary measure was 1-year mortality. RESULTS: Of the patients, 1485 (3.3%) were palliatively treated, 11,119 (24.7%) were conservatively treated and 32,487 (72.0%) underwent reperfusion therapy. In 1997, 6% of all patients were treated palliatively and this continuously decreased to 2% in 2013. Baseline characteristics of palliative patients differed in comparison with conservatively treated and reperfusion patients in age, gender and comorbidities (all p<0.001). These patients had more in-hospital complications such as postadmission onset of cardiogenic shock (15.6% vs 5.2%; p<0.001), stroke (1.8% vs 0.8%; p=0.001) and a higher in-hospital mortality (25.8% vs 5.6%; p<0.001).The subgroup of patients followed 1 year after discharge (n=8316) had a higher rate of reinfarction (9.2% vs 3.4%; p=0.003) and mortality (14.0% vs 3.5%; p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with ACS treated palliatively were older, sicker, with more heart failure at admission and very high in-hospital mortality. While refraining from more active therapy may often constitute the most humane and appropriate approach, we think it is important to also evaluate these patients and include them in registries and outcome evaluations. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01 305 785.

Validity of Charlson Comorbidity Index in patients hospitalised with acute coronary syndrome. Insights from the nationwide AMIS Plus registry 2002-2012.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the impact of individual comorbid conditions as well as the weight assignment, predictive properties and discriminating power of the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) on outcome in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). METHODS: A prospective multicentre observational study (AMIS Plus Registry) from 69 Swiss hospitals with 29 620 ACS patients enrolled from 2002 to 2012. The main outcome measures were in-hospital and 1-year follow-up mortality. RESULTS: Of the patients, 27% were female (age 72.1 ± 12.6 years) and 73% were male (64.2 ± 12.9 years). 46.8% had comorbidities and they were less likely to receive guideline-recommended drug therapy and reperfusion. Heart failure (adjusted OR 1.88; 95% CI 1.57 to 2.25), metastatic tumours (OR 2.25; 95% CI 1.60 to 3.19), renal diseases (OR 1.84; 95% CI 1.60 to 2.11) and diabetes (OR 1.35; 95% CI 1.19 to 1.54) were strong predictors of in-hospital mortality. In this population, CCI weighted the history of prior myocardial infarction higher (1 instead of -0.4, 95% CI -1.2 to 0.3 points) but heart failure (1 instead of 3.7, 95% CI 2.6 to 4.7) and renal disease (2 instead of 3.5, 95% CI 2.7 to 4.4) lower than the benchmark, where all comorbidities, age and gender were used as predictors. However, the model with CCI and age has an identical discrimination to this benchmark (areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves were both 0.76). CONCLUSIONS: Comorbidities greatly influenced clinical presentation, therapies received and the outcome of patients admitted with ACS. Heart failure, diabetes, renal disease or metastatic tumours had a major impact on mortality. CCI seems to be an appropriate prognostic indicator for in-hospital and 1-year outcomes in ACS patients. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01305785.

Incidence and predictors of coronary stent thrombosis: evidence from an international collaborative meta-analysis including 30 studies, 221,066 patients, and 4276 thromboses.

BACKGROUND: Stent thrombosis remains among the most feared complications of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with stenting. However, data on its incidence and predictors are sparse and conflicting. We thus aimed to perform a collaborative systematic review on incidence and predictors of stent thrombosis. METHODS: PubMed was systematically searched for eligible studies from the drug-eluting stent (DES) era (1/2002-12/2010). Studies were selected if including ≥ 2000 patients undergoing stenting or reporting on ≥ 25 thromboses. Study features, patient characteristics, and incidence of stent thrombosis were abstracted and pooled, when appropriate, with random-effect methods (point estimate [95% confidence intervals]), and consistency of predictors was formally appraised. RESULTS: A total of 30 studies were identified (221,066 patients, 4276 thromboses), with DES used in 87%. After a median of 22 months, definite, probable, or possible stent thrombosis had occurred in 2.4% (2.0%; 2.9%), with acute in 0.4% (0.2%; 0.6%), subacute in 1.1% (1.0%; 1.3%), late in 0.5% (0.4%; 0.6%), and very late in 0.6% (0.4%; 0.8%). Similar figures were computed for studies reporting only on DES. From a total of 47 candidate variables, definite/probable stent thrombosis was more commonly and consistently predicted by early antiplatelet therapy discontinuation, extent of coronary disease, and stent number/length, with acute coronary syndrome at admission, diabetes, smoking status, and bifurcation/ostial disease also proving frequent predictors, but less consistently. CONCLUSIONS: Despite numerous possible risk factors, the most common and consistent predictors of stent thrombosis are early antiplatelet therapy discontinuation, extent of coronary disease, and stent number/length.

Characteristics and Outcome in Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients with and without Established Modifiable Cardiovascular Risk Factors: Insights from the Nationwide AMIS Plus Registry 1997-2010.

OBJECTIVES: Little is known about patients without known modifiable risk factors presenting initially with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). This study assessed baseline characteristics and outcomes of ACS patients with and without the known modifiable risk factors arterial hypertension, dyslipidemia, obesity, smoking or diabetes. METHODS: All ACS patients enrolled in the AMIS Plus Registry between 1997 and 2010 were analyzed until hospital discharge; a subgroup was re-assessed at the 1-year follow-up. Outcome measures were in-hospital mortality and major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events (MACCE) defined as a composite outcome of mortality, re-infarction and cerebrovascular events. RESULTS: Of 33,306 patients, 2,125 (6.4%) had none of these modifiable risk factors. They were older (males), had less moderate or severe comorbidities and were more frequently in Killip class I on admission. Treatment of ACS patients with or without modifiable risk factors was similar with regard to interventional therapies and use of antiplatelet agents. In-hospital mortality was lower in patients without modifiable risk factors but in-hospital MACCE and 1-year survival was similar. CONCLUSION: Lack of modifiable risk factors was an independent predictor of lower in-hospital mortality but not of MACCE in patients who presented with ACS.

Outcomes in patients undergoing multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention using sirolimus-eluting stents: a report from the e-SELECT registry.

AIMS: Performing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to multiple coronary lesions during the same procedure has potential economic and social advantages. However comprehensive outcome data of real world practice in a large population is limited. We aimed to compare short- and long-term outcomes between patients with multivessel coronary artery disease who either underwent single- or multivessel PCI within the e-SELECT registry. METHODS AND RESULTS: The e-SELECT registry combines data collected at 320 medical centres in 56 countries where patients received CYPHER Select® or CYPHER Select® Plus sirolimus-eluting stent (SES). Rates of myocardial infarction and major adverse cardiac event (MACE) (defined as any death, myocardial infarction or target lesion revascularisation) were compared between patients undergoing single-vessel versus multivessel PCI. A total of 15,147 patients who satisfied the inclusion criteria were included in the e-SELECT registry. Two thousand two hundred and seventy-eight (2,278) subjects (15%) underwent multivessel PCI and 12,869 (85%) had single-vessel PCI. The mean age was higher in the multivessel PCI group (63 vs. 62 years, p<0.001) and there was a higher prevalence of diabetes mellitus (32.4 vs. 30.0%, p=0.02). Lesions were more complex in the single-PCI group while pre- and post-dilatation were less common in the multivessel PCI group. Myocardial infarction within the first 30 days post PCI was more common in the multivessel PCI group (1.9 vs. 0.8%, p<0.001) and most of the infarctions were periprocedural (1.3 vs. 0.6%, p=0.001). Mortality and myocardial infarction at one-year were higher in the multivessel PCI group resulting in a significantly higher MACE (6.1 vs. 4.6%, p=0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Overall procedural and one year outcomes were excellent for both single- and multivessel procedures. However despite lower lesion complexity, performing multivessel PCI was associated with higher rates of periprocedural myocardial infarction and MACE when compared to single-vessel PCI in the e-SELECT registry.

Early revascularization is beneficial across all ages and a wide spectrum of cardiogenic shock severity: A pooled analysis of trials.

BACKGROUND: A pooled analysis in cardiogenic shock due to acute coronary syndromes is desirable to assess the effect of early revascularization (ERV) across all ages and a wide spectrum of disease severity. METHODS: Only two randomized controlled trials (RCT), i.e. SMASH and SHOCK, met the inclusion criteria and were combined for a pooled analysis using individual patient data (n = 348). RESULTS: SMASH patients (n = 54, 16%) had more severe disease than SHOCK patients (n = 294, 84%). After adjustment for age, anoxic brain damage, non-inferior myocardial infarction, prior coronary artery bypass graft surgery, renal failure, systolic blood pressure, and selection for coronary angiography, one-year mortality was similar (relative risk SHOCK versus SMASH 0.87, 95% CI: 0.61-1.25). Relative risk of one-year death for ERV versus initial medical stabilization was 0.82 (95% CI: 0.70-0.96). There was no significant difference in the treatment effect by age (≤75 years relative risk at one year 0.79, 95% CI: 0.63-0.99; > 75 years relative risk at one year 0.93, 95% CI: 0.56-1.53; interaction P = 0.10). CONCLUSIONS: Only two RCT have been published emphasizing the difficulty of enrolling critically ill patients. Despite large differences in shock severity, ERV benefit is similar across all ages and not significantly different for the elderly.

Acute coronary syndromes in young patients: presentation, treatment and outcome.

BACKGROUND: Acute coronary syndromes (ACS) in very young patients have been poorly described. We therefore evaluate ACS in patients aged 35 years and younger. METHODS: In this prospective cohort study, 76 hospitals treating ACS in Switzerland enrolled 28,778 patients with ACS between January 1, 1997, and October 1, 2008. ACS definition included ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), and unstable angina (UA). RESULTS: 195 patients (0.7%) were 35 years old or younger. Compared to patients>35 years, these patients were more likely to present with chest pain (91.6% vs. 83.7%; P=0.003) and less likely to have heart failure (Killip class II to IV in 5.2% vs. 23.0%; P<0.001). STEMI was more prevalent in younger than in older patients (73.1% vs. 58.3%; P<0.001). Smoking, family history of CAD, and/or dyslipidemia were important cardiovascular risk factors in young patients (prevalence 77.2%, 55.0%, and 44.0%). The prevalence of overweight among young patients with ACS was high (57.8%). Cocaine abuse was associated with ACS in some young patients. Compared to older patients, young patients were more likely to receive early percutaneous coronary interventions and had better outcome with fewer major adverse cardiac events. CONCLUSIONS: Young patients with ACS differed from older patients in that the younger often presented with STEMI, received early aggressive treatment, and had favourable outcomes. Primary prevention of smoking, dyslipidemia and overweight should be more aggressively promoted in adolescence.

Impact of a normal or non-specific admission ECG on the treatment and early outcome of patients with myocardial infarction in Swiss hospitals between 2003 and 2008.

BACKGROUND: Diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) rests upon clinical, electrocardiographic and biochemical parameters. Previous studies reported AMI patients who present with non-specific ECGs. OBJECTIVES: To examine clinical or demographic features of AMI patients presenting with or without ECG changes and assess the impact of these ECGs on treatment and outcome. METHODS: Using the AMIS Plus data, patients admitted between 2003 and 2008 with a definite diagnosis of AMI (clinical symptoms, elevated troponin levels) were stratified according to the admission ECG into group 1 with normal/non-specific ECGs and group 2 with ECG changes. RESULTS: Of 14 957 patients, 1085 (7.3%) belonged to group 1 and 13 872 (92.7%) to group 2. There were no differences between the two groups in age (65.9 yr vs. 65.4 yr), gender (28% female), diabetes (19% vs. 18%), hypertension (61% vs. 59%), family history (35% vs. 33%) or smoking (37% vs. 38%). Dyslipidaemia (62% vs. 56%; p <0.001), history of CAD (39% vs. 35%; p = 0.023) and obesity (BMI >30 kg/m2 [23% vs. 19%; p = 0.003]) were more frequent in group 1 who were admitted longer after symptom onset (280 min vs. 230 min). Patients in group 1 were exposed to less intensive pharmacological and interventional treatments (aspirin [93.6% vs. 95.3%; p = 0.012], clopidogrel [70% vs. 73%; p = 0.046], unfractionated heparin [59% vs. 65%; p <0.001], ACE inhibitors or angiotensin II antagonists [46% vs. 53%; p <0.001]). However, therapy with beta-blockers (72% vs. 70%), statins (75% vs. 76%) and nitrates (59% vs. 57%) did not differ between groups. Patients in group 1 underwent PCI significantly less frequently (69% vs. 77%) with a longer hospital delay (589 min vs. 96 min). No differences were found for reinfarction (both 1.4%) and a cerebrovascular event (0.4% vs. 0.8%). Cardiogenic shock (5% vs. 2%; p <0.001) and mortality during hospitalisation were higher in group 2 (6% vs. 3%; p <0.001). A normal/non-specific ECG on admission was not an independent predictor of in-hospital mortality (OR 0.61; 95% CI 0.34-1.11; p = 0.104). CONCLUSIONS: Despite less intensive treatment, AMI patients who presented with a normal/non-specific ECG developed cardiogenic shock less frequently during their hospitalisation and had a lower crude mortality rate compared to those with ECG changes on admission. Nevertheless, reinfarctions and cerebrovascular events occurred evenly in all AMI patients, regardless of their admission ECG.

Comparison of in-hospital mortality for acute myocardial infarction in Switzerland with admission during routine duty hours versus admission during out of hours (insight into the AMIS plus registry).

To improve long-term survival, prompt revascularization of the infarct-related artery should be done in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI); therefore, a large proportion of these patients would be hospitalized during out of hours. The clinical effects of out-of-hours AMI management were already questioned, with conflicting results. The purpose of this investigation was to compare the in-hospital outcome of patients admitted for AMI during out of hours and working hours. All patients with AMI included in the AMIS Plus Registry from January 1, 1997, to March 30, 2006, were analyzed. The working-hours group included patients admitted from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. on weekdays, and the out-of-hours group included patients admitted from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. on weekdays or weekends. Major cardiac events were defined as cardiovascular death, reinfarction, and stroke. The study primary end points were in-hospital death and major adverse cardiac event (MACE) rates. A total of 12,480 patients met the inclusion criteria, with 52% admitted during normal working hours, and 48%, during out of hours. Patients admitted during weekdays included more women (28.1% vs 26%; p = 0.009), older patients (65.5 +/- 13 vs 64.1 +/- 13 years; p = 0.0011), less current smokers (40.1% vs 43.5%; p <0.001), and less patients with a history of ischemic heart disease (31.5% vs 34.5%; p = 0.001). A significantly higher proportion of patients admitted during out of hours had Killip's class III and IV. No differences in terms of in-hospital survival rates between the 2 groups (91.5% vs 91.2%; p = 0.633) or MACE-free survival rates (both 88.5%; p = 1.000) were noted. In conclusion, the outcome of patients with AMI admitted out of hours was the same compared with those with a weekday admission. Of predictors for in-hospital outcome, timing of admission had no significant influence on mortality and/or MACE incidence.

[Treatment of acute myocardial infarction in 2007]. / Traitement de l'infarctus aigu du myocarde en 2007.

The two immediate priorities when faced with acute myocardial infarction are 1) to be able to deliver electric cardioversion in case of need and 2) to rapidly start reperfusion therapy (angioplasty or thrombolysis). During the hospital phase, antiplatelet agents are given to all, betablockers should be used if there is no heart failure, and ACE-inhibitors are mostly indicated for patients with poor hemodynamics. At discharge, in addition to instructions regarding not smoking, a balanced diet, and regular physical exercise, a statin and antiplatelet therapy remain a long-term indication for all. ACE inhibitors should be continued in case of high blood pressure, heart failure or a left ventricular ejection fraction < 40%. The main benefit of betablockers is for patients with residual angina and/or chronic heart failure.

Differential outcome after intracoronary radiation therapy is related to a simple classification based on lesion length and reference diameter.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to develop a prognostic lesion classification based on simple angiographic parameters, lesion length and reference diameter that predicts differential outcome in patients undergoing intracoronary radiation. METHODS AND RESULTS: Three types of lesions were identified: Type A characterized by lesion length less than or equal to 30 mm, reference diameter > 2.5 mm to less than or equal to 4.0 mm (short lesion: normal diameter), Type B by lesion length less than or equal to 30 mm, reference diameter less than or equal to 2.5 mm or > 4 mm (short lesion: extreme diameter), and Type C by lesion length > 30 mm (long lesion). A total of 1,151 lesions (77.7% in-stent restenosis) in 1,098 consecutive patients undergoing brachytherapy were classified into these 3 lesion types. Overall, 79.9%, 10.3% and 9.8% patients met the criteria for Type A, B and C lesions. While the in-hospital major adverse cardiac event (MACE) rate was 1.4%, 3.6% and 3.8% (p = 0.026), the 6-month MACE rate was 16.1%, 22.5% and 32.1% (p < 0.001), the angiographic restenosis rate was 21.3%, 32.4% and 42.4% (p < 0.001), and the late thrombosis rate was 4.1%, 9.0% and 11.3%, (p < 0.001) in Type A, B and C lesions, respectively. Consequently, with increasing lesion severity, 3 risk groups with low, medium and high risk were defined. Multivariate analysis showed that Type B and C lesions were independent predictors of 6-month MACE (OR, 1.5 and 1.9, respectively). CONCLUSION: The proposed novel and easily applicable lesion classification effectively predicts early and medium term outcome, and may be used for appropriate therapeutic decision making in patients undergoing brachytherapy.

Guidelines for percutaneous coronary interventions. The Task Force for Percutaneous Coronary Interventions of the European Society of Cardiology.

In patients with stable CAD, PCI can be considered a valuable initial mode of revascularization in all patients with objective large ischaemia in the presence of almost every lesion subset, with only one exception: chronic total occlusions that cannot be crossed. In early studies, there was a small survival advantage with CABG surgery compared with PCI without stenting. The addition of stents and newer adjunctive medications improved the outcome for PCI. The decision to recommend PCI or CABG surgery will be guided by technical improvements in cardiology or surgery, local expertise, and patients' preference. However, until proved otherwise, PCI should be used only with reservation in diabetics with multi-vessel disease and in patients with unprotected left main stenosis. The use of drug-eluting stents might change this situation. Patients presenting with NSTE-ACS (UA or NSTEMI) have to be stratified first for their risk of acute thrombotic complications. A clear benefit from early angiography (<48 h) and, when needed, PCI or CABG surgery has been reported only in the high-risk groups. Deferral of intervention does not improve outcome. Routine stenting is recommended on the basis of the predictability of the result and its immediate safety. In patients with STEMI, primary PCI should be the treatment of choice in patients presenting in a hospital with PCI facility and an experienced team. Patients with contra-indications to thrombolysis should be immediately transferred for primary PCI, because this might be their only chance for quickly opening the coronary artery. In cardiogenic shock, emergency PCI for complete revascularization may be life-saving and should be considered at an early stage. Compared with thrombolysis, randomized trials that transferred the patients for primary PCI to a 'heart attack centre' observed a better clinical outcome, despite transport times leading to a significantly longer delay between randomization and start of the treatment. The superiority of primary PCI over thrombolysis seems to be especially clinically relevant for the time interval between 3 and 12 h after onset of chest pain or other symptoms on the basis of its superior preservation of myocardium. Furthermore, with increasing time to presentation, major-adverse-cardiac-event rates increase after thrombolysis, but appear to remain relatively stable after primary PCI. Within the first 3 h after onset of chest pain or other symptoms, both reperfusion strategies seem equally effective in reducing infarct size and mortality. Therefore, thrombolysis is still a viable alternative to primary PCI, if it can be delivered within 3 h after onset of chest pain or other symptoms. Primary PCI compared with thrombolysis significantly reduced stroke. Overall, we prefer primary PCI over thrombolysis in the first 3 h of chest pain to prevent stroke, and in patients presenting 3-12 h after the onset of chest pain, to salvage myocardium and also to prevent stroke. At the moment, there is no evidence to recommend facilitated PCI. Rescue PCI is recommended, if thrombolysis failed within 45-60 min after starting the administration. After successful thrombolysis, the use of routine coronary angiography within 24 h and PCI, if applicable, is recommended even in asymptomatic patients without demonstrable ischaemia to improve patients' outcome. If a PCI centre is not available within 24 h, patients who have received successful thrombolysis with evidence of spontaneous or inducible ischaemia before discharge should be referred to coronary angiography and revascularized accordingly--independent of 'maximal' medical therapy.