Peer evaluation and feedback for invasive medical procedures: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: There is significant variability in the performance and outcomes of invasive medical procedures such as percutaneous coronary intervention, endoscopy, and bronchoscopy. Peer evaluation is a common mechanism for assessment of clinician performance and care quality, and may be ideally suited for the evaluation of medical procedures. We therefore sought to perform a systematic review to identify and characterize peer evaluation tools for practicing clinicians, assess evidence supporting the validity of peer evaluation, and describe best practices of peer evaluation programs across multiple invasive medical procedures. METHODS: A systematic search of Medline and Embase (through September 7, 2021) was conducted to identify studies of peer evaluation and feedback relating to procedures in the field of internal medicine and related subspecialties. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed. Data were extracted on peer evaluation methods, feedback structures, and the validity and reproducibility of peer evaluations, including inter-observer agreement and associations with other quality measures when available. RESULTS: Of 2,135 retrieved references, 32 studies met inclusion criteria. Of these, 21 were from the field of gastroenterology, 5 from cardiology, 3 from pulmonology, and 3 from interventional radiology. Overall, 22 studies described the development or testing of peer scoring systems and 18 reported inter-observer agreement, which was good or excellent in all but 2 studies. Only 4 studies, all from gastroenterology, tested the association of scoring systems with other quality measures, and no studies tested the impact of peer evaluation on patient outcomes. Best practices included standardized scoring systems, prospective criteria for case selection, and collaborative and non-judgmental review. CONCLUSIONS: Peer evaluation of invasive medical procedures is feasible and generally demonstrates good or excellent inter-observer agreement when performed with structured tools. Our review identifies common elements of successful interventions across specialties. However, there is limited evidence that peer-evaluated performance is linked to other quality measures or that feedback to clinicians improves patient care or outcomes. Additional research is needed to develop and test peer evaluation and feedback interventions.

Trends in ST-elevation myocardial infarction.

AIMS: Despite recent progress in coronary artery disease treatment, ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) remains a very high-risk medical condition. Whether recent patients' outcomes, following implementation of the 2012 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) STEMI guidelines have improved, is yet unclear. METHODS AND RESULTS: The study was based on a prospective detailed registry of 2004 consecutive patients with STEMI treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI). We compared trends during two different time periods (2006-2012 vs. 2012-2018). Endpoints included mortality and major adverse cardiac events (MACE: death, repeat myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization and coronary artery bypass surgery) at 1 month, 1 and 2 years. Rates of transradial interventions have risen significantly (67.3 vs. 42.0%; P < 0.01), as have rates of prasugrel administration (69.8 vs. 4.5%; P < 0.01) and use of drug eluting stents (75.5 vs. 56.5%; P < 0.01). Both at 1 and at 2 years, MACE was significantly lower in the later period (11.6 vs. 20.9%; P < 0.01 and 18.9 vs. 25.4%; P < 0.01 respectively), whereas mortality was only significantly lower after 1 year (5.8 vs. 8.6%; P = 0.02). Cox regression identified the later period (2012-2018) to independently and favorably impact MACE (hazard ratio, -0.69; 95% CI, 0.56-0.85; P < 0.01) but not mortality (hazard ratio, -0.76; 95% CI, 0.54-1.05; P = 0.09). CONCLUSION: Among patients treated with pPCI for STEMI, adoption of the contemporary evidence-based treatments is associated with better MACE derived outcomes, following the inception of the 2012 ESC guidelines. Nonetheless, the long-term mortality was marginally (but not significantly) lower, which indicates an unmet need for further improvement.

White blood cell count and clinical outcomes after left main coronary artery revascularization: insights from the EXCEL trial.

BACKGROUND: Prior studies have reported an association between elevated white blood cell count (WBCc) and worse clinical outcomes after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We assessed the prognostic impact of WBCc in patients undergoing revascularization for left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD). METHODS: In Evaluation of XIENCE Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization (EXCEL), 1905 patients with LMCAD and low or intermediate SYNTAX scores were randomized to PCI with everolimus-eluting stents versus CABG. The 1895 patients with baseline WBCc available were grouped in tertiles of WBCc (mean 5.6 ± 0.8, 7.5 ± 0.5, and 10.1 ± 1.6 × 109/L). RESULTS: Five-year rates of the primary endpoint (death, myocardial infarction or stroke) were similar across increasing WBCc tertiles (21.2, 18.9, and 21.6%; P = 0.46). Individual components of the primary endpoint, Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 3-5 bleeding, stent thrombosis or graft occlusion and ischemia-driven revascularization were all similar across WBCc tertiles. By multivariable analysis, WBCc as a continuous variable was not an independent predictor of adverse events (hazard radio per 1 × 109/L: 1.02; 95% CI, 0.97-1.08; P = 0.43). Results were consistent in the PCI and CABG arms individually. CONCLUSION: There was no association between baseline WBCc and 30-day or 5-year clinical outcomes after PCI or CABG. The absence of a clear incremental increase in events with increasing WBCc in the current analysis indicates that WBCc should not routinely be used as a prognostic marker or to guide revascularization decisions in patients with LMCAD.

2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Coronary Artery Revascularization: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: The executive summary of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions coronary artery revascularization guideline provides the top 10 items readers should know about the guideline. In the full guideline, the recommendations replace the 2011 coronary artery bypass graft surgery guideline and the 2011 and 2015 percutaneous coronary intervention guidelines. This summary offers a patient-centric approach to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with significant coronary artery disease undergoing coronary revascularization, as well as the supporting documentation to encourage their use. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2019 to September 2019, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, CINHL Complete, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2021, were also considered. Structure: Recommendations from the earlier percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass graft surgery guidelines have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians in caring for patients undergoing coronary revascularization. This summary includes recommendations, tables, and figures from the full guideline that relate to the top 10 take-home messages. The reader is referred to the full guideline for graphical flow charts, supportive text, and tables with additional details about the rationale for and implementation of each recommendation, and the evidence tables detailing the data considered in the development of this guideline.

P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy or dual antiplatelet therapy after coronary revascularisation: individual patient level meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the risks and benefits of P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy compared with dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) and whether these associations are modified by patients' characteristics. DESIGN: Individual patient level meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. DATA SOURCES: Searches were conducted in Ovid Medline, Embase, and three websites (www.tctmd.com, www.escardio.org, www.acc.org/cardiosourceplus) from inception to 16 July 2020. The primary authors provided individual participant data. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing effects of oral P2Y12 monotherapy and DAPT on centrally adjudicated endpoints after coronary revascularisation in patients without an indication for oral anticoagulation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was a composite of all cause death, myocardial infarction, and stroke, tested for non-inferiority against a margin of 1.15 for the hazard ratio. The key safety endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 3 or type 5 bleeding. RESULTS: The meta-analysis included data from six trials, including 24 096 patients. The primary outcome occurred in 283 (2.95%) patients with P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy and 315 (3.27%) with DAPT in the per protocol population (hazard ratio 0.93, 95% confidence interval 0.79 to 1.09; P=0.005 for non-inferiority; P=0.38 for superiority; τ2=0.00) and in 303 (2.94%) with P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy and 338 (3.36%) with DAPT in the intention to treat population (0.90, 0.77 to 1.05; P=0.18 for superiority; τ2=0.00). The treatment effect was consistent across all subgroups, except for sex (P for interaction=0.02), suggesting that P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy lowers the risk of the primary ischaemic endpoint in women (hazard ratio 0.64, 0.46 to 0.89) but not in men (1.00, 0.83 to 1.19). The risk of bleeding was lower with P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy than with DAPT (97 (0.89%) v 197 (1.83%); hazard ratio 0.49, 0.39 to 0.63; P<0.001; τ2=0.03), which was consistent across subgroups, except for type of P2Y12 inhibitor (P for interaction=0.02), suggesting greater benefit when a newer P2Y12 inhibitor rather than clopidogrel was part of the DAPT regimen. CONCLUSIONS: P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy was associated with a similar risk of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, with evidence that this association may be modified by sex, and a lower bleeding risk compared with DAPT. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020176853.

Standardizing the Definition and Analysis Methodology for Complete Coronary Artery Revascularization.

Guideline-based medical therapy is the foundation of treatment for individuals with coronary artery disease. However, revascularization with either percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting may be beneficial in patients with acute coronary syndromes, refractory symptoms, or in other specific scenarios (eg, left main disease and heart failure). While the goal of percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting is to achieve complete revascularization, anatomical and ischemic definitions of complete revascularization and their methodology for assessment remain highly variable. Such lack of consensus invariably contributes to the absence of standardized approaches for invasive treatment of coronary artery disease. Herein, we propose a novel, comprehensive, yet pragmatic algorithm with both anatomical and ischemic parameters that aims to provide a systematic method to assess complete revascularization after percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting in both clinical practice and clinical trials.

Association of Pretreatment With P2Y12 Receptor Antagonists Preceding Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Non-ST-Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndromes With Outcomes.

Importance: Pretreatment of patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) with P2Y12 receptor antagonists is a common practice despite the lack of definite evidence for its benefit. Objective: To investigate the association of P2Y12 receptor antagonist pretreatment vs no pretreatment with mortality, stent thrombosis, and in-hospital bleeding in patients with NSTE-ACS undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used prospective data from the Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry of 64 857 patients who underwent procedures between 2010 and 2018. All patients who underwent PCI owing to NSTE-ACS in Sweden were stratified by whether they were pretreated with P2Y12 receptor antagonists. Associations of pretreatment with P2Y12 receptor antagonists with the risks of adverse outcomes were investigated using instrumental variable analysis and propensity score matching. Data were analyzed from March to June 2019. Exposures: Pretreatment with P2Y12 receptor antagonists. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was all-cause mortality within 30 days. Secondary end points were 1-year mortality, stent thrombosis within 30 days, and in-hospital bleeding. Results: In total, 64 857 patients (mean [SD] age, 64.7 [10.9] years; 46 809 [72.2%] men) were included. A total of 59 894 patients (92.4%) were pretreated with a P2Y12 receptor antagonist, including 27 867 (43.7%) pretreated with clopidogrel, 34 785 (54.5%) pretreated with ticagrelor, and 1148 (1.8%) pretreated with prasugrel. At 30 days, there were 971 deaths (1.5%) and 101 definite stent thromboses (0.2%) in the full cohort. Pretreatment was not associated with better survival at 30 days (odds ratio [OR], 1.17; 95% CI, 0.66-2.11; P = .58), survival at 1 year (OR, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.77-2.34; P = .30), or decreased stent thrombosis (OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.42-1.55; P = .52). However, pretreatment was associated with increased risk of in-hospital bleeding (OR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.06-2.12; P = .02). Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study found that pretreatment of patients with NSTE-ACS with P2Y12 receptor antagonists was not associated with improved clinical outcomes but was associated with increased risk of bleeding. These findings support the argument that pretreatment with P2Y12 receptor antagonists should not be routinely used in patients with NSTE-ACS.

Temporal Trends in X-Ray Exposure during Coronary Angiography and Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous coronary intervention exposes patient and staff to ionizing radiation. Although staff only receive a small fraction of patient dose through scatter radiation, there are concerns about the potential health effects of repeated exposure. Minimizing both patient and occupational exposure is needed. OBJECTIVE: This article investigates patient and operator X-ray exposure over time in coronary intervention in relation to upgraded X-ray equipment, improved shielding, and enhanced operator awareness. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data regarding irradiation time, patient dose, and patient characteristics were extracted from the Norwegian Registry for Invasive Cardiology (NORIC) for procedures performed from 2013 to mid-2019. Personal operator dosimetry records were provided by the Norwegian Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority. Improved operator shielding and awareness measures were introduced in 2018. RESULTS: In the period 2013 through June 2019, 21499 procedures were recorded in our institution. Mean dose area product (DAP) for coronary angiography decreased 37% from 2981 µGy·m2 in 2013 to 1891 µGy·m2 in 2019 (p < 0.001). For coronary intervention, DAP decreased 39% from 8358 µGy·m2 to 5055 µGy·m2. Personal dosimetry data indicate a 70% reduction in operator dose per procedure in 2019 compared to 2013. The most pronounced reduction occurred after improved radiation protection measures were implemented in 2018 (-48%). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows a temporal trend towards considerable reduction in X-ray doses received by the patient and operator during cardiac catheterization. Upgraded X-ray equipment, improved shielding, and enhanced operator awareness are likely contributors to this development.

SCAI position statement on the performance of percutaneous coronary intervention in ambulatory surgical centers.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) began reimbursement for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) performed in ambulatory surgical centers (ASC) in January 2020. The ability to perform PCI in an ASC has been made possible due to the outcomes data from observational studies and randomized controlled trials supporting same day discharge (SDD) after PCI. In appropriately selected patients for outpatient PCI, clinical outcomes for SDD or routine overnight observation are comparable without any difference in short-term or long-term adverse events. Furthermore, a potential for lower cost of care without a compromise in clinical outcomes exists. These studies provide the framework and justification for performing PCI in an ASC. The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) supported this coverage decision provided the quality and safety standards for PCI in an ASC were equivalent to the hospital setting. The current position paper is written to provide guidance for starting a PCI program in an ASC with an emphasis on maintaining quality standards. Regulatory requirements and appropriate standards for the facility, staff and physicians are delineated. The consensus document identified appropriate patients for consideration of PCI in an ASC. The key components of an ongoing quality assurance program are defined and the ethical issues relevant to PCI in an ASC are reviewed.

Updating national diagnostic reference levels for interventional cardiology and methodological aspects.

The aim of this study is to propose national diagnostic reference levels (DRL) for updating in the field of interventional cardiology and to include technical details to help plan optimization. Medical physics experts and interventional cardiologists from 14 hospitals provided patient dose indicators from coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary interventions. Information about X-ray system dose settings and image quality was also provided. The dose values from 30,024 procedures and 26 interventional laboratories were recorded. The national DRLs proposed for coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary interventions were respectively 39 and 78 Gy·cm2 for air kerma area product (PKA), 530 and 1300 mGy for air kerma at reference point (Ka,r), 6.7 and 15 min of fluoroscopy time and 760 and 1300 cine images. 36% of the KAP meters required correction factors from 10 to 35%. The dose management systems should allow these corrections to be included automatically. The dose per image in cine in reference conditions differed in a factor of 5.5. Including X-ray system dose settings in the methodology provides an insight into the differences between hospitals. The DRLs proposed for Spain in this work were similar to those proposed in the last European survey. The poor correlation between X-ray systems dose settings and patient dose indicators highlights that other factors such as operation protocols and complexity may have more impact in patient dose indicators, which allows a wide margin for optimization. Dose reduction technology together with appropriate training programs will be determinant in the future reduction of patient dose indicators.

Lack of implementation of guidelines recommendations for coronary revascularization in stable patients with complex disease is associated with high rates of incomplete revascularization : Analysis from the Apache study.

The objective of this study is to evaluate completeness of coronary revascularization in patients with complex stable coronary artery disease (SCAD) who underwent percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI), but a surgical revascularization indicated according to 2018 European Society of Cardiology guidelines. The optimal mode of revascularization for SCAD should take into account clinical, anatomic, and procedural characteristics-including anticipated completeness of revascularization-and modality of treatment should be discussed by a Heart Team. Among patients enrolled in the APpropriAteness of percutaneous Coronary interventions in patients with ischemic heart disease study, we identified patients with complex SCAD. Rates of ad-hoc PCI and documented heart team discussion were reported stratified by guideline recommended mode of revascularization. Completeness of revascularization was assessed by an angiographic core laboratory using residual SS (rSS) ≤ 8 and SYNTAX Revascularization Index (SRI) ≥ 70%. Among 336 PCI patients with SCAD, 182 (54.2%) had complex coronary disease and 152 underwent ad-hoc PCI (83.5%). Patients for whom surgery was the recommended revascularization option (9.3%) had a significantly and substantial higher rate of incomplete revascularization than patients for whom either mode of revascularization or PCI was recommended (61.3% vs 23.6% with rSS > 8, p < 0.001 and 77.4% vs 44.6% with SRI < 70%, p < 0.001). Patients with complex SCAD receiving percutaneous myocardial revascularization when surgery was recommended have substantially incomplete myocardial revascularization. These data support multidisciplinary decision-making in these patients and suggest considering anticipated completeness when deciding mode of coronary revascularization.

Guiding Principles for Chronic Total Occlusion Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

Outcomes of chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have improved because of advancements in equipment and techniques. With global collaboration and knowledge sharing, we have identified 7 common principles that are widely accepted as best practices for CTO-PCI. 1. Ischemic symptom improvement is the primary indication for CTO-PCI. 2. Dual coronary angiography and in-depth and structured review of the angiogram (and, if available, coronary computed tomography angiography) are key for planning and safely performing CTO-PCI. 3. Use of a microcatheter is essential for optimal guidewire manipulation and exchanges. 4. Antegrade wiring, antegrade dissection and reentry, and the retrograde approach are all complementary and necessary crossing strategies. Antegrade wiring is the most common initial technique, whereas retrograde and antegrade dissection and reentry are often required for more complex CTOs. 5. If the initially selected crossing strategy fails, efficient change to an alternative crossing technique increases the likelihood of eventual PCI success, shortens procedure time, and lowers radiation and contrast use. 6. Specific CTO-PCI expertise and volume and the availability of specialized equipment will increase the likelihood of crossing success and facilitate prevention and management of complications, such as perforation. 7. Meticulous attention to lesion preparation and stenting technique, often requiring intracoronary imaging, is required to ensure optimum stent expansion and minimize the risk of short- and long-term adverse events. These principles have been widely adopted by experienced CTO-PCI operators and centers currently achieving high success and acceptable complication rates. Outcomes are less optimal at less experienced centers, highlighting the need for broader adoption of the aforementioned 7 guiding principles along with the development of additional simple and safe CTO crossing and revascularization strategies through ongoing research, education, and training.

Clinical expert consensus document on the use of percutaneous left ventricular assist support devices during complex high-risk indicated PCI: Italian Society of Interventional Cardiology Working Group Endorsed by Spanish and Portuguese Interventional Cardiology Societies.

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is establishing as the last remaining revascularization option in an increasing number of patients affected by complex coronary artery disease not suitable for surgery. Over the past decade, percutaneous left ventricular assist device (pLVAD) has increasingly replaced intra-aortic balloon pump to provide hemodynamic support during such non-emergent complex high-risk indicated procedures (CHIP) averting the risk of circulatory collapse and of adverse events in long lasting and/or complicated procedures. This review article aims to report the key factors to define CHIP, to summarize the available pLVAD which have CE mark for temporary mechanical LV support and to discuss the rationale of their use in this subset of patients. Based on the expertise of the Italian Society of Interventional Cardiology working group, with the endorsement from Spanish and Portuguese Society of Interventional Cardiology working groups, it will provide several practical suggestions in regards to the use of pLVAD in different clinical CHIP scenarios.

Current Practice of State-of-the-Art Coronary Revascularization in Patients with Heart Failure.

The best treatment for patients with ischemic heart failure (HF) is still on debate. There is growing evidence that coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) benefits these patients. The current recommendations for revascularization in this context are that CABG is reasonable when it comes to decreasing morbidity and mortality rates for patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction (ejection fraction <35%), and significant coronary artery disease (CAD) and should be considered in patients with operable coronary anatomy, regardless whether or not there is a viable myocardium (class IIb). Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) does not have enough data to allow the panels to reach a conclusion. The Korean Acute Heart Failure registry (KorAHF) had its data released recently, showing that patients with acute HF who underwent CABG had lower death rates, more complete revascularization and less adverse outcomes compared with patients treated with PCI. Recent ESC/EACTS guidelines on myocardial revascularization clearly recommended CABG as the first choice of revascularization strategy in patients with multivessel disease and acceptable surgical risk to improve prognosis in this scenario of left ventricular dysfunction. However, a high peri-procedural risk must be compared with the benefit of late mortality, and pros and cons of each strategy (either PCI or CABG) must be weighed in the decision-making process. Spurred on by the publication of the above-mentioned article and the release of new guidelines, we went on to write an overview of the current practice of state-of-the-art coronary revascularization options in patients with HF.

Current practice of state-of-the-art coronary revascularization in patients with heart failure

Abstract The best treatment for patients with ischemic heart failure (HF) is still on debate. There is growing evidence that coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) benefits these patients. The current recommendations for revascularization in this context are that CABG is reasonable when it comes to decreasing morbidity and mortality rates for patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction (ejection fraction <35%), and significant coronary artery disease (CAD) and should be considered in patients with operable coronary anatomy, regardless whether or not there is a viable myocardium (class IIb). Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) does not have enough data to allow the panels to reach a conclusion. The Korean Acute Heart Failure registry (KorAHF) had its data released recently, showing that patients with acute HF who underwent CABG had lower death rates, more complete revascularization and less adverse outcomes compared with patients treated with PCI. Recent ESC/EACTS guidelines on myocardial revascularization clearly recommended CABG as the first choice of revascularization strategy in patients with multivessel disease and acceptable surgical risk to improve prognosis in this scenario of left ventricular dysfunction. However, a high peri-procedural risk must be compared with the benefit of late mortality, and pros and cons of each strategy (either PCI or CABG) must be weighed in the decision-making process. Spurred on by the publication of the above-mentioned article and the release of new guidelines, we went on to write an overview of the current practice of state-of-the-art coronary revascularization options in patients with HF.

Canadian spontaneous coronary artery dissection cohort study: in-hospital and 30-day outcomes.

AIMS: Spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD) was underdiagnosed and poorly understood for decades. It is increasingly recognized as an important cause of myocardial infarction (MI) in women. We aimed to assess the natural history of SCAD, which has not been adequately explored. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a multicentre, prospective, observational study of patients with non-atherosclerotic SCAD presenting acutely from 22 centres in North America. Institutional ethics approval and patient consents were obtained. We recorded baseline demographics, in-hospital characteristics, precipitating/predisposing conditions, angiographic features (assessed by core laboratory), in-hospital major adverse events (MAE), and 30-day major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). We prospectively enrolled 750 SCAD patients from June 2014 to June 2018. Mean age was 51.8 ± 10.2 years, 88.5% were women (55.0% postmenopausal), 87.7% were Caucasian, and 33.9% had no cardiac risk factors. Emotional stress was reported in 50.3%, and physical stress in 28.9% (9.8% lifting >50 pounds). Predisposing conditions included fibromuscular dysplasia 31.1% (45.2% had no/incomplete screening), systemic inflammatory diseases 4.7%, peripartum 4.5%, and connective tissue disorders 3.6%. Most were treated conservatively (84.3%), but 14.1% underwent percutaneous coronary intervention and 0.7% coronary artery bypass surgery. In-hospital composite MAE was 8.8%; peripartum SCAD patients had higher in-hospital MAE (20.6% vs. 8.2%, P = 0.023). Overall 30-day MACE was 8.8%. Peripartum SCAD and connective tissue disease were independent predictors of 30-day MACE. CONCLUSION: Spontaneous coronary artery dissection predominantly affects women and presents with MI. Despite majority of patients being treated conservatively, survival was good. However, significant cardiovascular complications occurred within 30 days. Long-term follow-up and further investigations on management are warranted.

The prevalence, predictors and outcomes of guideline-directed medical therapy in patients with acute myocardial infarction undergoing PCI, an analysis from the PROMETHEUS registry.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the prevalence, predictors and associations between guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) and clinical outcomes in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) from eight academic centers in the United States. BACKGROUND: Evidence for GDMT in patients with AMI comes from randomized controlled trials. The use of GDMT in clinical practice is unknown in this setting. METHODS: PROMETHEUS is a multicenter observational registry comprising 19,914 patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing PCI. Patients with AMI were divided into two groups based on the prescription of GDMT or not (non-GDMT) at discharge. GDMT was defined according to American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) class I recommendations, specifically, dual antiplatelet therapy, statin and beta-blocker for all AMI patients, and additional ACEI/ARB in patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) less than 40%, hypertension, diabetes mellitus (DM) or chronic kidney disease (CKD). The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) defined as a composite of all-cause death, MI, stroke or unplanned target vessel revascularization (TVR) at 1 year. RESULTS: Out of 4,834 patients with AMI, 3,356 (69.4%) patients were discharged on GDMT. Patients receiving GDMT were more often younger and male. Compared with non-GDMT patients, GDMT patients had a significantly lower frequency of comorbidities. Predictors of greater GDMT prescription at discharge were ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), and increased body mass index (BMI), whereas hypertension, prior PCI, anemia and CKD were associated with less GDMT prescription. At 1 year, the use of GDMT was associated with a significantly lower incidence of MACE (13.7% vs. 22.5%; adjusted HR 0.68; 95%CI 0.58-0.80; P < 0.001), death (3.7% vs. 9.4%; adjusted HR 0.61; 95%CI 0.46-0.80; P < 0.001), and unplanned TVR (8.4% vs. 11.3%; adjusted HR 0.76; 95%CI 0.61-0.96; P = 0.020). However, there were no significant differences in the incidence of MI (4.3% vs. 7.0%; adjusted HR 0.75; 95%CI 0.56-1.01; P = 0.056), stroke (1.5% vs. 2.0%; adjusted HR 0.79; 95%CI 0.47-1.34; P = 0.384) between the two groups. CONCLUSION: In a contemporary practice setting in the United States, GDMT was utilized in just over two-thirds of AMI patients undergoing PCI. Predictors of GDMT prescription at discharge included STEMI, BMI and absence of hypertension, CKD, anemia or prior PCI. Use of GDMT was associated with significantly lower risk of 1-year MACE and mortality.

Does cardiology hold pharmacogenetics to an inconsistent standard? A comparison of evidence among recommendations.

Current guideline recommendations for pharmacogenetic testing for clopidogrel by the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology (AHA/ACC) contradict the Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium and the US FDA. The AHA/ACC recommends against routine pharmacogenetic testing for clopidogrel because no randomized controlled trials have demonstrated that testing improves patients' outcomes. However the AHA/ACC and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) recommend other pharmacogenetic tests in the absence of randomized controlled trials evidence. Using clopidogrel as a case example, we compared the evidence for other pharmacogenetic tests recommended by the AHA/ACC and NCCN. In patients that received percutaneous coronary intervention, the evidence supporting pharmacogenetic testing for clopidogrel is stronger than other pharmacogenetic tests recommended by the AHA/ACC and NCCN.