Comparison of percutaneous coronary intervention safety before and during the establishment of a transradial program at a teaching hospital.

This study sought to examine the safety of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) before and during de novo establishment of a transradial (TR) program at a teaching hospital. TR access remains underused in the United States, where cardiology fellowship programs continue to produce cardiologists with little TR experience. Establishment of TR programs at teaching hospitals may affect PCI safety. Starting in July 2009 a TR program was established at a teaching hospital. PCI-related data for academic years 2008 to 2009 (Y1) and 2009 to 2010 (Y2) were prospectively collected and retrospectively analyzed. Of 1,366 PCIs performed over 2 years, 0.1% in Y1 and 28.7% in Y2 were performed by TR access. No major complications were identified in 194 consecutive patients undergoing TR PCI, and combined bleeding and vascular complication rates were lower in Y2 versus Y1 (0.7% vs 2.0%, p = 0.05). Patients treated in Y2 versus Y1 and by TR versus transfemoral approach required slightly more fluoroscopy but similar contrast volumes and had similar procedural durations, lengths of stay, and predischarge mortality rates. PCI success rates were 97% in Y1, 97% in Y2, and 98% in TR cases. TR PCIs were performed by 13 cardiology fellows and 9 attending physicians, none of whom routinely performed TR PCI previously. In conclusion, de novo establishment of a TR program improved PCI safety at a teaching hospital. TR programs are likely to improve PCI safety at other teaching hospitals and should be established in all cardiology fellowship training programs.

Barriers to clopidogrel adherence following placement of drug-eluting stents.

BACKGROUND: Nonadherence to clopidogrel after drug-eluting stent (DES) placement is associated with in-stent thrombosis and adverse cardiac events. OBJECTIVE: To identify the incidence of and barriers associated with nonadherence to clopidogrel in patients receiving DES. METHODS: Patients who received a DES between March 1, 2004, and August 31, 2005, from a single academic medical center were eligible. Telephone interviews were conducted 6 or more months following discharge. Nonadherence was defined as premature discontinuation of or less than 80% adherence to clopidogrel. Patients were asked to identify barriers to adherence. Differences between adherent and nonadherent patients were analyzed using chi(2) and t-test analysis. RESULTS: Of the 674 patients identified, 257 (38%) participated. The nonadherence rate was 20%. The majority (58%) of nonadherent patients discontinued therapy prematurely. Patients identified the main reason for discontinuation as medical barriers (18.56%), including perceived adverse effects (9.28%). The incidence of rash was higher in patients who were nonadherent (12% vs 4%; p = 0.049). Overall, 49% of patients recalled receiving discharge counseling regarding adverse effects. A financial barrier was identified by 22 (42%) patients in the nonadherent and 73 (36%) in the adherent group, of whom 64% and 52%, respectively, reported having insurance coverage for medications. Adherent patients reported higher copays ($29.69 vs $18.14; p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Prospective studies should be conducted to aid in identifying patients at risk for nonadherence and possible in-stent thrombosis in order to identify interventions to improve adherence.

High left ventricular mass index does not limit the utility of fractional flow reserve for the physiologic assessment of lesion severity.

OBJECTIVES: To demonstrate that fractional flow reserve (FFR) of vessels in patients with high left ventricular mass index (LVMI) should be similar to that of matched vessels in patients with normal LVMI. BACKGROUND: FFR is a physiologic index of coronary lesion severity. It is not known whether FFR remains useful in the setting of increased LVMI, when microvascular abnormalities may be present. METHODS: LVMI was calculated in 84 patients using contrast left ventriculography after validation with cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. Cardiac risk factors, LV ejection fraction (LVEF), minimal lumen diameter (MLD), percent diameter stenosis (%DS), lesion length and FFR were compared in 22 patients with high LVMI to 62 patients with normal LVMI and angiographically-matched vessels. RESULTS: LVMI was 126 +/- 21 g/m2 in the high LVMI group and 84 +/- 21 g/m2 in the normal LVMI group. There were no differences in age, LVEF, diabetes, hypertension or dyslipidemia between groups. Angiographic lesion characteristics were well matched in patients with high versus normal LVMI (MLD 1.3 +/- 0.6 mm vs. 1.3 +/- 0.6 mm, %DS 61 +/- 13% vs. 62 +/- 13%, and lesion length 14.2 +/- 7.0 mm vs. 14.3 +/- 7.0 mm; p = NS for all). Importantly, no difference in FFR was observed (0.79 +/- 0.12 vs. 0.78 +/- 0.16; p = NS) between the groups, and LVMI did not correlate with FFR in a multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: FFR of coronary lesions in patients with high LVMI is no different than FFR of angiographically-matched lesions in patients with normal LVMI, suggesting that high LV mass should not limit the utility of FFR as an index of coronary lesion severity.

Outcome of patients with acute coronary syndromes and moderate coronary lesions undergoing deferral of revascularization based on fractional flow reserve assessment.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the outcome of consecutive patients with and without acute coronary syndromes (ACS) in whom revascularization was deferred on the basis of fractional flow reserve (FFR). BACKGROUND: FFR < 0.75 correlates with ischemia on noninvasive tests and deferral of treatment on the basis of FFR is associated with low event rates in selected populations. Whether these low event rates apply to patients undergoing assessment of moderate stenoses in association with an ACS is not known and is an important clinical question. METHODS: Retrospective analysis and 12 month follow-up of consecutive, moderate (50-70%) de novo coronary lesions assessed with FFR. RESULTS: Revascularization was deferred in 120 lesions (111 patients) with FFR > or = 0.75. ACS was present in 35 patients (40 lesions). The clinical, angiographic and coronary hemodynamic characteristics of patients with and without ACS were similar. Among the 35 patients with ACS, there were 3 deaths, 1 MI, and 6 target vessel revascularizations (TVRs) (15% of lesions). Among the 76 patients without ACS, there were 5 deaths, 1 MI, and 7 TVR's (9% of lesions). CONCLUSIONS: Deferral of revascularization based on FFR in patients with ACS and moderate coronary stenoses is associated with acceptable and low event rates at 1 year.

Effect of acute myocardial infarction on the utility of fractional flow reserve for the physiologic assessment of the severity of coronary artery narrowing.

Fractional flow reserve (FFR) has been shown to be a useful physiologic index of coronary lesion severity in myocardial beds of patients without prior infarction and in those with remote infarction. Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) causes myocardial necrosis and microvascular stunning, embolization, and damage. Whether FFR remains a useful index of epicardial flow in the setting of recent myocardial infarction is not established. Cardiac risk factors, serum troponin I, angiographic minimal lumen diameter (MLD), percent diameter stenosis (DS), lesion length, vessel reference diameter, hyperemic central aortic pressure, hyperemic pressure distal to stenosis, and FFR were compared in 43 vessels subtending recent AMI beds to 25 control vessels, matched by lesion length and MLD, in patients without AMI. There were no differences in DS, MLD, lesion length, or reference diameter between AMI and non-AMI groups. Patients with AMI had mean troponin I levels of 91.8 +/- 162 ng/ml. Left ventricular ejection fraction was significantly lower in patients with than without AMI (55 +/- 9% vs 62 +/- 8%, p <0.05). There were no significant differences in hyperemic central aortic pressure (92 +/- 13 vs 99 +/- 15 mm Hg, p = NS), hyperemic pressure distal to the stenosis (62 +/- 17 vs 66 +/- 19 mm Hg, p = NS), or FFR (0.67 +/- 17 vs 0.68 +/- 17, p = NS) between recent AMI and non-AMI control patients. There was a significant correlation between DS and FFR for both patients with (p <0.001) and without (p = 0.003) infarctions. Thus, FFR and the relation between FFR and DS of lesions subtending AMI was not significantly different from FFR of angiographically matched lesions in patients without AMI.

Comparison between visual assessment and quantitative angiography versus fractional flow reserve for native coronary narrowings of moderate severity.

We tested the hypothesis that experienced interventional cardiologists can identify patients with fractional flow reserve (FFR) <0.75 either by visual assessment of the angiogram or by quantitative coronary angiography (QCA). Estimation of the significance of moderate lesions is difficult. FFR can determine the physiologic significance of a stenosis. Data comparing visual assessment and QCA of moderate lesions with FFR are limited. FFR was measured in 83 moderate lesions defined as having a 40% to 70% stenosis by visual inspection. An FFR <0.75 was considered "significant." Lesions were visually assessed by 3 experienced interventional cardiologists and their significance estimated. QCA was performed. Both analyses were compared with FFR. FFR averaged 0.82 +/- 0.11 and was <0.75 in 15 of 83 lesions (18%). The reviewers' classification was concordant with the FFR in about half the lesions. Concordance between reviewers was poor (Spearman's rho = 0.36). Visual assessment resulted in good sensitivity (80%) and negative predictive value (91%), but poor specificity (47%) and positive predictive value (25%) compared with FFR. By QCA, no patient with stenosis <60% or minimal luminal diameter >1.4 mm had FFR <0.75. QCA did not discriminate the significance of lesions outside of these parameters. Thus, neither visual assessment of an angiogram by experienced interventional cardiologists nor QCA can accurately predict the significance of most moderate narrowings.