ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: A strategy of administering a transfusion only when the hemoglobin level falls below 7 or 8 g per deciliter has been widely adopted. However, patients with acute myocardial infarction may benefit from a higher hemoglobin level. METHODS: In this phase 3, interventional trial, we randomly assigned patients with myocardial infarction and a hemoglobin level of less than 10 g per deciliter to a restrictive transfusion strategy (hemoglobin cutoff for transfusion, 7 or 8 g per deciliter) or a liberal transfusion strategy (hemoglobin cutoff, <10 g per deciliter). The primary outcome was a composite of myocardial infarction or death at 30 days. RESULTS: A total of 3504 patients were included in the primary analysis. The mean (±SD) number of red-cell units that were transfused was 0.7±1.6 in the restrictive-strategy group and 2.5±2.3 in the liberal-strategy group. The mean hemoglobin level was 1.3 to 1.6 g per deciliter lower in the restrictive-strategy group than in the liberal-strategy group on days 1 to 3 after randomization. A primary-outcome event occurred in 295 of 1749 patients (16.9%) in the restrictive-strategy group and in 255 of 1755 patients (14.5%) in the liberal-strategy group (risk ratio modeled with multiple imputation for incomplete follow-up, 1.15; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.99 to 1.34; P = 0.07). Death occurred in 9.9% of the patients with the restrictive strategy and in 8.3% of the patients with the liberal strategy (risk ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.47); myocardial infarction occurred in 8.5% and 7.2% of the patients, respectively (risk ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.94 to 1.49). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with acute myocardial infarction and anemia, a liberal transfusion strategy did not significantly reduce the risk of recurrent myocardial infarction or death at 30 days. However, potential harms of a restrictive transfusion strategy cannot be excluded. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; MINT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02981407.).
Subject(s)
Anemia , Blood Transfusion , Myocardial Infarction , Humans , Anemia/blood , Anemia/etiology , Anemia/therapy , Blood Transfusion/methods , Erythrocyte Transfusion/adverse effects , Erythrocyte Transfusion/methods , Hemoglobins/analysis , Myocardial Infarction/blood , Myocardial Infarction/complications , Myocardial Infarction/mortality , Myocardial Infarction/therapy , RecurrenceABSTRACT
Antiplatelet therapy is the mainstay of pharmacologic treatment to prevent thrombotic or ischemic events in patients with coronary artery disease treated with percutaneous coronary intervention and those treated medically for an acute coronary syndrome. The use of antiplatelet therapy comes at the expense of an increased risk of bleeding complications. Defining the optimal intensity of platelet inhibition according to the clinical presentation of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and individual patient factors is a clinical challenge. Modulation of antiplatelet therapy is a medical action that is frequently performed to balance the risk of thrombotic or ischemic events and the risk of bleeding. This aim may be achieved by reducing (ie, de-escalation) or increasing (ie, escalation) the intensity of platelet inhibition by changing the type, dose, or number of antiplatelet drugs. Because de-escalation or escalation can be achieved in different ways, with a number of emerging approaches, confusion arises with terminologies that are often used interchangeably. To address this issue, this Academic Research Consortium collaboration provides an overview and definitions of different strategies of antiplatelet therapy modulation for patients with coronary artery disease, including but not limited to those undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, and consensus statements on standardized definitions.
Subject(s)
Acute Coronary Syndrome , Coronary Artery Disease , Percutaneous Coronary Intervention , Thrombosis , Humans , Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors/adverse effects , Coronary Artery Disease/complications , Hemorrhage/etiology , Blood Platelets , Dual Anti-Platelet Therapy/adverse effects , Acute Coronary Syndrome/therapy , Thrombosis/etiology , Percutaneous Coronary Intervention/adverse effects , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: There is a dearth of research on immunophenotyping in peripheral artery disease (PAD). This study aimed to describe the baseline characteristics, immunophenotypic profile, and quality of life (QoL) of participants with PAD in the Project Baseline Health Study (PBHS). METHODS: The PBHS study is a prospective, multicenter, longitudinal cohort study that collected clinical, molecular, and biometric data from participants recruited between 2017 and 2018. In this analysis, baseline demographic, clinical, mobility, QoL, and flow cytometry data were stratified by the presence of PAD (ankle brachial index [ABI] ≤0.90). RESULTS: Of 2,209 participants, 58 (2.6%) had lower-extremity PAD, and only 2 (3.4%) had pre-existing PAD diagnosed prior to enrollment. Comorbid smoking (29.3% vs 14%, P < .001), hypertension (54% vs 30%, P < .001), diabetes (25% vs 14%, P = .031), and at least moderate coronary calcifications (Agatston score >100: 32% vs 17%, P = .01) were significantly higher in participants with PAD than in those with normal ABIs, as were high-sensitivity C-reactive protein levels (5.86 vs 2.83, P < .001). After adjusting for demographic and risk factors, participants with PAD had significantly fewer circulating CD56-high natural killer cells, IgM+ memory B cells, and CD10/CD27 double-positive B cells (P < .05 for all). CONCLUSIONS: This study reinforces existing evidence that a large proportion of PAD without claudication may be underdiagnosed, particularly in female and Black or African American participants. We describe a novel immunophenotypic profile of participants with PAD that could represent a potential future screening or diagnostic tool to facilitate earlier diagnosis of PAD. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT03154346, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03154346.
Subject(s)
Ankle Brachial Index , Biomarkers , Peripheral Arterial Disease , Humans , Female , Male , Peripheral Arterial Disease/diagnosis , Peripheral Arterial Disease/epidemiology , Risk Factors , Aged , Prospective Studies , Biomarkers/blood , Middle Aged , Quality of Life , Longitudinal Studies , Hypertension/epidemiology , Smoking/epidemiology , Diabetes Mellitus/epidemiology , Diabetes Mellitus/blood , Immunophenotyping , United States/epidemiology , Flow CytometryABSTRACT
When selecting an anticoagulant, clinicians consider individual patient characteristic, the treatment indication, drug pharmacology, and safety and efficacy as demonstrated in randomized trials. An ideal anticoagulant prevents thrombosis with little or no increase in bleeding. Direct oral anticoagulants represent a major advance over traditional anticoagulants (e.g., unfractionated heparin, warfarin) but still cause bleeding, particularly from the gastrointestinal tract which can limit their use. Epidemiological studies indicate that patients with congenital factor XI (FXI) deficiency have a lower risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and ischemic stroke (IS) than non-deficient individuals, and do not have an increased risk of spontaneous bleeding, even with severe deficiency. These observations provide the rationale for targeting FXI as a new class of anticoagulant. Multiple FXI inhibitors have been introduced and several are being evaluated in Phase III trials. In this review, we explain why drugs that target FXI may be associated with a lower risk of bleeding than currently available anticoagulants and summarize the completed and ongoing trials.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Polyvascular disease has a significant global burden and is associated with increased risk of major adverse cardiac events with each additional vascular territory involved. The purpose of this review is to highlight the risk factors, associated outcomes, emerging genetic markers, and evidence for screening and treatment of polyvascular disease. RECENT FINDINGS: Polyvascular disease is the presence of atherosclerosis in two or more vascular beds. It has a significant global burden, with a prevalence of 30-70% in patients with known atherosclerosis. Patients with polyvascular disease experience elevated rates of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction and stroke, especially among high-risk subgroups like those with type 2 diabetes mellitus and there is a step-wise increased risk of adverse outcomes with each additional vascular territory involved. Genetic analyses demonstrate that some individuals may carry a genetic predisposition, while others exhibit higher levels of atherogenic lipoproteins and inflammatory markers. Routine screening for asymptomatic disease is not currently recommended by major cardiovascular societies unless patients are high-risk. While there are no established protocols for escalating treatment, existing guidelines advocate for lipid-lowering therapy. Additionally, recent studies have demonstrated benefit from antithrombotic agents, such as P2Y12 inhibitors and low-dose anticoagulation, but the optimal timing and dosage of these agents has not been established, and the ischemic benefit must be balanced against the increased risk of bleeding in the polyvascular population. Due to the high prevalence and risks associated with polyvascular disease, early identification and treatment intensification are crucial to reduce disease progression. Future research is needed to develop screening protocols and determine the optimal timing and dosing of therapy to prevent ischemic events.
Subject(s)
Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 , Humans , Risk Factors , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/complications , Atherosclerosis , Cardiovascular Diseases/etiology , Genetic Predisposition to Disease , PrevalenceABSTRACT
AIMS: Prior trials have demonstrated that intravascular imaging (IVI)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) results in less frequent target lesion revascularization and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) compared with standard angiographic guidance. The uptake and associated outcomes of IVI-guided PCI in contemporary clinical practice in the USA remain unclear. Accordingly, temporal trends and comparative outcomes of IVI-guided PCI relative to PCI with angiographic guidance alone were examined in a broad, unselected population of Medicare beneficiaries. METHODS AND RESULTS: Retrospective cohort study of Medicare beneficiary data from 1 January 2013, through 31 December 2019 to evaluate temporal trends and comparative outcomes of IVI-guided PCI as compared with PCI with angiography guidance alone in both the inpatient and outpatient settings. The primary outcomes were 1 year mortality and MACE, defined as the composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), repeat PCI, or coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Secondary outcomes were MI or repeat PCI at 1 year. Multivariable Cox regression was used to estimate the adjusted association between IVI guidance and outcomes. Falsification endpoints (hospitalized pneumonia and hip fracture) were used to assess for potential unmeasured confounding. The study population included 1 189 470 patients undergoing PCI (38.0% female, 89.8% White, 65.1% with MI). Overall, IVI was used in 10.5% of the PCIs, increasing from 9.5% in 2013% to 15.4% in 2019. Operator IVI use was variable, with the median operator use of IVI 3.92% (interquartile range 0.36%-12.82%). IVI use during PCI was associated with lower adjusted rates of 1 year mortality [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 0.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94-0.98], MI (aHR 0.97, 95% CI 0.95-0.99), repeat PCI (aHR 0.74, 95% CI 0.73-0.75), and MACE (aHR 0.85, 95% CI 0.84-0.86). There was no association with the falsification endpoint of hospitalized pneumonia (aHR 1.02, 95% CI 0.99-1.04) or hip fracture (aHR 1.02, 95% CI 0.94-1.10). CONCLUSION: Among Medicare beneficiaries undergoing PCI, use of IVI has increased over the previous decade but remains relatively infrequent. IVI-guided PCI was associated with lower risk-adjusted mortality, acute MI, repeat PCI, and MACE.
Subject(s)
Coronary Artery Disease , Myocardial Infarction , Percutaneous Coronary Intervention , Pneumonia , Humans , Female , Aged , United States/epidemiology , Male , Coronary Artery Disease/diagnostic imaging , Coronary Artery Disease/surgery , Coronary Angiography/methods , Percutaneous Coronary Intervention/methods , Retrospective Studies , Treatment Outcome , Medicare , Pneumonia/etiology , Ultrasonography, Interventional/methodsABSTRACT
Conventional randomized controlled trials (RCTs) can be expensive, time intensive, and complex to conduct. Trial recruitment, participation, and data collection can burden participants and research personnel. In the past two decades, there have been rapid technological advances and an exponential growth in digitized healthcare data. Embedding RCTs, including cardiovascular outcome trials, into electronic health record systems or registries may streamline screening, consent, randomization, follow-up visits, and outcome adjudication. Moreover, wearable sensors (i.e. health and fitness trackers) provide an opportunity to collect data on cardiovascular health and risk factors in unprecedented detail and scale, while growing internet connectivity supports the collection of patient-reported outcomes. There is a pressing need to develop robust mechanisms that facilitate data capture from diverse databases and guidance to standardize data definitions. Importantly, the data collection infrastructure should be reusable to support multiple cardiovascular RCTs over time. Systems, processes, and policies will need to have sufficient flexibility to allow interoperability between different sources of data acquisition. Clinical research guidelines, ethics oversight, and regulatory requirements also need to evolve. This review highlights recent progress towards the use of routinely generated data to conduct RCTs and discusses potential solutions for ongoing barriers. There is a particular focus on methods to utilize routinely generated data for trials while complying with regional data protection laws. The discussion is supported with examples of cardiovascular outcome trials that have successfully leveraged the electronic health record, web-enabled devices or administrative databases to conduct randomized trials.
Subject(s)
Cardiovascular Diseases , Electronic Health Records , Routinely Collected Health Data , Humans , Randomized Controlled Trials as TopicABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Evidence supporting anticoagulation with unfractionated heparin (UFH) in patients with an intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) to prevent limb ischaemia remains limited, while bleeding risks remain high. Monitoring heparin in this setting with anti-factor Xa (anti-Xa) is not previously described. OBJECTIVES: The study objective is to describe the incidence of thromboembolic and bleeding events with the use of UFH in patients with an IABP utilising monitoring with both anti-Xa and activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT). METHODS: This is a retrospective study of adults who received an IABP and UFH for ≥24 hours. Electronic medical records were reviewed for pertinent data. The primary outcome was the incidence of limb ischaemia during IABP. Secondary outcomes included myocardial infarction, thrombus on IABP, or stroke. Exploratory outcomes included any venous thromboembolism and bleeding events. RESULTS: Of 159 patients, 88% received an IABP for cardiogenic shock and median duration of IABP support was 118 hours (interquartile range, 67-196). Limb ischaemia occurred in four of 159 patients (2.5%). Strokes occurred in 3.8% of the cohort, and bleeding events occurred in 33%. Despite anticoagulation use in all patients, 11% experienced a venous thromboembolism, with most identified upon asymptomatic screening with concern for heparin-induced thrombocytopenia. We found no differences in outcomes that occurred with a hybrid anti-Xa and aPTT versus aPTT monitoring alone. CONCLUSIONS: We observed a high rate of thrombotic and bleeding complications with the use of UFH in patients with an IABP. Use of anti-Xa versus aPTT for monitoring was not associated with complications. These data suggest safer anticoagulation strategies are needed in this setting.
Subject(s)
Heparin , Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumping , Humans , Heparin/adverse effects , Heparin/administration & dosage , Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumping/methods , Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumping/adverse effects , Retrospective Studies , Female , Male , Aged , Middle Aged , Shock, Cardiogenic , Incidence , Anticoagulants/adverse effects , Anticoagulants/administration & dosage , Hemorrhage/chemically induced , Hemorrhage/epidemiologyABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: In some randomized clinical trials, transradial access (TRA) compared with transfemoral access (TFA) was associated with lower mortality in patients with coronary artery disease undergoing invasive management. We analyzed the effects of TRA versus TFA across multicenter randomized clinical trials and whether these associations are modified by patient or procedural characteristics. METHODS: We performed an individual patient data meta-analysis of multicenter randomized clinical trials comparing TRA with TFA among patients undergoing coronary angiography with or without percutaneous coronary intervention. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality and the co-primary outcome was major bleeding at 30 days. The primary analysis was conducted by 1-stage mixed-effects models on the basis of the intention-to-treat cohort. The effect of access site on mortality and major bleeding was assessed further by multivariable analysis. The relationship among access site, bleeding, and mortality was investigated by natural effect model mediation analysis with multivariable adjustment. RESULTS: A total of 21 600 patients (10 775 TRA, 10 825 TFA) from 7 randomized clinical trials were included. The median age was 63.9 years, 31.9% were women, 95% presented with acute coronary syndrome, and 75.2% underwent percutaneous coronary intervention. All-cause mortality (1.6% versus 2.1%; hazard ratio, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.63-0.95]; P=0.012) and major bleeding (1.5% versus 2.7%; odds ratio, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.45-0.67]; P<0.001) were lower with TRA. Subgroup analyses for mortality showed consistent results, except for baseline hemoglobin level (Pinteraction=0.003), indicating that the benefit of TRA was substantial in patients with moderate or severe anemia, whereas it was not significant in patients with milder or no baseline anemia. After adjustment, TRA remained associated with 24% and 51% relative risk reduction of all-cause mortality and major bleeding, respectively. A mediation analysis showed that the benefit of TRA on mortality was only partially driven by major bleeding prevention and ancillary mechanisms are required to fully explain the causal association. CONCLUSIONS: TRA is associated with lower all-cause mortality and major bleeding at 30 days compared with TFA. The effect on mortality was driven by patients with anemia. The reduction in major bleeding only partially explains the mortality benefit. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero; Unique identifier: CRD42018109664.
Subject(s)
Coronary Angiography , Percutaneous Coronary Intervention , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Coronary Angiography/adverse effects , Femoral Artery/diagnostic imaging , Hemorrhage/etiology , Multicenter Studies as Topic , Percutaneous Coronary Intervention/adverse effects , Radial Artery , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Risk Factors , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Oral activated factor XI (FXIa) inhibitors may modulate coagulation to prevent thromboembolic events without substantially increasing bleeding. We explored the pharmacodynamics, safety, and efficacy of the oral FXIa inhibitor asundexian for secondary prevention after acute myocardial infarction (MI). METHODS: We randomized 1601 patients with recent acute MI to oral asundexian 10, 20, or 50 mg or placebo once daily for 6 to 12 months in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2, dose-ranging trial. Patients were randomized within 5 days of their qualifying MI and received dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin plus a P2Y12 inhibitor. The effect of asundexian on FXIa inhibition was assessed at 4 weeks. The prespecified main safety outcome was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding comparing all pooled asundexian doses with placebo. The prespecified efficacy outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, or stent thrombosis comparing pooled asundexian 20 and 50 mg doses with placebo. RESULTS: The median age was 68 years, 23% of participants were women, 51% had ST-segment-elevation MI, 80% were treated with aspirin plus ticagrelor or prasugrel, and 99% underwent percutaneous coronary intervention before randomization. Asundexian caused dose-related inhibition of FXIa activity, with 50 mg resulting in >90% inhibition. Over a median follow-up of 368 days, the main safety outcome occurred in 30 (7.6%), 32 (8.1%), 42 (10.5%), and 36 (9.0%) patients receiving asundexian 10 mg, 20 mg, or 50 mg, or placebo, respectively (pooled asundexian versus placebo: hazard ratio, 0.98 [90% CI, 0.71-1.35]). The efficacy outcome occurred in 27 (6.8%), 24 (6.0%), 22 (5.5%), and 22 (5.5%) patients assigned asundexian 10 mg, 20 mg, or 50 mg, or placebo, respectively (pooled asundexian 20 and 50 mg versus placebo: hazard ratio, 1.05 [90% CI, 0.69-1.61]). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with recent acute MI, 3 doses of asundexian, when added to aspirin plus a P2Y12 inhibitor, resulted in dose-dependent, near-complete inhibition of FXIa activity without a significant increase in bleeding and a low rate of ischemic events. These data support the investigation of asundexian at a dose of 50 mg daily in an adequately powered clinical trial of patients who experienced acute MI. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT04304534; URL: https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/search; Unique identifier: 2019-003244-79.
Subject(s)
Acute Coronary Syndrome , Myocardial Infarction , Percutaneous Coronary Intervention , Acute Coronary Syndrome/therapy , Aged , Anticoagulants/therapeutic use , Aspirin/therapeutic use , Double-Blind Method , Factor XIa , Female , Hemorrhage/chemically induced , Humans , Male , Myocardial Infarction/etiology , Percutaneous Coronary Intervention/adverse effects , Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Prasugrel Hydrochloride , Ticagrelor , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
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.
Subject(s)
Cardiology/standards , Coronary Artery Bypass/standards , Myocardial Revascularization/standards , Percutaneous Coronary Intervention/standards , Vascular Surgical Procedures/standards , American Heart Association/organization & administration , Coronary Artery Bypass/methods , Coronary Artery Disease/physiopathology , Coronary Artery Disease/therapy , Coronary Vessels/surgery , Humans , United States , Vascular Surgical Procedures/methodsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Appropriate use criteria (AUC) have been developed to promote the rational use of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) among clinicians and to provide benchmarking feedback to hospitals. The original AUC were published in 2012 and subsequently updated in 2017 to reflect emerging, contemporary evidence however the degree to which the updated guidance re-classifies PCI appropriateness is unknown. METHODS: Elective PCI cases from March 1, 2018 until June 30, 2021 were identified from within the NCDR CathPCI database. PCI cases were classified as 'appropriate,' 'uncertain' or 'inappropriate' under 2012 AUC and 'appropriate,' 'may be appropriate' or 'rarely appropriate' under 2017 AUC; those with missing data elements were termed 'not mappable.' Groups that 'remained appropriate' (appropriate in both 2012 and 2017), 'became non-appropriate' ('appropriate' in 2012 but became either 'may be appropriate' or 'rarely appropriate in 2017) and 'became appropriate' ('appropriate' in 2017 but were 'uncertain' or 'inappropriate' in 2012) were descriptively compared. Concordance was assessed by calculation of Cohen's Kappa. RESULTS: A total of 245,196 patients underwent elective PCI across 1669 centers. By 2012 AUC, 44% were classified 'appropriate,' 28% were 'uncertain' and 16% were 'inappropriate' compared with 2017 AUC which considered 34% 'appropriate', 56% may be 'appropriate' and 4% 'rarely appropriate'. Overall fair agreement was observed with a Kappa statistic of 0.40 (95%CI 0.396-0.403). Compared with PCI that 'remained appropriate' under the 2017 AUC, PCI that 'became non-appropriate' in 2017 were more likely to be asymptomatic, less likely to be on anti-anginals and less likely to have complex lesions. Compared with PCI that 'became non-appropriate', PCI that 'became appropriate' had a higher proportion of atypical and non-anginal symptoms and were less likely to have had positive functional tests. Procedural related outcomes were similar across all groups. A total of 29 429 PCI (12.0%) were not mappable by 2012 AUC while 16 077 (6.6%) were not mappable by 2017 AUC. CONCLUSIONS: In this contemporary analysis of patients undergoing PCI in the United States, only fair agreement between the 2012 and updated 2017 AUC was observed. While some of this reflects the intention of the updated guidance, the large proportion that were considered 'maybe appropriate' or who 'became non-appropriate' reflect the difficulties of documenting and implementing contemporary AUC guidance.
Subject(s)
Percutaneous Coronary Intervention , Humans , United States/epidemiology , Percutaneous Coronary Intervention/adverse effects , Patient Selection , Registries , HospitalsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Accumulating evidence from clinical trials suggests that a lower (restrictive) hemoglobin threshold (<8 g/dL) for red blood cell (RBC) transfusion, compared with a higher (liberal) threshold (≥10 g/dL) is safe. However, in anemic patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI), maintaining a higher hemoglobin level may increase oxygen delivery to vulnerable myocardium resulting in improved clinical outcomes. Conversely, RBC transfusion may result in increased blood viscosity, vascular inflammation, and reduction in available nitric oxide resulting in worse clinical outcomes. We hypothesize that a liberal transfusion strategy would improve clinical outcomes as compared to a more restrictive strategy. METHODS: We will enroll 3500 patients with acute MI (type 1, 2, 4b or 4c) as defined by the Third Universal Definition of MI and a hemoglobin <10 g/dL at 144 centers in the United States, Canada, France, Brazil, New Zealand, and Australia. We randomly assign trial participants to a liberal or restrictive transfusion strategy. Participants assigned to the liberal strategy receive transfusion of RBCs sufficient to raise their hemoglobin to at least 10 g/dL. Participants assigned to the restrictive strategy are permitted to receive transfusion of RBCs if the hemoglobin falls below 8 g/dL or for persistent angina despite medical therapy. We will contact each participant at 30 days to assess clinical outcomes and at 180 days to ascertain vital status. The primary end point is a composite of all-cause death or recurrent MI through 30 days following randomization. Secondary end points include all-cause mortality at 30 days, recurrent adjudicated MI, and the composite outcome of all-cause mortality, nonfatal recurrent MI, ischemia driven unscheduled coronary revascularization (percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting), or readmission to the hospital for ischemic cardiac diagnosis within 30 days. The trial will assess multiple tertiary end points. CONCLUSIONS: The MINT trial will inform RBC transfusion practice in patients with acute MI.
Subject(s)
Anemia , Coronary Artery Disease , Myocardial Infarction , Myocardial Ischemia , Humans , Anemia/etiology , Anemia/therapy , Blood Transfusion , Coronary Artery Disease/complications , Hemoglobins/metabolism , Ischemia/etiology , Myocardial Infarction/complications , Myocardial Infarction/therapy , Myocardial Ischemia/complications , Myocardial Ischemia/therapy , Randomized Controlled Trials as TopicABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Intracoronary imaging modalities, including intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) and optical coherence tomography (OCT), provide valuable supplemental data unavailable on coronary angiography (CA) and have shown to improve clinical outcomes. We sought to compare the clinical efficacy of IVUS, OCT, and conventional CA-guided percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). METHODS: Frequentist and Bayesian network meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials were performed to compare clinical outcomes of PCI performed with IVUS, OCT, or CA alone. RESULTS: A total of 28 trials comprising 12,895 patients were included. IVUS when compared with CA alone was associated with a significantly reduced risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (risk ratio: [RR] 0.74, 95% confidence interval: [CI] 0.63-0.88), cardiac death (RR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.43-0.94), target lesion revascularization (RR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.57-0.80), and target vessel revascularization (RR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.50-0.81). No differences in comparative clinical efficacy were found between IVUS and OCT. Rank probability analysis bestowed the highest probability to IVUS in ranking as the best imaging modality for all studied outcomes except for all-cause mortality. CONCLUSION: Compared with CA, the use of IVUS in PCI guidance provides significant benefit in reducing MACE, cardiac death, and revascularization. OCT had similar outcomes to IVUS, but more dedicated studies are needed to confirm the superiority of OCT over CA.
Subject(s)
Coronary Artery Disease , Percutaneous Coronary Intervention , Humans , Coronary Artery Disease/diagnostic imaging , Coronary Artery Disease/therapy , Coronary Artery Disease/etiology , Tomography, Optical Coherence , Network Meta-Analysis , Bayes Theorem , Ultrasonography, Interventional/methods , Treatment Outcome , Coronary Angiography/adverse effects , DeathABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Same day discharge (SDD) following chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has received limited study. METHODS: We evaluated the clinical, angiographic, and procedural characteristics of patients discharged the same day versus those kept for overnight observation in the Prospective Global Registry for the Study of Chronic Total Occlusion Intervention (PROGRESS-CTO, NCT02061436). RESULTS: Of the 7181 patients who underwent CTO PCI, 943 (13%) had SDD. The SDD rate increased from 3% in 2015 to 21% in 2022. Patients with SDD were less likely to have a history of heart failure (21% vs. 26%, p = 0.005), chronic lung disease (10% vs. 15%, p = 0.001), or anemia (12% vs. 19%, p < 0.001). Technical success (87% vs. 88%, p = 0.289) was similar, but in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular events (0.0% vs. 0.4%, p = 0.041) were lower in SDD. In multivariable logistic regression analysis, prior myocardial infarction odds ratio (OR): 0.71 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.59-0.87, p = 0.001), chronic lung disease OR: 0.64 (95% CI: 0.47-0.88, p = 0.006), and increasing procedure time OR: 0.93 (95% CI: 0.91-0.95, p < 0.001, per 10-min increase) were associated with overnight observation, while radial-only access OR: 2.45 (95% CI: 2.03-2.96, p < 0.001) had the strongest association with SDD. In the SDD, 2 (0.4%) of 514 patients were readmitted, due to retroperitoneal bleeding (n = 1) and ischemic stroke (n = 1). CONCLUSION: The overall frequency of SDD after CTO PCI was 13% and has been increasing over time. SDD is feasible in select patients following CTO PCI, and radial-only access had the strongest association with SDD.
Subject(s)
Coronary Occlusion , Percutaneous Coronary Intervention , Humans , Patient Discharge , Risk Factors , Treatment Outcome , Coronary Occlusion/diagnostic imaging , Coronary Occlusion/therapy , Coronary Occlusion/etiology , Percutaneous Coronary Intervention/adverse effects , Percutaneous Coronary Intervention/methods , Prospective Studies , Time Factors , Chronic Disease , Coronary Angiography , RegistriesABSTRACT
Cardiac catheterization procedures have rapidly evolved and expanded in scope and techniques over the past few decades. However, although some practices have emerged based on evidence, many traditions have persisted based on beliefs and theoretical concerns. The aim of this review is to highlight common preprocedure, intraprocedure, and postprocedure catheterization laboratory practices where evidence has accumulated over the past few decades to support or discount traditionally held practices.
Subject(s)
Cardiac Catheterization , Evidence-Based Medicine , American Heart Association , Cardiac Catheterization/methods , Cardiac Catheterization/standards , Clinical Laboratory Services , Clinical Laboratory Techniques , Evidence-Based Medicine/methods , Evidence-Based Medicine/standards , Health Care Surveys , Humans , Laboratories, Clinical , Perioperative Care/methods , Perioperative Care/standards , United StatesABSTRACT
Cardiogenic shock (CS) remains the most common cause of mortality in patients with acute myocardial infarction. The SHOCK trial (Should We Emergently Revascularize Occluded Coronaries for Cardiogenic Shock) demonstrated a survival benefit with early revascularization in patients with CS complicating acute myocardial infarction (AMICS) 20 years ago. After an initial improvement in mortality related to revascularization, mortality rates have plateaued. A recent Society of Coronary Angiography and Interventions classification scheme was developed to address the wide range of CS presentations. In addition, a recent scientific statement from the American Heart Association recommended the development of CS centers using standardized protocols for diagnosis and management of CS, including mechanical circulatory support devices (MCS). A number of CS programs have implemented various protocols for treating patients with AMICS, including the use of MCS, and have published promising results using such protocols. Despite this, practice patterns in the cardiac catheterization laboratory vary across health systems, and there are inconsistencies in the use or timing of MCS for AMICS. Furthermore, mortality benefit from MCS devices in AMICS has yet to be established in randomized clinical trials. In this article, we outline the best practices for the contemporary interventional management of AMICS, including coronary revascularization, the use of MCS, and special considerations such as the treatment of patients with AMICS with cardiac arrest.
Subject(s)
Myocardial Infarction/complications , Myocardial Infarction/therapy , Shock, Cardiogenic/etiology , Acute Disease , American Heart Association , Female , Humans , Male , Shock, Cardiogenic/physiopathology , Treatment Outcome , United StatesABSTRACT
Saphenous vein grafts (SVGs) remain the most frequently used conduits in coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG). Despite advances in surgical techniques and pharmacotherapy, SVG failure rates remain high, often leading to repeat coronary revascularization. The no-touch SVG harvesting technique (minimal graft manipulation with preservation of vasa vasorum and nerves) reduces the risk of SVG failure, whereas the effect of the off-pump technique on SVG patency remains unclear. Use of buffered storage solutions, intraoperative graft flow measurement, careful selection of the target vessels, and physiological assessment of the native coronary circulation before CABG may also reduce the incidence of SVG failure. Perioperative aspirin and high-intensity statin administration are the cornerstones of secondary prevention after CABG. Dual antiplatelet therapy is recommended for off-pump CABG and in patients with a recent acute coronary syndrome. Intermediate (30%-60%) SVG stenoses often progress rapidly. Stenting of intermediate SVG stenoses failed to improve outcomes; hence, treatment focuses on strict control of coronary artery disease risk factors. Redo CABG is associated with higher perioperative mortality compared with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI); hence, the latter is preferred for most patients requiring repeat revascularization after CABG. SVG PCI is limited by high rates of no-reflow and a high incidence of restenosis during follow-up. Drug-eluting and bare metal stents provide similar long-term outcomes in SVG PCI. Embolic protection devices reduce no-reflow and should be used when feasible. PCI of the corresponding native coronary artery is associated with better short- and long-term outcomes and is preferred over SVG PCI, if technically feasible.
Subject(s)
Coronary Artery Bypass/methods , Coronary Artery Disease/surgery , Saphenous Vein/transplantation , Animals , Clinical Decision-Making , Coronary Artery Disease/diagnosis , Disease Management , Humans , Perioperative Care/methods , Treatment Failure , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: In patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of the culprit lesion reduces the risk of cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction. Whether PCI of nonculprit lesions further reduces the risk of such events is unclear. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease who had undergone successful culprit-lesion PCI to a strategy of either complete revascularization with PCI of angiographically significant nonculprit lesions or no further revascularization. Randomization was stratified according to the intended timing of nonculprit-lesion PCI (either during or after the index hospitalization). The first coprimary outcome was the composite of cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction; the second coprimary outcome was the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven revascularization. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 3 years, the first coprimary outcome had occurred in 158 of the 2016 patients (7.8%) in the complete-revascularization group as compared with 213 of the 2025 patients (10.5%) in the culprit-lesion-only PCI group (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60 to 0.91; P = 0.004). The second coprimary outcome had occurred in 179 patients (8.9%) in the complete-revascularization group as compared with 339 patients (16.7%) in the culprit-lesion-only PCI group (hazard ratio, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.61; P<0.001). For both coprimary outcomes, the benefit of complete revascularization was consistently observed regardless of the intended timing of nonculprit-lesion PCI (P = 0.62 and P = 0.27 for interaction for the first and second coprimary outcomes, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with STEMI and multivessel coronary artery disease, complete revascularization was superior to culprit-lesion-only PCI in reducing the risk of cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction, as well as the risk of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven revascularization. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; COMPLETE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01740479.).