Antithrombotic Therapy in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Treated With Oral Anticoagulation Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A North American Perspective: 2021 Update.

A growing number of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with stent implantation also have atrial fibrillation. This poses challenges for their optimal antithrombotic management because patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing PCI require oral anticoagulation for the prevention of cardiac thromboembolism and dual antiplatelet therapy for the prevention of coronary thrombotic complications. The combination of oral anticoagulation and dual antiplatelet therapy substantially increases the risk of bleeding. Over the last decade, a series of North American Consensus Statements on the Management of Antithrombotic Therapy in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention have been reported. Since the last update in 2018, several pivotal clinical trials in the field have been published. This document provides a focused updated of the 2018 recommendations. The group recommends that in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing PCI, a non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant is the oral anticoagulation of choice. Dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and a P2Y12 inhibitor should be given to all patients during the peri-PCI period (during inpatient stay, until time of discharge, up to 1 week after PCI, at the discretion of the treating physician), after which the default strategy is to stop aspirin and continue treatment with a P2Y12 inhibitor, preferably clopidogrel, in combination with a non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (ie, double therapy). In patients at increased thrombotic risk who have an acceptable risk of bleeding, it is reasonable to continue aspirin (ie, triple therapy) for up to 1 month. Double therapy should be given for 6 to 12 months with the actual duration depending on the ischemic and bleeding risk profile of the patient, after which patients should discontinue antiplatelet therapy and receive oral anticoagulation alone.

Complete Revascularization with Multivessel PCI for Myocardial Infarction.

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.).

Antithrombotic Therapy in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Treated With Oral Anticoagulation Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A North American Perspective-2018 Update.

The optimal antithrombotic treatment regimen for patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with stent implantation represents a challenge in clinical practice. In 2016, an updated opinion of selected experts from the United States and Canada on the treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention was reported. After the 2016 North American consensus statement on the management of antithrombotic therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, results of pivotal clinical trials assessing the type of oral anticoagulant agent and the duration of antiplatelet treatment have been published. On the basis of these results, this focused update on the antithrombotic management of patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention recommends that a non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant be preferred over a vitamin K antagonist as the oral anticoagulant of choice. Moreover, a double-therapy regimen (oral anticoagulant plus single antiplatelet therapy with a P2Y12 inhibitor) by the time of hospital discharge should be considered for most patients, whereas extending the use of aspirin beyond hospital discharge (ie, triple therapy) should be considered only for selected patients at high ischemic/thrombotic and low bleeding risks and for a limited period of time. The present document provides a focused updated on the rationale for the new expert consensus-derived recommendations on the antithrombotic management of patients with atrial fibrillation treated with oral anticoagulation undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

Long-term outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndromes related to prolonging dual antiplatelet therapy more than 12 months after coronary stenting.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of stent type on the risk of death or myocardial infarction (MI) related to dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) more than 12 months (prolonged DAPT) versus 12 or less months after PCI for an acute coronary syndrome (ACS). BACKGROUND: The recent DAPT study reported lower recurrent ischemic events from prolonged DAPT in patients treated with PCI for an ACS, but was underpowered to determine the impact of stent type. METHODS: We determined clinical outcomes after PCI for an ACS (median follow-up: DES = 26 months, BMS = 46 months) in 18,484 patients in the Veterans Affairs system treated with first generation drug-eluting stents (DES) or bare-metal stents (BMS). We used landmark analyses starting 1 year after the index PCI to assess the risk of prolonged DAPT on the primary endpoint of death or MI. Multivariable and propensity models adjusted for confounding. RESULTS: There was a significant interaction between stent type and prolonged DAPT for death and MI (P = 0.0036), death (P = 0.054), and major bleeding (P = 0.0013). Patients treated with prolonged DAPT had lower risks of death or MI (HR = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.61, 0.82) and death (HR = 0.74, 95%CI = 0.62, 0.89) with DES, but not BMS, and higher risks of major bleeding, particularly with BMS (HR = 1.67, P < 0.001) than DES (HR = 1.24, p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Prolonging DAPT more than 12 months after PCI for ACS only associated with a lower risk of ischemic events in the 1-4 years after PCI in those receiving first generation DES. Stent type may influence the benefit of prolonged DAPT. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Complete versus culprit-only revascularisation in ST elevation myocardial infarction with multi-vessel disease.

BACKGROUND: Multi-vessel coronary disease in people with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is common and is associated with worse prognosis after STEMI. Based on limited evidence, international guidelines recommend intervention on only the culprit vessel during STEMI. This, in turn, leaves other significantly stenosed coronary arteries for medical therapy or revascularisation based on inducible ischaemia on provocative testing. Newer data suggest that intervention on both the culprit and non-culprit stenotic coronary arteries (complete intervention) may yield better results compared with culprit-only intervention. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of early complete revascularisation compared with culprit vessel only intervention strategy in people with STEMI and multi-vessel coronary disease. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov. The date of the last search was 4 January 2017. We applied no language restrictions. We handsearched conference proceedings to December 2016, and contacted authors and companies related to the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included only randomised controlled trials (RCTs), wherein complete revascularisation strategy was compared with a culprit-only percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for the treatment of people with STEMI and multi-vessel coronary disease. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We assessed the methodological quality of each trial using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. We resolved the disagreements by discussion among review authors. We followed standard methodological approaches recommended by Cochrane. The primary outcomes were long-term (one year or greater after the index intervention) all-cause mortality, long-term cardiovascular mortality, long-term non-fatal myocardial infarction, and adverse events. The secondary outcomes were short-term (within the first 30 days after the index intervention) all-cause mortality, short-term cardiovascular mortality, short-term non-fatal myocardial infarction, revascularisation, health-related quality of life, and cost. We analysed data using fixed-effect models, and expressed results as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used GRADE criteria to assess the quality of evidence and we conducted Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA) to control risks of random errors. MAIN RESULTS: We included nine RCTs, that involved 2633 people with STEMI and multi-vessel coronary disease randomly assigned to either a complete (n = 1381) versus culprit-only (n = 1252) revascularisation strategy. The complete and the culprit-only revascularisation strategies did not differ for long-term all-cause mortality (65/1274 (5.1%) in complete group versus 72/1143 (6.3%) in culprit-only group; RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.11; participants = 2417; studies = 8; I2 = 0%; very low quality evidence). Compared with culprit-only intervention, the complete revascularisation strategy was associated with a lower proportion of long-term cardiovascular mortality (28/1143 (2.4%) in complete group versus 51/1086 (4.7%) in culprit-only group; RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.79; participants = 2229; studies = 6; I2 = 0%; very low quality evidence) and long-term non-fatal myocardial infarction (47/1095 (4.3%) in complete group versus 70/1004 (7.0%) in culprit-only group; RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.89; participants = 2099; studies = 6; I2 = 0%; very low quality evidence). The complete and the culprit-only revascularisation strategies did not differ in combined adverse events (51/2096 (2.4%) in complete group versus 57/1990 (2.9%) in culprit-only group; RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.21; participants = 4086; I2 = 0%; very low quality evidence). Complete revascularisation was associated with lower proportion of long-term revascularisation (145/1374 (10.6%) in complete group versus 258/1242 (20.8%) in culprit-only group; RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.57; participants = 2616; studies = 9; I2 = 31%; very low quality evidence). TSA of long-term all-cause mortality, long-term cardiovascular mortality, and long-term non-fatal myocardial infarction showed that more RCTs are needed to reach more conclusive results on these outcomes. Regarding long-term repeat revascularisation more RCTs may not change our present result. The quality of the evidence was judged to be very low for all primary and the majority of the secondary outcomes mainly due to risk of bias, imprecision, and indirectness. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared with culprit-only intervention, the complete revascularisation strategy may be superior due to lower proportions of long-term cardiovascular mortality, long-term revascularisation, and long-term non-fatal myocardial infarction, but these findings are based on evidence of very low quality. TSA also supports the need for more RCTs in order to draw stronger conclusions regarding the effects of complete revascularisation on long-term all-cause mortality, long-term cardiovascular mortality, and long-term non-fatal myocardial infarction.

2022 ACC/AHA guideline for the diagnosis and management of aortic disease: A report of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: The "2022 ACC/AHA Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Aortic Disease" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the diagnosis, genetic evaluation and family screening, medical therapy, endovascular and surgical treatment, and long-term surveillance of patients with aortic disease across its multiple clinical presentation subsets (ie, asymptomatic, stable symptomatic, and acute aortic syndromes). METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from January 2021 to April 2021, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINHL Complete, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. Additional relevant studies, published through June 2022 during the guideline writing process, were also considered by the writing committee, where appropriate. STRUCTURE: Recommendations from previously published AHA/ACC guidelines on thoracic aortic disease, peripheral artery disease, and bicuspid aortic valve disease have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians. In addition, new recommendations addressing comprehensive care for patients with aortic disease have been developed. There is added emphasis on the role of shared decision making, especially in the management of patients with aortic disease both before and during pregnancy. The is also an increased emphasis on the importance of institutional interventional volume and multidisciplinary aortic team expertise in the care of patients with aortic disease.

Effects of optimal medical treatment with or without coronary revascularization on angina and subsequent revascularizations in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and stable ischemic heart disease.

BACKGROUND: In the Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation 2 Diabetes (BARI 2D) trial, an initial strategy of coronary revascularization and optimal medical treatment (REV) compared with an initial optimal medical treatment with the option of subsequent revascularization (MED) did not reduce all-cause mortality or the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and stable ischemic heart disease. In the same population, we tested whether the REV strategy was superior to the MED strategy in preventing worsening and new angina and subsequent coronary revascularizations. METHODS AND RESULTS: Among the 2364 men and women (mean age, 62.4 years) with type 2 diabetes mellitus, documented coronary artery disease, and myocardial ischemia, 1191 were randomized to the MED and 1173 to the REV strategy preselected in the percutaneous coronary intervention (796) and coronary artery bypass graft (377) strata. Compared with the MED strategy, the REV strategy at the 3-year follow-up had a lower rate of worsening angina (8% versus 13%; P<0.001), new angina (37% versus 51%; P=0.001), and subsequent coronary revascularizations (18% versus 33%; P<0.001) and a higher rate of angina-free status (66% versus 58%; P=0.003). The coronary artery bypass graft stratum patients were at higher risk than those in the percutaneous coronary intervention stratum, and had the greatest benefits from REV. CONCLUSIONS: In these patients, the REV strategy reduced the occurrence of worsening angina, new angina, and subsequent coronary revascularizations more than the MED strategy. The symptomatic benefits were observed particularly for high-risk patients. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00006305.

Early versus delayed invasive intervention in acute coronary syndromes.

BACKGROUND: Earlier trials have shown that a routine invasive strategy improves outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndromes without ST-segment elevation. However, the optimal timing of such intervention remains uncertain. METHODS: We randomly assigned 3031 patients with acute coronary syndromes to undergo either routine early intervention (coronary angiography < or = 24 hours after randomization) or delayed intervention (coronary angiography > or = 36 hours after randomization). The primary outcome was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 6 months. A prespecified secondary outcome was death, myocardial infarction, or refractory ischemia at 6 months. RESULTS: Coronary angiography was performed in 97.6% of patients in the early-intervention group (median time, 14 hours) and in 95.7% of patients in the delayed-intervention group (median time, 50 hours). At 6 months, the primary outcome occurred in 9.6% of patients in the early-intervention group, as compared with 11.3% in the delayed-intervention group (hazard ratio in the early-intervention group, 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.68 to 1.06; P=0.15). There was a relative reduction of 28% in the secondary outcome of death, myocardial infarction, or refractory ischemia in the early-intervention group (9.5%), as compared with the delayed-intervention group (12.9%) (hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.89; P=0.003). Prespecified analyses showed that early intervention improved the primary outcome in the third of patients who were at highest risk (hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.89) but not in the two thirds at low-to-intermediate risk (hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.56; P=0.01 for heterogeneity). CONCLUSIONS: Early intervention did not differ greatly from delayed intervention in preventing the primary outcome, but it did reduce the rate of the composite secondary outcome of death, myocardial infarction, or refractory ischemia and was superior to delayed intervention in high-risk patients. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00552513.)

Very late stent thrombosis: current concepts.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Drug-eluting stents (DES) are effective in reducing neointimal proliferation and in-stent restenosis. However, the procedure is complicated by early and late stent thrombosis that is related to incomplete healing, leading to stent malapposition and incomplete reendothelialization. Stent restenosis results in significant mortality and morbidity and portends a poor long-term outcome. In this article, we review recent findings regarding the prevalence of late and very late stent thrombosis (VLST) and the mechanisms that may be at play. RECENT FINDINGS: Long-term follow-up from large registry studies and randomized controlled trials of DES implantation have recently created an awareness of the persistence of VLST (0.26%/year) for up to at least 5 years. Recent findings utilizing intravascular ultrasound and optical coherence tomography have also provided important insights into the mechanism of VLST and suggest that delayed healing and neoatherosclerosis are important. Finally, the development of novel stent scaffolds and antiplatelet agents holds much promise for reducing the risk of VLST. SUMMARY: DES implantation continues to be complicated by the risk of VLST. Recent insights into the mechanisms of this significant clinical problem have important implications in preventing VLST.

Optimizing antiplatelet therapy in acute coronary syndrome and percutaneous coronary intervention.

Dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel is the standard of care for patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and those undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). It is well established that inhibition of platelet aggregation reduces the risk of recurrent thrombotic events and stent thrombosis. However, some patients show a reduced antiplatelet response to standard clopidogrel loading (300 mg) and maintenance (75 mg day(-1)) doses, which has been associated with poorer patient outcomes. Pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic studies show that higher-than-standard clopidogrel dosing strategies facilitate more rapid platelet inhibition of a greater intensity as a result of greater plasma concentrations of the clopidogrel active metabolite. Recently completed studies suggest that in patients with ACS undergoing PCI, higher-than-standard clopidogrel dosing regimens provide greater inhibition of platelet function and improved clinical outcomes with a small but significant increase in major bleeding. Newer, more potent antiplatelet agents such as prasugrel and ticagrelor are other alternative strategies that result in more rapid, greater inhibition of platelet function and better outcomes than standard-dose clopidogrel. Whether platelet reactivity-guided therapy or genotyping for cytochrome P450 polymorphisms is useful in managing patients needs to be further defined. Most importantly, early and effective antiplatelet therapy results in the best short- and long-term outcomes for patients with ACS or those undergoing PCI.

Complete Revascularization vs Culprit Lesion-Only Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Angina-Related Quality of Life in Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: Results From the COMPLETE Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: In patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), complete revascularization reduces major cardiovascular events compared with culprit lesion-only percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Whether complete revascularization also improves angina-related health status is unknown. Objective: To determine whether complete revascularization improves angina status in patients with STEMI and multivessel CAD. Design, Setting, and Participants: This secondary analysis of a randomized, multinational, open label trial of patient-reported outcomes took place in 140 primary PCI centers in 31 countries. Patients presenting with STEMI and multivessel CAD were randomized between February 1, 2013, and March 6, 2017. Analysis took place between July 2021 and December 2021. Interventions: Following PCI of the culprit lesion, patients with STEMI and multivessel CAD were randomized to receive either complete revascularization with additional PCI of angiographically significant nonculprit lesions or to no further revascularization. Main Outcomes and Measures: Seattle Angina Questionnaire Angina Frequency (SAQ-AF) score (range, 0 [daily angina] to 100 [no angina]) and the proportion of angina-free individuals by study end. Results: Of 4041 patients, 2016 were randomized to complete revascularization and 2025 to culprit lesion-only PCI. The mean (SD) age of patients was 62 (10.7) years, and 3225 (80%) were male. The mean (SD) SAQ-AF score increased from 87.1 (17.8) points at baseline to 97.1 (9.7) points at a median follow-up of 3 years in the complete revascularization group (score change, 9.9 [95% CI, 9.0-10.8]; P < .001) compared with an increase of 87.2 (18.4) to 96.3 (10.9) points (score change, 8.9 [95% CI, 8.0-9.8]; P < .001) in the culprit lesion-only group (between-group difference, 0.97 points [95% CI, 0.27-1.67]; P = .006). Overall, 1457 patients (87.5%) were free of angina (SAQ-AF score, 100) in the complete revascularization group compared with 1376 patients (84.3%) in the culprit lesion-only group (absolute difference, 3.2% [95% CI, 0.7%-5.7%]; P = .01). This benefit was observed mainly in patients with nonculprit lesion stenosis severity of 80% or more (absolute difference, 4.7%; interaction P = .02). Conclusions and Relevance: In patients with STEMI and multivessel CAD, complete revascularization resulted in a slightly greater proportion of patients being angina-free compared with a culprit lesion-only strategy. This modest incremental improvement in health status is in addition to the established benefit of complete revascularization in reducing cardiovascular events.

Double-dose versus standard-dose clopidogrel and high-dose versus low-dose aspirin in individuals undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for acute coronary syndromes (CURRENT-OASIS 7): a randomised factorial trial.

BACKGROUND: Clopidogrel and aspirin are the most commonly used antiplatelet therapies for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We assessed the effect of various clopidogrel and aspirin regimens in prevention of major cardiovascular events and stent thrombosis in patients undergoing PCI. METHODS: The CURRENT-OASIS 7 trial was undertaken in 597 centres in 39 countries. 25,086 individuals with acute coronary syndromes and intended early PCI were randomly assigned to double-dose (600 mg on day 1, 150 mg on days 2-7, then 75 mg daily) versus standard-dose (300 mg on day 1 then 75 mg daily) clopidogrel, and high-dose (300-325 mg daily) versus low-dose (75-100 mg daily) aspirin. Randomisation was done with a 24 h computerised central automated voice response system. The clopidogrel dose comparison was double-blind and the aspirin dose comparison was open label with blinded assessment of outcomes. This prespecified analysis is of the 17,263 individuals who underwent PCI. The primary outcome was cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 30 days. Analyses were by intention to treat, adjusted for propensity to undergo PCI. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00335452. FINDINGS: 8560 patients were assigned to double-dose and 8703 to standard-dose clopidogrel (8558 and 8702 completed 30-day follow-up, respectively), and 8624 to high-dose and 8639 to low-dose aspirin (8622 and 8638 completed 30-day follow-up, respectively). Compared with the standard dose, double-dose clopidogrel reduced the rate of the primary outcome (330 events [3·9%] vs 392 events [4·5%]; adjusted hazard ratio 0·86, 95% CI 0·74-0·99, p=0·039) and definite stent thrombosis (58 [0·7%] vs 111 [1·3%]; 0·54 [0·39-0·74], p=0·0001). High-dose and low-dose aspirin did not differ for the primary outcome (356 [4·1%] vs 366 [4·2%]; 0·98, 0·84-1·13, p=0·76). Major bleeding was more common with double-dose than with standard-dose clopidogrel (139 [1·6%] vs 99 [1·1%]; 1·41, 1·09-1·83, p=0·009) and did not differ between high-dose and low-dose aspirin (128 [1·5%] vs 110 [1·3%]; 1·18, 0·92-1·53, p=0·20). INTERPRETATION: In patients undergoing PCI for acute coronary syndromes, a 7-day double-dose clopidogrel regimen was associated with a reduction in cardiovascular events and stent thrombosis compared with the standard dose. Efficacy and safety did not differ between high-dose and low-dose aspirin. A double-dose clopidogrel regimen can be considered for all patients with acute coronary syndromes treated with an early invasive strategy and intended early PCI. FUNDING: Sanofi-Aventis and Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Temporal changes in the outcomes of patients with diabetes mellitus undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention in the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute dynamic registry.

BACKGROUND: Patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) are at higher risk for adverse outcomes following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS: To determine whether outcomes have improved over time, we analyzed data from 2,838 consecutive patients with medically treated DM, including 1,066 patients (37.6%) treated with insulin, in the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Dynamic Registry undergoing PCI registered in waves 1 (1997-1998), 2 (1999), 3 (2001-2002), 4 (2004), and 5 (2006). We compared baseline demographics and 1-year outcomes in the overall cohort and in analyses stratified by recruitment wave and insulin use. RESULTS: Crude mortality rates by chronological wave were 9.5%, 12.5%, 8.9%, 11.6%, and 6.6% (P value(trend) = .33) among those treated with insulin and, respectively, 9.7%, 6.5%, 4.1%, 5.4%, and 4.7% (P value(trend) = .006) among patients treated with oral agents,. The adjusted hazard ratios of death, myocardial infarction (MI), and overall major adverse cardiovascular events (death, MI, revascularization) in insulin-treated patients with DM in waves 2 to 5 as compared with wave 1 were either higher or the same. In contrast, the similar adjusted hazard ratios for oral agent-treated patients with DM were either similar or lower. CONCLUSIONS: Significant improvements over time in adverse events by 1 year were detected in patients with DM treated with oral agents. In insulin-treated diabetic patients, despite lower rates of repeat revascularization over time, death and MI following PCI have not significantly improved. These findings underscore the need for continued efforts at optimizing outcomes among patients with DM undergoing PCI, especially those requiring insulin treatment.

Percutaneous coronary intervention of moderate to severe calcified coronary lesions: insights from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Dynamic Registry.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of drug eluting stents (DES) when compared with bare metal stents (BMS) in patients with moderate to severe calcified coronary lesions. BACKGROUND: Calcified coronary lesions present unique technical challenges during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and it is not known if DES are as safe and as effective in the presence of calcium, as randomized trials typically exclude this common patient subset. METHODS: We evaluated patients with PCI of a single calcified lesion enrolled across five recruitment waves in the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Dynamic Registry between 1997 and 2006. Patients were divided into two groups based on the stent type- BMS and DES. The primary efficacy outcome was the need for repeat revascularization at 1 year and the primary safety outcome was a composite of death and myocardial infarction at 1 year. RESULTS: Among the 1,537 patients included in the analysis, 884 (57%) underwent PCI with BMS and 653 (43%) with DES. DES use was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of repeat revascularization (10.0% vs. 15.3%; P = 0.003) with no significant higher risk of primary safety outcome (9.3% vs. 10.5%; P = 0.45) when compared to the BMS group. In a propensity score adjusted analysis, DES use was associated with a significantly lower risk in repeat revascularization (HR = 0.57; 95% CI 0.40-0.82; P = 0.002) and no significant difference in the risk of death and myocardial infarction (HR = 0.78; 95% CI 0.53-1.15; P = 0.20) compared to BMS group. CONCLUSION: In this large multicenter registry of patients with a moderate to severe calcified coronary lesion, use of DES compared to BMS was associated with significant reduction in the risk of repeat revascularization without any increase in death and myocardial infarction.

Premature Discontinuation of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Coronary Stenting in Veterans: Characteristics and Long-Term Outcomes.

Background Premature discontinuation of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after percutaneous coronary intervention is related to higher short-term risks of adverse outcomes. Whether these risks persist in the long-term is uncertain. Methods and Results We assessed all patients having percutaneous coronary intervention with coronary second- or first-generation drug-eluting stents in the Veterans Affairs healthcare system between 2006 and 2012 who were free of major ischemic or bleeding events in the first 12 months. The characteristics of patients who stopped DAPT prematurely (1-9 months duration), compared with >9 to 12 months, or extended duration (>12 months) were assessed by odds ratios (ORs) from multivariable logistic models. The risk of adverse clinical outcomes over a mean 5.1 years in patients who stopped DAPT prematurely was assessed by hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs from Cox regression models. A total of 14 239 had second-generation drug-eluting stents, and 8583 had first-generation drug-eluting stents. Premature discontinuation of DAPT was more likely in Black patients (OR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.40-1.68), patients with greater frailty (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.03-1.05), and patients with higher low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and less likely in patients on statins (OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.80-0.95). Patients who stopped DAPT prematurely had higher long-term risks of death (second-generation drug-eluting stents: HR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.19-1.56), myocardial infarction (second-generation drug-eluting stents: HR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.22-1.74), and repeated coronary revascularization (second-generation drug-eluting stents: HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.08-1.41). Conclusions Patients who stop DAPT prematurely have features that reflect greater frailty, poorer medication use, and other social factors. They continue to have higher risks of major adverse outcomes over the long-term and may require more intensive surveillance many years after percutaneous coronary intervention.

Coronary intervention in patients with acute coronary syndrome: does every culprit lesion require revascularization?

In patients presenting with acute coronary syndromes, 30-60% of patients have multiple significant coronary lesions. Patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome and multivessel disease have a significant increase in the incidence of major cardiovascular morbidity and mortality when compared with patients who have single-vessel disease. Although great progress has been made to reduce the extent of infarction through effective and rapid reperfusion due to faster time to reperfusion, potent antiplatelets, and antithrombotics, there is not much consensus as to how best to treat multivessel disease in patients presenting with acute coronary syndromes. We present a review of the current body of evidence for safety and efficacy of multivessel revascularization in patients presenting with acute coronary syndromes.