Initial Management Strategy and Long-Term Outcomes in 186 Cases of Spontaneous Coronary Artery Dissection.

Spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD) is a rare but important nonatherosclerotic cause of acute coronary syndrome. Indications for revascularization and long-term outcomes of SCAD remain areas of active investigation. We report our experience with initial management strategy and long-term outcomes in SCAD. We reviewed all patients treated at our institution from 1996-2021 with a SCAD diagnosis. Demographics, comorbidities, clinical presentations, angiography findings, and management strategies were obtained by chart review. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiac death, recurrent/progressive SCAD, subsequent diagnosis of congestive heart failure, or subsequent/repeat revascularization after the initial management. Unadjusted Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed. Of 186 patients with a SCAD diagnosis treated at our institution, 149 (80%) were female. Medical management was the initial treatment in 134 (72.0%) patients, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in 43 (23.1%), and coronary artery bypass grafting in 9 (4.8%). Surgery/PCI intervention was associated with younger age (38.8 vs 47.7 years, P = 0.01), ST elevation myocardial infarction on presentation (67.0% vs 34.0%, P < 0.001), lower ejection fraction (45.0% vs 55.0%, P = 0.002), and left anterior descending coronary artery dissection (75.0% vs 51.0%, P = 0.006). Ten-year freedom from our composite outcome was similar between revascularized patients and those managed with medical therapy (P = 0.36). Median follow-up time was 4.5 years. SCAD in the setting of ST elevation myocardial infarction, left anterior descending coronary artery involvement, or decreased cardiac function suggests greater ischemic insult and was associated with initial percutaneous or surgical revascularization. Despite worse disease on initial presentation, long-term outcomes of patients undergoing revascularization are similar to medically managed patients with SCAD.

Drug-eluting versus bare metal stenting in acute myocardial infarction. A clinical review.

Coronary heart disease is a leading cause of death around the world. The treatment of acute myocardial infarction has evolved with the advent of novel thrombolytic agents, anticoagulants, antiplatelets, and innovative percutaneous techniques. The development of drug-eluting stents has dramatically lowered the risk of in-stent restenosis compared to bare metal stents. Clinicians in the United States and Europe have begun utilizing DES in the setting of AMI despite the fact that no practice guidelines exist to support their use. Lingering concerns exist about the reported increased risk of early and late stent thrombosis after DES implantation. In this review, we will highlight the >7,500 patients studied in randomized controlled trials and >30,000 registry patients comparing drug-eluting and bare metal stent implantation during acute myocardial infarction. In the selected patient populations of the 13 randomized controlled trials comparing drug-eluting and bare metal stent implantation, death/re-infarction/stent thrombosis were not different between groups while target vessel revascularization was significantly lower in the drug-eluting stent patients. In the "real world" registry studies, mortality/target vessel revascularization/stent thrombosis were less frequent in the first year after drug-eluting stent implantation while re-infarction was not different between the groups. While multiple questions remain regarding long-term follow up and especially late stent thrombosis, it appears that drug-eluting stents are effective at decreasing target vessel revascularization while not being associated with an elevated risk of death/re-infarction/stent thrombosis in the first year post myocardial infarction.

Comparative Effectiveness of Medical Therapy, Supervised Exercise, and Revascularization for Patients With Intermittent Claudication: A Network Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data on the comparative effectiveness of medical therapy, supervised exercise, and revascularization to improve walking and quality of life in patients with intermittent claudication (IC). HYPOTHESIS: Supervised exercise and revascularization was superior to medical therapy in IC. METHODS: We studied the comparative effectiveness of exercise training, medications, endovascular intervention, and surgical revascularization on outcomes including functional capacity (walking distance and timing), quality of life, and mortality. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from January 1995 to August 2012 for relevant English-language studies. Two investigators independently collected data. Meta-analyses with random-effects models of direct comparisons were supplemented by mixed-treatment analyses to incorporate data from placebo comparisons, head-to-head comparisons, and multiple treatment arms. RESULTS: Thirty-five unique studies evaluated treatment modalities in 7475 patients with IC. Compared with usual care, only exercise training improved both maximal walking distance (150 meters; 95% confidence interval: 35-266 meters, P = 0.01) and initial claudication distance (39 meters; 95% confidence interval: 9-65 meters, P = 0.003). All modalities were associated with improved quality of life (Short Form-36 physical functioning score) compared with usual care, but there were no differences between treatments. There were insufficient safety data to assess treatment-related complications. All-cause mortality was not significantly different between modalities. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence is insufficient to determine treatment superiority for improving quality of life and walking parameters in IC patients. Further studies with attention to study design, standardized efficacy and safety endpoints, and appropriate subgroup reporting are necessary to determine comparative effectiveness.