Bivalirudin or Unfractionated Heparin in Acute Coronary Syndromes.

BACKGROUND: Conflicting evidence exists on the efficacy and safety of bivalirudin administered as part of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with an acute coronary syndrome. METHODS: We randomly assigned 7213 patients with an acute coronary syndrome for whom PCI was anticipated to receive either bivalirudin or unfractionated heparin. Patients in the bivalirudin group were subsequently randomly assigned to receive or not to receive a post-PCI bivalirudin infusion. Primary outcomes for the comparison between bivalirudin and heparin were the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) and net adverse clinical events (a composite of major bleeding or a major adverse cardiovascular event). The primary outcome for the comparison of a post-PCI bivalirudin infusion with no post-PCI infusion was a composite of urgent target-vessel revascularization, definite stent thrombosis, or net adverse clinical events. RESULTS: The rate of major adverse cardiovascular events was not significantly lower with bivalirudin than with heparin (10.3% and 10.9%, respectively; relative risk, 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81 to 1.09; P=0.44), nor was the rate of net adverse clinical events (11.2% and 12.4%, respectively; relative risk, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.03; P=0.12). Post-PCI bivalirudin infusion, as compared with no infusion, did not significantly decrease the rate of urgent target-vessel revascularization, definite stent thrombosis, or net adverse clinical events (11.0% and 11.9%, respectively; relative risk, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.11; P=0.34). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with an acute coronary syndrome, the rates of major adverse cardiovascular events and net adverse clinical events were not significantly lower with bivalirudin than with unfractionated heparin. The rate of the composite of urgent target-vessel revascularization, definite stent thrombosis, or net adverse clinical events was not significantly lower with a post-PCI bivalirudin infusion than with no post-PCI infusion. (Funded by the Medicines Company and Terumo Medical; MATRIX ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01433627.).

Radial versus femoral access in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing invasive management: a randomised multicentre trial.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether radial compared with femoral access improves outcomes in unselected patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing invasive management. METHODS: We did a randomised, multicentre, superiority trial comparing transradial against transfemoral access in patients with acute coronary syndrome with or without ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction who were about to undergo coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention. Patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to radial or femoral access with a web-based system. The randomisation sequence was computer generated, blocked, and stratified by use of ticagrelor or prasugrel, type of acute coronary syndrome (ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, troponin positive or negative, non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome), and anticipated use of immediate percutaneous coronary intervention. Outcome assessors were masked to treatment allocation. The 30-day coprimary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events, defined as death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, and net adverse clinical events, defined as major adverse cardiovascular events or Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) major bleeding unrelated to coronary artery bypass graft surgery. The analysis was by intention to treat. The two-sided α was prespecified at 0·025. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01433627. FINDINGS: We randomly assigned 8404 patients with acute coronary syndrome, with or without ST-segment elevation, to radial (4197) or femoral (4207) access for coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention. 369 (8·8%) patients with radial access had major adverse cardiovascular events, compared with 429 (10·3%) patients with femoral access (rate ratio [RR] 0·85, 95% CI 0·74-0·99; p=0·0307), non-significant at α of 0·025. 410 (9·8%) patients with radial access had net adverse clinical events compared with 486 (11·7%) patients with femoral access (0·83, 95% CI 0·73-0·96; p=0·0092). The difference was driven by BARC major bleeding unrelated to coronary artery bypass graft surgery (1·6% vs 2·3%, RR 0·67, 95% CI 0·49-0·92; p=0·013) and all-cause mortality (1·6% vs 2·2%, RR 0·72, 95% CI 0·53-0·99; p=0·045). INTERPRETATION: In patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing invasive management, radial as compared with femoral access reduces net adverse clinical events, through a reduction in major bleeding and all-cause mortality. FUNDING: The Medicines Company and Terumo.

Carotid Artery Stenting With Proximal Embolic Protection via a Transradial or Transbrachial Approach: Pushing the Boundaries of the Technique While Maintaining Safety and Efficacy.

PURPOSE: To compare the feasibility and safety of proximal cerebral protection to a distal filter during carotid artery stenting (CAS) via a transbrachial (TB) or transradial (TR) approach. METHODS: Among 856 patients who underwent CAS between January 2007 and July 2015, 214 (25%) patients (mean age 72±8 years; 154 men) had the procedure via a TR (n=154) or TB (n=60) approach with either Mo.MA proximal protection (n=61) or distal filter protection (n=153). The Mo.MA group (mean age 73±7 years; 54 men) had significantly more men and more severe stenosis than the filter group (mean age 71±8 years; 100 men). Stent type and CAS technique were left to operator discretion. Heparin and a dedicated closure device or bivalirudin and manual compression were used in TR and TB accesses, respectively. Technical and procedure success, crossover to femoral artery, 30-day major adverse cardiovascular/cerebrovascular events (MACCE; death, all strokes, and myocardial infarction), vascular complications, and radiation exposure were compared between groups. RESULTS: Crossover to a femoral approach was required in 1/61 (1.6%) Mo.MA patient vs 11/153 (7.1%) filter patients mainly due to technical difficulty in engaging the target vessel. Five Mo.MA patients developed acute intolerance to proximal occlusion; 4 were successfully shifted to filter protection. A TR patient was shifted to filter because the Mo.MA system was too short. CAS was technically successful in the remaining 55 (90%) Mo.MA patients and 142 (93%) filter patients. The MACCE rate was 0% in the Mo.MA patients and 2.8% in the filter group (p=0.18). Radiation exposure was similar between groups. Major vascular complications occurred in 1/61 (1.6%) and in 3/153 (1.96%) patients in the Mo.MA and filter groups (p=0.18), respectively, and were confined to the TB approach in the early part of the learning curve. Chronic radial artery occlusion was detected by Doppler ultrasound in 2/30 (6.6%) Mo.MA patients and in 4/124 (3.2%) filter patients by clinical assessment (p=0.25) at 8.1±7.5-month follow-up. CONCLUSION: CAS with proximal protection via a TR or TB approach is a feasible, safe, and effective technique with a low rate of vascular complications.

Coronary calcification in patients presenting with acute coronary syndromes: insights from the MATRIX trial.

AIMS: The role of coronary calcification on clinical outcomes among different revascularization strategies in patients presenting with acute coronary syndromes (ACSs) has been rarely investigated. The aim of this investigation is to evaluate the role of coronary calcification, detected by coronary angiography, in the whole spectrum of patients presenting with acute ACS. METHODS AND RESULTS: The present study was a post hoc analysis of the MATRIX programme. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as the composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke up to 365 days. Among the 8404 patients randomized in the MATRIX trial, data about coronary calcification were available in 7446 (88.6%) and therefore were included in this post hoc analysis. Overall, 875 patients (11.7%) presented with severe coronary calcification, while 6571 patients (88.3%) did not present severe coronary calcification on coronary angiography. Fewer patients with severe coronary calcification underwent percutaneous coronary intervention whereas coronary artery bypass grafting or medical therapy-only was more frequent compared with patients without severe calcification. At 1-year follow-up, MACE occurred in 237 (27.1%) patients with severe calcified coronary lesions and 985 (15%) patients without severe coronary calcified lesions [hazard ratio (HR) 1.91; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.66-2.20, P < 0.001]. All-cause mortality was 8.6% in patients presenting with and 3.7% in those without severe coronary calcification (HR 2.38, 1.84-3.09, P < 0.001). Patients with severe coronary calcification incurred higher rate of MI (20.1% vs. 11.5%, HR 1.81; 95% CI 1.53-2.1, P < 0.001) and similar rate of stroke (0.8% vs. 0.6%, HR 1.35; 95% CI 0.61-3.02, P = 0.46). CONCLUSION: Patients with ACS and severe coronary calcification, as compared to those without, are associated with worse clinical outcomes irrespective of the management strategy.

Innovative Guide Extension Catheter Trapping Technique to Retrieve a Lost Stent From a Coronary Artery.

A stent that was being implanted in the left circumflex artery, to treat an iatrogenic dissection, became dislodged at the ostial left circumflex artery on a previously deployed stent implanted for the treatment of a distal left main bifurcation stenosis. We describe here a novel technique to retrieve the device safely. (Level of Difficulty: Advanced.).

Bivalirudin or Heparin in Patients Undergoing Invasive Management of Acute Coronary Syndromes.

BACKGROUND: Contrasting evidence exists on the comparative efficacy and safety of bivalirudin and unfractionated heparin (UFH) in relation to the planned use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPIs). OBJECTIVES: This study assessed the efficacy and safety of bivalirudin compared with UFH with or without GPIs in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) who underwent invasive management. METHODS: In the MATRIX (Minimizing Adverse Haemorrhagic Events by Transradial Access Site and Systemic Implementation of AngioX) program, 7,213 patients were randomly assigned to receive either bivalirudin or UFH with or without GPIs at discretion of the operator. The 30-day coprimary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) (a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke), and net adverse clinical events (NACEs) (a composite of MACEs or major bleeding). RESULTS: Among 3,603 patients assigned to receive UFH, 781 (21.7%) underwent planned treatment with GPI before coronary intervention. Bailout use of GPIs was similar between the bivalirudin and UFH groups (4.5% and 5.4%) (p = 0.11). At 30 days, the 2 coprimary endpoints of MACEs and NACEs, as well as individual endpoints of mortality, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis or stroke did not differ among the 3 groups after adjustment. Compared with the UFH and UFH+GPI groups, bivalirudin reduced bleeding, mainly the most severe bleeds, including fatal and nonaccess site-related events, as well as transfusion rates and the need for surgical access site repair. These findings were not influenced by the administered intraprocedural dose of UFH and were confirmed at multiple sensitivity analyses, including the randomly allocated access site. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ACS, the rates of MACEs and NACEs were not significantly lower with bivalirudin than with UFH, irrespective of planned GPI use. However, bivalirudin significantly reduced bleeding complications, mainly those not related to access site, irrespective of planned use of GPIs. (Minimizing Adverse Haemorrhagic Events by Transradial Access Site and Systemic Implementation of AngioX [MATRIX]; NCT01433627).

Impact of Sex on Comparative Outcomes of Radial Versus Femoral Access in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes Undergoing Invasive Management: Data From the Randomized MATRIX-Access Trial.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to assess whether transradial access (TRA) compared with transfemoral access (TFA) is associated with consistent outcomes in male and female patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing invasive management. BACKGROUND: There are limited and contrasting data about sex disparities for the safety and efficacy of TRA versus TFA for coronary intervention. METHODS: In the MATRIX (Minimizing Adverse Haemorrhagic Events by TRansradial Access Site and Systemic Implementation of angioX) program, 8,404 patients were randomized to TRA or TFA. The 30-day coprimary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), defined as death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, and net adverse clinical events (NACE), defined as MACCE or major bleeding. RESULTS: Among 8,404 patients, 2,232 (26.6%) were women and 6,172 (73.4%) were men. MACCE and NACE were not significantly different between men and women after adjustment, but women had higher risk of access site bleeding (male vs. female rate ratio [RR]: 0.64; p = 0.0016), severe bleeding (RR: 0.17; p = 0.0012), and transfusion (RR: 0.56; p = 0.0089). When comparing radial versus femoral, there was no significant interaction for MACCE and NACE stratified by sex (pint = 0.15 and 0.18, respectively), although for both coprimary endpoints the benefit with TRA was relatively greater in women (RR: 0.73; p = 0.019; and RR: 0.73; p = 0.012, respectively). Similarly, there was no significant interaction between male and female patients for the individual endpoints of all-cause death (pint = 0.79), myocardial infarction (pint = 0.25), stroke (pint = 0.18), and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 or 5 (pint = 0.45). CONCLUSIONS: Women showed a higher risk of severe bleeding and access site complications, and radial access was an effective method to reduce these complications as well as composite ischemic and ischemic or bleeding endpoints.

APpropriAteness of percutaneous Coronary interventions in patients with ischaemic HEart disease in Italy: the APACHE pilot study.

OBJECTIVES: To first explore in Italy appropriateness of indication, adherence to guideline recommendations and mode of selection for coronary revascularisation. DESIGN: Retrospective, pilot study. SETTING: 22 percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)-performing hospitals (20 patients per site), 13 (59%) with on-site cardiac surgery. PARTICIPANTS: 440 patients who received PCI for stable coronary artery disease (CAD) or non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome were independently selected in a 4:1 ratio with half diabetics. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportion of patients who received appropriate PCI using validated appropriate use scores (ie, AUS≥7). Also, in patients with stable CAD, we examined adherence to the following European Society of Cardiology recommendations: (A) per cent of patients with complex coronary anatomy treated after heart team discussion; (B) per cent of fractional flow reserve-guided PCI for borderline stenoses in patients without documented ischaemia; (C) per cent of patients receiving guideline-directed medical therapy at the time of PCI as well as use of provocative test of ischaemia according to pretest probability (PTP) of CAD. RESULTS: Of the 401 mappable PCIs (91%), 38.7% (95% CI 33.9 to 43.6) were classified as appropriate, 47.6% (95% CI 42.7 to 52.6) as uncertain and 13.7% (95% CI 10.5% to 17.5%) as inappropriate. Median PTP in patients with stable CAD without known coronary anatomy was 69% (78% intermediate PTP, 22% high PTP). Ischaemia testing use was similar (p=0.71) in patients with intermediate (n=140, 63%) and with high PTP (n=40, 66%). In patients with stable CAD (n=352) guideline adherence to the three recommendations explored was: (A) 11%; (B) 25%; (C) 23%. AUS was higher in patients evaluated by the heart team as compared with patients who were not (7 (6.8) vs 5 (4.7); p=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Use of heart team approaches and adherence to guideline recommendations on coronary revascularisation in a real-world setting is limited. This pilot study documents the feasibility of measuring appropriateness and guideline adherence in clinical practice and identifies substantial opportunities for quality improvement. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02748603.

Bivalirudin or unfractionated heparin in patients with acute coronary syndromes managed invasively with and without ST elevation (MATRIX): randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE:  To test the optimal antithrombotic regimen in patients with acute coronary syndrome. DESIGN:  Randomised controlled trial. SETTING:  Patients with acute coronary syndrome with and without ST segment elevation in 78 centres in Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, and Sweden. PARTICIPANTS:  7213 patients with acute coronary syndrome and planned percutaneous coronary intervention: 4010 with ST segment elevation and 3203 without ST segment elevation. The primary study results in the overall population have been reported previously. INTERVENTIONS:  Patients were randomly assigned, in an open label fashion, to one of two regimens: bivalirudin with glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors restricted to procedural complications or heparin with or without glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:  Primary endpoints were the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events, defined as death, myocardial infarction or stroke; and net adverse clinical events, defined as major bleeding or major adverse cardiovascular events, both assessed at 30 days. Analyses were performed by the principle of intention to treat. RESULTS:  Use of a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor in patients assigned to heparin was planned at baseline in 30.7% of patients with ST segment elevation, in 10.9% without ST segment elevation, and in no patients assigned to bivalirudin. In patients with ST segment elevation, major adverse cardiovascular events occurred in 118 (5.9%) assigned to bivalirudin and 129 (6.5%) assigned to heparin (rate ratio 0.90, 95% confidence interval 0.70 to 1.16; P=0.43), whereas net adverse clinical events occurred in 139 (7.0%) patients assigned to bivalirudin and 163 (8.2%) assigned to heparin (0.84, 0.67 to 1.05; P=0.13). In patients without ST segment elevation, major adverse cardiovascular events occurred in 253 (15.9%) assigned to bivalirudin and 262 (16.4%) assigned to heparin (0.97, 0.80 to 1.17; P=0.74), whereas net adverse clinical events occurred in 262 (16.5%) patients assigned to bivalirudin and 281 (17.6%) assigned to heparin (0.93, 0.77 to 1.12; P=0.43). CONCLUSIONS:  A bivalirudin monotherapy strategy compared with heparin with or without glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, did not result in reduced major adverse cardiovascular events or net adverse clinical events in patients with or without ST segment elevation.Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01433627.

Stress echo in chest pain unit: the SPEED trial.

BACKGROUND: Emergency room (ER) evaluation of patients with acute chest pain and non-diagnostic electrocardiography (ECG) remains a frequent and difficult problem. AIM: To assess safety and prognostic implications of pharmacological stress echocardiography in the ER chest pain unit (CPU). METHODS: A total of 552 patients (321 males, age 58+/-12.6 years) with acute chest pain, negative serial enzymes and/or troponin, and ECG recordings, and normal/unchanged resting left ventricular function were prospectively enrolled and underwent pharmacological (dipyridamole or dobutamine) stress echo. Six echo labs that had passed the preliminary quality control for stress echo reading entered the study. Follow-up was obtained in all patients after a median period of 13 months. RESULTS: No significant adverse events were observed during the test. Stress echocardiography was negative in 502 patients (91%) and positive in 50 (9%). The 502 patients with negative stress echocardiography were discharged with no or unchanged anti-ischemic medications. While the 50 patients with positive stress echo were admitted to the coronary care unit, 44 of these underwent coronary angiography with the result that 42 out of 44 showed significant coronary artery disease. There were 45 events in the follow-up: six in the 502 patients with negative and 39 in the 50 patients with positive stress echo (1.2% vs. 78%, p<0.001). The negative predictive value of stress echocardiography was 98.8% for all events and 99.6% for hard events. CONCLUSIONS: Stress echocardiography is a feasible, safe, and effective tool for early stratification of patients admitted to the ER with acute chest pain and non-ischemic ECG and resting echo.