Does the ISCHEMIA Trial Apply to My Patients?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The ISCHEMIA trial demonstrated no difference in myocardial infarction or death in patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or large ischemia territory treated either with invasive revascularization or optimal medical therapy. Whether the findings of the randomized control trial relates to real-world outcomes is uncertain. RECENT FINDINGS: Contemporary guideline-directed medical therapy has had a significant impact on the prognosis of coronary artery disease. Various observational data appear to indicate limited generalizability of the ISCHEMIA trial in different populations. Further studies are warranted to evaluate the optimal modality of therapy in patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia. The applicability of ISCHEMIA and ISCHEMIA-CKD trials still requires further validation.

Etiologies, trends, and predictors of readmission in ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients undergoing multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention.

BACKGROUND: Recent trials have shown benefits with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) on nonculprit coronary vessels in select ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD). However, readmission rates and causes in this high-risk group are unknown. Objective of this study is to explore pattern, causes and factors associated with 30-day readmission after multivessel PCI in STEMI patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: Nationwide Readmissions Data (NRD) between 2010 and 2014 was utilized to identify multivessel PCI cases in STEMI patients using appropriate ICD-9 codes. We evaluated 30-day readmission rate and factors associated with 30-day readmission. Hierarchical logistic regression model was used to identify factors associated with 30-day readmission. Among 22,257 STEMI patients who survived to discharge after multivessel PCI, 2,302 (10.3%) were readmitted within 30-days. Subsequent unresolved/aggravated cardiac issues most commonly triggered readmission (62.66%). Among cardiac causes, heart failure and ischemic heart disease were most frequent etiologies. Advancing age (OR: 1.073, 95%CI: 1.026 to 1.122, p = .002), female sex (OR: 1.36, 95%CI: 1.23 to 1.50, p < .001), comorbid conditions like chronic kidney disease (CKD; OR: 1.35, 95%CI: 1.17 to 1.57, p = .001), congestive heart failure (CHF; OR: 1.40, 95%CI: 1.24 to 1.57, p = .04), anemia (OR: 1.16, 95%CI: 1.002 to 1.34, p = .04), and utilization of a mechanical circulatory support (MCS) device (OR: 1.45, 95%CI: 1.19 to 1.77, p < .001) during the index procedure were predictive of subsequent readmission within 30 days. CONCLUSION: In this large nationally representative study, nearly one in 10 patients were readmitted within 30 days from discharge after index admission for multivessel PCI in STEMI, most commonly for cardiac causes.

Comparison of failure rates of crossing side branch with pressure vs. coronary guidewire: a meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the failure rates of crossing side branch (SB) with pressure guidewire vs. coronary guidewire after main vessel (MV) stenting in coronary bifurcation lesions (CBL). BACKGROUND: Percutaneous coronary intervention of CBL is technically difficult. The European Bifurcation Club recommends performing either fractional flow reserve (FFR) estimation of the SB or final kissing balloon inflation (FKBI) after the MV stenting when a significant SB ostial stenosis is present. Even though FFR is recommended in CBL, there is concern about SB crossing with pressure guidewire among interventionists. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We undertook a comprehensive literature search to identify all relevant studies reporting the failure rates of SB crossing after MV stenting with either pressure or coronary guidewire. A random effects model was used to compare the failure rates between the two approaches. RESULTS: Our search identified six studies that reported failure rates of SB crossing with a pressure guidewire (n = 648) and 11 studies that reported failure rates of SB crossing with a coronary guide-wire (n = 2601). Estimated pooled failure rate was 3·9% (95% CI: 1·5% to 9·6%) for inability to cross SB with pressure guidewire. Estimated pooled failure rate of SB crossing with coronary guidewire was 3·1% (95% CI: 1·5% to 6·2%). There was no significant difference between the failure rates in the two groups (P = 0·70). CONCLUSION: The failure rates of SB crossing after MV stenting are low with both pressure and coronary guidewire procedures, with no significant difference between the two approaches.

Health-related quality of life after transcatheter or surgical aortic valve replacement in high-risk patients with severe aortic stenosis: an updated review of literature.

Recent trials have highlighted the comparable mortality benefits and durability of the results for patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) and high surgical risk managed with either transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) or surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR). Various national guidelines and international regulatory bodies have approved TAVR, thereby leading to potential wide usage and dissemination of this technique worldwide. Quality-of-life outcomes, in spite of being an important measure of success and acceptability of the procedure, have not been publicized as extensively. For high risk patients with severe AS, implementation of TAVR has resulted in comparable survival, but different and novel adverse events compared with AVR. We present an updated review focusing on the quality-of-life outcomes and issues with this new and important procedural approach.

Left ventricular hypertrophy and risk reclassification for coronary events in multi-ethnic adults.

BACKGROUND: Left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) has not been evaluated for reclassification improvement in the intermediate Framingham risk category for incident hard coronary events in a large multi ethnic population free of cardiovascular disease at baseline. DESIGN: A post-hoc analysis on the Multi Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) dataset (n = 4921) was performed. METHODS: LVH was defined as the upper 95 th percentile of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging derived left ventricular mass (LVM) indexed based on body surface area (BSA) and height. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess the independent association between LVH and composite outcomes like all cardiovascular disease (CVDa) and hard coronary heart disease (CHDh) events over a mean follow-up period of 4.5 years. To assess the incremental value of LVH over traditional CV risk factors for CHDh prediction, we compared the discrimination, calibration and net reclassification index (NRI) of models comprising of traditional CV risk factors with and without LVH. RESULTS: LVH derived from LVM indexed by BSA (LVH-BSA) and height(1.7)(LVH-height) showed an independent association with CVDa (LVH-BSA: hazard ratio (HR) 1.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05-2.20, p = 0.03; LVH-height(1.7): HR 1.58, 95% CI 1.14-2.18, p = 0.012) and CHDh (LVH-BSA: HR 2.36, 95% CI 1.37-4.04, p = 0.002; LVH-height(1.7): HR: 1.95, 95% CI: 1.17-3.26, p = 0.01). Addition of LVH to the model based on traditional CV risk factors demonstrated no significant improvement in NRI for CHDh in either the entire cohort (LVH-BSA: NRI 1.7%, 95% CI: -8.3% to 11.7%, p = 0.74; LVH-height(1.7): NRI 2.7%, 95% CI: -5.8% to 11.3%, p = 0.62) or the intermediate risk group (LVH-BSA: NRI 12.0%, 95% CI: -5.7% to 29.8%, p = 0.19; LVH-height(1.7): NRI 14.5%, 0.1% to 28.8%, p = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Although an independent predictor of cardiovascular events, LVH does not lead to clinically meaningful reclassification of the overall and intermediate risk population for CHDh.