Metabolic syndrome does not increase angiographic restenosis rates after drug-eluting stent implantation.

Metabolic syndrome (MS) is associated with an increased risk of coronary heart disease, stroke, and cardiovascular mortality; but its effect on patients undergoing cardiac revascularization is still unclear. Robust evidence demonstrates that diabetes mellitus and insulin resistance are among the main risk factors for restenosis in patients requiring percutaneous myocardial revascularization. The recent advent of drug-eluting stents (DESs) has significantly reduced the incidence of restenosis compared with bare-metal stents, both in nondiabetic and in diabetic patients. The aim of the study was to evaluate the effect of MS on the risk of binary restenosis in DES implant recipients. One hundred eighty-nine recipients of successful DES implants performed between January and March 2005 for stable coronary artery disease underwent 1-year clinical and angiographic follow-up. Body mass index (BMI), blood pressure, fasting blood glucose, and lipid profile were determined. Metabolic syndrome was defined according to the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III criteria, with the waist criterion being substituted by a BMI>or=28.8 kg/m2. Metabolic and anthropometric information for MS diagnosis was available for 148 of 189 patients; 87 of 148 patients (58%) had MS. Patients with MS had higher BMI (28.4+/-3.8 vs 26+/-2.7 kg/m2, P<.0001), systolic blood pressure (133+/-14 vs 124+/-14 mm Hg, P=.0004), and fasting glucose (113+/-37 vs 92+/-17 mg/dL, P<.0001). They also had higher serum triglycerides (154+/-94 vs 113+/-43, P=.0018) and lower high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels (39+/-9 vs 46+/-10, P<.0001). Rates of restenosis (10.5% vs 8.1%, P=not significant [NS]), target vessel revascularization (10.5% vs 11.3%, P=NS), and major adverse cardiac events (11.6% vs 14.5%, P=NS) were not significantly different in patients with MS compared with those without MS, nor was any association found between increased end point risk and presence of MS. When patients were subdivided into 6 subgroups by the presence of 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 of the MS components, restenosis rates were not significantly different among subgroups. In conclusion, MS is not associated with higher rates of restenosis, target vessel revascularization, or major adverse cardiac events; and no additional MS feature was associated with an increased risk.

Cardiopulmonary exercise testing is more accurate than ECG-stress testing in diagnosing myocardial ischemia in subjects with chest pain.

BACKGROUND: Cardiopulmonary exercise stress testing (CPET) is used to grade the severity of heart failure and to assess its prognosis. However it is unknown whether CPET may improve diagnostic accuracy of standard ECG stress testing to identify or exclude obstructive coronary artery disease (O-CAD) in patients with chest pain. METHODS: We prospectively studied 1265 consecutive subjects (55 ± 8 years, 156 women) who were evaluated with ECG stress testing (ET) for chest pain. No one had a documented O-CAD. All patients performed an incremental CPET with ECG recordings on an electronically braked cycle ergometer. RESULTS: Of 1265 patients, 73 had a positive CPET and 1192 had a negative CPET. Seventy-three patients with a positive CPET and 71 patients with a negative CPET agreed to undergo nuclear SPECT imaging and coronary angiography. Follow-up lasted 48 ± 7 months. As compared with ET, sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV were all improved significantly (ET: 48%, 55%, 33%, 95%; CPET: 88%, 98%, 73%, 99%, respectively, P<0.001). Patients with both peak VO2>91% of predicted VO2 max and absence of VO2-related signs of myocardial ischemia had no evidence of O-CAD in 100% of cases. Cardiac events occurred in 32 patients with a positive CPET and 8 patients with a negative CPET (log rank 18.2, P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with chest pain, CPET showed a better diagnostic and predictive accuracy than traditional ET to detect/exclude myocardial ischemia. Its use should be encouraged among physicians as a first line diagnostic tool in clinical practice.