Concept: Percutaneous coronary intervention
To determine the impact of the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (HVBP) program-the US pay for performance program introduced by Medicare to incentivize higher quality care-on 30 day mortality for three incentivized conditions: acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, and pneumonia.
For acute myocardial infarction (AMI) without heart failure (HF), it is unclear if β-blockers are associated with reduced mortality.
Prolonged QRS duration is a predictor of poor prognosis in patients with coronary artery disease. The association between the duration of QRS and myocardial reperfusion is not very well understood. Our aim was to assess the relationship between the measurements of QRS duration and myocardial blush grade (MBG) in patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) who were treated with a primary percutaneous intervention.
Clinical Impact of Ventricular Tachycardia and/or Fibrillation During the Acute Phase of Acute Myocardial Infarction on In-Hospital and 5-Year Mortality Rates in the Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Era
- Circulation journal : official journal of the Japanese Circulation Society
- Published almost 2 years ago
The aim of this study was to investigate the prognostic impact of acute-phase ventricular tachycardia and fibrillation (VT/VF) on ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients in the percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) era.Methods and Results:Using the database of the Osaka Acute Coronary Insufficiency Study (OACIS), we studied 4,283 consecutive patients with STEMI who were hospitalized within 12 h of STEMI onset and underwent emergency PCI. Acute-phase VT/VF, defined as ≥3 consecutive ventricular premature complexes and/or VF within the 1st week of hospitalization, occurred in 997 (23.3%) patients. In-hospital mortality risk was significantly higher in patients with acute-phase VT/VF than inthose without (14.6% vs. 4.3%, adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 1.83, P=0.0013). Among patients discharged alive, 5-year mortality rates were comparable between patients with and without acute-phase VT/VF. Subgroup analysis showed that acute-phase VT/VF was associated with increased 5-year mortality after discharge in high-risk patients (GRACE Risk Score ≥115; adjusted HR 1.60, P=0.043), but not in intermediate- or low-risk patients.
In the HORIZONS-AMI trial, bivalirudin compared to unfractionated heparin (UFH) plus a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor (GPI) improved net clinical outcomes in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) at the cost of an increased rate of acute stent thrombosis. We sought to examine whether these effects are dependent on time to treatment.
Background In patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with placement of stents, standard anticoagulation with a vitamin K antagonist plus dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with a P2Y12 inhibitor and aspirin reduces the risk of thrombosis and stroke but increases the risk of bleeding. The effectiveness and safety of anticoagulation with rivaroxaban plus either one or two antiplatelet agents are uncertain. Methods We randomly assigned 2124 participants with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation who had undergone PCI with stenting to receive, in a 1:1:1 ratio, low-dose rivaroxaban (15 mg once daily) plus a P2Y12 inhibitor for 12 months (group 1), very-low-dose rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) plus DAPT for 1, 6, or 12 months (group 2), or standard therapy with a dose-adjusted vitamin K antagonist (once daily) plus DAPT for 1, 6, or 12 months (group 3). The primary safety outcome was clinically significant bleeding (a composite of major bleeding or minor bleeding according to Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction [TIMI] criteria or bleeding requiring medical attention). Results The rates of clinically significant bleeding were lower in the two groups receiving rivaroxaban than in the group receiving standard therapy (16.8% in group 1, 18.0% in group 2, and 26.7% in group 3; hazard ratio for group 1 vs. group 3, 0.59; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47 to 0.76; P<0.001; hazard ratio for group 2 vs. group 3, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.80; P<0.001). The rates of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke were similar in the three groups (Kaplan-Meier estimates, 6.5% in group 1, 5.6% in group 2, and 6.0% in group 3; P values for all comparisons were nonsignificant). Conclusions In participants with atrial fibrillation undergoing PCI with placement of stents, the administration of either low-dose rivaroxaban plus a P2Y12 inhibitor for 12 months or very-low-dose rivaroxaban plus DAPT for 1, 6, or 12 months was associated with a lower rate of clinically significant bleeding than was standard therapy with a vitamin K antagonist plus DAPT for 1, 6, or 12 months. The three groups had similar efficacy rates, although the observed broad confidence intervals diminish the surety of any conclusions regarding efficacy. (Funded by Janssen Scientific Affairs and Bayer Pharmaceuticals; PIONEER AF-PCI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01830543 .).
Background Limited data are available on the long-term effects of contemporary drug-eluting stents versus contemporary bare-metal stents on rates of death, myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization, and stent thrombosis and on quality of life. Methods We randomly assigned 9013 patients who had stable or unstable coronary artery disease to undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with the implantation of either contemporary drug-eluting stents or bare-metal stents. In the group receiving drug-eluting stents, 96% of the patients received either everolimus- or zotarolimus-eluting stents. The primary outcome was a composite of death from any cause and nonfatal spontaneous myocardial infarction after a median of 5 years of follow-up. Secondary outcomes included repeat revascularization, stent thrombosis, and quality of life. Results At 6 years, the rates of the primary outcome were 16.6% in the group receiving drug-eluting stents and 17.1% in the group receiving bare-metal stents (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.88 to 1.09; P=0.66). There were no significant between-group differences in the components of the primary outcome. The 6-year rates of any repeat revascularization were 16.5% in the group receiving drug-eluting stents and 19.8% in the group receiving bare-metal stents (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.69 to 0.85; P<0.001); the rates of definite stent thrombosis were 0.8% and 1.2%, respectively (P=0.0498). Quality-of-life measures did not differ significantly between the two groups. Conclusions In patients undergoing PCI, there were no significant differences between those receiving drug-eluting stents and those receiving bare-metal stents in the composite outcome of death from any cause and nonfatal spontaneous myocardial infarction. Rates of repeat revascularization were lower in the group receiving drug-eluting stents. (Funded by the Norwegian Research Council and others; NORSTENT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00811772 .).
In some randomized trials comparing revascularization strategies for patients with diabetes, coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG) has had a better outcome than percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We sought to discover whether aggressive medical therapy and the use of drug-eluting stents could alter the revascularization approach for patients with diabetes and multivessel coronary artery disease.
Background Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds were developed to overcome the shortcomings of drug-eluting stents in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We performed an investigator-initiated, randomized trial to compare an everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold with an everolimus-eluting metallic stent in the context of routine clinical practice. Methods We randomly assigned 1845 patients undergoing PCI to receive either a bioresorbable vascular scaffold (924 patients) or a metallic stent (921 patients). The primary end point was target-vessel failure (a composite of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or target-vessel revascularization). The data and safety monitoring board recommended early reporting of the study results because of safety concerns. This report provides descriptive information on end-point events. Results The median follow-up was 707 days. Target-vessel failure occurred in 105 patients in the scaffold group and in 94 patients in the stent group (2-year cumulative event rates, 11.7% and 10.7%, respectively; hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85 to 1.48; P=0.43); event rates were based on Kaplan-Meier estimates in time-to-event analyses. Cardiac death occurred in 18 patients in the scaffold group and in 23 patients in the stent group (2-year cumulative event rates, 2.0% and 2.7%, respectively), target-vessel myocardial infarction occurred in 48 patients in the scaffold group and in 30 patients in the stent group (2-year cumulative event rates, 5.5% and 3.2%), and target-vessel revascularization occurred in 76 patients in the scaffold group and in 65 patients in the stent group (2-year cumulative event rates, 8.7% and 7.5%). Definite or probable device thrombosis occurred in 31 patients in the scaffold group as compared with 8 patients in the stent group (2-year cumulative event rates, 3.5% vs. 0.9%; hazard ratio, 3.87; 95% CI, 1.78 to 8.42; P<0.001). Conclusions In this preliminary report of a trial involving patients undergoing PCI, there was no significant difference in the rate of target-vessel failure between the patients who received a bioresorbable scaffold and the patients who received a metallic stent. The bioresorbable scaffold was associated with a higher incidence of device thrombosis than the metallic stent through 2 years of follow-up. (Funded by Abbott Vascular; AIDA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01858077 .).
Background The comparative efficacy of various anticoagulation strategies has not been clearly established in patients with acute myocardial infarction who are undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) according to current practice, which includes the use of radial-artery access for PCI and administration of potent P2Y12 inhibitors without the planned use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors. Methods In this multicenter, randomized, registry-based, open-label clinical trial, we enrolled patients with either ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) or non-STEMI (NSTEMI) who were undergoing PCI and receiving treatment with a potent P2Y12 inhibitor (ticagrelor, prasugrel, or cangrelor) without the planned use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors. The patients were randomly assigned to receive bivalirudin or heparin during PCI, which was performed predominantly with the use of radial-artery access. The primary end point was a composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, or major bleeding during 180 days of follow-up. Results A total of 6006 patients (3005 with STEMI and 3001 with NSTEMI) were enrolled in the trial. At 180 days, a primary end-point event had occurred in 12.3% of the patients (369 of 3004) in the bivalirudin group and in 12.8% (383 of 3002) in the heparin group (hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83 to 1.10; P=0.54). The results were consistent between patients with STEMI and those with NSTEMI and across other major subgroups. Myocardial infarction occurred in 2.0% of the patients in the bivalirudin group and in 2.4% in the heparin group (hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.60 to 1.19; P=0.33), major bleeding in 8.6% and 8.6%, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.19; P=0.98), definite stent thrombosis in 0.4% and 0.7%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.27 to 1.10; P=0.09), and death in 2.9% and 2.8%, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.41; P=0.76). Conclusions Among patients undergoing PCI for myocardial infarction, the rate of the composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, or major bleeding was not lower among those who received bivalirudin than among those who received heparin monotherapy. (Funded by the Swedish Heart-Lung Foundation and others; VALIDATE-SWEDEHEART ClinicalTrialsRegister.eu number, 2012-005260-10 ; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02311231 .).