Search

Objectives: The study sought to investigate the impact of different computing methods for composite endpoints other than time-to-event (TTE) statistics in a large, multicenter registry of unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) disease., Background: TTE statistics for composite outcome measures used in ULMCA studies consider only the first event, and all the contributory outcomes are handled as if of equal importance., Methods: The TTE, Andersen-Gill, win ratio (WR), competing risk, and weighted composite endpoint (WCE) computing methods were applied to ULMCA patients revascularized by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) at 14 international centers., Results: At a median follow-up of 1,295 days (interquartile range: 928 to 1,713 days), all analyses showed no difference in combinations of death, myocardial infarction, and cerebrovascular accident between PCI and CABG. When target vessel revascularization was incorporated in the composite endpoint, the TTE (p = 0.03), Andersen-Gill (p = 0.04), WR (p = 0.025), and competing risk (p < 0.001) computing methods showed CABG to be significantly superior to PCI in the analysis of 1,204 propensity-matched patients, whereas incorporating the clinical relevance of the component endpoints using WCE resulted in marked attenuation of the treatment effect of CABG, with loss of significance for the difference between revascularization strategies (p = 0.10)., Conclusions: In a large study of ULMCA revascularization, incorporating the clinical relevance of the individual outcomes resulted in sensibly different findings as compared with the conventional TTE approach. In particular, using the WCE computing method, PCI and CABG were no longer significantly different with respect to the composite of death, myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accident, or target vessel revascularization at a median of 3 years., (Copyright © 2016 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The aim of this study was to report the long-term clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DES) versus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for ostial/midshaft lesions in an unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA)., Background: Data regarding outcomes in these patients are limited., Methods: Of a total of 2,775 patients enrolled in the DELTA multinational registry, 856 patients with isolated ostial/midshaft lesions in an ULMCA treated by PCI with DES (n = 482) or CABG (n = 374) were analyzed., Results: At a median follow-up period of 1,293 days, there were no significant differences in the propensity score-adjusted analyses for the composite endpoint of all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), and cerebrovascular accident (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.21, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.79 to 1.86; p = 0.372), all-cause death (HR: 1.35, 95% CI: 0.80 to 2.27; p = 0.255), the composite endpoint of all-cause death and MI (HR: 1.33, 95% CI: 0.83 to 2.12; p = 0.235) and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (HR: 1.34, 95% CI: 0.93 to 1.93; p = 0.113). These results were sustained after propensity-score matching. However, a higher incidence of target vessel revascularization (HR: 1.94, 95% CI: 1.03 to 3.64; p = 0.039) was observed in the PCI compared with the CABG group, with a trend toward higher target lesion revascularization (HR: 2.00, 95% CI: 0.90 to 4.45; p = 0.090)., Conclusions: This study demonstrates that PCI for ostial/midshaft lesions in an ULMCA is associated with clinical outcomes comparable to those observed with CABG at long-term follow-up, despite the use of older first-generation DES., (Copyright © 2014 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare, in a large all-comer registry, the long-term clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DES) for ostial/mid-shaft lesions versus distal bifurcation lesions in unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) stenosis., Background: Limited data are available regarding clinical outcomes following DES implantation at the different ULMCA sites., Methods: Patients with ULMCA stenosis treated by PCI with DES were analyzed in this multinational registry., Results: A total of 1,612 patients were included: 482 were treated for ostial/mid-shaft lesions versus 1,130 for distal bifurcation lesions. At a median follow-up period of 1,250 (interquartile range: 987 to 1,564) days, PCI for distal bifurcation lesions was associated with a higher incidence of major adverse cardiac events (propensity-score adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 1.48, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.16 to 1.89; p = 0.001), largely because of the higher target vessel revascularization rate observed in this group as compared to the ostial/mid-shaft lesions group (propensity-score adjusted HR: 1.68, 95% CI: 1.19 to 2.38; p = 0.003). These results were sustained following propensity-score matched analysis. With regard to all-cause death and the composite endpoint of all-cause death and myocardial infarction, propensity-score adjusted analysis suggested a trend toward higher rates of these in the distal ULMCA PCI group, although this was not observed in the propensity-score matched analysis., Conclusions: This study demonstrates that PCI for ostial/mid-shaft lesions is associated with better clinical outcomes than are distal bifurcation lesions in ULMCA, largely because there is a lower need for repeat revascularization in ostial/mid-shaft lesions., (Copyright © 2013 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This study sought to examine the frequency of indications for and the immediate and long-term clinical outcomes of transcatheter closure of patent foramen ovale (PFO)., Background: Transcatheter PFO closure is commonly performed for several indications, including cryptogenic stroke, despite conflicting data regarding the efficacy of this intervention., Methods: We report the outcomes of 800 consecutive patients (52% male, 50 ± 14 years of age) who underwent PFO closure at our institution after multidisciplinary evaluation over a 16-year period., Results: Indications for closure included cryptogenic cerebrovascular event (94%), hypoxemia (2%), peripheral embolism (3%), and migraine headaches (2%). Procedural success was 99% with effective closure obtained in 93% of patients. At a mean follow-up of 42.7 ± 33.4 months, 21 patients suffered a recurrent ischemic neurologic event (12 strokes, and 9 transient ischemic attacks) for an incidence rate of 0.79 events per 100 person-years and freedom from recurrent events of 91.6% at 10 years. There was no device-based difference in the rate of recurrent ischemic neurologic events (p = 0.82). Only Eustachian valve prominence (hazard ratio: 9.04; 95% confidence interval: 2.07 to 39.44; p = 0.0034) was associated with recurrent neurologic events., Conclusions: Transcatheter PFO closure is safe and feasible in patients with several clinical indications. The long-term efficacy of this intervention in patients with paradoxical embolism appears superb in this observational study. Carefully selected patients with features suggestive of paradoxical embolism are the most likely to benefit from PFO closure and should be the focus of future investigation., (Copyright © 2013 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare, in a large all-comers registry, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with first-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) versus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) stenosis., Background: Percutaneous coronary intervention with DES implantation in ULMCA has been shown to be a feasible and safe approach at midterm clinical follow-up., Methods: All consecutive patients with ULMCA stenosis treated by PCI with DES versus CABG were analyzed in this multinational registry. A propensity score analysis was performed to adjust for baseline differences in the overall cohort., Results: In total 2,775 patients were included: 1,874 were treated with PCI versus 901 with CABG. At 1,295 (interquartile range: 928 to 1,713) days, there were no differences, at the adjusted analysis, in the primary composite endpoint of death, cerebrovascular accidents, and myocardial infarction (MI) (adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 1.11; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.85 to 1.42; p = 0.47), mortality (adjusted HR: 1.16; 95% CI: 0.87 to 1.55; p = 0.32), or composite endpoint of death and MI (adjusted HR: 1.25; 95% CI: 0.95 to 1.64; p = 0.11). An advantage of CABG over PCI was observed in the composite secondary endpoint of MACCE (adjusted HR: 1.64; 95% CI: 1.33 to 2.03; p < 0.0001), driven exclusively by the higher incidence of target vessel revascularization with PCI., Conclusions: In our multinational all-comers registry, no difference was observed in the occurrence of death, cerebrovascular accidents, and MI between PCI and CABG. An advantage of CABG over PCI was observed in the incidence of MACCE, driven by the higher incidence of target vessel revascularization with PCI., (Copyright © 2012 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)