Search

Background: We hypothesized that fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) would be superior to medical therapy as initial treatment in patients with stable coronary artery disease.Methods: Among 1220 patients with angiographically significant stenoses, those in whom at least one stenosis was hemodynamically significant (FFR, ≤0.80) were randomly assigned to FFR-guided PCI plus medical therapy or to medical therapy alone. Patients in whom all stenoses had an FFR of more than 0.80 received medical therapy and were entered into a registry. The primary end point was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or urgent revascularization.Results: A total of 888 patients underwent randomization (447 patients in the PCI group and 441 in the medical-therapy group). At 5 years, the rate of the primary end point was lower in the PCI group than in the medical-therapy group (13.9% vs. 27.0%; hazard ratio, 0.46; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.34 to 0.63; P<0.001). The difference was driven by urgent revascularizations, which occurred in 6.3% of the patients in the PCI group as compared with 21.1% of those in the medical-therapy group (hazard ratio, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.18 to 0.41). There were no significant differences between the PCI group and the medical-therapy group in the rates of death (5.1% and 5.2%, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.55 to 1.75) or myocardial infarction (8.1% and 12.0%; hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.43 to 1.00). There was no significant difference in the rate of the primary end point between the PCI group and the registry cohort (13.9% and 15.7%, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.55 to 1.39). Relief from angina was more pronounced after PCI than after medical therapy.Conclusions: In patients with stable coronary artery disease, an initial FFR-guided PCI strategy was associated with a significantly lower rate of the primary composite end point of death, myocardial infarction, or urgent revascularization at 5 years than medical therapy alone. Patients without hemodynamically significant stenoses had a favorable long-term outcome with medical therapy alone. (Funded by St. Jude Medical and others; FAME 2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01132495 .). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In patients who have acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock, early revascularization of the culprit artery by means of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) improves outcomes. However, the majority of patients with cardiogenic shock have multivessel disease, and whether PCI should be performed immediately for stenoses in nonculprit arteries is controversial.Methods: In this multicenter trial, we randomly assigned 706 patients who had multivessel disease, acute myocardial infarction, and cardiogenic shock to one of two initial revascularization strategies: either PCI of the culprit lesion only, with the option of staged revascularization of nonculprit lesions, or immediate multivessel PCI. The primary end point was a composite of death or severe renal failure leading to renal-replacement therapy within 30 days after randomization. Safety end points included bleeding and stroke.Results: At 30 days, the composite primary end point of death or renal-replacement therapy had occurred in 158 of the 344 patients (45.9%) in the culprit-lesion-only PCI group and in 189 of the 341 patients (55.4%) in the multivessel PCI group (relative risk, 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71 to 0.96; P=0.01). The relative risk of death in the culprit-lesion-only PCI group as compared with the multivessel PCI group was 0.84 (95% CI, 0.72 to 0.98; P=0.03), and the relative risk of renal-replacement therapy was 0.71 (95% CI, 0.49 to 1.03; P=0.07). The time to hemodynamic stabilization, the risk of catecholamine therapy and the duration of such therapy, the levels of troponin T and creatine kinase, and the rates of bleeding and stroke did not differ significantly between the two groups.Conclusions: Among patients who had multivessel coronary artery disease and acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock, the 30-day risk of a composite of death or severe renal failure leading to renal-replacement therapy was lower among those who initially underwent PCI of the culprit lesion only than among those who underwent immediate multivessel PCI. (Funded by the European Union 7th Framework Program and others; CULPRIT-SHOCK ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01927549 .). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Both genetic and lifestyle factors contribute to individual-level risk of coronary artery disease. The extent to which increased genetic risk can be offset by a healthy lifestyle is unknown.Methods: Using a polygenic score of DNA sequence polymorphisms, we quantified genetic risk for coronary artery disease in three prospective cohorts - 7814 participants in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study, 21,222 in the Women's Genome Health Study (WGHS), and 22,389 in the Malmö Diet and Cancer Study (MDCS) - and in 4260 participants in the cross-sectional BioImage Study for whom genotype and covariate data were available. We also determined adherence to a healthy lifestyle among the participants using a scoring system consisting of four factors: no current smoking, no obesity, regular physical activity, and a healthy diet.Results: The relative risk of incident coronary events was 91% higher among participants at high genetic risk (top quintile of polygenic scores) than among those at low genetic risk (bottom quintile of polygenic scores) (hazard ratio, 1.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.75 to 2.09). A favorable lifestyle (defined as at least three of the four healthy lifestyle factors) was associated with a substantially lower risk of coronary events than an unfavorable lifestyle (defined as no or only one healthy lifestyle factor), regardless of the genetic risk category. Among participants at high genetic risk, a favorable lifestyle was associated with a 46% lower relative risk of coronary events than an unfavorable lifestyle (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.63). This finding corresponded to a reduction in the standardized 10-year incidence of coronary events from 10.7% for an unfavorable lifestyle to 5.1% for a favorable lifestyle in ARIC, from 4.6% to 2.0% in WGHS, and from 8.2% to 5.3% in MDCS. In the BioImage Study, a favorable lifestyle was associated with significantly less coronary-artery calcification within each genetic risk category.Conclusions: Across four studies involving 55,685 participants, genetic and lifestyle factors were independently associated with susceptibility to coronary artery disease. Among participants at high genetic risk, a favorable lifestyle was associated with a nearly 50% lower relative risk of coronary artery disease than was an unfavorable lifestyle. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and others.). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patients with obstructive left main coronary artery disease are usually treated with coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG). Randomized trials have suggested that drug-eluting stents may be an acceptable alternative to CABG in selected patients with left main coronary disease.Methods: We randomly assigned 1905 eligible patients with left main coronary artery disease of low or intermediate anatomical complexity to undergo either percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with fluoropolymer-based cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stents (PCI group, 948 patients) or CABG (CABG group, 957 patients). Anatomic complexity was assessed at the sites and defined by a Synergy between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) score of 32 or lower (the SYNTAX score reflects a comprehensive angiographic assessment of the coronary vasculature, with 0 as the lowest score and higher scores [no upper limit] indicating more complex coronary anatomy). The primary end point was the rate of a composite of death from any cause, stroke, or myocardial infarction at 3 years, and the trial was powered for noninferiority testing of the primary end point (noninferiority margin, 4.2 percentage points). Major secondary end points included the rate of a composite of death from any cause, stroke, or myocardial infarction at 30 days and the rate of a composite of death, stroke, myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven revascularization at 3 years. Event rates were based on Kaplan-Meier estimates in time-to-first-event analyses.Results: At 3 years, a primary end-point event had occurred in 15.4% of the patients in the PCI group and in 14.7% of the patients in the CABG group (difference, 0.7 percentage points; upper 97.5% confidence limit, 4.0 percentage points; P=0.02 for noninferiority; hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% confidence interval, 0.79 to 1.26; P=0.98 for superiority). The secondary end-point event of death, stroke, or myocardial infarction at 30 days occurred in 4.9% of the patients in the PCI group and in 7.9% in the CABG group (P<0.001 for noninferiority, P=0.008 for superiority). The secondary end-point event of death, stroke, myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven revascularization at 3 years occurred in 23.1% of the patients in the PCI group and in 19.1% in the CABG group (P=0.01 for noninferiority, P=0.10 for superiority).Conclusions: In patients with left main coronary artery disease and low or intermediate SYNTAX scores by site assessment, PCI with everolimus-eluting stents was noninferior to CABG with respect to the rate of the composite end point of death, stroke, or myocardial infarction at 3 years. (Funded by Abbott Vascular; EXCEL ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01205776 .). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 .). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

CORONARY-ARTERY BYPASS GRAFTING (CABG) IS A PROCEDURE IN WHIC H autologous arteries or veins are used as grafts to bypass coronary arteries that are partially or completely obstructed by atherosclerotic plaque. CABG is among the most commonly performed major surgical procedures, with approximately 400,000 operations performed annually in the United States. During the past decade, however, there has been nearly a 30% decline in CABG procedures in the United States, despite an aging population and growing evidence to support the effectiveness and safety of the operation.1-6 This decline has been accompanied by a corresponding increase in percutaneous coronary revascularization procedures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patients at high risk for bleeding who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) often receive bare-metal stents followed by 1 month of dual antiplatelet therapy. We studied a polymer-free and carrier-free drug-coated stent that transfers umirolimus (also known as biolimus A9), a highly lipophilic sirolimus analogue, into the vessel wall over a period of 1 month.Methods: In a randomized, double-blind trial, we compared the drug-coated stent with a very similar bare-metal stent in patients with a high risk of bleeding who underwent PCI. All patients received 1 month of dual antiplatelet therapy. The primary safety end point, tested for both noninferiority and superiority, was a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis. The primary efficacy end point was clinically driven target-lesion revascularization.Results: We enrolled 2466 patients. At 390 days, the primary safety end point had occurred in 112 patients (9.4%) in the drug-coated-stent group and in 154 patients (12.9%) in the bare-metal-stent group (risk difference, -3.6 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -6.1 to -1.0; hazard ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.91; P<0.001 for noninferiority and P=0.005 for superiority). During the same time period, clinically driven target-lesion revascularization was needed in 59 patients (5.1%) in the drug-coated-stent group and in 113 patients (9.8%) in the bare-metal-stent group (risk difference, -4.8 percentage points; 95% CI, -6.9 to -2.6; hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.69; P<0.001).Conclusions: Among patients at high risk for bleeding who underwent PCI, a polymer-free umirolimus-coated stent was superior to a bare-metal stent with respect to the primary safety and efficacy end points when used with a 1-month course of dual antiplatelet therapy. (Funded by Biosensors Europe; LEADERS FREE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01623180.). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) relieves angina in patients with stable ischemic heart disease, but clinical trials have not shown that it improves survival. Between June 1999 and January 2004, we randomly assigned 2287 patients with stable ischemic heart disease to an initial management strategy of optimal medical therapy alone (medical-therapy group) or optimal medical therapy plus PCI (PCI group) and did not find a significant difference in the rate of survival during a median follow-up of 4.6 years. We now report the rate of survival among the patients who were followed for up to 15 years.Methods: We obtained permission from the patients at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) sites and some non-VA sites in the United States to use their Social Security numbers to track their survival after the original trial period ended. We searched the VA national Corporate Data Warehouse and the National Death Index for survival information and the dates of death from any cause. We calculated survival according to the Kaplan-Meier method and used a Cox proportional-hazards model to adjust for significant between-group differences in baseline characteristics.Results: Extended survival information was available for 1211 patients (53% of the original population). The median duration of follow-up for all patients was 6.2 years (range, 0 to 15); the median duration of follow-up for patients at the sites that permitted survival tracking was 11.9 years (range, 0 to 15). A total of 561 deaths (180 during the follow-up period in the original trial and 381 during the extended follow-up period) occurred: 284 deaths (25%) in the PCI group and 277 (24%) in the medical-therapy group (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval, 0.83 to 1.21; P=0.76).Conclusions: During an extended-follow-up of up to 15 years, we did not find a difference in survival between an initial strategy of PCI plus medical therapy and medical therapy alone in patients with stable ischemic heart disease. (Funded by the VA Cooperative Studies Program and others; COURAGE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00007657.). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The choice of drug-eluting stent in the treatment of patients with diabetes mellitus and coronary artery disease who are undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has been debated. Previous studies comparing paclitaxel-eluting stents with stents eluting rapamycin (now called sirolimus) or its analogues (everolimus or zotarolimus) have produced contradictory results, ranging from equivalence between stent types to superiority of everolimus-eluting stents.Methods: We randomly assigned 1830 patients with diabetes mellitus and coronary artery disease who were undergoing PCI to receive either a paclitaxel-eluting stent or an everolimus-eluting stent. We used a noninferiority trial design with a noninferiority margin of 4 percentage points for the upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval of the risk difference. The primary end point was target-vessel failure, which was defined as a composite of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target-vessel revascularization at the 1-year follow-up.Results: At 1 year, paclitaxel-eluting stents did not meet the criterion for noninferiority to everolimus-eluting stents with respect to the primary end point (rate of target-vessel failure, 5.6% vs. 2.9%; risk difference, 2.7 percentage points [95% confidence interval, 0.8 to 4.5]; relative risk, 1.89 [95% confidence interval, 1.20 to 2.99]; P=0.38 for noninferiority). There was a significantly higher 1-year rate in the paclitaxel-eluting stent group than in the everolimus-eluting stent group of target-vessel failure (P=0.005), spontaneous myocardial infarction (3.2% vs. 1.2%, P=0.004), stent thrombosis (2.1% vs. 0.4%, P=0.002), target-vessel revascularization (3.4% vs. 1.2%, P=0.002), and target-lesion revascularization (3.4% vs. 1.2%, P=0.002).Conclusions: In patients with diabetes mellitus and coronary artery disease undergoing PCI, paclitaxel-eluting stents were not shown to be noninferior to everolimus-eluting stents, and they resulted in higher rates of target-vessel failure, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, and target-vessel revascularization at 1 year. (Funded by Boston Scientific; TUXEDO-India Clinical Trials Registry-India number, CTRI/2011/06/001830). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses a study on whether patients with acute ischemic stroke selected on the basis of results of computed tomography (CT) and CT angiography (CTA) will benefit from rapid endovascular treatment involving contemporary endovascular techniques. Topics discussed include randomization performed using real-time, dynamic and randomized minimization procedure and the benefit of endovascular treatment in patients having moderate-to-severe ischemic stroke.

The article discusses a study on whether patients with anterior circulation ischemic stroke with dual target of vessel occlusion and evidence of salvageable tissue on perfusion imaging within 4.5 hours after onset of stroke will have improved reperfusion and early neurologic improvement if treated with early endovascular thrombectomy using the Solitare Flow Restoration (FR) stent retriever. It notes improved reperfusion in patients with ischemic stroke with proximal cerebral arterial occlusion.

Background: Patients' responses to oral antiplatelet therapy are subject to variation. Bedside monitoring offers the opportunity to improve outcomes after coronary stenting by individualizing therapy. Methods: We randomly assigned 2440 patients scheduled for coronary stenting at 38 centers to a strategy of platelet-function monitoring, with drug adjustment in patients who had a poor response to antiplatelet therapy, or to a conventional strategy without monitoring and drug adjustment. The primary end point was the composite of death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, stroke, or urgent revascularization 1 year after stent implantation. For patients in the monitoring group, the VerifyNow P2Y12 and aspirin point-of-care assays were used in the catheterization laboratory before stent implantation and in the outpatient clinic 2 to 4 weeks later. Results: In the monitoring group, high platelet reactivity in patients taking clopidogrel (34.5% of patients) or aspirin (7.6%) led to the administration of an additional bolus of clopidogrel, prasugrel, or aspirin along with glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors during the procedure. The primary end point occurred in 34.6% of the patients in the monitoring group, as compared with 31.1% of those in the conventional-treatment group (hazard ratio, 1.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.98 to 1.29; P=0.10). The main secondary end point, stent thrombosis or any urgent revascularization, occurred in 4.9% of the patients in the monitoring group and 4.6% of those in the conventional-treatment group (hazard ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.52; P=0.77). The rate of major bleeding events did not differ significantly between groups. Conclusions: This study showed no significant improvements in clinical outcomes with platelet-function monitoring and treatment adjustment for coronary stenting, as compared with standard antiplatelet therapy without monitoring. (Funded by Allies in Cardiovascular Trials Initiatives and Organized Networks and others; ARCTIC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00827411.) [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

A letter to the editor is presented in response to the article "The CURRENT-OASIS 7 Investigators. Dose Comparisons of Clopitogrel and Aspirin in Acute Coronary Syndromes," by Mehta and colleagues in the September 2, 2010 issue.

A letter to the editor is presented in response to the article "The CURRENT-OASIS 7 Investigators. Dose Comparisons of Clopidogrel and Aspirin in Acute Coronary Syndromes," by Mehta and colleagues in the September 2, 2010 issue.

A letter to the editor is presented in response to the article "Ticagrelor Versus Clopidogrel in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes," by L. Wallentin in the September 10, 2009 issue of the "New England Journal of Medicine."

A response by Lars Wallentin, Håkan Emanuelsson and Robert A. Harrington to a letter to the editor about their article "Ticagrelor Versus Clopidogrel in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes" in the September 10, 2009 issue of the "New England Journal of Medicine" is presented.

A letter to the editor is presented in response to the article "Ticagrelor Versus Clopidogrel in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes," by L. Wallentin and colleagues in the September 10, 2009 issue of the "New England Journal of Medicine."

A letter to the editor is presented in response to the article "Ticagrelor Versus Clopidogrel in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes," by L. Wallentin and colleagues in the September 10, 2009 issue of the "New England Journal of Medicine."

A letter to the editor is presented in response to the article "Ticagrelor Versus Clopidogrel in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes," by L. Wallentin and colleagues in the September 10, 2009 issue of the "New England Journal of Medicine."

In this article, the author expresses his views on the effectiveness of ticagrelor as an antiplatelet therapy, in relation to a study published in a 2009 issue of the journal "New England Journal of Medicine." He mentions the impact of thienopyridine clopidogrel on therapy in patients with acute coronary syndromes. Information on the Study of Platelet Inhibition and Patient Oucomes (PLATO) is also presented.

The author discusses the benefits and risks of using prasugrel, which was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for reducing thrombotic cardiovascular events in patients suffering from myocardial infarction or unstable angina. He says that prasugrel reduced end-point events, however, it was associated with an increased risk of bleeding of about 30 percent. He adds that the FDA made sure that the label of prasugrel clearly shows the balance between risk and efficacy. He also discusses how bleeding became a serious concern with prasugrel.

Background: Optimal treatment for patients with both type 2 diabetes mellitus and stable ischemic heart disease has not been established. Methods: We randomly assigned 2368 patients with both type 2 diabetes and heart disease to undergo either prompt revascularization with intensive medical therapy or intensive medical therapy alone and to undergo either insulin-sensitization or insulin-provision therapy. Primary end points were the rate of death and a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (major cardiovascular events). Randomization was stratified according to the choice of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG) as the more appropriate intervention. Results: At 5 years, rates of survival did not differ significantly between the revascularization group (88.3%) and the medical-therapy group (87.8%, P=0.97) or between the insulin-sensitization group (88.2%) and the insulin-provision group (87.9%, P=0.89). The rates of freedom from major cardiovascular events also did not differ significantly among the groups: 77.2% in the revascularization group and 75.9% in the medical-treatment group (P=0.70) and 77.7% in the insulin-sensitization group and 75.4% in the insulin-provision group (P=0.13). In the PCI stratum, there was no significant difference in primary end points between the revascularization group and the medical-therapy group. In the CABG stratum, the rate of major cardiovascular events was significantly lower in the revascularization group (22.4%) than in the medical-therapy group (30.5%, P=0.01; P=0.002 for interaction between stratum and study group). Adverse events and serious adverse events were generally similar among the groups, although severe hypoglycemia was more frequent in the insulin-provision group (9.2%) than in the insulin-sensitization group (5.9%, P=0.003). Conclusions: Overall, there was no significant difference in the rates of death and major cardiovascular events between patients undergoing prompt revascularization and those undergoing medical therapy or between strategies of insulin sensitization and insulin provision. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00006305.) N Engl J Med 2009;360:2503-15. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Vitamin K antagonists reduce the risk of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation but are considered unsuitable in many patients, who usually receive aspirin instead. We investigated the hypothesis that the addition of clopidogrel to aspirin would reduce the risk of vascular events in patients with atrial fibrillation. Methods: A total of 7554 patients with atrial fibrillation who had an increased risk of stroke and for whom vitamin K–antagonist therapy was unsuitable were randomly assigned to receive clopidogrel (75 mg) or placebo, once daily, in addition to aspirin. The primary outcome was the composite of stroke, myocardial infarction, non–central nervous system systemic embolism, or death from vascular causes. Results: At a median of 3.6 years of follow-up, major vascular events had occurred in 832 patients receiving clopidogrel (6.8% per year) and in 924 patients receiving placebo (7.6% per year) (relative risk with clopidogrel, 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81 to 0.98; P=0.01). The difference was primarily due to a reduction in the rate of stroke with clopidogrel. Stroke occurred in 296 patients receiving clopidogrel (2.4% per year) and 408 patients receiving placebo (3.3% per year) (relative risk, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.62 to 0.83; P<0.001). Myocardial infarction occurred in 90 patients receiving clopidogrel (0.7% per year) and in 115 receiving placebo (0.9% per year) (relative risk, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.59 to 1.03; P=0.08). Major bleeding occurred in 251 patients receiving clopidogrel (2.0% per year) and in 162 patients receiving placebo (1.3% per year) (relative risk, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.29 to 1.92; P<0.001). Conclusions: In patients with atrial fibrillation for whom vitamin K–antagonist therapy was unsuitable, the addition of clopidogrel to aspirin reduced the risk of major vascular events, especially stroke, and increased the risk of major hemorrhage. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00249873.) N Engl J Med 2009;360:2066-78 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article reports on research which compared percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for treating patients with previously untreated three-vessel or left main coronary artery disease (or both). Researchers randomly assigned 1800 patients with three-vessel or left main coronary artery disease to undergo CABG or PCI (in a 1:1 ratio). Researchers found that most of the preoperative characteristics were similar in the two groups and that rates of major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events at 12 months were significantly higher in the PCI group. They concluded that CABG remains the standard of care for patients with three-vessel or left main coronary artery disease, since the use of CABG, as compared with PCI, resulted in lower rates of the combined end point of major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events at 1 year.

Background: Clopidogrel requires transformation into an active metabolite by cytochrome P-450 (CYP) enzymes for its antiplatelet effect. The genes encoding CYP enzymes are polymorphic, with common alleles conferring reduced function. Methods: We tested the association between functional genetic variants in CYP genes, plasma concentrations of active drug metabolite, and platelet inhibition in response to clopidogrel in 162 healthy subjects. We then examined the association between these genetic variants and cardiovascular outcomes in a separate cohort of 1477 subjects with acute coronary syndromes who were treated with clopidogrel in the Trial to Assess Improvement in Therapeutic Outcomes by Optimizing Platelet Inhibition with Prasugrel–Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TRITON–TIMI) 38. Results: In healthy subjects who were treated with clopidogrel, carriers of at least one CYP2C19 reduced-function allele (approximately 30% of the study population) had a relative reduction of 32.4% in plasma exposure to the active metabolite of clopidogrel, as compared with noncarriers (P<0.001). Carriers also had an absolute reduction in maximal platelet aggregation in response to clopidogrel that was 9 percentage points less than that seen in noncarriers (P<0.001). Among clopidogrel-treated subjects in TRITON–TIMI 38, carriers had a relative increase of 53% in the composite primary efficacy outcome of the risk of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke, as compared with noncarriers (12.1% vs. 8.0%; hazard ratio for carriers, 1.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07 to 2.19; P=0.01) and an increase by a factor of 3 in the risk of stent thrombosis (2.6% vs. 0.8%; hazard ratio, 3.09; 95% CI, 1.19 to 8.00; P=0.02). Conclusions: Among persons treated with clopidogrel, carriers of a reduced-function CYP2C19 allele had significantly lower levels of the active metabolite of clopidogrel, diminished platelet inhibition, and a higher rate of major adverse cardiovascular events, including stent thrombosis, than did noncarriers. N Engl J Med 2009;360:354-62. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The editorialists reply to letters written in response to the article "Effect of PCI on Quality of Life in Patients with Stable Coronary Disease," published in the August 14, 2008 issue, by W.S. Weintraub, J.A. Spertus, P. Kolm, et al.

A letter to the editor is presented in response to the article "Effect of PCI on Quality of Life in Patients with Stable Coronary Disease," published in the August 14, 2008 issue, by W.S. Weintraub, J.A. Spertus, P. Kolm, et al.

A letter to the editor is presented in response to the article "Effect of PCI on Quality of Life in Patients with Stable Coronary Disease," published in the August 14, 2008 issue, by W.S. Weintraub, J.A. Spertus, P. Kolm, et al.

A letter to the editor is presented in response to the article "Effect of PCI on Quality of Life in Patients with Stable Coronary Disease," published in the August 14, 2008 issue, by W.S. Weintraub, J.A. Spertus, P. Kolm, et al.

The authors reply to letters written in response to the article "Effect of PCI on Quality of Life in Patients with Stable Coronary Disease," published in the August 14, 2008 issue.

A letter to the editor is presented in response to the article "Effect of PCI on Quality of Life in Patients with Stable Coronary Disease," published in the August 14, 2008 issue, by W.S. Weintraub, J.A. Spertus, P. Kolm, et al.

A letter to the editor is presented in response to the article "Effect of PCI on Quality of Life in Patients With Stable Coronary Disease," published in the August 14, 2008 issue, by W.S. Weintraub, J.A. Spertus, P. Kolm, et al.

A letter to the editor is presented in response to the article "Effect of PCI on Quality of Life in Patients with Stable Coronary Disease," published in the August 14, 2008 issue, by W.S. Weintraub, J.A. Spertus, P. Kolm, et al.

Background: Several studies have compared the treatment effects of coronary stenting and coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG). However, there are limited data regarding the long-term outcomes of these two interventions for patients with unprotected left main coronary artery disease. Methods: We evaluated 1102 patients with unprotected left main coronary artery disease who underwent stent implantation and 1138 patients who underwent CABG in Korea between January 2000 and June 2006. We compared adverse outcomes (death; a composite outcome of death, Q-wave myocardial infarction, or stroke; and target-vessel revascularization) with the use of propensity-score matching in the overall cohort and in separate subgroups according to type of stent. Results: In the overall matched cohort, there was no significant difference between the stenting and CABG groups in the risk of death (hazard ratio for the stenting group, 1.18; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.77 to 1.80) or the risk of the composite outcome (hazard ratio for the stenting group, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.62). The rates of target-vessel revascularization were significantly higher in the group that received stents than in the group that underwent CABG (hazard ratio, 4.76; 95% CI, 2.80 to 8.11). Comparisons of the group that received bare-metal stents with the group that underwent CABG and of the group that received drug-eluting stents with the group that underwent CABG produced similar results, although there was a trend toward higher rates of death and the composite end point in the group that received drug-eluting stents. Conclusions: In a cohort of patients with unprotected left main coronary artery disease, we found no significant difference in rates of death or of the composite end point of death, Q-wave myocardial infarction, or stroke between patients receiving stents and those undergoing CABG. However, stenting, even with drug-eluting stents, was associated with higher rates of target-vessel revascularization than was CABG. N Engl J Med 2008;358:1781-92. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Stephen D. Wiviott, Eugene Braunwald and Elliott M. Antman respond to a letter to the editor about their article "Prasugrel versus Clopidogrel in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome" in the November 15, 2007 issue.

A letter to the editor is presented in response to the article "Prasugrel versus Clopidogrel in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes" by S. D. Wiviott, E. Braunwald and C. H. McCabe in the November 15, 2008 issue.

Background: Recent reports suggest that off-label use of drug-eluting stents is associated with an increased incidence of adverse events. Whether the use of bare-metal stents would yield different results is unknown. Methods: We analyzed data from 6551 patients in the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Dynamic Registry according to whether they were treated with drug-eluting stents or bare-metal stents and whether use was standard or off-label. Patients were followed for 1 year for the occurrence of cardiovascular events and death. Off-label use was defined as use in restenotic lesions, lesions in a bypass graft, left main coronary artery disease, or ostial, bifurcated, or totally occluded lesions, as well as use in patients with a reference-vessel diameter of less than 2.5 mm or greater than 3.75 mm or a lesion length of more than 30 mm. Results: Off-label use occurred in 54.7% of all patients with bare-metal stents and 48.7% of patients with drug-eluting stents. As compared with patients with bare-metal stents, patients with drug-eluting stents had a higher prevalence of diabetes, hypertension, renal disease, previous percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary-artery bypass grafting, and multivessel coronary artery disease. One year after intervention, however, there were no significant differences in the adjusted risk of death or myocardial infarction in patients with drug-eluting stents as compared with those with bare-metal stents, whereas the risk of repeat revascularization was significantly lower among patients with drug-eluting stents. Conclusions: Among patients with off-label indications, the use of drug-eluting stents was not associated with an increased risk of death or myocardial infarction but was associated with a lower rate of repeat revascularization at 1 year, as compared with bare-metal stents. These findings support the use of drug-eluting stents for off-label indications. N Engl J Med 2008;358:342-52. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Numerous studies have compared the outcomes of two competing interventions for multivessel coronary artery disease: coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG) and coronary stenting. However, little information has become available since the introduction of drug-eluting stents. Methods: We identified patients with multivessel disease who received drug-eluting stents or underwent CABG in New York State between October 1, 2003, and December 31, 2004, and we compared adverse outcomes (death, death or myocardial infarction, or repeat revascularization) through December 31, 2005, after adjustment for differences in baseline risk factors among the patients. Results: In comparison with treatment with a drug-eluting stent, CABG was associated with lower 18-month rates of death and of death or myocardial infarction both for patients with three-vessel disease and for patients with two-vessel disease. Among patients with three-vessel disease who underwent CABG, as compared with those who received a stent, the adjusted hazard ratio for death was 0.80 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65 to 0.97) and the adjusted survival rate was 94.0% versus 92.7% (P=0.03); the adjusted hazard ratio for death or myocardial infarction was 0.75 (95% CI, 0.63 to 0.89) and the adjusted rate of survival free from myocardial infarction was 92.1% versus 89.7% (P<0.001). Among patients with two-vessel disease who underwent CABG, as compared with those who received a stent, the adjusted hazard ratio for death was 0.71 (95% CI, 0.57 to 0.89) and the adjusted survival rate was 96.0% versus 94.6% (P=0.003); the adjusted hazard ratio for death or myocardial infarction was 0.71 (95% CI, 0.59 to 0.87) and the adjusted rate of survival free from myocardial infarction was 94.5% versus 92.5% (P<0.001). Patients undergoing CABG also had lower rates of repeat revascularization. Conclusions: For patients with multivessel disease, CABG continues to be associated with lower mortality rates than does treatment with drug-eluting stents and is also associated with lower rates of death or myocardial infarction and repeat revascularization. N Engl J Med 2008;358:331-41. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article asks readers to cast a vote on the management of the hypothetical 65-year-old diabetic patient with coronary heart disease. Readers are to cast their votes for one of three treatment suggestions presented by cardiologists in this issue and they may add their comments as well.

This article presents the third physician opinion on treatment of a hypothetical 65-year-old diabetic patient with coronary heart disease. This physician believes that a stent is not a long term solution to this patient's problems and says a coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery is a better option. It is the author's belief that this procedure bypasses both the current stenosis and future blockages of the arteries. Survival advantage is the only justification for performing an early CABG. The rates of survival for this procedure have been shown to be higher for diabetics and obese people than other measures.

This article presents the opinion of two physicians on treatment for the hypothetical 65-year-old diabetic, overweight man who was diagnosed with coronary artery disease and whose history is presented in the previous article. The physicians say the initial treatment in this case should be medical. Two surgical options are dismissed as not viable for an assortment of reasons. They suggest that his treatment with metformin be adjusted and that the patient's education on how to eat properly be addressed. They also suggest the patient be put on statins, an angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor and a low dose of aspirin. The patient would benefit from a beta-blocker and use of a nitrate preparation.

This article presents a hypothetical patient and problem and asks readers to make a judgment on the case. A 65-year-old man with hypertension, obesity and type 2 diabetes has been under care for five years, treated with hydrochlorothiazide and metformin. His blood pressure is 130/82 mm HG and his body-mass index is 32. He has recently been diagnosed with coronary artery disease and has been tested. A ST-segment depression of 1 mm was found with a perfusion defect. The results of tests on his arteries are presented. Readers are asked to decide what kind of initial treatment they would suggest.

A letter to the editor is presented in reference to the article "Optimal medical therapy with or without PCI for stable coronary disease," by W.E. Boden and R. A. O'Rourke and colleagues in the April 12, 2007 issue.

A letter to the editor is presented in reference to the article "Optimal medical therapy with or without PCI for stable coronary disease," by W.E. Boden and R. A. O'Rourke and colleagues in the April 12, 2007 issue.

A letter to the editor is presented in reference to the article "Optimal medical therapy with or without PCI for stable coronary disease," by W.E. Boden, R. A. O'Rourke and colleagues in the April 12, 2007 issue.

Background: In patients with stable coronary artery disease, it remains unclear whether an initial management strategy of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with intensive pharmacologic therapy and lifestyle intervention (optimal medical therapy) is superior to optimal medical therapy alone in reducing the risk of cardiovascular events. Methods: We conducted a randomized trial involving 2287 patients who had objective evidence of myocardial ischemia and significant coronary artery disease at 50 U.S. and Canadian centers. Between 1999 and 2004, we assigned 1149 patients to undergo PCI with optimal medical therapy (PCI group) and 1138 to receive optimal medical therapy alone (medical-therapy group). The primary outcome was death from any cause and nonfatal myocardial infarction during a follow-up period of 2.5 to 7.0 years (median, 4.6). Results: There were 211 primary events in the PCI group and 202 events in the medical-therapy group. The 4.6-year cumulative primary-event rates were 19.0% in the PCI group and 18.5% in the medical-therapy group (hazard ratio for the PCI group, 1.05; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87 to 1.27; P=0.62). There were no significant differences between the PCI group and the medical-therapy group in the composite of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke (20.0% vs. 19.5%; hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.87 to 1.27; P=0.62); hospitalization for acute coronary syndrome (12.4% vs. 11.8%; hazard ratio, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.37; P=0.56); or myocardial infarction (13.2% vs. 12.3%; hazard ratio, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.43; P=0.33). Conclusions: As an initial management strategy in patients with stable coronary artery disease, PCI did not reduce the risk of death, myocardial infarction, or other major cardiovascular events when added to optimal medical therapy. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00007657.) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The safety of drug-eluting stents has been called into question by recent reports of increased stent thrombosis, myocardial infarction, and death. Such studies have been inconclusive because of their insufficient size, the use of historical controls, a limited duration of follow-up, and a lack of access to original source data. Methods We performed a pooled analysis of data from four double-blind trials in which 1748 patients were randomly assigned to receive either sirolimus-eluting stents or bare-metal stents and five double-blind trials in which 3513 patients were randomly assigned to receive either paclitaxel-eluting stents or bare-metal stents; we then analyzed the major clinical end points of the trials. Results The 4-year rates of stent thrombosis were 1.2% in the sirolimus-stent group versus 0.6% in the bare-metal–stent group (P=0.20) and 1.3% in the paclitaxel-stent group versus 0.9% in the bare-metal–stent group (P=0.30). However, after 1 year, there were five episodes of stent thrombosis in patients with sirolimus-eluting stents versus none in patients with bare-metal stents (P=0.025) and nine episodes in patients with paclitaxel-eluting stents versus two in patients with bare-metal stents (P=0.028). The 4-year rates of target-lesion revascularization were markedly reduced in both the sirolimus-stent group and the paclitaxel-stent group, as compared with the bare-metal–stent groups. The rates of death or myocardial infarction did not differ significantly between the groups with drug-eluting stents and those with bare-metal stents. Conclusions Stent thrombosis after 1 year was more common with both sirolimus-eluting stents and paclitaxel-eluting stents than with bare-metal stents. Both drug-eluting stents were associated with a marked reduction in target-lesion revascularization. There were no significant differences in the cumulative rates of death or myocardial infraction at 4 years. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Recent reports have indicated that there may be an increased risk of late stent thrombosis with the use of drug-eluting stents, as compared with bare-metal stents. Methods We evaluated 6033 patients treated with drug-eluting stents and 13,738 patients treated with bare-metal stents in 2003 and 2004, using data from the Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry. The outcome analysis covering a period of up to 3 years was based on 1424 deaths and 2463 myocardial infarctions and was adjusted for differences in baseline characteristics. Results The two study groups did not differ significantly in the composite of death and myocardial infarction during 3 years of follow-up. At 6 months, there was a trend toward a lower unadjusted event rate in patients with drug-eluting stents than in those with bare-metal stents, with 13.4 fewer such events per 1000 patients. However, after 6 months, patients with drug-eluting stents had a significantly higher event rate, with 12.7 more events per 1000 patients per year (adjusted relative risk, 1.20; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05 to 1.37). At 3 years, mortality was significantly higher in patients with drug-eluting stents (adjusted relative risk, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.35), and from 6 months to 3 years, the adjusted relative risk for death in this group was 1.32 (95% CI, 1.11 to 1.57). Conclusions Drug-eluting stents were associated with an increased rate of death, as compared with bare-metal stents. This trend appeared after 6 months, when the risk of death was 0.5 percentage point higher and a composite of death or myocardial infarction was 0.5 to 1.0 percentage point higher per year. The long-term safety of drug-eluting stents needs to be ascertained in large, randomized trials [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Definitions of stent thrombosis that have been used in clinical trials of drug-eluting stents have been restrictive and have not been used in a uniform manner. Methods We applied a hierarchical classification of stent thrombosis set by the Academic Research Consortium (ARC) across randomized trials involving 878 patients treated with sirolimus-eluting stents, 1400 treated with paclitaxel-eluting stents, and 2267 treated with bare-metal stents. We then pooled 4 years of follow-up data. All events were adjudicated by an independent clinical-events committee. Results The cumulative incidence of stent thrombosis according to the original protocol definitions was 1.2% in the sirolimus-stent group versus 0.6% in the bare-metal–stent group (P=0.20; 95% confidence interval [CI], −0.4 to 1.5) and 1.3% in the paclitaxel-stent group versus 0.8% in the bare-metal–stent group (P=0.24; 95% CI, −0.3 to 1.4). The incidence of definite or probable stent thrombosis as defined by the ARC was 1.5% in the sirolimus-stent group versus 1.7% in the bare-metal–stent group (P=0.70; 95% CI, −1.5 to 1.0) and 1.8% in the paclitaxel-stent group versus 1.4% in the bare-metal–stent group (P=0.52; 95% CI, −0.7 to 1.4). The incidence of definite or probable events occurring 1 to 4 years after implantation was 0.9% in the sirolimus-stent group versus 0.4% in the bare-metal–stent group and 0.9% in the paclitaxel-stent group versus 0.6% in the bare-metal–stent group. Conclusions The incidence of stent thrombosis did not differ significantly between patients with drug-eluting stents and those with bare-metal stents in randomized clinical trials, although the power to detect small differences in rates was limited [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The long-term effects of treatment with sirolimus-eluting stents, as compared with bare-metal stents, have not been established. Methods We performed an analysis of individual data on 4958 patients enrolled in 14 randomized trials comparing sirolimus-eluting stents with bare-metal stents (mean follow-up interval, 12.1 to 58.9 months). The primary end point was death from any cause. Other outcomes were stent thrombosis, the composite end point of death or myocardial infarction, and the composite of death, myocardial infarction, or reintervention. Results The overall risk of death (hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80 to 1.30) and the combined risk of death or myocardial infarction (hazard ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.16) were not significantly different for patients receiving sirolimus-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents. There was a significant reduction in the combined risk of death, myocardial infarction, or reintervention (hazard ratio, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.54) associated with the use of sirolimus-eluting stents. There was no significant difference in the overall risk of stent thrombosis with sirolimus-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents (hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.64 to 1.86). However, there was evidence of a slight increase in the risk of stent thrombosis associated with sirolimus-eluting stents after the first year. Conclusions The use of sirolimus-eluting stents does not have a significant effect on overall long-term survival and survival free of myocardial infarction, as compared with bare-metal stents. There is a sustained reduction in the need for reintervention after the use of sirolimus-eluting stents. The risk of stent thrombosis is at least as great as that seen with bare-metal stents [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]