Search

A total of 495 patients underwent treatment with excimer laser angioplasty for 545 saphenous vein graft stenoses. Clinical success was achieved in 455 of 495 patients (92%), as indicated by < or = 50% residual stenosis at every target lesion and no complication during hospitalization. At least 1 in-hospital complication occurred in 30 of 495 patients (6.1%): death (1.0%), bypass surgery (0.6%), and Q-wave (2.4%) or non-Q-wave (2.2%) myocardial infarction. Relative risk analysis showed that ostial lesions (n = 65) tended to have higher clinical success (success rate = 95%, adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 2.1 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62, 6.88]; p = 0.24) and lower complications (complication rate = 0%, OR = 0.10 [CI 0.01, 0.79]; p = 0.03) than lesions in the body of the vein graft. Lesions > 10 mm (n = 131) had lower success (success rate = 84%, OR = 0.30 [CI 0.16, 0.56]; p = 0.001) and higher complications (complication rate = 12%, OR = 3.3 [CI 1.6, 6.6]; p = 0.004) than discrete lesions. Lesions in small vein grafts < 3.0 mm (n = 76) tended to have increased success (success rate = 94%, OR = 1.55 [CI 0.70, 3.44]; p = 0.39) and lower complications (complication rate = 2.2%, OR = 0.31 [CI 0.10, 0.94]; p = 0.03). Thus, excimer laser-facilitated angioplasty has the most favorable outcome for discrete lesions located at the ostium of all grafts and in the body of smaller saphenous vein grafts.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to document and analyze the incidence and consequences of complications of excimer laser coronary angioplasty.BackgroundExcimer laser coronary angioplasty has been reported to be a safe and feasible alternative or adjunct to conventional balloon angioplasty, but serious and unique complications have been observed.MethodsData on 1,595 interventions of excimer laser coronary angioplasty in 1,521 patients were analyzed, using a merged data base from the U.S. and European Percutaneous Excimer Laser Coronary Angioplasty (PELCA) registries.ResultsProcedural success was achieved in 89.3% of interventions. Stand-alone laser angioplasty was performed in 17.8% of interventions. Complications included dissection (22.0%), vasospasm (6.1%), filling defects (4.8%), abrupt reclosure (6.1%), embolization (2.3%), perforation (2.4%), arrhythmia (0.7%) and aneurysm formation (0.3%). Major complications were non-Q wave myocardial infarction (2.3%), Q wave myocardial infarction (1.0%), coronary artery bypass grafting (3.1%) and death (0.7%). Logistic regression analysis revealed correlation between dissections and the use of larger catheter size (p = 0.0005), high energy per pulse levels (p = 0.0001 for native vessels), lesion length > 10 mm (p = 0.001) and presence of a side branch (p = 0.01). The incidence of perforations was higher in women (p = 0.004), in treatment of total occlusions (p = 0.02) and in the presence of a side branch (p = 0.03). Fatal complications were correlated with patients with multivessel disease (p < 0.0001), patients with acute myocardial infarction (p = 0.0009) and older patients (> 70 years old, p = 0.004). The incidence of major complications decreased after performance of 50 laser angioplasty procedures at one institution (p = 0.02).ConclusionsThis analysis defines both the learning curve and the profile of complications for excimer laser angioplasty and provides insight into the selection of appropriate patients and proper performance of the procedure.

The process of peer review has been the gold standard for evaluating medical science, but significant pressures from the recent COVID-19 pandemic, new methods of communication, larger amounts of research, and an evolving publication landscape have placed significant pressures on this system. A task force convened by the American College of Cardiology identified the 5 most significant controversies associated with the current peer-review process: the effect of preprints, reviewer blinding, reviewer selection, reviewer incentivization, and publication of peer reviewer comments. Although specific solutions to these issues will vary, regardless of how scientific communication evolves, peer review must remain an essential process for ensuring scientific integrity, timely dissemination of information, and better patient care. In medicine, the peer-review process is crucial because harm can occur if poor-quality data or incorrect conclusions are published. With the dramatic increase in scientific publications and new methods of communication, high-quality peer review is more important now than ever., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Kusumoto is chair of the Peer Review Task Force; and is chair of the ACC Scientific Publications Committee. Dr Bittl is a member of the ACC Scientific Publications Committee. Dr Creager is a member of the ACC Scientific Publications Committee. Dr Dauerman is associate editor of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology; has received research funding from Medtronic and Boston Scientific; and is a consultant for Medtronic and Boston Scientific. Dr Lala is deputy editor of the Journal of Cardiac Failure; and has received speaker honoraria from Zoll Medical and Abbott. Dr McDermott is deputy editor of JAMA; has received research funding from Regeneron and Helixmith; and has received other research support from Helixmith, ArtAssist, Hershey, Mars, Chromadex, and ResearveAge. Ms Varieur Turco is divisional senior director of publishing for the ACC. Dr Taqueti is immediate past chair of the ACC Scientific Publications Committee; and is chair of the ACC Digital Transformation Committee. Dr Fuster is editor-in-chief of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology., (Copyright © 2023 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aim: The executive summary of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions coronary artery revascularization guideline provides the top 10 items readers should know about the guideline. In the full guideline, the recommendations replace the 2011 coronary artery bypass graft surgery guideline and the 2011 and 2015 percutaneous coronary intervention guidelines. This summary offers a patient-centric approach to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with significant coronary artery disease undergoing coronary revascularization, as well as the supporting documentation to encourage their use., Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2019 to September 2019, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, CINHL Complete, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2021, were also considered. Structure: Recommendations from the earlier percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass graft surgery guidelines have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians in caring for patients undergoing coronary revascularization. This summary includes recommendations, tables, and figures from the full guideline that relate to the top 10 take-home messages. The reader is referred to the full guideline for graphical flow charts, supportive text, and tables with additional details about the rationale for and implementation of each recommendation, and the evidence tables detailing the data considered in the development of this guideline.

This case series shows how the 2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI guideline for coronary artery revascularization can be used to decide between revascularization or optimal medical therapy to reduce mortality or cardiovascular events in selected subsets of patients with stable ischemic heart disease and complex coronary disease with or without left ventricular dysfunction. ( Level of Difficulty: Advanced. )., Competing Interests: Dr Bangalore is a consultant for Abbott, Amgen, Biotronik, Meril, Pfizer, Reata, and Sahajanand Medical Technologies. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (© 2022 The Authors.)

Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Kusumoto is Chair of the Peer Review Task Force; Chair-elect of the American College of Cardiology (ACC) Scientific Publications Committee; and President of the Heart Rhythm Society. Dr Bittl is a member of the ACC Scientific Publications Committee. Dr Creager is a member of the ACC Scientific Publications Committee. Dr Dauerman is an Associate Editor of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology; and has received research funding from and served as a consultant to Medtronic and Boston Scientific. Dr Lala is Deputy Editor of the Journal of Cardiac Failure; and has received speaker honoraria from Zoll Medical and Abbott. Dr McDermott is Deputy Editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association; has received research funding from Regeneron; and has received other research support from Helixmith, ArtAssist, Hershey, Mars, Chromadex, and ResearveAge. Mrs Varieur Turco is Divisional Senior Director of Publishing, ACC. Dr Taqueti is Chair of the ACC Scientific Publications Committee.

Objectives: The aim of the present study was to quantify the probability of increased mortality with paclitaxel compared with control in a dataset of 28 randomized controlled trials., Background: Analysis of data from 28 randomized controlled trials using conventional null-hypothesis statistical testing has produced the unexpected finding of a 68% increase in mortality at 2 years and a 93% increase at 3 to 5 years after using paclitaxel-eluting balloons and stents to treat femoropopliteal arterial disease, but no biologic explanation for increased mortality has been identified., Methods: A Bayesian sequential model was developed to quantify the probability of increased mortality 1, 2, and 3 to 5 years after treatment, and p values were replaced with meta-analytic Bayes factors (BFs), which provide decisive evidence at values >100 and very strong evidence at values of 32 to 100., Results: The evidence for increased mortality at 1 year (BF = 0.02), 2 years (BF = 8.5), and 3 to 5 years (BF = 14.6) was less than conclusive. All-cause mortality at 1 year was similar between the paclitaxel and control arms at 1 year (odds ratio: 0.92; 95% Bayesian credible interval: 0.53 to 1.53) and 2 years (odds ratio: 1.23; 95% Bayesian credible interval: 0.84 to 1.71) but was increased at 3 to 5 years (odds ratio: 1.43; 95% Bayesian credible interval: 1.01 to 1.90)., Conclusions: This study finds some support for increased mortality after using paclitaxel-eluting devices in femoropopliteal arterial disease, but the evidence is not unequivocal and may not sway skeptical investigators concerned about causation, unreported studies, or the post hoc analysis of trials underpowered for mortality., (Copyright © 2019 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Transradial artery access for percutaneous coronary intervention is associated with lower bleeding and vascular complications than transfemoral artery access, especially in patients with acute coronary syndromes. A growing body of evidence supports adoption of transradial artery access to improve acute coronary syndrome-related outcomes, to improve healthcare quality, and to reduce cost. The purpose of this scientific statement is to propose and support a "radial-first" strategy in the United States for patients with acute coronary syndromes. This document also provides an update to previously published statements on transradial artery access technique and best practices, particularly as they relate to the management of patients with acute coronary syndromes.

Bayesian analysis is firmly grounded in the science of probability and has been increasingly supplementing or replacing traditional approaches based on P values. In this review, we present gradually more complex examples, along with programming code and data sets, to show how Bayesian analysis takes evidence from randomized clinical trials to update what is already known about specific treatments in cardiovascular medicine. In the example of revascularization choices for diabetic patients who have multivessel coronary artery disease, we combine the results of the FREEDOM trial (Future Revascularization Evaluation in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus: Optimal Management of Multivessel Disease) with prior probability distributions to show how strongly we should believe in the new Class I recommendation ("should be done") for a preference of bypass surgery over percutaneous coronary intervention. In the debate about the duration of dual antiplatelet therapy after drug-eluting stent implantation, we avoid a common pitfall in traditional meta-analysis and create a network of randomized clinical trials to compare outcomes after specific treatment durations. Although we find no credible increase in mortality, we affirm the tradeoff between increased bleeding and reduced myocardial infarctions with prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy, findings that support the new Class IIb recommendation ("may be considered") to extend dual antiplatelet therapy after drug-eluting stent implantation. In the decision between culprit artery-only and multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, we use hierarchical meta-analysis to analyze evidence from observational studies and randomized clinical trials and find that the probability of all-cause mortality at longest follow-up is similar after both strategies, a finding that challenges the older ban against noninfarct-artery intervention during primary percutaneous coronary intervention. These examples illustrate how Bayesian analysis integrates new trial information with existing knowledge to reduce uncertainty and change attitudes about treatments in cardiovascular medicine., (© 2017 American Heart Association, Inc.)

Background: The optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after implantation of newer-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) remains uncertain. Similarly, questions remain about the role of DAPT in long-term therapy of stable post-myocardial infarction (MI) patients., Aim: Our objective was to compare the incidence of death, major hemorrhage, MI, stent thrombosis, and major adverse cardiac events in patients randomized to prolonged or short-course DAPT after implantation of newer-generation DES and in secondary prevention after MI., Methods: We used traditional frequentist statistical and Bayesian approaches to address the following questions: Q1) What is the minimum duration of DAPT required after DES implantation? Q2) What is the clinical benefit of prolonging DAPT up to 18 to 48 months? Q3) What is the clinical effect of DAPT in stable patients who are >1 year past an MI?, Results: We reviewed evidence from 11 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that enrolled 33 051 patients who received predominantly newer-generation DES to answer: A1) Use of DAPT for 12 months, as compared with use for 3 to 6 months, resulted in no significant differences in incidence of death (odds ratio [OR]: 1.17; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.85 to 1.63), major hemorrhage (OR: 1.65; 95% CI: 0.97 to 2.82), MI (OR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.65 to 1.18), or stent thrombosis (OR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.49 to 1.55). Bayesian models confirmed the primary analysis. A2) Use of DAPT for 18 to 48 months, compared with use for 6 to 12 months, was associated with no difference in incidence of all-cause death (OR: 1.14; 95% CI: 0.92 to 1.42) but was associated with increased major hemorrhage (OR: 1.58; 95% CI: 1.20 to 2.09), decreased MI (OR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.47 to 0.95), and decreased stent thrombosis (OR: 0.45; 95% CI: 0.24 to 0.74). A risk-benefit analysis found 3 fewer stent thromboses (95% CI: 2 to 5) and 6 fewer MIs (95% CI: 2 to 11) but 5 more major bleeds (95% CI: 3 to 9) per 1000 patients treated with prolonged DAPT per year. Post hoc analyses provided weak evidence of increased mortality with prolonged DAPT. We reviewed evidence from 1 RCT of 21 162 patients and a post hoc analysis of 1 RCT of 15 603 patients to answer: A3): Use of DAPT >1 year after MI reduced the composite risk of cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke (hazard ratio: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.74 to 0.95) but increased major bleeding (hazard ratio: 2.32; 95% CI: 1.68 to 3.21). A meta-analysis and a post hoc analysis of an RCT in patients with stable cardiovascular disease produced similar findings., Conclusions: The primary analysis provides moderately strong evidence that prolonged DAPT after implantation of newer-generation DES entails a tradeoff between reductions in stent thrombosis and MI and increases in major hemorrhage. Secondary analyses provide weak evidence of increased mortality with prolonged DAPT after DES implantation. In patients whose coronary thrombotic risk was defined by a prior MI rather than by DES implantation, the primary analysis provides moderately strong evidence of reduced cardiovascular events at the expense of increased bleeding., (Copyright © 2016 American College of Cardiology Foundation and the American Heart Association, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Recent randomized controlled trials have suggested that patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel coronary artery disease may benefit more from multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) compared with culprit vessel-only primary PCI. The American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions recently published an updated recommendation on this topic. The purpose of this State-of-the-Art Review is to accurately document existing published reports, describe their limitations, and establish a base for future studies., (Copyright © 2016 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Patients treated with bivalirudin in randomized clinical trials of percutaneous coronary intervention generally have less bleeding but more acute stent thrombosis (ST) than do patients treated with heparin, but differences have varied among trials., Methods and Results: We modeled the risk of major hemorrhage and ischemic outcomes 30 days after percutaneous coronary intervention by treatment assignment and the use of adjunctive therapies in 18 randomized clinical trials enrolling 41,871 patients. Overall bivalirudin caused less major bleeding (odds ratio [OR], 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.53-0.76), more ST (OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.19-2.09), and no difference in mortality (OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.77-1.14) than heparin. A risk-benefit analysis identified 19 fewer bleeds and 5 more STs for every 1000 patients treated with bivalirudin in place of heparin. No significant bleeding advantage of bivalirudin over heparin could be identified in randomized clinical trials when transradial access (OR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.57-1.41) and planned glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors were used with bivalirudin in the majority of patients (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.87-1.31). The use of prasugrel or ticagrelor eliminated bleeding differences (OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.63-1.03) but did not reduce the risk of ST after bivalirudin (OR, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.48-3.27)., Conclusions: Substituting bivalirudin for heparin conferred a tradeoff between bleeding and ST. Transradial access, adjunctive glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, and potent P2Y12 inhibitors attenuated the bleeding advantage of bivalirudin over heparin but had no apparent effect on early ST. New approaches to reduce bleeding and ischemic complications during percutaneous coronary intervention warrant further investigation., (© 2015 American Heart Association, Inc.)