Search

The use of percutaneous mechanical circulatory support (pMCS), such as intra-aortic balloon pump, Impella, TandemHeart and VA-ECMO, in the setting of cardiogenic shock or in protect percutaneous coronary intervention (protect-PCI) is rapidly increasing in clinical practice. The major problem related to the use of pMCS is the management of all the device-related complications and of any vascular injury. MCS often requires large-bore access, if compared with common PCI, and for this reason the correct management of vascular access is a crucial point. The correct use of these devices in catheterization laboratories requires specific knowledge such as the correct evaluation of the vascular access performed, when possible, with advance imaging techniques in order to choose a percutaneous or a surgical approach. In addition to conventional transfemoral access, other types of access, such as transaxillary/subclavial access and the transcaval approach, have emerged over the years. These other approaches require advanced skills of the operators and a multidisciplinary team with dedicated physicians. Another important part of the management of vascular access is the closure systems used for hemostasis. Currently, two types of devices are typically used in the lab: suture-based or plug-based ones. In this review we want to describe all these aspects related to the management of vascular access in pMCS and describe, finally, a case report from our center’s experience.

Background: Treatment of long coronary stenoses (LCS) with long tapered drug-eluting stents (LT-DES) would offer clinical and economic benefits. However, the feasibility of an interventional strategy based upon the systematic LCS treatment with an LT-DES has not been evaluated so far. Methods: We performed a multicenter prospective study including consecutive patients with: 1) An LCS > 25 mm at coronary angiography; 2) An attempt to fix the LCS with a single BioMime Morph ™ stent, a novel LT-DES available from 30 to 60 mm long. The primary efficacy endpoint was procedural success. The secondary safety endpoints were post-procedural TIMI3 flow, stent detachment during delivery, acute stent thrombosis and in-hospital mortality. Results: From February 2017 to March 2018, we recorded 272 patients with an LCS and an attempt to deploy an LT-DES during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (69.3 ± 11.4 years, 75.7% males, 25.7% diabetic and 43.8% with acute coronary syndromes, mean LCS length 48.8 ± 9.5 mm). LT-DES deployment was successful in 262 patients (96.3%), and failure occurred without stent detachment or other complications. Final TIMI3 flow was present in 270 (99.3%) patients. In-hospital death occurred in five patients (1.8%), with no case of acute stent thrombosis, recurrent myocardial infarction or repeated revascularization. Conclusion: In this real-world study, a strategy of fixing LCS with a single LT-DES was feasible and safe, with a high rate of procedural success and a low rate of in-hospital complications. More extensive randomized studies are warranted to assess the potential clinical and economic benefits of LT-DES. Cardiol Res. 2020;11(4):219-225 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/cr1055

INTRODUCTION The clinical impact of invasive hemodynamic support with Impella in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS) remains to be defined. METHOD Only studies including patients treated with Impella in CS were selected. The primary endpoint was short term mortality, while secondary endpoints were major vascular complications and major bleeding. RESULTS 17 studies and 3933 patients were included in the analysis. Median age was 61.9 (IQR 59.2-63.5) years, CS was mainly related to acute coronary syndrome (ACS): 79.6% (IQR 75.1-79.6). Thirty-day mortality was 47.8% (CI 43.7-52%). Based on metaregression analysis, the Impella 5.0 (point estimate -0.006, 95% CI -0.01 - - 0.02, p

Background It remains unclear whether radial access (RA), compared with femoral access (FA), mitigates the risk of acute kidney injury (AKI). Objectives The authors assessed the incidence of AKI in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) enrolled in the MATRIX-Access (Minimizing Adverse Haemorrhagic Events by Transradial Access Site and Systemic Implementation of Angiox) trial. Methods Among 8,404 patients, 194 (2.3%) were excluded due to missing creatinine values, no or an incomplete coronary angiogram, or previous dialysis. The primary AKI-MATRIX endpoint was AKI, defined as an absolute (>0.5 mg/dl) or a relative (>25%) increase in serum creatinine (sCr). Results AKI occurred in 634 patients (15.4%) with RA and 712 patients (17.4%) with FA (odds ratio [OR]: 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.77 to 0.98; p = 0.0181). A >25% sCr increase was noted in 633 patients (15.4%) with RA and 710 patients (17.3%) with FA (OR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.77 to 0.98; p = 0.0195), whereas a >0.5 mg/dl absolute sCr increase occurred in 175 patients (4.3%) with RA versus 223 patients (5.4%) with FA (OR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.63 to 0.95; p = 0.0131). By implementing the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes criteria, AKI was 3-fold less prevalent and trended lower with RA (OR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.70 to 1.03; p = 0.090), with stage 3 AKI occurring in 28 patients (0.68%) with RA versus 46 patients (1.12%) with FA (p = 0.0367). Post-intervention dialysis was needed in 6 patients (0.15%) with RA and 14 patients (0.34%) with FA (p = 0.0814). Stratified analyses suggested greater benefit with RA than FA in patients at greater risk for AKI. Conclusions In ACS patients who underwent invasive management, RA was associated with a reduced risk of AKI compared with FA. (Minimizing Adverse Haemorrhagic Events by TRansradial Access Site and Systemic Implementation of angioX [MATRIX]; NCT01433627 )

Background: Non-invasive ischaemia tests and biomarkers are widely adopted to rule out acute coronary syndrome in the emergency department. Their diagnostic accuracy has yet to be precisely defined. Methods: Medline, Cochrane Library CENTRAL, EMBASE and Biomed Central were systematically screened (start date 1 September 2016, end date 1 December 2016). Prospective studies (observational or randomised controlled trial) comparing functional/imaging or biochemical tests for patients presenting with chest pain to the emergency department were included. Results: Overall, 77 studies were included, for a total of 49,541 patients (mean age 59.9 years). Fast and six-hour highly sensitive troponin T protocols did not show significant differences in their ability to detect acute coronary syndromes, as they reported a sensitivity and specificity of 0.89 (95% confidence interval 0.79–0.94) and 0.84 (0.74–0.9) vs 0.89 (0.78–0.94) and 0.83 (0.70–0.92), respectively. The addition of copeptin to troponin increased sensitivity and reduced specificity, without improving diagnostic accuracy. The diagnostic value of non-invasive tests for patients without troponin increase was tested. Coronary computed tomography showed the highest level of diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity 0.93 (0.81–0.98) and specificity 0.90 (0.93–0.94)), along with myocardial perfusion scintigraphy (sensitivity 0.85 (0.77–0.91) and specificity 0.92 (0.83–0.96)). Stress echography was inferior to coronary computed tomography but non-inferior to myocardial perfusion scintigraphy, while exercise testing showed the lower level of diagnostic accuracy. Conclusions: Fast and six-hour highly sensitive troponin T protocols provide an overall similar level of diagnostic accuracy to detect acute coronary syndrome. Among the non-invasive ischaemia tests for patients without troponin increase, coronary computed tomography and myocardial perfusion scintigraphy showed the highest sensitivity and specificity.

BACKGROUND The value of prolonged bivalirudin infusion after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients with or without ST-segment elevation remains unclear. OBJECTIVES The purpose of this study was to assess efficacy and safety of a full or low post-PCI bivalirudin regimen in ACS patients with or without ST-segment elevation. METHODS The MATRIX program assigned bivalirudin to patients without or with a post-PCI infusion at either a full (1.75 mg/kg/h for #4 h) or reduced (0.25 mg/kg/h for #6 h) regimen at the operator's discretion. The primary endpoint was the 30-day composite of urgent target-vessel revascularization, definite stent thrombosis, or net adverse clinical events (composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, or major bleeding). RESULTS Among 3,610 patients assigned to bivalirudin, 1,799 were randomized to receive and 1,811 not to receive a post-PCI bivalirudin infusion. Post-PCI full bivalirudin was administered in 612 (ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction [STEMI], n = 399; non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes [NSTE-ACS], n = 213), whereas the low-dose regimen was administered in 1,068 (STEMI, n = 519; NSTE-ACS, n = 549) patients. The primary outcome did not differ in STEMI or NSTE-ACS patients who received or did not receive post-PCI bivalirudin. However, full compared with low bivalirudin regimen remained associated with a significant reduction of the primary endpoint after multivariable (rate ratio: 0.21; 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.35; p < 0.001) or propensity score (rate ratio: 0.16; 95% CI: 0.09 to 0.26; p < 0.001) adjustment. Full post-PCI bivalirudin was associated with improved outcomes consistently across ACS types compared with the no post-PCI infusion or heparin groups. CONCLUSIONS In ACS patients with or without ST-segment elevation, the primary endpoint did not differ with or without post-PCI bivalirudin infusion but a post-PCI full dose was associated with improved outcomes when compared with no or low-dose post-PCI infusion or heparin (Minimizing Adverse Haemorrhagic Events by TRansradial Access Site and Systemic Implementation of angioX [MATRIX]; NCT01433627). (J Am Coll Cardiol 2019; 73: 758-74) (c) 2019 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation. The trial was sponsored by the Societa Italiana di Cardiologia Invasiva (GISE, a nonprofit organization), which received grant support from The Medicines Company and TERUMO. This substudy did not receive any direct or indirect funding. Dr. Gargiulo has received research grant support from the Cardiopath PhD program. Dr. Vranckx has received consulting fees from AstraZeneca and The Medicines Company during the study; and has received speaking or consulting fees from Bayer HealthCare, Terumo, and Daiichi-Sankyo outside of the submitted work. Dr. Campo has received research grants from AstraZeneca, Boston Scientific, and Abbott Vascular outside of this work. Dr. Varbella has received personal fees from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, and Bayer; has received other support from Biosensors; has received grants from Medtronic, Kardia SRL, and Boston Scientific outside of the submitted work; and has received lecture fees for Advisory Board participation from AstraZeneca, Daichi-Sankyo, Bayer, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Servier, Amgen, Novartis, Sanofi, and Biotronik. Dr. Ando has received nonfinancial support from Terumo during the conduct of the study; has received personal fees from Daiichi-Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Menarini, Pfizer, Philips, and Bayer; and has received nonfinancial support from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, and Philips outside of the submitted work. Dr. Limbruno has received personal fees from The Medicines Company, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Boston Scientific, Biotronik, and Merck outside of the submitted work. Dr. Windecker's institution has received research contracts from Abbott, Amgen, Boston Scientific, Biotronik, Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, St. Jude, and Terumo. Dr. Valgimigli has received grants from The Medicines Company and Terumo during the conduct of the study; has received grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca; has received nonfinancial support from The Medicines Company; and has received personal fees from The Medicines Company, Terumo, St. Jude Vascular, Alvimedica, Abbott Vascular, and Correvio outside of the submitted work. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose.

BACKGROUND The use of drug-eluting stents (DES) in patients at high risk of bleeding or thrombosis has not been prospectively studied; limited data are available in patients who have a low restenosis risk. OBJECTIVES This study sought to compare a hydrophilic polymer-based, second-generation zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) with a unique drug fast-release profile versus bare-metal stents (BMS) under similar durations of dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT). METHODS We randomly assigned 1,606 patients with stable or unstable symptoms, and who on the basis of thrombotic bleeding or restenosis risk criteria, qualified as uncertain candidates for DES, to receive ZES or BMS. DAPT duration was on the basis of patient characteristics, rather than stent characteristics, and allowed for a personalized 1-month dual antiplatelet regimen. The primary endpoint was the risk of 1-year major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), which included death, myocardial infarction (MI), or target vessel revascularization (TVR). RESULTS Median DAPT duration was 32 days (interquartile range [IQR]: 30 to 180 days) and did not differ between the groups. In the ZES group, 140 patients (17.5%) reached the primary endpoint, compared with 178 patients (22.1%) in the BMS group (hazard ratio: 0.76; 95% confidence interval: 0.61 to 0.95; p = 0.011) as a result of lower MI (2.9% vs. 8.1%; p < 0.001) and TVR rates (5.9% vs. 10.7%; p = 0.001) in the ZES group. Definite or probable stent thrombosis was also significantly reduced in ZES recipients (2.0% vs. 4.1%; p = 0.019). CONCLUSIONS Compared with BMS, DES implantation using a stent with a biocompatible polymer and fast drug-eluting characteristics, combined with an abbreviated, tailored DAPT regimen, resulted in a lower risk of 1-year MACE in uncertain candidates for DES implantation. (Zotarolimus-eluting Endeavor Sprint Stent in Uncertain DES Candidates [ZEUS] Study; NCT01385319) (C) 2015 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.

Stent underexpansion is a risk factor for major adverse cardiac events. Existing tools to optimize stent expansion are sometimes ineffective (e.g., noncompliant [NC] balloons), not readily available (e.g., excimer laser), or potentially associated with higher risk for procedural complications (e.g

Objectives This study sought to evaluate the impact of SYNTAX score (SXscore), and compare its performance in isolation and combination with the PAMI (The Primary Angioplasty in Myocardial Infarction Study) score, for the prediction of 1-year clinical outcomes in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Background Patients with STEMI were excluded from the original SYNTAX score (SXscore) algorithm. Therefore, the utility of using the SXscore in this patient group remains undefined. Methods SXscore was calculated retrospectively in 807 patients with STEMI enrolled in the randomized STRATEGY (Single High-Dose Bolus Tirofiban and Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Abciximab and Bare-Metal Stent in Acute Myocardial Infarction) and MULTISTRATEGY (Multicenter Evaluation of Single High-Dose Bolus Tirofiban Versus Abciximab With Sirolimus-Eluting Stent or Bare-Metal Stent in Acute Myocardial Infarction Study) clinical trials. Clinical outcomes of all-cause death, reinfarction, and clinically driven target vessel revascularization were subsequently stratified according to SXscore tertiles: SXLOW ≤9 (n = 311), 9 16 (n = 262). Results At 1-year follow-up, all clinical outcomes including mortality, mortality/reinfarction, major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (a composite of all-cause death, reinfarction and target vessel revascularization), and definite, definite/probable, and any stent thrombosis were all significantly higher in patients in the highest SXscore tertile. SXscore was identified as an independent predictor of mortality, MACE, and stent thrombosis out to 1-year follow-up. The combination SYNTAX-PAMI score led to a net reclassification improvement of 15.7% and 4.6% for mortality and MACE, respectively. The C-statistics for the SXscore, PAMI score, and the combined SYNTAX-PAMI score were 0.65, 0.81, and 0.73 for 1-year mortality, and 0.68, 0.64, and 0.69 for 1-year MACE, respectively. Conclusions SXscore does have a role in the risk stratification of patients with STEMI having primary percutaneous coronary intervention; however, this ability can be improved through a combination with clinical variables. (Multicentre 2×2 Factorial Randomised Study Comparing Tirofiban Versus Abciximab and SES Versus BMS in AMI; NCT00229515)

Objectives The purpose of this study was to investigate the long-term outcome after elective percutaneous coronary intervention in low-risk patients screened for aspirin and/or clopidogrel responsiveness in the 3T/2R (Tailoring Treatment With Tirofiban in Patients Showing Resistance to Aspirin and/or Resistance to Clopidogrel) trial. Background The impact of aspirin and/or clopidogrel poor response on long-term outcome is debated. Methods Aspirin and clopidogrel response was measured with the VerifyNow system aspirin and P2Y12 assays. After percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), death, stroke, and myocardial infarction were assessed up to 1 year. Results Overall, 1,277 patients were screened, and 826 (65%) were treated with PCI. In all, 124 patients were found to be aspirin poor responders, and there were 179 clopidogrel poor responders (totally, 278 poor responders). The 1-year end point was significantly higher in poor responders as compared to full responders (15.8% vs. 8.6%, p = 0.002), which is principally due to more myocardial infarction occurrence. At multivariable analysis, clopidogrel poor response emerged as an independent predictor (hazard ratio: 1.15, 95% confidence interval: 1.03 to 1.28). Receiver-operator characteristic analysis identifies ≤23 of percentage of platelet inhibition and ≥208 of P2Y12reactivity units as optimal cut offs to predict 1-year end point. Excluding periprocedural events, also peri-PCI myocardial infarction, which is strongly related to aspirin/clopidogrel poor response, was an independent predictor (hazard ratio: 1.25, 95% confidence interval: 1.14 to 1.37). Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor administration reduces this risk in poor responders (21.2% vs. 34.7%, p = 0.02), but not in full responders (6.3% vs. 6.5%, p = 0.8). Conclusions Poor response to clopidogrel is an independent predictor of periprocedural myocardial infarction and worse 1-year outcome in low-risk patients undergoing PCI, whereas poor response to aspirin failed to predict a worse outcome. Contrary to what was observed in poor responders, glycoprotein IIb/IIa inhibitor therapy failed to provide a benefit in aspirin and/or clopidogrel full responders.

Background— Inhibition of platelet aggregation after aspirin or clopidogrel intake varies greatly among patients, and previous studies have suggested that poor response to oral antiplatelet agents may increase the risk of thrombotic events, especially after coronary angioplasty. Whether this reflects suboptimal platelet inhibition per se, which might benefit from more potent antiplatelet agents such as tirofiban, is unknown. Methods and Results— We screened 1277 patients to enroll 93 aspirin, 147 clopidogrel, and 23 dual poor responders, based on a point-of-care assay, who underwent elective coronary angioplasty at 10 European sites for stable or low-risk unstable coronary artery disease. Patients were randomly assigned in a double-blind manner to receive either tirofiban (n=132) or placebo (n=131) on top of standard aspirin and clopidogrel therapy. The primary end point, consisting of troponin I/T elevation at least 3 times the upper limit of normal, was attained in 20.4% (n=27) in the tirofiban group compared with 35.1% (n=46) in the placebo group (relative risk, 0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.39 to 0.88; P =0.009). The rate of major adverse cardiovascular events within 30 days in the tirofiban group also was reduced (3.8% versus 10.7%; P =0.031). The overall incidence of bleeding was low, likely explained by a substantial use of the transradial approach, and did not differ between the 2 groups. Conclusions— In low-risk patients according to clinical presentation who had poor responsiveness to standard oral platelet inhibitors via a point-of-care assay, intensified platelet inhibition with tirofiban lowers the incidence of myocardial infarction after elective coronary intervention.

Objectives This study sought to investigate the ischemic and bleeding outcomes of patients fulfilling high bleeding risk (HBR) criteria who were randomized to zotarolimus-eluting Endeavor Sprint stent (E-ZES) or bare-metal stent (BMS) implantation followed by an abbreviated dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) duration for stable or unstable coronary artery disease. Background DES instead of BMS use remains controversial in HBR patients, in whom long-term DAPT poses safety concerns. Methods The ZEUS (Zotarolimus-Eluting Endeavor Sprint Stent in Uncertain DES Candidates) is a multinational, randomized single-blinded trial that randomized among others, in a stratified manner, 828 patients fulfilling pre-defined clinical or biochemical HBR criteria—including advanced age, indication to oral anticoagulants or other pro-hemorrhagic medications, history of bleeding and known anemia—to receive E-ZES or BMS followed by a protocol-mandated 30-day DAPT regimen. The primary endpoint of the study was the 12-month major adverse cardiovascular event rate, consisting of death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization. Results Compared with patients without, those with 1 or more HBR criteria had worse outcomes, owing to higher ischemic and bleeding risks. Among HBR patients, major adverse cardiovascular events occurred in 22.6% of the E-ZES and 29% of the BMS patients (hazard ratio: 0.75; 95% confidence interval: 0.57 to 0.98; p = 0.033), driven by lower myocardial infarction (3.5% vs. 10.4%; p Conclusions Among HBR patients with stable or unstable coronary artery disease, E-ZES implantation provides superior efficacy and safety as compared with conventional BMS. (Zotarolimus-Eluting Endeavor Sprint Stent in Uncertain DES Candidates [ZEUS]; NCT01385319 )

We assessed the relation between female sex and sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) use on long-term outcomes in acute myocardial infarction.There are no data on sex-specific differences in long-term benefit of SES use compared with bare-metal stent (BMS) use among patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary interventions.We performed a post hoc analysis of the MULTISTRATEGY trial. Hazard ratios (HRs) of events with 95% CI for sex and stent type were computed using Cox proportional regression with adjustment for confounders.A total of 744 patients, 64 years old (55-73 years old), 179 (24.1%) women, were enrolled. After a follow-up of 1,080 days, SES use was associated with a significant reduction of major adverse cardiovascular events, that is, the composite of all-cause death, reinfarction, or clinically driven target vessel revascularization (TVR) (13.9% vs 23.6%, adjusted HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.41-0.94, P = .026) and of TVR (6.1% vs 15.1%, adjusted HR 0.35, 95% CI 0.19-0.63, P.001) in men. Conversely, SES use was not associated to a better outcome among women (major adverse cardiovascular events 21.9% in SES vs 18.2% in the BMS group, adjusted HR 1.27, 95% CI 0.53-3.02, P = .59; TVR 6.6% vs 9.1%, adjusted HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.17-2.21, P = .46).In this analysis, the clinical benefit of SES use, over BMS, at 3-year follow-up was restricted to men and was not observed among women.

This study sought to evaluate the impact of SYNTAX score (SXscore), and compare its performance in isolation and combination with the PAMI (The Primary Angioplasty in Myocardial Infarction Study) score, for the prediction of 1-year clinical outcomes in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention.Patients with STEMI were excluded from the original SYNTAX score (SXscore) algorithm. Therefore, the utility of using the SXscore in this patient group remains undefined.SXscore was calculated retrospectively in 807 patients with STEMI enrolled in the randomized STRATEGY (Single High-Dose Bolus Tirofiban and Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Versus Abciximab and Bare-Metal Stent in Acute Myocardial Infarction) and MULTISTRATEGY (Multicenter Evaluation of Single High-Dose Bolus Tirofiban Versus Abciximab With Sirolimus-Eluting Stent or Bare-Metal Stent in Acute Myocardial Infarction Study) clinical trials. Clinical outcomes of all-cause death, reinfarction, and clinically driven target vessel revascularization were subsequently stratified according to SXscore tertiles: SX(LOW) ≤ 9 (n = 311), 9SX(MID) ≤ 16 (n = 234), SX(HIGH)16 (n = 262).At 1-year follow-up, all clinical outcomes including mortality, mortality/reinfarction, major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (a composite of all-cause death, reinfarction and target vessel revascularization), and definite, definite/probable, and any stent thrombosis were all significantly higher in patients in the highest SXscore tertile. SXscore was identified as an independent predictor of mortality, MACE, and stent thrombosis out to 1-year follow-up. The combination SYNTAX-PAMI score led to a net reclassification improvement of 15.7% and 4.6% for mortality and MACE, respectively. The C-statistics for the SXscore, PAMI score, and the combined SYNTAX-PAMI score were 0.65, 0.81, and 0.73 for 1-year mortality, and 0.68, 0.64, and 0.69 for 1-year MACE, respectively.SXscore does have a role in the risk stratification of patients with STEMI having primary percutaneous coronary intervention; however, this ability can be improved through a combination with clinical variables. (Multicentre 2×2 Factorial Randomised Study Comparing Tirofiban Versus Abciximab and SES Versus BMS in AMI; NCT00229515).

Abciximab infusion and uncoated-stent implantation is a complementary treatment strategy to reduce major adverse cardiac events in patients undergoing angioplasty for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). It is uncertain whether there may be similar benefits in replacing abciximab with high-dose bolus tirofiban. Similarly, the use of drug-eluting stents in this patient population is currently discouraged because of conflicting results on efficacy reported in randomized trials and safety concerns reported by registries.To evaluate the effect of high-dose bolus tirofiban and of sirolimus-eluting stents as compared with abciximab infusion and uncoated-stent implantation in patients with STEMI undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.An open-label, 2 x 2 factorial trial of 745 patients presenting with STEMI or new left bundle-branch block at 16 referral centers in Italy, Spain, and Argentina between October 2004 and April 2007.High-dose bolus tirofiban vs abciximab infusion and sirolimus-eluting stent vs uncoated stent implantation.For drug comparison, at least 50% ST-segment elevation resolution at 90 minutes postintervention with a prespecified noninferiority margin of 9% difference (relative risk, 0.89); for stent comparison, the rate of major adverse cardiac events, defined as the composite of death from any cause, reinfarction, and clinically driven target-vessel revascularization within 8 months.ST-segment resolution occurred in 302 of 361 patients (83.6%) who had received abciximab infusion and 308 of 361 (85.3%) who had received tirofiban infusion (relative risk, 1.020; 97.5% confidence interval, 0.958-1.086; P.001 for noninferiority). Ischemic and hemorrhagic outcomes were similar in the tirofiban and abciximab groups. At 8 months, major adverse cardiac events occurred in 54 patients (14.5%) with uncoated stents and 29 (7.8%) with sirolimus stents (P = .004), predominantly reflecting a reduction of revascularization rates (10.2% vs 3.2%). The incidence of stent thrombosis was similar in the 2 stent groups.In patients with STEMI undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, compared with abciximab, tirofiban therapy was associated with noninferior resolution of ST-segment elevation at 90 minutes following coronary intervention, whereas sirolimus-eluting stent implantation was associated with a significantly lower risk of major adverse cardiac events than uncoated stents within 8 months after intervention.clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00229515.

During the last two decades despite an increase of the average preoperative mortality risk of patients referred to heart surgery a decrease of hospital mortality has been observed in many surgical institutions. The ratio between the increase of risk and the decrease of mortality could be defined as the 'risk paradox' for coronary surgery. Meanwhile an increase of the incidence of postoperative complications is leading to a longer stay in intensive care that involves a remarkable cost increase per single hospitalisation and a disproportionally long-term use of reanimation beds in those patients who survive the operation but have comorbidities complicating the postoperative course. This progressive change of the epidemiology of patients undergoing heart surgery is coupled with a progressive increase of costs. In the present review a comparison of stratification models developed to predict hospital mortality with those developed to predict prolonged stay in intensive care is discussed. Such predictions are not obviously aimed at deciding whether to operate a patient or not, but can be looked in managing high risk patients, e.g. by a daily monitoring and revision of their prognosis and relevant therapeutic choices, as well as in discussing with their relatives about whether to continue or not implacable treatments. After identifying the models, it is desirable that they are spread into professional Societies in order to sensitise field operators' awareness on the issue of proper intervention indications and on the opportunity of identifying those patients for whom an intervention is not to be advised and to whom propose medical or intervention treatments.

Objectives: This study was undertaken to evaluate the accuracy of four different risk-adjusted models in predicting mortality in individual patients who are undergoing coronary artery by-pass graft surgery. In the last decade several models to stratify patients before open heart surgery, according to factors affecting mortality, were developed with the aim of retrospectively comparing outcomes of open heart surgery, based on reliable stratification of case-mix, and of prospectively identifying high risk patients as a basis for a meaningful informed consent for patients counseling. Methods: The pre-operative risk of death was calculated with four different models in 418 consecutive patients who underwent coronary artery by-pass surgery and then compared with the actual outcome. To discriminate patients with favorable and unfavorable outcome, the logistic regression analysis and the areas under the receiver-operating-characteristic curves were applied. The accuracy score was used to evaluate the reliability of each score to predict the individual outcome. Results: Seven deaths (1.7%) were observed within 30 days from the operation, and the overall incidence was similar to that predicted by all models. Only the NBI score was not able to discriminate survivors from patients who will die, and the areas under the curves were 0.596 for the Parsonnet score, 0.861 for the Cleveland Clinic Foundation score, 0.823 for the French score, and 0.806 for the EuroSCORE. The four models were highly accurate (between 0.97 and 0.98) to predict the overall mortality. In seven patients who died the mean predictive scores were very low and ranged between 2.1 and 4.6, but were significantly higher than those of patients who survived (between 1.1 and 2.2). Conclusions: The four presurgical predictive models were similarly able to discriminate favorable vs. unfavorable outcomes and highly accurate to predict overall mortality, but very inaccurate to predict mortality in individual patients. q 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Context Abciximab infusion and uncoated-stent implantation is a complementary treatment strategy to reduce major adverse cardiac events in patients undergoing angioplasty for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). It is uncertain whether there may be similar benefits in replacing abciximab with high-dose bolus tirofiban. Similarly, the use of drug-eluting stents in this patient population is currently discouraged because of conflicting results on efficacy reported in randomized trials and safety concerns reported by registries. Objective To evaluate the effect of high-dose bolus tirofiban and of sirolimus-eluting stents as compared with abciximab infusion and uncoated-stent implantation in patients with STEMI undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Design, Setting, and Patients An open-label, 2 × 2 factorial trial of 745 patients presenting with STEMI or new left bundle-branch block at 16 referral centers in Italy, Spain, and Argentina between October 2004 and April 2007. Interventions High-dose bolus tirofiban vs abciximab infusion and sirolimus-eluting stent vs uncoated stent implantation. Main Outcome Measures For drug comparison, at least 50% ST-segment elevation resolution at 90 minutes postintervention with a prespecified noninferiority margin of 9% difference (relative risk, 0.89); for stent comparison, the rate of major adverse cardiac events, defined as the composite of death from any cause, reinfarction, and clinically driven target-vessel revascularization within 8 months. Results ST-segment resolution occurred in 302 of 361 patients (83.6%) who had received abciximab infusion and 308 of 361 (85.3%) who had received tirofiban infusion (relative risk, 1.020; 97.5% confidence interval, 0.958-1.086; P Conclusions In patients with STEMI undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, compared with abciximab, tirofiban therapy was associated with noninferior resolution of ST-segment elevation at 90 minutes following coronary intervention, whereas sirolimus-eluting stent implantation was associated with a significantly lower risk of major adverse cardiac events than uncoated stents within 8 months after intervention. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00229515Published online March 30, 2008 (doi:10.1001/jama.299.15.joc80026).

ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to investigate the long-term outcome after elective percutaneous coronary intervention in low-risk patients screened for aspirin and/or clopidogrel responsiveness in the 3T/2R (Tailoring Treatment With Tirofiban in Patients Showing Resistance to Aspirin and/or Resistance to Clopidogrel) trial.BackgroundThe impact of aspirin and/or clopidogrel poor response on long-term outcome is debated.MethodsAspirin and clopidogrel response was measured with the VerifyNow system aspirin and P2Y12 assays. After percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), death, stroke, and myocardial infarction were assessed up to 1 year.ResultsOverall, 1,277 patients were screened, and 826 (65%) were treated with PCI. In all, 124 patients were found to be aspirin poor responders, and there were 179 clopidogrel poor responders (totally, 278 poor responders). The 1-year end point was significantly higher in poor responders as compared to full responders (15.8% vs. 8.6%, p = 0.002), which is principally due to more myocardial infarction occurrence. At multivariable analysis, clopidogrel poor response emerged as an independent predictor (hazard ratio: 1.15, 95% confidence interval: 1.03 to 1.28). Receiver-operator characteristic analysis identifies ≤23 of percentage of platelet inhibition and ≥208 of P2Y12reactivity units as optimal cut offs to predict 1-year end point. Excluding periprocedural events, also peri-PCI myocardial infarction, which is strongly related to aspirin/clopidogrel poor response, was an independent predictor (hazard ratio: 1.25, 95% confidence interval: 1.14 to 1.37). Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor administration reduces this risk in poor responders (21.2% vs. 34.7%, p = 0.02), but not in full responders (6.3% vs. 6.5%, p = 0.8).ConclusionsPoor response to clopidogrel is an independent predictor of periprocedural myocardial infarction and worse 1-year outcome in low-risk patients undergoing PCI, whereas poor response to aspirin failed to predict a worse outcome. Contrary to what was observed in poor responders, glycoprotein IIb/IIa inhibitor therapy failed to provide a benefit in aspirin and/or clopidogrel full responders.