Search

Purpose of Review: Acute coronary syndromes (ACS) are a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide, with approximately 1.2 million hospitalizations annually in the U.S. This review aims to explore the contemporary evidence regarding revascularization strategies, including percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), in ACS patients. It also addresses the unresolved questions concerning the optimal procedural aspects of surgery and antithrombotic therapy for secondary prevention postsurgery., Recent Findings: Recent studies highlight that while PCI is generally preferred for its timeliness in high-risk non-ST-elevation ACS (NSTE-ACS) patients, CABG offers a benefit in terms of cardiovascular events in those with multivessel disease, particularly in the presence of diabetes and higher coronary disease complexity. For ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), CABG is less frequently utilized due to the preference for primary PCI, but it remains crucial for patients with complex anatomy or failed PCI. Furthermore, the optimal timing and type of antiplatelet therapy post-CABG remain controversial, with current evidence supporting the use of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) to reduce ischemic events but necessitating careful management to balance bleeding risks., Summary: In patients with ACS, the choice between PCI and CABG depends on the complexity of coronary disease and patient comorbidities. CABG is particularly beneficial for multivessel disease in NSTE-ACS and specific STEMI cases where PCI is not feasible. The management of antiplatelet therapy postsurgery requires a nuanced approach to minimize bleeding risks while preventing thrombotic complications. Further randomized clinical trials are needed to solidify these findings and guide clinical practice., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Myocardial revascularization in coronary artery disease via percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery effectively relieves symptoms, significantly improves prognosis and quality of life when combined with guideline-directed medical therapy. Hybrid coronary revascularization is a promising alternative to percutaneous coronary intervention or CABG in selected patients and is defined as a planned and/or intended combination of consecutive CABG surgery using at least 1 internal mammary artery to the left anterior descending (LAD), and catheter-based coronary intervention to the non-LAD vessels for the treatment of multivessel disease. The main indications for hybrid coronary revascularization are (i) to achieve complete revascularization in patients who cannot undergo conventional CABG, (ii) to treat patients with acute coronary syndromes and multivessel disease with a non-LAD vessel as the culprit lesion that needs revascularization and (iii) in highly select patients with multivessel disease with complex LAD lesions and simple percutaneous coronary intervention targets for all other vessels. Hybrid coronary revascularization patients receive a left internal mammary artery graft to the LAD artery through a minimal incision along with percutaneous coronary intervention to the remaining diseased coronary vessels using latest generation drug-eluting stents. A collaborative environment with a dedicated heart team is the optimal platform to perform such interventions, which aim to improve the quality and outcome of myocardial revascularization. This position paper analyses the rationale of hybrid coronary revascularization and the currently available evidence on the various techniques and delves into the sequence of the interventions and pharmacological management during and after the procedure., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. All rights reserved.)

Background: In the ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches) trial, the risk of ischemic events was similar in patients with stable coronary artery disease treated with an invasive (INV) strategy of angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or surgical (coronary artery bypass grafting [CABG]) coronary revascularization and a conservative (CON) strategy of initial medical therapy., Objectives: The authors analyzed separately the outcomes of INV patients treated with PCI or CABG., Methods: Patients without preceding primary outcome events were categorized as INV-PCI or INV-CABG from the time of revascularization. The ISCHEMIA primary outcome (composite of cardiovascular death, protocol-defined myocardial infarction or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest) was used., Results: Among INV-CABG patients, primary outcome events occurred in 84 of 512 (16.4%) at a median follow-up of 2.85 years; 48 events (57.1%) occurred within 30 days after CABG, including 40 procedural MIs. Among INV-PCI patients, primary outcome events occurred in 147 of 1,500 (9.8%) at median follow-up of 2.94 years; 31 of which (21.1%) occurred within 30 days after PCI, including 24 procedural MIs. In comparison, 352 of 2,591 CON patients (13.6%) had primary outcome events at a median follow-up of 3.2 years, 22 of which (6.3%) occurred within 30 days of randomization. The adjusted primary outcome risks were higher after both CABG and PCI within 30 days (HR: 16.25 [95% CI: 11.44-23.07] and HR: 2.99 [95% CI: 1.97-4.53]) and lower thereafter (0.63 [95% CI: 0.44-0.89] and 0.66 [95% CI: 0.53-0.82])., Conclusions: In ISCHEMIA, early revascularization by PCI and CABG was associated with higher early risks and lower long-term risks of cardiovascular events compared with CON. The early risk was greatest after CABG, owing to protocol-defined procedural MIs., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Redfors has received grant support from the European Research Council, the Swedish Scientific Council, Swedish Heart and Lung Foundation, and the Swedish Society for Medical Research; and receives consulting payments from Pfizer and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr Stone has received speaker honoraria from Medtronic, Pulnovo, Infraredx, Abiomed, Amgen, and Boehringer Ingelheim; has served as a consultant to Abbott, Daiichi-Sankyo, Ablative Solutions, CorFlow, Cardiomech, Robocath, Miracor, Vectorious, Apollo Therapeutics, Valfix, TherOx, HeartFlow, Neovasc, Ancora, Elucid Bio, Occlutech, Impulse Dynamics, Adona Medical, Millennia Biopharma, Oxitope, Cardiac Success, and HighLife; has equity/options from Ancora, Cagent, Applied Therapeutics, Biostar family of funds, SpectraWave, Orchestra Biomed, Aria, Cardiac Success, Valfix, and Xenter; and his employer, Mount Sinai Hospital, receives research grants from Abbott, Abiomed, Bioventrix, Cardiovascular Systems Inc, Phillips, Biosense Webster, Shockwave, Vascular Dynamics, Pulnovo, and V-wave. Dr Alexander receives research grant funding through Duke University from Artivion/CryoLife, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, CSL Behring, Ferring, U.S. FDA, Humacyte, U.S. NIH, and XaTek; and has received consulting or advisory board payments from AbbVie, Akros, Artivion/CryoLife, AtriCure, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ferring, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novostia, Pfizer, Portola, Quantum Genomics, Theravance, and Veralox. Dr Bates has served on the Advisory Board for Angiowave, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, CellProthera, Cereno Scientific, Elsevier Practice Update Cardiology, High Enroll, Janssen, Level Ex, McKinsey, Medscape Cardiology, Merck, MyoKardia, NirvaMed, Novo Nordisk, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, and Stasys; has served on the Board of Directors for the American Heart Association New York City, Angiowave, Bristol Myers Squibb, DRS.LINQ, and High Enroll; has stock in Angiowave, Bristol Myers Squibb, DRS.LINQ, and High Enroll; has been a consultant for Broadview Ventures, Hims, SFJ, and Youngene; has served on the Data Monitoring Committees for Acesion Pharma, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Baim Institute for Clinical Research (formerly Harvard Clinical Research Institute, for the PORTICO trial, funded by St. Jude Medical (now Abbott), Boston Scientific (Chair, PEITHO trial), Cleveland Clinic, Contego Medical (Chair, PERFORMANCE 2), Duke Clinical Research Institute, Mayo Clinic, Mount Sinai School of Medicine (for the ENVISAGE trial, funded by Daiichi-Sankyo, for the ABILITY-DM trial, funded by Concept Medical; and for ALLAY-HF, funded by Alleviant Medical), Novartis, Population Health Research Institute; Rutgers University (for the NIH-funded MINT Trial); has received honoraria from the American College of Cardiology (Senior Associate Editor, Clinical Trials and News, ACC.org; Chair, ACC Accreditation Oversight Committee), Arnold and Porter law firm (work related to Sanofi/Bristol Myers Squibb clopidogrel litigation), Baim Institute for Clinical Research (formerly Harvard Clinical Research Institute; RE-DUAL PCI clinical trial steering committee funded by Boehringer Ingelheim; AEGIS-II executive committee funded by CSL Behring), Belvoir Publications (Editor-in-Chief, Harvard Heart Letter), Canadian Medical and Surgical Knowledge Translation Research Group (clinical trial steering committees), CSL Behring (AHA lecture), Cowen and Company, Duke Clinical Research Institute (clinical trial steering committees, including for the PRONOUNCE trial, funded by Ferring Pharmaceuticals), HMP Global (Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Invasive Cardiology), Journal of the American College of Cardiology (Guest Editor; Associate Editor), K2P (Co-Chair, interdisciplinary curriculum), Level Ex, Medtelligence/ReachMD (CME steering committees), MJH Life Sciences, Oakstone CME (Course Director, Comprehensive Review of Interventional Cardiology), Piper Sandler, Population Health Research Institute (for the COMPASS operations committee, publications committee, steering committee, and USA national co-leader, funded by Bayer), WebMD (CME steering committees), Wiley (steering committee), Clinical Cardiology (Deputy Editor); has a patent: sotagliflozin (named on a patent for sotagliflozin assigned to Brigham and Women's Hospital who assigned to Lexicon, neither I nor Brigham and Women's Hospital receive any income from this patent); has received research funding from Abbott, Acesion Pharma, Afimmune, Aker Biomarine, Alnylam, Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Beren, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardax, CellProthera, Cereno Scientific, Chiesi, CinCor, Cleerly, CSL Behring, Eisai, Ethicon, Faraday Pharmaceuticals, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Forest Laboratories, Fractyl, Garmin, HLS Therapeutics, Idorsia, Ironwood, Ischemix, Janssen, Javelin, Lexicon, Lilly, Medtronic, Merck, Moderna, MyoKardia, NirvaMed, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Otsuka, Owkin, Pfizer, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Recardio, Regeneron, Reid Hoffman Foundation, Roche, Sanofi, Stasys, Synaptic, The Medicines Company, Youngene, and 89Bio; has received royalties from Elsevier (Editor, Braunwald’s Heart Disease); served as a site co-investigator for Abbott, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, CSI, Endotronix, St. Jude Medical (now Abbott), Philips, SpectraWAVE, Svelte, and Vascular Solutions; has served as a trustee for the American College of Cardiology; and has received unfunded research from FlowCo. Dr Biondi-Zoccai has consulted for Amarin, Balmed, Cardionovum, Crannmedical, Endocore Lab, Eukon, Guidotti, Innovheart, Meditrial, Microport, Opsens Medical, Terumo, and Translumina. Dr Caldonazo is supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) Clinician Scientist Program OrganAge funding number 413668513, by the Deutsche Herzstiftung (DHS, German Heart Foundation) funding number S/03/23 and by the Interdisciplinary Center of Clinical Research of the Medical Faculty Jena. Dr Gaudino receives grant support from the National Institute of Health, the Canadian Institutes of Health and Research, and the Starr Foundation. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Chronic total occlusions (CTOs) of coronary arteries can be found in the context of chronic or acute coronary syndromes; sometimes they are an incidental finding in those apparently healthy individuals undergoing imaging for preoperative risk assessment. Recently, the invasive management of CTOs has made impressive progress due to sophisticated preinterventional assessment, including advanced non-invasive imaging, the availability of novel and dedicated tools for CTO percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and experienced interventionalists working in specialised centres. Thus, it is crucial that referring physicians who see patients with CTO be aware of recent developments and of the initial evaluation requirements for such patients. Besides a careful history and clinical examination, electrocardiograms, exercise tests, and non-invasive imaging modalities are important for selecting the patients most suitable for CTO PCI, while others may be referred to coronary artery bypass graft or optimal medical therapy only. While CTO PCI improves angina and reduces the use of antianginal drugs in patients with symptoms and proven ischaemia, hibernation and/or wall motion abnormalities at baseline or during stress, the effect of CTO PCI on major cardiovascular events is still controversial. This clinical consensus statement specifically focuses on referring physicians, providing a comprehensive algorithm for the preinterventional evaluation of patients with CTO and the current evidence for the clinical effectiveness of the procedure. The proposed care track has been developed by members and with the support of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI), the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging (EACVI), and the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Working Group on Cardiovascular Surgery.

Background: There is limited evidence on the association of sex with outcomes among patients undergoing coronary bypass surgery (CABG) and treated with ticagrelor monotherapy or aspirin., Methods: This was a pre-specified sub-analysis of TiCAB, an investigator-initiated placebo-controlled randomized trial. Primary efficacy endpoint was the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or repeat revascularization 1 year after CABG. Safety endpoint was BARC type 2, 3 or 5 bleeding., Results: A total of 280 (15.0%) women and 1579 (85.0%) men were included. Compared with men, women were older (66.1 ± 10.2 vs. 70.1 ± 9.3 years) with more acute presentation (17.0% vs 21.1%). The incidence of the primary endpoint was similar between women and men (9.2% vs. 8.9%, HR 1.08, 95%CI 0.71-1.66, P = 0.71). Cardiovascular death occurred more often in women (2.9% vs 1.0%, adjusted HR 2.87, 95%CI 1.23-6.70, P = 0.02). The incidence of bleeding was similar between the sexes (2.2% vs. 2.5%, HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.51-1.65, P = 0.77). Ticagrelor vs aspirin was associated with a similar risk of the primary endpoint in women (10.6% vs. 7.9%, HR 1.39, 95%CI 0.63-3.05, P = 0.42) and men (9.5% vs. 8.2%, HR 1.15, 95%CI 0.82-1.62, P = 0.41;p interaction  = 0.69), and a similar risk of bleeding in women (2.9% vs. 1.4%, HR 2.09, 95%CI 0.38-11.41, P = 0.40) and men (2.2% vs. 2.8%, HR 0.80, 95%CI 0.42-1.52, P = 0.49;p interaction  = 0.35)., Conclusions: Among women and men undergoing CABG, ticagrelor monotherapy was associated with a similar risk of the primary efficacy endpoint and bleeding compared with aspirin. The risk of cardiovascular death was increased in women irrespective of antiplatelet therapy., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest None., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD) is considered an independent risk factor for clinical events after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). We have conducted a subgroup analysis of the multicentre European DuraGraft Registry to investigate clinical event rates at 1 year in patients with and without LMCAD undergoing isolated CABG in contemporary practice., Methods: Patients undergoing isolated CABG were selected. The primary end point was the incidence of a major adverse cardiac event (MACE) defined as the composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI) or repeat revascularization (RR) at 1 year. The secondary end point was major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) defined as MACE plus stroke. Propensity score matching was performed to balance for differences in baseline characteristics., Results: LMCAD was present in 1033 (41.2%) and absent in 1477 (58.8%) patients. At 1 year, the MACE rate was higher for LMCAD patients (8.2% vs 5.1%, P = 0.002) driven by higher rates of death (5.4% vs 3.4%, P = 0.016), MI (3.0% vs 1.3%, P = 0.002) and numerically higher rates of RR (2.8% vs 1.8%, P = 0.13). The incidence of MACCE was 8.8% vs 6.6%, P = 0.043, with a stroke rate of 1.0% and 2.4%, P = 0.011, for the LMCAD and non-LMCAD groups, respectively. After propensity score matching, the MACE rate was 8.0% vs 5.2%, P = 0.015. The incidence of death was 5.1% vs 3.7%, P = 0.10, MI 3.0% vs 1.4%, P = 0.020, and RR was 2.7% vs 1.6%, P = 0.090, for the LMCAD and non-LMCAD groups, respectively. Less strokes occurred in LMCAD patients (1.0% vs 2.4%, P = 0.017). The MACCE rate was not different, 8.5% vs 6.7%, P = 0.12., Conclusions: In this large registry, LMCAD was demonstrated to be an independent risk factor for MACE after isolated CABG. Conversely, the risk of stroke was lower in LMCAD patients., Clinical Trial Registration Number: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02922088., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. All rights reserved.)

Biological and sociocultural differences between men and women are complex and likely account for most of the variations in the epidemiology and treatment outcomes of coronary artery disease (CAD) between the 2 sexes. Worse outcomes in women have been described following both conservative and invasive treatments of CAD. For example, increased levels of residual platelet reactivity during treatment with antiplatelet drugs, higher rates of adverse cardiovascular outcomes following percutaneous coronary revascularization, and higher operative and long-term mortality after coronary bypass surgery have been reported in women compared with in men. Despite the growing recognition of sex-specific determinants of outcomes, representation of women in clinical studies remains low and sex-specific management strategies are generally not provided in guidelines. This review summarizes the current evidence on sex-related differences in patients with CAD, focusing on the differential outcomes following medical therapy, percutaneous coronary interventions, and coronary artery bypass surgery., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures The authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2022 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

This article reviews the context and evidence of recent myocardial revascularization trials on PCI versus CABG with particular emphasis on patient selection and treatment of surgical patients. Moreover, one of our intended purposes is to identify the values underpinning the integrated care model, which incorporates decision to proceed with surgical myocardial revascularization in conjunction with established pillars of the use of optimal surgical techniques, and aggressive risk-factor modification through guideline-directed pharmacological therapies and lifestyle modifications.