Search

Background: Accelerated endothelial healing after targeted antiproliferative drug delivery may limit the long-term inflammatory response of drug-eluting stents (DESs). The novel Supreme DES is designed to synchronize early drug delivery within 4 to 6 weeks of implantation, leaving behind a prohealing permanent base layer. Whether the Supreme DES is safe and effective in the short term and can improve long-term clinical outcomes is not known. Methods: In an international, 2:1 randomized, single-blind trial, we compared treatment with Supreme DES to durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents (DP-EES) in patients with acute and chronic coronary syndromes. The primary end point was target lesion failure—a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically driven target lesion revascularization. The trial was designed to demonstrate noninferiority (margin of 3.58%) of the Supreme DES at 12 months compared with DP-EES (URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT03168776). Results: From October 2017 to July 2019, a total of 1629 patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to the Supreme DES (N=1086) or DP-EES (N=543). At 12 months, target lesion failure occurred in 57 of 1057 patients (5.4%) in the Supreme DES group and in 27 of 532 patients (5.1%) in the DP-EES group (absolute risk difference, 0.32% [95% CI, −1.87 to 2.5]; P non inferiority =0.002]. There were no significant differences in rates of device success, clinically driven target lesion revascularization, or stent thrombosis at 12 months, and the safety composite of cardiovascular death and target vessel myocardial infarction was 3.5% versus 4.6% (hazard ratio, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.46–1.25]) with Supreme DES compared with DP-EES, although rates of combined clinically and non–clinically driven target lesion revascularization at 12 months were higher with Supreme DES. Conclusions: Among patients with acute and chronic coronary syndromes undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, the Supreme DES proved to be noninferior to the standard DP-EES. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT03168776.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text., Background: Despite treatment guidance endorsing shortened dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) duration in high bleeding risk (HBR) patients after drug-eluting stents, limited evidence exists to support these recommendations. The present study was designed to examine the safety and effectiveness of 1-month DAPT duration following percutaneous coronary intervention with zotarolimus-eluting stents in HBR patients. Methods: Onyx ONE Clear was a prospective, multicenter, nonrandomized study evaluating the safety and effectiveness of 1-month DAPT followed by single antiplatelet therapy in HBR patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with Resolute Onyx drug-eluting stents. The primary analysis of cardiac death or myocardial infarction between 1 month and 1 year was performed in the prespecified one-month clear population of patients pooled from the Onyx ONE US/Japan study and Onyx ONE randomized controlled trial. One-month clear was defined as DAPT adherence and without major adverse events during the first month following percutaneous coronary intervention. Results: Among patients enrolled in Onyx ONE US/Japan (n=752) and Onyx ONE randomized controlled trial (n=1018), 1506 patients fulfilled one-month clear criteria. Mean HBR characteristics per patient was 1.6 with 44.7% having multiple risks. By 2 months and 1 year, respectively, 96.9% and 89.3% of patients were taking single antiplatelet therapy. Between 1 month and 1 year, the rate of the primary end point was 7.0%. The 1-sided upper 97.5% CI was 8.4%, less than the performance goal of 9.7% (P

Background: High bleeding risk (HBR) patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention have been widely excluded from randomized device registration trials. The LF study (LEADERS FREE) reported superior outcomes of HBR patients receiving 30-day dual antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention with a polymer-free drug-coated stent (DCS). LFII was designed to assess the reproducibility and generalizability of the benefits of DCS observed in LF to inform the US Food and Drug Administration in a device registration decision. Methods: LFII was a single-arm study using HBR inclusion/exclusion criteria and 30-day dual antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention with DCS, identical to LF. The 365-day rates of the primary effectiveness (clinically indicated target lesion revascularization) and safety (composite cardiac death and myocardial infarction) end points were reported using a propensity-stratified analysis compared with the LF bare metal stent arm patients as controls. Results: A total of 1203 LFII patients were enrolled with an average 1.7 HBR criteria per patient, including 60.7% >75 years of age, 34.1% on anticoagulants, and 14.7% with renal failure. Propensity-adjusted 365-day clinically indicated target lesion revascularization was significantly lower with DCS (7.2% versus 9.2%; hazard ratio, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.52–0.98]; P =0.0338 for superiority), as was the primary safety (cardiac death and myocardial infarction) composite (9.3% versus 12.4%; hazard ratio, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.55–0.94]; P =0.0150 for superiority). Stent thrombosis rates were 2.0% DCS and 2.2% bare metal stent. Major bleeding at 1 year occurred in 7.2% DCS patients and 7.2% bare metal stent. Conclusions: LFII reproduces the results of the DCS arm of LF in an independent, predominantly North American cohort of HBR patients.

The aim of this study was to explore the safety and efficacy of a dedicated drug-eluting stent for the treatment of coronary lesions with very small reference vessel diameter (RVD).Smaller RVD is associated with increased risk for restenosis and target lesion failure (TLF) after stent implantation.This was a prospective, single-arm, multicenter trial of the Resolute Onyx 2.0-mm zotarolimus-eluting stent. The primary endpoint was 12-month TLF, which was compared with a pre-specified performance goal. Subjects with stable or unstable angina or ischemia, target lesions ≤27 mm in length, and RVD ≥2.0 and 2.25 mm were eligible for enrollment. A subset of subjects underwent follow-up angiography at 13 months post-procedure.A total of 101 subjects with 104 lesions were enrolled. The mean age was 67.3 ± 9.6 years, 47% of subjects had diabetes, the mean lesion length was 12.6 ± 6.3 mm, and the mean RVD was 1.91 ± 0.26 mm. The rate of TLF at 12 months was 5.0%, fulfilling the pre-specified performance goal of 19% (p 0.001). The rates of target lesion revascularization and target vessel myocardial infarction were 2.0% and 3.0%, respectively. There were no episodes of stent thrombosis. In-stent late lumen loss was 0.26 ± 0.48 mm, and the rate of binary restenosis was 12.0%.In this first report of a drug-eluting stent with a dedicated size to treat lesions with RVD 2.25 mm, the Resolute Onyx 2.0-mm zotarolimus-eluting stent was associated with a low rate of TLF and late lumen loss, without a signal for stent thrombosis. This novel-sized drug-eluting stent appears to be a feasible option for the treatment of coronary lesions in extremely small vessels. (Medtronic Resolute Onyx 2.0 mm Clinical Study; NCT02412501).

Summary Background Catheter-based renal denervation has significantly reduced blood pressure in previous studies. Following a positive pilot trial, the SPYRAL HTN-OFF MED (SPYRAL Pivotal) trial was designed to assess the efficacy of renal denervation in the absence of antihypertensive medications. Methods In this international, prospective, single-blinded, sham-controlled trial, done at 44 study sites in Australia, Austria, Canada, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Japan, the UK, and the USA, hypertensive patients with office systolic blood pressure of 150 mm Hg to less than 180 mm Hg were randomly assigned 1:1 to either a renal denervation or sham procedure. The primary efficacy endpoint was baseline-adjusted change in 24-h systolic blood pressure and the secondary efficacy endpoint was baseline-adjusted change in office systolic blood pressure from baseline to 3 months after the procedure. We used a Bayesian design with an informative prior, so the primary analysis combines evidence from the pilot and Pivotal trials. The primary efficacy and safety analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT02439749 . Findings From June 25, 2015, to Oct 15, 2019, 331 patients were randomly assigned to either renal denervation (n=166) or a sham procedure (n=165). The primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were met, with posterior probability of superiority more than 0·999 for both. The treatment difference between the two groups for 24-h systolic blood pressure was −3·9 mm Hg (Bayesian 95% credible interval −6·2 to −1·6) and for office systolic blood pressure the difference was −6·5 mm Hg (−9·6 to −3·5). No major device-related or procedural-related safety events occurred up to 3 months. Interpretation SPYRAL Pivotal showed the superiority of catheter-based renal denervation compared with a sham procedure to safely lower blood pressure in the absence of antihypertensive medications. Funding Medtronic.

Background: GLORIA-AF (Global Registry on Long-Term Oral Antithrombotic Treatment in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation) is a prospective, global registry program describing antithrombotic t...

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the prognostic implications of preprocedural TIMI flow in ACS patients undergoing early invasive management.Although the negative prognostic impact of reduced Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) flow before percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) has been well described, whether this relationship holds in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS; unstable angina and non-STEMI) has not been examined.We evaluated 3582 moderate and high-risk patients with ACS undergoing PCI enrolled in the ACUITY trial. Patients were divided in 3 groups according to pre-procedural culprit vessel TIMI flow (TIMI 0/1, TIMI 2 and TIMI 3 flows), determined by an independent angiographic core laboratory.Baseline culprit vessel flow was absent (TIMI 0/1) in 453 patients (12.6%), reduced (TIMI 2) in 389 patients (10.9%) and normal (TIMI 3) in 2740 patients (76.5%) patients. Post-PCI TIMI 3 flow was achieved in 87.2%, 86.8% and 98.8% of the 3 groups, respectively (P0.0001). At 1 year, mortality occurred in 2.7%, 2.4% and 3.0% of patients with baseline TIMI 0/1, 2 and 3 flows, respectively (P=0.82). By multivariable analysis, pre-PCI TIMI flow 0/1 (vs. TIMI 3) was not an independent predictor of 1-year mortality (P=0.61).Reduced baseline TIMI flow in moderate and high-risk patients with ACS undergoing PCI does not appear to affect survival at 1 year, in contrast to that described in patients with STEMI.

Using data from the CHAMPION percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), we determined the relationship between clopidogrel started at least 5 days before PCI (maintenance of clopidogrel) and PCI-related enzymatic infarct size.Clopidogrel is recommended in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) managed with PCI, but its effect on PCI-related myonecrosis in contemporary patients has not been quantified.Patients with ACS (with or without ST-segment elevation) who underwent PCI and had at least three creatine kinase-MB (CK-MB) samples after PCI were included. Enzymatic infarct size was defined as the peak CK-MB concentration indexed by its upper limit of normal. Associations between maintenance clopidogrel and enzymatic infarct size were explored using multivariable linear regression (with and without missing data imputation) and propensity score analysis using inverse probability weighting.Of 8877 patients randomized, 6327 (71.3%) were included (median age 61 years, 73% male, 13% ACS with ST-segment elevation). Of these 6327 patients, 2015 (31.8%) were on maintenance clopidogrel. After multivariable adjustment, maintenance clopidogrel was associated with a reduction in enzymatic infarct size {β=-0.63; 47% decrease in peak CK-MB [95% confidence interval (CI) 35, 56%]}. Multivariable linear regression with multiple imputations and inverse probability weighting propensity score analysis yielded similar results, with maintenance clopidogrel associated with 44% (95% CI 33, 53%) and 29% (95% CI 24, 33%) infarct size reductions.In this subgroup analysis of modern ACS patients, clopidogrel maintenance was independently associated with smaller enzymatic infarct size after PCI. These results are consistent with previous observations suggesting a benefit of clopidogrel on the procedural outcome and quantify this benefit.

Objectives This study sought to assess the contemporary outcomes of patients with prior coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) who present with moderate and high-risk acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and are treated with an early invasive strategy and contemporary antithrombin regimens. Background The prognosis of patients with ACS and prior CABG in relation to triage strategy and contemporary antithrombotic regimens is unknown. Methods In the ACUITY (Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage Strategy) trial, 2,475 of 13,764 patients (18.0%) with ACS managed with an early invasive strategy had previously undergone CABG. Their outcomes were examined according to treatment and randomized antithrombin regimen. Results Prior CABG was associated with older age, more frequent comorbidities, higher Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction risk score, and lower left ventricular ejection fraction. Patients with versus without prior CABG were less likely to undergo (repeat) CABG and were more likely to be managed medically. At 1 year, patients with versus without prior CABG had higher rates of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (22.5% vs. 15.2%, p Conclusions Despite the progress in the treatment of coronary artery disease, patients with prior CABG and ACS have a poor prognosis, substantially worse than for those without prior CABG. Whereas bivalirudin monotherapy was an acceptable treatment for these patients, it did not improve their prognoses.

Abciximab and eptifibatide have been shown to reduce ischemic complications compared with heparin alone in patients with acute coronary syndromes who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention. Whether 1 agent is safer and/or more effective has not been prospectively examined. The aim of this study was to assess the outcomes related to downstream glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor treatment selection during percutaneous coronary intervention in 2,211 patients with moderate and high-risk acute coronary syndromes in the prospective multicenter Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage Strategy (ACUITY) trial. The protocol permitted operator selection of abciximab (n = 835) or eptifibatide (n = 1,376) for routine use in the trial. Multivariate and propensity-based adjustments were used to assess the independent association of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor treatment selection with prespecified study end points. Compared to patients receiving eptifibatide, those administered abciximab were older, more likely to be enrolled outside of North America, more frequently had biomarker elevations and ST-segment deviation, but had fewer baseline cardiac risk factors and previous revascularization procedures. After multivariate propensity-based adjustment, abciximab was independently associated with significantly fewer net clinical adverse events (odds ratio 0.61, 95% confidence interval 0.42 to 0.90, p = 0.01), mediated by composite ischemia (odds ratio 0.61, 95% confidence interval 0.38 to 0.98, p = 0.04) and major bleeding (odds ratio 0.58, 95% confidence interval 0.34 to 1.00, p = 0.051). In conclusion, in this prespecified but nonrandomized comparison in patients with acute coronary syndromes who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention with catheterization laboratory initiation of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, the use of abciximab rather than eptifibatide was associated with improved clinical outcomes at 30 days. These findings should be viewed as exploratory in light of the nonrandomized and heterogeneous nature of the comparator groups and significant potential for residual confounding.

Background— The Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage Strategy (ACUITY) trial demonstrated that bivalirudin monotherapy significantly reduces major bleeding compared with heparin (unfractionated or enoxaparin) or bivalirudin plus a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor in acute coronary syndromes. Whether vascular closure devices (VCD) impact these results is unknown. Therefore, this study sought to determine whether VCD impact major access site bleeding (ASB) in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing early invasive management by the femoral approach. Methods and Results— Major ASB in ACUITY was defined as ASB requiring interventional or surgical correction, hematoma ≥5 cm at the access site, retroperitoneal bleeding, or hemoglobin drop ≥3 g/dL with ecchymosis or hematoma 30 minutes) at the access site. Stepwise logistical regression was performed to identify the independent determinants of ASB. Of 11 621 patients undergoing angiography with or without percutaneous coronary intervention by the femoral approach, 4307 (37.1%) received a VCD and 7314 (62.9%) did not. Rates of major ASB were lower with VCD compared with no VCD (2.5% versus 3.3%, relative risk, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.94; P =0.01) and were lowest in patients treated with bivalirudin monotherapy and a VCD (0.7%). Stepwise logistic regression revealed that a VCD (odds ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.99; P =0.04) and bivalirudin monotherapy (odds ratio, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.25 to 0.49; P Conclusion— In patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing an early invasive management strategy by the femoral approach, the use of a VCD, bivalirudin monotherapy, or both minimizes rates of major ASB. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique Identifier: NCT00093158.

Objectives: The ENDEAVOR IV (Randomized Comparison of Zotarolimus-Eluting and Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease) trial evaluated the safety and efficacy of the zota...

Objectives The aim of this study was to assess, after 2 years of follow-up, the safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of a zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) compared with a paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) in patients with native coronary lesions. Background Early drug-eluting stents were associated with a small but significant incidence of very late stent thrombosis (VLST), occurring >1 year after the index procedure. The ZES has shown encouraging results in clinical trials. Methods The ENDEAVOR IV trial (Randomized, Controlled Trial of the Medtronic Endeavor Drug [ABT-578] Eluting Coronary Stent System Versus the Taxus Paclitaxel-Eluting Coronary Stent System in De Novo Native Coronary Artery Lesions), a randomized (1:1), single-blind, controlled trial (n = 1,548) compared ZES versus PES in patients with single de novo coronary lesions. Two-year follow-up was obtained in 96.0% of ZES and 95.4% of PES patients. The primary end point was target vessel failure (TVF), and safety end points included Academic Research Consortium-defined stent thrombosis. Economic end points analyzed included quality-adjusted survival, medical costs, and relative cost-effectiveness of ZES and PES. Results The TVF at 2 years was similar in ZES and PES patients (11.1% vs. 13.1%, p = 0.232). There were fewer myocardial infarctions (MIs) in ZES patients (p = 0.022), due to fewer periprocedural non–Q-wave MIs and fewer late MIs between 1 and 2 years. Late MIs were associated with increased VLST (PES: 6 vs. ZES: 1; p = 0.069). Target lesion revascularization was similar comparing ZES with PES (5.9% vs. 4.6%; p = 0.295), especially in patients without planned angiographic follow-up (5.2% vs. 4.9%; p = 0.896). The cost-effectiveness of ZES and PES was similar. Conclusions After 2 years of follow-up, ZES demonstrated efficacy and cost-effectiveness comparable to PES, with fewer MIs and a trend toward less VLST. (The ENDEAVOR IV Clinical Trial: A Trial of a Coronary Stent System in Coronary Artery Lesions; NCT00217269)

Objectives The aim of this study was to examine outcomes related to the use of the Endeavor zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) (Medtronic CardioVascular, Santa Rosa, California) compared with the TAXUS paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) (Boston Scientific Corp., Natick, Massachusetts) in the 477 patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) enrolled in the randomized ENDEAVOR IV (Randomized Comparison of Zotarolimus- and Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease) trial. Background Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in diabetic patients is associated with increased rates of restenosis-related end points compared with PCI in nondiabetic patients. Although ZES has been associated with similar clinical efficacy compared with PES in the overall trial population of the ENDEAVOR IV trial, whether these results are maintained in the higher-risk restenosis subgroup of patients with DM has not been determined. Methods Clinical and angiographic outcomes were compared according to randomized treatment assignment to either ZES or PES. Results Baseline characteristics were similar among ZES (n = 241) and PES (n = 236) diabetic patients, with slightly longer lesion lengths in PES-treated patients (12.9 mm vs. 14.0 mm, p = 0.041). Among the 86 DM patients assigned to routine angiographic follow-up (18% of the overall DM cohort), in-stent percent diameter stenosis at 8 months was greater among ZES-treated patients (32.9 vs. 21.1, p = 0.023), with a trend toward higher in-stent late loss. One-year clinical outcomes were similar among DM patients treated with either ZES or PES (target vessel failure: 8.6% vs. 10.8%, p = 0.53; target lesion revascularization: 6.9% vs. 5.8%, p = 0.70; target vessel revascularization: 8.6% vs. 9.4%, p = 0.87). There were no significant interactions between DM status and stent type with respect to the outcomes measured, and the relative efficacy/safety of ZES and PES were similar among insulin- and noninsulin-requiring subgroups. Conclusions One-year clinical outcomes were similar among DM patients treated with ZES and PES in the ENDEAVOR IV trial. These findings parallel the overall trial results, which demonstrated similar efficacy and safety of ZES and PES for single de novo coronary lesions.

Objectives We assessed the incidence, predictors, and outcomes of gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS). Background GIB is a potential hemorrhagic complication in patients with ACS treated with antithrombotic and/or antiplatelet medications. The clinical outcomes associated with GIB in this setting have not been systematically studied. Methods In the ACUITY (Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage Strategy) trial, 13,819 patients with moderate- and high-risk ACS, enrolled at 450 centers in 17 countries between August 2003 and December 2005, were randomized to the open-label use of 1 of 3 antithrombin regimens (heparin plus a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor, bivalirudin plus a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor, or bivalirudin monotherapy). Results GIB within 30 days occurred in 178 patients (1.3%). Older age, baseline anemia, longer duration of study drug administration before angiogram, smoking, ST-segment deviation ≥1 mm, and diabetes were identified as independent predictors of GIB. On multivariable analysis, GIB was strongly associated with 30-day all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR]: 4.87 [interquartile range (IQR) 2.61 to 9.08], p Conclusions GIB is a serious condition in the scenario of ACS and is independently associated with mortality and ischemic complications.

Objectives The aim of this study was to evaluate the relative impact of spontaneously occurring and periprocedural myocardial infarction (MI) on survival after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Background The clinical significance of periprocedural MI after PCI remains uncertain. Methods Outcomes during a 1-year follow-up were evaluated among 7,773 patients enrolled in the ACUITY (Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage Strategy) trial with a non–ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome in whom PCI was performed. Results Periprocedural MI developed in 466 patients (6.0%), and spontaneous MI unrelated to PCI subsequently developed in 200 patients (2.6%). Patients developing spontaneous and periprocedural MI compared with those patients without MI had significantly greater unadjusted rates of mortality at 30 days (5.0% vs. 3.2% vs. 0.8%, respectively, p Conclusions Among patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing PCI, the spontaneous development of an MI unrelated to PCI is a powerful predictor of subsequent mortality. In contrast, periprocedural MI is a marker of baseline risk, atherosclerosis burden, and procedural complexity but in most cases does not have independent prognostic significance. (Comparison of Angiomax Versus Heparin in Acute Coronary Syndromes [ACS]; NCT00093158)

Background— Myocardial infarction (MI) after drug-eluting stent placement has been associated with an unfavorable late prognosis. Although the etiology of periprocedural MI is multifactorial, sidebranch occlusion may be an important contributing factor. We sought to identify the incidence of sidebranch occlusion during zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) and paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) placement and to relate sidebranch occlusion to the occurrence of periprocedural MI. Methods and Results— Angiograms were reviewed from patients randomly assigned to treatment with a ZES (597 patients; 943 sidebranches) or a PES (619 patients; 977 sidebranches). Sidebranch occlusion was defined as Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction flow grade 0 or 1. Sidebranch occlusion was correlated with frequency of MI, as assessed by the creatine phosphokinase MB isoenzyme. Sidebranch occlusion occurred less often after the first stent deployment in patients treated with ZES (2.2%) than in patients treated with PES (4.0%; P =0.032). A similar reduction in the frequency of sidebranch occlusion at any point during the procedure was found in patients treated with ZES (2.9% versus 4.8% in PES patients; P =0.042). Multivariable predictors of sidebranch occlusion included baseline sidebranch stenosis, complex lesion morphology, smaller baseline minimal lumen diameters, and the use of a PES. Of the 20 patients with MI within 30 days of the procedure, 30% had evidence of sidebranch occlusion during the stent procedure. Conclusions— Patients treated with ZES were less likely to develop sidebranch occlusion during stent placement than patients treated with PES. Less frequent sidebranch occlusion with ZES may have contributed to the lower frequency rates of periprocedural MI in this study.

Background— The clinical and angiographic predictors of early ( Methods and Results— Qualitative and quantitative coronary angiographic analyses were performed in 3405 patients with moderate- and high-risk acute coronary syndromes in whom stents were implanted in the prospective randomized Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage Strategy (ACUITY) trial, including 3043 patients (89.4%) in whom drug-eluting stents were implanted. Within 30 days, definite or probable ST occurred in 48 patients (1.4%). ST rates were not significantly different in patients treated with bare metal stents compared with drug-eluting stents (1.4% versus 1.4%; P =1.00) or with heparin plus glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (1.1%) compared with bivalirudin with or without IIb/IIIa inhibitors (1.6% and 1.5%, respectively; P =0.26 and P =0.37, respectively). Compared with patients without ST, patients with ST more frequently had insulin-requiring diabetes mellitus and baseline renal insufficiency, a greater overall burden of coronary atherosclerosis, and suboptimal final angiographic results. ST also was more common in patients without preprocedural thienopyridine administration and with inconsistent antiplatelet drug use within 30 days. By multivariable analysis, the strongest independent predictors of definite ST were a smaller final stent minimal lumen diameter, a lack of preprocedural thienopyridine administration, the extent of coronary artery disease, and higher baseline hemoglobin level. Conclusions— Occurring in nearly 1 in 70 patients, early ST is relatively common in acute coronary syndromes, occurs with similar frequency after anticoagulation with either heparin plus glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors or bivalirudin with or without IIb/IIIa inhibitors, and is predicted by diffuse atherosclerosis, suboptimal angiographic results, and inadequate pharmacotherapy.

Objectives This study was designed to determine the impact of bivalirudin on 1-year outcomes in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Background The ACUITY (Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage strategY) trial demonstrated that in moderate- and high-risk ACS patients undergoing PCI, bivalirudin alone compared to unfractionated heparin (UFH) or enoxaparin plus a glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa inhibitor resulted in less major bleeding and similar ischemic outcomes at 30 days. The impact of bivalirudin on 1-year outcomes in ACS patients undergoing PCI is unknown. Methods In the ACUITY trial, 13,819 patients were enrolled, and 7,789 (56.4%) patients had PCI. Composite ischemia (death, myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization) and mortality at 1 year were assessed. Results Among patients undergoing PCI, 2,561, 2,609, and 2,619 were randomized to UFH or enoxaparin plus a GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor, bivalirudin plus a GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor, and bivalirudin monotherapy, respectively. At 1 year, there were no differences in composite ischemia (17.8% vs. 19.4% vs. 19.2%, p = NS) or mortality (3.2% vs. 3.3% vs. 3.1%, p = NS) among the 3 groups, respectively. Conclusions Bivalirudin compared with UFH or enoxaparin plus a GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor results in similar rates of composite ischemia and mortality at 1 year in moderate- and high-risk ACS patients undergoing PCI.

Objectives We sought to evaluate the relative safety and efficacy of the novel Interceptor PLUS Coronary Filter System (Medtronic Vascular, Santa Rosa, California) compared with approved embolic-protection devices (e.g., GuardWire, Medtronic Vascular/FilterWire EZ, Boston Scientific, Natick, Massachusetts) during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of degenerative saphenous vein grafts (SVG). Background Percutaneous coronary intervention of degenerative SVG is associated with embolization of atherothrombotic debris and subsequent myocardial infarction in a significant portion of patients. The use of distal embolic-protection devices has previously been demonstrated to reduce major adverse cardiovascular events associated with PCI in these patients. Methods In this multicenter, randomized noninferiority trial, 797 patients undergoing PCI with stenting of SVG stenoses (de novo or restenotic) with reference vessel diameter 2.5 mm to 5.25 mm were randomly assigned 2:1 to either the Interceptor PLUS (n = 533) or control distal-protection devices (GuardWire [n = 191], FilterWire EZ [n = 73]) at the physician9s discretion. Results The trial primary clinical end point (composite occurrence of death, myocardial infarction, or urgent repeat revascularization through 30 days) was observed in 8% and 7.3% of Interceptor and control-treated patients, respectively (p = 0.025 for noninferiority; p = 0.77 for difference). Key secondary end points for device and procedural success were similar between randomly assigned treatment strategies. Conclusions The Interceptor PLUS Coronary Filter System is noninferior in safety and efficacy to 30 days when compared with the GuardWire and FilterWire EZ distal embolic protection devices.

PURPOSE Inadequate anticoagulation among elderly individuals with atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common problem. This synthesis of the literature review describes the pathophysiology of AF, explains the mechanism of action of warfarin (Coumadin), identifies factors that contribute to warfarin (Coumadin)-associated bleeding in the elderly population, and explores alternatives to warfarin (Coumadin) therapy. Implications for advanced practice nurse practice, education, and research will be discussed. METHODS A literature search was conducted using Academic Search Premier, CINAHL Plus with Full Text, and Medline from 1999 to 2012. Search terms included warfarin (Coumadin), warfarin (Coumadin) genetics, diet, interactions, bleeding, atrial fibrillation, genetics, anticoagulation clinic, dabigatran, apixaban, rivaroxaban, and elderly. RESULTS The literature indicates that the potential bleeding risk associated with warfarin (Coumadin) therapy limits its use in the elderly population. However, some studies have found warfarin (Coumadin) to be more effective than aspirin in preventing stroke. The safety profiles of both medications were comparable; also, effective alternatives to warfarin (Coumadin) that do not require routine testing are now available. CONCLUSIONS Atrial fibrillation increases the probability of an embolic stroke, especially for the elderly population. Stroke risk and bleeding risk tools, in conjunction with patient preference, determine the best stroke prevention treatment. Anticoagulant clinics manage long-term warfarin (Coumadin) therapy effectively. Newer anticoagulants offer effective alternatives to warfarin (Coumadin) therapy.

Objective To compare outcomes between US and non-US (OUS) sites in patients with non ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTEACS) and to evaluate potential reasons for differences in outcomes. Background There are little data comparing outcomes at US versus OUS sites in patients with NSTEACS managed with an invasive strategy. Methods The ACUITY trial randomized 13,819 patients with NSTEACS in 17 countries to an invasive approach with one of three strategies: (1) heparin plus glycoprotein platelet inhibitors (GPI), (2) bivalirudin plus GPI, or (3) bivalirudin alone. Results US patients were more often female, were younger, heavier, and had more diabetes, prior myocardial infarction (MI), and prior bypass surgery. US patients were less often treated with percutaneous coronary intervention but had more frequent drug-eluting stent use. US patients had lower mortality and higher MI rates at 30 days and 1 year and higher composite ischemic outcome at 30 days. After adjusting for differences in baseline variables, US patients had higher rates of MI and composite ischemic outcome at 30 days and higher rates of MI at 1 year {HR [95% confidence interval (CI)] = 1.36 [1.18–1.56], P < 0.0001} with no differences in mortality. There were no differences in treatment effects comparing bivalirudin with the other strategies between US and OUS sites. Conclusions US versus OUS patients with NSTEACS had higher adjusted rates of MI and ischemia. The reasons for these differences are not clear but may be due to unmeasured confounders, different thresholds for event reporting, or valid differences in systems of care which may impact outcomes. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

To compare outcomes between US and non-US (OUS) sites in patients with non ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTEACS) and to evaluate potential reasons for differences in outcomes.There are little data comparing outcomes at US versus OUS sites in patients with NSTEACS managed with an invasive strategy.The ACUITY trial randomized 13,819 patients with NSTEACS in 17 countries to an invasive approach with one of three strategies: (1) heparin plus glycoprotein platelet inhibitors (GPI), (2) bivalirudin plus GPI, or (3) bivalirudin alone.US patients were more often female, were younger, heavier, and had more diabetes, prior myocardial infarction (MI), and prior bypass surgery. US patients were less often treated with percutaneous coronary intervention but had more frequent drug-eluting stent use. US patients had lower mortality and higher MI rates at 30 days and 1 year and higher composite ischemic outcome at 30 days. After adjusting for differences in baseline variables, US patients had higher rates of MI and composite ischemic outcome at 30 days and higher rates of MI at 1 year {HR [95% confidence interval (CI)] = 1.36 [1.18-1.56], P0.0001} with no differences in mortality. There were no differences in treatment effects comparing bivalirudin with the other strategies between US and OUS sites.US versus OUS patients with NSTEACS had higher adjusted rates of MI and ischemia. The reasons for these differences are not clear but may be due to unmeasured confounders, different thresholds for event reporting, or valid differences in systems of care which may impact outcomes.

This study sought to assess the contemporary outcomes of patients with prior coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) who present with moderate and high-risk acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and are treated with an early invasive strategy and contemporary antithrombin regimens.The prognosis of patients with ACS and prior CABG in relation to triage strategy and contemporary antithrombotic regimens is unknown.In the ACUITY (Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage Strategy) trial, 2,475 of 13,764 patients (18.0%) with ACS managed with an early invasive strategy had previously undergone CABG. Their outcomes were examined according to treatment and randomized antithrombin regimen.Prior CABG was associated with older age, more frequent comorbidities, higher Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction risk score, and lower left ventricular ejection fraction. Patients with versus without prior CABG were less likely to undergo (repeat) CABG and were more likely to be managed medically. At 1 year, patients with versus without prior CABG had higher rates of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (22.5% vs. 15.2%, p0.0001) due to greater mortality (5.4% vs. 3.9%, p0.0001), myocardial infarction (10.0% vs. 6.8%, p0.0001), and unplanned revascularization (13.1% vs. 8.2%, p0.0001). History of CABG was an independent predictor of MACE. The 1-year MACE rates were not significantly different after randomization to bivalirudin versus heparin plus a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor (odds ratio: 1.24, 95% confidence interval: 0.90 to 1.70).Despite the progress in the treatment of coronary artery disease, patients with prior CABG and ACS have a poor prognosis, substantially worse than for those without prior CABG. Whereas bivalirudin monotherapy was an acceptable treatment for these patients, it did not improve their prognoses.

The ENDEAVOR IV (Randomized Comparison of Zotarolimus-Eluting and Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease) trial evaluated the safety and efficacy of the zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) compared with the paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES).First-generation drug-eluting stents have reduced angiographic and clinical restenosis, but long-term safety remains controversial. A second-generation drug-eluting stent, which delivers zotarolimus, a potent antiproliferative agent, via a biocompatible phosphorylcholine polymer on a cobalt alloy thin-strut stent has shown promising experimental and early clinical results.This is a prospective, randomized (1:1), single-blind, controlled trial comparing outcomes of patients with single de novo coronary lesions treated with ZES or PES. The primary end point was noninferiority of 9-month target vessel failure defined as cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization.Among a total of 1,548 patients assigned to ZES (n = 773) or PES (n = 775), at 9 months, ZES was noninferior to PES with rates of target vessel failure 6.6% versus 7.1%, respectively (p(noninferiority)or = 0.001). There were fewer periprocedural myocardial infarctions with ZES (0.5% vs. 2.2%; p = 0.007), whereas at 12 months, there were no significant differences between groups in rates of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, or stent thrombosis. Although incidence of 8-month binary angiographic in-segment restenosis was higher in patients treated with ZES versus PES (15.3% vs. 10.4%; p = 0.284), rates of 12-month target lesion revascularization were similar (4.5% vs. 3.2%; p = 0.228), especially in patients without planned angiographic follow-up (3.6% vs. 3.2%; p = 0.756).These findings demonstrate that ZES has similar clinical safety and efficacy compared with PES in simple and medium complexity single de novo coronary lesions. (ENDEAVOR IV Clinical Trial; NCT00217269).

The aim of this study was to evaluate the relative impact of spontaneously occurring and periprocedural myocardial infarction (MI) on survival after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).The clinical significance of periprocedural MI after PCI remains uncertain.Outcomes during a 1-year follow-up were evaluated among 7,773 patients enrolled in the ACUITY (Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage Strategy) trial with a non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome in whom PCI was performed.Periprocedural MI developed in 466 patients (6.0%), and spontaneous MI unrelated to PCI subsequently developed in 200 patients (2.6%). Patients developing spontaneous and periprocedural MI compared with those patients without MI had significantly greater unadjusted rates of mortality at 30 days (5.0% vs. 3.2% vs. 0.8%, respectively, p0.0001) and at 1 year (16.0% vs. 6.0% vs. 2.6%, respectively, p0.0001). In a time-updated multivariable analysis, after adjusting for differences in baseline and procedural characteristics between the groups, we found that spontaneous MI was a powerful independent predictor of subsequent mortality (hazard ratio: 7.49, 95% confidence interval: 4.95 to 11.33, p0.0001), whereas periprocedural MI was not a significant predictor of mortality (hazard ratio: 1.30, 95% confidence interval: 0.85 to 1.98, p = 0.22).Among patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing PCI, the spontaneous development of an MI unrelated to PCI is a powerful predictor of subsequent mortality. In contrast, periprocedural MI is a marker of baseline risk, atherosclerosis burden, and procedural complexity but in most cases does not have independent prognostic significance. (Comparison of Angiomax Versus Heparin in Acute Coronary Syndromes [ACS]; NCT00093158).

Background : Among patients with non ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (ACS), those with biomarker elevation represent a high-risk cohort. The optimal anticoagulation strategy during PCI in this group remains controversial. We therefore examined the clinical outcomes among biomarker positive patients in the ACUITY trial who underwent PCI. Methods : In ACUITY 13,819 patients with ACS were randomized to bivalirudin alone vs. bivalirudin plus glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor (GPI) vs. heparin plus GPI among; 7,789 patients underwent PCI, of whom 4,687 were biomarker (troponin and/or CKMB) positive. The primary endpoints at 30 days were composite ischemia (death, MI, or unplanned TVR for ischemia), major bleeding not related to CABG, and net adverse clinical events (NACE; composite ischemia or major bleeding). Results : Of the biomarker positive patients undergoing PCI, 1,611 were randomized to bivalirudin alone, 1,532 to heparin plus GPI, and 1,544 to bivalirudin plus GPI. The groups were well balanced for age, gender, and major co-morbidities such as diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, prior MI, renal insufficiency and TIMI risk score (p ≥ 0.1 for all). 30-day and 1 year outcomes are shown. Among the patients pre-treated with a thienopyridine, bivalirudin compared to heparin plus GPI resulted in reduced major bleeding (3.9% vs. 6.8%, p=0.003) and comparable rates of composite ischemia (8.4% vs. 8.1%, p=0.73) and NACE (11.5% vs. 13.1%, p=0.17). Conclusions : In biomarker positive ACS patients undergoing PCI, bivalirudin alone suppresses adverse ischemic events to a similar extent as does heparin plus GPI while decreasing major bleeding complications.

This study was designed to determine the impact of bivalirudin on 1-year outcomes in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).The ACUITY (Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage strategY) trial demonstrated that in moderate- and high-risk ACS patients undergoing PCI, bivalirudin alone compared to unfractionated heparin (UFH) or enoxaparin plus a glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa inhibitor resulted in less major bleeding and similar ischemic outcomes at 30 days. The impact of bivalirudin on 1-year outcomes in ACS patients undergoing PCI is unknown.In the ACUITY trial, 13,819 patients were enrolled, and 7,789 (56.4%) patients had PCI. Composite ischemia (death, myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization) and mortality at 1 year were assessed.Among patients undergoing PCI, 2,561, 2,609, and 2,619 were randomized to UFH or enoxaparin plus a GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor, bivalirudin plus a GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor, and bivalirudin monotherapy, respectively. At 1 year, there were no differences in composite ischemia (17.8% vs. 19.4% vs. 19.2%, p = NS) or mortality (3.2% vs. 3.3% vs. 3.1%, p = NS) among the 3 groups, respectively.Bivalirudin compared with UFH or enoxaparin plus a GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor results in similar rates of composite ischemia and mortality at 1 year in moderate- and high-risk ACS patients undergoing PCI.

The aim of this study was to assess anticoagulation with the direct thrombin inhibitor bivalirudin during percutaneous coronary intervention in individuals with moderate and high-risk acute coronary syndromes.13,819 individuals in the Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage strategy (ACUITY) trial were prospectively randomly assigned to receive heparin (unfractionated or enoxaparin) plus glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, bivalirudin plus glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, or bivalirudin alone. Of these individuals, 7789 underwent percutaneous coronary intervention after angiography. The effect of the three regimens on the primary 30-day endpoints of composite ischaemia (death, myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularisation for ischaemia), major bleeding, and net clinical outcomes (composite ischaemia or major bleeding) was assessed in this subgroup. Analyses were done by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, with the number NCT00093158.Of the individuals who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention, 2561 received heparin plus glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, 2609 received bivalirudin plus glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, and 2619 received bivalirudin alone. 26 (0.3%) individuals dropped out or were lost to follow-up. There was no significant difference in the proportion of individuals with composite ischaemia, major bleeding, or net clinical outcomes at 30 days between those who received bivalirudin plus glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors and those who received heparin plus glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (composite ischaemia: 243 [9%] patients vs 210 [8%] patients, p=0.16; major bleeding: 196 [8%] patients vs 174 [7%] patients, p=0.32; net clinical outcomes: 389 [15%] patients vs 341 [13%] patients, p=0.1). Rates of composite ischaemia were much the same in those who received bivalirudin alone and those who received heparin plus glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (230 [9%] patients vs 210 [8%] patients, p=0.45); however, there were significantly fewer individuals who experienced major bleeding among those who received bivalirudin alone than among those who received heparin plus glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (92 [4%] patients vs 174 [7%] patients, p0.0001, relative risk 0.52, 95% CI 0.40-0.66), resulting in a trend towards better 30-day net clinical outcomes (303 [12%] patients vs 341 [13%] patients, p=0.057; 0.87, 0.75-1.00).Substitution of unfractionated heparin or enoxaparin with bivalirudin results in comparable clinical outcomes in patients with moderate and high-risk acute coronary syndromes treated with glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors in whom percutaneous coronary intervention is done. Anticoagulation with bivalirudin alone suppresses adverse ischaemic events to a similar extent as does heparin plus glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, while significantly lowering the risk of major haemorrhagic complications.

CONTEXT: In patients with moderate- and high-risk acute coronary syndromes (ACS) who undergo an early, invasive treatment strategy, current guidelines recommend administration of platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa (Gp IIb/IIIa) inhibitors, either upstream to all patients prior to angiography or deferred for selective use in the catheterization laboratory just prior to angioplasty. The preferred approach is undetermined. OBJECTIVE: To determine the optimal strategy for the use of Gp IIb/IIIa inhibitors in patients with moderate- and high-risk ACS undergoing an early, invasive treatment strategy. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, open-label trial with 30-day clinical follow-up. SETTING: Four hundred fifty academic and community-based institutions in 17 countries. PATIENTS: A total of 9207 patients with moderate- and high-risk ACS undergoing an invasive treatment strategy. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive either routine upstream (n=4605) or deferred selective (n=4602) Gp IIb/IIIa inhibitor administration, respectively. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was assessment of noninferiority of deferred Gp IIb/IIIa inhibitor use compared with upstream administration for the prevention of composite ischemic events (death, myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization for ischemia) at 30 days, using a 1-sided alpha level of .025. Major secondary end points included noninferiority or superiority of major bleeding and net clinical outcomes (composite ischemia or major bleeding). RESULTS: Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors were used more frequently (98.3% vs 55.7%, respectively) and for a significantly longer duration (median, 18.3 vs 13.1 hours; P

CONTEXT: At 30-day follow-up, patients with moderate- and high-risk acute coronary syndromes (ACS) undergoing early invasive treatment in the ACUITY trial with bivalirudin monotherapy vs heparin plus glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa inhibitors had noninferior rates of adverse ischemic events with reduced rates of major bleeding. Deferred upstream use of GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors for selective administration to patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) resulted in a significant reduction in major bleeding, although a small increase in composite ischemia could not be excluded. OBJECTIVE: To determine 1-year ischemic outcomes for patients in the ACUITY trial. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: A prospective, randomized, open-label trial with 1-year clinical follow-up at 450 academic and community-based institutions in 17 countries. A total of 13,819 patients with moderate- and high-risk ACS undergoing invasive treatment were enrolled between August 23, 2003, and December 5, 2005. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were assigned to heparin plus GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors (n = 4603), bivalirudin plus GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors (n = 4604), or bivalirudin monotherapy (n = 4612). Of these patients, 4605 were assigned to routine upstream GP IIb/IIIa administration and 4602 were deferred to selective GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor administration. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Composite ischemia (death, myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization for ischemia) at 1 year. RESULTS: Composite ischemia at 1 year occurred in 15.4% of patients assigned to heparin plus GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors and 16.0% assigned to bivalirudin plus GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors (compared with heparin plus GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors, HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.95-1.16; P = .35), and 16.2% assigned to bivalirudin monotherapy (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.95-1.17; P = .29). Mortality at 1 year occurred in an estimated 3.9% of patients assigned to heparin plus GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors, 3.9% assigned to bivalirudin plus GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.80-1.22; P = .92), and 3.8% assigned to bivalirudin monotherapy (HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.77-1.18; P = .67). Composite ischemia occurred in 16.3% of patients assigned to deferred use compared with 15.2% of patients assigned to upstream administration (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.97-1.20; P = .15). CONCLUSIONS: At 1 year, no statistically significant difference in rates of composite ischemia or mortality among patients with moderate- and high-risk ACS undergoing invasive treatment with the 3 therapies was found. There was no statistically significant difference in the rates of composite ischemia between patients receiving routine upstream administration of GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors vs deferring their use for patients undergoing PCI. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00093158.

Background: Following myocardial infarction, the ejection fraction (EF) is an indiscriminate predictor of both non-sudden cardiac death (NSCD) and sudden cardiac death (SCD). However, development of a left ventricular aneurysm (LVA) confers independent risk only for SCD. Thus, we tested the hypothesis that mechanical factors, other than the global left ventricular performance, are causally related to SCD in the presence of LVA. Methods: A secondary analysis was conducted from a longitudinal, prospective, long-term follow-up cohort study of 66 patients with LVA (diastolic eccentricity and systolic dyskinesia) diagnosed by ventriculography. The left ventricular contour was divided into five segments and contractility scores for the residual myocardium and the segments adjacent to the aneurysm were allocated along with assessment of the EF. A normal adjacent segment was considered present when at least one segment adjacent to the aneurysm exhibited normokinesia. Presence of ventricular tachycardia was documented by Holter recording. Results: At a 5.2-year median follow-up, there were 12 NSCD and 8 SCD. The EF was lower among patients who died vs. survivors (31.5% vs. 39.7%, P-0.01). Patients with NSCD and SCD, exhibited similar EF but disparate residual contractility scores (3.0 vs. 4.1, P