Search

BACKGROUND The occurrence of acute kidney injury (AKI) among patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing invasive management is associated with worse outcomes. However, the prognostic implications of transient or in-hospital persistent AKI may differ. OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to evaluate the prognostic implications of transient or in-hospital persistent AKI in patients with ACS. METHODS In the MATRIX (Minimizing Adverse Haemorrhagic Events by Transradial Access Site and Systemic Implementation of Angiox) trial, 203 subjects were excluded because of incomplete information or end-stage renal disease, with a study population of 8,201 patients. Transient and persistent AKI were defined as renal dysfunction no longer or still fulfilling the AKI criteria (>0.5 mg/dL or a relative >25% increase in creatinine) at discharge, respectively. Thirty-day coprimary outcomes were the out-of-hospital composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (major adverse cardiovascular events [MACE]) and net adverse cardiovascular events (NACE), defined as the composite of MACE or Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 or 5 bleeding. RESULTS Persistent and transient AKI occurred in 750 (9.1%) and 587 (7.2%) subjects, respectively. After multivariable adjustment, compared with patients without AKI, the risk for 30-day coprimary outcomes was higher in patients with persistent AKI (MACE: adjusted HR: 2.32; 95% CI: 1.48-3.64; P < 0.001; NACE: adjusted HR: 2.29; 95% CI: 1.48-3.52; P < 0.001), driven mainly by all-cause mortality (adjusted HR: 3.43; 95% CI: 2.03-5.82; P < 0.001), whereas transient AKI was not associated with higher rates of MACE or NACE. Results remained consistent when implementing the KDIGO (Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes) criteria. CONCLUSIONS Among patients with ACS undergoing invasive management, in-hospital persistent but not transient AKI was associated with higher risk for 30-day MACE and NACE. (Minimizing Adverse Haemorrhagic Events by Transradial Access Site and Systemic Implementation of Angiox [MATRIX]; NCT01433627).

Pulmonary embolism is the third most common cause of cardiovascular emergency. Risk stratification is crucial in the clinical and therapeutic management of these patients. The latest European guidelines introduced a new classification based on short-term mortality risk stratification, dividing patients into four categories (high, intermediate-high, intermediate-low and low risk). Despite the limited evidence in this field, the percutaneous treatment of pulmonary embolism represents an option of interest; however, correct patient selection and device choice should be better investigated. In this article, we present two case reports of patients with intermediate-high-risk and high-risk pulmonary embolism treated with the EkoSonic Endovascular System (EKOS Corp., Bothell, WA, USA) and the FlowTriever System (Inari Medical, Irvine, CA, USA), respectively.

Background: Intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) showed to be effective in dilating heavily calcified de novo coronary lesions but little is known about its performance in under-expanded stents management. Aim of this study was to assess the feasibility, effectiveness and safety of IVL for the treatment of stent underexpansion refractory to balloon dilatation. Methods: A multicentre, retrospective cohort analysis was performed in patients undergoing IVL to treat under-expanded stents following non-compliant balloon expansion failure. Primary endpoint was successful IVL dilatation defined as IVL balloon delivery and application at the target site followed by an increase of at least 1 mm2 in minimal stent cross-sectional area (MSA) on intracoronary imaging or an increase of at least 20% in minimal stent diameter (MSD) by quantitative coronary analysis (QCA). Results: Thirty-nine under-expanded stents (34 patients) were included. Two cases (5.1%) of multiple stent layers and one (2.5%) acutely under-expanded stent were treated. The median IVL balloon diameter was 3.1 mm (IQR: 2.5–3.5 mm) while the number of pulses emitted was 56.7 (IQR: 30–80). IVL was successful in 34 cases (87.1%), with significant improvement in MSD (post: 3.23 mm [IQR: 3–3.5 mm] vs. pre: 0.81 mm [IQR: 0.35–1.2], p < 0.00001) and MSA (post: 7.61mm2 [IQR: 6.43–7.79mm2] vs. pre: 3.35 [IQR: 2.8–4 mm2], p < 0.00001). Non-fatal peri-procedural ST-elevation myocardial infarction occurred in one case (2.5%) due to IVL balloon rupture. No cardiac death, target lesion revascularization and stent thrombosis occurred in-hospital and at 30-day follow-up. Conclusions: Bailout IVL was feasible, efficacious and safe to improve refractory stent under-expansion.

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.

Coronary chronic total occlusion lesions (CTOs) confer an increased risk of arrhythmic events among patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) carriers, however the impact of CTO recanalization in this population remains unassessed.Evaluate the impact of CTOs percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) on arrhythmic events.Patients with ICM and ICD from the VACTO I-II registries: patients with medically treated CTO (CTO-OMT group) and without CTO (no-CTO group) were compared after inverse-probability-weighting adjustment (IPWT) with a similar population of consecutive patients undergoing CTO-PCI. The primary endpoint was appropriate ICD therapy. The secondary endpoint was all-cause mortality.The total of 622 patients (mean age 67 ± 10 years, mean left ventricular ejection fraction 36 ± 11%) included in the analysis was composed by: CTO-PCI patients n = 113, CTO-OMT patients n = 286, no-CTO patients n = 223. In the CTO-PCI group, compared to the CTO-OMT group, 5-year Kaplan Meier estimates for appropriate ICD therapy (20.4% vs. 56.4%, IPW-adjusted HR: 0.45, 95% CI 0.29-0.71) and mortality (8.8% vs. 23%, IPW-adjusted HR: 0.43, 95% CI 0.22-0.85) were lower, driven by infarct related artery CTO (IRA-CTO) PCI, while similar to those occurring in the no-CTO group.In this large population, those with CTO receiving PCI had lower arrhythmic event rates and lower mortality compared to the CTO-OMT group, while showing an event rate similar to no-CTO patients. Sensitivity analyses suggest that the beneficial effect on the arrhythmic outcome was driven by IRA-CTO revascularization.Chronic total occlusion.

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

Background The impact of coronary artery disease (CAD) extension/complexity on outcomes and on the comparative benefits/risks of zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES) versus bare-metal stents (BMS) remains unclear in patients at high risk of bleeding or thrombosis or at low restenosis risk. Methods We performed a post-hoc analysis of the ZEUS trial. The impact of coronary anatomic complexity measured by the SYNTAX score on the differences in outcomes following ZES and BMS was assessed at 1 year. Results The mean SYNTAX score was 16.3 ± 13.1 with a median of 12 (IQR: 7 to 22). We stratified patients according to SYNTAX tertiles (0–8: n = 563; >8–19 n = 532; >19: n = 511), and observed that the higher the score, the correspondingly higher was the rate of the primary endpoint of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and other ischemic events, but not bleeding after adjustment. The superior efficacy of ZES versus BMS for MACE was consistent across SYNTAX tertiles (tertile 1: HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.44–1.13; tertile 2: HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.46–1.09; tertile 3: HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.61–1.10) without significant heterogeneity (p for trend = 0.55). This between-groups difference mainly reflected a reduction in MI and TVR without effect on mortality. There was no significant interaction between the SYNTAX score and allocated stent type with respect to ischemic and bleeding endpoints. Conclusions The SYNTAX score was predictor of major adverse cardiovascular events but not bleeding and ZES provided superior efficacy and safety than BMS across the whole spectrum of CAD complexity. SYNTAX score may be routinely used for the assessment of the ischemic risk (but not bleeding) after PCI and should not guide the decision-making for DES versus BMS in patients undergoing PCI.

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

Introduction The impact of Impella and ECMO (ECPELLA) in cardiogenic shock (CS) remains to be defined. The aim of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the benefit of ECPELLA compared to VA-ECMO in patients with non post-pericardiotomy CS. Methods All studies reporting short term outcomes of ECpella or VA ECMO in non post-pericardiotomy CS were included. The primary endpoint was 30-day mortality. Vascular and bleeding complications and LVAD implantation/heart transplant within 30-days were assessed as secondary outcomes. Results Of 407 studies identified, 13 observational studies (13,682 patients, 13,270 with ECMO and 412 with ECpella) were included in this analysis. 30-day mortality was 55.8% (51.6–59.9) in the VA-ECMO group and 58.3% (53.5–63.0) in the ECpella group. At meta-regression analysis the implantation of IABP did not affect mortality in the ECMO group. The rate of major bleeding in patients on VA-ECMO and ECpella support were 21.3% (16.9–26.5) and 33.1% (25.9–41.2) respectively, while the rates of the composite outcome of LVAD implantation and heart transplantation within 30-days in patients on VA-ECMO and ECpella support were 14.4% (9.0–22.2) and 10.8%. When directly compared in 3 studies, ECpella showed a positive effect on 30-day mortality compared to ECMO (OR: 1.81: 1.039–3.159). Conclusion Our data suggest that ECpella may reduce 30-day mortality and increase left ventricle recovery, despite increased of bleeding rates.

Device loss or entrapment during percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) is a rare circumstance whose incidence has decreased over time mainly because of device improvements. Nevertheless, they still represent fearful complications also and above all because the operators may be unfamiliar with rescue and retrieval techniques. The devices that most frequently experience loss or entrapment are stents, followed by angioplasty balloons, burrs for rotational atherectomy, guidewires and microcatheters. In this review we will illustrate the risk factors for device loss and the main retrieval techniques, as described in the literature or stemmed from our experience as high-volume PCI center.

The following article describes the case report of a 52-year-old man who is affected by a right coronary artery occlusion treated with rotational atherectomy over retrograde guidewire RG3 in subadventitial space.

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.

Summary Background The Minimizing Adverse Haemorrhagic Events by Transradial Access Site and Systemic Implementation of Angiox (MATRIX) programme was designed to assess the comparative safety and effectiveness of radial versus femoral access and of bivalirudin versus unfractionated heparin with optional glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors in patients with the whole spectrum of acute coronary syndrome undergoing invasive management. Here we describe the prespecified final 1-year outcomes of the entire programme. Methods MATRIX was a programme of three nested, randomised, multicentre, open-label, superiority trials in patients with acute coronary syndrome in 78 hospitals in Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, and Sweden. Patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction were simultaneously randomly assigned (1:1) before coronary angiography to radial or femoral access and to bivalirudin, with or without post-percutaneous coronary intervention infusion or unfractionated heparin (one-step inclusion). Patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome were randomly assigned (1:1) before coronary angiography to radial or femoral access and, only if deemed eligible to percutaneous coronary intervention after angiography (two-step inclusion), entered the antithrombin type and treatment duration programmes. Randomisation sequences were computer generated, blocked, and stratified by intended new or current use of P2Y12 inhibitor (clopidogrel vs ticagrelor or prasugrel), and acute coronary syndrome type (ST-elevation myocardial infarction, troponin-positive, or troponin-negative non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome). Bivalirudin was given as a bolus of 0·75 mg/kg, followed immediately by an infusion of 1·75 mg/kg per h until completion of percutaneous coronary intervention. Heparin was given at 70–100 units per kg in patients not receiving glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, and at 50–70 units per kg in patients receiving glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors. Clinical follow-up was done at 30 days and 1 year. Co-primary outcomes for MATRIX access and MATRIX antithrombin type were major adverse cardiovascular events, defined as the composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, or stroke up to 30 days; and net adverse clinical events, defined as the composite of non-coronary artery bypass graft-related major bleeding, or major adverse cardiovascular events up to 30 days. The primary outcome for MATRIX treatment duration was the composite of urgent target vessel revascularisation, definite stent thrombosis, or net adverse clinical events up to 30 days. Analyses were done according to the intention-to-treat principle. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01433627. Findings Between Oct 11, 2011, and Nov 7, 2014, we randomly assigned 8404 patients to receive radial (4197 patients) or femoral (4207 patients) access. Of these 8404 patients, 7213 were included in the MATRIX antithrombin type study and were randomly assigned to bivalirudin (3610 patients) or heparin (3603 patients). Patients assigned to bivalirudin were included in the MATRIX treatment duration study, and were randomly assigned to post-procedure infusion (1799 patients) or no post-procedure infusion (1811 patients). At 1 year, major adverse cardiovascular events did not differ between patients assigned to radial access compared with those assigned to femoral access (14·2% vs 15·7%; rate ratio 0·89, 95% CI 0·80–1·00; p=0·0526), but net adverse clinical events were fewer with radial than with femoral access (15·2% vs 17·2%; 0·87, 0·78–0·97; p=0·0128). Compared with heparin, bivalirudin was not associated with fewer major adverse cardiovascular (15·8% vs 16·8%; 0·94, 0·83–1·05; p=0·28) or net adverse clinical events (17·0% vs 18·4%; 0·91, 0·81–1·02; p=0·10). The composite of urgent target vessel revascularisation, stent thrombosis, or net adverse clinical events did not differ with or without post-procedure bivalirudin infusion (17·4% vs 17·4%; 0·99, 0·84–1·16; p=0·90). Interpretation In patients with acute coronary syndrome, radial access was associated with lower rates of net adverse clinical events compared with femoral access, but not major adverse cardiovascular events at 1 year. Bivalirudin with or without post-procedure infusion was not associated with lower rates of major adverse cardiovascular events or net adverse clinical events. Radial access should become the default approach in acute coronary syndrome patients undergoing invasive management. Funding Italian Society of Invasive Cardiology, The Medicines Company, Terumo, amd Canada Research Chairs Programme.

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.

To compare in patients with ACS (acute coronary syndromes) a PCI (percutaneous coronary intervention) approach based on FFR (fractional flow reserve) vs. one based on OCT (optical coherence tomography).Consecutive patients admitted for ACS and treated with a PCI approach based on OCT or on FFR (recruited in two different studies) were compared and matched with propensity score analysis. Target Lesion revascularization (TLR) was the primary end point, while major adverse cardiovascular events [MACEs defined as the composite of death from cardiac causes, non-fatal MI, clinically driven target vessel revascularization (TVR), or re-hospitalization due to unstable angina] were the secondary ones. Sub-group analysis was performed for patients with FFR/OCT performed on culprit lesions and not. 285 patients were enrolled in the OCT-guided group and 335 in the FFR-guided group, 197 for each being selected after propensity score. After 25months (range: 7-39months), OCT-guided group were exposed to lower incidence of TLR (4.1% vs. 14.2% p0.01) compared with FFR-guided group without impact on MACEs (14.2% vs. 14.2%, p=1) or all-cause death (3.6% vs. 1.1%, p=0.34). At Kaplan-Maier curve analysis for MACEs OCT-guided and FFR-guided groups showed similar outcomes (HR 1.19, CI 0.65-2.2, p=0.54). Subgroup analysis on culprit and not culprit vessel demonstrated consistent results.An OCT based approach in ACS patients offers a reduction in TLR when compared to a PCI-FFR driven. These findings should be confirmed in randomized controlled trial.

Objectives Culprit plaque characteristics in young patients who experience an Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS) evaluated by OCT (Optical Coherence Tomography) have to be defined. The OCT-FORMIDABLE is a multicentre retrospective registry enrolling consecutive patients with ACS who performed OCT in 9 European centres. Methods Patients were divided in two groups according to age at presentation: juvenile-ACS (age ≤ 50 years) and not juvenile-ACS (age > 50 years). Primary end-point was the prevalence of plaque rupture (PR). Secondary end point was the prevalence of thin cap fibro atheroma (TCFA), fibrocalcific and fibrotic plaque. Results 285 patients were included, 71 (24.9%) in juvenile-ACS group and 215 (75.1%) in not juvenile-ACS group. Younger patients showed a trend for a higher prevalence of TCFA (70 vs. 58%, P = 0.06) and thrombus presence (62 vs. 51%, P = 0.1), while no statistical difference concerning PR (70 vs. 64%, P = 0.29). Of interest patients younger that 35 years showed a higher prevalence of PR compared to patients aged between 35 and 45 or 45 and 50 years (100 vs. 72 vs. 55%, P = 0.03). Culprit plaque in juvenile-ACS group showed more frequently a reduced mean cap thickness (119 ± 66 vs. 155 ± 95 nm, P = 0.05) and less frequently fibrotic (32 vs. 57%, P

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

Background The use of drug-eluting stent (DES) instead of bare-metal stent (BMS) in patients at high stent thrombosis or bleeding risk as well as in those at low restenosis risk (ie, uncertain DES candidates) remains a matter of debate. Zotarolimus-Eluting Endeavor Sprint stent (E-ZES) (Santa Rosa, CA) is a hydrophilic polymer-based second-generation device with unique drug fast-release profile, which may allow for a shorter dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) duration without safety concerns. Hypothesis The primary objective is to assess whether E-ZES implantation followed by a shorter than currently recommended course of DAPT will decrease the incidence of 12-month major adverse cardiovascular events as compared with BMS in undefined DES recipients. Actual duration of DAPT regimen will be dictated by patients' characteristics and not by stent type and, as such, can be as short as 30 days after intervention in both stent groups. Study Design The ZEUS study is an open-label randomized clinical trial conducted at 20 clinical sites in Italy, Switzerland, Portugal, and Hungary. With 1,600 individuals, this study will have 85% power to detect a 33% difference in the primary end point consisting of the composite of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization. Summary The ZEUS trial aims to assess whether the use of E-ZES, followed by a DAPT duration regimen based on patients' characteristics and not by stent type, is superior to conventional BMS implantation in undefined DES recipients who qualify for the presence of high thrombosis, bleeding, or low restenosis risk criteria.

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 )

Background Current treatment standards for patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention support early infusion of abciximab, followed by bare-metal stent (BMS) implantation. Whether the use of sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) would result in a further improvement of clinical outcomes remains to be proven. Similarly, whether tirofiban administered at high-bolus dose (HBD) followed by standard infusion is a valuable alternative to abciximab in the setting of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction remains uncertain. Study Design Multicentre evaluation of single high-bolus dose tirofiban versus abciximab and sirolimus-eluting versus bare metal stent in acute myocardial infarction (MULTI-STRATEGY) is a phase III, open-label, multinational investigator-driven clinical trial evaluating, with a 2-by-2 factorial design, the safety/efficacy profile of 4 interventional strategies of reperfusion: tirofiban given at HBD (bolus of 25 μg/kg over 3 minutes), followed by an infusion of 0.15 μg/kg per minute for 18 to 24 hours versus abciximab and SES, as compared to BMS implantation in primary percutaneous coronary intervention. The coprimary objectives are (i) the evaluation of the effect of SES versus BMS on the incidence of major adverse cardiac events within 8 months of the index procedure and (ii) the degree of ST-segment resolution obtained after the mechanical intervention for the comparison of HBD tirofiban versus abciximab. The protocol mandates clinical follow-up for 5 years. Conclusions MULTI-STRATEGY will evaluate the role of SES and HBD tirofiban versus BMS and abciximab in the acute management of patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.

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).

To assess whether glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibition using tirofiban in low risk patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) may reduce the risk of periprocedural myocardial infarction compared to standard care in poor responders to aspirin and/or clopidogrel. We will enroll patients at ten European sites or more to participate in the Tailoring Treatment with Tirofiban in patients showing Resistance to aspirin and/or Resistance to clopidogrel (3T/2R) study with a pre-specified sample size of 240 patients out of 1,100 or more who will undergo screening. The primary outcome measure is troponin I or T elevation ratio at least three times the upper limit of normal within 48 h after completion of the PCI. The results of 3T/2R study will evaluate whether tailored intensification of anti-platelet treatment based on poor individual response to oral anti-platelet agents may modulate the risk of periprocedural myocardial infarction during PCI. Our findings attempt at unraveling a new era of individualized anti-platelet treatment through the use of point-of-care assessment.

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.

Objectives: Percutaneous treatment of acquired coronary fistula with covered stent Background: Acquired aorto-coronary fistulae (ACF) is a rare complication of coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. Surgical repair has been generally recommended, but percutaneous techniques have also been described; coils were used primarily in smaller fistula while double umbrella or vascular occlusion devices were used in larger ones. To the best of our knowledge the use of coronary covered stent has never been reported. A 73-year-old man underwent CABG in November 2004 for unstable angina and left internal mammary artery (LIMA) was anastomized to left anterior descending (LAD) coronary artery. Three months later he underwent a control angiogram to check for the reappearance of effort angina, which demonstrated an inadvertent LIMA—great cardiac vein (GCV) anastomosis. After discussions, an attempt to close the ACF with implantation of a covered stent was performed. Methods: Using a percutaneous right internal jugular vein approach, coronary sinus was selectively cannulated and a 0.014-in. coronary guide wire was advanced selectively to the GCV, then a covered stent was deployed across the anastomotic site, obtaining the immediate occlusion of the ACF. Results: No contrast medium flowed into the distal part of the GCV at the reinjection of the coronary sinus and a selective injection into LIMA showed the absence of flow through LIMA, confirming the occlusion of the anastomotic site. Conclusions: We have demonstrated successful occlusion of an iatrogenic ACF by using percutaneous stenting of GCV with covered stent via coronary sinus approach, which seems to be technically less demanding, safer, and time sparing. © 2006 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

The growing number of research on quality of life is stimulated by the need to compare therapeutic treatments that have a similar efficacy to reduce mid- and long-term mortality, but that can warrant different levels of quality of life. The aim of this review was to describe theories and applications of different questionnaires (generic vs specific), methodology to construct a new questionnaire, and the methods of translation and cross-cultural adaptation in another language. Finally, the characteristics of the Coronary Revascularization Outcome Questionnaire, a validated instrument that measures symptoms, physical, psychosocial and cognitive function, adverse effects and satisfaction with treatment for bypass surgery and coronary angioplasty are described. The Italian version is actually used in a multicenter trial in several heart surgery and interventional departments.

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.