Drug-Eluting Stents in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease: A Prospective Registry Study

BACKGROUND: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is strongly associated with adverse outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). There are limited data on the effectiveness of drug-eluting stents (DES) in patients with CKD. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Of 3,752 consecutive patients enrolled in the Guthrie PCI Registry between 2001 and 2006, 436 patients with CKD - defined as a creatinine clearance <60 mL/min - were included in this study. Patients who received DES were compared to those who received bare metal stents (BMS). Patients were followed for a mean duration of 3 years after the index PCI to determine the prognostic impact of stent type. Study end-points were all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel revascularization (TVR), stent thrombosis (ST) and the composite of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as death, MI or TVR. Patients receiving DES in our study, by virtue of physician selection, had more stable coronary artery disease and had lower baseline risk of thrombotic or restenotic events. Kaplan-Meier estimates of proportions of patients reaching the end-points were significantly lower for DES vs. BMS for all-cause death (p = 0.0008), TVR (p = 0.029) and MACE (p = 0.0015), but not MI (p = 0.945) or ST (p = 0.88). Multivariable analysis with propensity adjustment demonstrated that DES implantation was an independent predictor of lower rates of all-cause death (hazard ratio [HR] 0.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.25-0.92), TVR (HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.27-0.94) and MACE (HR 0.62, 95% CI 0.41-0.94). CONCLUSIONS: In a contemporary PCI registry, selective use of DES in patients with CKD was safe and effective in the long term, with lower risk of all-cause death, TVR and MACE and similar risk of MI and ST as compared with BMS. The mortality benefit may be a result of selection bias and residual confounding, or represent a true finding; a hypothesis that warrants clarification by randomized clinical trials

Accounting for the mortality benefit of drug-eluting stents in percutaneous coronary intervention: a comparison of methods in a retrospective cohort study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Drug-eluting stents (DES) reduce rates of restenosis compared with bare metal stents (BMS). A number of observational studies have also found lower rates of mortality and non-fatal myocardial infarction with DES compared with BMS, findings not observed in randomized clinical trials. In order to explore reasons for this discrepancy, we compared outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with DES or BMS by multiple statistical methods.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We compared short-term rates of all-cause mortality and myocardial infarction for patients undergoing PCI with DES or BMS using propensity-score adjustment, propensity-score matching, and a stent-era comparison in a large, integrated health system between 1998 and 2007. For the propensity-score adjustment and stent era comparisons, we used multivariable logistic regression to assess the association of stent type with outcomes. We used McNemar's Chi-square test to compare outcomes for propensity-score matching.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Between 1998 and 2007, 35,438 PCIs with stenting were performed among health plan members (53.9% DES and 46.1% BMS). After propensity-score adjustment, DES was associated with significantly lower rates of death at 30 days (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.39 - 0.63, <it>P </it>< 0.001) and one year (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.49 - 0.68, <it>P </it>< 0.001), and a lower rate of myocardial infarction at one year (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59 - 0.87, <it>P </it>< 0.001). Thirty day and one year mortality were also lower with DES after propensity-score matching. However, a stent era comparison, which eliminates potential confounding by indication, showed no difference in death or myocardial infarction for DES and BMS, similar to results from randomized trials.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Although propensity-score methods suggested a mortality benefit with DES, consistent with prior observational studies, a stent era comparison failed to support this conclusion. Unobserved factors influencing stent selection in observational studies likely account for the observed mortality benefit of DES not seen in randomized clinical trials.</p

Use of platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors in diabetics undergoing PCI for non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes: impact of clinical status and procedural characteristics

Background: The most recent ESC guidelines for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) recommend the use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPI) in high risk patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACS), particularly in diabetics. Little is known about the adherence to these guidelines within Europe. Methods and results: Between May 2005 and April 2008 a total of 47,407 consecutive patients undergoing PCI were prospectively enrolled into the PCI-Registry of the Euro Heart Survey Programme. In the present analysis we examined the use of GPI in 2,922 diabetics who underwent PCI for NSTE-ACS. In this high risk population only 22.2% received a GPI; 8.9% upstream and 13.4% during PCI. The strategy of the individual institution had a major impact on the usage of GPI. In the multiple regression analysis clinical instability and complex lesion characteristics were strong independent determinants for the use of GPI, whereas renal insufficiency was negatively associated with its use. After adjustment for confounding variables no significant differences in hospital mortality could be observed between the cohorts, but a significantly higher rate of non-fatal postprocedural myocardial infarction was observed among patients receiving GPI upstream. Conclusions: Despite the recommendation for its use in the current ESC guidelines, only a minority of the diabetics in Europe undergoing PCI for NSTE-ACS received a GPI. The use of GPI was mainly triggered by high-risk interventional scenarios

The "smoker's paradox" in patients with acute coronary syndrome: a systematic review

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Smokers have been shown to have lower mortality after acute coronary syndrome than non-smokers. This has been attributed to the younger age, lower co-morbidity, more aggressive treatment and lower risk profile of the smoker. Some studies, however, have used multivariate analyses to show a residual survival benefit for smokers; that is, the "smoker's paradox". The aim of this study was, therefore, to perform a systematic review of the literature and evidence surrounding the existence of the "smoker's paradox".</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Relevant studies published by September 2010 were identified through literature searches using EMBASE (from 1980), MEDLINE (from 1963) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, with a combination of text words and subject headings used. English-language original articles were included if they presented data on hospitalised patients with defined acute coronary syndrome, reported at least in-hospital mortality, had a clear definition of smoking status (including ex-smokers), presented crude and adjusted mortality data with effect estimates, and had a study sample of > 100 smokers and > 100 non-smokers. Two investigators independently reviewed all titles and abstracts in order to identify potentially relevant articles, with any discrepancies resolved by repeated review and discussion.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A total of 978 citations were identified, with 18 citations from 17 studies included thereafter. Six studies (one observational study, three registries and two randomised controlled trials on thrombolytic treatment) observed a "smoker's paradox". Between the 1980s and 1990s these studies enrolled patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) according to criteria similar to the World Health Organisation criteria from 1979. Among the remaining 11 studies not supporting the existence of the paradox, five studies represented patients undergoing contemporary management.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The "smoker's paradox" was observed in some studies of AMI patients in the pre-thrombolytic and thrombolytic era, whereas no studies of a contemporary population with acute coronary syndrome have found evidence for such a paradox.</p

Intravascular ultrasound pulmonary artery denervation to treat pulmonary arterial hypertension (TROPHY1)

Objectives The aim of this study was to investigate whether therapeutic intravascular ultrasound pulmonary artery denervation (PDN) is safe and reduces pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) in patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) on a minimum of dual oral therapy. Background Early studies have suggested that PDN can reduce PVR in patients with PAH. Methods TROPHY1 (Treatment of Pulmonary Hypertension 1) was a multicenter, international, open-label trial undertaken at 8 specialist centers. Patients 18 to 75 years of age with PAH were eligible if taking dual oral or triple nonparenteral therapy and not responsive to acute vasodilator testing. Eligible patients underwent PDN (TIVUS System). The primary safety endpoint was procedure-related adverse events at 30 days. Secondary endpoints included procedure-related adverse events, disease worsening and death to 12 months, and efficacy endpoints that included change in pulmonary hemodynamic status, 6-min walk distance, and quality of life from baseline to 4 or 6 months. Patients were to remain on disease-specific medication for the duration of the study. Results Twenty-three patients underwent PDN, with no procedure-related serious adverse events reported. The reduction in PVR at 4- or 6-month follow-up was 94 ± 151 dyn·s·cm−5 (p = 0.001) or 17.8%, which was associated with a 42 ± 63 m (p = 0.02) increase in 6-min walk distance and a 671 ± 1,555 step (p = 0.04) increase in daily activity. Conclusions In this multicenter early feasibility study, PDN with an intravascular ultrasound catheter was performed without procedure-related adverse events and was associated with a reduction in PVR and increases in 6-min walk distance and daily activity in patients with PAH on background dual or triple therapy