Non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes with previous coronary artery bypass grafting: a meta-analysis of invasive vs. conservative management

Background and Aims A routine invasive strategy is recommended in the management of higher risk patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACSs). However, patients with previous coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery were excluded from key trials that informed these guidelines. Thus, the benefit of a routine invasive strategy is less certain in this specific subgroup. Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted. A comprehensive search was performed of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Eligible studies were RCTs of routine invasive vs. a conservative or selective invasive strategy in patients presenting with NSTE-ACS that included patients with previous CABG. Summary data were collected from the authors of each trial if not previously published. Outcomes assessed were all-cause mortality, cardiac mortality, myocardial infarction, and cardiac-related hospitalization. Using a random-effects model, risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Results Summary data were obtained from 11 RCTs, including previously unpublished subgroup outcomes of nine trials, comprising 897 patients with previous CABG (477 routine invasive, 420 conservative/selective invasive) followed up for a weighted mean of 2.0 (range 0.5–10) years. A routine invasive strategy did not reduce all-cause mortality (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.97–1.29), cardiac mortality (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.70–1.58), myocardial infarction (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.65–1.23), or cardiac-related hospitalization (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.78–1.40). Conclusions This is the first meta-analysis assessing the effect of a routine invasive strategy in patients with prior CABG who present with NSTE-ACS. The results confirm the under-representation of this patient group in RCTs of invasive management in NSTE-ACS and suggest that there is no benefit to a routine invasive strategy compared to a conservative approach with regard to major adverse cardiac events. These findings should be validated in an adequately powered RCT

Effect of everolimus introduction on cardiac allograft vasculopathy--results of a randomized, multicenter trial.

BACKGROUND Everolimus reduces the progression of cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV) in de novo heart transplant (HTx) recipients, but the influence on established CAV is unknown. METHODS In this Nordic Certican Trial in Heart and lung Transplantation substudy, 111 maintenance HTx recipients (time post-HTx 5.8 ± 4.3 years) randomized to everolimus+reduced calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) or standard CNI had matching (intravascular ultrasound) examinations at baseline and 12 months allowing accurate assessment of CAV progression. RESULTS No significant difference in CAV progression was evident between the treatment groups (P = 0.30). When considering patients receiving concomitant azathioprine (AZA) therapy (n = 39), CAV progression was attenuated with everolimus versus standard CNI (Δmaximal intimal thickness 0.00 ± 0.04 and 0.04 ± 0.04 mm, Δpercent atheroma volume 0.2% ± 3.0% and 2.6% ± 2.5%, and Δtotal atheroma volume 0.25 ± 14.1 and 19.8 ± 20.4 mm(3), respectively [P < 0.05]). When considering patients receiving mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), accelerated CAV progression occurred with everolimus versus standard CNI (Δmaximal intimal thickness 0.06 ± 0.12 vs. 0.02 ± 0.06 mm and Δpercent atheroma volume 4.0% ± 6.3% vs. 1.4% ± 3.1%, respectively; P < 0.05). The levels of C-reactive protein and vascular cell adhesion molecule-1 declined significantly with AZA+everolimus, whereas MMF+everolimus patients demonstrated a significant increase in levels of C-reactive protein, vascular cell adhesion molecule-1, and von Willebrand factor. CONCLUSIONS Conversion to everolimus and reduced CNI does not influence CAV progression among maintenance HTx recipients. However, background immunosuppressive therapy is important as AZA+everolimus patients demonstrated attenuated CAV progression and a decline in inflammatory markers, whereas the opposite pattern was seen with everolimus+MMF. The different effect of everolimus when combined with AZA versus MMF could potentially reflect hitherto unknown interactions