Use of drug-eluting stents in Victorian public hospitals

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess the pattern of use of drug-eluting stents (DESs) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) in Victorian public hospitals. DESIGN, SETTING AND PATIENTS: Prospective study comparing the use of one or more DESs versus bare-metal stents (BMSs) only, in consecutive patients undergoing 2428 PCIs with stent implantation from 1 April 2004 to 31 December 2005 at seven Victorian public hospitals. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Adherence to current Victorian Department of Human Services guidelines which recommend DES use in patients with high-risk features for restenosis (diabetes, small vessels, long lesions, in-stent restenotic lesions, chronic total occlusions and bifurcation lesions). RESULTS: Of the 2428 PCIs performed, at least one DES was implanted in 1101 (45.3%) and BMSs only were implanted in 1327 (54.7%). In 87.7% (966/1101) of PCI with DESs, there was at least one criterion for high risk of restenosis. DESs were more likely to be used in patients with diabetes (risk ratio [RR], 2.45; 95% CI, 2.02-2.97), small vessels (RR, 3.35; 95%CI, 2.35-4.76), long lesions (RR, 3.87; 95% CI, 3.23-4.65), in-stent restenotic lesions (RR, 3.98; 95%CI, 2.67-6.06), chronic total occlusions (RR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.51-2.88) and bifurcation lesions (RR, 2.23; 95%CI, 1.57-3.17). However, 66.2% (1608/2428) of all PCIs were in patients eligible for DESs according to Victorian guidelines, and in 39.9% (642/1608) of these PCIs, a BMS was used. CONCLUSION: In Victorian public hospitals, DESs have been largely reserved for patients at high risk of restenosis in accordance with Department of Human Services guidelines. However, many patients with high-risk criteria for restenosis did not receive DESs. Greater use of DESs in these patients may improve outcomes by reducing the need for repeat revascularisation.5 page(s

Outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention of ostial lesions in the era of drug-eluting stents

Background: Ostial lesions are a difficult subset associated with suboptimal outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The aim of this study was to analyze outcomes of ostial lesions in contemporary Australian interventional practice. Methods: The study population comprised 1,713 consecutive patients who underwent PCI for proximal lesions of the left anterior descending, left circumflex, and right coronary arteries, who were prospectively enrolled in the Melbourne Interventional Group Registry (February 2004-December 2006). We compared the in-hospital, 30-day, and 1-year outcomes of the 109 patients undergoing PCI for ostial, with the 1,604 patients with proximal nonostial lesions. Left main and bifurcation lesions were excluded. Results: Patients in the ostial group were older (mean age 68.8 ± 11 vs. 64.9 ± 12 years; P = 0.001), and there was a greater proportion of women (38.5% vs. 28.0%; P = 0.021). Other clinical characteristics were similar. The nonostial group were more likely receive a stent (94.6% vs. 87.2%; P = 0.005) but drug-eluting stents (DES) were deployed more often in the ostial group (47.9% vs. 66.1%; P < 0.0001). There was lower procedural success, with no significant difference in in-hospital death, bleeding or emergency PCI, but unplanned in-hospital coronary artery bypass grafting was more frequent in the ostial group (4.8% vs. 1.0%; P = 0.007). There was no difference in 30-day major adverse cardiac events. However, 12-month death (8.8% vs. 4%, log rank P = 0.032) and MACE (24.2% vs. 13.8%, log rank P = 0.005) were higher in the ostial group than the nonostial group with trends to increased incidence of myocardial infarction (6.6% vs. 4.7%, P = NS), and target vessel revascularization (13.2% vs. 7.9%, P = NS). Conclusion: In contemporary, Australian interventional practice, PCI for ostial lesions is associated with a high incidence of adverse outcome at one year despite the introduction of DES. © 2009 Wiley-Liss, Inc

Evolution of Australian Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (from the Melbourne Interventional Group [MIG] Registry)

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) continues to evolve with shifting patient demographics, treatments, and outcomes. We sought to document the specific changes observed over a 9-year period in a contemporary Australian PCI cohort. The Melbourne Interventional Group is an established multicenter PCI registry in Melbourne, Australia. Data were collected prospectively with 30-day and 12-month follow-ups. Demographic, procedural, and outcome data for all consecutive patients were analyzed with a year-to-year comparison from 2005 to 2013. National Death Index linkage was performed for long-term mortality analysis; 19,858 procedures were captured over 9 years. Patient complexity and acuity increased with a higher proportion of traditional risk factors and more elderly patients who underwent PCI. Angiographic lesion complexity increased with more multivessel coronary artery disease and more American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association type B2/C lesions proceeding to PCI. The 30-day rate of death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization has not changed nor has 12-month mortality, myocardial infarction, or major adverse cardiovascular event rates. The strongest independent predictor of long-term mortality was cardiogenic shock at presentation (hazard ratio [HR] 2.95, p <0.01). Drug-eluting stent use (HR 0.83, p <0.01) and a history of dyslipidemia (HR 0.81, p <0.01) were associated with long-term survival. In conclusion, from 2005 to 2013, we observed a cohort of higher risk clinical and angiographic characteristics, with stable long-term mortality

Clopidogrel, Prasugrel or Ticagrelor in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

Background: Guidelines recommend prasugrel or ticagrelor instead of clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). Aim: We sought to describe the trends in uptake of the newer agents and analyse the clinical characteristics and short-term outcomes of patients treated with clopidogrel, prasugrel or ticagrelor. Methods: We analysed the temporal trends of antiplatelet use since the availability of prasugrel (2009–2013) in patients with ACS from the Melbourne Interventional Group registry. To assess clinical characteristics and outcomes, we included 1850 patients from 2012 to 2013, corresponding to the time all three agents were available. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). The safety end-point was in-hospital bleeding. Results: For the period of 2009–2013, the majority of patients were treated with clopidogrel (72%) compared with prasugrel (14%) or ticagrelor (14%). There was a clear trend towards ticagrelor by the end of 2013. Patients treated with clopidogrel were more likely to present with non-ST-elevation ACS, be older, and have more comorbidities. There was no difference in unadjusted 30-day mortality (0.9 vs 0.5 vs 1.0%, P = 0.76), myocardial infarction (2 vs 1 vs 2%, P = 0.52) or MACE (3 vs 3 vs 4%, P = 0.57) between the three agents. There was no difference in in-hospital bleeding (3 vs 2 vs 2%, P = 0.64). Conclusion Prasugrel and ticagrelor are increasingly used in ACS patients treated with PCI, predominantly in a younger cohort with less comorbidity. Although antiplatelet therapy should still be individualised based on the thrombotic and bleeding risk, our study highlights the safety of the new P2Y12 inhibitors in contemporary Australian practice

Early versus delayed percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes

Background: The optimal timing of angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTEACS) remains uncertain. We sought to assess clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients in real-world contemporary practice who have early versus delayed PCI for NSTEACS. Methods: We analyzed baseline clinical and procedural characteristics of 4307 patients with NSTEACS who underwent PCI from the Melbourne Interventional Group registry. Patients were assigned to the early PCI group if intervention was performed within a calendar day of presentation. The delayed PCI group received an intervention after one calendar day, but within the index admission. We assessed 30 days and 12-month mortality, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, and major adverse cardiovascular events. The safety endpoint was in-hospital bleeding. Results: Of the 4307 patients, 2210 (51%) received early PCI. The delayed PCI group were older (67+/-12 vs. 64+/-12, P<0.01), more likely to have biomarker elevation (70 vs. 66%, P<0.01), and had more comorbidities. There was no difference in efficacy at 30 days between the groups. At 12 months, delayed PCI was associated with higher mortality (4.6 vs. 3.3%, P=0.02), myocardial infarction (7.9 vs. 5.2%, P<0.01), and MACE (15.5 vs. 12.4%, P<0.01). On multivariate analysis, delayed PCI was not associated with increased mortality at 12 months (odds ratio 0.95, 95% confidence interval 0.7-1.3). Conclusion: In patients with stable NSTEACS treated with PCI, delayed intervention was performed in those who were older and had higher risk features. However, there appears to be no mortality hazard for these high-risk patients where PCI is delayed beyond the first 24 h after presentation and performed within the index admission