Incidence and impact on prognosis of peri-procedural myocardial infarction in 2760 elective patients with stable angina pectoris in a historical prospective follow-up study

BACKGROUND: The clinical significance of myocardial infarction related to treatment with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has been subject of great discussion. This subject has been studied for many years using different definitions of peri-procedural myocardial infarction and different biomarkers, the results have varied greatly depending on methods and time of the study. This study was to determine the incidence and prognostic significance of elevated cardiac biomarkers after elective PCI in patients with stable angina pectoris using the current cut-off set by the Third Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction and current biomarkers. METHODS: We performed a historical prospective follow-up study of all patients with stable angina pectoris who underwent elective PCI at Aalborg University Hospital, Denmark from January 1(st) 2000 to December 31(st) 2012. We stratified patients according to peak post-PCI troponin T (cTnT) and Creatine Kinase MB mass (CK-MBmass). RESULTS: Follow-up for time to all-cause mortality was mean 5.8 years and total 15,891 years and mean 3.7 years and total 10,160 years for the combined endpoint of all-cause mortality and new onset heart failure. During the follow up period 399 of 2760 patients died (14.5 %) and 1095 (39.7 %) suffered the combined endpoint. Post-PCI concentration of cTnT and CK-MBmass was elevated above the defined cut-off in 419 patients (15.2 %) and 113 patients (4.1 %) respectively. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in stratified analysis of the hazard rates by time regarding all-cause mortality for cTnT nor CK-MBmass. Regarding the combined endpoint the results were ambiguous. The results were unchanged in multivariable analyses that included age and gender. CONCLUSION: The incidence of elevated biomarkers after elective PCI in patients with stable angina pectoris using the defined cut-off (>5 x URL) was 15.2 % using cTnT and 4.1 % using CK-MBmass. The independent prognostic value for both cardiac biomarkers of any cut-off showed no statistical significance for all-cause mortality, whereas the combined endpoint (all-cause mortality or new-onset heart failure) were ambiguous in both short- and long-term follow-up

Distance to invasive heart centre, performance of acute coronary angiography, and angioplasty and associated outcome in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest:a nationwide study

Aims To evaluate whether the distance from the site of event to an invasive heart centre, acute coronary angiography (CAG)/percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and hospital-level of care (invasive heart centre vs. local hospital) is associated with survival in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients. Methods and results Nationwide historical follow-up study of 41 186 unselected OHCA patients, in whom resuscitation was attempted between 2001 and 2013, identified through the Danish Cardiac Arrest Registry. We observed an increase in the proportion of patients receiving bystander CPR (18% in 2001, 60% in 2013, P &amp;lt; 0.001), achieving return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) (10% in 2001, 29% in 2013, P &amp;lt; 0.001) and being admitted directly to an invasive centre (26% in 2001, 45% in 2013, P &amp;lt; 0.001). Simultaneously, 30-day survival rose from 5% in 2001 to 12% in 2013, P &amp;lt; 0.001. Among patients achieving ROSC, a larger proportion underwent acute CAG/PCI (5% in 2001, 27% in 2013, P &amp;lt; 0.001). The proportion of patients undergoing acute CAG/PCI annually in each region was defined as the CAG/PCI index. The following variables were associated with lower mortality in multivariable analyses: direct admission to invasive heart centre (HR 0.91, 95% CI: 0.89–0.93), CAG/PCI index (HR 0.33, 95% CI: 0.25–0.45), population density above 2000 per square kilometre (HR 0.94, 95% CI: 0.89–0.98), bystander CPR (HR 0.97, 95% CI: 0.95–0.99) and witnessed OHCA (HR 0.87, 95% CI: 0.85–0.89), whereas distance to the nearest invasive centre was not associated with survival. Conclusion Admission to an invasive heart centre and regional performance of acute CAG/PCI were associated with improved survival in OHCA patients, whereas distance to the invasive centre was not. These results support a centralized strategy for immediate post-resuscitation care in OHCA patients. </jats:sec

Long-term results after simple versus complex stenting of coronary artery bifurcation lesions:nordic bifurcation study 5-year follow-up results

ObjectivesThis study sought to report the 5-year follow-up results of the Nordic Bifurcation Study.BackgroundRandomized clinical trials with short-term follow-up have indicated that coronary bifurcation lesions may be optimally treated using the optional side branch stenting strategy.MethodsA total of 413 patients with a coronary bifurcation lesion were randomly assigned to a simple stenting strategy of main vessel (MV) and optional stenting of side branch (SB) or to a complex stenting strategy, namely, stenting of both MV and SB.ResultsFive-year clinical follow-up data were available for 404 (98%) patients. The combined safety and efficacy endpoint of cardiac death, non–procedure-related myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization were seen in 15.8% in the optional SB stenting group as compared to 21.8% in the MV and SB stenting group (p = 0.15). All-cause death was seen in 5.9% versus 10.4% (p = 0.16) and non–procedure-related myocardial infarction in 4% versus 7.9% (p = 0.09) in the optional SB stenting group versus the MV and SB stenting group, respectively. The rates of target vessel revascularization were 13.4% versus 18.3% (p = 0.14) and the rates of definite stent thrombosis were 3% versus 1.5% (p = 0.31) in the optional SB stenting group versus the MV and SB stenting group, respectively.ConclusionsAt 5-year follow-up in the Nordic Bifurcation Study, the clinical outcomes after simple optional side branch stenting remained at least equal to the more complex strategy of planned stenting of both the main vessel and the side branch

Randomised comparison of provisional side branch stenting versus a two-stent strategy for treatment of true coronary bifurcation lesions involving a large side branch:the Nordic-Baltic Bifurcation Study IV

Background - It is still uncertain whether coronary bifurcations with lesions involving a large side branch (SB) should be treated by stenting the main vessel and provisional stenting of the SB (simple) or by routine two-stent techniques (complex). We aimed to compare clinical outcome after treatment of lesions in large bifurcations by simple or complex stent implantation. Methods - The study was a randomised, superiority trial. Enrolment required a SB≥2.75 mm, ≥50% diameter stenosis in both vessels, and allowed SB lesion length up to 15 mm. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiac death, non-procedural myocardial infarction and target lesion revascularisation at 6 months. Two-year clinical follow-up was included in this primary reporting due to lower than expected event rates. Results - A total of 450 patients were assigned to simple stenting (n=221) or complex stenting (n=229) in 14 Nordic and Baltic centres. Two-year follow-up was available in 218 (98.6%) and 228 (99.5%) patients, respectively. The primary endpoint of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 6 months was 5.5% vs 2.2% (risk differences 3.2%, 95% CI −0.2 to 6.8, p=0.07) and at 2 years 12.9% vs 8.4% (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.13, p=0.12) after simple versus complex treatment. In the subgroup treated by newer generation drug-eluting stents, MACE was 12.0% vs 5.6% (HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.17, p=0.10) after simple versus complex treatment. Conclusion - In the treatment of bifurcation lesions involving a large SB with ostial stenosis, routine two-stent techniques did not improve outcome significantly compared with treatment by the simpler main vessel stenting technique after 2 years

Clinical outcomes after treatment of multiple lesions with zotarolimus-eluting versus sirolimus-eluting coronary stents (a SORT OUT III substudy)

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Data on clinical outcomes among patients treated with the zotarolimus-eluting Endeavor™ stent versus the sirolimus-eluting Cypher™ stent favor the sirolimus-eluting stent. However, a separate comparison of clinical outcome among patients treated for multiple lesions with these stents is lacking. We performed this comparison within the SORT OUT III trial data set.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Among 2332 patients randomized in SORT OUT III, 695 were treated for multiple lesions with zotarolimus-eluting (n = 350) or sirolimus-eluting (n = 345) stents and followed for 18 months. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE); composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization (TVR); was the primary endpoint.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Zotarolimus-eluting compared to sirolimus-eluting stent treatment was associated with increased MACE rate (13.2% vs. 2.6%; hazard ratio 5.29 with 95% confidence interval: 2.59-10.8). All secondary endpoints; all cause death, cardiac death, myocardial infarction, TVR, target lesion revascularization, in-stent restenosis, and definite stent thrombosis; were observed more frequently among zotarolimus-eluting stent treated patients. For all endpoints, hazard ratios were 1.6 to 4.6 times higher than in the overall results of the SORT OUT III trial.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>We observed better clinical outcomes among patients treated for multiple lesions with the sirolimus-eluting stent compared to those treated with the zotarolimus-eluting stent.</p