A clinical evaluation of the XIENCE V everolimus eluting stent in the treatment of patients with coronary artery disease: Result from Thailand Registry – XIENCE V performance evaluation (THRIVE study)

Objective: To evaluate the 2-year clinical outcomes of XIENCETM V everolimus eluting stent (EES) for the treatment of coronary artery disease. Background: Percutaneous coronary intervention with a drug eluting stent has become the preferred treatment in patients with coronary artery disease. Everolimus eluting stent had proven efficacy in randomized control trials but those trials may not represent daily practice of interventional cardiology. Methods: The THRIVE study was a prospective, multicenter, real-world, single-arm registry. Included in the registry were 400 patients in Thailand with coronary artery disease suitable for treatment with the XIENCETM V. Results: At 30 days, 1 year, and 2 years, the respective rate of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), and target lesion revascularization (TLR) was 0.7, 1.0, and 0.5 %. 2.1, 2.1, and 1.0 %, and 2.2, 3.0, and 2.1 %. The cumulative rate for stent thrombosis was 1.6 % at 2 years. Conclusions: The THRIVE study demonstrated that use of EES yielded a rate for 2 years of major adverse cardiac events comparable to the randomized controlled trial of EES in the SPIRIT trials. This result supports the efficacy and safety of XIENCETM V everolimus eluting for daily interventional cardiology practice

Coronary artery calcium (CAC) score for cardiovascular risk stratification in a Thai clinical cohort: A comparison of absolute scores and age-sex-specific percentiles

Purposes: Coronary artery calcium (CAC) score provides a quantification of atherosclerotic plaque within the coronary arteries. This study aimed to examine the prevalence and CAC score distribution and to evaluate the association of each CAC score classifications with major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in a Thai clinical cohort. Methods: This study was a retrospective observational cohort. We included patients aged above 35 years who underwent CAC score testing. The absolute and age-sex specific percentile classifications were categorized as 0, 1 to 10, 11 to 100, 101 to 400, and >400 and 0, 90th, respectively. The endpoint was MACE, including cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, heart failure hospitalization, coronary artery revascularization procedure, and stroke. Multivariable Cox regression was used to estimate the hazard ratios. The discriminative performance between classifications were compared using Harrell's C-statistics. The agreement was assessed via Cohen's Kappa. Results: This study included 440 patients, with approximately 70% of Thai patients exhibiting a CAC score. CAC score distributed higher in male than female and increased with age. Both CAC score classification demonstrated the acceptable predictive performance. However, fair agreement was observed between classifications (Cohen's kappa 0.51, 95%CI 0.42–0.59). Within the absolute classification, a higher CAC score was associated with increased hazard ratios for MACE across stratified age-sex-specific percentile levels. In contrast, the hazard ratios for MACE did not consistently rise with higher age-sex-specific percentile CAC score when stratified by absolute CAC score levels. Conclusions: Both absolute and age-sex-specific percentile CAC score demonstrated acceptable performance in predicting MACE. However, the absolute CAC score classification may be more suitable for risk stratification within the Thai clinical cohort. Our findings offer supportive information that could inform future recommendations for CAC score testing criteria within national clinical practice guidelines

Impact of the adjunctive use criteria for intravascular ultrasound-guided percutaneous coronary intervention and clinical outcomes

Abstract The impact of the adherence to the adjunctive use criteria (AUC) for intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and clinical outcomes in low IVUS volume countries are limited. The current study compared the procedural success and complication rates between used and not used IVUS catheter in the patients who were met (C +) and were not met (C−) the AUC for IVUS-guided PCI. From June 2018 through June 2019, a total of 21,066 patients were included in the Thai PCI registry. Among the study population, 15,966 patients (75.8%) have met the IVUS-AUC. The IVUS-guided PCI rates were 14.5% and 11.3% in the C + and C − groups, respectively. After adjusting for covariables by propensity model, IVUS-guided PCI was identified as an independent predictor of the procedural success rate regardless of whether the AUC were met with the relative risk [RR (95% confidence interval (CI)] of 1.033(1.026–1.040) and 1.012(1.002–1.021) in C + and C− groups, respectively. IVUS-guided PCI increased the procedural complication risks in both groups but were not significant with corresponding RRs of 1.171(0.915–1.426) and 1.693(0.959–2.426). Procedural success was achieved with IVUS-guided PCI regardless of whether the AUC were met. IVUS-guided PCI did not lead to an increase in procedural complications

Additional file 1: of The prognostic utility of GRACE risk score in predictive cardiovascular event rate in STEMI patients with successful fibrinolysis and delay intervention in non PCI-capable hospital: a retrospective cohort study

Prognostic value of GRACE. The dataset for the prognostic value of GRACE risk score analysis. (XLSX 52 kb

Ticagrelor in patients with diabetes and stable coronary artery disease with a history of previous percutaneous coronary intervention (THEMIS-PCI) : a phase 3, placebo-controlled, randomised trial

Background: Patients with stable coronary artery disease and diabetes with previous percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), particularly those with previous stenting, are at high risk of ischaemic events. These patients are generally treated with aspirin. In this trial, we aimed to investigate if these patients would benefit from treatment with aspirin plus ticagrelor. Methods: The Effect of Ticagrelor on Health Outcomes in diabEtes Mellitus patients Intervention Study (THEMIS) was a phase 3 randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial, done in 1315 sites in 42 countries. Patients were eligible if 50 years or older, with type 2 diabetes, receiving anti-hyperglycaemic drugs for at least 6 months, with stable coronary artery disease, and one of three other mutually non-exclusive criteria: a history of previous PCI or of coronary artery bypass grafting, or documentation of angiographic stenosis of 50% or more in at least one coronary artery. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either ticagrelor or placebo, by use of an interactive voice-response or web-response system. The THEMIS-PCI trial comprised a prespecified subgroup of patients with previous PCI. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (measured in the intention-to-treat population). Findings: Between Feb 17, 2014, and May 24, 2016, 11 154 patients (58% of the overall THEMIS trial) with a history of previous PCI were enrolled in the THEMIS-PCI trial. Median follow-up was 3·3 years (IQR 2·8–3·8). In the previous PCI group, fewer patients receiving ticagrelor had a primary efficacy outcome event than in the placebo group (404 [7·3%] of 5558 vs 480 [8·6%] of 5596; HR 0·85 [95% CI 0·74–0·97], p=0·013). The same effect was not observed in patients without PCI (p=0·76, p interaction=0·16). The proportion of patients with cardiovascular death was similar in both treatment groups (174 [3·1%] with ticagrelor vs 183 (3·3%) with placebo; HR 0·96 [95% CI 0·78–1·18], p=0·68), as well as all-cause death (282 [5·1%] vs 323 [5·8%]; 0·88 [0·75–1·03], p=0·11). TIMI major bleeding occurred in 111 (2·0%) of 5536 patients receiving ticagrelor and 62 (1·1%) of 5564 patients receiving placebo (HR 2·03 [95% CI 1·48–2·76], p<0·0001), and fatal bleeding in 6 (0·1%) of 5536 patients with ticagrelor and 6 (0·1%) of 5564 with placebo (1·13 [0·36–3·50], p=0·83). Intracranial haemorrhage occurred in 33 (0·6%) and 31 (0·6%) patients (1·21 [0·74–1·97], p=0·45). Ticagrelor improved net clinical benefit: 519/5558 (9·3%) versus 617/5596 (11·0%), HR=0·85, 95% CI 0·75–0·95, p=0·005, in contrast to patients without PCI where it did not, p interaction=0·012. Benefit was present irrespective of time from most recent PCI. Interpretation: In patients with diabetes, stable coronary artery disease, and previous PCI, ticagrelor added to aspirin reduced cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke, although with increased major bleeding. In that large, easily identified population, ticagrelor provided a favourable net clinical benefit (more than in patients without history of PCI). This effect shows that long-term therapy with ticagrelor in addition to aspirin should be considered in patients with diabetes and a history of PCI who have tolerated antiplatelet therapy, have high ischaemic risk, and low bleeding risk

Initial invasive or conservative strategy for stable coronary disease

BACKGROUND Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain. METHODS We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction. RESULTS Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, 121.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 124.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used

Health-status outcomes with invasive or conservative care in coronary disease

BACKGROUND In the ISCHEMIA trial, an invasive strategy with angiographic assessment and revascularization did not reduce clinical events among patients with stable ischemic heart disease and moderate or severe ischemia. A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status among these patients. METHODS We assessed angina-related symptoms, function, and quality of life with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) at randomization, at months 1.5, 3, and 6, and every 6 months thereafter in participants who had been randomly assigned to an invasive treatment strategy (2295 participants) or a conservative strategy (2322). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate differences between the treatment groups. The primary outcome of this health-status analysis was the SAQ summary score (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health status). All analyses were performed in the overall population and according to baseline angina frequency. RESULTS At baseline, 35% of patients reported having no angina in the previous month. SAQ summary scores increased in both treatment groups, with increases at 3, 12, and 36 months that were 4.1 points (95% credible interval, 3.2 to 5.0), 4.2 points (95% credible interval, 3.3 to 5.1), and 2.9 points (95% credible interval, 2.2 to 3.7) higher with the invasive strategy than with the conservative strategy. Differences were larger among participants who had more frequent angina at baseline (8.5 vs. 0.1 points at 3 months and 5.3 vs. 1.2 points at 36 months among participants with daily or weekly angina as compared with no angina). CONCLUSIONS In the overall trial population with moderate or severe ischemia, which included 35% of participants without angina at baseline, patients randomly assigned to the invasive strategy had greater improvement in angina-related health status than those assigned to the conservative strategy. The modest mean differences favoring the invasive strategy in the overall group reflected minimal differences among asymptomatic patients and larger differences among patients who had had angina at baseline