are drug eluting stents superior to bare metal stents in patients with unprotected non bifurcational left main disease insights from a multicentre registry

Aims To compare long-term clinical outcome following drug-eluting stents (DES) or bare-metal stents (BMS) implantation on lesions located at the ostium or the shaft of the left main in a large real-world population. The advent of DES decreased the risk of unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) restenosis when compared with BMS, but it is unclear if this advantage continues when non-bifurcational lesions are considered. Methods and results The GISE-SICI registry is a retrospective, observational multicentre registry promoted by the Italian Society of Invasive Cardiology in which 19 high-volume participating centres enrolled 1453 consecutive patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention on ULMCA between January 2002 and December 2006. From the registry, a total of 479 consecutive patients with ostial and shaft lesions who underwent DES ( n = 334) or BMS ( n = 145) implantation were analysed with extensive multivariable and propensity score adjustments. At 3-year follow-up, risk-adjusted survival rates were higher in patients treated with DES than in those treated with BMS. The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for the risk of mortality after DES implantation relative to BMS implantation was 0.37 (95% CI: 0.15–0.96, P = 0.04). The adjusted HR for the risk of cardiac mortality was 0.31 (95% CI: 0.09–1.04, P = 0.06). The adjusted 3-year rates of target lesion revascularization (TLR) were not significantly lower in the DES group than in the BMS group ( P = 0.60). Conclusion In a large population of patients with lesions located at the ostium or the shaft of the left main in a real-world setting, DES were associated with favourable clinical outcomes when compared with BMS, although there was no evidence of a significant reduction in TLR with DES vs. BMS

Omega-3 fatty acids in high-risk cardiovascular patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have examined the cardiovascular effects of omega-3 fatty acids and have provided unexplained conflicting results. A meta-analysis of these RCTs to estimate efficacy and safety and potential sources of heterogeneity may be helpful.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The Cochrane library, MEDLINE, and EMBASE were systematically searched to identify all interventional trials of omega-3 fatty acids compared to placebo or usual diet in high-risk cardiovascular patients. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality and secondary outcomes were coronary restenosis following percutaneous coronary intervention and safety. Meta-analyses were carried out using Bayesian random-effects models, and heterogeneity was examined using meta-regression.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A total of 29 RCTs (n = 35,144) met our inclusion criteria, with 25 reporting mortality and 14 reporting restenosis. Omega-3 fatty acids were not associated with a statistically significant decreased mortality (relative risk [RR] = 0.88, 95% Credible Interval [CrI] = 0.64, 1.03) or with restenosis prevention (RR = 0.89, 95% CrI = 0.72, 1.06), though the probability of some benefit remains high (0.93 and 0.90, respectively). However in meta-regressions, there was a >90% probability that larger studies and those with longer follow-up were associated with smaller benefits. No serious safety issues were identified.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Although not reaching conventional statistical significance, the evidence to date suggests that omega-3 fatty acids may result in a modest reduction in mortality and restenosis. However, caution must be exercised in interpreting these benefits as results were attenuated in higher quality studies, suggesting that bias may be at least partially responsible. Additional high quality studies are required to clarify the role of omega-3 fatty acid supplementation for the secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease.</p

Effectiveness of cardiac resynchronization therapy in heart failure patients with valvular heart disease: comparison with patients affected by ischaemic heart disease or dilated cardiomyopathy. The InSync/InSync ICD Italian Registry

AimsTo analyse the effectiveness of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in patients with valvular heart disease (a subset not specifically investigated in randomized controlled trials) in comparison with ischaemic heart disease or dilated cardiomyopathy patients.Methods and resultsPatients enrolled in a national registry were evaluated during a median follow-up of 16 months after CRT implant. Patients with valvular heart disease treated with CRT (n = 108) in comparison with ischaemic heart disease (n = 737) and dilated cardiomyopathy (n = 635) patients presented: (i) a higher prevalence of chronic atrial fibrillation, with atrioventricular node ablation performed in around half of the cases; (ii) a similar clinical and echocardiographic profile at baseline; (iii) a similar improvement of LVEF and a similar reduction in ventricular volumes at 6-12 months; (iv) a favourable clinical response at 12 months with an improvement of the clinical composite score similar to that occurring in patients with dilated cardiomyopathy and more pronounced than that observed in patients with ischaemic heart disease; (v) a long-term outcome, in term of freedom from death or heart transplantation, similar to patients affected by ischaemic heart disease and basically more severe than that of patients affected by dilated cardiomyopathy.ConclusionIn 'real world' clinical practice, CRT appears to be effective also in patients with valvular heart disease. However, in this group of patients the outcome after CRT does not precisely overlap any of the two other groups of patients, for which much more data are currently available