Late clinical events of drug eluting versus bare metal stenting; OPCES' ancillary study

Objective: To compare one year clinical outcomes of patients with chronic stable angina who underwent implantation of bare metal stent (BMS) or drug eluting stent (DES). Methodology: Four hundred forty two (442) participants of OPCES study (Osvix versus Plavix in Cardiovascular Events after Stenting) were included in this sub-study. After evaluation of exclusion criteria (combined DES and BMS stenting (n=31) and incomplete data (n=48) patients were divided in two groups according to selected stent(DES or BMS). Follow-up was conducted by a structured telephone interview after 6 and 12 months. The patients' documents were reviewed by the Study Event Committee in the Isfahan Cardiovascular Research Center to evaluate the occurrence of study endpoints which consisted of clinical success rate and major adverse cardiac events (Major Adverse Cardiac Events (MACE), cardiac death, non-fatal MI, target vessel revascularization and stroke) in hospital, after 6 and 12 months. Results: One hundred sixty six (45.7%) patients were in the DES and 197(54.3%) were in the BMS group. Procedural complications were seen more frequently in the DES group (1.0% vs. 4.8%, P=0.027), the prevalence of the in-hospital MACE, angiographic and clinical success rate were the same between both the groups. There was no significant difference regarding 6 and 12 months MACE rate in patients treated by BMS or DES (6 months: 1.1% vs. 0.6%, p>0.999 12 month: 3.4% vs 2.6%, P = 0.755). Conclusion: Considering the same clinical outcome and the economical parameters, use of the BMS after proper patient selection are recommended

Moderate Mitral Regurgitation and Coronary Disease: Treatment with Coronary Bypass Alone?

Background: In cases of moderate(2 or 3+ on a scale of 0 to 4+) nonorganic mitral regurgitation (MR) and coronary artery disease, operative strategy continues to be debated between coronary artery bypass grafting alone (CABG) or concomitant valve repair. To clarify the optimal management of these patients, we evaluated the mid-term results of isolated CABG in the study group. Methods: From March 2002 to February 2005, 40 consecutive patients (57.5% male, mean age: 62.45±8.7 years, mean ejection fraction: 44.15±12.6%, mean New York Heart Association class 2.5±0.78) with coronary artery disease and moderate MR without organic mitral valve disease (prolapse, rheumatism, etc.) underwent CABG alone. Thirty one (77.5%) patients had either postoperative or follow-up transthoracic echocardiography with mean follow up time of 10.82±8.12 months. Patient's pre and postoperative data were compared to evaluate the results of isolated CABG on moderate MR. Results: MR was ischemic (with persistent wall motion abnormality) in 25(62.5%) patients and functional (without persistent wall motion abnormality) in 15(31.5%). Considering postoperative and follow up transthoracic echocardiography, 54.8% had no or mild MR (29% MR 1+, 25.8% no MR) and 45.2% had moderate MR (16.1% MR 3+, 29% MR 2+). Resolution of MR was significant (p<0.001), but it had no correlation with ischemic MR (p=0.46), preoperative ejection fraction (p=0.09), LV systolic (p=0.70) and diastolic dimensions (p=0.80). Seven patients died, 2 in hospital and 5 later. Conclusion: Although for coronary artery disease accompanying moderate nonorganic MR, CABG alone reduces severity of MR significantly, many patients are left with moderate MR. Preoperative diagnosis of moderate nonorganic MR may warrant concomitant mitral repair

Primary percutaneous coronary intervention in the Isfahan province, Iran; A situation analysis and needs assessment

BACKGROUND: Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) is considered as a choice of treatment in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). PPCI has been performed in the Isfahan Province for several years. This study was performed to describe the situation, and determine in-hospital and early (30 days) clinical outcomes of the patients in order to provide sufficient evidence to evaluate and modify this treatment modality if necessary. METHODS: All patients, who underwent PPCI for STEMI from July to December 2011 at Chamran and Saadi Hospitals (PPCI centers in the Isfahan Province), were included in this case series study. Premedication, angioplasty procedure, and post-procedural treatment were performed using standard protocols or techniques. All discharged patients were followed for 30 days by phone. Endpoints consisted of clinical success rate, and in-hospital and 30 day major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) (death, reinfarction, stroke, and target vessel revascularization). RESULTS: 93 patients (83 (89.2%) at Chamran Hospital and 10 (10.8%) patients at Saadi Hospital) had PPCI. Mean Age of the patients was 59.60 &plusmn; 11.10 and M/F ratio was 3.89. From the 181 involved vessels (involved vessels/patient ratio = 1.97 &plusmn; 0.70), the treatment of 105 lesions (lesions/patient ratio = 1.13 &plusmn; 0.368) was attempted. The clinical success rate was 72%. Pain-to-door and door-to-balloon times were, respectively, 255.1 &plusmn; 221.4 and 148.9 &plusmn; 168.5 min. The reason for failure was impaired flow (n = 17 (18.3%)), failure to cross with a guidewire (n = 2 (2.2%)), suboptimal angiographic results (n = 2 (2.2%)), and death in one patient. The in-hospital and 30 days MACE rates were, respectively, 8.6% and 3.2%. CONCLUSION: Low success rate in our series could be due to prolonged pain-to-door and door-to-balloon times and lack of an established, definite protocol to regularly perform PPCI in a timely fashion. We should resolve these problems and improve our techniques in order to prevent and treat slow/no-reflow phenomenon. &nbsp; Keywords: Acute Coronary Syndrome, Myocardial Infarction, Percutaneous Transluminal Coronary Angioplasty, Cardiogenic Shock, No-Reflow Phenomenon</div

Efficacy of Two Streptokinase Formulations in Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Double-Blind Randomized Clinical Trial

Background: We sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the different trade forms of streptokinase available in our country, namely Heberkinasa (Heberbiotec, Havana, Cuba) and Streptase (Aventis Behring GmbH, Marburg, Germany). Methods: We conducted a double-blind randomized clinical trial to compare the two streptokinase formulations, i.e. Heberkinasa (HBK) or Streptase (STP), in patients with acute myocardial infarction who needed thrombolysis. Thrombolysis success was evaluated angiographically and/or clinically. Clinical follow-up was done 30 days after thrombolysis. Results: We randomly allocated 221 patients with a mean age of 56.9±10.8 years (males: 88.2%) to HBK (n=119) and STP (n=102) groups. Baseline clinical and demographic characteristics were similar between the two groups, and the two groups were not significantly different in terms of door-to-needle and pain-to-needle intervals. The rate of complications was not significantly different between the groups (44.1% [HBK] vs. 42% [STP]). Angiography was done for 158 (71.5 %) patients in the first 24 hours (9%) and in the first 72 hours (38.8%) after thrombolysis. Lesion morphology and lesion/patient ratio were not significantly different between the two groups (1.87[HBK] vs. 1.67[STP]). The two groups were similar with respect to angiographic patency rate (67.5% [HBK] vs. 67.6% [STP]). The study groups were also similar as regards clinical outcome and complications of both streptokinase formulations. Conclusion: The present study demonstrated that Heberkinasa is as effective and as safe as a standard streptokinase, namely Streptase, in a clinical setting

Predictors of Long-term Outcome in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A single center registry (THCR)

Background: This study sought to access differences in long-term (9 months) outcomes between Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS) patients who undergo early intervention compared to Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) in stable and refractory conditions. Methods: Data originated from Tehran Heart Center Registry- interventional cardiology (THCR-IC) and consisted of 1267 patients divided into two categories; 227 patients had features corresponding to acute coronary syndromes (17.9%) and 1040 patients suffered from stable angina (82.1%). They were admitted between April 3, 2003 and April 25, 2004. Results: The clinical success rate of PCI was higher in ACS (97% vs. 94%; P=0.037), while In-hospital complications were similar in both groups. During the follow-up period, clinical restenosis was not significantly different and the overall number of re-interventions caused by restenosis or progression was not more frequent in ACS patients. Also, 1.3% of ACS and 0.4% of SA patients died, but the difference was not statistically significant (P=0.16). Finally, Major Adverse Cardiac Events (MACE) showed no significant difference (5.2% vs. 3.9%; P=0.42). Multivariate analysis showed that female sex (OR=25.6; P=0.003) and previous history of PCI (OR=8.4; P=0.016) were the only strong independent risk factors for major adverse cardiac events. Analyzing ACS patient outcomes using Mantel-Hanzel analysis showed that the female sex was the only factor which strongly increased the incidence of MACE.Conclusion: Both ACS and SA patients who underwent coronary intervention had similar in-hospital and composite major adverse cardiac events, nevertheless female gender must be considered as an independent risk factor for major adverse cardiac events especially in patients with acute coronary syndrome who undergo PCI

Persian Registry Of cardioVascular diseasE (PROVE): Design and methodology

BACKGROUND: Our aim was to create and establish a database called &ldquo;Persian Registry Of cardioVascular diseasE (PROVE)&rdquo; in order to be used for future research and in addition, as a tool to develop national guidelines for diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD). In this paper, the design and methodology of the PROVE pilot study will be discussed, launched in Isfahan, Iran, in 2015-2016. METHODS: Through establishing PROVE, patients' data were collected from hospitals and outpatient clinics prospectively or retrospectively and followed up for a maximum of three years based on the type of CVDs. The inclusion criteria were as patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS), ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), stroke, atrial fibrillation (AF), heart failure (HF), congenital heart disease (CHD), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and chronic ischemic cardiovascular disease (CICD). Specific protocols, questionnaires, and glossaries were developed for each registry. In order to ensure the validation of the protocols, questionnaires, data collection, management, and analysis, a well-established quality control (QC) protocol was developed and implemented. Data confidentiality was considered. RESULTS: In order to register patients with ACS, STEMI, stroke, HF, PCI, and CICD, the hospital recorded data were used, whereas, in case of AF and CHD registries, the data were collected from hospitals and outpatient clinics. During the pilot phase of the study in Isfahan, from March 2015 to September 2016, 9427 patients were registered as ACS including 809 as STEMI, 1195 patients with HF, 363 with AF, 761 with stroke, 1136 with CHD, 1200 with PCI, and 9 with CICD. Data collection and management were performed under the supervision of the QC group. CONCLUSION: PROVE was developed and implemented in Isfahan as a pilot study, in order to be implemented at national level in future. It provides a valuable source of valid data that could be used for future research, re-evaluation of current CVD management and more specifically, gap analysis and as a tool for assessment of the type of CVDs, prevention, treatment, and control by health care decision makers. &nbsp;&nbsp;</p