Invasiveness of previous treatment for peripheral arterial disease and risk of adverse cardiac events after coronary stenting

Patients with peripheral arterial disease (PADs), undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), have higher adverse event risks. The effect of invasiveness of PADs treatment on PCI outcome is unknown. This study assessed the impact of the invasiveness of previous PADs treatment (invasive or non-invasive) on event risks after PCI with contemporary drug-eluting stents. This post-hoc analysis pooled 3-year patient-level data of PCI all-comer patients living in the eastern Netherlands, previously treated for PADs. PADs included symptomatic atherosclerotic lesion in the lower or upper extremities; carotid or vertebral arteries; mesenteric arteries or aorta. Invasive PADs treatment comprised endarterectomy, bypass surgery, percutaneous transluminal angioplasty, stenting or amputation; non-invasive treatment consisted of medication and participation in exercise programs. Primary endpoint was (coronary) target vessel failure: composite of cardiac mortality, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or clinically indicated target vessel revascularization. Of 461 PCI patients with PADs, information on PADs treatment was available in 357 (77.4%) patients; 249 (69.7%) were treated invasively and 108 (30.3%) non-invasively. Baseline and PCI procedural characteristics showed no between-group difference. Invasiveness of PADs treatment was not associated with adverse event risks, including target vessel failure (20.5% vs. 16.0%; HR: 1.30, 95%-CI 0.75–2.26, p = 0.35), major adverse cardiac events (23.3% vs. 20.4%; HR: 1.16, 95%-CI 0.71–1.90, p = 0.55), and all-cause mortality (12.1% vs. 8.3%; HR: 1.48, 95%-CI 0.70–3.13, p = 0.30). In PADs patients participating in PCI trials, we found no significant relation between the invasiveness of previous PADs treatment and 3-year outcome after PCI. Consequently, high-risk PCI patients can be identified by consulting medical records, searching for PADs, irrespective of the invasiveness of PADs treatment. Graphical abstract: (Figure presented.) Comparison of patients with non-invasive and invasive PADs treatment. PADs peripheral arterial disease, PCI percutaneous coronary intervention.</p

Lack of Evidence Regarding Markers Identifying Acute Heart Failure in Patients with COPD: An AI-Supported Systematic Review

Background: Due to shared symptoms, acute heart failure (AHF) is difficult to differentiate from an acute exacerbation of COPD (AECOPD). This systematic review aimed to identify markers that can diagnose AHF underlying acute dyspnea in patients with COPD presenting at the hospital.Methods: All types of observational studies and clinical trials that investigated any marker’s ability to diagnose AHF in acutely dyspneic COPD patients were considered eligible for inclusion. An AI tool (ASReview) supported the title and abstract screening of the articles obtained from PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, Embase, and CINAHL until April 2023. Full text screening was independently performed by two reviewers. Twenty percent of the data extraction was checked by a second reviewer and the risk of bias was assessed in duplicate using the QUADAS-2 tool. Markers’ discriminative abilities were evaluated in terms of sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and the area under the curve when available.Results: The search identified 10,366 articles. After deduplication, title and abstract screening was performed on 5,386 articles, leaving 153 relevant, of which 82 could be screened full text. Ten distinct studies (reported in 16 articles) were included, of which 9 had a high risk of bias. Overall, these studies evaluated 12 distinct laboratory and 7 non-laboratory markers. BNP, NT-proBNP, MR-proANP, and inspiratory inferior vena cava diameter showed the highest diagnostic discrimination.Conclusion: There is not much evidence for the use of markers to diagnose AHF in acutely dyspneic COPD patients in the hospital setting. BNPs seem most promising, but should be interpreted alongside imaging and clinical signs, as this may lead to improved diagnostic accuracy. Future validation studies are urgently needed before any AHF marker can be incorporated into treatment decision-making algorithms for patients with COPD.Protocol Registration: CRD42022283952

Impact of premature coronary artery disease on adverse event risk following first percutaneous coronary intervention

ObjectivesWe assessed differences in risk profile and 3-year outcome between patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for premature and non-premature coronary artery disease (CAD).BackgroundThe prevalence of CAD increases with age, yet some individuals develop obstructive CAD at younger age.MethodsAmong participants in four randomized all-comers PCI trials, without previous coronary revascularization or myocardial infarction (MI), we compared patients with premature (men &lt;50 years; women &lt;55 years) and non-premature CAD. Various clinical endpoints were assessed, including multivariate analyses.ResultsOf 6,171 patients, 887(14.4%) suffered from premature CAD. These patients had fewer risk factors than patients with non-premature CAD, but were more often smokers (60.7% vs. 26.4%) and overweight (76.2% vs. 69.8%). In addition, premature CAD patients presented more often with ST-segment elevation MI and underwent less often treatment of multiple vessels, and calcified or bifurcated lesions. Furthermore, premature CAD patients had a lower all-cause mortality risk (adj.HR:0.23, 95%-CI: 0.10–0.52; p &lt; 0.001), but target vessel revascularization (adj.HR:1.63, 95%-CI: 1.18–2.26; p = 0.003) and definite stent thrombosis risks (adj.HR:2.24, 95%-CI: 1.06–4.72; p = 0.034) were higher. MACE rates showed no statistically significant difference (6.6% vs. 9.4%; adj.HR:0.86, 95%-CI: 0.65–1.16; p = 0.33).ConclusionsAbout one out of seven PCI patients was treated for premature CAD. These patients had less complex risk profiles than patients with non-premature CAD; yet, their risk of repeated revascularization and stent thrombosis was higher. As lifetime event risk of patients with premature CAD is known to be particularly high, further efforts should be made to improve modifiable risk factors such as smoking and overweight.Clinical Trial Registration[clinicaltrials.gov], TWENTE [NCT01066650]; DUTCH PEERS [NCT01331707]; BIO-RESORT [NCT01674803]; BIONYX [NCT02508714]

Ten-year mortality after treating obstructive coronary atherosclerosis with contemporary stents in patients with or without concomitant peripheral arterial disease

Background and aims: Previous studies in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) patients showed a higher 3-year adverse event risk, including all-cause mortality, in those with concomitant peripheral arterial disease (PADs). Ten-year data of mortality and causes of death are scarce. This analysis assessed PCI patients, treated with contemporary drug-eluting stents, the impact of concomitant PADs on very long-term mortality, and causes of death. Methods: We assessed PCI all-comers from our center who participated in the TWENTE and DUTCH PEERS trials (clinicaltrials.gov:NCT01066650, NCT01331707), comparing patients with versus without PADs. Life status was checked in the Dutch Personal Records Database; causes of death were obtained from medical records. Results: Of 2705 study patients, 668 (24.7%) died during follow-up: 88/212 (41.5%) patients with PADs and 580/2493 (23.1%) without PADs. In PADs patients, the 10-year rate of all-cause mortality was about twice as high as in patients without PADs (41.5% vs.23.1%, HR: 2.05, 95%-CI: 1.64–2.57, p&lt;0.001). For both groups, the rates of patients dying from various causes of death were: cardiac (14.1% vs .6.8%), vascular (2.8% vs. 1.1%), non-cardiovascular (17.4% vs. 9.8%), and unclear causes (7.1% vs. 5.3%), without a statistically significant between-group difference. When multivariate analysis was adjusted for between-group differences in cardiovascular risk profile, PADs remained predictor of all-cause mortality (adjusted HR: 1.38, 95%-CI: 1.08–1.75, p=0.01). Conclusions: The 10-year all-cause mortality rate in PCI patients with concomitant PADs was almost twice as high as in those without PADs. Age and other traditional cardiovascular risk factors were higher in patients with PADs, but after correction for these confounders PADs still accounted for almost 40% increase in mortality.</p

Final 5-Year Report of the Randomized BIO-RESORT Trial Comparing 3 Contemporary Drug-Eluting Stents in All-Comers

BACKGROUND: In a previous trial, higher 5‐year mortality was observed following treatment with biodegradable polymer Orsiro sirolimus‐eluting stents (SES). We assessed 5‐year safety and efficacy of all‐comers as well as patients with diabetes treated with SES or Synergy everolimus‐eluting stents (EES) versus durable polymer Resolute Integrity zotarolimus‐eluting stents (ZES). METHODS AND RESULTS: The randomized BIO‐RESORT (Comparison of Biodegradable Polymer and Durable Polymer Drug‐Eluting Stents in an All Comers Population) trial enrolled 3514 all‐comer patients at 4 Dutch cardiac centers. Patients aged ≥18 years who required percutaneous coronary intervention were eligible. Participants were stratified for diabetes and randomized to treatment with SES, EES, or ZES (1:1:1). The main end point was target vessel failure (cardiac mortality, target vessel myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization). Five‐year follow‐up was available in 3183 of 3514 (90.6%) patients. The main end point target vessel failure occurred in 142 of 1169 (12.7%) patients treated with SES, 130 of 1172 (11.6%) treated with EES, versus 157 of 1173 (14.1%) treated with ZES (hazard ratio [HR], 0.89 [95% CI, 0.71–1.12], P (log‐rank)=0.31; and HR, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.65–1.04], P (log‐rank)=0.10, respectively). Individual components of target vessel failure showed no significant between‐stent difference. Very late definite stent thrombosis rates were low and similar (SES, 1.1%; EES, 0.6%; ZES, 0.9%). In patients with diabetes, target vessel failure did not differ significantly between stent‐groups (SES, 19.8%; EES, 19.2%; versus ZES, 21.1% [P (log‐rank)=0.69 and P (log‐rank)=0.63]). CONCLUSIONS: Orsiro SES, Synergy EES, and Resolute Integrity ZES showed similar 5‐year outcomes of safety and efficacy, including mortality. A prespecified stent comparison in patients with diabetes also revealed no significant differences in 5‐year clinical outcomes. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01674803