Percutaneous coronary intervention in asians- are there differences in clinical outcome?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Ethnic differences in clinical outcome after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have been reported. Data within different Asian subpopulations is scarce. We aim to explore the differences in clinical profile and outcome between Chinese, Malay and Indian Asian patients who undergo PCI for coronary artery disease (CAD).</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A prospective registry of consecutive patients undergoing PCI from January 2002 to December 2007 at a tertiary care center was analyzed. Primary endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) of myocardial infarction (MI), repeat revascularization and all-cause death at six months.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>7889 patients underwent PCI; 7544 (96%) patients completed follow-up and were included in the analysis (79% males with mean age of 59 years ± 11). There were 5130 (68%) Chinese, 1056 (14%) Malays and 1001 (13.3%) Indian patients. The remaining 357 (4.7%) patients from other minority ethnic groups were excluded from the analysis. The primary end-point occurred in 684 (9.1%) patients at six months. Indians had the highest rates of six month MACE compared to Chinese and Malays (Indians 12% vs. Chinese 8.2% vs. Malays 10.7%; OR 1.55 95%CI 1.24-1.93, p < 0.001). This was contributed by increased rates of MI (Indians 1.9% vs. Chinese 0.9% vs. Malays 1.3%; OR 4.49 95%CI 1.91-10.56 p = 0.001), repeat revascularization (Indians 6.5% vs. Chinese 4.1% vs. Malays 5.1%; OR 1.64 95%CI 1.22-2.21 p = 0.0012) and death (Indians 11.4% vs. Chinese 7.6% vs. Malays 9.9%; OR 1.65 95%CI 1.23-2.20 p = 0.001) amongst Indian patients.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>These data indicate that ethnic variations in clinical outcome exist following PCI. In particular, Indian patients have higher six month event rates compared to Chinese and Malays. Future studies are warranted to elucidate the underlying mechanisms behind these variations.</p

Lifestyle variables and the risk of myocardial infarction in the General Practice Research Database

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The primary objective of this study is to estimate the association between body mass index (BMI) and the risk of first acute myocardial infarction (AMI). As a secondary objective, we considered the association between other lifestyle variables, smoking and heavy alcohol use, and AMI risk.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This study was conducted in the general practice research database (GPRD) which is a database based on general practitioner records and is a representative sample of the United Kingdom population. We matched cases of first AMI as identified by diagnostic codes with up to 10 controls between January 1^st, 2001 and December 31^st, 2005 using incidence density sampling. We used multiple imputation to account for missing data.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We identified 19,353 cases of first AMI which were matched on index date, GPRD practice and age to 192,821 controls. There was a modest amount of missing data in the database, and the patients with missing data had different risks than those with recorded values. We adjusted our analysis for each lifestyle variable jointly and also for age, sex, and number of hospitalizations in the past year. Although a record of underweight (BMI <18.0 kg/m²) did not alter the risk for AMI (adjusted odds ratio (OR): 1.00; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.87–1.11) when compared with normal BMI (18.0–24.9 kg/m²), obesity (BMI ≥30 kg/m²) predicted an increased risk (adjusted OR: 1.41; 95% CI: 1.35–1.47). A history of smoking also predicted an increased risk of AMI (adjusted OR: 1.81; 95% CI: 1.75–1.87) as did heavy alcohol use (adjusted OR: 1.15; 95% CI: 1.06–1.26).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>This study illustrates that obesity, smoking and heavy alcohol use, as recorded during routine care by a general practitioner, are important predictors of an increased risk of a first AMI. In contrast, low BMI does not increase the risk of a first AMI.</p

Drug-eluting versus bare-metal stent for treatment of saphenous vein grafts: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Saphenous vein grafts develop an aggressive atherosclerotic process and the efficacy of drug eluting stents (DES) in treating saphenous vein graft (SVG) lesions has not been convincingly demonstrated. The aim of this study was to review and analyze the current literature for controlled studies comparing DES versus bare metal stents (BMS) for treatment of SVG stenoses. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We searched several scientific databases and conference proceedings up to March 15, 2010 for controlled studies comparing target vessel revascularization (TVR) between DES and BMS. Summary odds ratios (OR) for the primary endpoint TVR and secondary endpoints infarction, stent thrombosis and death were calculated using random-effect models. A total of 29 studies (3 randomized controlled trials RCT) involving 7549 (202 in RCT) patients were included. The need for target vessel revascularization in the DES group tended to be lower compared to BMS for the 3 RCT (OR 0.50 [0.24-1.00]; p = 0.051) and for observational studies (0.62 [0.49-0.79]; p<0.001). There was no significant difference in the risk for myocardial infarction in the RCT (OR 1.25 [0.22-6.99]; p = 0.250) but a lower risk for DES based on the observational studies 0.68 [0.49-0.95]; p = 0.023. The risk for stent thrombosis was found to be non-different in the RCT (OR 0.78 [0.03-21.73], p = 0.885) while it was in favor of DES in the observational studies (0.58 [0.38 - 0.84]; p<0.001). The mortality was not significantly different between DES and BMS in the RCT's (OR 2.22 [0.17 - 29.50]; p = 0.546) while the observation studies showed a decreased mortality in the DES group (0.69 [0.55-0.85]; p<0.001). CONCLUSION: DES may decrease TVR rate in treatment of SVG stenoses. No differences in reinfarction rate, stent thrombosis or mortality was found between the DES and BMS groups in the RCT's while the observational data showed lower risk for myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis and death in the DES group. This may be a result of patient selection bias in the observational studies or represent a true finding that was not the detected in the RCT analysis due to limited statistical power