The influence of optimal medical treatment on the 'obesity paradox', body mass index and long-term mortality in patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention: A prospective cohort study

Objective: To assess whether the obesity paradox persists in the long term and to study the effect of optimal medical treatment on this phenomenon. Design: A retrospective cohort study. Setting: A tertiary care centre in Rotterdam. Participants: From January 2000 to December 2005, 6332 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for coronary artery disease were categorised into underweight (body mass index (BMI)30). Primary outcome measure: Mortality. Secondary outcome measures: Cardiac death and non-fatal myocardial infarction. Results: Optimal medical treatment was more common in obese patients as compared with normal weight patients (85% vs 76%; p<0.001). At a mean of 6.1 years, overweight and obese patients had a lower risk of all-cause mortality (HR: 0.75, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.86 and HR: 0.72, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.87, respectively). After adjusting for OMT in the multivariate analysis, BMI did not remain an independent predictor of longterm mortality (HR: 0.90, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.12 and HR: 1.07, 95% CI: 0.80 to 1.43, respectively). Conclusion: BMI is inversely related to long-term mortality in patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention. Patients with a normal BMI are on suboptimal medical treatment when compared with those with a high BMI. A more optimal medical treatment in the obese group may explain the observed improved outcome in these patients

The Everolimus-Eluting Stent in Real-World Patients 6-Month Follow-Up of the X-SEARCH (Xience V Stent Evaluated at Rotterdam Cardiac Hospital) Registry

ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) in comparison with bare-metal stents (BMS), sirolimus-eluting stents (SES), and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) on the 6-month clinical outcomes in an all-comer population.BackgroundEES have been shown to be effective in the context of randomized trials with selected patients. The effect of EES implantation in more complex, unselected patients cannot be directly extrapolated from these findings.MethodsIn total, 649 consecutive unselected patients treated exclusively with EES were enrolled. Six-month clinical end points were compared with 3 historical cohorts (BMS, n = 450; SES, n = 508; and PES, n = 576). Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) were defined as a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization (TVR).ResultsThe patients treated with EES were older, presented more frequently with acute myocardial infarction, and had more complicated lesions than the other groups. The EES group demonstrated a higher incidence of all-cause mortality than the SES group and a lower incidence of TVR than the BMS group. Multivariate adjustment demonstrated that BMS was associated with higher TVR and MACE risk than EES (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] for TVR: 2.02 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.11 to 3.67]; adjusted HR for MACE: 2.15 [95% CI: 1.36 to 3.42]); that SES had a clinical outcome similar to that of EES, and that PES had a higher risk of MACE than did EES (adjusted HR: 1.57 [95% CI: 1.02 to 2.44]).ConclusionsThis study suggests that the use of EES in an unselected population may be as safe as and more effective than BMS, may be as safe and effective as SES, may be as safe as PES, and may be more effective than PES

Timing of Noncardiac Surgery After Coronary Artery Stenting With Bare Metal or Drug-Eluting Stents

The current guidelines have recommended postponing noncardiac surgery (NCS) for >= 6 weeks after bare metal stent (BMS) placement and for >= 1 year after drug-eluting stent (DES) placement. However, much debate has ensued about these intervals. The aim of the present study was to assess the influence of different intervals between stenting and NCS and the use of dual antiplatelet therapy on the occurrence of perioperative major adverse cardiac events (MACEs). We identified 550 patients (376 with a DES and 174 with a BMS) by cross-matching the Erasmus Medical Center percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) database with the NCS database. The following intervals between PCI-BMS (3 months) or PCI-DES (12 months) and NCS were studied. MACEs included death, myocardial infarction, and repeated revascularization. In the PCI-BMS group, the rate of MACEs during the intervals of 3 months was 50%, 14%, and 4%, respectively (overall p12 months, respectively, overall p<0.001). Of the patients who experienced a MACE, 45% and 55% were receiving single and dual antiplatelet therapy at NCS, respectively (p = 0.92). The risk of severe bleeding in patients with single and dual therapy at NCS was 4% and 21%, respectively (p<0.001). In conclusion, we found an inverse relation between the interval from PCI to NCS and perioperative MACEs. Continuation of dual antiplatelet therapy until NCS did not provide complete protection against MACEs. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. (Am J Cardiol 2009;104:1229-1234