Adoption and patterns of use of invasive physiological assessment of coronary artery disease in a large cohort of 40 821 real-world procedures over a 12-year period

Funding Information: The authors wish to acknowledge the invaluable contributions of Paulo Leal regarding data acquisition and management, and John Henderson for statistical consultancy. Publisher Copyright: © 2021 Sociedade Portuguesa de CardiologiaIntroduction and Objectives: Use of invasive physiological assessment in patients with coronary artery disease varies widely and is perceived to be low. We aimed to examine adoption rates as well as patterns and determinants of use in an unselected population undergoing invasive coronary angiography over a long time frame. Methods: We retrospectively determined the per-procedure prevalence of physiological assessment in 40 821 coronary cases performed between 2007 and 2018 in two large-volume centers. Adoption was examined according to procedure type and patient- and operator-related variables. Its association with relevant scientific landmarks, such as the release of clinical trial results and practice guidelines, was also assessed. Results: Overall adoption was low, ranging from 0.6% in patients undergoing invasive coronary angiography due to underlying valve disease, to 6% in the setting of stable coronary artery disease (CAD); it was 3.1% in patients sustaining an acute coronary syndrome. Of scientific landmarks, FAME 1, the long-term results of FAME 2 and the 2014 European myocardial revascularization guidelines were associated with changes in practice. Publication of instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) trials had no influence on adoption rates, except for a higher proportion of iFR use. In 42.9% of stable CAD patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention there was no objective non-invasive evidence of ischemia, nor was physiological assessment performed. Younger operator age (4.5% vs. 4.0% vs. 0.9% for ages 55 years, respectively; p<0.001) and later time of procedure during the day (2.9% between 6 and 8 p.m. vs. 4.4% at other times) were independent correlates of use of invasive physiology. Conclusions: Our study confirms the low use of invasive physiology in routine practice. The availability of resting indices did not increase adoption. Strategies are warranted to promote guideline implementation and to improve patient care and clinical outcomes.publishersversionpublishe

Thrombus aspiration in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction: results of a national registry of interventional cardiology

BACKGROUND: We aimed to evaluate the impact of thrombus aspiration (TA) during primary percutaneous coronary intervention (P-PCI) in 'real-world' settings. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study, using data from the National Registry of Interventional Cardiology (RNCI 2006-2012, Portugal) with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients treated with P-PCI. The primary outcome, in-hospital mortality, was analysed through adjusted odds ratio (aOR) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CI). RESULTS: We assessed data for 9458 STEMI patients that undergone P-PCI (35% treated with TA). The risk of in-hospital mortality with TA (aOR 0.93, 95%CI:0.54-1.60) was not significantly decreased. After matching patients through the propensity score, TA reduced significantly the risk of in-hospital mortality (OR 0.58, 95%CI:0.35-0.98; 3500 patients). CONCLUSIONS: The whole cohort data does not support the routine use of TA in P-PCI, but the results of the propensity-score matched cohort suggests that the use of selective TA may improve the short-term risks of STEMI..info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Terapêutica antitrombótica adjuvante no enfarte do miocárdio com elevação do segment ST : dados portugueses transversais contemporâneos

© 2020 Sociedade Portuguesa de Cardiologia. Published by Elsevier España, S.L.U. This is an open access article under the CC-BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).Introduction: The standard of care for acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) includes the activation of a STEMI care network, the administration of adjuvant medical therapy, and reperfusion through primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). While primary PCI is nowadays the first option for the treatment of patients with STEMI, antithrombotic therapy, including antiplatelet and anticoagulant agents, is the cornerstone of pharmacological treatment to optimize their clinical outcomes. Objective: The aim of this study was to describe contemporaneous real-world patterns of use of antithrombotic treatments in Portugal for STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI. Methods: An observational, retrospective cross-sectional study was performed for the year 2016, based on data from two national registries: the Portuguese Registry on Acute Coronary Syndromes (ProACS) and the Portuguese Registry on Interventional Cardiology (PRIC). Data on oral antiplatelet and procedural intravenous antithrombotic drugs were retrieved. Results: In 2016, the ProACS enrolled 534 STEMI patients treated with primary PCI, while the PRIC registry reported data on 2625 STEMI patients. Of these, 99.6% were treated with aspirin and 75.6% with dual antiplatelet therapy (mostly clopidogrel). GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors (mostly abciximab) were used in 11.6% of cases. Heparins were used in 80% of cases (78% unfractionated heparin [UFH] and 2% low molecular weight heparin). None of the patients included in the registry were treated with cangrelor, prasugrel or bivalirudin. Missing data are one of the main limitations of the registries. Conclusions: In 2016, according to data from these national registries, almost all patients with STEMI were treated with aspirin and 76% with dual antiplatelet agents, mostly clopidogrel. GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors were used in few patients, and UFH was the most prevalent parenteral anticoagulant drug.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Management of coronary disease in patients with advanced kidney disease

BACKGROUND Clinical trials that have assessed the effect of revascularization in patients with stable coronary disease have routinely excluded those with advanced chronic kidney disease. METHODS We randomly assigned 777 patients with advanced kidney disease and moderate or severe ischemia on stress testing to be treated with an initial invasive strategy consisting of coronary angiography and revascularization (if appropriate) added to medical therapy or an initial conservative strategy consisting of medical therapy alone and angiography reserved for those in whom medical therapy had failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction. A key secondary outcome was a composite of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. RESULTS At a median follow-up of 2.2 years, a primary outcome event had occurred in 123 patients in the invasive-strategy group and in 129 patients in the conservative-strategy group (estimated 3-year event rate, 36.4% vs. 36.7%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79 to 1.29; P=0.95). Results for the key secondary outcome were similar (38.5% vs. 39.7%; hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.29). The invasive strategy was associated with a higher incidence of stroke than the conservative strategy (hazard ratio, 3.76; 95% CI, 1.52 to 9.32; P=0.004) and with a higher incidence of death or initiation of dialysis (hazard ratio, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.04 to 2.11; P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease, advanced chronic kidney disease, and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction

Health status after invasive or conservative care in coronary and advanced kidney disease

BACKGROUND In the ISCHEMIA-CKD trial, the primary analysis showed no significant difference in the risk of death or myocardial infarction with initial angiography and revascularization plus guideline-based medical therapy (invasive strategy) as compared with guideline-based medical therapy alone (conservative strategy) in participants with stable ischemic heart disease, moderate or severe ischemia, and advanced chronic kidney disease (an estimated glomerular filtration rate of &lt;30 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 or receipt of dialysis). A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status. METHODS We assessed health status with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) before randomization and at 1.5, 3, and 6 months and every 6 months thereafter. The primary outcome of this analysis was the SAQ Summary score (ranging from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating less frequent angina and better function and quality of life). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate the treatment effect with the invasive strategy. RESULTS Health status was assessed in 705 of 777 participants. Nearly half the participants (49%) had had no angina during the month before randomization. At 3 months, the estimated mean difference between the invasive-strategy group and the conservative-strategy group in the SAQ Summary score was 2.1 points (95% credible interval, 120.4 to 4.6), a result that favored the invasive strategy. The mean difference in score at 3 months was largest among participants with daily or weekly angina at baseline (10.1 points; 95% credible interval, 0.0 to 19.9), smaller among those with monthly angina at baseline (2.2 points; 95% credible interval, 122.0 to 6.2), and nearly absent among those without angina at baseline (0.6 points; 95% credible interval, 121.9 to 3.3). By 6 months, the between-group difference in the overall trial population was attenuated (0.5 points; 95% credible interval, 122.2 to 3.4). CONCLUSIONS Participants with stable ischemic heart disease, moderate or severe ischemia, and advanced chronic kidney disease did not have substantial or sustained benefits with regard to angina-related health status with an initially invasive strategy as compared with a conservative strategy