Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials of Intracoronary Versus Intravenous Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa Inhibitors in Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

The efficacy and safety of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors via intracoronary (IC) route versus the intravenous (IV) route are not well known. We conducted this meta-analysis of randomized trials evaluating the role of IC versus IV glycoprotein IIb/IIIa in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention. The analysis included 14 trials with a total of 3,754 patients. The primary outcome of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) had no statistically significant difference between the IC and the IV groups (relative risk [RR] 0.74, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.51 to 1.10). Subgroup analysis showed that short-term MACE (i.e., ≤3 months) was reduced in the IC compared with the IV group; however, long-term MACE (>3 months) was not. IC group was superior in achievement of post-procedural Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction 3 flow (RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.11), myocardial blush grade II to III (RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.23), ST-segment resolution rates (RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.29; p = 0.01), and improvement of left ventricular ejection fraction (standardized mean difference = 4.32, 95% CI 0.91 to 7.74). There was a trend for lower stent thrombosis with IC route (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.03). There was no significant difference between the 2 groups in all-cause mortality, re-infarction, and major bleeding. In conclusion, despite lack of significant difference in overall MACE outcome, IC glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors may improve short -term MACE, Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction 3 flow, myocardial blush grade II- to III rates, ST-segment resolution, and left ventricular ejection fraction compared with the IV route.

Impact of Left Atrial Appendage Exclusion on Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation Undergoing Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting (From the National Inpatient Sample Database).

Left atrial appendage (LAA) exclusion is performed by some surgeons in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) who undergo coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). However, the available evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of this procedure remains mixed. We queried the Nationwide Inpatient Survey Database for the 10-year period from 2004 to 2013. Using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Edition, Clinical Modification diagnosis codes, we identified patients who had a diagnosis of AF and underwent a primary procedure of CABG with or without LAA exclusion. We then performed a 1:5 matching based on the CHA2DS2VASc score between patients who got LAA exclusion and those who did not (control group). The primary outcome was the incidence of in-hospital cerebrovascular events, whereas the secondary outcomes included in-hospital bleeding events, pericardial effusion, cardiac tamponade, postoperative shock, and mortality. Our analysis included a total of 15,114 patients. Patients who underwent LAA exclusion had significantly less incidence of cerebrovascular events (2.0% vs 3.1%, p = 0.002). However, LAA exclusion group had higher incidences of bleeding events (36.4% vs 21.3%, p <0.001), pericardial effusion (2.7% vs 1.2%, p <0.001), cardiac tamponade (0.6% vs 0.2%, p <0.001), and postoperative shock (1.2% vs 0.4%, p <0.001). LAA exclusion was associated with higher in-hospital mortality (1.6% vs 0.3%, p <0.001). Multivariate regression analysis showed that LAA exclusion was significantly associated with lower cerebrovascular accident events and higher in-hospital mortality. In conclusion, LAA exclusion in patients with AF undergoing CABG might be associated with a lower incidence of in-hospital cerebrovascular events. This benefit is offset by a higher incidence of higher bleeding events, pericardial effusion, cardiac tamponade, postoperative shock, and in-hospital mortality.