Myocardial blush and microvascular reperfusion following manual thrombectomy during percutaneous coronary intervention for ST elevation myocardial infarction: insights from the TOTAL trial.

AIMS: Thrombectomy during primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) for ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) has been thought to be an effective therapy to prevent distal embolization and improve microvascular perfusion. The TOTAL trial (N = 10 732), a randomized trial of routine manual thrombectomy vs. PCI alone in STEMI, showed no difference in the primary efficacy outcome. This angiographic sub-study was performed to determine if thrombectomy improved microvascular perfusion as measured by myocardial blush grade (MBG). METHODS AND RESULTS: Of the 10 732 patients randomized, 1610 randomly selected angiograms were analysable by the angiographic core laboratory. Primary outcomes included MBG and post-PCI thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) flow grade. Secondary outcomes included distal embolization, PPCI complications, and each component of the complications. The primary end point of final myocardial blush (221 [28%] 0/1 for thrombectomy vs. 246 {30%} 0/1 for PCI alone group, P = 0.38) and TIMI flow (712 [90%] TIMI 3 for thrombectomy vs. 733 [89.5%] TIMI 3 for PCI alone arm, P = 0.73) was similar in the two groups. Thrombectomy was associated with a significantly reduced incidence of distal embolization compared with PCI alone (56 [7.1%] vs. 87 [10.7%], P = 0.01). In multivariable analysis, distal embolization was an independent predictor of mortality (HR 3.00, 95% CI 1.19-7.58) while MBG was not (HR 2.73, 95% CI 0.94-5.3). CONCLUSIONS: Routine thrombectomy during PPCI did not result in improved MBG or post-PCI TIMI flow grade but did reduce distal embolization compared with PCI alone. Distal embolization and not blush grade is independently associated with mortality.

Outcomes after thrombus aspiration for ST elevation myocardial infarction: 1-year follow-up of the prospective randomised TOTAL trial.

BACKGROUND: Two large trials have reported contradictory results at 1 year after thrombus aspiration in ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). In a 1-year follow-up of the largest randomised trial of thrombus aspiration, we aimed to clarify the longer-term benefits, to help guide clinical practice. METHODS: The trial of routine aspiration ThrOmbecTomy with PCI versus PCI ALone in Patients with STEMI (TOTAL) was a prospective, randomised, investigator-initiated trial of routine manual thrombectomy versus percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) alone in 10,732 patients with STEMI. Eligible adult patients (aged ≥18 years) from 87 hospitals in 20 countries were enrolled and randomly assigned (1:1) within 12 h of symptom onset to receive routine manual thrombectomy with PCI or PCI alone. Permuted block randomisation (with variable block size) was done by a 24 h computerised central system, and was stratified by centre. Participants and investigators were not masked to treatment assignment. The trial did not show a difference at 180 days in the primary outcome of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, cardiogenic shock, or heart failure. However, the results showed improvements in the surrogate outcomes of ST segment resolution and distal embolisation, but whether or not this finding would translate into a longer term benefit remained unclear. In this longer-term follow-up of the TOTAL study, we report the results on the primary outcome (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, cardiogenic shock, or heart failure) and secondary outcomes at 1 year. Analyses of the primary outcome were by modified intention to treat and only included patients who underwent index PCI. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01149044. FINDINGS: Between Aug 5, 2010, and July 25, 2014, 10,732 eligible patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to thrombectomy followed by PCI (n=5372) or to PCI alone (n=5360). After exclusions of patients who did not undergo PCI in each group (337 in the PCI and thrombectomy group and 331 in the PCI alone group), the final study population comprised 10,064 patients (5035 thrombectomy and 5029 PCI alone). The primary outcome at 1 year occurred in 395 (8%) of 5035 patients in the thrombectomy group compared with 394 (8%) of 5029 in the PCI alone group (hazard ratio [HR] 1·00 [95% CI 0·87-1·15], p=0·99). Cardiovascular death within 1 year occurred in 179 (4%) of the thrombectomy group and in 192 (4%) of 5029 in the PCI alone group (HR 0·93 [95% CI 0·76-1·14], p=0·48). The key safety outcome, stroke within 1 year, occurred in 60 patients (1·2%) in the thrombectomy group compared with 36 (0·7%) in the PCI alone group (HR 1·66 [95% CI 1·10-2·51], p=0·015). INTERPRETATION: Routine thrombus aspiration during PCI for STEMI did not reduce longer-term clinical outcomes and might be associated with an increase in stroke. As a result, thrombus aspiration can no longer be recommended as a routine strategy in STEMI. FUNDING: Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Canadian Network and Centre for Trials Internationally, and Medtronic Inc.

Outcomes after thrombus aspiration for ST elevation myocardial infarction: 1-year follow-up of the prospective randomised TOTAL trial

BackgroundTwo large trials have reported contradictory results at 1 year after thrombus aspiration in ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). In a 1-year follow-up of the largest randomised trial of thrombus aspiration, we aimed to clarify the longer-term benefits, to help guide clinical practice.MethodsThe trial of routine aspiration ThrOmbecTomy with PCI versus PCI ALone in Patients with STEMI (TOTAL) was a prospective, randomised, investigator-initiated trial of routine manual thrombectomy versus percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) alone in 10 732 patients with STEMI. Eligible adult patients (aged ≥18 years) from 87 hospitals in 20 countries were enrolled and randomly assigned (1:1) within 12 h of symptom onset to receive routine manual thrombectomy with PCI or PCI alone. Permuted block randomisation (with variable block size) was done by a 24 h computerised central system, and was stratified by centre. Participants and investigators were not masked to treatment assignment. The trial did not show a difference at 180 days in the primary outcome of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, cardiogenic shock, or heart failure. However, the results showed improvements in the surrogate outcomes of ST segment resolution and distal embolisation, but whether or not this finding would translate into a longer term benefit remained unclear...

Randomized Controlled Trial of Radiation Protection With a Patient Lead Shield and a Novel, Nonlead Surgical Cap for Operators Performing Coronary Angiography or Intervention.

BACKGROUND: Interventional cardiologists receive one of the highest levels of annual occupational radiation exposure. Further measures to protect healthcare workers are needed. METHODS AND RESULTS: We evaluated the efficacy of a pelvic lead shield and a novel surgical cap in reducing operators' radiation exposure. Patients undergoing coronary angiography or percutaneous coronary intervention (n=230) were randomized to have their procedure with or without a lead shield (Ultraray Medical, Oakville, Canada) placed over the patient. During all procedures, operators wore the No Brainer surgical cap (Worldwide Innovations and Technology, Kansas City, KS) designed to protect the head from radiation exposure. The coprimary outcomes for the lead shield comparison were (1) operator dose (µSv) and (2) operator dose indexed for air kerma (µSv/mGy). For the cap comparison, the primary outcome was the difference between total radiation dose (µSv; internal and external to cap). The lead shield use resulted in a 76% reduction in operator dose (mean dose, 3.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.00-4.71 µSv lead shield group versus 12.57; 95% CI, 8.14-19.40 µSv control group; P<0.001). The mean dose indexed for air kerma was reduced by 72% (0.004; 95% CI, 0.003-0.005 µSv/mGy lead shield group versus 0.015; 95% CI, 0.012-0.019 µSv/mGy control group; P<0.001). The cap use resulted in a significant reduction in operator head radiation exposure (mean left temporal difference [external-internal] radiation dose was 4.79 [95% CI, 3.30-6.68] µSv; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The use of a pelvic lead shield and the cap reduced significantly the operator radiation exposure and can be easily incorporated into clinical practice. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02128035.

Stroke in the TOTAL trial: a randomized trial of routine thrombectomy vs. percutaneous coronary intervention alone in ST elevation myocardial infarction.

AIMS: TOTAL (N = 10 732), a randomized trial of routine manual thrombectomy vs. percutaneous coronary intervention alone in ST elevation myocardial infarction, showed no difference in the primary efficacy outcome but a significant increase in stroke. We sought to understand these findings. METHODS AND RESULTS: A detailed analysis of stroke timing, stroke severity, and stroke subtype was performed. Strokes were adjudicated by neurologists blinded to treatment assignment. Stroke within 30 days, the primary safety outcome, was increased [33 (0.7%) vs. 16 (0.3%), hazard ratio (HR) 2.06; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.13-3.75]. The difference in stroke was apparent within 48 h [15 (0.3%) vs. 5 (0.1%), HR 3.00; 95% CI 1.09-8.25]. There was an increase in strokes within 180 days with minor or no disability (Rankin 0-2) [18 (0.4%) vs. 13 (0.3%) HR 1.38; 95% CI 0.68-2.82] and in strokes with major disability or fatal (Rankin 3-6) [35 (0.7%) vs. 13 (0.3%), HR 2.69; 95% CI 1.42-5.08]. Most of the absolute difference was due to an increase in ischaemic strokes within 180 days [37 (0.7%) vs. 21 (0.4%), HR 1.71; 95% CI 1.03-3.00], but there was also an increase in haemorrhagic strokes [10 (0.2%) vs. 2 (0.04%), HR 4.98; 95% CI 1.09-22.7]. Patients that had a stroke had a mortality of 30.8% within 180 days vs. 3.4% without a stroke (P < 0.001). A meta-analysis of randomized trials (N = 21 173) showed an increase in risk of stroke (odds ratio 1.59; 95% CI 1.11-2.27) but a trend towards reduction in mortality odds ratio (odds ratio 0.87; 95% CI 0.76-1.00). CONCLUSION: Thrombectomy was associated with a significant increase in stroke. Based on these findings, future trials must carefully collect stroke to determine safety in addition to efficacy.

Effects of withdrawing vs continuing renin-angiotensin blockers on incidence of acute kidney injury in patients with renal insufficiency undergoing cardiac catheterization: Results from the Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibitor/Angiotensin Receptor Blocker and Contrast Induced Nephropathy in Patients Receiving Cardiac Catheterization (CAPTAIN) trial.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear if holding angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) prior to coronary angiography reduces contrast-induced acute kidney injury (AKI). We undertook a randomized trial to investigate the effect of holding ACEI/ARB therapy prior to coronary angiography on the incidence of AKI. METHODS: We randomly assigned 208 patients with moderate renal insufficiency (creatinine ≥ 1.7mg/dL within 3 months and/or documented creatinine ≥ 1.5mg/dL within 1 week before cardiac catheterization) to hold ACEI/ARB ≥24 hours preprocedure or continue ACEI/ARB. The primary outcome was the incidence of AKI defined as an absolute rise in serum creatinine of ≥0.5mg/dL from baseline and/or a relative rise in serum creatinine of ≥25% compared with baseline measured at 48 to 96 hours postcardiac catheterization. RESULTS: All patients were taking an ACEI (72.1%) or ARB (27.9%) prior to randomization. At 48 to 96 hours, the primary outcome occurred in 18.4% of patients who continued ACEI/ARB compared with 10.9% of the patients who held ACEI/ARB (hazard ratio 0.59, 95% CI 0.30-1.19, P = .16). In a prespecified secondary outcome, there was a lower rise in mean serum creatinine after the procedure in patients who held ACEI/ARB (0.3 ± 0.5 vs 0.1 ± 0.3mg/dL, P = .03). The clinical composite of death, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, congestive heart failure, rehospitalization for cardiovascular cause, or need for dialysis preprocedure occurred in 3.9% who continued ACEI/ARB compared with 0% who held the ACEI/ARB (hazard ratio 0.11, 95% CI 0.01-2.96, P = .06). CONCLUSION: In this pilot study of patients with moderate renal insufficiency undergoing cardiac catheterization, with-holding ACEI/ARB resulted in a non-significant reduction in contrast-induced AKI and a significant reduction in post-procedural rise of creatinine. This low cost intervention could be considered when referring a patient for cardiac catheterization.

Providing optimal regional care for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a prospective cohort study of patients in the Hamilton Niagara Haldimand Brant Local Health Integration Network.

BACKGROUND: Although considered the evidence-based best therapy for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), many patients do not receive primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) because of health care resource distribution and constraints. This study describes the clinical management and outcomes of all patients identified with STEMI within a region, including those who did not receive primary PCI. METHODS: This study used a prospective cohort design. Patients presenting with STEMI to PCI- and non-PCI-capable hospitals in one integrated health region in Ontario were included in the study. The primary objective was to examine use of reperfusion strategies and timeliness of care. Secondary objectives included determining (through regression models) which variables were associated with mortality within 90 days, and describing patient uptake of risk-reducing therapies and activities post-STEMI. RESULTS: Between Apr. 1, 2010, and Mar. 31, 2013, data were collected on 2247 consecutive patients presenting with STEMI. Patients presenting to the PCI-capable hospital were more likely to receive primary PCI (82.5% v. 65.2%, p < 0.001) and be treated within optimal treatment times. However, there was no appreciable difference in mortality at 90 days post-STEMI between patients presenting to PCI- and non-PCI-capable hospitals (7.8% v. 7.5%, p = 0.82), even after adjustment for acuity on presentation. Despite recognized risk factors, many patients were not taking evidence-based medications for risk factor modification before STEMI. INTERPRETATION: A systematic approach to regional STEMI care focusing on timely access to the best available therapies, rather than the type of reperfusion provided alone, can yield favourable outcomes.

Randomized trial of primary PCI with or without routine manual thrombectomy.

BACKGROUND: During primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), manual thrombectomy may reduce distal embolization and thus improve microvascular perfusion. Small trials have suggested that thrombectomy improves surrogate and clinical outcomes, but a larger trial has reported conflicting results. METHODS: We randomly assigned 10,732 patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary PCI to a strategy of routine upfront manual thrombectomy versus PCI alone. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, recurrent myocardial infarction, cardiogenic shock, or New York Heart Association (NYHA) class IV heart failure within 180 days. The key safety outcome was stroke within 30 days. RESULTS: The primary outcome occurred in 347 of 5033 patients (6.9%) in the thrombectomy group versus 351 of 5030 patients (7.0%) in the PCI-alone group (hazard ratio in the thrombectomy group, 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85 to 1.15; P=0.86). The rates of cardiovascular death (3.1% with thrombectomy vs. 3.5% with PCI alone; hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.12; P=0.34) and the primary outcome plus stent thrombosis or target-vessel revascularization (9.9% vs. 9.8%; hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.14; P=0.95) were also similar. Stroke within 30 days occurred in 33 patients (0.7%) in the thrombectomy group versus 16 patients (0.3%) in the PCI-alone group (hazard ratio, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.13 to 3.75; P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with STEMI who were undergoing primary PCI, routine manual thrombectomy, as compared with PCI alone, did not reduce the risk of cardiovascular death, recurrent myocardial infarction, cardiogenic shock, or NYHA class IV heart failure within 180 days but was associated with an increased rate of stroke within 30 days. (Funded by Medtronic and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research; TOTAL ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01149044.).

Design and rationale of the TOTAL trial: a randomized trial of routine aspiration ThrOmbecTomy with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus PCI ALone in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary PCI.

BACKGROUND: A major limitation of primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) for the treatment of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is impaired microvascular perfusion due to embolization and obstruction of microcirculation with thrombus. Manual thrombectomy has the potential to reduce distal embolization and improve microvascular perfusion. Clinical trials have shown mixed results regarding thrombectomy. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of routine upfront manual aspiration thrombectomy during PPCI compared with percutaneous coronary intervention alone in patients with STEMI. DESIGN: This is a multicenter, prospective, open, international, randomized trial with blinded assessment of outcomes. Patients with STEMI undergoing PPCI are randomized to upfront routine manual aspiration thrombectomy with the Export catheter (Medtronic CardioVascular, Santa Rosa, CA) or to percutaneous coronary intervention alone. The primary outcome is the composite of cardiovascular death, recurrent myocardial infarction, cardiogenic shock, or new or worsening New York Heart Association class IV heart failure up to 180 days. The trial uses an event-driven design and will recruit 10,700 patients. SUMMARY: The TOTAL trial will determine the effect of routine manual aspiration thrombectomy during PPCI on clinically important outcomes.

Procedural volume and outcomes with radial or femoral access for coronary angiography and intervention.

OBJECTIVES: The study sought to evaluate the relationship between procedural volume and outcomes with radial and femoral approach. BACKGROUND: RIVAL (RadIal Vs. femorAL) was a randomized trial of radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography/intervention (N = 7,021), which overall did not show a difference in primary outcome of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or non-coronary artery bypass graft major bleeding. METHODS: In pre-specified subgroup analyses, the hazard ratios for the primary outcome were compared among centers divided by tertiles and among individual operators. A multivariable Cox proportional hazards model was used to determine the independent effect of center and operator volumes after adjusting for other variables. RESULTS: In high-volume radial centers, the primary outcome was reduced with radial versus femoral access (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.28 to 0.87) but not in intermediate- (HR: 1.23; 95% CI: 0.88 to 1.72) or low-volume centers (HR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.52 to 1.31; interaction p = 0.021). High-volume centers enrolled a higher proportion of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). After adjustment for STEMI, the benefit of radial access persisted at high-volume radial centers. There was no difference in the primary outcome between radial and femoral access by operator volume: high-volume operators (HR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.48 to 1.28), intermediate (HR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.60 to 1.27), and low (HR: 1.10; 95% CI: 0.74 to 1.65; interaction p = 0.536). However, in a multivariable model, overall center volume and radial center volume were independently associated with the primary outcome but not femoral center volume (overall percutaneous coronary intervention volume HR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.88 to 0.96; radial volume HR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.80 to 0.97; and femoral volume HR: 1.00, 95% CI: 0.94 to 1.07; p = 0.98). CONCLUSIONS: Procedural volume and expertise are important, particularly for radial percutaneous coronary intervention. (A Trial of Trans-radial Versus Trans-femoral Percutaneous Coronary Intervention [PCI] Access Site Approach in Patients With Unstable Angina or Myocardial Infarction Managed With an Invasive Strategy [RIVAL]; NCT01014273).

Design and rationale of the TOTAL trial: A randomizedtrial of routine aspiration ThrOmbecTomy withpercutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus PCIALone in patients with ST-elevation myocardialinfarction undergoing primary PCI

Background A major limitation of primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) for the treatment of ST-elevation

myocardial infarction (STEMI) is impaired microvascular perfusion due to embolization and obstruction of microcirculation with

thrombus. Manual thrombectomy has the potential to reduce distal embolization and improve microvascular perfusion. Clinical

trials have shown mixed results regarding thrombectomy.

Objective The objective of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of routine upfront manual aspiration thrombectomy during

PPCI compared with percutaneous coronary intervention alone in patients with STEMI.

Design This is a multicenter, prospective, open, international, randomized trial with blinded assessment of outcomes.

Patients with STEMI undergoing PPCI are randomized to upfront routine manual aspiration thrombectomy with the Export

catheter (Medtronic CardioVascular, Santa Rosa, CA) or to percutaneous coronary intervention alone. The primary outcome is

the composite of cardiovascular death, recurrent myocardial infarction, cardiogenic shock, or new or worsening New York

Heart Association class IV heart failure up to 180 days. The trial uses an event-driven design and will recruit 10,700 patients.

Summary The TOTAL trial will determine the effect of routine manual aspiration thrombectomy during PPCI on clinically

Effects of radial versus femoral artery access in patients with acute coronary syndromes with or without ST-segment elevation.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine the consistency of the effects of radial artery access in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and in those with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTEACS). BACKGROUND: The safety associated with radial access may translate into mortality benefit in higher-risk patients, such as those with STEMI. METHODS: We compared efficacy and bleeding outcomes in patients randomized to radial versus femoral access in RIVAL (RadIal Vs femorAL access for coronary intervention trial) (N = 7,021) separately in those with STEMI (n = 1,958) and NSTEACS (n = 5,063). Interaction tests between access site and acute coronary syndrome type were performed. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were well matched between radial and femoral groups. There were significant interactions for the primary outcome of death/myocardial infarction/stroke/non-coronary artery bypass graft-related major bleeding (p = 0.025), the secondary outcome of death/myocardial infarction/stroke (p = 0.011) and mortality (p = 0.001). In STEMI patients, radial access reduced the primary outcome compared with femoral access (3.1% vs. 5.2%; hazard ratio [HR]: 0.60; p = 0.026). For NSTEACS, the rates were 3.8% and 3.5%, respectively (p = 0.49). In STEMI patients, death/myocardial infarction/stroke were also reduced with radial access (2.7% vs. 4.6%; HR 0.59; p = 0.031), as was all-cause mortality (1.3% vs. 3.2%; HR: 0.39; p = 0.006), with no difference in NSTEACS patients. Operator radial experience was greater in STEMI versus NSTEACS patients (400 vs. 326 cases/year, p < 0.0001). In primary PCI, mortality was reduced with radial access (1.4% vs. 3.1%; HR: 0.46; p = 0.041). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with STEMI, radial artery access reduced the primary outcome and mortality. No such benefit was observed in patients with NSTEACS. The radial approach may be preferred in STEMI patients when the operator has considerable radial experience. (A Trial of Trans-radial Versus Trans-femoral Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) Access Site Approach in Patients With Unstable Angina or Myocardial Infarction Managed With an Invasive Strategy [RIVAL]; NCT01014273).

Randomized trial of insulin versus usual care in reducing restenosis after coronary intervention in patients with diabetes. the STent Restenosis And Metabolism (STREAM) study.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes status is an independent marker of restenosis after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Previous studies suggest that metabolic abnormalities associated with diabetes increase stent restenosis by promoting intimal hyperplasia. Preclinical studies have indicated that insulin therapy reduces intimal hyperplasia. The objective of this study was to determine whether insulin-mediated glucose lowering reduces in-stent restenosis in patients with diabetes undergoing PCIs. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, randomized, multicenter, open-labeled study with blinded outcomes. Patients were randomized 1:1 to daily bedtime subcutaneous NPH insulin (Novo Nordisk) versus usual therapy with oral hypoglycemic agents. The main outcomes were change in volume of intimal hyperplasia within the stent measured by intravascular ultrasound and late lumen loss by quantitative coronary angiography at 6 months post-PCI. RESULTS: Seventy-eight patients (36 insulin, 42 usual care) were randomized. Eight patients in each group received drug-eluting stents. The insulin group achieved greater reductions in both glycosylated hemoglobin A1c (mean±S.D.) (insulin: 8.0%±1.2% to 6.7%±0.7% vs. control: 7.5%±1.2% to 7.1%±1.0 %, P=.0038) and fasting glucose (insulin: 9.3±3.8 to 5.8±1.7 vs. usual care: 8.4±2.4 to 7.7±2.0 mmol/l, P<.0001). There were no hypoglycemic events. At 6 months, there were no significant differences in either intravascular-ultrasound-determined neointimal volume (insulin: 41.2±38.9 vs. usual care: 48.4±40.2 mm(3), P=.33) or late lumen loss by angiography (insulin: 1.29±0.74 mm vs. usual care: 1.02±0.71 mm, P=.17). CONCLUSIONS: Addition of a single bedtime dose of insulin in patients with diabetes does not influence in-stent restenosis.

Cost comparison of four revascularisation procedures for the treatment of multivessel coronary artery disease.

OBJECTIVE: An economic evaluation was performed, using modelling techniques, to compare 1-year total costs of four revascularisation procedures in patients with multivessel disease: on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG); off-pump CABG; percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with bare-metal stents (BMS); and PCI with drug-eluting stents (DES). METHODS: Clinical data were derived from four randomised clinical trials comparing CABG versus PCI, as well as from literature reviews. Resource use and unit cost estimates were modelled to reflect current Canadian practice. RESULTS: This study demonstrated that 1 year after the initial revascularisation, PCI with BMS is the least costly procedure, followed by off-pump CABG, PCI with DES and on-pump CABG. DES became the most costly procedure if 3.5 or more DES were used or if staged PCI was performed.

Ramipril in the treatment of vascular diseases.

Ramipril is an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor that has been extensively studied in randomised, controlled clinical trials in patients with cardiovascular diseases. Therapy with ramipril in patients with various cardiovascular disorders has demonstrated significant and clinically important reductions in cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, congestive heart failure, progressive renal impairment and onset of diabetes. Ramipril is usually dosed at 2.5-10 mg/day. Beneficial effects of ramipril are observed in the treatment of hypertension and congestive heart failure, prevention of cardiovascular events in high-risk patients, prevention of congestive heart failure, diabetes and other vascular events.