Trends in primary percutaneous coronary intervention for the treatment of acute coronary ST-elevation myocardial infarction in Latin American countries: insights from the CECI consortium.

Background: ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) requires revascularization treatment, preferably via primary percutaneous coronary interventions (pPCI). There is a lack of data about contemporary management of STEMI in Latin America. Methods: This was a multicenter, multinational, prospective, and dynamic registry of patients undergoing pPCI in Latin America for STEMI (STEMI/LATAMI Registry) that was carried out in nine centers from five countries (Argentina, Ecuador, Venezuela, Bolivia, and the Dominican Republic) between June 2021 and June 2023. All interventionalists involved in the study were originally trained at the same institution (Centro de Estudios en Cardiología Intervencionista, Buenos Aires, Argentina). The primary objective was to evaluate procedural and in-hospital outcomes of pPCI in STEMI and in-hospital outcome in the Latin America (LATAM) region; as secondary endpoints, we analyzed the following subgroups: differences between pPCI vs. pharmaco-invasive or late presenters, gender, elderly and very elderly patients, cardiogenic shock outcomes, and causes of STEMI. Results: In total, 744 STEMI patients who underwent PCI between June 2021 and June 2023 in five countries (nine centers) in our continent were included; 76.3% had a pPCI, 8.1% pharmaco-invasive PCI, and 15.6% had late STEMI PCI. There were no differences in region or center when we evaluated in-hospital and 30 days of death. The rate of procedural success was 96.2%, and the overall in-hospital mortality rate was 2.2%. In the subgroup of pPCI, mean symptom onset-to-balloon time was 295.3 ± 246 min, and mean door-to-balloon time was 55.8 ± 49.9 min. The femoral approach was chosen in 60.5%. In 3.0% of patients, the left main disease was the culprit artery, with 1.63 ± 1.00 stents per patient (564 drug-eluting stents and 652 bare metal stents), with 34 patients receiving only plain optimal balloon angioplasty. Definitive stent thrombosis was related to the infarct artery as the primary cause of STEMI in 7.5% of patients. The use of assistant mechanical devices was low, at 2.1% in the pPCI group. Women were older, with large numbers in very elderly age (≥90 years), greater mortality, and incidence of spontaneous coronary dissection as a cause of STEMI (p < 0.001, p < 0.001, p < 0.001, and p < 0.003, respectively). Conclusion: In suitable LATAM Centers from low/medium-income countries, this prospective registry in patients with STEMI, PCI performed by well-trained operators has comparable results to those reported in well-developed countries.

Comparison of cost-effectiveness of oral rapamycin plus bare-metal stents versus first generation of drug-eluting stents (from the Randomized Oral Rapamycin in Argentina [ORAR] 3 trial).

The aim of this study was to compare 5-year cost-effectiveness and clinical outcomes of patients with oral rapamycin (OR) plus bare-metal stent versus the drug-eluting stent (DES) strategy. During 2006 to 2007, a total of 200 patients were randomized to OR (n = 100) and DES (n = 100). Primary end point was to compare costs of initial procedure and cost-effectiveness of both revascularization strategies. Safety was evaluated by the composite of death, myocardial infarction, and cerebrovascular accident. Efficacy was assessed by target vessel and target lesion revascularizations. The 2 groups had similar baseline demographic, clinical, and angiographic characteristics. In the DES group, paclitaxel-, zotarolimus-, and sirolimus-eluting stents were used. Five-year clinical follow-up was accomplished in 99% patients. The DES group had significantly higher procedural (p <0.001), discharge to first-year (p = 0.02), and 1- to 5-year costs (p <0.001) compared with the OR group. At 5 years, the composite end point of death, myocardial infarction, and cerebrovascular accident (12% in the OR group vs 25% in the DES group, p = 0.01) was significantly less in the OR group. Target vessel revascularization (14.5% in the OR group vs 21% in the DES group, p = 0.16) and target lesion revascularization (10% in the OR group vs 17.6% in the DES group, p = 0.05) were not significantly different. In conclusion, a strategy of OR plus bare-metal stent was cost saving than a first-generation DES.

One-year outcome of patients with diabetes mellitus after percutaneous coronary intervention with three different revascularization strategies: results from the Diabetic Argentina Registry (DEAR).

AIMS: Percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) are associated with a high incidence of coronary restenosis, myocardial infarction (MI) and death. This study was to assess the potential role of a paclitaxel-eluting balloon (PEB) treatment in patients with DM with coronary lesions compared to those treated either with bare-metal stents (BMS) or drug-eluting stents (DES). METHODS AND RESULTS: The Diabetic Argentina Registry (DEAR) was an observational, prospective, non-randomised, open-label study that enrolled 92 patients with diabetes mellitus in three centers from Buenos Aires, Argentina, between April 2009 and March 2011, to be treated with PEB. Results were compared with previous outcome data in all patients with DM treated with DES (n=129 pts) or BMS (n=96 pts) in clinical studies conducted at our institutions. At one-year follow-up, patients with DM who received PEB followed by BMS implantation (96%) had a significantly lower incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) compared to the BMS group (BMS 32.3%, PEB 13.2%; P=.003). The incidence of target-vessel failure (TVF) was 30.2% (BMS) and 11% (PEB) (P=.003), that of target-vessel revascularization (TVR) was 22.9% (BMS) and 8.3% (PEB) (P=.005) and the composite of death/MI occurred in 13.5% (BMS) and in 2.2% for PEB (P=.05). These positive results are persistent even after subgroups analysis. When comparing with previous DES patients, TVF was 18.6% in DES vs. 11.0% in PEB (P=.13), MACE was 18.6% in DES vs. 13.2% in PEB (P=.29), TVR rate was 14.0% in DES vs. 8.3% in PEB (P=.14) and the composite death/MI was 9.3% in DES vs. 4.4% in PEB (0.18) CONCLUSIONS: Diabetic patients treated with PEB followed by BMS resulted in a significantly better outcome than BMS alone and appeared to be comparable to DES treatment.