Use of functional tests before angiography in patients with normal coronary arteries.

BACKGROUND: Functional tests provide diagnostic and prognostic information in patients with suspected coronary disease and are recommended in investigating and guiding management of these patients. There is little data on their utilization, especially in patients with low to intermediate pre-test probability of disease. METHODS: From 6053 consecutive patients who underwent 6830 coronary angiograms for suspected coronary disease, 758 patients were subsequently found to have normal coronary arteries. Clinical data, functional tests performed prior to angiography and referring physicians were analyzed. RESULTS: The 758 patients had mean pre-test probability of disease of 42+/-30%. Only 483 patients had undergone functional tests before angiography. There were no differences in gender, age, and pre-test probability between patients who underwent functional tests and those who did not. Three hundred thirteen patients underwent angiography as inpatients while 445 were day-only patients. Inpatients were less likely to have undergone functional tests prior to angiography. Inpatient status was the only independent predictor of not undergoing functional tests (OR 5.9, p<0.001). Functional tests revealed inducible ischaemia in only 241 of the 483 patients. Patients referred by cardiologists were more likely to have undergone functional tests compared with those referred by other physicians. Procedural cardiologists and non-procedural cardiologists had similar rate of use of functional tests. CONCLUSIONS: In our patients with normal coronary arteries, utilization of functional tests was low, particularly for inpatients. A significant proportion proceeded to angiography despite negative functional tests. Referrer characteristics and inpatient status, rather than pre-test probability, appeared to have greater impact on utilization of functional tests.

Patient tolerance and resource utilization associated with an arterial closure versus an external compression device after percutaneous coronary intervention.

We assessed patient tolerance and resource utilization of using the AngioSeal closure device versus assisted manual compression using the Femostop device after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Patients undergoing PCI with clean arterial access and no procedural hematoma were randomized to receive the AngioSeal or Femostop device to achieve femoral arterial hemostasis. Times from procedure end to removal from angiography table, hemostasis, ambulation, and hospital discharge were recorded. Bedside nursing/medical officer care time, vascular complications, and disposable use were also documented. Patient comfort was assessed using Present Pain Intensity and Visual Analogue scales at baseline, 4 hr, 8 hr, and the morning after the procedure. One hundred twenty-two patients were enrolled (62 AngioSeal, 60 Femostop). Patients in the AngioSeal group took longer to be removed from the angiography table (11 +/- 4 vs. 9 +/- 3 min; P = 0.002) compared with the Femostop group. Time to hemostasis (0.4 +/- 1.1 vs. 6.4 +/- 1.7 hr; P < 0.001) and ambulation (17 +/- 8 vs. 22 +/- 13 hr; P = 0.004) were less in the AngioSeal group, although time to discharge was not different. Nursing and medical officer time was no different. Disposables including device cost were higher in the AngioSeal group (209 dollars +/- 13 vs. 53 dollars +/- 9; P < 0.001). On a Visual Analogue scale, patients reported more pain at 4 hr (P < 0.001) and 8 hr (P < 0.001) in the Femostop group. The worst amount of pain at any time point was also more severe in the Femostop group (P < 0.001). Similar results were found on a Present Pain Intensity scale of pain. There were no differences in ultrasound-determined vascular complications (two each). Femoral access site closure using the AngioSeal device resulted in a small delay in leaving the angiography suite and a higher disposable cost compared to using the Femostop device. However, patients receiving the AngioSeal were able to ambulate sooner and reported less pain, which may justify the increased costs involved.

A randomized comparison of clopidogrel and aspirin versus ticlopidine and aspirin after coronary stent implantation.

BACKGROUND: The combination of a thienopyridine and aspirin has become the standard of care after intracoronary stenting. Clopidogrel appears to be better tolerated than ticlopidine but may be associated with more adverse cardiac events. We assessed the tolerability and efficacy of 2 weeks of therapy with ticlopidine and aspirin in comparison to clopidogrel and aspirin after coronary stent implantation. METHODS: Patients with successful intracoronary stent implantation at our institution were randomly assigned, in addition to aspirin, to receive either ticlopidine or clopidogrel. Loading doses were administered immediately after the procedure, and the drugs were continued for 2 weeks. RESULTS: Three hundred seven patients were randomly assigned: 154 patients to clopidogrel and 153 to the ticlopidine group. The primary end point of early drug discontinuation occurred in 5 patients (3.3%) in the ticlopidine group and 1 patient (0.6%) in the clopidogrel group (P =.121). Within 30 days, thrombotic stent occlusion occurred in 1 patient (0.7%) in the ticlopidine group and 3 patients (1.9%) in the clopidogrel group (P =.623). A major adverse cardiac event occurred in 3 patients (approximately 1.9%; P = 1.00) in each group. CONCLUSIONS: There was a nonsignificant trend to improved tolerability of a 2-week regimen of clopidogrel and aspirin when compared with ticlopidine and aspirin in patients undergoing intracoronary stent implantation. The combination of clopidogrel and aspirin results in a comparably low incidence of major adverse cardiac events when compared with ticlopidine and aspirin.