Adoption and patterns of use of invasive physiological assessment of coronary artery disease in a large cohort of 40821 real-world procedures over a 12-year period.

INTRODUCTION 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 40821 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 <40, 40-55 and >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.

Adoption and patterns of use of invasive physiological assessment of coronary artery disease in a large cohort of 40821 real-world procedures over a 12-year period.

INTRODUCTION 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 40821 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 <40, 40-55 and >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.

Eligibility for extended antithrombotic therapy for secondary prevention of acute coronary syndrome.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Recent randomized controlled trials have evaluated the benefit of extended antithrombotic therapy in secondary prevention of acute coronary syndrome (ACS). However, the numerous and strict enrollment criteria may limit the validity and reproducibility of the published results in clinical practice. Our goal was to estimate the eligibility for participation in two randomized clinical trials in a group of patients followed for ACS. METHODS: We applied the enrollment criteria of two randomized clinical trials (PEGASUS and COMPASS) to consecutive patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention in an ACS registry between January 2016 and June 2017. RESULTS: A total of 780 patients were included in the final analysis. The proportion of patients fulfilling the trial enrollment criteria was 35.9% for PEGASUS and 32.1% for COMPASS. The proportion of patients eligible for both trials was 17.7% and 49.7% of patients were eligible for at least one trial. The need for anticoagulant therapy was the most common reason for exclusion on the PEGASUS criteria (46.2%) and the presence of high bleeding risk was the most common reason for exclusion on the COMPASS criteria (61.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 50% of real-world patients are not eligible for the antithrombotic strategies applied in these trials. Since this non-eligible population is at greater risk of events, further studies are needed to confirm the applicability of these strategies.

Adjuvant antithrombotic therapy in ST-elevation myocardial infarction: Contemporaneous Portuguese cross-sectional data.

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.

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.

[Diabetes Screening in Patients with Macrovascular Coronary Disease: Are the New European Guidelines a Step Backwards?] / Rastreio da Diabetes em Doentes com Doença Macrovascular Coronária: As Novas Guidelines Europeias são um Retrocesso?

BACKGROUND: The new European guidelines on diabetes mellitus and cardiovascular diseases propose that the FINnish Diabetes RIsk SCore should be used to evaluate the risk of diabetes mellitus and that diabetes mellitus screening in coronary artery disease patients should be based on fasting glucose and HbA1c. The 2 hour oral glucose tolerance test, recommended for all pts in the previous guidelines, is now only recommended for 'inconclusive' cases. We aimed to evaluate this new strategy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Fasting glucose, HbA1c and glucose tolerance test (75 g, 2h) were prospectively evaluated in a consecutive group of pts with coronary artery disease. ADA criteria (both glucose tolerance test and HbA1c) were used to define diabetes mellitus and pre-diabetes mellitus. Diabetes mellitus risk was evaluated according to the FINnish Diabetes RIsk SCore. RESULTS: A total of 135 patients were included (mean age 62.3 +/- 13.1 years, 99 males). Glucose tolerance test and HbA1c together diagnosed 18 (13.3%) new cases of diabetes mellitus and 77 (57.0%) patients with pre-diabetes mellitus. Fasting glucose + HbA1c (guidelines strategy) identified 12/18 patients with diabetes mellitus (Sens 66.7%; negative predictive value 95.1%; Kappa 0.78; p < 0.0001) and 83/95 patients with glucose anomalies (pre- diabetes mellitus + diabetes mellitus) (Sens 87.4%; negative predictive value 76.9%). Performing glucose tolerance test in the 29 patients with an elevated FINnish Diabetes RIsk SCore would allow identifying 15/18 patients with diabetes mellitus (Sens 83.3%; negative predictive value 97.5%; Kappa 0.85; p < 0.0001) and 86/95 patients with glucose anomalies (Sens 90.5%; negative predictive value 81.6%). DISCUSSION: Although this strategy improved the screening accuracy, one in each six patients with diabetes mellitus would still remain undiagnosed, as compared to measuring HbA1c and performing an glucose tolerance test in all patients. CONCLUSION: Using the FINnish Diabetes RIsk SCore to select candidates to additional glucose tolerance test improves the accuracy for identifying diabetic patients, as compared with fasting glucose + HbA1c alone. However, 1/6 patients diabetes mellitus is still left undiagnosed with this strategy proposed by the current guidelines.

Introdução: As novas recomendações europeias de diabetes mellitus tipo 2 e doença cardiovascular sugerem que o risco de diabetes mellitus tipo 2 deve ser avaliado através do score de risco FINnish Diabetes RIsk SCore e que o rastreio de diabetes mellitus tipo 2 na população com doença arterial coronária deve ser efetuado apenas com a glicemia plasmática em jejum e a HbA1, remetendo a prova de tolerância oral à glicose para os casos 'inconclusivos'. Pretendemos avaliar os resultados desta estratégia, que difere da previamente defendida nas guidelines. Material e Métodos: A glicemia plasmática em jejum, HbA1c e a prova de tolerância oral à glicose (75 g, 2 horas) foram avaliadas prospectivamente num grupo de doentes consecutivos submetidos a intervenção coronária percutânea, sendo usada a classificação da ADA para pré-diabetes mellitus tipo 2 e diabetes mellitus tipo 2. O risco de diabetes foi avaliado de acordo com o FINnish Diabetes RIsk SCore. Resultados: Foram incluídos 135 doentes (idade média 62,3 +/- 13,1 anos; 99 homens). Usando a prova de tolerância oral à glicose e a HbA1c, foram diagnosticados 18 (13,3%) novos casos de diabetes mellitus tipo 2 e 77 (57,0%) casos de pré-diabetes mellitus tipo 2. A glicemia plasmática em jejum + HbA1c identificou 12/18 doentes com diabetes mellitus tipo 2 (Sens 66,7%; valor preditivo negativo 95,1%; Kappa 0,78; p < 0,0001) e 83 do total (pré-diabetes mellitus tipo 2/ diabetes mellitus tipo 2) de 95 doentes com distúrbios da glucose (Sens 87,4%; valor preditivo negativo 76,9%). Realizar adicionalmente prova de tolerância oral à glicose nos 29 doentes com um FINnish Diabetes RIsk SCore elevado permitiu diagnosticar 15/18 doentes com diabetes mellitus (Sens 83,3%; valor preditivo negativo 97,5%; Kappa 0,85; p < 0,0001) e 86/95 dos doentes com distúrbios da glucose (Sens 90,5%; valor preditivo negativo 81,6%). Discussão: Apesar da melhoria diagnóstica, um em cada seis doentes com diabetes mellitus tipo 2 não seria diagnosticado por esta estratégia. Conclusão: A utilização do FINnish Diabetes RIsk SCore como forma de selecionar os doentes candidatos a rastreio com prova de tolerância oral à glicose melhora a capacidade diagnóstica, quando comparada com a simples avaliação da glicemia plasmática em jejum e da HbA1c. No entanto, um em cada seis doentes com diabetes mellitus tipo 2 não é identificado com esta metodologia.

Trends in percutaneous coronary intervention from 2004 to 2013 according to the Portuguese National Registry of Interventional Cardiology.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present paper is to report trends in Portuguese interventional cardiology from 2004 to 2013 and to compare them with other European countries. METHODS: Based on the Portuguese National Registry of Interventional Cardiology and on official data from the Directorate-General of Health, we give an overview of developments in coronary interventions from 2004 to 2013. RESULTS: In 2013, 36 810 diagnostic catheterization procedures were performed, representing an increase of 34% compared to 2007 and a rate of 3529 coronary angiograms per million population. Coronary interventions increased by 65% in the decade from 2004 to 2013, with a total of 13 897 procedures and a rate of 1333 coronary interventions per million population in 2013. Primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) increased by 265% from 2004 to 2013 (1328 vs. 3524), an adjusted rate of 338 primary PCIs per million, representing 25% of total angioplasties. Stents were the most frequently used devices, drug-eluting stents being used in 73% in 2013. Radial access increased from 4.1% in 2004 to 57.9% in 2013. CONCLUSION: Interventional cardiology in Portugal has been expanding since 2004. We would emphasize the fact that in 2013 all Portuguese interventional cardiology centers were participating in the National Registry of Interventional Cardiology, as well as the growth in primary PCI and increased use of radial access.