Clinical outcomes following percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents versus bare metal stents in patients on chronic hemodialysis.

BACKGROUND: Patients on chronic hemodialysis (HD) are recognized as a high-risk group for adverse events after percutaneous coronary intervention, and whether drug-eluting stents (DES) are associated with improved outcomes over bare metal stents (BMS) is still uncertain. The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy of DES compared with BMS at short- and long-term follow-up (FU) in an unselected sample of HD patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: In the time period 2005-2010, consecutive patients on chronic HD treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and stent implantation were retrospectively selected and analyzed. A total of 169 patients were selected, 77 treated exclusively with BMS and 92 exclusively with DES. Baseline clinical characteristics were similar in the 2 groups as well as the number of treated vessels, treated lesions, and the stent per patient ratio. At longest available FU, no difference between the 2 study groups was found in terms of cardiac death (18.2% vs 16.3%, P=0.83), myocardial infarction (2.5% vs 8.6%, P=0.09), cerebrovascular accidents (0% vs 1.1%, P=0.98), and target vessel revascularization (TVR) (9.1% vs 16.3%, P=0.17). Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events-free survival at 1,500 days in the BMS and DES groups was 57.6% and 50.9% (P=0.11), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: PCI in patients on chronic HD treatment is associated with a high incidence of adverse events at FU, mainly represented by death. In our study, the use of DES was not associated with a reduction of target lesion revascularization (TLR) and TVR.

Prevalence and non-invasive predictors of left main or three-vessel coronary disease: evidence from a collaborative international meta-analysis including 22 740 patients.

BACKGROUND: Left main disease (LMD) and three-vessel disease (3VD) have important prognostic value in patients with coronary artery disease. However, uncertainties still exist about their prevalence and predictors in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and also in patients with stable coronary disease. Thus the aim of this study was to perform an international collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis to appraise the prevalence and predictors of LMD and 3VD. METHODS: Medline/PubMed were systematically searched for eligible studies published up to 2010, reporting multivariate predictors of LMD or 3VD. Study features, patient characteristics, and prevalence and predictors of LMD and 3VD were abstracted and pooled with random-effect methods (95% CIs). RESULTS: 17 studies (22 740 patients) were included, 11 focusing on ACS (17 896 patients) and six on stable coronary disease (4844 patients). In the ACS subgroup, LMD or 3VD occurred in 20% (95% CI 7.2% to 33.4%), LMD in 12% (95% CI 10.5% to 13.5%), and 3VD in 25% (95% CI 23.1% to 27.0%). Heart failure at admission and extent of ST-segment elevation in lead aVR on 12-lead ECG were the most powerful predictors of LMD or 3VD. In the stable disease subgroup, LMD or 3VD was found in 36% (95% CI 18.5% to 48.8%), with the most powerful predictors being transient ischaemic dilation during the imaging stress test, extent of ST-segment elevation in aVR and V1 during the stress test, and hyperlipidaemia. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis demonstrated that severe coronary disease-that is, LMD or 3VD-is more common in patients with ACS or stable coronary disease than generally perceived, and that simple and low-cost tools may help in the selection of the most appropriate therapeutic approach.

Changing of SYNTAX score performing fractional flow reserve in multivessel coronary artery disease.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the relationship between classic SYNTAX and functional SYNTAX score guided by fractional flow reserve (FFR). BACKGROUND: SYNTAX score predicts clinical outcome after percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD), based on data from angiography alone. However, in the clinical setting, decision-making on myocardial revascularization should be guided by reliable demonstration of inducible ischemia, as detected by FFR. METHODS: FFR was collected in all 50-90% angiographic stenoses of 39 consecutive patients with stable multivessel CAD. SYNTAX score was calculated as usually described in SYNTAX group's reports. A functional SYNTAX (F-SYNTAX) score was determined by only considering ischemia-producing lesions (FFR ≤ 0.80). The two scores were compared with correlation, Bland-Altman and agreement tests. RESULTS: FFR was measured in 97 lesions, with a median value of 0.82±0.10. In the 50-70% and 70-90% category stenoses, FFR was greater than 0.80 in 68 and 16% of cases, respectively. F-SYNTAX was systematically inferior to SYNTAX score, with a median difference of 8.4±7.4 (P<0.05). The correlation between the two methods was globally weak (r=0.621, rho=0.563; P<0.001). After determining F-SYNTAX score, more than 30% of the patients moved to a lower-risk tertile group (P=0.003). No clinical and angiographic differences were found between patients whether or not reclassified in lower-risk tertiles with F-SYNTAX score. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with multivessel CAD, implementation of SYNTAX score with FFR seems to be a more rational approach for revascularization. F-SYNTAX score reclassifies a significant proportion of patients to a lower-risk profile, thus leading to a possible change of therapeutic strategy.