The purpose of this study was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) to characterize, outside of a pre-specified range of values, stenosis severity, as defined ...by fractional flow reserve (FFR) ≤0.80, in a prospective, independent, controlled, core laboratory-based environment.
Studies with methodological heterogeneity have reported some discrepancies in the classification agreement between iFR and FFR. The ADVISE II (ADenosine Vasodilator Independent Stenosis Evaluation II) study was designed to overcome limitations of previous iFR versus FFR comparisons.
A total of 919 intermediate coronary stenoses were investigated during baseline and hyperemia. From these, 690 pressure recordings (n = 598 patients) met core laboratory physiology criteria and are included in this report.
The pre-specified iFR cut-off of 0.89 was optimal for the study and correctly classified 82.5% of the stenoses, with a sensitivity of 73.0% and specificity of 87.8% (C statistic: 0.90 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.88 to 0.92, p < 0.001). The proportion of stenoses properly classified by iFR outside of the pre-specified treatment (≤0.85) and deferral (≥0.94) values was 91.6% (95% CI: 88.8% to 93.9%). When combined with FFR use within these cut-offs, the percent of stenoses properly classified by such a pre-specified hybrid iFR-FFR approach was 94.2% (95% CI: 92.2% to 95.8%). The hybrid iFR-FFR approach obviated vasodilators from 65.1% (95% CI: 61.1% to 68.9%) of patients and 69.1% (95% CI: 65.5% to 72.6%) of stenoses.
The ADVISE II study supports, on the basis rigorous methodology, the diagnostic value of iFR in establishing the functional significance of coronary stenoses, and highlights its complementariness with FFR when used in a hybrid iFR-FFR approach. (ADenosine Vasodilator Independent Stenosis Evaluation II-ADVISE II; NCT01740895).
Background
Same‐day discharge (SDD) after elective percutaneous coronary intervention is safe, less costly, and preferred by patients, but it is usually performed in low‐risk patients, if at all. To ...increase the appropriate use of SDD in more complex patients, we implemented a “patient‐centered” protocol based on risk of complications at Barnes‐Jewish Hospital.
Methods and Results
Our objectives were as follows: (1) to evaluate time trends in SDD; (2) to compare (a) mortality, bleeding, and acute kidney injury, (b) patient satisfaction, and (c) hospital costs by SDD versus no SDD (NSDD); and (3) to compare SDD eligibility by our patient‐centered approach versus Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions guidelines. Our patient‐centered approach was based on prospectively identifying personalized bleeding, mortality, and acute kidney injury risks, with a personalized safe contrast limit and mitigating those risks. We analyzed Barnes‐Jewish Hospital's National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI Registry data from July 1, 2009 to September 30, 2015 (N=1752). SDD increased rapidly from 0% to 77% (P<0.001), independent of radial access. Although SDD patients were comparable to NSDD patients, SDD was not associated with adverse outcomes (0% mortality, 0% bleeds, and 0.4% acute kidney injury). Patient satisfaction was high with SDD. Propensity score–adjusted costs were $7331 lower/SDD patient (P<0.001), saving an estimated $1.8 million annually. Only 16 patients (6.95%) met the eligibility for SDD by Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions guidelines, implying our patient‐centered approach markedly increased SDD eligibility.
Conclusions
With a patient‐centered approach, SDD rapidly increased and was safe in 75% of patients undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention, despite patient complexity. Patient satisfaction was high, and hospital costs were lower. Patient‐centered decision making to facilitate SDD is an important opportunity to improve the value of percutaneous coronary intervention.
Although clopidogrel is used to prevent subacute stent thrombosis, its safety and efficacy have not been compared with ticlopidine in a randomized manner in the United States.
Patients with ...successful intracoronary stent implantation were randomly assigned to therapy with ticlopidine or clopidogrel. Loading doses were administered immediately after the procedure, and the drugs were prescribed for 2 weeks. One thousand sixteen patients were enrolled: 522 patients were randomly assigned to ticlopidine therapy and 494 to clopidogrel. High-risk characteristics included recent myocardial infarction in 41.4% of the cases, angiographically evident thrombus in 20.9%, and abrupt or threatened closure in 3.64%. An intravenous glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor was used in 48.2% of the cases, and thrombocytopenia occurred in 1.43% of these patients. Failure to complete 2 weeks of therapy occurred in 3.64% of the patients treated with ticlopidine and in 1.62% of the patients treated with clopidogrel (P=0.043). Within 30 days, thrombosis of the stent occurred in 1.92% of the patients in the ticlopidine group and in 2.02% of the clopidogrel group (P=0.901). A major adverse cardiac event occurred in 4.60% of patients receiving ticlopidine and in 3.85% of patients receiving clopidogrel (P=0.551).
Clopidogrel is better tolerated than ticlopidine during a 2-week regimen after intracoronary stent implantation. Combining either thienopyridine with an intravenous platelet IIb/IIIa inhibitor appears to be safe. When applied to a broad spectrum of patients receiving stent implantation, clopidogrel confers similar protection as ticlopidine against subacute stent thrombosis and major adverse cardiac events.
Current evidence supports deferral of revascularization for lesions with fractional flow reserve (FFR) values >0.80. The natural history after deferral of revascularization of lesions with borderline ...FFR values is unknown. This study evaluated the outcomes of patients after deferred revascularization of coronary stenoses based on a borderline FFR value. We retrospectively studied 720 patients with 881 intermediate-severity coronary stenoses who underwent FFR assessment from October 2002 to July 2010 and were deferred revascularization. Patients were divided into gray zone (0.75 to 0.80), borderline (0.81 to 0.85), and nonborderline (>0.85) FFR groups. Any subsequent percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting of a deferred stenosis during follow-up was classified as a deferred lesion intervention (DLI). Patient and/or lesion characteristics and clinical outcomes were compared between the FFR groups using univariate and propensity score–adjusted inverse probability of weighting Cox proportional hazards analyses. During a mean follow-up of 4.5 ± 2.1 years, 157 deferred lesions (18%) underwent DLI by percutaneous coronary intervention (n = 117) or coronary artery bypass grafting (n = 40). No statistically significant differences were observed in clinical outcomes between the gray zone and borderline FFR groups. Lesions with a borderline FFR were associated with a significantly higher risk of DLI compared with lesions with nonborderline FFR values (hazard ratio 1.63, 95% confidence interval 1.14 to 2.33, p = 0.007). Lesions deferred revascularization because of a borderline FFR (0.81 to 0.85) were associated with a higher risk of DLI compared with lesions with a nonborderline FFR (>0.85). Further study is needed to determine the optimal management of coronary stenoses with a borderline FFR value.
Although lesions deferred revascularization following fractional flow reserve (FFR) assessment have a low risk of adverse cardiac events, variability in risk for deferred lesion intervention (DLI) ...has not been previously evaluated. The aim of this study was to develop a prediction model to estimate 1-year risk of DLI for coronary lesions where revascularization was not performed following FFR assessment.
A prediction model for DLI was developed from a cohort of 721 patients with 882 coronary lesions where revascularization was deferred based on FFR between 10/2002 and 7/2010. Deferred lesion intervention was defined as any revascularization of a lesion previously deferred following FFR. The final DLI model was developed using stepwise Cox regression and validated using bootstrapping techniques. An algorithm was constructed to predict the 1-year risk of DLI. During a mean (±SD) follow-up period of 4.0 ± 2.3 years, 18% of lesions deferred after FFR underwent DLI; the 1-year incidence of DLI was 5.3%, while the predicted risk of DLI varied from 1 to 40%. The final Cox model included the FFR value, age, current or former smoking, history of coronary artery disease (CAD) or prior percutaneous coronary intervention, multi-vessel CAD, and serum creatinine. The c statistic for the DLI prediction model was 0.66 (95% confidence interval, CI: 0.61-0.70).
Patients deferred revascularization based on FFR have variation in their risk for DLI. A clinical prediction model consisting of five clinical variables and the FFR value can help predict the risk of DLI in the first year following FFR assessment.
Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of bifurcation lesions remains challenging with a higher risk of adverse outcomes. Whether adjunctive intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) imaging improves ...outcomes of PCI of bifurcation lesions remains unclear. This study sought to determine the long-term clinical outcomes associated with using IVUS for percutaneous treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions. From April 2003 through August 2010, 449 patients with 471 bifurcation lesions underwent PCI with (n = 247) and without (n = 202) the use of IVUS. Clinical outcomes (death, myocardial infarction MI, periprocedural MI, stent thrombosis, target vessel revascularization TVR, and target lesion revascularization TLR) were compared between patients undergoing PCI with and without IVUS using univariate and propensity score-adjusted analyses. Most patients (61%) presented with acute coronary syndrome and 89% of bifurcations lesions were Medina class 1,1,1. After propensity score adjustment, use of IVUS was associated with significantly lower rates of death or MI (odds ratio 0.38, 95% confidence interval 0.20 to 0.74, p = 0.005), death (odds ratio 0.40, 95% confidence interval 0.18 to 0.88, p = 0.02), MI (odds ratio 0.37, 95% confidence interval 0.14 to 0.98, p = 0.04), periprocedural MI (odds ratio 0.45, 95% confidence interval 0.20 to 0.97, p = 0.04), TVR (odds ratio 0.28, 95% confidence interval 0.14 to 0.53, p <0.0001), and TLR (odds ratio 0.27, 95% confidence interval 0.14 to 0.53, p = 0.0003) compared to no IVUS. In conclusion, IVUS-guided treatment of complex bifurcation lesions was associated with significantly lower rates of adverse cardiac events at late follow-up. Further study is warranted to evaluate the role of IVUS guidance in improving long-term outcomes after PCI of bifurcation lesions.
To investigate repeat revascularisation outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis(RA) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).
We performed a single-centre, retrospective matched cohort ...study of patients with RA matched to non-RA patients post PCI. Primary endpoints were time to target lesion revascularisation (TLR) and target vessel revascularisation (TVR) analysed by Cox proportional hazard shared frailty models.
A total of 228 lesions (143 patients) were identified in the RA cohort and matched to 677 control lesions (541 patients). TLR occurred in 33% (n=75) of RA lesions versus 25% (n=166) of control lesions (adjusted HR 1.3; 95% CI 0.97 to 1.8). TVR occurred in 39% (n=89) of RA lesions versus 31% (n=213) of control lesions (adjusted HR 1.15; 95% CI 0.82 to 1.6). There was a significant hazard for TLR (adjusted HR 1.48; 95% CI 1.03 to 2.13) and TVR (adjusted HR 1.55; 95% CI 1.12 to 2.14) when excluding lesions with revascularisation events or follow-up less than 1 year. When stratified by treatment with methotrexate or tumour necrosis factor (TNF) α inhibitors or both at discharge, lesions from patients with RA treated with these agents had similar TVR and TLR as control lesions, whereas lesions from patients with RA not treated with these agents had significantly more TLR and TVR (TLR adjusted HR 1.48; 95% CI 1.08 to 2.03; TVR adjusted HR 1.38; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.84).
RA predisposes to repeat revascularisation, specifically in patients followed after the 1-year landmark. In the absence of RA treatments including methotrexate and/or TNFα inhibitors, RA is associated with a 50% increased relative risk of repeat revascularisation following PCI. These findings emphasise the adverse effects of chronic inflammation on the durability of PCI and provide further support for aggressive anti-inflammatory treatment in patients with RA.
The safety of deferring revascularization based on fractional flow reserve (FFR) during acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is unclear. We evaluated the association of FFR and adverse cardiac events among ...patients with coronary lesions deferred revascularization based on FFR in the setting of ACS versus non-ACS.
The study population (674 patients; 816 lesions) was divided into ACS (n=334) and non-ACS (n=340) groups based on the diagnosis when revascularization was deferred based on FFR values >0.80 between October 2002 and July 2010. The association and interaction between FFR and clinical outcomes was evaluated using Cox proportional hazards models within each group (mean follow-up of 4.5±2.1 years). Subsequent revascularization of a deferred lesion was classified as a deferred lesion intervention (DLI), whereas the composite of DLI or myocardial infarction (MI) attributed to a deferred lesion was designated as deferred lesion failure (DLF). In the non-ACS group, lower FFR values were not associated with any increase in adverse cardiac events. In the ACS group, every 0.01 decrease in FFR was associated with a significantly higher rate of cardiovascular death, MI, or DLI (hazard ratio HR, 1.08; 95% confidence interval CI, 1.03 to 1.12), MI or DLI (HR, 1.09; 95% CI: 1.04 to 1.14), DLF (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.18), MI (HR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.14), and DLI (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.18).
Lower FFR values among ACS patients with coronary lesions deferred revascularization based on FFR are associated with a significantly higher rate of adverse cardiac events. This association was not observed in non-ACS patients.
PDF
