Till Örebro universitet

Background: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of lesions in the proximal left anterior descending coronary artery (LAD) may confer a worse prognosis compared with the proximal right coronary artery (RCA) and left circumflex coronary artery (LCX). Methods: From May 2005, to May 2011 we identified all PCIs for proximal, one-vessel coronary artery disease in the Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry (SCAAR). We evaluated restenosis, stent thrombosis (ST) and mortality in the LAD as compared to the RCA and LCX according to stent type, bare metal (BMS) or drug-eluting stents (DES). Results: 7840 single vessel proximal PCI procedures were identified. Mean follow-up time was 792 days. No differences in restenosis or ST were seen between the LAD and the RCA. The frequency of restenosis and ST was higher in the proximal LAD compared to the proximal LCX (restenosis: hazard ratio (HR) 2.28, confidence interval (CI) 1.56-3.34 p < 0.001; ST: HR 2.32, CI 1.11-4.85 p = 0.024). We found no difference in mortality related to coronary artery. In the proximal LAD, DES implantation was associated with a lower restenosis rate (HR 0.39, CI 0.27-0.55 < 0.001) and mortality (HR 0.58, CI 0.41-0.82 p = 0.002) compared with BMS. In the proximal RCA and LCX, DES use was not associated with lower frequency of clinical restenosis or mortality. Conclusions: Following proximal coronary artery intervention restenosis was more frequent in the LAD than in the LCX. Solely in the proximal LAD we found DES use to be associated with a lower risk of restenosis and death weighted against BMS. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Background: The clinical effect of thrombus aspiration in ST-elevation myocardial infarction may depend on the type of aspiration catheter and stenting technique.

Methods and Results: The multicenter, prospective, randomized, open-label trial Thrombus Aspiration in ST-Elevation myocardial infarction in Scandinavia (TASTE) did not demonstrate a clinical benefit of thrombus aspiration compared to percutaneous coronary intervention alone. We assessed the effect of type of aspiration device, stent type, direct stenting, and postdilatation on outcomes at 1 year. There was no difference in all-cause mortality, between the 3 most frequently used aspiration catheters (Eliminate [Terumo] 5.4%, Export [Medtronic] 5.0%, Pronto [Vascular Solutions] 4.5%) in patients randomized to thrombus aspiration. There was no difference in mortality between directly stented patients randomized to thrombus aspiration compared to patients randomized to percutaneous coronary intervention only (risk ratio 1.08, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.67, P=0.73). Similarly, there was no difference in mortality between the 2 randomized groups for patients receiving drug-eluting stents (risk ratio 0.89, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.26, P=0.50) or for those treated with postdilation (risk ratio 0.72, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.07, P=0.11). Furthermore, there was no difference in rehospitalization for myocardial infarction or stent thrombosis between the randomized arms in any of the subgroups.

Conclusions: In patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction randomized to thrombus aspiration, the type of aspiration catheter did not affect outcome. Stent type, direct stenting, or postdilation did not affect outcome irrespective of treatment with thrombus aspiration and percutaneous coronary intervention or percutaneous coronary intervention alone.

Background: The TASTE trial did not demonstrate clinical benefit of thrombus aspiration (TA). High-risk patients might benefit from TA.

Methods: The TASTE trial was a multicenter, randomized, controlled, open-label trial obtaining end points from national registries. Patients (n = 7,244) with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were randomly assigned 1: 1 to TA and PCI or to PCI alone. We assessed the 1-year clinical effect of TA in a subgroup with potentially large anterior STEMI: mid or proximal left anterior descending coronary artery infarct lesion, thrombolysis in myocardial infarction 0 to 2 flow, and symptom onset to PCI time = 5 hours. In this substudy, patient eligibility criteria corresponded to that of the INFUSE-AMI study.

Results: In total, 1,826 patients fulfilled inclusion criteria. All-cause mortality at 1 year of patients randomized to TA did not differ from those randomized to PCI only (hazard ratio [HR] 1.05, 95% CI 0.74-1.49, P = .77). Rates of rehospitalization for myocardial infarction, heart failure, and stent thrombosis did not differ between groups (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.51-1.46, P = .59; HR 1.10 95% CI 0.77-1.58, P = .58; and HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.30-1.86, P = .53, respectively). This was also the case for the combined end point of all-cause mortality and rehospitalization for myocardial infarction, heart failure, or stent thrombosis (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.79-1.26, P = .99).

Conclusion: In patients with STEMI and large area of myocardium at risk, TA did not affect outcome within 1 year.

Background and aims: In patients with coronary artery disease (CAD), clinically overt extracoronary artery diseases (ECADs), including claudication or previous strokes, are associated with poor outcomes. Subclinical ECADs detected by screening are common among such patients. We aimed to evaluate the prognostic impact of subclinical versus symptomatic ECADs in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI).

Methods: In a prospective observational study, 654 consecutive patients diagnosed with AMI underwent ankle brachial index (ABI) measurements and ultrasonographic screening of the carotid arteries and abdominal aorta. Clinical ECADs were defined as prior strokes, claudication, or extracoronary artery intervention. Subclinical ECADs were defined as the absence of a clinical ECAD in combination with an ABI <= 0.9 or >1.4, carotid artery stenosis, or an abdominal aortic aneurysm.

Results: At baseline, subclinical and clinical ECADs were prevalent in 21.6% and 14.4% of the patients, respectively. Patients with ECADs received evidence-based medication more often at admission but similar medications at discharge compared with patients without ECADs. During a median follow-up of 5.2 years, 166 patients experienced endpoints of hospitalization for AMI, heart failure, stroke, or cardiovascular death. With ECAD-free cases as reference and after adjustment for risk factors, a clinical ECAD (hazard ratio [HR] 2.10, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.34-3.27, p = 0.001), but not a subclinical ECAD (HR 1.35, 95% CI 0.89-2.05, p = 0.164), was significantly associated with worse outcomes.

Conclusions: Despite receiving similar evidence-based medication at discharge, patients with clinical ECAD, but not patients with a subclinical ECAD, had worse long-term prognosis than patients without an ECAD after AMI. (C) 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.