-
1.
Coronary Artery Spasm: New Insights.
Matta, A, Bouisset, F, Lhermusier, T, Campelo-Parada, F, Elbaz, M, Carrié, D, Roncalli, J
Journal of interventional cardiology. 2020;:5894586
Abstract
Coronary artery spasm (CAS) defined by a severe reversible diffuse or focal vasoconstriction is the most common diagnosis among INOCA (ischemia with no obstructive coronary artery disease) patients irrespective to racial, genetic, and geographic variations. However, the prevalence of CAS tends to decrease in correlation with the increasing use of medicines such as calcium channel blockers, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor, and statins, the controlling management of atherosclerotic risk factors, and the decreased habitude to perform a functional reactivity test in highly active cardiac catheterization centers. A wide spectrum of clinical manifestations from silent disease to sudden cardiac death was attributed to this complex entity with unclear pathophysiology. Multiple mechanisms such as the autonomic nervous system, endothelial dysfunction, chronic inflammation, oxidative stress, and smooth muscle hypercontractility are involved. Regardless of the limited benefits proffered by the newly emerged cardiac imaging modalities, the provocative test remains the cornerstone diagnostic tool for CAS. It allows to reproduce CAS and to evaluate reactivity to nitrates. Different invasive and noninvasive therapeutic approaches are approved for the management of CAS. Long-acting nondihydropyridine calcium channel blockers are recommended for first line therapy. Invasive strategies such as PCI (percutaneous coronary intervention) and CABG (coronary artery bypass graft) have shown benefits in CAS with significant atherosclerotic lesions. Combination therapies are proposed for refractory cases.
-
2.
Increasing Cardiac Rehabilitation Participation From 20% to 70%: A Road Map From the Million Hearts Cardiac Rehabilitation Collaborative.
Ades, PA, Keteyian, SJ, Wright, JS, Hamm, LF, Lui, K, Newlin, K, Shepard, DS, Thomas, RJ
Mayo Clinic proceedings. 2017;(2):234-242
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
The primary aim of the Million Hearts initiative is to prevent 1 million cardiovascular events over 5 years. Concordant with the Million Hearts' focus on achieving more than 70% performance in the "ABCS" of aspirin for those at risk, blood pressure control, cholesterol management, and smoking cessation, we outline the cardiovascular events that would be prevented and a road map to achieve more than 70% participation in cardiac rehabilitation (CR)/secondary prevention programs by the year 2022. Cardiac rehabilitation is a class Ia recommendation of the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology after myocardial infarction or coronary revascularization, promotes the ABCS along with lifestyle counseling and exercise, and is associated with decreased total mortality, cardiac mortality, and rehospitalizations. However, current participation rates for CR in the United States generally range from only 20% to 30%. This road map focuses on interventions, such as electronic medical record-based prompts and staffing liaisons that increase referrals of appropriate patients to CR, increase enrollment of appropriate individuals into CR, and increase adherence to longer-term CR. We also calculate that increasing CR participation from 20% to 70% would save 25,000 lives and prevent 180,000 hospitalizations annually in the United States.
-
3.
Home-based versus centre-based cardiac rehabilitation.
Taylor, RS, Dalal, H, Jolly, K, Zawada, A, Dean, SG, Cowie, A, Norton, RJ
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2015;(8):CD007130
Abstract
BACKGROUND Cardiovascular disease is the most common cause of death globally. Traditionally, centre-based cardiac rehabilitation programmes are offered to individuals after cardiac events to aid recovery and prevent further cardiac illness. Home-based cardiac rehabilitation programmes have been introduced in an attempt to widen access and participation. This is an update of a review originally published in 2009. OBJECTIVES To compare the effect of home-based and supervised centre-based cardiac rehabilitation on mortality and morbidity, health-related quality of life, and modifiable cardiac risk factors in patients with heart disease. SEARCH METHODS To update searches from the previous Cochrane review, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 9, 2014), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to October week 1 2014), EMBASE (Ovid, 1980 to 2014 week 41), PsycINFO (Ovid, 1806 to October week 2 2014), and CINAHL (EBSCO, to October 2014). We checked reference lists of included trials and recent systematic reviews. No language restrictions were applied. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared centre-based cardiac rehabilitation (e.g. hospital, gymnasium, sports centre) with home-based programmes in adults with myocardial infarction (MI), angina, heart failure or who had undergone revascularisation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two authors independently assessed the eligibility of the identified trials and data were extracted by a single author and checked by a second. Authors were contacted where possible to obtain missing information. MAIN RESULTS Seventeen trials included a total of 2172 participants undergoing cardiac rehabilitation following an acute MI or revascularisation, or with heart failure. This update included an additional five trials on 345 patients with heart failure. Authors of a number of included trials failed to give sufficient detail to assess their potential risk of bias, and details of generation and concealment of random allocation sequence were particularly poorly reported. In the main, no difference was seen between home- and centre-based cardiac rehabilitation in outcomes up to 12 months of follow up: mortality (relative risk (RR) = 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.43 to 1.47, P = 0.46, fixed-effect), cardiac events (data not poolable), exercise capacity (standardised mean difference (SMD) = -0.10, 95% CI -0.29 to 0.08, P = 0.29, random-effects), modifiable risk factors (total cholesterol: mean difference (MD) = 0.07 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.11, P = 0.47, random-effects; low density lipoprotein cholesterol: MD = -0.06 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.15, P = 0.55, random-effects; systolic blood pressure: mean difference (MD) = 0.19 mmHg, 95% CI -3.37 to 3.75, P = 0.92, random-effects; proportion of smokers at follow up (RR = 0.98, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.21, P = 0.83, fixed-effect), or health-related quality of life (not poolable). Small outcome differences in favour of centre-based participants were seen in high density lipoprotein cholesterol (MD = -0.07 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.11 to -0.03, P = 0.001, fixed-effect), and triglycerides (MD = -0.18 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.34 to -0.02, P = 0.03, fixed-effect, diastolic blood pressure (MD = -1.86 mmHg; 95% CI -0.76 to -2.95, P = 0.0009, fixed-effect). In contrast, in home-based participants, there was evidence of a marginally higher levels of programme completion (RR = 1.04, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.07, P = 0.009, fixed-effect) and adherence to the programme (not poolable). No consistent difference was seen in healthcare costs between the two forms of cardiac rehabilitation. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS This updated review supports the conclusions of the previous version of this review that home- and centre-based forms of cardiac rehabilitation seem to be equally effective for improving the clinical and health-related quality of life outcomes in low risk patients after MI or revascularisation, or with heart failure. This finding, together with the absence of evidence of important differences in healthcare costs between the two approaches, supports the continued expansion of evidence-based, home-based cardiac rehabilitation programmes. The choice of participating in a more traditional and supervised centre-based programme or a home-based programme should reflect the preference of the individual patient. Further data are needed to determine whether the effects of home- and centre-based cardiac rehabilitation reported in these short-term trials can be confirmed in the longer term. A number of studies failed to give sufficient detail to assess their risk of bias.
-
4.
Clinical outcomes with bioabsorbable polymer- versus durable polymer-based drug-eluting and bare-metal stents: evidence from a comprehensive network meta-analysis.
Palmerini, T, Biondi-Zoccai, G, Della Riva, D, Mariani, A, Sabaté, M, Smits, PC, Kaiser, C, D'Ascenzo, F, Frati, G, Mancone, M, et al
Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2014;(4):299-307
Abstract
OBJECTIVES This study sought to investigate the relative safety and efficacy of bioabsorbable polymer (BP)-based biolimus-eluting stents (BES) versus durable-polymer (DP)-drug-eluting stents (DES) and bare-metal stents (BMS) by means of a network meta-analysis. BACKGROUND Studies have suggested that BP-BES might reduce the risk of stent thrombosis (ST) and late adverse outcomes compared with first-generation DES. However, the relative safety and efficacy of BP-BES versus newer-generation DES coated with more biocompatible DP have not been investigated in depth. METHODS Randomized controlled trials comparing BP-BES versus currently U.S.-approved DES or BMS were searched through MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases. Information on study design, inclusion and exclusion criteria, sample characteristics, and clinical outcomes was extracted. RESULTS Data from 89 trials including 85,490 patients were analyzed. At 1-year follow-up, BP-BES were associated with lower rates of cardiac death/myocardial infarction (MI), MI, and target vessel revascularization (TVR) than BMS and lower rates of TVR than fast-release zotarolimus-eluting stents. The BP-BES had similar rates of cardiac death/MI, MI, and TVR compared with other second-generation DP-DES but higher rates of 1-year ST than cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stents (CoCr-EES). The BP-BES were associated with improved late outcomes compared with BMS and paclitaxel-eluting stents, considering the latest follow-up data available, with nonsignificantly different outcomes compared with other DP-DES although higher rates of definite ST compared with CoCr-EES. CONCLUSIONS In this large-scale network meta-analysis, BP-BES were associated with superior clinical outcomes compared with BMS and first-generation DES and similar rates of cardiac death/MI, MI, and TVR compared with second-generation DP-DES but higher rates of definite ST than CoCr-EES.
-
5.
Multi-Link Vision stent vs. first-generation drug-eluting stents: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Testa, L, Latini, RA, Pizzocri, S, Lanotte, S, Agnifili, M, Laudisa, ML, Brambilla, N, Bedogni, F
QJM : monthly journal of the Association of Physicians. 2011;(12):1025-34
Abstract
BACKGROUND Since its introduction, the cobalt chromium alloy MULTI-LINK VISION stent (MLV) has been extensively investigated thus leading to the largest amount of data so far available for a bare metal stent. Aim and METHODS Systematic review and meta-analysis (according to Cochrane collaboration guidelines) aiming at summarizing the real world safety and efficacy of MLV stent. Endpoints of interest were: major adverse events [(MAE) combination of overall death and non-fatal myocardial infarction, MI], and target vessel revascularization (TVR). Rate of stent thrombosis was also assessed. RESULTS Eleven studies finally retrieved totalling 5539 patients [7 study registries, 4243 patients and 4 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing MLV vs. first generation of drug-eluting stent (DES) (paclitaxel or sirolimus eluting), (RCTs) 1296 patients]. Across study registries, at a mean follow-up of 11.1 months, MLV was associated with a 5.3% risk of MAE, 3% of death, 2.3% of MI and a 9% of TVR. Risk of ST was 0.5%. Compared to first generation of DES in RCTs, at a mean follow-up of 10.5 months, MLV achieved similar results in terms of MAE, death and MI. On the other hand, MLV was associated with a double risk of TVR [OR 2.01 (1.34-3.01), P < 0.001, number needed to treat 18 (13-40)]. Overall, in stent late loss with MLV was 0.81 mm (±0.51), while the in segment late loss was 0.61 mm (±0.5). Risk of stent thrombosis was equivalent. Of note, performance of MLV in terms of safety, efficacy and risk of repeat revascularization was quite consistent across all the published studies, despite inherent differences in study design, clinical setting, complexity of the lesions and ethnicity. CONCLUSION Compared to first-generation DES, MLV showed substantial equivalence with respect to hard clinical endpoints. Data are consistent in study registries and RCTs meaning that the overall performance of MLV is quite predictable and reproducible into the wide spectrum of clinical settings.
-
6.
Home-based versus centre-based cardiac rehabilitation.
Taylor, RS, Dalal, H, Jolly, K, Moxham, T, Zawada, A
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2010;(1):CD007130
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND The burden of cardiovascular disease world-wide is one of great concern to patients and health care agencies alike. Traditionally centre-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) programmes are offered to individuals after cardiac events to aid recovery and prevent further cardiac illness. Home-based cardiac rehabilitation programmes have been introduced in an attempt to widen access and participation. OBJECTIVES To determine the effectiveness of home-based cardiac rehabilitation programmes compared with supervised centre-based cardiac rehabilitation on mortality and morbidity, health-related quality of life and modifiable cardiac risk factors in patients with coronary heart disease. SEARCH STRATEGY We updated the search of a previous review by searching the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library (2007, Issue 4), MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL from 2001 to January 2008. We checked reference lists and sought advice from experts. No language restrictions were applied. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared centre-based cardiac rehabilitation (e.g. hospital, gymnasium, sports centre) with home-based programmes, in adults with myocardial infarction, angina, heart failure or who had undergone revascularisation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Studies were selected independently by two reviewers, and data extracted by a single reviewer and checked by a second one. Authors were contacted where possible to obtain missing information. MAIN RESULTS Twelve studies (1,938 participants) met the inclusion criteria. The majority of studies recruited a lower risk patient following an acute myocardial infarction (MI) and revascularisation. There was no difference in outcomes of home- versus centre-based cardiac rehabilitation in mortality risk ratio (RR) was1.31 (95% confidence interval (C) 0.65 to 2.66), cardiac events, exercise capacity standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.11 (95% CI -0.35 to 0.13), as well as in modifiable risk factors (systolic blood pressure; diastolic blood pressure; total cholesterol; HDL-cholesterol; LDL-cholesterol) or proportion of smokers at follow up or health-related quality of life. There was no consistent difference in the healthcare costs of the two forms of cardiac rehabilitation. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Home- and centre-based cardiac rehabilitation appear to be equally effective in improving the clinical and health-related quality of life outcomes in acute MI and revascularisation patients. This finding, together with an absence of evidence of difference in healthcare costs between the two approaches, would support the extension of home-based cardiac rehabilitation programmes such as the Heart Manual to give patients a choice in line with their preferences, which may have an impact on uptake of cardiac rehabilitation in the individual case.
-
7.
Comparison by meta-analysis of drug-eluting stents and bare metal stents for saphenous vein graft intervention.
Lee, MS, Yang, T, Kandzari, DE, Tobis, JM, Liao, H, Mahmud, E
The American journal of cardiology. 2010;(8):1076-82
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
This meta-analysis was undertaken to assess the efficacy and safety of drug-eluting stents (DESs) compared to bare metal stents (BMSs) in saphenous vein graft (SVG) interventions. DESs decrease the risk of target vessel revascularization in native coronary arteries compared to BMSs. The ideal treatment strategy in patients with SVG disease is unknown. A search of the published reports was conducted to identify studies that compared DESs and BMSs in SVG intervention with a minimum follow-up of 6 months. A total of 19 studies (2 randomized trials and 17 registries), including 3,420 patients who had undergone SVG intervention (DESs, n = 1,489 and BMS, n = 1,931), met the selection criteria. The mean length of follow-up was 20 + or - 12 months. Using the fixed effect model, target vessel revascularization was less frequently performed in patients who had undergone SVG intervention with a DES than with a BMS (odds ratio [OR] 0.59, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.49 to 0.72). The incidence of myocardial infarction was lower in patients with a DES than in those with a BMS (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.99). No differences were found in the risk of death (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.02) or stent thrombosis (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.11) between the 2 groups. In conclusion, these findings support the use of DESs in SVG lesions.
-
8.
The impact of surgical and percutaneous coronary revascularization on the cardiac myocyte.
Khabbaz, KR, Levitsky, S
World journal of surgery. 2008;(3):361-5
Abstract
Re-establishing coronary blood flow to a segment of myocardium suffering from cessation or diminution of flow, either with surgical or percutaneous approaches, may be complicated by injury to the myocardium. During surgical revascularization with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), aortic cross-clamping and subsequent reduction in oxygen transport to the myocardium may result in cardiac myocyte injury and myonecrosis. This injury can be compounded if protection of the myocardium using myocardial protective strategies is not adequate. Ischemia/reperfusion cellular alterations may contribute to this injury as well. Percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) are also associated with myonecrosis resulting from side branch compromise, distal embolization of debris, and plugging of the microcirculation, as well as ischemia/reperfusion injury. Intracoronary filtering devices have not been shown to improve outcomes associated with such complications. Which revascularization strategy is associated with superior outcomes and less cardiac myocyte necrosis is an area of continuing controversy.
-
9.
[Coronary perfusion, necrosis area, pumping function of the myocardium, and cardiac electrical stability following revascularisation of infarction-affected myocardium].
Maslov, LN
Angiologiia i sosudistaia khirurgiia = Angiology and vascular surgery. 2007;(4):9-19
Abstract
Analysing the literature data suggests that coronary angioplasty in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) fails to completely remove the focus of ischaemia, even in case of successful recanalization of the infarction-related artery. Inadequate post-angioplasty reperfusion of the infarction-stunned myocardium is mainly caused by the so-called <> phenomenon. Primary coronary angioplasty is capable of decreasing the size of the necrosis focus, being however incapable of completely removing myocardial infarction. Such a situation results from death of a considerable number of cardiomyocytes in the area of ischaemia, to have occurred long before coronary reperfusion is restored. An endovascular intervention in AMI may improve the impaired myocardial contractile performance and save the life of the patients sustaining the cardiogenic shock. However, coronary angioplasty does not preclude the development of cardiac insufficiency in all the patients suffering from acute myocardial infarction, which is a consequence of inadequate cardiac reperfusion and a result of necrotic death of a considerable segment of the heart muscle. Currently, there is no evidence regarding the effect of primary angioplasty on the risk of sudden cardiac death following AMI. An endovascular intervention on the infarction-related artery cannot prevent the development of the postmyocardial-infarction cardiac remodelling, which is a consequence of incompletely restored coronary blood flow within the area of infarction.
-
10.
Effective interventions for lifestyle change after myocardial infarction or coronary artery revascularization.
Cobb, SL, Brown, DJ, Davis, LL
Journal of the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners. 2006;(1):31-9
Abstract
PURPOSE This science clinical paper reviews medical literature and examines interventions that are currently used to assist patients in achieving lifestyle change after myocardial infarction or coronary artery revascularization. Interventions that focused on both provider- and patient-implemented strategies were included. The effectiveness of these interventions to significantly reduce coronary heart disease risk factors was explored. DATA SOURCES Original longitudinal research studies or reviews indexed in PubMed between 1999 and 2004 were included. Eight studies were identified that met the inclusion criteria and presented successful interventions to increase participants' adherence to recommended lifestyle changes. CONCLUSIONS Current strategies for achieving recommended risk factor reductions include frequent follow-up, intensive diet changes, individualized and group exercise, coaching, group meetings, education on lifestyle modification and behavior change, and formal cardiac rehabilitation programs. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE Nurse Practitioners can help close the gap between evidence-based recommendations and clinical practice by implementing education programs in their practices and in the community. Recommendations include frequent follow-up visits, negotiating personalized treatment plans, and a general emphasis on therapeutic lifestyle change as an essential component of the treatment plan.