Coronary Artery Disease: Hirshfeld JW

Patel MR, Dehmer GJ, Hirshfeld JW, Smith PK, Spertus JA. · Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA. · Circulation. · Pubmed #19131581 No free full text.

Abstract: The American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF), Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, and the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, along with key specialty and subspecialty societies, conducted an appropriateness review of common clinical scenarios in which coronary revascularization is frequently considered. The clinical scenarios were developed to mimic common situations encountered in everyday practice and included information on symptom status, extent of medical therapy, risk level as assessed by noninvasive testing, and coronary anatomy. Approximately 180 clinical scenarios were developed by a writing committee and scored by a separate technical panel on a scale of 1 to 9. Scores of 7 to 9 indicate that revascularization was considered appropriate and likely to improve health outcomes or survival. Scores of 1 to 3 indicate revascularization was considered inappropriate and unlikely to improve health outcomes or survival. The mid range (4 to 6) indicates a clinical scenario for which the likelihood that coronary revascularization would improve health outcomes or survival was considered uncertain. For the majority of the clinical scenarios, the panel only considered the appropriateness of revascularization irrespective of whether this was accomplished by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG). In a select subgroup of clinical scenarios in which revascularization is generally considered appropriate, the appropriateness of PCI and CABG individually as the primary mode of revascularization was considered. In general, the use of coronary revascularization for patients with acute coronary syndromes and combinations of significant symptoms and/or ischemia was viewed favorably. In contrast, revascularization of asymptomatic patients or patients with low-risk findings on noninvasive testing and minimal medical therapy were viewed less favorably. It is anticipated that these results will have an impact on physician decision making and patient education regarding expected benefits from revascularization and will help guide future research.

Patel MR, Dehmer GJ, Hirshfeld JW, Smith PK, Spertus JA, Masoudi FA, Brindis RG, Beckman KJ, Chambers CE, Ferguson TB, Garcia MJ, Grover FL, Holmes DR, Klein LW, Limacher M, Mack MJ, Malenka DJ, Park MH, Ragosta M, Ritchie JL, Rose GA, Rosenberg AB, Shemin RJ, Weintraub WS, Wolk MJ, Allen JM, Douglas PS, Hendel RC, Peterson ED. · Division of Cardiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA. · Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. · Pubmed #19127535 No free full text.

Abstract: The American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF), Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, and the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, along with key specialty and subspecialty societies, conducted an appropriateness review of common clinical scenarios in which coronary revascularization is frequently considered. The clinical scenarios were developed to mimic common situations encountered in everyday practice and included information on symptom status, extent of medical therapy, risk level as assessed by noninvasive testing, and coronary anatomy. Approximately 180 clinical scenarios were developed by a writing committee and scored by a separate technical panel on a scale of 1 to 9. Scores of 7 to 9 indicate that revascularization was considered appropriate and likely to improve health outcomes or survival. Scores of 1 to 3 indicate revascularization was considered inappropriate and unlikely to improve health outcomes or survival. The mid range (4 to 6) indicates a clinical scenario for which the likelihood that coronary revascularization would improve health outcomes or survival was considered uncertain. For the majority of the clinical scenarios, the panel only considered the appropriateness of revascularization irrespective of whether this was accomplished by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG). In a select subgroup of clinical scenarios in which revascularization is generally considered appropriate, the appropriateness of PCI and CABG individually as the primary mode of revascularization was considered. In general, the use of coronary revascularization for patients with acute coronary syndromes and combinations of significant symptoms and/or ischemia was viewed favorably. In contrast, revascularization of asymptomatic patients or patients with low-risk findings on noninvasive testing and minimal medical therapy were viewed less favorably. It is anticipated that these results will have an impact on physician decision making and patient education regarding expected benefits from revascularization and will help guide future research.

King SB, Aversano T, Ballard WL, Beekman RH, Cowley MJ, Ellis SG, Faxon DP, Hannan EL, Hirshfeld JW, Jacobs AK, Kellett MA, Kimmel SE, Landzberg JS, McKeever LS, Moscucci M, Pomerantz RM, Smith KM, Vetrovec GW, Creager MA, Hirshfeld JW, Holmes DR, Newby LK, Weitz HH, Merli G, Piña I, Rodgers GP, Tracy CM, Anonymous00143, Anonymous00144, Anonymous00145. · No affiliation provided · J Am Coll Cardiol. · Pubmed #17601554 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

King SB, Aversano T, Ballard WL, Beekman RH, Cowley MJ, Ellis SG, Faxon DP, Hannan EL, Hirshfeld JW, Jacobs AK, Kellett MA, Kimmel SE, Landzberg JS, McKeever LS, Moscucci M, Pomerantz RM, Smith KM, Vetrovec GW, Creager MA, Hirshfeld JW, Holmes DR, Newby LK, Weitz HH, Merli G, Piña I, Rodgers GP, Tracy CM, Anonymous00143, Anonymous00144, Anonymous00145. · No affiliation provided · J Am Coll Cardiol. · Pubmed #17601554 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

Anonymous00180, King SB, Aversano T, Ballard WL, Beekman RH, Cowley MJ, Ellis SG, Faxon DP, Hannan EL, Hirshfeld JW, Jacobs AK, Kellett MA, Kimmel SE, Landzberg JS, McKeever LS, Moscucci M, Pomerantz RM, Smith KM, Vetrovec GW, Creager MA, Holmes DR, Newby LK, Weitz HH, Merli G, Piña I, Rodgers GP, Tracy CM. · No affiliation provided · Circulation. · Pubmed #17592076 links to  free full text

This publication has no abstract.

Davidson CJ, Laskey WK, Hermiller JB, Harrison JK, Matthai W, Vlietstra RE, Brinker JA, Kereiakes DJ, Muhlestein JB, Lansky A, Popma JJ, Buchbinder M, Hirshfeld JW. · Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, IL 60611, USA. · Circulation. · Pubmed #10801758 links to  free full text

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Previous in vitro and in vivo studies have suggested an association between thrombus-related events and type of contrast media. Low osmolar contrast agents appear to improve the safety of diagnostic and coronary artery interventional procedures. However, no data are available on PTCA outcomes with an isosmolar contrast agent. METHODS AND RESULTS: A multicenter prospective randomized double-blind trial was performed in 856 high-risk patients undergoing coronary artery intervention. The objective was to compare the isosmolar nonionic dimer iodixanol (n=405) with the low osmolar ionic agent ioxaglate (n=410). A composite variable of in-hospital major adverse clinical events (MACE) was the primary end point. A secondary objective was to evaluate major angiographic and procedural events during and after PTCA. The composite in-hospital primary end point was less frequent in those receiving iodixanol compared with those receiving ioxaglate (5.4% versus 9.5%, respectively; P=0.027). Core laboratory defined angiographic success was more frequent in patients receiving iodixanol (92.2% versus 85. 9% for ioxaglate, P=0.004). There was a trend toward lower total clinical events at 30 days in patients randomized to iodixanol (9.1% versus 13.2% for ioxaglate, P=0.07). Multivariate predictors of in-hospital MACE were use of ioxaglate (P=0.01) and treatment of a de novo lesion (P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: In this contemporary prospective multicenter trial of PTCA in the setting of acute coronary syndromes, there was a low incidence of in-hospital clinical events for both treatment groups. The cohort receiving the nonionic dimer iodixanol experienced a 45% reduction in in-hospital MACE when compared with the cohort receiving ioxaglate.

Kelley MP, Klugherz BD, Hashemi SM, Meneveau NF, Johnston JM, Matthai WH, Banka VS, Herrmann HC, Hirshfeld JW, Kimmel SE, Kolansky DM, Horwitz PA, Schiele F, Bassand JP, Wilensky RL. · Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, University Health System, 9 Gates, 3400 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA. · Eur Heart J. · Pubmed #12927190 links to  free full text

Abstract: AIMS: To evaluate outcomes for left main coronary artery (LMCA) stenting and compare results between protected (left coronary grafted) and unprotected LMCA stenting in the current bare-metal stent era. METHODS: We reviewed outcomes among 142 consecutive patients who underwent protected or unprotected LMCA stenting since 1997. All-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), target-lesion revascularization (TLR), and the combined major adverse clinical event (MACE) rates at one year were computed. RESULTS: Ninety-nine patients (70%) underwent protected and 43 patients (30%) underwent unprotected LMCA stenting. In the unprotected group, 86% were considered poor surgical candidates. Survival at one year was 88% for all patients, TLR 20%, and MACE 32%. At one year, survival was reduced in the unprotected group (72% vs. 95%, P<0.001) and MACE was increased in the unprotected patients (49% vs. 25%, P=0.005). CONCLUSIONS: In the current era, stenting for both protected and unprotected LMCA disease is still associated with high long-term mortality and MACE rates. Stenting for unprotected LMCA disease in a high-risk population should only be considered in the absence of other revascularization options. Further studies are needed to evaluate the role of stenting for unprotected LMCA disease.

Klugherz BD, Meneveau NF, Kolansky DM, Herrmann HC, Schiele F, Matthai WH, Groh WC, Untereker WJ, Hirshfeld JW, Bassand JP, Wilensky RL. · Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Medical Center, Philadelphia 19104, USA. · Am J Cardiol. · Pubmed #10856387 No free full text.

Abstract: Percutaneous intervention for the first episode of in-stent restenosis was performed in 177 patients 5.4 +/- 0.3 months after native coronary stent implantation. Medical records were reviewed and patients contacted 13.3 +/- 1.2 months after in-stent intervention to ascertain the subsequent clinical course. The effects of demographic, procedural, and angiographic variables on clinical outcomes were determined. At 2 years, Kaplan-Meier estimated survival was 93 +/- 3% and freedom from death, myocardial infarction, and a third target artery revascularization (TAR) was 67 +/- 4%. The actuarial frequency of a third TAR was 26 +/- 4% at 1 year. Stratification of outcomes according to timing of in-stent intervention revealed an approximate twofold higher frequency of adverse events among patients with early (</=3 months) in-stent restenosis. Advanced age (p = 0.019), prior coronary bypass (p = 0. 017), and early in-stent intervention (p = 0.006) independently predicted increased mortality at follow-up. Systemic hypertension (p = 0.004), diabetes mellitus (p = 0.044), and early in-stent intervention (p <0.0001) independently predicted a third TAR. These variables (p = 0.007, p = 0.027, and p <0.0001, respectively) also independently predicted a composite end point consisting of death, myocardial infarction, and a third TAR. No angiographic variable predicted outcome after in-stent intervention. Thus, long-term outcome following in-stent intervention was favorable. Early in-stent intervention, advanced age, hypertension, and diabetes predicted adverse outcomes.