Coronary Artery Disease: Patel MR

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.

Douglas PS, Khandheria B, Stainback RF, Weissman NJ, Peterson ED, Hendel RC, Stainback RF, Blaivas M, Des Prez RD, Gillam LD, Golash T, Hiratzka LF, Kussmaul WG, Labovitz AJ, Lindenfeld J, Masoudi FA, Mayo PH, Porembka D, Spertus JA, Wann LS, Wiegers SE, Brindis RG, Douglas PS, Hendel RC, Patel MR, Peterson ED, Wolk MJ, Allen JM, Anonymous00094, Anonymous00095, Anonymous00096, Anonymous00097, Anonymous00098, Anonymous00099, Anonymous00100, Anonymous00101. · No affiliation provided · J Am Coll Cardiol. · Pubmed #18342240 No free full text.

Abstract: The American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF) and the American Society of Echocardiography (ASE) together with key specialty and subspecialty societies, conducted an appropriateness review for stress echocardiography. The review assessed the risks and benefits of stress echocardiography for several indications or clinical scenarios and scored them on a scale of 1 to 9 (based upon methodology developed by the ACCF to assess imaging appropriateness). The upper range (7 to 9) implies that the test is generally acceptable and is a reasonable approach, and the lower range (1 to 3) implies that the test is generally not acceptable and is not a reasonable approach. The midrange (4 to 6) indicates a clinical scenario for which the indication for a stress echocardiogram is uncertain. The indications for this review were drawn from common applications or anticipated uses, as well as from current clinical practice guidelines. Use of stress echocardiography for risk assessment in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) was viewed favorably, while routine repeat testing and general screening in certain clinical scenarios were viewed less favorably. It is anticipated that these results will have a significant impact on physician decision making and performance, reimbursement policy, and will help guide future research.

Douglas PS, Khandheria B, Stainback RF, Weissman NJ, Peterson ED, Hendel RC, Stainback RF, Blaivas M, Des Prez RD, Gillam LD, Golash T, Hiratzka LF, Kussmaul WG, Labovitz AJ, Lindenfeld J, Masoudi FA, Mayo PH, Porembka D, Spertus JA, Wann LS, Wiegers SE, Brindis RG, Douglas PS, Patel MR, Wolk MJ, Allen JM, Anonymous00125, Anonymous00126, Anonymous00127, Anonymous00128, Anonymous00129, Anonymous00130, Anonymous00131, Anonymous00132. · Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA. · Circulation. · Pubmed #18316491 links to  free full text

Abstract: The American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF) and the American Society of Echocardiography (ASE) together with key specialty and subspecialty societies, conducted an appropriateness review for stress echocardiography. The review assessed the risks and benefits of stress echocardiography for several indications or clinical scenarios and scored them on a scale of 1 to 9 (based upon methodology developed by the ACCF to assess imaging appropriateness). The upper range (7 to 9) implies that the test is generally acceptable and is a reasonable approach, and the lower range (1 to 3) implies that the test is generally not acceptable and is not a reasonable approach. The midrange (4 to 6) indicates a clinical scenario for which the indication for a stress echocardiogram is uncertain. The indications for this review were drawn from common applications or anticipated uses, as well as from current clinical practice guidelines. Use of stress echocardiography for risk assessment in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) was viewed favorably, while routine repeat testing and general screening in certain clinical scenarios were viewed less favorably. It is anticipated that these results will have a significant impact on physician decision making and performance, reimbursement policy, and will help guide future research.

Douglas PS, Khandheria B, Stainback RF, Weissman NJ, Peterson ED, Hendel RC, Stainback RF, Blaivas M, Des Prez RD, Gillam LD, Golash T, Hiratzka LF, Kussmaul WG, Labovitz AJ, Lindenfeld J, Masoudi FA, Mayo PH, Porembka D, Spertus JA, Wann LS, Wiegers SE, Brindis RG, Douglas PS, Hendel RC, Patel MR, Peterson ED, Wolk MJ, Allen JM, Anonymous00137, Anonymous00138, Anonymous00139, Anonymous00140, Anonymous00141, Anonymous00142, Anonymous00143, Anonymous00144, Anonymous00145, Anonymous00146. · Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA. · Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. · Pubmed #18314889 No free full text.

Abstract: The American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF) and the American Society of Echocardiography (ASE) together with key specialty and subspecialty societies, conducted an appropriateness review for stress echocardiography. The review assessed the risks and benefits of stress echocardiography for several indications or clinical scenarios and scored them on a scale of 1 to 9 (based upon methodology developed by the ACCF to assess imaging appropriateness). The upper range (7 to 9) implies that the test is generally acceptable and is a reasonable approach, and the lower range (1 to 3) implies that the test is generally not acceptable and is not a reasonable approach. The midrange (4 to 6) indicates a clinical scenario for which the indication for a stress echocardiogram is uncertain.The indications for this review were drawn from common applications or anticipated uses, as well as from current clinical practice guidelines. Use of stress echocardiography for risk assessment in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) was viewed favorably, while routine repeat testing and general screening in certain clinical scenarios were viewed less favorably. It is anticipated that these results will have a significant impact on physician decision making and performance, reimbursement policy, and will help guide future research.

Kaul P, Patel MR. · No affiliation provided · J Cardiovasc Comput Tomogr. · Pubmed #19201373 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

Patel MR, Holmes DR. · No affiliation provided · JAMA. · Pubmed #18430915 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.

Patel MR, Hurwitz LM, Orlando L, McCrory DC, Sanders GD, Matchar DB, Mark D, Anonymous00368. · Division of Cardiology, Duke University Medical Center, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC 27710, USA. · Am Heart J. · Pubmed #17239673 No free full text.

Abstract: This report describes a review of the available scientific evidence through 2005 on direct noninvasive imaging tests (NITs) for coronary artery disease. In particular, the report addresses 6 key questions provided by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The questions examine the degree to which current evidence supports confident judgments about the use of NITs in the assessment of native coronary artery stenosis in clinical practice. The 2 NITs that are examined in detail in this report are 16 (and higher)-multidetector computed tomography angiography and 1.5-T magnetic resonance angiography to evaluate for stenosis in native coronary arteries. Reported sensitivity of NITs ranged from 68% to 100%; reported specificity ranged from 57% to 100% (patient-based analysis). Limitations include the exclusion of significant numbers of segments and patients, with often only the proximal coronary segments visualized. There is no direct evidence assessing the clinical use of NITs in terms of the incremental benefits or risks compared to alternative testing strategies. Although the ability of noninvasive direct coronary imaging technologies is promising-particularly the 64-multidetector computed tomography angiography-the evidence does not provide strong guidance on whether and how such technologies should be used in the population generally, or for Medicare beneficiaries specifically. Informed clinical and policy decision making will require further study of these technologies in well-characterized clinical contexts, in typical practice settings, and with attention to impact on management and health outcomes.

Patel MR, Mahaffey KW, Armstrong PW, Weaver WD, Tasissa G, Hochman JS, Todaro TG, Malloy KJ, Rollins S, Theroux P, Ruzyllo W, Nicolau JC, Granger CB, Anonymous00426. · Division of Cardiology and Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA. · Am J Cardiol. · Pubmed #15721102 No free full text.

Abstract: White blood cell (WBC) count and temperature are 2 global measures of inflammation that are systematically gathered and easily identifiable in a clinical setting, unlike many other markers of inflammation being investigated in patients with coronary artery disease. The prognostic usefulness of the WBC count and temperature were evaluated in a large acute myocardial infarction trial, the Complement And ReDuction of INfarct size after Angioplasty or Lytics program. Baseline and serial measurements of WBC counts and temperature were correlated with infarct size and clinical outcome.

Gogo PB, Dauerman HL, Mulgund J, Ohman EM, Patel MR, Cohen DJ, Saucedo JF, Harrington RA, Gibler WB, Smith SC, Peterson ED, Roe MT, Anonymous00361. · University of Vermont College of Medicine, Burlington, Vermont, USA. · Am J Cardiol. · Pubmed #17478146 No free full text.

Abstract: Since the introduction of drug-eluting stents (DESs), patterns of revascularization strategies for patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes have not been assessed. We studied 82,924 patients from the CRUSADE Initiative who presented with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes and underwent coronary angiography at 365 United States hospitals that had capabilities for surgical (coronary artery bypass grafting [CABG]) and percutaneous (percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI]) revascularization from January 2002 to June 2005. Temporal trends in the use of PCI, CABG, and medical management without revascularization were analyzed with respect to the introduction of DESs. In total, 73,577 patients (89%) had >50% stenosis in > or =1 coronary artery, and there was a significant increase in the use of PCI (vs CABG or medical management without revascularization) during the study period (38.3% vs 52.5%). By quarter 2 of 2005, 80% of patients who underwent PCI received a DES. In total, 18,462 of 25,068 patients (73.6%) with 3-vessel disease (3VD) underwent revascularization and use of CABG decreased for these patients (48.9% to 39.9%, p <0.001), whereas use of PCI increased (51.1% to 60.1%, p <0.001). Factors significantly associated with use of PCI for patients with 3VD who underwent any revascularization included previous PCI, previous CABG, cardiology inpatient care, care at an academic hospital, renal insufficiency, and previous congestive heart failure. In conclusion, coinciding with the introduction of DESs, there has been a significant increase in the use of PCI and, in those patients with 3VD, a decrease in the use of CABG with a shift toward increasing use of PCI. Long-term implications of this shift remain uncertain, especially in patients with 3VD.

Patel MR, Chen AY, Peterson ED, Newby LK, Pollack CV, Brindis RG, Gibson CM, Kleiman NS, Saucedo JF, Bhatt DL, Gibler WB, Ohman EM, Harrington RA, Roe MT. · Division of Cardiology and Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27705, USA. · Am Heart J. · Pubmed #16996828 No free full text.

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Unlike ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, the degree of stenosis and physiology of ischemia varies in patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI). The prevalence, predictors, and outcomes of patients with NSTEMI who lack significant epicardial coronary artery disease (CAD) in routine clinical practice remain poorly characterized. We sought to determine the prevalence, predictors, and outcomes of patients with NSTEMI and insignificant CAD. METHODS: We analyzed 38301 patients with NSTEMI in the CRUSADE quality improvement initiative who underwent cardiac catheterization to determine the prevalence and factors associated with insignificant CAD (all coronary stenoses <50%) and inhospital outcomes for patients with and without CAD. A multivariable model was used to determine the factors associated with insignificant CAD. RESULTS: A total of 3306 (8.6%) of 38301 patients had insignificant CAD. The strongest multivariable predictors of insignificant CAD were female sex (odds ratio 2.8, 95% CI 2.6-3.1), younger age (odds ratio per 10-year decrease 1.5, 95% CI 1.5-1.6), and lack of current/recent smoking (odds ratio 1.9, 95% CI 1.7-2.0). Inhospital rates of death were 0.65% for patients with insignificant CAD compared with 2.36% for patients with CAD (P < .0001). CONCLUSION: Insignificant CAD is present in 9% of patients with NSTEMI and is associated with a low incidence of adverse outcomes. The strongest predictors of insignificant CAD are female sex and younger age. These findings underscore the need for research to understand the pathophysiology of myocardial infarction in this population.

Meine TJ, Patel MR, Shaw LK, Borges-Neto S. · Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA. · Am J Cardiol. · Pubmed #16728215 No free full text.

Abstract: Ventricular premature complexes (VPCs) during exercise have long been believed to be harbingers of increased mortality. A recent study has shown that VPCs during the recovery phase of a treadmill exercise test are more predictive of mortality than VPCs that develop during exercise. However, no study to date has examined the relation of VPCs in recovery to the presence of ischemia on myocardial perfusion imaging. We examined the database of perfusion imaging at the Duke University Medical Center from September 1993 to July 2003. We examined the incidence of VPCs during exercise, during the recovery phase, and during the 2 phases. Logistic regression modeling was used to evaluate the significance of VPCs during stress and during recovery in predicting ischemia. VPCs developed during recovery in 561 of 2,828 patients (19.8%). Compared with patients without VPCs during recovery, those with VPCs during recovery were more likely to have a history of hypertension (64.0% vs 56.9%, p = 0.002) and previous coronary artery bypass grafting (25.3% vs 17.1%, p = 0.001). They were also more likely to be older, men, and Caucasian, and to have 3-vessel coronary artery disease (31.9% vs 21.0%, p = 0.001). After adjusting for differences in patient characteristics, VPCs during recovery were significantly associated with ischemia (odds ratio 1.27, 95% confidence interval 1.04 to 1.56, p = 0.017), whereas VPCs during stress were not (p = 0.128). In conclusion, VPCs during the recovery phase of an exercise study are predictive of ischemia on myocardial perfusion imaging.

Patel MR, Peterson ED. · Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC 27705, USA. · J Invasive Cardiol. · Pubmed #14608134 No free full text.

This publication has no abstract.