353 E 17Th St 2Nd Floor, Room 223
New York NY 10003
Medical School: Other - Unknown
Accepts Medicare: No
Participates In eRX: No
Participates In PQRS: No
Participates In EHR: No
License #: 274989
Request Appointment Information
Awards & Recognitions
Medical Malpractice Cases
Medical Board Sanctions
Complete versus culprit-only revascularization for ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease: a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized trials. - Circulation. Cardiovascular interventions
The 2013 American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association guidelines for patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction gives a class III indication for nonculprit artery percutaneous coronary intervention at the time of primary percutaneous coronary intervention, driven by data from observational studies. However, more recent trials suggest otherwise.We conducted PUBMED, EMBASE, and CENTRAL searches for randomized trials comparing complete versus culprit-only revascularization in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction. Efficacy outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events, as well as death, cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization. Safety outcomes were contrast-induced nephropathy, contrast volume used, and procedure time. Five trials with 1165 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Complete revascularization (68% during index percutaneous coronary intervention) was associated with significant reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events (rate ratio =0.48; 95% confidence interval =0.37-0.61), death (rate ratio =0.60; 95% confidence interval =0.38-0.97), cardiovascular death (rate ratio =0.38, 95% confidence interval =0.20-0.73), and repeat revascularization (rate ratio =0.42; 95% confidence interval =0.31-0.57) when compared with culprit-only revascularization. However, trial sequential analyses (similar to interim analysis of a randomized trial) powered for a 25% relative reduction showed firm evidence (cumulative z-curve crossed the monitoring boundary) only for major adverse cardiovascular events driven by a decrease in repeat revascularization with no firm evidence for reduction in death and myocardial infarction. Moreover, there was a significant increase in contrast volume use (mean difference 85.12 [70.41-83.00] ml) and procedure time (mean difference 16.42 [13.22-19.63] mins) with complete revascularization without increase in contrast-induced nephropathy.In patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction, immediate or staged complete revascularization results in significant reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events driven largely by reduction in repeat revascularization with no firm evidence for the reduction in death or myocardial infarction when compared with culprit-only revascularization.Â© 2015 American Heart Association, Inc.
Comparison of coronary artery bypass graft surgery and percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with diabetes. - Current treatment options in cardiovascular medicine
The optimal revascularization strategy in patients with diabetes is controversial. The Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation (BARI) trial, done more than a decade ago, suggested a mortality benefit of coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) when compared with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (with plain old balloon angioplasty) in the subgroup of patients with diabetes. In addition, several observational studies and meta-analyses similarly suggest a benefit of CABG over PCI in patients with diabetes. However, most of these studies compared CABG with PCI using balloon angioplasty, bare metal stents, or first-generation drug-eluting stents. In this review, we critically examine the data for optimal revascularization strategy in patients with diabetes and ask the question whether the currently available data from randomized trials that used outdated stents are applicable to current day practice.
Anticoagulant therapy during primary percutaneous coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis of randomized trials in the era of stents and P2Y12 inhibitors. - BMJ (Clinical research ed.)
To investigate the relative benefits of unfractionated heparin, low molecular weight heparin(LMWH), fondaparinux, and bivalirudin as treatment options for patients with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).Mixed treatment comparison and direct comparison meta-analysis of randomized trials in the era of stents and P2Y12 inhibitors.A search of Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) for randomized trials comparing unfractionated heparin plus glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor(GpIIb/IIIa inhibitor), unfractionated heparin, bivalirudin, fondaparinux, or LMWH plus GpIIb/IIIa inhibitor for patients undergoing primary PCI.The primary efficacy outcome was short term (in hospital or within 30 days) major adverse cardiovascular event; the primary safety outcome was short term major bleeding.We identified 22 randomized trials that enrolled 22,434 patients. In the mixed treatment comparison models, when compared with unfractionated heparin plus GpIIb/IIIa inhibitor, unfractionated heparin was associated with a higher risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (relative risk 1.49 (95% confidence interval 1.21 to 1.84), as were bivalirudin (relative risk 1.34 (1.01 to 1.78)) and fondaparinux (1.78 (1.01 to 3.14)). LMWH plus GpIIb/IIIa inhibitor showed highest treatment efficacy, followed (in order) by unfractionated heparin plus GpIIb/IIIa inhibitor, bivalirudin, unfractionated heparin, and fondaparinux. Bivalirudin was associated with lower major bleeding risk compared with unfractionated heparin plus GpIIb/IIIa inhibitor (relative risk 0.47 (0.30 to 0.74)) or unfractionated heparin (0.58 (0.37 to 0.90)). Bivalirudin, followed by unfractionated heparin, LMWH plus GpIIb/IIIa inhibitor, unfractionated heparin plus GpIIb/IIIa inhibitor, and fondaparinux were the hierarchy for treatment safety. Results were similar in direct comparison meta-analyses: bivalirudin was associated with a 39%, 44%, and 65% higher risk of myocardial infarction, urgent revascularization, and stent thrombosis respectively when compared with unfractionated heparin with or without GpIIb/IIIa inhibitor. However, bivalirudin was associated with a 48% lower risk of major bleeding compared with unfractionated heparin plus GpIIb/IIIa inhibitor and 32% lower compared with unfractionated heparin alone.In patients undergoing primary PCI, unfractionated heparin plus GpIIb/IIIa inhibitor and LMWH plus GpIIb/IIIa inhibitor were most efficacious, with the lowest rate of major adverse cardiovascular events, whereas bivalirudin was safest, with the lowest bleeding. These relationships should be considered in selecting anticoagulant therapies in patients undergoing primary PCI.Â© Bangalore et al 2014.
Efficacy of cilostazol on platelet reactivity and cardiovascular outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: insights from a meta-analysis of randomised trials. - Open heart
Cilostazol overcomes high on-treatment platelet reactivity (HTPR) and reduces adverse cardiovascular (CV) outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, the role for triple antiplatelet therapy (TAPT) with cilostazol in addition to aspirin and clopidogrel after PCI is not well defined.We conducted a MEDLINE/EMBASE/CENTRAL search for randomised trials, until May 2014, evaluating TAPT compared with dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) of aspirin and clopidogrel alone in patients undergoing PCI and reporting platelet reactivity and/or CV outcomes. The primary platelet reactivity outcome was differences in platelet reactivity unit (PRU) with secondary outcomes of %platelet inhibition and rate of HTPR. The primary CV outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), with secondary outcomes of death, cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis (ST), target lesion revascularisation (TLR) and target vessel revascularisation (TVR) as well as safety outcomes of bleeding and drug discontinuations.In 17 trials that evaluated platelet reactivity outcomes, the mean PRU value was 47.73 units lower with TAPT versus DAPT (95% CI -61.41 to -34.04, p<0.0001; mean PRU 182.90 vs 232.65). TAPT also increased platelet inhibition by 12.71% (95% CI 10.76 to 14.67, p<0.0001), and led to a 60% reduction in the risk of HTPR (relative risk=0.40; 95% CI 0.30 to 0.53) compared with DAPT. Moreover, among the 34 trials that evaluated CV outcomes, TAPT reduced the risk of MACE (incident rate ratio (IRR)=0.68; 95% CI 0.60 to 0.78), TLR (IRR=0.57; 95% CI 0.44 to 0.73), TVR (IRR=0.69; 95% CI 0.59 to 0.81) and ST (IRR=0.63; 95% CI 0.40 to 0.98) with no difference for other outcomes including bleeding, even in trials using drug-eluting stents. Drug discontinuation due to adverse effects was, however, higher with TAPT vs DAPT (IRR=1.59; 95% CI 1.32 to 1.91).In patients undergoing PCI, addition of cilostazol to DAPT results in decreased platelet reactivity and a significant reduction in CV outcomes including ST, even in the drug-eluting stent era.
Outcomes with coronary artery bypass graft surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention for patients with diabetes mellitus: can newer generation drug-eluting stents bridge the gap? - Circulation. Cardiovascular interventions
Coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) compared with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) reduces mortality in patients with diabetes mellitus. However, prior trials compared CABG with balloon angioplasty or older generation stents, and it is not known if the gap between CABG and PCI can be reduced by newer generation drug-eluting stents.PUBMED/EMBASE/CENTRAL search for randomized trials comparing mode of revascularization in patients with diabetes mellitus. Primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization, and stroke. Mixed treatment comparison analyses were performed using a random-effects Poisson regression model. Sixty-eight randomized trials that enrolled 24 015 diabetic patients with a total of 71 595 patient-years of follow-up satisfied our inclusion criteria. When compared with CABG (reference rate ratio [RR]=1.0), PCI with paclitaxel-eluting stent (RR=1.57 [1.15-2.19]) or sirolimus-eluting stent (RR=1.43 [1.06-1.97]) was associated with an increase in mortality. However, PCI with cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stent (RR=1.11 [0.67-1.84]) was not associated with a statistically significant increase in mortality. When compared with CABG, there was excess repeat revascularization with PCI, which progressively declined from plain old balloon angioplasty (341% increase) to bare metal stent (218% increase) to paclitaxel-eluting stent (81% increase) and to sirolimus-eluting stent (47% increase). However, for PCI with cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stent (RR=1.31 [0.74-2.29]), the excess repeat revascularization was not statistically significant although the point estimate favored CABG. CABG was associated with numerically higher stroke.In patients with diabetes mellitus, evidence from indirect comparison shows similar mortality between CABG and PCI using cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stent. CABG was associated with numerically excess stroke and PCI with cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stent with numerically increased repeat revascularization. This hypothesis needs to be tested in future trials.Â© 2014 American Heart Association, Inc.
Clinical outcomes with Î²-blockers for myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis of randomized trials. - The American journal of medicine
Debate exists about the efficacy of Î²-blockers in myocardial infarction and their required duration of usage in contemporary practice.We conducted a MEDLINE/EMBASE/CENTRAL search for randomized trials evaluating Î²-blockers in myocardial infarction enrolling at least 100 patients. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Analysis was performed stratifying trials into reperfusion-era (> 50% undergoing reperfusion or receiving aspirin/statin) or pre-reperfusion-era trials.Sixty trials with 102,003 patients satisfied the inclusion criteria. In the acute myocardial infarction trials, a significant interaction (PinteractionÂ = .02) was noted such that Î²-blockers reduced mortality in the pre-reperfusion (incident rate ratio [IRR] 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79-0.94) but not in the reperfusion era (IRR 0.98; 95% CI, 0.92-1.05). In the pre-reperfusion era, Î²-blockers reduced cardiovascular mortality (IRR 0.87; 95% CI, 0.78-0.98), myocardial infarction (IRR 0.78; 95% CI, 0.62-0.97), and angina (IRR 0.88; 95% CI, 0.82-0.95), with no difference for other outcomes. In the reperfusion era, Î²-blockers reduced myocardial infarction (IRR 0.72; 95% CI, 0.62-0.83) (number needed to treat to benefit [NNTB]Â = 209) and angina (IRR 0.80; 95% CI, 0.65-0.98) (NNTBÂ = 26) at the expense of increase in heart failure (IRR 1.10; 95% CI, 1.05-1.16) (number needed to treat to harm [NNTH]Â = 79), cardiogenic shock (IRR 1.29; 95% CI, 1.18-1.41) (NNTHÂ = 90), and drug discontinuation (IRR 1.64; 95% CI, 1.55-1.73), with no benefit for other outcomes. Benefits for recurrent myocardial infarction and angina in the reperfusion era appeared to be short term (30 days).In contemporary practice of treatment of myocardial infarction, Î²-blockers have no mortality benefit but reduce recurrent myocardial infarction and angina (short-term) at the expense of increase in heart failure, cardiogenic shock, and drug discontinuation. The guideline authors should reconsider the strength of recommendations for Î²-blockers post myocardial infarction.Copyright Â© 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Choosing the right coronary stent in the modern era. - Current cardiology reports
Research and development in the field of coronary stent design is a fast-evolving and fascinating journey. A device that was once introduced to salvage acute closure associated with balloon angioplasty is now the standard of care for many patients with coronary artery disease. Newer generation stents are the product of remarkable progress in technology and innovation, driven by the need to make the stents easier to deliver and to improve their safety and efficacy. As such, the design of these stents has become quite sophisticated and complex. The number of available stents has increased giving patients and physicians more choices on one hand, but also created confusion in selecting the optimal stent for a given patient. Although a 'one size fits all' approach may not be reasonable, several randomized trials have attested to the efficacy and safety of newer generation durable polymer drug eluting stents. This article discusses the evidence base to support various stent choices in contemporary practice.
Bare metal stents, durable polymer drug eluting stents, and biodegradable polymer drug eluting stents for coronary artery disease: mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis. - BMJ (Clinical research ed.)
To compare the efficacy and safety of biodegradable polymer drug eluting stents with those of bare metal stents and durable polymer drug eluting stents.Mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis of 258,544 patient years of follow-up from randomized trials.PubMed, Embase, and Central were searched for randomized trials comparing any of the Food and Drug Administration approved durable polymer drug eluting stents (sirolimus eluting, paclitaxel eluting, cobalt chromium everolimus eluting, platinum chromium everolimus eluting, zotarolimus eluting-Endeavor, and zotarolimus eluting-Resolute) or biodegradable polymer drug eluting stents, with each other or against bare metal stents.Long term efficacy (target vessel revascularization, target lesion revascularization) and safety (death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis). Landmark analysis at more than one year was evaluated to assess the potential late benefit of biodegradable polymer drug eluting stents.From 126 randomized trials and 258,544 patient years of follow-up, for long term efficacy (target vessel revascularization), biodegradable polymer drug eluting stents were superior to paclitaxel eluting stents (rate ratio 0.66, 95% credibility interval 0.57 to 0.78) and zotarolimus eluting stent-Endeavor (0.69, 0.56 to 0.84) but not to newer generation durable polymer drug eluting stents (for example: 1.03, 0.89 to 1.21 versus cobalt chromium everolimus eluting stents). Similarly, biodegradable polymer drug eluting stents were superior to paclitaxel eluting stents (rate ratio 0.61, 0.37 to 0.89) but inferior to cobalt chromium everolimus eluting stents (2.04, 1.27 to 3.35) for long term safety (definite stent thrombosis). In the landmark analysis after one year, biodegradable polymer drug eluting stents were superior to sirolimus eluting stents for definite stent thrombosis (rate ratio 0.29, 0.10 to 0.82) but were associated with increased mortality compared with cobalt chromium everolimus eluting stents (1.52, 1.02 to 2.22). Overall, among all stent types, the newer generation durable polymer drug eluting stents (zotarolimus eluting stent-Resolute, cobalt chromium everolimus eluting stents, and platinum chromium everolimus eluting stents) were the most efficacious (lowest target vessel revascularization rate) stents, and cobalt chromium everolimus eluting stents were the safest with significant reductions in definite stent thrombosis (rate ratio 0.35, 0.21 to 0.53), myocardial infarction (0.65, 0.55 to 0.75), and death (0.72, 0.58 to 0.90) compared with bare metal stents.Biodegradable polymer drug eluting stents are superior to first generation durable polymer drug eluting stents but not to newer generation durable polymer stents in reducing target vessel revascularization. Newer generation durable polymer stents, and especially cobalt chromium everolimus eluting stents, have the best combination of efficacy and safety. The utility of biodegradable polymer stents in the context of excellent clinical outcomes with newer generation durable polymer stents needs to be proven.
Very long-term clinical follow-up after fractional flow reserve-guided coronary revascularization. - The Journal of invasive cardiology
Randomized trials using measurement of fractional flow reserve (FFR) to guide percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have demonstrated both safety and efficacy with regard to cardiac events. Real-world, long-term outcomes using an FFR-based revascularization strategy are unknown.Prospective clinical data were collected on consecutive patients referred for coronary angiography and found to have lesions of intermediate severity where the operators were unable to make a decision regarding revascularization based on angiographic, clinical, and stress testing parameters. FFR was measured on intermediate lesions, and revascularization was deferred on those lesions with a measurement >0.8. Clinical outcomes of interest included death, myocardial infarction, and late revascularization status.A total of 151 patients were included in this study. Fifty-seven patients (37.7%) underwent revascularization based on their FFR measurement. The mean length of follow-up was 6.1 years (range, 5-10 years). Follow-up was completed in 97.0%. At the end of the follow-up period, 107 patients (70.9%) were alive. Late revascularization had been performed in 18 patients (11.9%). Comparing the initial revascularization group with the group in which revascularization was deferred, 64.9% and 74.5% were alive, respectively (P=.29). Of the initial revascularization group, 12.3% had undergone late revascularization of the lesion on which FFR was originally performed, compared with 11.7% in the deferred group (P=.99).FFR is a useful adjunct to coronary angiography in selecting patients with lesions of intermediate angiographic severity in whom coronary revascularization may be safely deferred.
Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors or Angiotensin Receptor Blockers in Patients Without Heart Failure? Insights From 254,301 Patients From Randomized Trials. - Mayo Clinic proceedings
To compare the efficacy and safety of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEis) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) in patients without heart failure.Meta-analysis of randomized trials identified using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials searches from January 1, 1980, through April 13, 2015, of ACEis and ARBs compared with placebo or active controls and corroborated with head-to-head trials of ARBs vs ACEis. Outcomes were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), angina, stroke, heart failure, revascularization, and new-onset diabetes.Our search yielded 106 randomized trials that enrolled 254,301 patients. Compared with placebo, ACEis but not ARBs reduced the outcomes of all-cause mortality (ACEis vs placebo: relative risk [RR], 0.89; 95% CI, 0.80-1.00; ARBs vs placebo: RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.96-1.06; Pinteraction=.04), cardiovascular death (RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.70-0.99 and RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.92-1.14; Pinteraction=.05), and MI (RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.78-0.90 and RR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.85-1.03; Pinteraction=.06). The meta-regression analysis revealed that the difference between ACEis and ARBs compared with placebo was due to a higher placebo event rate in the ACEis trials (most of these trials were conducted a decade earlier than the ARB trials) for the outcome of all-cause mortality (P=.001), cardiovascular death (P<.001), and MI (P=.02). Sensitivity analyses restricted to trials published after 2000 revealed similar outcomes with ACEis vs placebo and ARBs vs placebo (Pinteraction>.05). Head-to-head comparison trials of ARBs vs ACEis exhibited no difference in outcomes except for a lower risk of drug withdrawal due to adverse effects with ARBs (RR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.65-0.81).In patients without heart failure, evidence from placebo-controlled trials (restricted to trials after 2000), active controlled trials, and head-to-head randomized trials all suggest ARBs to be as efficacious and safe as ACEis, with the added advantage of better tolerability.Copyright Â© 2016 Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Map & Directions
353 E 17Th St 2Nd Floor, Room 223 New York, NY 10003
310 E. 14Th Street Ny Eye & Ear Intirmary
80 East 11Th St. Suite 201