Antonio Colombo

Bio: Antonio Colombo is an academic researcher from Vita-Salute San Raffaele University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Stent & Percutaneous coronary intervention. The author has an hindex of 138, co-authored 1551 publications receiving 87717 citations. Previous affiliations of Antonio Colombo include Humanitas University & University of California, Los Angeles.

A Randomized Comparison of Coronary-Stent Placement and Balloon Angioplasty in the Treatment of Coronary Artery Disease

Abstract: Background Coronary-stent placement is a new technique in which a balloon-expandable, stainless-steel, slotted tube is implanted at the site of a coronary stenosis. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of stent placement and standard balloon angioplasty on angiographically detected restenosis and clinical outcomes. Methods We randomly assigned 410 patients with symptomatic coronary disease to elective placement of a Palmaz-Schatz stent or to standard balloon angioplasty. Coronary angiography was performed at base line, immediately after the procedure, and six months later. Results The patients who underwent stenting had a higher rate of procedural success than those who underwent standard balloon angioplasty (96.1 percent vs. 89.6 percent, P = 0.011), a larger immediate increase in the diameter of the lumen (1.72 ±0.46 vs. 1.23 ±0.48 mm, P<0.001), and a larger luminal diameter immediately after the procedure (2.49 ±0.43 vs. 1.99 ±0.47 mm, P<0.001). At six months, the patients with stented ...

A Randomized Comparison of a Sirolimus-Eluting Stent with a Standard Stent for Coronary Revascularization

Abstract: BACKGROUND: The need for repeated treatment of restenosis of a treated vessel remains the main limitation of percutaneous coronary revascularization. Because sirolimus (rapamycin) inhibits the proliferation of lymphocytes and smooth-muscle cells, we compared a sirolimus-eluting stent with a standard uncoated stent in patients with angina pectoris. METHODS: We performed a randomized, double-blind trial to compare the two types of stents for revascularization of single, primary lesions in native coronary arteries. The trial included 238 patients at 19 medical centers. The primary end point was in-stent late luminal loss (the difference between the minimal luminal diameter immediately after the procedure and the diameter at six months). Secondary end points included the percentage of in-stent stenosis of the luminal diameter and the rate of restenosis (luminal narrowing of 50 percent or more). We also analyzed a composite clinical end point consisting of death, myocardial infarction, and percutaneous or surgical revascularization at 1, 6, and 12 months. RESULTS: At six months, the degree of neointimal proliferation, manifested as the mean (+/-SD) late luminal loss, was significantly lower in the sirolimus-stent group (-0.01+/-0.33 mm) than in the standard-stent group (0.80+/-0.53 mm, P<0.001). None of the patients in the sirolimus-stent group, as compared with 26.6 percent of those in the standard-stent group, had restenosis of 50 percent or more of the luminal diameter (P<0.001). There were no episodes of stent thrombosis. During a follow-up period of up to one year, the overall rate of major cardiac events was 5.8 percent in the sirolimus-stent group and 28.8 percent in the standard-stent group (P<0.001). The difference was due entirely to a higher rate of revascularization of the target vessel in the standard-stent group. CONCLUSIONS: As compared with a standard coronary stent, a sirolimus-eluting stent shows considerable promise for the prevention of neointimal proliferation, restenosis, and associated clinical events.

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention versus Coronary-Artery Bypass Grafting for Severe Coronary Artery Disease

Abstract: We randomly assigned 1800 patients with three-vessel or left main coronary artery disease to undergo CABG or PCI (in a 1:1 ratio). For all these patients, the local cardiac surgeon and interventional cardiologist determined that equivalent anatomical revascularization could be achieved with either treatment. A noninferiority comparison of the two groups was performed for the primary end point — a major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular event (i.e., death from any cause, stroke, myocardial infarction, or repeat revascularization) during the 12-month period after randomization. Patients for whom only one of the two treatment options would be beneficial, because of anatomical features or clinical conditions, were entered into a parallel, nested CABG or PCI registry. Results Most of the preoperative characteristics were similar in the two groups. Rates of major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events at 12 months were significantly higher in the PCI group (17.8%, vs. 12.4% for CABG; P = 0.002), in large part because of an increased rate of repeat revascularization (13.5% vs. 5.9%, P<0.001); as a result, the criterion for noninferiority was not met. At 12 months, the rates of death and myocardial infarction were similar between the two groups; stroke was significantly more likely to occur with CABG (2.2%, vs. 0.6% with PCI; P = 0.003). Conclusions CABG remains the standard of care for patients with three-vessel or left main coronary artery disease, since the use of CABG, as compared with PCI, resulted in lower rates of the combined end point of major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events at 1 year. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00114972.)

Incidence, predictors, and outcome of thrombosis after successful implantation of drug-eluting stents.

Abstract: ContextTraditionally, stent thrombosis has been regarded as a complication of percutaneous coronary interventions during the first 30 postprocedural days. However, delayed endothelialization associated with the implantation of drug-eluting stents may extend the risk of thrombosis beyond 30 days. Data are limited regarding the risks and the impact of this phenomenon outside clinical trials.ObjectiveTo evaluate the incidence, predictors, and clinical outcome of stent thrombosis after implantation of sirolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stents in routine clinical practice.Design, Setting, and PatientsProspective observational cohort study conducted at 1 academic hospital and 2 community hospitals in Germany and Italy. A total of 2229 consecutive patients underwent successful implantation of sirolimus-eluting (1062 patients, 1996 lesions, 2272 stents) or paclitaxel-eluting (1167 patients, 1801 lesions, 2223 stents) stents between April 2002 and January 2004.InterventionsImplantation of a drug-eluting stent (sirolimus or paclitaxel). All patients were pretreated with ticlopidine or clopidogrel and aspirin. Aspirin was continued indefinitely and clopidogrel or ticlopidine for at least 3 months after sirolimus-eluting and for at least 6 months after paclitaxel-eluting stent implantation.Main Outcome MeasuresSubacute thrombosis (from procedure end through 30 days), late thrombosis (>30 days), and cumulative stent thrombosis.ResultsAt 9-month follow-up, 29 patients (1.3%) had stent thrombosis (9 [0.8%] with sirolimus and 20 [1.7%] with paclitaxel; P = .09). Fourteen patients had subacute thrombosis (0.6%) and 15 patients had late thrombosis (0.7%). Among these 29 patients, 13 died (case fatality rate, 45%). Independent predictors of stent thrombosis were premature antiplatelet therapy discontinuation (hazard ratio [HR], 89.78; 95% CI, 29.90-269.60; P<.001), renal failure (HR, 6.49; 95% CI, 2.60-16.15; P<.001), bifurcation lesions (HR, 6.42; 95% CI, 2.93-14.07; P<.001), diabetes (HR, 3.71; 95% CI, 1.74-7.89; P = .001), and a lower ejection fraction (HR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.05-1.36; P<.001 for each 10% decrease).ConclusionsThe cumulative incidence of stent thrombosis 9 months after successful drug-eluting stent implantation in consecutive “real-world” patients was substantially higher than the rate reported in clinical trials. Premature antiplatelet therapy discontinuation, renal failure, bifurcation lesions, diabetes, and low ejection fraction were identified as predictors of thrombotic events.

From vulnerable plaque to vulnerable patient: a call for new definitions and risk assessment strategies: Part II.

Abstract: Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease results in >19 million deaths annually, and coronary heart disease accounts for the majority of this toll. Despite major advances in treatment of coronary heart disease patients, a large number of victims of the disease who are apparently healthy die suddenly without prior symptoms. Available screening and diagnostic methods are insufficient to identify the victims before the event occurs. The recognition of the role of the vulnerable plaque has opened new avenues of opportunity in the field of cardiovascular medicine. This consensus document concludes the following. (1) Rupture-prone plaques are not the only vulnerable plaques. All types of atherosclerotic plaques with high likelihood of thrombotic complications and rapid progression should be considered as vulnerable plaques. We propose a classification for clinical as well as pathological evaluation of vulnerable plaques. (2) Vulnerable plaques are not the only culprit factors for the development of acute coronary syndromes, myocardial infarction, and sudden cardiac death. Vulnerable blood (prone to thrombosis) and vulnerable myocardium (prone to fatal arrhythmia) play an important role in the outcome. Therefore, the term "vulnerable patient" may be more appropriate and is proposed now for the identification of subjects with high likelihood of developing cardiac events in the near future. (3) A quantitative method for cumulative risk assessment of vulnerable patients needs to be developed that may include variables based on plaque, blood, and myocardial vulnerability. In Part I of this consensus document, we cover the new definition of vulnerable plaque and its relationship with vulnerable patients. Part II of this consensus document focuses on vulnerable blood and vulnerable myocardium and provide an outline of overall risk assessment of vulnerable patients. Parts I and II are meant to provide a general consensus and overviews the new field of vulnerable patient. Recently developed assays (eg, C-reactive protein), imaging techniques (eg, CT and MRI), noninvasive electrophysiological tests (for vulnerable myocardium), and emerging catheters (to localize and characterize vulnerable plaque) in combination with future genomic and proteomic techniques will guide us in the search for vulnerable patients. It will also lead to the development and deployment of new therapies and ultimately to reduce the incidence of acute coronary syndromes and sudden cardiac death. We encourage healthcare policy makers to promote translational research for screening and treatment of vulnerable patients.

Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes

Abstract: XI. STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVING DIABETES CARE D iabetes is a chronic illness that requires continuing medical care and patient self-management education to prevent acute complications and to reduce the risk of long-term complications. Diabetes care is complex and requires that many issues, beyond glycemic control, be addressed. A large body of evidence exists that supports a range of interventions to improve diabetes outcomes. These standards of care are intended to provide clinicians, patients, researchers, payors, and other interested individuals with the components of diabetes care, treatment goals, and tools to evaluate the quality of care. While individual preferences, comorbidities, and other patient factors may require modification of goals, targets that are desirable for most patients with diabetes are provided. These standards are not intended to preclude more extensive evaluation and management of the patient by other specialists as needed. For more detailed information, refer to Bode (Ed.): Medical Management of Type 1 Diabetes (1), Burant (Ed): Medical Management of Type 2 Diabetes (2), and Klingensmith (Ed): Intensive Diabetes Management (3). The recommendations included are diagnostic and therapeutic actions that are known or believed to favorably affect health outcomes of patients with diabetes. A grading system (Table 1), developed by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and modeled after existing methods, was utilized to clarify and codify the evidence that forms the basis for the recommendations. The level of evidence that supports each recommendation is listed after each recommendation using the letters A, B, C, or E.

2016 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure

Abstract: ACC/AHA : American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association ACCF/AHA : American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association ACE : angiotensin-converting enzyme ACEI : angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor ACS : acute coronary syndrome AF : atrial fibrillation

2015 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation: Task Force for the Management of Acute Coronary Syndromes in Patients Presenting without Persistent ST-Segment Elevation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC)

Abstract: ESC Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation : The Task Force for the management of acute coronary syndromes (ACS) in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC).

2016 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure

Abstract: ACC/AHA : American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association ACCF/AHA : American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association ACE : angiotensin-converting enzyme ACEI : angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor ACS : acute coronary syndrome AF : atrial fibrillation