Giulio G Stefanini

Inselspital, Universitätsspital Bern, Berna, Bern, Switzerland

Are you Giulio G Stefanini?

Claim your profile

Publications (53)485.26 Total impact

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Although new-generation drug-eluting stents represent the standard of care among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, there remains debate about differences in efficacy and the risk of stent thrombosis between the Resolute zotarolimus-eluting stent (R-ZES) and the everolimus-eluting stent (EES). The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the R-ZES compared with EES in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. A systematic literature search of electronic resources was performed using specific search terms until September 2014. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed comparing clinical outcomes between patients treated with R-ZES and EES up to maximum available follow-up. The primary efficacy end point was target-vessel revascularization. The primary safety end point was definite or probable stent thrombosis. Secondary safety end points were cardiac death and target-vessel myocardial infarction. Five trials were identified, including a total of 9899 patients. Compared with EES, R-ZES had similar risks of target-vessel revascularization (risk ratio [RR], 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90-1.24; P=0.50), definite or probable stent thrombosis (RR, 1.26; 95% CI, 0.86-1.85; P=0.24), cardiac death (RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.79-1.30; P=0.91), and target-vessel myocardial infarction (RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.89-1.36; P=0.39). Moreover, R-ZES and EES had similar risks of late definite or probable very late stent thrombosis (RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.53-2.11; P=0.87). No evidence of significant heterogeneity was observed across trials. R-ZES and EES provide similar safety and efficacy among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. © 2015 American Heart Association, Inc.
    Circulation Cardiovascular Interventions 04/2015; 8(4). DOI:10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.114.002223 · 6.98 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To assess safety up to 1 year of follow-up associated with prasugrel and clopidogrel use in a prospective cohort of patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS). Between 2009 and 2012, 2286 patients invasively managed for ACS were enrolled in the multicentre Swiss ACS Bleeding Cohort, among whom 2148 patients received either prasugrel or clopidogrel according to current guidelines. Patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) preferentially received prasugrel, while those with non-STEMI, a history of stroke or transient ischaemic attack, age ≥75 years, or weight <60 kg received clopidogrel or reduced dose of prasugrel to comply with the prasugrel label. After adjustment using propensity scores, the primary end point of clinically relevant bleeding events (defined as the composite of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium, BARC, type 3, 4 or 5 bleeding) at 1 year, occurred at a similar rate in both patient groups (prasugrel/clopidogrel: 3.8%/5.5%). Stratified analyses in subgroups including patients with STEMI yielded a similar safety profile. After adjusting for baseline variables, no relevant differences in major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events were observed at 1 year (prasugrel/clopidogrel: cardiac death 2.6%/4.2%, myocardial infarction 2.7%/3.8%, revascularisation 5.9%/6.7%, stroke 1.0%/1.6%). Of note, this study was not designed to compare efficacy between prasugrel and clopidogrel. In this large prospective ACS cohort, patients treated with prasugrel according to current guidelines (ie, in patients without cerebrovascular disease, old age or underweight) had a similar safety profile compared with patients treated with clopidogrel. SPUM-ACS: NCT01000701; COMFORTABLE AMI: NCT00962416. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
    Heart (British Cardiac Society) 03/2015; DOI:10.1136/heartjnl-2014-306925 · 6.02 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We assessed the feasibility and the procedural and long-term safety of intracoronary (i.c) imaging for documentary purposes with optical coherence tomography (OCT) and intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) in patients with acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary PCI in the setting of IBIS-4 study. IBIS4 (NCT00962416) is a prospective cohort study conducted at five European centers including 103 STEMI patients who underwent serial three-vessel coronary imaging during primary PCI and at 13 months. The feasibility parameter was successful imaging, defined as the number of pullbacks suitable for analysis. Safety parameters included the frequency of peri-procedural complications, and major adverse cardiac events (MACE), a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI) and any clinically-indicated revascularization at 2 years. Clinical outcomes were compared with the results from a cohort of 485 STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI without additional imaging. Imaging of the infarct-related artery at baseline (and follow-up) was successful in 92.2 % (96.6 %) of patients using OCT and in 93.2 % (95.5 %) using IVUS. Imaging of the non-infarct-related vessels was successful in 88.7 % (95.6 %) using OCT and in 90.5 % (93.3 %) using IVUS. Periprocedural complications occurred <2.0 % of OCT and none during IVUS. There were no differences throughout 2 years between the imaging and control group in terms of MACE (16.7 vs. 13.3 %, adjusted HR1.40, 95 % CI 0.77-2.52, p = 0.27). Multi-modality three-vessel i.c. imaging in STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI is consistent a high degree of success and can be performed safely without impact on cardiovascular events at long-term follow-up.
  • Source
  • Giulio G Stefanini, Stephan Windecker
    Circulation 01/2015; 131(4):418-26. DOI:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.114.008148 · 14.95 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Anemia and renal impairment are important co-morbidities among patients with coronary artery disease undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI). Disease progression to eventual death can be understood as the combined effect of baseline characteristics and intermediate outcomes. Using data from a prospective cohort study, we investigated clinical pathways reflecting the transitions from PCI through intermediate ischemic or hemorrhagic events to all-cause mortality in a multi-state analysis as a function of anemia (hemoglobin concentration <120 g/l and <130 g/l, for women and men, respectively) and renal impairment (creatinine clearance <60 ml/min) at baseline. Among 6029 patients undergoing PCI, anemia and renal impairment were observed isolated or in combination in 990 (16.4%), 384 (6.4%), and 309 (5.1%) patients, respectively. The most frequent transition was from PCI to death (6.7%, 95% CI 6.1-7.3), followed by ischemic events (4.8%, 95 CI 4.3-5.4) and bleeding (3.4%, 95% CI 3.0-3.9). Among patients with both anemia and renal impairment, the risk of death was increased 4-fold as compared to the reference group (HR 3.9, 95% CI 2.9-5.4) and roughly doubled as compared to patients with either anemia (HR 1.7, 95% CI 1.3-2.2) or renal impairment (HR 2.1, 95% CI 1.5-2.9) alone. Hazard ratios indicated an increased risk of bleeding in all three groups compared to patients with neither anemia nor renal impairment. Applying a multi-state model we found evidence for a gradient of risk for the composite of bleeding, ischemic events, or death as a function of hemoglobin value and estimated glomerular filtration rate at baseline.
    PLoS ONE 12/2014; 9(12):e114846. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0114846 · 3.53 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Rheumatic heart disease accounts for up to 250 000 premature deaths every year worldwide and can be regarded as a physical manifestation of poverty and social inequality. We aimed to estimate the prevalence of rheumatic heart disease in endemic countries as assessed by different screening modalities and as a function of age. We searched Medline, Embase, the Latin American and Caribbean System on Health Sciences Information, African Journals Online, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for population-based studies published between Jan 1, 1993, and June 30, 2014, that reported on prevalence of rheumatic heart disease among children and adolescents (≥5 years to <18 years). We assessed prevalence of clinically silent and clinically manifest rheumatic heart disease in random effects meta-analyses according to screening modality and geographical region. We assessed the association between social inequality and rheumatic heart disease with the Gini coefficient. We used Poisson regression to analyse the effect of age on prevalence of rheumatic heart disease and estimated the incidence of rheumatic heart disease from prevalence data. We included 37 populations in the systematic review and meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence of rheumatic heart disease detected by cardiac auscultation was 2·9 per 1000 people (95% CI 1·7-5·0) and by echocardiography it was 12·9 per 1000 people (8·9-18·6), with substantial heterogeneity between individual reports for both screening modalities (I(2)=99·0% and 94·9%, respectively). We noted an association between social inequality expressed by the Gini coefficient and prevalence of rheumatic heart disease (p=0·0002). The prevalence of clinically silent rheumatic heart disease (21·1 per 1000 people, 95% CI 14·1-31·4) was about seven to eight times higher than that of clinically manifest disease (2·7 per 1000 people, 1·6-4·4). Prevalence progressively increased with advancing age, from 4·7 per 1000 people (95% CI 0·0-11·2) at age 5 years to 21·0 per 1000 people (6·8-35·1) at 16 years. The estimated incidence was 1·6 per 1000 people (0·8-2·3) and remained constant across age categories (range 2·5, 95% CI 1·3-3·7 in 5-year-old children to 1·7, 0·0-5·1 in 15-year-old adolescents). We noted no sex-related differences in prevalence (p=0·829). We found a high prevalence of rheumatic heart disease in endemic countries. Although a reduction in social inequalities represents the cornerstone of community-based prevention, the importance of early detection of silent rheumatic heart disease remains to be further assessed. UBS Optimus Foundation. Copyright © 2014 Rothenbühler et al. Open Access article distributed under the terms of CC BY. Published by .. All rights reserved.
    11/2014; 2(12). DOI:10.1016/S2214-109X(14)70310-9
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Aortic valve stenosis and coronary artery disease (CAD) frequently co---exist in elderly patients selected for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Therapeutic strategies to manage concomitant obstructive CAD are therefore an important consideration in the overall management of patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) undergoing TAVI. Conventional surgical aortic valve replacement and coronary artery bypass grafting is the treatment of choice for low and intermediate risk patients with symptomatic severe AS and concomitant obstructive CAD. However, TAVI and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are viable alternative options for high---risk or inoperable patients presenting with symptomatic severe AS. PCI has been shown to be feasible and safe in selected high---risk or inoperable patients with symptomatic severe AS. However, the optimal timing of PCI relative to the TAVI procedure has been a subject of debate. The most frequent approach is staged PCI typically performed a few weeks prior to TAVI. However, concomitant PCI has also been shown to be a feasible and safe approach, particularly in patients with a low level of CAD complexity and an absence of severe renal impairment. Conversely, staged PCI should be considered in patients with higher degrees of CAD complexity, particularly in the presence of severe renal impairment. The aim of the present review is to discuss the safety and feasibility of performing PCI in elderly patients with severe AS and the optimal timing of PCI relative to the TAVI procedure using the most up---to---date available evidence.
    Minerva medica 11/2014; · 1.20 Impact Factor
  • Giulio G Stefanini, Stephan Windecker, Philippe Kolh
    European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery: official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery 10/2014; 47(3). DOI:10.1093/ejcts/ezu361 · 2.81 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Coronary artery disease (CAD) and aortic valve stenosis (AS) are frequently coexisting. It has been reported that CAD is present in 40% of patients with AS undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement, and in up to 60% of patients with AS undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Elderly patients with CAD and AS are characterised by higher baseline risk profiles as compared to patients with isolated AS, increasing the complexity of their therapeutic management. In patients with CAD and AS the combination of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and surgical aortic valve replacement has been shown to improve survival. Therefore, CABG is recommended in patients with CAD and AS undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement according to current guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association (ACCF/AHA). Conversely, whether the presence of CAD has any prognostic implications in elderly patients with severe AS undergoing TAVI is still a matter of debate. Of note, according to the most recent ESC guidelines on myocardial revascularisation, percutaneous revascularisation should be considered in patients undergoing TAVI with a stenosis >70% in proximal coronary segments (class IIa, level of evidence C). The aim of this article is to provide an overview of evidence supporting the need for coronary revascularisation in patients with severe AS and CAD undergoing TAVI, and to summarise optimal timing and treatment modalities for percutaneous coronary interventions in these patients.
    EuroIntervention: journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology 09/2014; 10(U):U69-U75. DOI:10.4244/EIJV10SUA10 · 3.76 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BackgroundRenal impairment (RI) is associated with impaired prognosis in patients with coronary artery disease. Clinical and angiographic outcomes of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with the use of drug-eluting stents (DES) in this patient population are not well established.MethodsWe pooled individual data for 5,011 patients from 3 trials with the exclusive and unrestricted use of DES (SIRTAX - N = 1,012, LEADERS - N = 1,707, RESOLUTE AC - N = 2,292). Angiographic follow-up was available for 1,544 lesions. Outcomes through 2 years were stratified according to glomerular filtration rate (normal renal function: GFR≥90 ml/min; mild RI: 90<GFR≥60 ml/min; moderate/severe RI GFR<60 ml/min).ResultsPatients with moderate/severe RI had an increased risk of cardiac death or myocardial infarction ([MI], OR 2.14, 95%CI 1.36–3.36), cardiac death (OR 2.21, 95%CI 1.10–4.46), and MI (OR 2.02, 95%CI 1.19–3.43) compared with patients with normal renal function at 2 years follow-up. There was no difference in cardiac death or MI between patients with mild RI compared to those with normal renal function (OR 1.10, 95%CI 0.75–1.61). The risk of target-lesion revascularization was similar for patients with moderate/severe RI (OR 1.17, 95%CI 0.70–1.95) and mild RI (OR 1.16, 95%CI 0.81–1.64) compared with patients with normal renal function. In-stent late loss and in-segment restenosis were not different for patients with moderate/severe RI, mild RI, and normal renal function.ConclusionsRenal function does not affect clinical and angiographic effectiveness of DES. However, prognosis remains impaired among patients with moderate/severe RI.
    PLoS ONE 09/2014; 9(9):e106450. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0106450 · 3.53 Impact Factor
  • Journal of the American College of Cardiology 09/2014; 64(9):953–954. DOI:10.1016/j.jacc.2014.06.1158 · 15.34 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Aims: To highlight differences between the most recent guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association (ACCF/AHA) on the management of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Methods and results: ESC 2012 and ACCF/AHA 2013 guidelines on the management of STEMI were systematically reviewed for consistency. Recommendations were matched, directly compared in terms of class of recommendation and level of evidence, and classified as "identical", "overlapping", or "different". Out of 32 recommendations compared, 26 recommendations (81%) were classified as identical or overlapping, and six recommendations (19%) were classified as different. Most diverging recommendations were related to minor differences in class of recommendation between the two documents. This applies to recommendations for reperfusion therapy >12 hours after symptom onset, immediate transfer of all patients after fibrinolytic therapy, rescue PCI for patients with failed fibrinolysis, and intra-aortic balloon pump use in patients with cardiogenic shock. More substantial differences were observed with respect to the type of P2Y12 inhibitor and duration of dual antiplatelet therapy. Conclusions: The majority of recommendations for the management of STEMI according to ESC and ACCF/AHA guidelines were identical or overlapping. Differences were explained by gaps in available evidence, in which case expert consensus differed between European and American guidelines due to divergence in interpretation, perception, and culture of medical practice. Systematic comparisons of European and American guidelines are valuable and indicate that interpretation of available evidence leads to agreement in the vast majority of topics. The latter is indirect support for the process of review and guideline preparation on both sides of the Atlantic.
    EuroIntervention: journal of EuroPCR in collaboration with the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology 08/2014; 10(T):T23-T31. DOI:10.4244/EIJV10STA5 · 3.76 Impact Factor
  • Source
    European journal of cardio-thoracic surgery: official journal of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery 08/2014; · 2.81 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The ESC is not responsible in the event of any contradiction, discrepancy and/or ambiguity between the ESC Guidelines and any other official recommendations or guidelines issued by the relevant public health authorities, in particular in relation to good use of healthcare or therapeutic strategies. Health professionals are encouraged to take the ESC Guidelines fully into account when exercising their clinical judgment as well as in the determination and the implementation of preventive, diagnostic or therapeutic medical strategies; however, the ESC Guidelines do not in any way whatsoever override the individual responsibility of health professionals to make appropriate and accurate decisions in consideration of each patient's health condition and, where appropriate and/or necessary, in consultation with that patient and the patient's care provider. Nor do the ESC Guidelines exempt health professionals from giving full and careful consideration to the relevant official, updated recommendations or guidelines issued by the competent public health authorities, in order to manage each patient's case in light of the scientifically accepted data pursuant to their respective ethical and professional obligations. It is also the health professional's responsibility to verify the applicable rules and regulations relating to drugs and medical devices at the time of prescription.
    Kardiologia polska 08/2014; 72(12):1253-379. DOI:10.5603/KP.2014.0224 · 0.52 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Aims: The aim of this study was to identify predictors of adverse events among patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing contemporary primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Methods and results: Individual data of 2,655 patients from two primary PCI trials (EXAMINATION, N=1,504; COMFORTABLE AMI, N=1,161) with identical endpoint definitions and event adjudication were pooled. Predictors of all-cause death or any reinfarction and definite stent thrombosis (ST) and target lesion revascularisation (TLR) outcomes at one year were identified by multivariable Cox regression analysis. Killip class III or IV was the strongest predictor of all-cause death or any reinfarction (OR 5.11, 95% CI: 2.48-10.52), definite ST (OR 7.74, 95% CI: 2.87-20.93), and TLR (OR 2.88, 95% CI: 1.17-7.06). Impaired left ventricular ejection fraction (OR 4.77, 95% CI: 2.10-10.82), final TIMI flow 0-2 (OR 1.93, 95% CI: 1.05-3.54), arterial hypertension (OR 1.69, 95% CI: 1.11-2.59), age (OR 1.68, 95% CI: 1.41-2.01), and peak CK (OR 1.25, 95% CI: 1.02-1.54) were independent predictors of all-cause death or any reinfarction. Allocation to treatment with DES was an independent predictor of a lower risk of definite ST (OR 0.35, 95% CI: 0.16-0.74) and any TLR (OR 0.34, 95% CI: 0.21-0.54). Conclusions: Killip class remains the strongest predictor of all-cause death or any reinfarction among STEMI patients undergoing primary PCI. DES use independently predicts a lower risk of TLR and definite ST compared with BMS. The COMFORTABLE AMI trial is registered at: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00962416. The EXAMINATION trial is registered at: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00828087.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To investigate whether revascularisation improves prognosis compared with medical treatment among patients with stable coronary artery disease.
    BMJ Clinical Research 06/2014; 348:g3859. DOI:10.1136/bmj.g3859 · 14.09 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective To investigate 4-year outcomes and predictors of repeat revascularization in patients treated with Resolute™ zotarolimus-eluting stent (R-ZES) and XIENCE V™ everolimus-eluting stent (EES) in the RESOLUTE All Comers trial. Background Data on long-term outcomes of new generation drug-eluting stents are limited, and predictors of repeat revascularization due to restenosis and/or progression of disease are largely unknown. Methods Patients were randomly assigned to treatment with R-ZES (n=1,140) or EES (n=1,152). We assessed pre-specified safety and efficacy outcomes at 4 years including target-lesion failure (TLF) and stent thrombosis (ST). Predictors of revascularization at 4 years were identified by Cox regression analysis. Results At 4 years, rates of TLF (15.2% vs. 14.6%, p=0.68), cardiac death (5.4% vs. 4.7%, p=0.44), target-vessel myocardial infarction (MI) (5.3% vs. 5.4%, p=1.00), clinically-indicated target-lesion revascularization (TLR) (7.0% vs. 6.5%, p=0.62), and definite/probable ST (2.3% vs. 1.6%, p=0.23) were similar with R-ZES and EES. Independent predictors of TLR were: age, insulin-treated diabetes, SYNTAX score, treatment of saphenous vein grafts, ostial lesions, and instent restenosis. Independent predictors of any revascularization were: age, diabetes, previous PCI, ST-elevation MI, smaller reference vessel diameter, SYNTAX score, and treatment of left anterior descending, right coronary artery, saphenous vein grafts, ostial lesions, or instent restenosis. Conclusions R-ZES and EES demonstrated similar safety and efficacy throughout 4 years. TLR represented less than half of all repeat revascularization procedures. Patient and lesion-related factors predicting the risk of TLR and any revascularization showed considerable overlap. Clinical trial info RESOLUTE All Comers; NCT00617084
    Journal of the American College of Cardiology 04/2014; 63(16). DOI:10.1016/j.jacc.2013.12.036 · 15.34 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aim of this study was to evaluate whether coronary artery disease (CAD) severity exerts a gradient of risk in patients with aortic stenosis (AS) undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). A total of 445 patients with severe AS undergoing TAVI were included into a prospective registry between 2007 and 2012. The preoperative SYNTAX score (SS) was determined from baseline coronary angiograms. In case of revascularization prior to TAVI, residual SS (rSS) was also determined. Clinical outcomes were compared between patients without CAD (n = 158), patients with low SS (0-22, n = 207), and patients with high SS (SS >22, n = 80). The pre-specified primary endpoint was the composite of cardiovascular death, stroke, or myocardial infarction (MI). At 1 year, CAD severity was associated with higher rates of the primary endpoint (no CAD: 12.5%, low SS: 16.1%, high SS: 29.6%; P = 0.016). This was driven by differences in cardiovascular mortality (no CAD: 8.6%, low SS: 13.6%, high SS: 20.4%; P = 0.029), whereas the risk of stroke (no CAD: 5.1%, low SS: 3.3%, high SS: 6.7%; P = 0.79) and MI (no CAD: 1.5%, low SS: 1.1%, high SS: 4.0%; P = 0.54) was similar across the three groups. Patients with high SS received less complete revascularization as indicated by a higher rSS (21.2 ± 12.0 vs. 4.0 ± 4.4, P < 0.001) compared with patients with low SS. High rSS tertile (>14) was associated with higher rates of the primary endpoint at 1 year (no CAD: 12.5%, low rSS: 16.5%, high rSS: 26.3%, P = 0.043). Severity of CAD appears to be associated with impaired clinical outcomes at 1 year after TAVI. Patients with SS >22 receive less complete revascularization and have a higher risk of cardiovascular death, stroke, or MI than patients without CAD or low SS.
    European Heart Journal 03/2014; 35(37). DOI:10.1093/eurheartj/ehu074 · 14.72 Impact Factor
  • Giulio G Stefanini, Stephan Windecker
    The Lancet 03/2014; 383(9934). DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60461-X · 39.21 Impact Factor