Long-Term Efficacy and Safety of Paclitaxel-Eluting Balloon for the Treatment of Drug-Eluting Stent Restenosis: 3-Year Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial

ObjectivesThis study sought to investigate the long-term comparative efficacy and safety of paclitaxel-eluting balloon (PEB), paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES), or balloon angioplasty (BA) for the treatment of drug-eluting stent restenosis.BackgroundThe optimal treatment of drug-eluting stent restenosis remains unknown. Although PEB has shown encouraging results, the long-term clinical efficacy and safety of PEB remains poorly defined.MethodsA total of 402 patients with clinically significant restenosis in limus-eluting stents were randomly assigned to receive PEB (n = 137), PES (n = 131), or BA (n = 134). For this analysis, PEB versus PES and PEB versus BA were compared. The primary efficacy and safety endpoints were target lesion revascularization and the composite of death or myocardial infarction.ResultsAt a median follow-up of 3 years, the risk of target lesion revascularization was comparable with PEB versus PES (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.46, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.91 to 2.33; p = 0.11) and lower with PEB versus BA (HR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.34 to 0.74; p < 0.001). The risk of death/myocardial infarction tended to be lower with PEB versus PES (HR: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.28 to 1.07; p = 0.08), due to a lower risk of death (HR: 0.38, 95% CI: 0.17 to 0.87; p = 0.02). The risk of death/myocardial infarction was similar with PEB versus BA (HR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.46 to 2.0; p = 0.91).ConclusionsAt 3 years, the use of PEB as compared with PES to treat patients with limus-eluting stent restenosis has similar efficacy and safety. PEB remains superior to BA. The sustained efficacy without trade-off in safety supports the role of PEB as treatment option for patients with drug-eluting stent restenosis. (Intracoronary Stenting and Angiographic Results: Drug Eluting Stent In-Stent Restenosis: 3 Treatment Approaches [ISAR-DESIRE 3]; NCT00987324)     

Coronary Vessel Wall Contrast Enhancement Imaging as a Potential Direct Marker of Coronary Involvement: Integration of Findings From CAD and SLE Patients

ObjectivesThis study investigated the feasibility of visual and quantitative assessment of coronary vessel wall contrast enhancement (CE) for detection of symptomatic atherosclerotic coronary artery disease (CAD) and subclinical coronary vasculitis in autoimmune inflammatory disease (systemic lupus erythematosus [SLE]), as well as the association with aortic stiffness, an established marker of risk.BackgroundCoronary CE by cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) is a novel noninvasive approach to visualize gadolinium contrast uptake within the coronary artery vessel wall.MethodsA total of 75 subjects (CAD: n = 25; SLE: n = 27; control: n = 23) underwent CMR imaging using a 3-T clinical scanner. Coronary arteries were visualized by a T2-prepared steady state free precession technique. Coronary wall CE was visualized using inversion-recovery T1 weighted gradient echo sequence 40 min after administration of 0.2 mmol/kg gadobutrol. Proximal coronary segments were visually examined for distribution of CE and quantified for contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) and total CE area.ResultsCoronary CE was prevalent in patients (93%, n = 42) with a diffuse pattern for SLE and a patchy/regional distribution in CAD patients. Compared with control subjects, CNR values and total CE area in patients with CAD and SLE were significantly higher (mean CNR: 3.9 ± 2.5 vs. 6.9 ± 2.5 vs. 6.8 ± 2.0, respectively; p < 0.001; total CE area: median 0.8 [interquartile range (IQR): 0.6 to 1.2] vs. 3.2 [IQR: 2.6 to 4.0] vs. 3.3 [IQR: 1.9 to 4.5], respectively; p < 0.001). Both measures were positively associated with aortic stiffness (CNR: r = 0.61, p < 0.01; total CE area: 0.36, p = 0.03), hypercholesterolemia (r = 0.68, p < 0.001; r = 0.61, p < 0.001) and hypertension (r = 0.40, p < 0.01; r = 0.32, p < 0.05).ConclusionsWe demonstrate that quantification of coronary CE by CNR and total CE area is feasible for detection of subclinical and clinical uptake of gadolinium within the coronary vessel wall. Coronary vessel wall CE may become an instrumental novel direct marker of vessel wall injury and remodeling in subpopulations at risk.     

Long-Term Survival Benefit of Revascularization Compared With Medical Therapy in Patients With Coronary Chronic Total Occlusion and Well-Developed Collateral Circulation

ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to compare the long-term clinical outcomes of patients with chronic total occlusion (CTO) and well-developed collateral circulation treated with revascularization versus medical therapy.BackgroundLittle is known about the clinical outcomes and optimal treatment strategies of CTO with well-developed collateral circulation.MethodsWe screened 2,024 consecutive patients with at least 1 CTO detected on coronary angiogram. Of these, we analyzed data from 738 patients with Rentrop 3 grade collateral circulation who were treated with medical therapy alone (n = 236), coronary artery bypass grafting (n = 170) or percutaneous coronary intervention (n = 332; 80.1% successful). Patients who underwent revascularization and medical therapy (revascularization group, n = 502) were compared with those who underwent medical therapy alone (medication group, n = 236) in terms of cardiac death and major adverse cardiac events (MACE), defined as the composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization.ResultsDuring a median follow-up duration of 42 months, multivariate analysis revealed a significantly lower incidence of cardiac death (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.29; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.15 to 0.58; p < 0.01) and MACE (HR: 0.32; 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.49; p < 0.01) in the revascularization group compared with the medication group. After propensity score matching, the incidence of cardiac death (HR: 0.27; 95% CI: 0.09 to 0.80; p = 0.02) and MACE (HR: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.23 to 0.82; p = 0.01) were still significantly lower in the revascularization group than in the medication group.ConclusionsIn patients with coronary CTO and well-developed collateral circulation, aggressive revascularization may reduce the risk of cardiac mortality and MACE.     

Fate of Hypoplastic Pulmonary Arteries After Arterial Duct Stenting in Congenital Heart Disease With Duct-Dependent Pulmonary Circulation

ObjectivesThis study sought to evaluate the impact of arterial duct (AD) stenting in promoting catch-up growth of hypoplastic pulmonary artery (PA) tree in congenital heart disease with duct-dependent pulmonary circulation (CHD-DPC).BackgroundSignificant and balanced PA growth following AD stenting has already been consistently reported in the literature. However, no data are so far available about the role of this approach in severe PA hypoplasia, which significantly impacts the risk of surgical repair.MethodsPre-surgical angiographic PA evaluation was performed in 45 patients with confluent PAs submitted to neonatal AD stenting as palliation of CHD-DPC. PA growth was evaluated as Nakata Index and McGoon ratio as well as individual PA z-score changes, both in the whole population and according to the original vessel size (Nakata Index <100 mm²/m², Group I [n = 15] vs. Nakata Index >100 mm²/m², Group II [n = 30]).ResultsControl angiography was performed 7.5 ± 6.5 months (median 6 months) after duct stenting, showing significant and balanced PA growth. The Nakata Index increased from 143 ± 73 mm²/m² to 270 ± 88 mm²/m² (124 ± 118%, p < 0.0001); left PA z-score from −0.7 ± 1.7 to 1.0 ± 1.4; right PA z-score from −0.6 ± 1.3 to 1.2 ± 1.3 (p < 0.0001 for both comparisons). Group I showed a greater increase of global PA growth (Nakata Index increase 227 ± 141% vs. 72 ± 57%, p < 0.001) as compared with Group II. Final PA size did not significantly differ between the groups (246 ± 105 mm²/m² vs. 282 ± 78 mm²/m², p = NS).ConclusionsPercutaneous AD stenting is highly effective in promoting a significant and balanced catch-up growth of diminutive PAs, being therefore advisable in this subset of patients as a reliable alternative to surgical palliation.     

Clinical Outcome After DK Crush Versus Culotte Stenting of Distal Left Main Bifurcation Lesions: The 3-Year Follow-Up Results of the DKCRUSH-III Study

ObjectivesThe present study aimed to investigate the difference in major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 3 years after double-kissing (DK) crush versus culotte stenting for unprotected left main distal bifurcation lesions (LMDBLs).BackgroundThe multicenter and randomized DKCRUSH-III (Comparison of double kissing crush versus culotte stenting for unprotected distal left main bifurcation lesions: results from a multicenter, randomized, prospective study) showed that DK crush stenting was associated with fewer MACE at 1-year follow-up in patients with LMDBLs compared with culotte stenting. Here, we report the 3-year clinical outcome of the DKCRUSH-III study.MethodsA total of 419 patients with LMDBLs who were randomly assigned to either the DK crush or culotte group in the DKCRUSH-III study were followed for 3 year. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of a MACE at 3 years. Stent thrombosis (ST) was the safety endpoint. Patients were classified by simple and complex LMDBLs according to the DEFINITION (Definition and Impact of Complex Bifurcation Lesions on Clinical Outcomes After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Using Drug-Eluting Stents) study criteria.ResultsAt 3 years, MACE occurred in 49 patients the culotte group and in 17 patients in the DK crush group (cumulative event rates of 23.7% and 8.2%, respectively; p < 0.001), mainly driven by increased myocardial infarction (8.2% vs. 3.4%, respectively; p = 0.037) and target-vessel revascularization (18.8% vs. 5.8%, respectively; p < 0.001) between groups. Definite ST rate was 3.4% in the culotte group and 0% in the DK crush group (p = 0.007). Complex LMDBLs were associated with a higher rate of MACE (35.3%) at 3 years compared with a rate of 8.1% in patients with simple LMDBLs (p < 0.001), with an extremely higher rate in the culotte group (51.5% vs. 15.1%, p < 0.001).ConclusionsCulotte stenting for LMDBLs was associated with significantly increased rates of MACE and ST. (Double Kissing [DK] Crush Versus Culotte Stenting for the Treatment of Unprotected Distal Left Main Bifurcation Lesions: DKCRUSH-III, a Multicenter Randomized Study Comparing Double-Stent Techniques; ChiCTR-TRC-11001877)     

Randomized Comparison of FFR-Guided and Angiography-Guided Provisional Stenting of True Coronary Bifurcation Lesions: The DKCRUSH-VI Trial (Double Kissing Crush Versus Provisional Stenting Technique for Treatment of Coronary Bifurcation Lesions VI)

ObjectivesThis study sought to compare the outcomes of fractional flow reserve (FFR)–guided and angiography (Angio)–guided provisional side-branch (SB) stenting for true coronary bifurcation lesions.BackgroundAngio-guided provisional SB stenting after stenting of the main vessel provides favorable outcomes for the majority of coronary bifurcation lesions. Whether an FFR-guided provisional stenting approach is superior has not been studied.MethodsA total of 320 patients with single Medina 1,1,1 and 0,1,1 coronary bifurcation lesions undergoing stenting with a provisional SB approach were randomly assigned 1:1 to Angio-guided and FFR-guided groups. SB stenting was performed for Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction flow grade <3, ostial SB stenosis >70%, or greater than type A dissection after main vessel stenting in the Angio-guided group and for SB-FFR <0.80 in the FFR-guided group. The primary endpoint was the 1-year composite rate of major adverse cardiac events (cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and clinically driven target vessel revascularization).ResultsComparing the Angio-guided and FFR-guided groups, treatment of the SB (balloon or stenting) was performed in 63.1% and 56.3% of lesions respectively (p = 0.07); stenting of the SB was attempted in 38.1% and 25.9%, respectively (p = 0.01); and, when attempted, stenting was successful in 83.6% and 73.3% of SBs, respectively (p = 0.01). The 1-year composite major adverse cardiac event rate was 18.1% in both groups (hazard ratio: 0.91, 95% confidence interval: 0.48 to 1.88; p = 1.00). The 1-year target vessel revascularization and stent thrombosis rates were 6.9% and 5.6% (p = 0.82) and 1.3% and 0.6% (p = 0.56) in the Angio-guided and FFR-guided groups, respectively.ConclusionsIn this multicenter, randomized trial, angiographic and FFR guidance of provisional SB stenting of true coronary bifurcation lesions provided similar 1-year clinical outcomes. (Randomized Study on DK Crush Technique Versus Provisional Stenting Technique for Coronary Artery Bifurcation Lesions; ChiCTR-TRC-07000015)     

Outcomes After Emergency Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Unprotected Left Main Stem Occlusion: The BCIS National Audit of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention 6-Year Experience

ObjectivesThis study sought to evaluate in-hospital outcomes and 3-year mortality of patients presenting with unprotected left main stem occlusion (ULMSO) treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI).BackgroundLimited data exists about management and outcome following presentation with ULMSO.MethodsFrom January 1, 2007 to December 21, 2012, 446,257 PCI cases were recorded in the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society database of all PCI cases in England and Wales. Of those, 568 were patients having emergency PCI for ST-segment elevation infarction (0.6% of all PPCI) who presented with ULMSO (TIMI [Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction] flow grade 0/1 and stenosis >75%), and they were compared with 1,045 emergency patients treated with nonocclusive LMS disease. Follow-up was obtained through linkage with the Office of National Statistics.ResultsPresentation with ULMSO, compared with nonocclusive LMS disease, was associated with a doubling in the likelihood of periprocedural shock (57.9% vs. 27.9%; p < 0.001) and/or intra-aortic balloon pump support (52.5% vs. 27.2%; p < 0.001). In-hospital (43.3% vs. 20.6%; p < 0.001), 1-year (52.8% vs. 32.4%; p < 0.001), and 3-year mortality (73.9% vs 52.3%, p < 0.001) rates were higher in patients with ULMSO, compared with patients presenting with a patent LMS, and were significantly influenced by the presence of cardiogenic shock. ULMSO and cardiogenic shock were independent predictors of 30-day (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.61 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.07 to 2.41], p = 0.02, and HR: 5.43 [95% CI: 3.23 to 9.12], p<0.001, respectively) and 3-year all-cause mortality (HR: 1.52 [95% CI: 1.06 to 2.17], p = 0.02, and HR: 2.98 [95% CI: 1.99 to 4.49], p < 0.001, respectively).ConclusionsIn patients undergoing PPCI for ULMSO, acute outcomes are poor and additional therapies are required to improve outcome. However, long-term outcomes for survivors of ULMSO are encouraging.     

Outcomes After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Stents in Patients Treated With Thoracic External Beam Radiation for Cancer

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to assess outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with stents in patients treated with thoracic external beam radiation therapy (EBRT).BackgroundThoracic EBRT for cancer is associated with long-term cardiotoxic sequelae. The impact of EBRT on patients requiring coronary stents is unclear.MethodsWe analyzed outcomes after PCI in cancer survivors treated with curative thoracic EBRT before and after stenting between 1998 and 2012. Reference groups were propensity-matched cohorts with stenting but no EBRT. Primary endpoint was target lesion revascularization (TLR), a clinical surrogate for restenosis. Secondary endpoints included myocardial infarction (MI) and cardiac and overall mortality.ResultsWe identified 115 patients treated with EBRT a median 3.6 years after stenting (group A) and 45 patients treated with EBRT a median 2.2 years before stenting (group B). Long-term mean TLR rates in group A (3.2 vs. 6.6%; hazard ratio: 0.6; 95% confidence interval: 0.2 to 1.6; p = 0.31) and group B (9.2 vs. 9.7%; hazard ratio: 1.2; 95% confidence interval: 0.4 to 3.4; p = 0.79) were similar to rates in corresponding control patients (group A: 1,390 control patients; group B: 439 control patients). Three years post-PCI, group A had higher overall mortality (48.6% vs. 13.9%; p < 0.001) but not MI (4.8% vs. 4.3%; p = 0.93) or cardiac mortality (2.3% vs. 3.6%; p = 0.66) rates versus control patients. There were no significant differences in MI, cardiac, or overall mortality rates in group B.ConclusionsThoracic EBRT is not associated with increased stent failure rates when used before or after PCI. A history of PCI should not preclude the use of curative thoracic EBRT in cancer patients or vice versa. Optimal treatment of cancer should be the goal.     

Clinical Outcomes and Revascularization Strategies in Patients With Low-Flow,Low-Gradient Severe Aortic Valve Stenosis According to the Assigned Treatment Modality

ObjectivesThis study compared clinical outcomes and revascularization strategies among patients presenting with low ejection fraction, low-gradient (LEF-LG) severe aortic stenosis (AS) according to the assigned treatment modality.BackgroundThe optimal treatment modality for patients with LEF-LG severe AS and concomitant coronary artery disease (CAD) requiring revascularization is unknown.MethodsOf 1,551 patients, 204 with LEF-LG severe AS (aortic valve area <1.0 cm², ejection fraction <50%, and mean gradient <40 mm Hg) were allocated to medical therapy (MT) (n = 44), surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) (n = 52), or transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) (n = 108). CAD complexity was assessed using the SYNTAX score (SS) in 187 of 204 patients (92%). The primary endpoint was mortality at 1 year.ResultsLEF-LG severe AS patients undergoing SAVR were more likely to undergo complete revascularization (17 of 52, 35%) compared with TAVR (8 of 108, 8%) and MT (0 of 44, 0%) patients (p < 0.001). Compared with MT, both SAVR (adjusted hazard ratio [adj HR]: 0.16; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.07 to 0.38; p < 0.001) and TAVR (adj HR: 0.30; 95% CI: 0.18 to 0.52; p < 0.001) improved survival at 1 year. In TAVR and SAVR patients, CAD severity was associated with higher rates of cardiovascular death (no CAD: 12.2% vs. low SS [0 to 22], 15.3% vs. high SS [>22], 31.5%; p = 0.037) at 1 year. Compared with no CAD/complete revascularization, TAVR and SAVR patients undergoing incomplete revascularization had significantly higher 1-year cardiovascular death rates (adj HR: 2.80; 95% CI: 1.07 to 7.36; p = 0.037).ConclusionsAmong LEF-LG severe AS patients, SAVR and TAVR improved survival compared with MT. CAD severity was associated with worse outcomes and incomplete revascularization predicted 1-year cardiovascular mortality among TAVR and SAVR patients.     

Randomized Comparisons Between Different Stenting Approaches for Bifurcation Coronary Lesions With or Without Side Branch Stenosis

ObjectivesThis study sought to evaluate the optimal percutaneous coronary intervention techniques using drug-eluting stents for bifurcation coronary lesions.BackgroundThe optimal bifurcation stenting technique needs to be evaluated.MethodsThe trial included 2 randomization studies separated by the presence of side branch (SB) stenosis for patients having non–left main bifurcation lesions. For 306 patients without SB stenosis, the routine final kissing balloon or leave-alone approaches were compared. Another randomization study compared the crush or single-stent approaches for 419 patients with SB stenosis.ResultsBetween the routine final kissing balloon and leave-alone groups for nondiseased SB lesions, angiographic restenosis occurred in 17.9% versus 9.3% (p = 0.064), comprising 15.1% versus 3.7% for the main branch (p = 0.004) and 2.8% versus 5.6% for the SB (p = 0.50) from 214 patients (69.9%) receiving 8-month angiographic follow-up. Incidence of major adverse cardiac events including death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization over 1 year was 14.0% versus 11.6% between the routine final kissing balloon and leave-alone groups (p = 0.57). In another randomization study for diseased SB lesions, 28.2% in the single-stent group received SB stents. From 300 patients (71.6%) receiving angiographic follow-up, between the crush and single-stent groups, angiographic restenosis rate was 8.4% versus 11.0% (p = 0.44), comprising 5.2% versus 4.8% for the main branch (p = 0.90) and 3.9% versus 8.3% for the SB (p = 0.12). One-year major adverse cardiac events rate between the crush and single-stent groups was 17.9% versus 18.5% (p = 0.84).ConclusionsAngiographic and clinical outcomes were excellent after percutaneous coronary intervention using drug-eluting stents with any stent technique for non–left main bifurcation lesions once the procedure was performed successfully.     

Comparative Analysis of Sequential Proximal Optimizing Technique Versus Kissing Balloon Inflation Technique in Provisional Bifurcation Stenting: Fractal Coronary Bifurcation Bench Test

ObjectivesThis study used a fractal bifurcation bench model to compare 6 optimization sequences for coronary bifurcation provisional stenting, including 1 novel sequence without kissing balloon inflation (KBI), comprising initial proximal optimizing technique (POT) + side-branch inflation (SBI) + final POT, called “re-POT.”BackgroundIn provisional bifurcation stenting, KBI fails to improve the rate of major adverse cardiac events. Proximal geometric deformation increases the rate of in-stent restenosis and target lesion revascularization.MethodsA bifurcation bench model was used to compare KBI alone, KBI after POT, KBI with asymmetric inflation pressure after POT, and 2 sequences without KBI: initial POT plus SBI, and initial POT plus SBI with final POT (called “re-POT”). For each protocol, 5 stents were tested using 2 different drug-eluting stent designs: that is, a total of 60 tests.ResultsCompared with the classic KBI-only sequence and those associating POT with modified KBI, the re-POT sequence gave significantly (p < 0.05) better geometric results: it reduced SB ostium stent-strut obstruction from 23.2 ± 6.0% to 5.6 ± 8.3%, provided perfect proximal stent apposition with almost perfect circularity (ellipticity index reduced from 1.23 ± 0.02 to 1.04 ± 0.01), reduced proximal area overstretch from 24.2 ± 7.6% to 8.0 ± 0.4%, and reduced global strut malapposition from 40 ± 6.2% to 2.6 ± 1.4%.ConclusionsIn comparison with 5 other techniques, the re-POT sequence significantly optimized the final result of provisional coronary bifurcation stenting, maintaining circular geometry while significantly reducing SB ostium strut obstruction and global strut malapposition. These experimental findings confirm that provisional stenting may be optimized more effectively without KBI using re-POT.     

Radial Versus Femoral Access for Coronary Angiography/Intervention in Women With Acute Coronary Syndromes: Insights From the RIVAL Trial (Radial Vs femorAL access for coronary intervention)

ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy and safety of radial versus femoral access in women undergoing coronary angiography/intervention.BackgroundThe risk of bleeding and vascular access site complications are higher in women than in men.MethodsIn a pre-specified RIVAL (RadIal Vs femorAL access for coronary intervention) subgroup analysis, we compared outcomes in women (n = 1,861) and men (n = 5,160) randomized to radial versus femoral access.ResultsOverall, women were at higher risk of major vascular complications compared with men (4.7% vs. 1.7%; p < 0.0001). Major vascular complications were significantly reduced with radial access in women (3.1% vs. 6.1%; hazard ratio [HR]: 0.5; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.32 to 0.78; p = 0.002) and in men (0.7% vs. 2.8%; HR: 0.27; 95% CI: 0.17 to 0.45; p < 0.0001; interaction p = 0.092). Crossover rates were higher with radial compared with femoral access in women (11.1% vs. 1.9%; HR: 5.88; p < 0.0001) and men (6.3% vs. 1.9%; HR: 3.32; p < 0.0001; interaction p = 0.054). Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) success rates were similar irrespective of access site (women: HR: 1.05; p = 0.471; men: HR: 1.00; p = 0.888; interaction p = 0.674), with no differences in PCI complications. In multivariable analyses, female sex was an independent predictor of major vascular complications (HR: 2.39; 95% CI: 1.76 to 3.25; p < 0.0001). There were consistent findings for women and men, with no difference for the primary composite endpoint of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and non–coronary artery bypass grafting bleeding (women: 3.9% vs. 5.0%; HR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.50 to 1.19; men: 3.54% vs. 3.5%; HR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.75 to −1.34; interaction p = 0.325).ConclusionsWomen undergoing coronary angiography and PCI have a higher risk of vascular access site complications compared with men, and radial access is an effective method to reduce these complications.     

Proximal Versus Distal Embolic Protection for Carotid Artery Stenting: A National Cardiovascular Data Registry Analysis

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to compare the stroke/death rates between proximal embolic protection devices (P-EPDs) and distal filter embolic protection devices (F-EPDs) in elective carotid artery stenting (CAS).BackgroundP-EPDs have theoretical advantages that may make them superior to F-EPDs for stroke prevention during CAS.MethodsWe examined 10,246 consecutive elective CAS procedures performed with embolic protection in the NCDR CARE registry between January 2009 and March 2013. We analyzed crude and propensity-matched rates of in-hospital combined death/stroke in patients treated with P-EPDs versus F-EPDs. Secondary analyses included 30-day adverse event rates and stroke rates by the involved cerebrovascular territory.ResultsP-EPDs were used in 590 of 10,246 cases (5.8%). Patients treated with P-EPDs had higher rates of symptomatic lesion status (46.8% vs. 39.7%, p < 0.001), atrial fibrillation/flutter (16.1% vs. 13.0%, p = 0.03), and history of a neurological event (51.2% vs. 46.6%, p = 0.03). In unadjusted and propensity-matched analyses, differences in in-hospital stroke/death between P-EPD and F-EPD cohorts were nonsignificant (1.5% vs. 2.4%, p = 0.16 and 1.6% vs. 2.0%, p = 0.56, respectively). For patients with available data (n = 7,693, 75.1%), 30-day adverse events rates were similar for P-EPDs and F-EPDs before (2.5% vs. 4.2%, p = 0.07) and after (2.7% vs. 4.0%, p = 0.22) propensity matching.ConclusionsUse of a P-EPD during CAS was associated with low rates of in-hospital stroke/death similar to those with an F-EPD in the first comparative effectiveness study of the devices. An adequately powered randomized trial comparing clinical outcomes between these devices is unlikely to be feasible.     

Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of New-Generation Versus Early-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents According to Complexity of Coronary Artery Disease: A Patient-Level Pooled Analysis of 6,081 Patients

ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to compare the 2-year safety and effectiveness of new- versus early-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) according to the severity of coronary artery disease (CAD) as assessed by the SYNTAX (Synergy between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery) score.BackgroundNew-generation DES are considered the standard-of-care in patients with CAD undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. However, there are few data investigating the effects of new- over early-generation DES according to the anatomic complexity of CAD.MethodsPatient-level data from 4 contemporary, all-comers trials were pooled. The primary device-oriented clinical endpoint was the composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target-lesion revascularization (TLR). The principal effectiveness and safety endpoints were TLR and definite stent thrombosis (ST), respectively. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated at 2 years for overall comparisons, as well as stratified for patients with lower (SYNTAX score ≤11) and higher complexity (SYNTAX score >11).ResultsA total of 6,081 patients were included in the study. New-generation DES (n = 4,554) compared with early-generation DES (n = 1,527) reduced the primary endpoint (HR: 0.75 [95% CI: 0.63 to 0.89]; p = 0.001) without interaction (p = 0.219) between patients with lower (HR: 0.86 [95% CI: 0.64 to 1.16]; p = 0.322) versus higher CAD complexity (HR: 0.68 [95% CI: 0.54 to 0.85]; p = 0.001). In patients with SYNTAX score >11, new-generation DES significantly reduced TLR (HR: 0.36 [95% CI: 0.26 to 0.51]; p < 0.001) and definite ST (HR: 0.28 [95% CI: 0.15 to 0.55]; p < 0.001) to a greater extent than in the low-complexity group (TLR p_int = 0.059; ST p_int = 0.013). New-generation DES decreased the risk of cardiac mortality in patients with SYNTAX score >11 (HR: 0.45 [95% CI: 0.27 to 0.76]; p = 0.003) but not in patients with SYNTAX score ≤11 (p_int = 0.042).ConclusionsNew-generation DES improve clinical outcomes compared with early-generation DES, with a greater safety and effectiveness in patients with SYNTAX score >11.     

Experience and Outcomes With Carotid Artery Stenting: An Analysis of the CHOICE Study (Carotid Stenting for High Surgical-Risk Patients; Evaluating Outcomes Through the Collection of Clinical Evidence)

ObjectivesThis study sought to examine operator experience measured by time-related variables on outcomes with protected carotid artery stenting (CAS).BackgroundStudies on experience have focused on operator and institutional CAS volumes alone in the absence of a better metric.MethodsUsing the CHOICE (Carotid Stenting for High Surgical-Risk Patients; Evaluating Outcomes Through the Collection of Clinical Evidence) multicenter prospective data from October 1, 2006 to June 1, 2012, 5,841 evaluable subjects were identified. Operator experience within this study was assessed using 5 variables for each operator: 1) baseline CAS volume; 2) time from first CAS to each subsequent CAS; 3) time between each CAS; 4) CAS volume in the institution; and 5) medical specialty (cardiology, surgery, or radiology/neurology). Institutional experience was determined by CAS volume within the study. Embolic protection device dwell time was used to assess technical performance, and 30-day death, stroke, or myocardial infarction composed the clinical outcome. Hierarchical logistic regression and linear mixed models were used.ResultsCardiologists (p < 0.001) along with operators with longer time interval from first CAS (p < 0.001) had reduced embolic protection device dwell times (technical performance). Increased time interval between CAS was the only independent predictor of 30-day death, stroke, or myocardial infarction (adjusted odds ratio: 1.05, 95% confidence interval: 1.02 to 1.09, p = 0.005). Prolonged embolic protection device dwell time was associated with 30-day death, stroke, or myocardial infarction (adjusted odds ratio: 1.08; 95% confidence interval: 1.01 to 1.17; p = 0.03).ConclusionsThe time interval between CAS procedures, specialty assignment, and time from first CAS are important measures of operator experience that may significantly affect technical performance and clinical outcome.     

Paclitaxel-Coated Balloon Angioplasty Versus Drug-Eluting Stenting for the Treatment of Infrapopliteal Long-Segment Arterial Occlusive Disease: The IDEAS Randomized Controlled Trial

ObjectivesThis study sought to report the results of a prospective randomized controlled trial comparing paclitaxel-coated balloons (PCB) versus drug-eluting stents (DES) in long infrapopliteal lesions.BackgroundDES have an established role in the treatment of short infrapopliteal lesions, whereas there is increasing evidence for the use of PCB in longer below-the-knee lesions.MethodsInclusion criteria were patients with Rutherford classes 3 to 6 and angiographically documented infrapopliteal disease with a minimum lesion length of 70 mm. The primary endpoint was target lesion restenosis >50% assessed by digital angiography at 6 months. Secondary endpoints included immediate post-procedure stenosis and target lesion revascularization.ResultsFifty patients were randomized to undergo infrapopliteal PCB angioplasty (25 arteries in 25 limbs; PCB group) or primary DES placement (30 arteries in 27 limbs; DES group). Immediate residual post-procedure stenosis was significantly lower in DES (9.6 ± 2.2% vs. 24.8 ± 3.5% in PCB; p < 0.0001). At 6 months, 5 patients died (2 in PCB vs. 3 in DES; p = 1.00) and 3 suffered a major amputation (1 in PCB vs. 2 in DES; p = 1.00). In total, 44 angiograms were evaluable with quantitative vessel analysis. Binary (>50%) angiographic restenosis rate was significantly lower in DES (7 of 25 [28%] vs. 11 of 19 [57.9%] in PCB; p = 0.0457). There were no significant differences with regard to target lesion revascularization (2 of 26 [7.7%] in DES vs. 3 of 22 [13.6%] in PCB; p = 0.65). Positive vessel wall remodeling was observed in 3 cases in the PCB arm (3 of 19 [(15.8%)] vs. 0 of 19 [0%] in DES; p = 0.07).ConclusionsCompared with PCB in long infrapopliteal lesions, DES are related with significantly lower residual immediate post-procedure stenosis and have shown significantly reduced vessel restenosis at 6 months. PCB may produce positive vessel remodeling. (Infrapopliteal Drug-Eluting Angioplasty Versus Stenting [IDEAS-I]; NCT01517997)     

Predictors of Carotid Occlusion Intolerance During Proximal Protected Carotid Artery Stenting

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to identify predictors of occlusion intolerance (OI) developing during proximal protected carotid artery stenting (CAS).BackgroundThe use of proximal embolic protection devices, such as endovascular occlusion, during CAS has been demonstrated to be particularly safe and effective. However, endovascular occlusion can expose the ipsilateral hemisphere to hypoperfusion and produce transient neurological symptoms (OI).MethodsFrom March 2010 to March 2012, 605 consecutive patients underwent proximal protected CAS at our institution. To identify independent predictors of OI, a multivariate logistic regression model was developed that included all patients’ clinical/angiographic and procedural characteristics.ResultsOI developed in a total of 184 patients (30.4%). Compared with patients in whom OI did not develop, those who experienced OI had lower occlusion pressure (OP) (42.3 ± 12.7 mm Hg vs. 61.9 ± 15.4 mm Hg, p < 0.001). Receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis demonstrated that OP was the most consistent predictor of OI with a C-statistic of 0.85 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.82 to 0.88) with best cutoff being ≤40 mm Hg (sensitivity, 68.5%; specificity, 93.3%). By logistic regression analysis, the most powerful independent predictor of OI developing was an OP ≤40 mm Hg (odds ratio: 33.2, 95% CI: 19.1 to 57.7) and the most powerful clinical predictor of such OP was the presence of contralateral internal carotid artery occlusion (odds ratio: 3.1, 95% CI: 1.5 to 6.2).ConclusionsOI may occur in as many as one-third of the patients undergoing proximal protected CAS. This event is more common in those patients with an OP ≤40 mm Hg. Patients presenting with concomitant occlusion of the contralateral internal carotid artery more frequently have an OP ≤40 mm Hg.     

3-Year Outcomes of the OLIVE Registry,a Prospective Multicenter Study of Patients With Critical Limb Ischemia: A Prospective,Multi-Center,Three-Year Follow-Up Study on Endovascular Treatment for Infra-Inguinal Vessel in Patients With Critical Limb Ischemia

ObjectivesThis study sought to investigate the 3-year follow-up results of OLIVE registry patients.BackgroundAlthough favorable 12-month clinical outcomes after endovascular therapy (EVT) in OLIVE registry patients with critical limb ischemia (CLI) from infrainguinal disease have been reported, long-term results after EVT remain unknown.MethodsThis was a prospective multicenter registry study that consecutively enrolled patients who received infrainguinal EVT for CLI. The primary outcome was 3-year amputation-free survival (AFS), whereas secondary outcome measures were 3-year freedom from major adverse limb events (MALE), wound-free survival, and wound recurrence rate. Prognostic predictors for each outcome were also elucidated by Cox proportional hazard regression analysis or the log-rank test.ResultsThe completion rate of 3-year follow-up was 95%. Three-year AFS, freedom from MALE, and wound-free survival rates were 55.2%, 84.0%, and 49.6%, respectively. Wound recurrence out to 3 years was 43.9%. After multivariable analysis, age (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.43, p = 0.001), body mass index ≤18.5 (HR: 2.17, p = 0.001), dialysis (HR: 2.91, p < 0.001), and Rutherford 6 (HR: 1.64, p = 0.047) were identified as predictors of 3-year major amputation or death. Statin use (HR: 0.28, p = 0.02), Rutherford 6 (HR: 2.40, p = 0.02), straight-line flow to the foot (HR: 0.27, p = 0.001), and heart failure (HR: 1.96, p = 0.04) were identified as 3-year MALE predictors. Finally, CLI due to isolated below-the-knee lesion was a wound recurrence predictor (HR: 4.28, p ≤ 0.001). Three-year survival, freedom from major amputation, and reintervention rates were 63.0%, 87.9%, and 43.2%.ConclusionsIn CLI patients with infrainguinal lesions, 3-year clinical results of EVT were reasonable despite high reintervention and moderate ulcer recurrence rate. (A Prospective, Multi-Center, Three-Year Follow-Up Study on Endovascular Treatment for Infra-Inguinal Vessel in Patients With Critical Limb Ischemia [OLIVE 3-Year Follow-Up Study]; UMIN000014759)     

Comparison of Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Performed in the Catheterization Laboratory (Minimalist Approach) Versus Hybrid Operating Room (Standard Approach): Outcomes and Cost Analysis

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to compare transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TF TAVR) performed in a catheterization laboratory (minimalist approach [MA]) with TF TAVR performed in a hybrid operating room (standard approach [SA]).BackgroundA MA-TF TAVR can be performed without general anesthesia, transesophageal echocardiography, or a surgical hybrid room. The outcomes and cost of MA-TF TAVR compared with those of the SA have not been described.MethodsPatients who underwent elective, percutaneous TF TAVR using the Edwards Sapien valve (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, California) were studied. Baseline characteristics, outcomes, and hospital costs of MA-TF TAVR and SA-TF TAVR were compared.ResultsA total of 142 patients were studied (MA-TF TAVR, n = 70 and SA-TF TAVR, n = 72). There were no differences in baseline comorbidities (Society of Thoracic Surgeons score, 10.6 ± 4.3 vs. 11.4 ± 5.8; p = 0.35). All procedures in the MA-TF TAVR group were successful; 1 patient was intubated. Three patients in the SA-TF TAVR group had procedure-related death. Procedure room time (150 ± 48 min vs. 218 ± 56 min, p < 0.001), total intensive care unit time (22 h vs. 28 h, p < 0.001), length of stay from procedure to discharge (3 days vs. 5 days, p < 0.001), and cost ($45,485 ± 14,397 vs. $55,377 ± 22,587, p < 0.001) were significantly less in the MA-TF TAVR group. Mortality at 30 days was not significantly different in the MA-TF TAVR group (0 vs. 6%, p = 0.12) and 30-day stroke/transient ischemic attack was similar (4.3% vs. 1.4%, p = 0.35). Moderate or severe paravalvular leak and device success were similar in the MA-TF TAVR and SA-TF TAVR groups (3% vs. 5.8%, p = 0.4 and 90% vs. 88%, p = 0.79, respectively) at 30 days. At a median follow-up of 435 days, there was no significant difference in survival (MA-TF TAVR, 83% vs. SA-TF TAVR, 82%; p = 0.639).ConclusionsMA-TF TAVR can be performed with minimal morbidity and mortality and equivalent effectiveness compared with SA-TF TAVR. The shorter length of stay and lower resource use with MA-TF TAVR significantly lowers hospital costs.     

Sex-Related Differences of Coronary Atherosclerosis Regression Following Maximally Intensive Statin Therapy: Insights From SATURN

ObjectivesThe study sought to explore sex-related differences in coronary atheroma regression following high-intensity statin therapy.BackgroundGuidelines now recommend high-intensity statins in all individuals with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.MethodsSATURN (Study of Coronary Atheroma by Intravascular Ultrasound: Effect of Rosuvastatin Versus Atorvastatin) employed serial intravascular ultrasound measures of coronary atheroma volume in patients treated with rosuvastatin 40 mg or atorvastatin 80 mg for 24 months. The treatment groups did not differ significantly in change from baseline of percent atheroma volume (PAV) or total atheroma volume (TAV) on intravascular ultrasound, nor in safety or clinical outcomes.ResultsCompared with men (n = 765), women (n = 274) were older (p < 0.001) and more likely to have hypertension (p < 0.001), diabetes (p = 0.002), and higher low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) (p = 0.01), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (p < 0.001), and C-reactive protein (CRP) (p = 0.004) levels. At follow-up, women had higher high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (p < 0.001) and CRP (p < 0.001), but similar LDL-C (p = 0.46) levels compared with men. Compared with men, women had lower baseline PAV (34.0 ± 8.0% vs. 37.2 ± 8.2%, p < 0.001) and TAV (122.4 ± 55 mm³ vs. 151.9 ± 63 mm³, p < 0.001), yet demonstrated greater PAV regression (–1.52 ± 0.18% vs. –1.07 ± 0.10%, p = 0.03) and TAV regression (–8.27 ± 0.9 mm³ vs. –6.59 ± 0.50 mm³, p = 0.11) following treatment. Greater PAV regression in women versus men occurred with rosuvastatin (p = 0.004), those with diabetes (p = 0.01), stable coronary disease (p = 0.01), higher baseline LDL-C (p = 0.02), and higher CRP (p = 0.04) levels. On multivariable analysis, female sex was independently associated with PAV regression (p = 0.01), and a sex-treatment interaction was found (p = 0.036). For participants with on-treatment LDL-C levels <70 mg/dl, women achieved greater PAV regression (–1.81 ± 0.22% vs. –1.12 ± 0.13%, p = 0.007) and TAV regression (–10.1 ± 1.1 mm³ vs. –7.16 ± 0.65 mm³, p = 0.023) than men, whereas PAV and TAV regression did not differ by sex, with LDL-C levels ≥70 mg/dl.ConclusionsWomen with coronary disease demonstrate greater coronary atheroma regression than men when empirically prescribed guideline-driven potent statin therapy. This benefit appears in the setting of lower on-treatment LDL-C levels. (CRESTOR Athero Imaging Head to Head IVUS Study [SATURN]; NCT000620542)