Impact of the Complexity of Bifurcation Lesions Treated With Drug-Eluting Stents: The DEFINITION Study (Definitions and impact of complEx biFurcation lesIons on clinical outcomes after percutaNeous coronary IntervenTIOn using drug-eluting steNts)

ObjectivesThe present study established criteria to differentiate simple from complex bifurcation lesions and compared 1-year outcomes stratified by lesion complexity after provisional stenting (PS) and 2-stent techniques using drug-eluting stents.BackgroundCurrently, no criterion can distinguish between simple and complex coronary bifurcation lesions. Comparisons of PS and 2-stent strategies stratified by lesion complexity have also not been reported previously.MethodsCriteria of bifurcation complexity in 1,500 patients were externally tested in another 3,660 true bifurcation lesions after placement of drug-eluting stents. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of a major adverse cardiac event (MACE) at 12 months. The secondary endpoint was the rate of stent thrombosis (ST).ResultsComplex (n = 1,108) bifurcation lesions were associated with a higher 1-year rate of MACE (16.8%) compared with simple (n = 2,552) bifurcation lesions (8.9%) (p < 0.001). The in-hospital ST and 1-year target lesion revascularization rates after 2-stent techniques in the simple group (1.0% and 5.6%, respectively) were significantly different from those after PS (0.2% [p = 0.007] and 3.2% [p = 0.009], respectively); however, 1-year MACE rates were not significantly different between the 2 groups. For complex bifurcation lesions, 2-stent techniques had lower rates of 1-year cardiac death (2.8%) and in-hospital MACE (5.0%) compared with PS (5.3%, p = 0.047; 8.4%, p = 0.031).ConclusionsComplex bifurcation lesions had higher rates of 1-year MACE and ST. The 2-stent and PS techniques were overall equivalent in 1-year MACE. However, 2-stent techniques for complex lesions elicited a lower rate of cardiac death and in-hospital MACE but higher rates of in-hospital ST and revascularization at 1 year for simple lesions.     

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.     

The Effect of Post-Exercise Ankle-Brachial Index on Lower Extremity Revascularization

ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of post-exercise ankle-brachial index (ABI) on the incidence of lower extremity (LE) revascularization, cardiovascular outcomes, and all-cause mortality in patients with normal and abnormal resting ABI.BackgroundThe clinical and prognostic value of post-exercise ABI in the setting of normal or abnormal resting ABI remains uncertain.MethodsA total of 2,791 consecutive patients with ABI testing between September 2005 and January 2010 were classified into group 1: normal resting (NR)/normal post-exercise (NE); group 2: NR/abnormal post-exercise (AE); group 3: abnormal resting (AR)/NE; and group 4: AR/AE. Abnormal post-exercise ABI was defined as a drop of >20% from resting ABI as per the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines. The primary endpoint was incidence of LE revascularization. Secondary endpoints were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and all-cause mortality. Associations between post-exercise ABI and outcomes were adjusted using multivariable Cox proportional hazard and propensity analyses.ResultsCompared with group 1 (NR/NE), group 2 (NR/AE) had increased LE revascularization (propensity-matched adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 6.63, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.13 to 14.04; p < 0.001) but no differences in MACE or all-cause mortality. When resting ABI was abnormal, group 4 (AR/AE) compared with group 3 (AR/NE), abnormal post-exercise ABI was still associated with increased LE revascularization (adjusted HR: 1.59, 95% CI: 1.11 to 2.28; p = 0.01), which persisted after propensity matching (adjusted HR: 2.32, 95% CI: 1.52 to 3.54; p < 0.001). Compared with group 1 (NR/NE) and after propensity matching, group 4 (AR/AE) had a significant increase in MACE (adjusted HR: 1.44, 95% CI: 1.09 to 1.90; p = 0.009) and a trend toward increased all-cause mortality (adjusted HR: 1.37, 95% CI: 0.99 to 1.88; p = 0.052); however, group 3 (AR/NE) did not.ConclusionsPost-exercise ABI appears to offer both clinical (lower extremity revascularization) and prognostic information in those with normal and abnormal resting ABI.     

Long-Term Outcomes of Neointimal Hyperplasia Without Neoatherosclerosis After Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to investigate the correlation between in-stent neointimal tissue without features of neoatherosclerosis and long-term clinical outcomes.BackgroundRecent studies have reported differential morphological characteristics of in-stent neointimal tissue assessed by optical coherence tomography (OCT).MethodsThe study population consisted of 336 patients with 368 drug-eluting stent-treated lesions. Patients received a follow-up OCT examination without any intervention. OCT-based neointima was categorized as homogeneous (n = 227 lesions in 208 patients), heterogeneous (n = 79 lesions in 73 patients), or layered (n = 62 lesions in 55 patients). Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (a composite of cardiac death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization) were assessed according to neointimal patterns during long-term clinical follow-up after OCT examination.ResultsThe time interval between stent implantation and OCT examination was similar among the 3 groups (p = 0.64). On multivariate logistic regression analysis, the significant determinant for the heterogeneous neointima was age (odds ratio [OR]: 1.037, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.007 to 1.068, p = 0.015) and an initial clinical presentation of acute coronary syndrome (OR: 1.967, 95% CI: 1.159 to 3.339, p = 0.012). The overall median follow-up duration for all patients after follow-up OCT examination was 31.0 months, and this was statistically different among the heterogeneous group (22.0 months), the homogeneous group (34.0 months), and the layered group (28.0 months, overall p = 0.002). MACE occurred more frequently in patients with heterogeneous neointima over a median 31-month follow-up period after OCT examination (13.7% vs. 2.9% in homogeneous vs. 7.3% in layered, p = 0.001). A propensity score–adjusted Cox regression analysis showed that independent risk factors for MACE were inclusion in the heterogeneous neointima (hazard ratio: 3.925, 95% CI: 1.445 to 10.662, p = 0.007) and minimal lumen cross-sectional area (hazard ratio: 0.368, 95% CI: 0.242 to 0.560, p < 0.001).ConclusionsDetermination of neointimal characteristics is helpful in predicting long-term clinical outcomes. Our data suggest that heterogeneous lesions are linked to poor long-term clinical prognoses.     

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)     

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)     

Incidence and Clinical Impact of Stent Fracture After PROMUS Element Platinum Chromium Everolimus-Eluting Stent Implantation

ObjectivesThis study sought to assess the incidence and clinical impact of stent fracture (SF) after the PROMUS Element platinum-chromium everolimus-eluting stent (PtCr-EES).BackgroundSF remains an unresolved, clinically relevant issue, even in the newer-generation drug-eluting stent era.MethodsFrom March 2012 to August 2013, 816 patients with 1,094 lesions were treated only with PtCr-EES and 700 patients (85.7%) with 898 lesions undergoing follow-up angiography within 9 months after the index procedure were analyzed. SF was defined as complete or partial separation of the stent, as assessed by plain fluoroscopy, intravascular ultrasound, or optical coherence tomography during the follow-up. We assessed the rate of SF and the cumulative incidence of clinically driven target lesion revascularization and definite stent thrombosis within 9 months after the index procedure.ResultsSF was observed in 16 of 898 lesions (1.7%) and 16 of 700 patients (2.2%). Lesions with in-stent restenosis at baseline (odds ratio [OR]: 14.2, 95% confidence intervals [CI]: 5.09 to 39.7; p < 0.001) or hinge motion (OR: 4.31, 95% CI: 1.12 to 16.5; p = 0.03), and total stent length (per 10-mm increase; OR: 1.32, 95% CI: 1.12 to 1.57; p = 0.001) were predictors of SF. Cumulative incidence of clinically driven target lesion revascularization within 9-months was numerically higher in the SF group than that in the non-SF group (18.7% vs. 2.3%). Cumulative incidence of definite stent thrombosis within 9 months after the index procedure was similar between the SF and non-SF groups (0.0% vs. 0.23%).ConclusionsSF after PtCr-EES occurs in 1.7% of lesions and appears to be associated with clinically driven target lesion revascularization.     

Relation Between Bioresorbable Scaffold Sizing Using QCA-Dmax and Clinical Outcomes at 1 Year in 1,232 Patients From 3 Study Cohorts (ABSORB Cohort B,ABSORB EXTEND,and ABSORB II)

ObjectivesThis study sought to investigate the clinical outcomes based on the assessment of quantitative coronary angiography–maximal lumen diameter (Dmax).BackgroundAssessment of pre-procedural Dmax of proximal and distal sites has been used for Absorb scaffold size selection in the ABSORB studies.MethodsA total of 1,248 patients received Absorb scaffolds in the ABSORB Cohort B (ABSORB Clinical Investigation, Cohort B) study (N = 101), ABSORB EXTEND (ABSORB EXTEND Clinical Investigation) study (N = 812), and ABSORB II (ABSORB II Randomized Controlled Trial) trial (N = 335). The incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) (a composite of cardiac death, any myocardial infarction [MI], and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization) was analyzed according to the Dmax subclassification of scaffold oversize group versus scaffold nonoversize group.ResultsOf 1,248 patients, pre-procedural Dmax was assessed in 1,232 patients (98.7%). In 649 (52.7%) patients, both proximal and distal Dmax values were smaller than the nominal size of the implanted scaffold (scaffold oversize group), whereas in 583 (47.3%) of patients, the proximal and/or distal Dmax were larger than the implanted scaffold (scaffold nonoversize group). The rates of MACE and MI at 1 year were significantly higher in the scaffold oversize group than in the scaffold nonoversize group (MACE 6.6% vs. 3.3%; log-rank p < 0.01, all MI: 4.6% vs. 2.4%; log-rank p = 0.04), mainly driven by a higher MI rate within 1 month post-procedure (3.5% vs. 1.9%; p = 0.08). The independent MACE determinants were both Dmax smaller than the scaffold nominal size (odds ratio [OR]: 2.13, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.22 to 3.70; p < 0.01) and the implantation of overlapping scaffolds (OR: 2.10, 95% CI: 1.17 to 3.80; p = 0.01).ConclusionsImplantation of an oversized Absorb scaffold in a relatively small vessel appears to be associated with a higher 1-year MACE rate driven by more frequent early MI. (ABSORB Clinical Investigation, Cohort B [ABSORB Cohort B], NCT00856856; ABSORB EXTEND Clinical Investigation [ABSORB EXTEND], NCT01023789; ABSORB II Randomized Controlled Trial [ABSORB II], NCT01425281)     

Randomized Comparison of Everolimus-Eluting Stents and Sirolimus-Eluting Stents in Patients With ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction: RACES-MI Trial

ObjectivesThe aim of the current study was to compare everolimus-eluting stents (EES) with sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) in patients undergoing primary angioplasty.BackgroundDrug-eluting stents may offer benefits in terms of repeat revascularization. However, as shown for first-generation drug-eluting stents, they may be counterbalanced by a potential higher risk of stent thrombosis, especially among patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). No data have been reported so far on the long-term benefits and safety of the new generation of drug-eluting stents in STEMI.MethodsConsecutive STEMI patients admitted within 12 h of symptom onset and undergoing primary angioplasty and stent implantation at a tertiary center with 24-h primary percutaneous coronary intervention capability were randomly assigned to SES or EES. The primary endpoint was a major adverse cardiac event at 3-year follow-up. The secondary endpoints were death, reinfarction, definite or probable stent thrombosis, and target vessel revascularization at 3-year follow-up. No patient was lost to follow-up.ResultsFrom April 2007 to May 2009, 500 patients with STEMI were randomized to EES (n = 250) or SES (n = 250). No difference was observed in terms of baseline demographic and clinical characteristics between the groups. No difference was observed between the groups in terms of number of implanted stents per patient or total stent length. However, a larger reference diameter was observed with SES (3.35 ± 0.51 mm vs. 3.25 ± 0.51 mm, p = 0.001), whereas patients randomized to EES more often received glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (54.4% vs. 42.4%, p = 0.006). Follow-up data were available in all patients (1,095 ± 159 days). No significant difference was observed between EES and SES in major adverse cardiac events (16% vs. 20.8%, adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 0.75 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.5 to 1.13], p = 0.17), cardiac death (4.4% vs. 5.6%, adjusted HR: 0.77 [95% CI: 0.35 to 1.71], p = 0.53), recurrent MI (6.4% vs. 10%, adjusted HR: 0.62 [95% CI: 0.33 to 1.16], p = 0.13), and target vessel revascularization (4.8% vs. 4.8%, adjusted HR: 1.00 [95% CI: 0.45 to 2.32], p = 0.99). However, EES was associated with a significant reduction in stent thrombosis (1.6% vs. 5.2%, adjusted HR: 0.3 [95% CI: 0.1 to 0.92], p = 0.035).ConclusionsThis study shows that among STEMI patients undergoing primary angioplasty, EES has similar efficacy as SES, but is associated with a significant reduction in stent thrombosis. (Randomized Comparison of Everolimus Eluting Stents and Sirolimus Eluting Stent in Patients With ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction [RACES-MI]; NCT01684982)     

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.     

Survival of Transcatheter Mitral Valve Repair Compared With Surgical and Conservative Treatment in High-Surgical-Risk Patients

ObjectivesThe goal of this study was to compare survival between transcatheter mitral valve (MV) repair using MitraClip system (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, California), MV-surgery, and conservative treatment in high-surgical-risk patients symptomatic with severe mitral valve regurgitation (MR).BackgroundUp to 50% of patients with symptomatic severe MR are denied for surgery due to high perioperative risk. Transcatheter MV repair might be an alternative.MethodsConsecutive patients (n = 139) treated with transcatheter MV repair were included. Comparator surgically (n = 53) and conservatively (n = 59) treated patients were identified retrospectively. Surgical risk was based on the logistic European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (log EuroSCORE) or the presence of relevant risk factors, as judged by the heart team.ResultsThe log EuroSCORE was higher in the transcatheter MV repair group (23.9 ± 16.1%) than in the surgically (14.2 ± 8.9%) and conservatively (18.7 ± 13.2%, p < 0.0001) treated patients. Left ventricular ejection fraction was higher in surgical patients (43.9 ± 14.4%, p = 0.003), with similar values for the transcatheter MV repair (36.8 ± 15.3%) and conservatively treated (34.5 ± 16.5%) groups. After 1 year of follow-up, the transcatheter MV repair and surgery groups showed similar survival rates (85.8% and 85.2%, respectively), whereas 67.7% of conservatively treated patients survived. The same trend was observed after the second and third years. After weighting for propensity score and controlling for risk factors, both the transcatheter MV repair (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.41, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.22 to 0.78, p = 0.006) and surgical (HR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.30 to 0.88, p = 0.014) groups showed better survival than the conservatively treated group. The transcatheter MV repair and surgical groups did not differ (HR: 1.25, 95% CI: 0.72 to 2.16, p = 0.430).ConclusionsDespite a higher log EuroSCORE, high-surgical-risk patients with symptomatic severe MR treated with transcatheter MV repair show similar survival rates compared with surgically treated patients, with both displaying survival benefit compared with conservative treatment.     

Safety and Effectiveness of Everolimus-Eluting Stents in Chronic Total Coronary Occlusion Revascularization: Results From the EXPERT CTO Multicenter Trial (Evaluation of the XIENCE Coronary Stent,Performance, and Technique in Chronic Total Occlusions)

ObjectivesThis study sought to evaluate procedural and clinical outcomes among patients undergoing chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using contemporary methods and everolimus-eluting stents (EES).BackgroundLimited studies have detailed the procedural and late-term safety and efficacy of CTO revascularization among multiple centers applying modern techniques and with newer-generation drug-eluting stents.MethodsAmong 20 centers, 250 consecutive patients were enrolled for attempted CTO PCI. Procedural and in-hospital clinical outcomes were examined in addition to the 1-year primary endpoint of death, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization (major adverse cardiac events [MACE]).ResultsDemographic, lesion, and procedural characteristics included prior bypass surgery: 9.9%; diabetes: 40.1%; lesion length: 36.1 ± 18.5 mm; and stent length: 51.7 ± 27.2 mm. Procedural success, defined as guidewire recanalization with no in-hospital MACE, was 96.4%. Success with antegrade-only methods was 97.9% and 86.2% by retrograde/combined methods, respectively. Compared with a pre-specified performance goal derived from 6 prior CTO drug-eluting stent trials (1-year MACE: 24.4%), treatment with EES was associated with significantly lower composite adverse events for both intent-to-treat (18.5%, 1-sided upper confidence interval: 23.4%, p = 0.025) and per-protocol populations (8.2%, 1-sided upper confidence interval: 12.3%, p < 0.0001). Target lesion revascularization at 1 year was 6.3%. Dual antiplatelet therapy adherence was 53.9% at 1 year, yet subacute definite stent thrombosis occurred in only 2 patients (0.9%), and late probable stent thrombosis occurred in 1 patient (0.5%).ConclusionsIn a multicenter registration trial representing contemporary technique and EES, favorable procedural success and late-term clinical outcomes support CTO PCI in a patient population with high lesion complexity. (EXPERT CTO: Evaluation of the XIENCE PRIME LL and XIENCE Nano Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent Coronary Stents, Performance, and Technique in Chronic Total Occlusions; NCT01435031)     

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)     

Fractional Flow Reserve and Coronary Bifurcation Anatomy: A Novel Quantitative Model to Assess and Report the Stenosis Severity of Bifurcation Lesions

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to develop a new model for assessment of stenosis severity in a bifurcation lesion including its core. The diagnostic performance of this model, powered by 3-dimensional quantitative coronary angiography to predict the functional significance of obstructive bifurcation stenoses, was evaluated using fractional flow reserve (FFR) as the reference standard.BackgroundDevelopment of advanced quantitative models might help to establish a relationship between bifurcation anatomy and FFR.MethodsPatients who had undergone coronary angiography and interventions in 5 European cardiology centers were randomly selected and analyzed. Different bifurcation fractal laws, including Murray, Finet, and HK laws, were implemented in the bifurcation model, resulting in different degrees of stenosis severity.ResultsA total of 78 bifurcation lesions in 73 patients were analyzed. In 51 (65%) bifurcations, FFR was measured in the main vessel. A total of 34 (43.6%) interrogated vessels had an FFR ≤0.80. Correlation between FFR and diameter stenosis was poor by conventional straight analysis (ρ = −0.23, p < 0.001) but significantly improved by bifurcation analyses: the highest by the HK law (ρ = −0.50, p < 0.001), followed by the Finet law (ρ = −0.49, p < 0.001), and the Murray law (ρ = −0.41, p < 0.001). The area under the receiver-operating characteristics curve for predicting FFR ≤0.80 was significantly higher by bifurcation analysis compared with straight analysis: 0.72 (95% confidence interval: 0.61 to 0.82) versus 0.60 (95% confidence interval: 0.49 to 0.71; p = 0.001). Applying a threshold of ≥50% diameter stenosis, as assessed by the bifurcation model, to predict FFR ≤0.80 resulted in 23 true positives, 27 true negatives, 17 false positives, and 11 false negatives.ConclusionsThe new bifurcation model provides a comprehensive assessment of bifurcation anatomy. Compared with straight analysis, identification of lesions with preserved FFR values in obstructive bifurcation stenoses was improved. Nevertheless, accuracy was limited by using solely anatomical parameters.     

Drug-Coated Balloons Versus Second-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents for the Management of Recurrent Multimetal-Layered In-Stent Restenosis

ObjectivesThis study aimed to investigate the clinical outcomes of patients presenting with recurrent drug-eluting stent (DES) in-stent restenosis (ISR) treated with a second-generation DES or with a drug-coated balloon (DCB).BackgroundTo date, there are no reports of DCB treatment and limited data with regard to the efficacy of further DES implantation for recurrent ISR.MethodsBetween January 2008 and December 2013, 171 lesions were assessed for eligibility (82 lesions in the second-generation DES group and 89 lesions in the DCB group).ResultsAcute gain was greater in the second-generation DES group (second-generation DES, 2.09 ± 0.53 mm vs. DCBs, 1.60 ± 0.62 mm, p < 0.001). The rates of major adverse cardiac events were comparable (at 1 year, DES 14.0% vs. DCBs 12.3%; at 2 years, DES 28.8% vs. DCBs 43.5%, p = 0.21). Major adverse cardiac event rates were mainly driven by target lesion revascularization (at 1 year, DES 12.5% vs. DCBs 10.9%; at 2 years, DES 27.7% vs. DCBs 38.3%; p = 0.40). Definite scaffold thrombosis occurred in 2 patients (1 patient in each group). Multivariable analysis revealed ISR recurrence within 1 year (hazard ratio: 2.43, 95% confidence interval: 1.14 to 5.18, p = 0.02) and lesion length (per 10-mm increase) (hazard ratio: 1.15, 95% confidence interval: 1.00 to 1.32, p = 0.049) to be independent predictors of TLR.ConclusionsThe results after both treatments were equivalent. ISR recurrence within 1 year of the first reintervention and lesion length were independent predictors of future target lesion revascularization. Larger studies are required to confirm the late (>1 year) differences with regard to clinical outcomes.     

Predictors and Outcomes of Recurrent Stent Thrombosis: Results From a Multicenter Registry

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to determine the incidence, predictors, and outcomes of recurrent stent thrombosis (rST).BackgroundPatients who had an initial stent thrombosis (ST) develop may be at high risk of rST.MethodsWe analyzed a multicenter California registry of angiographic definite ST at 5 academic hospitals from 2005 to 2013. A detailed review of the angiogram and procedure was performed of patients with and without rST.ResultsAmong 221 patients with a median follow-up of 3.3 years, definite or probable rST developed in 29, including 19 with angiographic definite rST. The cumulative hazard ratio (HR) of definite or probable rST was 16% at 1 year and 24% at 5 years, whereas the cumulative HR of angiographic definite rST was 11% at 1 year and 20% at 5 years. Despite similar angiographic results, patients who had rST develop had significantly greater peak creatine kinase at the time of initial ST (mean, 2,655 mg/dl vs. 1,654 mg/dl; p = 0.05) than those without rST. The 3-year rate of major adverse cardiovascular events was 50% for patients with rST compared with 22% for patients with a single ST (p = 0.01). After multivariable adjustment, independent predictors of definite/probable rST were age (HR: 1.4; 95 confidence interval [CI]: 1.1 to 1.8 per 10 years), bifurcation ST (HR: 4.4; 95% CI: 1.8 to 10.9), and proximal vessel diameter (HR: 1.8; 95% CI: 1.1 to 3.2 per millimeter).ConclusionsrST represents an important cause of long-term morbidity and mortality after an initial ST. Bifurcation ST and a larger proximal reference vessel diameter are independently associated with an increased risk of rST.     

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.     

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.