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.     

Long-Term Clinical Outcomes of Final Kissing Ballooning in Coronary Bifurcation Lesions Treated With the 1-Stent Technique: Results From the COBIS II Registry (Korean Coronary Bifurcation Stenting Registry)

ObjectivesThis study investigated the impact of final kissing ballooning (FKB) after main vessel (MV) stenting on outcomes in patients with coronary bifurcation lesions after application of the 1-stent technique.BackgroundAlthough FKB has been established as the standard method for bifurcation lesions treated with a 2-stent strategy, its efficacy in a 1-stent approach is highly controversial.MethodsThis study enrolled 1,901 patients with a bifurcation lesion with a side branch diameter ≥2.3 mm, treated solely with the 1-stent technique using a drug-eluting stent from 18 centers in Korea between January 1, 2003 and December 31, 2009. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACE)—cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization. Propensity score-matching analysis was also performed.ResultsFKB was performed in 620 patients and the post minimal lumen diameter of the MV and side branch was larger in the FKB group than in the non-FKB group. During follow-up (median 36 months), the incidence of MACE (adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.46 to 0.99; p = 0.048) was lower in the FKB group than the non-FKB group. After propensity score matching (545 pairs), the FKB group had a lower incidence of MACE (adjusted HR: 0.50, 95% CI: 0.30 to 0.85; p = 0.01), and target lesion revascularization in the MV (adjusted HR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.28 to 0.93; p = 0.03) and both vessels (adjusted HR: 0.47, 95% CI: 0.25 to 0.90; p = 0.02) than in the non-FKB group.ConclusionsIn coronary bifurcation lesions, we demonstrated that the 1-stent technique with FKB was associated with a favorable long-term clinical outcome, mainly driven by the reduction of target lesion revascularization in the MV or both vessels as a result of an increase in minimal lumen diameter. (Korean Coronary Bifurcation Stenting Registry II [COBIS II]: NCT01642992)     

Clinical Impact of Aortic Regurgitation After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Insights Into the Degree and Acuteness of Presentation

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to determine the impact of the degree of residual aortic regurgitation (AR) and acuteness of presentation of AR after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) on outcomes.BackgroundThe degree of residual AR after TAVR leading to excess mortality remains controversial, and little evidence exists on the impact of the acuteness of presentation of AR.MethodsA total of 1,735 patients undergoing TAVR with balloon-expandable or self-expanding valves were included. The presence and degree of AR were evaluated by transthoracic echocardiography; acute AR was defined as an increase in AR severity of ≥1 degree compared with pre-procedural echocardiography.ResultsResidual AR was classified as mild in 761 patients (43.9%) and moderate to severe in 247 patients (14.2%). The presence of moderate to severe AR was an independent predictor of mortality at a mean follow-up of 21 ± 17 months compared with none to trace (adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 1.81, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.32 to 2.48; p < 0.001) and mild AR (adjusted HR: 1.68, 95% CI: 1.27 to 2.24; p < 0.001) groups. There was no increased risk in patients with mild AR compared with those with none to trace AR (p = 0.393). In patients with moderate to severe AR, acute AR was observed in 161 patients (65%) and chronic AR in 86 patients (35%). Acute moderate to severe AR was independently associated with increased risk of mortality compared with none/trace/mild AR (adjusted HR: 2.37, 95% CI: 1.53 to 3.66; p < 0.001) and chronic moderate to severe AR (adjusted HR: 2.24, 95% CI: 1.17 to 4.30; p = 0.015). No differences in survival rate were observed between patients with chronic moderate to severe and none/trace/mild AR (p > 0.50).ConclusionsAR occurred very frequently after TAVR, but an increased risk of mortality at ∼2-year follow-up was observed only in patients with acute moderate to severe AR.     

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)     

Impact of Balloon Post-Dilation on Clinical Outcomes After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With the Self-Expanding CoreValve Prosthesis

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to assess the incidence and clinical impact of balloon post-dilation (BPD) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with the CoreValve prosthesis (Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota).BackgroundBPD is a widely adopted strategy to reduce the degree of paraprosthetic regurgitation in case of transcatheter heart valve underexpansion. However, controversies still remain regarding its real effectiveness and safety.MethodsThe ClinicalService (a nation-based data repository and medical care project) dataset was analyzed. All patients were dichotomized according to the need for BPD during the index procedure.ResultsAmong 1,376 patients, BPD of the transcatheter heart valve was performed in 272 (19.8%). In 37% of cases, it was unsuccessful at reducing the paravalvular regurgitation to mild or less. No case of valve embolization, new intravalvular regurgitation, coronary occlusion, and aortic root injury occurred during BPD. There were no statistically significant differences between the 2 groups in the incidence of in-hospital all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, neurological events, myocardial infarction, bleeding, conversion to open-chest surgery, and the need for a permanent pacemaker. The need for BPD did not emerge as an independent risk factor for all-cause (adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 1.33, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.81 to 2.19, p = 0.264) and cardiovascular (adjusted HR: 1.48, 95% CI: 0.74 to 2.97, p = 0.265) mortality at 1 year after the procedure. In addition, BPD did not predispose to higher odds of neurological events during 12 months after TAVR (HR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.45 to 1.88, p = 0.815).ConclusionsThis large study showed that BPD after TAVR was safe and not associated with increased rates of cerebrovascular events, mortality, myocardial infarction, and aortic root injury.     

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.     

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)     

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)     

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.     

Impact of Strut Width in Periprocedural Myocardial Infarction: A Propensity-Matched Comparison Between Bioresorbable Scaffolds and the First-Generation Sirolimus-Eluting Stent

ObjectivesThis study aimed to assess the clinical impact of strut width (evaluated by abluminal strut surface area [ASSA]) on periprocedural myocardial infarction (PMI) and clinical outcomes in patients treated with bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) versus first-generation sirolimus-eluting stents (SES).BackgroundTo date, there are no reports on the impact of ASSA on PMI and clinical outcomes.MethodsWe compared the impact of ASSA on outcomes and PMI in propensity-matched patients treated with BRS and SES. The primary outcome was the incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), defined as the combination of all-cause mortality, follow-up myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization, at 30-days and 1-year follow-ups. The secondary endpoint was the incidence of PMI.ResultsAfter propensity-matched analysis, 499 patients (147 BRS patients vs. 352 SES patients) were evaluated. Mean ASSA was higher in patients treated with BRS versus SES (BRS: 132.3 ± 76.7 mm² vs. SES: 67.6 ± 48.4 mm², p < 0.001). MACE was not significantly different between groups (30-days MACE: BRS: 0% vs. SES: 1.4%, p = 0.16, and 1-year MACE: BRS: 15.7% vs. SES: 11.4%, p = 0.67). The incidence of PMI was significantly higher in the BRS group (BRS: 13.1% vs. SES: 7.5%, p = 0.05). Multivariable analyses indicated that treatment of left anterior descending artery and ASSA were independent predictors of PMI.ConclusionsBRS implantation, compared with SES implantation, was associated with a higher incidence of PMI. MACE at 30 days and 1 year were not significantly different. Left anterior descending artery percutaneous coronary intervention and ASSA were independent predictors of PMI.     

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.     

Tricuspid Regurgitation Is Associated With Increased Risk of Mortality in Patients With Low-Flow Low-Gradient Aortic Stenosis and Reduced Ejection Fraction: Results of the Multicenter TOPAS Study (True or Pseudo-Severe Aortic Stenosis)

ObjectivesThis study sought to examine the impact of tricuspid regurgitation (TR) on mortality in patients with low-flow, low-gradient (LF-LG) aortic stenosis (AS) and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).BackgroundTR is often observed in patients with LF-LG AS and low LVEF, but its impact on prognosis remains unknown.MethodsA total of 211 patients (73 ± 10 years of age; 77% men) with LF-LG AS (mean gradient <40 mm Hg and indexed aortic valve area [AVA] ≤0.6 cm²/m²) and reduced LVEF (≤40%) were prospectively enrolled in the TOPAS (True or Pseudo-Severe Aortic Stenosis) study and 125 (59%) of them underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR) within 3 months following inclusion. The severity of AS was assessed by the projected AVA (AVA_proj) at normal flow rate (250 ml/s), as previously described and validated. The severity of TR was graded according to current guidelines.ResultsAmong the 211 patients included in the study, 22 (10%) had no TR, 113 (54%) had mild (grade 1), 50 (24%) mild-to-moderate (grade 2), and 26 (12%) moderate-to-severe (grade 3) or severe (grade 4) TR. During a mean follow-up of 2.4 ± 2.2 years, 104 patients (49%) died. Univariable analysis showed that TR ≥2 was associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.82, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.22 to 2.71; p = 0.004) and cardiovascular mortality (HR: 1.85, 95% CI: 1.20 to 2.83; p = 0.005). After adjustment for age, sex, coronary artery disease, AVA_proj, LVEF, stroke volume index, right ventricular dysfunction, mitral regurgitation, and type of treatment (AVR vs. conservative), the presence of TR ≥2 was an independent predictor of all-cause mortality (HR: 1.88, 95% CI: 1.08 to 3.23; p = 0.02) and cardiovascular mortality (HR: 1.92, 95% CI: 1.05 to 3.51; p = 0.03). Furthermore, in patients undergoing AVR, TR ≥3 was an independent predictor of 30-day mortality compared with TR = 0/1 (odds ratio [OR]: 7.24, 95% CI: 1.56 to 38.2; p = 0.01) and TR = 2 (OR: 4.70, 95% CI: 1.00 to 25.90; p = 0.05).ConclusionsIn patients with LF-LG AS and reduced LVEF, TR is independently associated with increased risk of cumulative all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality regardless of the type of treatment. In patients undergoing AVR, moderate/severe TR is associated with increased 30-day mortality. Further studies are needed to determine whether TR is a risk marker or a risk factor of mortality and whether concomitant surgical correction of TR at the time of AVR might improve outcomes for this high-risk population.     

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.     

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)     

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.     

Acute Kidney Injury in Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease Undergoing Internal Carotid Artery Stent Implantation

ObjectivesThis study sought to investigate acute kidney injury (AKI) following carotid artery stenting (CAS).BackgroundFew data exist on AKI following CAS.MethodsThis study evaluated 126 chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients who underwent CAS. The risk for contrast-induced AKI was defined by the Mehran score. Hemodynamic depression (i.e., periprocedural systolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg or heart rate <60 beats/min), AKI (i.e., an increase of ≥0.3 mg/dl in the serum creatinine concentration at 48 h), and 30-day major adverse events (including death, stroke, and acute myocardial infarction) were assessed.ResultsAKI occurred in 26 patients (21%). Although baseline kidney function and contrast volume were similar in the AKI group and the non-AKI group, the risk score was higher (10 ± 3 vs. 8 ± 3; p = 0.032), and hemodynamic depression (mostly due to hypotension) (65.5% vs. 35%; p = 0.005) was more common in the AKI group. The threshold of hemodynamic depression duration for AKI development was 2.5 min (sensitivity 54%, specificity 82%). Independent predictors of AKI were hemodynamic depression (odds ratio [OR]: 4.01; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.07 to 15.03; p = 0.009), risk score (OR: 1.29; 95% CI: 1.03 to 1.60; p = 0.024), and male sex (OR: 6.07; 95% CI: 1.18 to 31.08; p = 0.021). Independent predictors of 30-day major adverse events that occurred more often in the AKI group (19.5% vs. 7%; p = 0.058) were AKI (HR: 4.83; 95% CI: 1.10 to 21.24; p = 0.037) and hemodynamic depression (HR: 5.58; 95% CI: 1.10 to 28.31; p = 0.038).ConclusionsAKI in CKD patients undergoing CAS is mostly due to hemodynamic depression and is associated with a higher 30-day major adverse events rate.     

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.     

Outcomes of Spot Stenting Versus Long Stenting After Intentional Subintimal Approach for Long Chronic Total Occlusions of the Femoropopliteal Artery

ObjectivesThis study sought to compare the outcomes of spot stenting versus long stenting after intentional subintimal approach for long femoropopliteal chronic total occlusions (CTO).BackgroundThe optimal stenting strategy following the subintimal recanalization of long femoropopliteal chronic total occlusions has not been investigated.MethodsA total of 196 limbs in 163 patients, implanted with bare nitinol stents after subintimal approach in long femoropopliteal occlusions (lesion length 25 ± 8 cm), were retrospectively analyzed. The primary patency was compared between spot stenting (n = 129) and long stenting (n = 67).ResultsBaseline characteristics and immediate procedural results were similar between groups. Adjusted-primary patency (47% vs. 77%, p < 0.001) and adjusted-freedom from target lesion revascularization (52% vs. 84%, p < 0.001) at 2 years were significantly lower in the long stenting group than in the spot stenting group. The incidence of stent fracture, fracture type, and restenosis pattern did not differ between groups. Long stenting was an independent predictor of restenosis (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.0) along with other risk factors such as nonuse of clopidogrel (HR: 3.3) or cilostazol (HR: 2.2), small stent diameter (HR: 0.6), poor run-off (HR: 1.9), and post-procedural ankle-brachial index (HR: 0.1). Compared with spot stenting after adjustment using inverse probability of treatment weighting, long stenting, especially involving the P2 or P3 segment of the popliteal artery, was independently associated with 7.5-fold increases in restenosis risk (p < 0.001).ConclusionsThe primary patency was significantly higher with spot stenting than with long stenting following subintimal approach for long femoropopliteal chronic total occlusions. The risk of restenosis was especially higher when long stenting was extended to the distal popliteal artery.     

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.     

Three-Year Outcomes After Revascularization With Everolimus- and Sirolimus-Eluting Stents From the SORT OUT IV Trial

ObjectivesThe study sought to compare the risk of late outcome with a focus on very late definite stent thrombosis of the everolimus-eluting stent (EES) with that of the sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) at 3-year follow-up.BackgroundIn the SORT OUT IV (SORT OUT IV Trial), comparing the EES with the SES in patients with coronary artery disease, the EES was noninferior to the SES at 9 months. The SORT OUT IV trial provides long-term head-to-head randomized comparison of the EES with the SES.MethodsWe prospectively randomized 2,774 patients in the SORT OUT IV trial. Follow-up through 3 years was complete in 2,771 patients (99.9%). The 3-year pre-specified endpoints were composites of safety and efficacy (major adverse cardiac events [MACE]: cardiac death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, and definite stent thrombosis).ResultsAt 3 years, the composite endpoint MACE occurred in 9.8% of the EES group and in 11.1% of the SES group (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.89, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.70 to 1.12). Overall rate of definite stent thrombosis was lower in the EES group (0.2% vs. 1.4%; HR: 0.15, 95% CI: 0.04 to 0.50), which was largely attributable to a lower risk of very late definite stent thrombosis: 0.1% versus 0.8% (HR: 0.09, 95% CI: 0.01 to 0.70).ConclusionsAt 3-year follow-up, the MACE rate did not differ significantly between EES- and SES-treated patients. A significant reduction of overall and very late definite stent thrombosis was found in the EES group. (The SORT OUT IV TRIAL [SORT OUT IV]; NCT00552877).