Noninvasive Imaging of Cardiovascular Injury Related to the Treatment of Cancer

The introduction of multiple treatments for cancer, including chemotherapeutic agents and radiation therapy, has significantly reduced cancer-related morbidity and mortality. However, these therapies can promote a variety of toxicities, among the most severe being the ones involving the cardiovascular system. Currently, for many surviving cancer patients, cardiovascular (CV) events represent the primary cause of morbidity and mortality. Recent data suggest that CV injury occurs early during cancer treatment, creating a substrate for subsequent cardiovascular events. Researchers have investigated the utility of noninvasive imaging strategies to detect the presence of CV injury during and after completion of cancer treatment because it starts early during cancer therapy, often preceding the development of chemotherapy or cancer therapeutics related cardiac dysfunction. In this State-of-the-Art Paper, we review the utility of current clinical and investigative CV noninvasive modalities for the identification and characterization of cancer treatment-related CV toxicity.     

Outcomes of Inoperable Symptomatic Aortic Stenosis Patients Not Undergoing Aortic Valve Replacement: Insight Into the Impact of Balloon Aortic Valvuloplasty From the PARTNER Trial (Placement of AoRtic TraNscathetER Valve Trial)

ObjectivesThe aim of this report is to characterize the impact of balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV) in patients not undergoing aortic valve replacement in the PARTNER (Placement of AoRtic TraNscathetER Valves) trial.BackgroundThe PARTNER trial is the only randomized trial with independently adjudicated data of inoperable severe symptomatic aortic stenosis patients, allowing outcome analysis of unoperated-on patients.MethodsThe design and initial results of the PARTNER trial (Cohort B) were reported previously. After excluding patients with pre-randomization BAV, we compared patients undergoing BAV within 30 days of randomization (BAV group) with those not having BAV within 30 days of randomization (no BAV group) to characterize the use and impact of BAV.ResultsIn the PARTNER Cohort B study, 179 inoperable patients were randomized to standard treatment including 39 patients (21.8%) who had undergone a BAV before randomization (previous BAV group). Of the 140 patients who did not have BAV before enrollment in the study, 102 patients (73%) had BAV within 30 days of study randomization (BAV group). Survival at 3 months was greater in the BAV group compared with the no BAV group (88.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 82.0% to 94.5% vs. 73.0%; 95% CI: 58.8% to 87.4%). However, survival was similar at 6-month follow-up (74.5%; 95% CI: 66.1% to 83.0% vs. 73.1%; 58.8% to 87.4%). There was improvement in quality of life parameters when paired comparisons were made between baseline and 30 days and 6 months between the BAV and no BAV groups, but this effect was lost at 12-month follow-up.ConclusionsBAV improves functional status and survival in the short term, but these benefits are not sustained. BAV for aortic stenosis patients who cannot undergo aortic valve replacement is a useful palliative therapy. (THE PARTNER TRIAL: Placement of AoRTic TraNscathetER Valve Trial; NCT00530894)     

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)     

Baru almond improves lipid profile in mildly hypercholesterolemic subjects: A randomized,controlled, crossover study

Backgroud and aimThe usual consumption of nuts reduces cardiovascular diseases (CVD) risk by improving serum lipids and oxidation status. Baru almonds (Dipteryxalata Vog.), a native species of Brazilian Savannah, have considerable contents of monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFA), dietary fiber, vitamin E and zinc, which could exert positive effects in serum lipids and markers of oxidation. However, there is no study about the effect of their consumption on human health. Thus, the aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of baru almonds supplementation on lipid profile and oxidation of mildly hypercholesterolemic subjects.Methods and ResultsA randomized, crossover, placebo controlled study was performed with 20 mildly hypercholesterolemic subjects (total cholesterol (TC) mean ±SEM = 5.8 ± 0.2 mmol/L). The assay had 2 periods of 6 weeks each and a 4-week washout period between the treatments. Subjects were randomly allocated in alternated periods receiving the following treatments per period: supplementation with 20 g/day of baru almonds or placebo (1 corn starch capsule/day). Compared to placebo, supplementation of baru almonds reduced TC (−8.1 ± 2.4%, P = 0.007), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-c) (−9.4 ± 2.4%, P = 0.006) and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-c) (−8.1 ± 3.0%, P = 0.013). There were no significant changes on the oxidation biomarkers evaluated.ConclusionDietary supplementation of mildly hypercholesterolemic subjects with baru almonds improved serum lipid parameters, so that this food might be included in diets for reducing the CVD risk.Clinical Trial registryBrazilian Registry of Clinical Trials (ReBEC) (website: http://www.ensaiosclinicos.gov.br). Register number: RBR-4zdy9p.     

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)     

Pharmacodynamic Effects of Ticagrelor Dosing Regimens in Patients on Maintenance Ticagrelor Therapy: Results From a Prospective,Randomized, Double-Blind Investigation

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to assess the impact of ticagrelor dosing regimens on pharmacodynamic (PD) profiles in patients on maintenance ticagrelor therapy.BackgroundMany patients on maintenance P2Y₁₂-inhibiting therapies may require coronary revascularization procedures, raising a common clinical question with regard to the dosing regimen of the P2Y₁₂-inhibiting agent to be used. To date, investigations assessing dosing regimens of P2Y₁₂ receptor inhibitors in patients on maintenance therapy have been only assessed with thienopyridines, but not with ticagrelor.MethodsThis was a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study assessing the PD effects of 2 dosing regimens of ticagrelor in patients on standard aspirin and ticagrelor maintenance therapy. A total of 60 patients were randomized to either 90 mg (maintenance dose [MD] group) or 180 mg (loading dose [LD] group) dose of ticagrelor. PD assessments were conducted at 3 time points (baseline, 1 h and 4 h). PD assessments were defined according to the platelet reactivity index (PRI) (vasodilator-stimulated phosphoprotein phosphorylation assay), P2Y₁₂ reaction unit (VerifyNow P2Y12 assay) and adenosine diphosphate–induced platelet aggregation by light transmittance aggregometry.ResultsThere were no differences in baseline levels of platelet reactivity with all assays. Intergroup comparisons by means of repeated-measures analysis adjusted for baseline PRI values showed that the LD group had significantly lower PRI levels compared with the MD group during the overall study time course (p = 0.031). Consistent findings were found for P2Y₁₂ reaction unit (p = 0.026) and light transmittance aggregometry (p = 0.004). Intragroup comparisons showed that a more prompt and sustained platelet inhibitory effect was achieved more consistently with an LD regimen compared with a MD regimen.ConclusionsIn patients on maintenance ticagrelor therapy, a 180-mg LD regimen of ticagrelor is associated with more potent and prompt platelet inhibition compared with a 90-mg MD. (Impact of Ticagrelor Re-Load Pharmacodynamic Profiles; NCT01731041).