Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions最新文献

Background: While transradial access is favored for cardiac catheterization, the radial artery (RA) is increasingly preferred for coronary artery bypass grafting. Whether the RA is suitable for use as a graft following instrumentation for transradial access remains uncertain.

Methods: Consecutive patients from 2015 to 2019 who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting using both the left and right RAs as grafts were included. Instrumented RAs underwent careful preoperative assessment for suitability. The clinical analysis was stratified by whether patients received an instrumented RA graft (instrumented versus noninstrumented groups). Eligible patients with both instrumented and noninstrumented RAs underwent computed tomography coronary angiography to evaluate graft patency. The primary outcome was a within-patient paired analysis of graft patency comparing instrumented to noninstrumented RA grafts.

Results: Of the 1123 patients who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting, 294 had both the left and right RAs used as grafts and were included. There were 126 and 168 patients in the instrumented and noninstrumented groups, respectively. Baseline characteristics and perioperative outcomes were comparable. The rate of major adverse cardiac events at 2 years following coronary artery bypass grafting was 2.4% in the instrumented group and 5.4% in the noninstrumented group (hazard ratio, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.12-1.61]; P=0.19). There were 50 patients included in the graft patency analysis. At a median follow-up of 4.3 (interquartile range, 3.7-4.5) years, 40/50 (80%) instrumented and 41/50 (82%) noninstrumented grafts were patent (odds ratio, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.29-2.52]; P>0.99). No significant differences were observed in the luminal diameter or cross-sectional area of the instrumented and noninstrumented RA grafts.

Conclusions: There was no evidence found in this study that RA graft patency was affected by prior transradial access, and the use of an instrumented RA was not associated with worse outcomes in the exploratory clinical analysis. Although conduits must be carefully selected, prior transradial access should not be considered an absolute contraindication to the use of the RA as a bypass graft.

Registration: URL: https://www.anzctr.org.au/; Unique identifier: ACTRN12621000257864.

Bioprosthetic aortic valve thrombosis is frequently detected after transcatheter and surgical aortic valve replacement due to advances in cardiac computed tomography angiography technology and standardized surveillance protocols in low-surgical-risk transcatheter aortic valve replacement trials. However, evidence is limited concerning whether subclinical leaflet thrombosis leads to clinical adverse events or premature structural valve deterioration. Furthermore, there may be net harm in the form of bleeding from aggressive antithrombotic treatment in patients with subclinical leaflet thrombosis. This review will discuss the incidence, mechanisms, diagnosis, and optimal management of bioprosthetic aortic valve thrombosis after transcatheter aortic valve replacement and bioprosthetic surgical aortic valve replacement.

Background: Prior studies have found that patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) have worse outcomes following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). There are no data about patients with advanced CKD undergoing Impella-supported high-risk PCI. We, therefore, aimed to evaluate angiographic characteristics and clinical outcomes in patients with CKD who received Impella-supported high-risk PCI as part of the catheter-based ventricular assist device PROTECT III study (A Prospective, Multi-Center, Randomized Controlled Trial of the IMPELLA RECOVER LP 2.5 System Versus Intra Aortic Balloon Pump [IABP] in Patients Undergoing Non Emergent High Risk PCI).

Methods: Patients enrolled in the PROTECT III study were analyzed according to their baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR). The primary outcome was 90-day major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (the composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke/transient ischemic attack, and repeat revascularization).

Results: Of 1237 enrolled patients, 1052 patients with complete eGFR baseline assessment were evaluated: 586 with eGFR ≥60 mL/min per 1.73 m², 190 with eGFR ≥45 to <60, 105 with eGFR ≥30 to <45, and 171 with eGFR <30 or on dialysis. Patients with lower eGFR (all groups with eGFR <60) were more frequently females and had a higher prevalence of hypertension, diabetes, anemia, and peripheral artery disease. The baseline Synergy Between PCI With Taxus and Cardiac Surgery score was similar between groups (28.2±12.6 for all groups). Patients with lower eGFR were more likely to have severe coronary calcifications and higher usage of atherectomy. There were no differences in individual PCI-related coronary complications between groups, but the rates of overall PCI complications were less frequent among patients with lower eGFR. Major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events at 90 days and 1-year mortality were significantly higher among patients with eGFR <30 mL/min per 1.73 m² or on dialysis.

Conclusions: Patients with advanced CKD undergoing Impella-assisted high-risk PCI tend to have higher baseline comorbidities, severe coronary calcification, and higher atherectomy usage, yet CKD was not associated with a higher rate of immediate PCI-related complications. However, 90-day major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events and 1-year mortality were significantly higher among patients with eGFR<30 mL/min per 1.73 m² or on dialysis. Future studies of strategies to improve intermediate and long-term outcomes of these high-risk patients are warranted.

Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04136392.

Background: Reliable assessment of coronary microvascular function is essential. Techniques to measure absolute coronary blood flow are promising but need validation. The objectives of this study were: first, to validate the potential of saline infusion to generate maximum hyperemia in vivo. Second, to validate absolute coronary blood flow measured with continuous coronary thermodilution at high (40-50 mL/min) infusion speeds and asses its safety.

Methods: Fourteen closed-chest sheep underwent absolute coronary blood flow measurements with increasing saline infusion speeds at different dosages under general anesthesia. An additional 7 open-chest sheep underwent these measurements with epicardial Doppler flow probes. Coronary flows were compared with reactive hyperemia after 45 s of coronary occlusion.

Results: Twenty milliliters per minute of saline infusion induced a significantly lower hyperemic coronary flow (140 versus 191 mL/min; P=0.0165), lower coronary flow reserve (1.82 versus 3.21; P≤0.0001), and higher coronary resistance (655 versus 422 woods units; P=0.0053) than coronary occlusion. On the other hand, 30 mL/min of saline infusion resulted in hyperemic coronary flow (196 versus 192 mL/min; P=0.8292), coronary flow reserve (2.77 versus 3.21; P=0.1107), and coronary resistance (415 versus 422 woods units; P=0.9181) that were not different from coronary occlusion. Hyperemic coronary flow was 40.7% with 5 mL/min, 40.8% with 10 mL/min, 73.1% with 20 mL/min, 102.3% with 30 mL/min, 99.0% with 40 mL/min, and 98.0% with 50 mL/min of saline infusion when compared with postocclusive hyperemic flow. There was a significant bias toward flow overestimation (Bland-Altman: bias±SD, -73.09±30.52; 95% limits of agreement, -132.9 to -13.27) with 40 to 50 mL/min of saline. Occasionally, ischemic changes resulted in ventricular fibrillation (9.5% with 50 mL/min) at higher infusion rates.

Conclusions: Continuous saline infusion of 30 mL/min but not 20 mL/min induced maximal hyperemia. Absolute coronary blood flow measured with saline infusion speeds of 40 to 50 mL/min was not accurate and not safe.

Background: The efficacy and safety of each third-generation drug-eluting stent with ultrathin struts and advanced polymer technology remain unclear. We investigated the clinical outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention using the Coroflex ISAR polymer-free sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) or Orsiro biodegradable polymer SES.

Methods: The HOST-IDEA trial (Harmonizing Optimal Strategy for Treatment of Coronary Artery Stenosis-Coronary Intervention With Next-Generation Drug-Eluting Stent Platforms and Abbreviated Dual Antiplatelet Therapy), initially designed with a 2×2 factorial approach, sought to randomize patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention based on dual antiplatelet therapy duration (3 versus 12 months) and stent type (Coroflex ISAR versus Orsiro). Despite randomizing 2013 patients for dual antiplatelet therapy duration, the stent arm transitioned to a registry format during the trial. Among these, 328 individuals (16.3%) were randomized for Coroflex ISAR or Orsiro SES, while 1685 (83.7%) underwent percutaneous coronary intervention without stent-type randomization. In this study, the Coroflex ISAR (n=559) and Orsiro groups (n=1449) were matched using a propensity score. The prespecified primary end point was target lesion failure, a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically driven target lesion revascularization at 12 months.

Results: The baseline patient and procedural characteristics were well balanced between the Coroflex ISAR and Orsiro groups after propensity score matching (n=559, each group). The Coroflex ISAR group was significantly associated with a higher rate of target lesion failure, mainly driven by clinically driven target lesion revascularization, compared with the Orsiro group (3.4% versus 1.1%; hazard ratio, 3.21 [95% CI, 1.28-8.05]; P=0.01). A higher risk of target lesion failure in the Coroflex ISAR group was consistently observed across various subgroups. The rates of any bleeding (hazard ratio, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.51-1.40]; P=0.52) and major bleeding (hazard ratio, 1.58 [95% CI, 0.61-4.08]; P=0.34) were comparable between the 2 groups.

Conclusions: In this propensity score-matched analysis of the stent arm registry from the HOST-IDEA trial, the Orsiro SES was associated with significantly better outcomes in terms of 1-year target lesion failure, mainly driven by clinically driven target lesion revascularization, than the Coroflex ISAR SES.

Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02601157.

Background: Complete revascularization improves cardiovascular outcomes compared with culprit-only revascularization in patients with acute myocardial infarction ([MI]; ST-segment-elevation MI or non-ST-segment-elevation MI) and multivessel coronary artery disease. However, the timing of complete revascularization (single-setting versus staged revascularization) is uncertain. The aim was to compare the outcomes of single-setting complete, staged complete, and culprit vessel-only revascularization in patients with acute MI and multivessel disease.

Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, and clinicaltrials.gov databases were searched for randomized controlled trials that compared 3 revascularization strategies.

Results: From 16 randomized controlled trials that randomized 11 876 patients with acute MI and multivessel disease, both single-setting complete and staged complete revascularization reduced primary outcome (cardiovascular mortality/MI; odds ratio [OR], 0.52 [95% CI, 0.41-0.65]; OR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.62-0.88]), composite of all-cause mortality/MI (OR, 0.52 [95% CI, 0.40-0.67]; OR, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.67-0.91]), major adverse cardiovascular event (OR, 0.42 [95% CI, 0.32-0.56]; OR, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.47-0.82]), MI (OR, 0.39 [95% CI, 0.26-0.57]; OR, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.59-0.90]), and repeat revascularization (OR, 0.30 [95% CI, 0.18-0.47]; OR, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.30-0.71]) compared with culprit-only revascularization. Single-setting complete revascularization reduced cardiovascular mortality/MI (OR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.55-0.91]), major adverse cardiovascular event (OR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.50-0.91]), and all-cause mortality/MI driven by a lower risk of MI (OR, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.36-0.77]) compared with staged complete revascularization. Single-setting complete revascularization ranked number 1, followed by staged complete revascularization (number 2) and culprit-only revascularization (number 3) for all outcomes. The results were largely consistent in subgroup analysis comparing ST-segment-elevation MI versus non-ST-segment-elevation MI cohorts.

Conclusions: Single-setting complete revascularization may offer the greatest reductions in cardiovascular events in patients with acute MI and multivessel disease. A large-scale randomized trial of single-setting complete versus staged complete revascularization is warranted to evaluate the optimal timing of complete revascularization.