Background: Suboptimal coronary reperfusion (no reflow) is common in acute coronary syndrome percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and is associated with poor outcomes. We aimed to develop and externally validate a clinical risk score for angiographic no reflow for use following angiography and before PCI.
Methods: We developed and externally validated a logistic regression model for prediction of no reflow among adult patients undergoing PCI for acute coronary syndrome using data from the Melbourne Interventional Group PCI registry (2005-2020; development cohort) and the British Cardiovascular Interventional Society PCI registry (2006-2020; external validation cohort).
Results: A total of 30 561 patients (mean age, 64.1 years; 24% women) were included in the Melbourne Interventional Group development cohort and 440 256 patients (mean age, 64.9 years; 27% women) in the British Cardiovascular Interventional Society external validation cohort. The primary outcome (no reflow) occurred in 4.1% (1249 patients) and 9.4% (41 222 patients) of the development and validation cohorts, respectively. From 33 candidate predictor variables, 6 final variables were selected by an adaptive least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regression model for inclusion (cardiogenic shock, ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction with symptom onset >195 minutes pre-PCI, estimated stent length ≥20 mm, vessel diameter <2.5 mm, pre-PCI Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction flow <3, and lesion location). Model discrimination was very good (development C statistic, 0.808; validation C statistic, 0.741) with excellent calibration. Patients with a score of ≥8 points had a 22% and 27% risk of no reflow in the development and validation cohorts, respectively.
Conclusions: The no-reflow prediction in acute coronary syndrome risk score is a simple count-based scoring system based on 6 parameters available before PCI to predict the risk of no reflow. This score could be useful in guiding preventative treatment and future trials.
Background: Intravascular imaging and intracoronary physiology may both be used to guide and optimize percutaneous coronary intervention; however, they are rarely used together. The virtual flow reserve (VFR) is an optical coherence tomography (OCT)-based model of fractional flow reserve (FFR) facilitating the assessment of the physiological significance of coronary lesions. We aimed to validate the VFR assessment of intermediate coronary artery stenoses.
Methods: FUSION (Validation of OCT-Based Functional Diagnosis of Coronary Stenosis) was a multicenter, prospective, observational study comparing OCT-derived VFR to invasive FFR. VFR was mathematically derived from a lumped parameter flow model based on 3-dimensional lumen morphology. Patients undergoing coronary angiography with intermediate angiographic stenosis (40%-90%) requiring physiological assessment were enrolled. Investigational sites were blinded to the VFR analysis, and all OCT and FFR data were reviewed by an independent core laboratory. The coprimary end points were the sensitivity and specificity of VFR against FFR as the reference standard, each of which was tested against prespecified performance goals.
Results: After core laboratory review, 266 vessels in 224 patients from 25 US centers were included in the analysis. The mean angiographic diameter stenosis was 65.5%±14.9%, and the mean FFR was 0.83±0.11. Overall accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of VFR versus FFR using a binary cutoff point of 0.80 were 82.0%, 80.4%, and 82.9%, respectively. The 97.5% lower confidence bound met the prespecified performance goal for sensitivity (71.6% versus 70%; P=0.01) and specificity (76.6% versus 75%; P=0.01). The area under the curve was 0.88 (95% CI, 0.84-0.92; P<0.0001).
Conclusions: OCT-derived VFR demonstrates high sensitivity and specificity for predicting invasive FFR. Integrating high-resolution intravascular imaging with imaging-derived physiology may provide synergistic benefits as an adjunct to percutaneous coronary intervention.
Registration: URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04356027.
Background: Transcatheter edge-to-edge mitral valve (MV) repair (TEER) is an effective treatment for patients with primary mitral regurgitation at prohibitive risk for surgical MV repair (MVr). High-volume MVr centers and high-volume TEER centers have better outcomes than low-volume centers, respectively. However, whether MVr volume predicts TEER outcomes remains unknown. We hypothesized that high-volume MV surgical centers would have superior risk-adjusted outcomes for TEER than low-volume centers.
Methods: We combined data from the American College of Cardiology/Society of Thoracic Surgeons Transcatheter Valve Therapy registry and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons adult cardiac surgery database. MVr was defined as leaflet resection or artificial chords with or without annuloplasty and was evaluated as a continuous variable and as predefined categories (<25, 25-49, and ≥50 MV repairs/year). A generalized linear mixed model was used to evaluate risk-adjusted in-hospital/30-day mortality, 30-day heart failure readmission, and TEER success (mitral regurgitation ≤2+ and gradient <5 mm Hg).
Results: The study comprised 41 834 patients from 500 sites of which 332 (66.4%) were low, 102 (20.4%) intermediate, and 66 (13.2%) high-volume surgical centers (P<0.001). TEER success was 54.6% and was not statistically significantly different across MV surgical site volumes (P=0.4271). TEER mortality at 30 days was 3.5% with no significant difference across MVr volume on unadjusted (P=0.141) or adjusted (P=0.071) analysis of volume as a continuous variable. One-year mortality was 15.0% and was lower for higher MVr volume centers when adjusted for clinical and demographic variables (P=0.027). Heart failure readmission at 1 year was 9.4% and was statistically significantly lower in high-volume centers on both unadjusted (P=0.017) or adjusted (P=0.015) analysis.
Conclusions: TEER can be safely performed in centers with low volumes of MV repair. However, 1-year mortality and heart failure readmission are superior at centers with higher MVr volume.
Background: The role of advanced therapies (systemic thrombolysis, catheter-based treatment, and surgical thrombectomy) for the management of right heart thrombus is poorly defined. In this study, we assessed the clinical predictors and outcomes of advanced therapy compared with anticoagulation alone for the acute management of right heart thrombus.
Methods: In this observational cohort study, we analyzed consecutive patients who were treated for right heart thrombus. The primary end point was 90-day all-cause mortality. Clinical predictors of utilizing advanced therapy were assessed with multivariable logistic regression. Propensity score matching was utilized to compare adjusted outcomes between patients receiving advanced therapies versus anticoagulation alone.
Results: A total of 345 patients were included in the study. Advanced therapy was utilized in 13.6% (N=47) of patients, of which 25.5% (N=12/47) was systemic thrombolysis, 23.4% (N=11/47) was endovascular thrombectomy, and 53.2% (N=25/47) was surgical thrombectomy. Younger age (odds ratio, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.96-0.99]) and concurrent pulmonary embolism (odds ratio, 5.36 [95% CI, 2.48-12.1]) predicted utilization of advanced therapy. In propensity score-matched analysis, there was no difference in 90-day mortality (hazard ratio, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.17-1.22]), in-hospital mortality (odds ratio, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.17-2.19]), or length of stay (β, -4.39 [95% CI, -14.0 to 5.22]) between advanced therapy and anticoagulation.
Conclusions: Among a diverse cohort of patients with right heart thrombus, outcomes did not differ between those who underwent advanced therapy and anticoagulation alone. Important predictors for utilizing advanced treatment included younger age and the presence of a concurrent pulmonary embolism. Future studies assessing advanced therapy in larger and broader patient populations are necessary.
Background: The importance of complete revascularization after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with left main coronary artery disease is uncertain. We investigated the clinical impact of complete revascularization in patients with left main coronary artery disease undergoing PCI in the EXCEL trial (Evaluation of XIENCE Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization).
Methods: Composite rates of death or myocardial infarction (MI) following PCI during 5-year follow-up were examined in 903 patients based on core laboratory definitions of anatomic and functional complete revascularization, residual SYNTAX score (The Synergy Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Taxus and Cardiac Surgery), and residual Jeopardy Score (rJS).
Results: The risk of death or MI did not vary based on anatomic, functional, or residual SYNTAX score complete revascularization but did differ according to the rJS (5-year rates 17.6%, 19.5%, and 38.9% with rJS 0, 2, and ≥4, respectively; P=0.006). The higher rate of death or MI with rJS≥4 versus rJS≤2 was driven conjointly by increased mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.29 [95% CI, 1.11-4.71]; P=0.02) and spontaneous MI (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.89 [95% CI, 1.17-7.17]; P=0.02). The most common location for untreated severe stenoses in the rJS≥4 group was the left circumflex artery (LCX), and the post-PCI absence, compared with the presence, of any untreated lesion with diameter stenosis ≥70% in the LCX was associated with reduced 5-year rates of death or MI (18.9% versus 35.2%; hazard ratio, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.32-0.74]; P<0.001). The risk was the highest for residual ostial/proximal LCX lesions.
Conclusions: Among patients undergoing PCI in EXCEL trial, incomplete revascularization according to the rJS was associated with increased rates of death and spontaneous MI. Post-PCI untreated high-grade lesions in the LCX (especially the ostial/proximal LCX) drove these outcomes.
Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01205776.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：