One Versus 2-stent Strategy for the Treatment of Bifurcation Lesions in the Context of a Coronary Chronic Total Occlusion. A Multicenter Registry.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: There is little evidence on the optimal strategy for bifurcation lesions in the context of a coronary chronic total occlusion (CTO). This study compared the procedural and mid-term outcomes of patients with bifurcation lesions in CTO treated with provisional stenting vs 2-stent techniques in a multicenter registry. METHODS: Between January 2012 and June 2016, 922 CTO were recanalized at the 4 participating centers. Of these, 238 (25.8%) with a bifurcation lesion (side branch ≥ 2mm located proximally, distally, or within the occluded segment) were treated by a simple approach (n=201) or complex strategy (n=37). Propensity score matching was performed to account for selection bias between the 2 groups. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) consisted of a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and clinically-driven target lesion revascularization. RESULTS: Angiographic and procedural success were similar in the simple and complex groups (94.5% vs 97.3%; P=.48 and 85.6% vs 81.1%; P=.49). However, contrast volume, radiation dose, and fluoroscopy time were lower with the simple approach. At follow-up (25 months), the MACE rate was 8% in the simple and 10.8% in the complex group (P=.58). There was a trend toward a lower MACE-free survival in the complex group (80.1% vs 69.8%; P=.08). After propensity analysis, there were no differences between the groups regarding immediate and follow-up results. CONCLUSIONS: Bifurcation lesions in CTO can be approached similarly to regular bifurcation lesions, for which provisional stenting is considered the technique of choice. After propensity score matching, there were no differences in procedural or mid-term clinical outcomes between the simple and complex strategies.

Effect of New-Onset Left Bundle Branch Block After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (CoreValve) on Mortality, Frequency of Re-Hospitalization, and Need for Pacemaker.

New-onset conduction disturbances are common after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). The most common complication is left bundle branch block (LBBB). The clinical impact of new-onset LBBB after TAVI remains controversial. The aim of this study was to analyze the clinical impact of new-onset LBBB in terms of mortality and morbidity (need for pacemakers and admissions for heart failure) at long-term follow-up. From April 2008 to December 2014, 220 patients who had severe aortic stenosis were treated with the implantation of a CoreValve prosthesis. Sixty-seven of these patients were excluded from the analysis, including 22 patients with pre-existing LBBB and 45 with a permanent pacemaker, implanted previously or within 72 hours of implantation. The remaining 153 patients were divided into 2 groups: group 1 (n = 80), those with persistent new-onset LBBB, and group 2 (n = 73), those without conduction disturbances after treatment. Both groups were followed up at 1 month, 6 months, 12 months, and yearly thereafter. Persistent new-onset LBBB occurred in 80 patients (36%) immediately after TAVI; 73 patients (33%) did not develop conduction disturbances. The mean follow-up time of both groups was 32 ± 22 months (range 3 to 82 months), and there were no differences in time between the groups. There were no differences in mortality between the groups (39% vs 48%, p = 0.58). No differences were observed between the groups in re-hospitalizations for heart failure (11% vs 16%, p = 0.55). Group 1 did not require pacemaker implantation more often at follow-up (10% vs 13%, p = 0.38) than group 2. In conclusion, new-onset LBBB was not associated with a higher incidence of late need for a permanent pacemaker after CoreValve implantation. In addition, it was not associated with a higher risk of late mortality or re-hospitalization.

Atrioventricular Conduction Changes After CoreValve Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Conduction disturbances often occur after CoreValve transcatheter aortic valve implantation. The aim was to analyze which cardiac conduction changes occur in patients with aortic stenosis treated with this type of prosthesis. METHODS: A total of 181 patients with severe aortic stenosis treated with this prosthesis and studied by electrocardiography between April 2008 and December 2013 were selected. A subgroup of 137 (75.7%) consecutive patients was studied by intracardiac electrocardiogram before and after prosthesis implantation. The primary endpoint of the study was the need for a permanent pacemaker within 72 hours after prosthesis implantation. Numerous variables to predict this possibility were analyzed. RESULTS: Following implantation, PR and QRS intervals were increased from 173±47 ms to 190±52ms (P < .01) and from 98±22ms to 129±24 ms (P < .01), whereas the A-H and H-V intervals were prolonged from 95±39ms to 108±41ms (P < .01) and from 54±10ms to 66±23ms (P < .01). A total of 89 (49%) patients had new-onset left bundle-branch block, and 33 (25%) required a pacemaker within the first 72hours. The independent predictors for a pacemaker were baseline right bundle-branch block and prosthetic depth. Intracardiac intervals had no predictive value. In addition, 13 patients required a pacemaker after 72 hours. CONCLUSIONS: CoreValve prosthesis implantation has a high incidence of conduction disturbance, with left bundle-branch block being the most common. A total of 25% of patients required a permanent pacemaker. The need for a pacemaker was related to baseline right bundle-branch block and prosthetic depth.

Optical coherence tomography evaluation of late strut coverage patterns between first-generation drug-eluting stents and everolimus-eluting stent.

OBJECTIVES: To compare strut coverage patterns between everolimus-eluting stent (EES) and first-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) at more than 12 months after successful implantation, using optical coherence tomography (OCT). BACKGROUND: No sufficient OCT data has been reported comparing late strut coverage patterns between EES and first-generation DES. The favorable late results after EES implantation could be related to lower rates of uncovered and malapposed struts. METHODS: A total of 66 DES (21 EES, 23 SES, and 22 PES) that were implanted at least 1 year in advance in 40 patients and met good late angiographic results were evaluated by OCT. The percentage of uncovered and malapposed struts, calculated as the ratio of uncovered or malapposed struts to total struts in all cross-sectional images per stent, was compared among the three groups. RESULTS: A total of 35,061 struts were analyzed: 11,967 from EES, 11,855 from SES, and 11m239 from PES. The average tissue coverage thickness of the struts per stent was greater in EES than in SES and PES (109 ± 40 µm vs. 72 ± 27 µm and 83 ± 26 µm, respectively; P = 0.001). The percentage of uncovered struts (1.9 ± 4.1% in EES vs. 11.6 ± 12.7% in SES, P = 0.01 and vs. 7.1 ± 5.2% in PES, P < 0.001) and malapposed struts (0.1 ± 0.3% in EES vs. 1.8 ± 3.5% in SES, P = 0.01 and vs. 3.5 ± 5.1% in PES, P = 0.02) was much lower in EES than in first-generation DES, with no significant differences between SES and PES. CONCLUSIONS: Late strut coverage patterns are not similar between EES and first-generation DES. EES showed a lower percentage of uncovered and malapposed struts.