A Prospective Randomized Trial Comparing Sirolimus-Coated Balloon With Paclitaxel-Coated Balloon in De Novo Small Vessels.

BACKGROUND: There are no data comparing sirolimus-coated balloons (SCBs [MagicTouch, Concept Medical]) to paclitaxel-coated balloons (PCBs [SeQuent Please Neo, B. Braun]) for the treatment of de novo small vessel disease (SVD). OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare quantitative coronary angiographic outcomes at 6 months after treatment of de novo SVD with a PCB or SCB. METHODS: This prospective, multicenter, noninferiority trial randomized 121 patients (129 SVD lesions) to treatment with an SCB or PCB, with balloon sizing determined using optical coherence tomography. The primary endpoint was noninferiority for the 6-month angiographic net lumen gain. RESULTS: Angiographic follow-up was completed in 109 (90.1%) patients in the per-protocol analysis. The mean ± SD angiographic net gains were 0.25 ± 0.40 mm with SCBs vs 0.48 ± 0.37 mm with PCBs, resulting in SCBs failing to meet the 0.30 mm criterion for noninferiority (Pnoninferiority = 0.173), with an absolute difference of -0.23 mm (95% CI: -0.37 to -0.09) secondary to a smaller late loss (0.00 ± 0.32 mm vs 0.32 ± 0.47 mm; P < 0.001) and more frequent late lumen enlargement (53.7% vs 30.0%; OR: 2.60; 95% CI: 1.22-5.67; P = 0.014) with PCBs. Binary restenosis rates were 32.8% and 12.5% following treatment with SCBs and PCBs, respectively (OR: 3.41; 95% CI: 1.36-9.44; P = 0.012). The mean angiography-derived fractional flow ratio at follow-up was 0.86 ± 0.15 following treatment with SCBs and 0.91 ± 0.09 following PCBs (P = 0.026); a fractional flow ratio ≤0.80 occurred in 13 and 5 vessels after treatment with SCBs and PCBs, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The SCB MagicTouch failed to demonstrate noninferiority for angiographic net lumen gain at 6 months compared to the PCB SeQuent Please Neo.

Anonymous Comparison of Various Angiography-Derived Fractional Flow Reserve Software With Pressure-Derived Physiological Assessment.

BACKGROUND: Software to compute angiography-derived fractional flow reserve (angio-FFR) have been validated against pressure wire-derived fractional flow reserve (PW-FFR) with an area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.93 to 0.97. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate diagnostic accuracies of 5 angio-FFR software/methods by an independent core lab in a prospective cohort of 390 vessels with carefully documented sites of PW-FFR and pressure wire-derived instantaneous wave-free ratio. METHODS: One "matcher investigator" colocalized on angiography the sites of pressure wire measurement with angio-FFR measurements and provided the same 2 optimal angiographic views and frame selection to independent analysts who were blinded to invasive physiological results and results from other software. The results were anonymized and randomly presented. The AUC of each angio-FFR was compared with 2-dimensional quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) percent diameter stenosis (%DS) using a 2-tailed paired comparison of AUC. RESULTS: All 5 software/methods yielded a high proportion of analyzable vessels (A: 100%, B: 100%, C: 92.1%, D: 99.5%, and E: 92.1%). The AUCs for predicting fractional flow reserve ≤0.8 for software A, B, C, D, E, and 2-dimensional QCA %DS were 0.75, 0.74, 0.74, 0.73, 0.73, and 0.65, respectively. The AUC for each angio-FFR was significantly greater than that for 2-dimensional QCA %DS. CONCLUSIONS: This head-to-head comparison by an independent core lab demonstrated that the diagnostic accuracy of various angio-FFR software for predicting PW-FFR ≤0.80 was useful, with a higher discrimination compared with 2-dimensional QCA %DS; however, it did not reach the diagnostic accuracy previously reported in validation studies of various vendors. Therefore, the intrinsic clinical value of "angiography-derived fractional flow reserve" requires confirmation in large clinical trials.

Likelihood reclassification by an acoustic-based score in suspected coronary artery disease.

OBJECTIVE: Validation studies of the 2019 European Society of Cardiology pretest probability model (ESC-PTP) for coronary artery disease (CAD) report that 35%-40% of patients have low pretest probability (ESC-PTP 5% to <15%). Acoustic detection of coronary stenoses could potentially improve clinical likelihood stratification. Aims were to (1) investigate the diagnostic performance of an acoustic-based CAD score and (2) study the reclassification potential of a dual likelihood strategy by the ESC-PTP and a CAD score. METHODS: Consecutive patients (n=1683) with stable angina symptoms referred for coronary CT angiography (CTA) underwent heart sound analyses by an acoustic CAD-score device. All patients with ≥50% luminal stenosis in any coronary segment at coronary CTA were referred to investigation with invasive coronary angiography (ICA) with fractional flow reserve (FFR).A predefined CAD-score cut-off ≤20 was used to rule out obstructive CAD. RESULTS: In total, 439 patients (26%) had ≥50% luminal stenosis on coronary CTA. The subsequent ICA with FFR showed obstructive CAD in 199 patients (11.8%). Using the ≤20 CAD-score cut-off for obstructive CAD rule-out, sensitivity was 85.4% (95% CI 79.7 to 90.0), specificity 40.4% (95% CI 37.9 to 42.9), positive predictive value 16.1% (95% CI 13.9 to 18.5) and negative predictive value 95.4% (95% CI 93.4 to 96.9) in all patients. Applying the cut-off in ESC-PTP 5% to <15% patients, 316 patients (48%) were down-classified to very-low likelihood. The obstructive CAD prevalence was 3.5% in this group. CONCLUSION: In a large contemporary cohort of patients with low CAD likelihood, the additional use of an acoustic rule-out device showed a clear potential to downgrade likelihood and could supplement current strategies for likelihood assessment to avoid unnecessary testing. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03481712.

The Utility of the SYNTAX Score II and SYNTAX Score 2020 for Identifying Patients with Three-Vessel Disease Eligible for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in the Multivessel TALENT Trial: A Prospective Pilot Experience.

Background: Personalized prognosis plays a vital role in deciding between percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in patients with three-vessel disease (3VD). The aim of this study is to compare the modality of revascularization chosen by the local heart team to that recommended by using individualized predictions of medium, and long-term all-cause mortality amongst patients with 3VD screened in the Multivessel TALENT trial. Methods: The SYNTAX score II (SS-II) and SS-2020 were evaluated in 200 consecutive patients by a core laboratory and compared to the decision of the "on site" heart team. Results: According to the SS-II, CABG was the recommended treatment in 51 patients (25.5%) however 34 (66.6%) of them received PCI. According to SS-2020 the predicted absolute risk differences (ARD) between PCI and CABG were significantly higher in patients receiving CABG compared to those treated by PCI for major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events, a composite of all-cause mortality, stroke or myocardial infarction at 5-years (8.8 ± 4.6% vs 6.0 ± 4.0%, p < 0.001) and all-cause mortality at 5- (5.2 ± 3.5% vs 3.7 ± 3.0%, p = 0.008) and 10-years (9.3 ± 4.8% vs 6.2 ± 4.2%, p < 0.001). Based on the novel threshold of equipoise (individual absolute risk differences [ARD] < 4.5%), 133 patients were eligible for PCI however 23 of them underwent CABG; conversely, amongst the 67 patients where CABG was recommendation (individual ARD > 4.5%), only 19 received it. Conclusions: Despite the robustness of the risk models proposed for screening, several deviations from the recommended mode of revascularization were observed by the core laboratory among the first 200 patients with 3VD screened in the Multivessel TALENT trial. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov reference: NCT04390672.