Stent expansion in calcified coronary chronic total occlusions: The impact of different stent platforms.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the stent expansion of the durable-polymer Zotarolimus-eluting stent (dp-ZES), the durable-polymer Everolimus-eluting stent (dp-EES), and the bioabsorbable-polymer Sirolimus-eluting stent (bp-SES) in calcified coronary chronic total occlusions (CTO). BACKGROUND: The newer generation stents with ultrathin struts might raise concerns regarding reduced radial strength and higher stent recoil (SR) when implanted in calcified CTOs. METHODS: Between January 2017 and June 2021 consecutive patients with CTO undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with dp-ZES, dp-EES, or bp-SES were evaluated. The analysis was performed in calcific and in noncalcific CTOs. Quantitative coronary angiography analysis was used to assess diameter stenosis (DS), absolute and relative SR, absolute and relative focal SR, absolute and relative balloon deficit (BD), and absolute and relative focal BD. The primary endpoint was DS. RESULTS: A total of 213 CTOs were evaluated, 115 calcific CTOs (dp-ZES:25, dp-EES:29, bp-SES:61) and 98 non-calcific CTOs (dp-ZES:41, dp-EES:11, bp-SES:46). In calcific CTOs, residual DS was lower in dp-ZES than in dp-EES and bp-SES (-1.00% [-6.50-6.50] vs. 13.00% [7.0-19.00] vs. 15.00% [5.00-20.00]; p < 0.001). Dp-ZES was also an independent predictor of residual DS ≤ 10% (OR 11.34, 95% CI 2.6-49.43, p = 0.001). Absolute and relative focal SR and absolute and relative SR were similar between dp-ZES, dp-EES, and bp-SES (p = 0.913, p = 0.890, p = 0.518, p = 0.426, respectively). In noncalcified CTOs, the residual DS was similar in the three groups (p = 0.340). High relative focal SR was less frequent in dp-ZES than in dp-EES and in bp-SES (19.5% vs. 54.5% vs. 37.0%; p < 0.048). CONCLUSIONS: The three stent platforms demonstrated an overall low residual DS when implanted in CTOs. However, dp-ZES was associated with the lowest residual DS and identified as independent predictor of residual DS ≤ 10% in patients with calcific CTOs. Dp-ZES was associated with a lower incidence of high relative focal stent recoil, in noncalcific CTOs. Balloon deficit might be considerate as a surrogate for stent expansion in calcified CTOs.

Insights in a restricted temporary pacemaker strategy in a lean transcatheter aortic valve implantation program.

OBJECTIVES: To study the safety and feasibility of a restrictive temporary-RV-pacemaker use and to evaluate the need for temporary pacemaker insertion for failed left ventricular (LV) pacing ability (no ventricular capture) or occurrence of high-degree AV-blocks mandating continuous pacing. BACKGROUND: Ventricular pacing remains an essential part of contemporary transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). A temporary-right-ventricle (RV)-pacemaker lead is the standard approach for transient pacing during TAVI but requires central venous access. METHODS: An observational registry including 672 patients who underwent TAVI between June 2018 and December 2020. Patients received pacing on the wire when necessary, unless there was a high-anticipated risk for conduction disturbances post-TAVI, based on the baseline-ECG. The follow-up period was 30 days. RESULTS: A temporary-RV-pacemaker lead (RVP-cohort) was inserted in 45 patients, pacing on the wire (LVP-cohort) in 488 patients, and no pacing (NoP-cohort) in 139 patients. A bailout temporary pacemaker was implanted in 14 patients (10.1%) in the NoP-cohort and in 24 patients (4.9%) in the LVP-cohort. One patient in the LVP-cohort needed an RV-pacemaker for incomplete ventricular capture. Procedure time was significantly longer in the RVP-cohort (68 min [IQR 52-88.] vs. 55 min [IQR 44-72] in NoP-cohort and 55 min [IQR 43-71] in the LVP-cohort [p < 0.005]). Procedural high-degree AV-block occurred most often in the RVP-cohort (45% vs. 14% in the LVP and 16% in the NoP-cohort [p ≤ 0.001]). Need for new PPI occurred in 47% in the RVP-cohort, versus 20% in the NoP-cohort and 11% in the LVP-cohort (p ≤ 0.001). CONCLUSION: A restricted RV-pacemaker strategy is safe and shortens procedure time. The majority of TAVI-procedures do not require a temporary-RV-pacemaker.