Catheter-based left atrial appendage closure. / Kateterbasert lukking av venstre atriums aurikkel.

BAKGRUNN: Atrieflimmer er en vanlig tilstand i befolkningen og gir økt risiko for hjerneslag. Antikoagulasjonsbehandling er effektivt for å forebygge tromboembolisme ved atrieflimmer, men av ulike grunner blir mange atrieflimmerpasienter med indikasjon for antikoagulasjonsbehandling ikke behandlet. Kateterbasert lukking av venstre atriums aurikkel er en ny metode for å forebygge hjerneslag ved atrieflimmer. MATERIALE OG METODE: I perioden september 2014-april 2016 gjennomgikk 27 pasienter med atrieflimmer og høy risiko for hjerneslag forsøk på kateterbasert lukking av venstre atriums aurikkel ved Oslo universitetssykehus. Antikoagulasjonsbehandling var vurdert som kontraindisert hos 26 av pasientene. Vi presenterer resultater fra prosedyre, ekkokardiografikontroller og kliniske hendelser i oppfølgingsperioden på ett år. RESULTATER: Aurikkelplugg ble vellykket implantert hos 26 pasienter. To pasienter fikk komplikasjoner i forbindelse med prosedyren: En fikk hjerneslag og en fikk transfusjonskrevende lyskeblødning. En pasient fikk hjertetamponade fem måneder etter prosedyren. En pasient som grunnet anatomisk vanskelige forhold ikke fikk implantert aurikkelplugg, døde av hjerneslag i oppfølgingsperioden. Tre pasienter hadde klinisk transitorisk iskemisk anfall (TIA). Det var ingen forekomst av intrakranial eller gastrointestinal blødning. FORTOLKNING: Kateterbasert lukking av venstre atriums aurikkel er gjennomførbart, men innebærer risiko for komplikasjoner og bør forbeholdes pasienter med høy risiko for hjerneslag og kontraindikasjon mot antikoagulasjonsbehandling.

Percutaneous coronary angioplasty versus coronary artery bypass grafting in treatment of unprotected left main stenosis (NOBLE): a prospective, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is the standard treatment for revascularisation in patients with left main coronary artery disease, but use of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for this indication is increasing. We aimed to compare PCI and CABG for treatment of left main coronary artery disease. METHODS: In this prospective, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial, patients with left main coronary artery disease were enrolled in 36 centres in northern Europe and randomised 1:1 to treatment with PCI or CABG. Eligible patients had stable angina pectoris, unstable angina pectoris, or non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Exclusion criteria were ST-elevation myocardial infarction within 24 h, being considered too high risk for CABG or PCI, or expected survival of less than 1 year. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events (MACCE), a composite of all-cause mortality, non-procedural myocardial infarction, any repeat coronary revascularisation, and stroke. Non-inferiority of PCI to CABG required the lower end of the 95% CI not to exceed a hazard ratio (HR) of 1·35 after up to 5 years of follow-up. The intention-to-treat principle was used in the analysis if not specified otherwise. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, number NCT01496651. FINDINGS: Between Dec 9, 2008, and Jan 21, 2015, 1201 patients were randomly assigned, 598 to PCI and 603 to CABG, and 592 in each group entered analysis by intention to treat. Kaplan-Meier 5 year estimates of MACCE were 29% for PCI (121 events) and 19% for CABG (81 events), HR 1·48 (95% CI 1·11-1·96), exceeding the limit for non-inferiority, and CABG was significantly better than PCI (p=0·0066). As-treated estimates were 28% versus 19% (1·55, 1·18-2·04, p=0·0015). Comparing PCI with CABG, 5 year estimates were 12% versus 9% (1·07, 0·67-1·72, p=0·77) for all-cause mortality, 7% versus 2% (2·88, 1·40-5·90, p=0·0040) for non-procedural myocardial infarction, 16% versus 10% (1·50, 1·04-2·17, p=0·032) for any revascularisation, and 5% versus 2% (2·25, 0·93-5·48, p=0·073) for stroke. INTERPRETATION: The findings of this study suggest that CABG might be better than PCI for treatment of left main stem coronary artery disease. FUNDING: Biosensors, Aarhus University Hospital, and participating sites.

Randomized comparison of final kissing balloon dilatation versus no final kissing balloon dilatation in patients with coronary bifurcation lesions treated with main vessel stenting: the Nordic-Baltic Bifurcation Study III.

BACKGROUND: It is unknown whether the preferred 1-stent bifurcation stenting approach with stenting of the main vessel (MV) and optional side branch stenting using drug-eluting stents should be finalized by a kissing balloon dilatation (FKBD). Therefore, we compared strategies of MV stenting with and without FKBD. METHODS AND RESULTS: We randomized 477 patients with a bifurcation lesion to FKBD (n=238) or no FKBD (n=239) after MV stenting. The primary end point was major adverse cardiac events: cardiac death, non-procedure-related index lesion myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization, or stent thrombosis within 6 months. The 6-month major adverse cardiac event rates were 2.1% and 2.5% (P=1.00) in the FKBD and no-FKBD groups, respectively. Procedure and fluoroscopy times were longer and more contrast media was needed in the FKBD group than in the no-FKBD group. Three hundred twenty-six patients had a quantitative coronary assessment. At 8 months, the rate of binary (re)stenosis in the entire bifurcation lesion (MV and side branch) was 11.0% versus 17.3% (P=0.11), in the MV was 3.1% versus 2.5% (P=0.68), and in the side branch was 7.9% versus 15.4% (P=0.039) in the FKBD versus no-FKBD groups, respectively. In patients with true bifurcation lesions, the side branch restenosis rate was 7.6% versus 20.0% (P=0.024) in the FKBD and no-FKBD groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: MV stenting strategies with and without FKBD were associated with similar clinical outcomes. FKBD reduced angiographic side branch (re)stenosis, especially in patients with true bifurcation lesions. The simple no-FKBD procedures resulted in reduced use of contrast media and shorter procedure and fluoroscopy times. Long-term data on stent thrombosis are needed. Clinical Trial Registration- URL: http://clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00914199.

Effect of high-intensity interval training on progression of cardiac allograft vasculopathy.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV) is a progressive form of atherosclerosis occurring in heart transplant (HTx) recipients, leading to increased morbidity and mortality. Given the atheroprotective effect of exercise on traditional atherosclerosis, we hypothesized that high-intensity interval training (HIIT) would reduce the progression of CAV among HTx recipients. METHODS: Forty-three cardiac allograft recipients (mean ± SD age 51 ± 16 years; 67% men; time post-HTx 4.0 ± 2.2 years), all clinically stable and >18 years old, were randomized to either a HIIT group or control group (standard care) for 1 year. The effect of training on CAV progression was assessed by intravascular ultrasound (IVUS). RESULTS: IVUS analysis revealed a significantly smaller mean increase [95% CI] in atheroma volume (PAV) of 0.9% [95% CI -;0.3% to 1.9%] in the HIIT group as compared with the control group, 2.5% [1.6% to 3.5%] (p = 0.021). Similarly, the mean increase in total atheroma volume (TAV) was 0.3 [0.0 to 0.6] mm(3)/mm in the HIT group vs 1.1 [0.6 to 1.7] mm(3)/mm in the control group (p = 0.020), and mean increase in maximal intimal thickness (MIT) was 0.02-0.01 to 0.04] mm in the HIIT group vs 0.05 [0.03 to 0.08] mm in the control group (p = 0.054). Qualitative plaque progression (virtual histology parameters) and inflammatory activity (biomarkers) were similar between the 2 groups during the study period. CONCLUSIONS: HIIT among maintenance HTx recipients resulted in a significantly impaired rate of CAV progression. Future larger studies should address whether exercise rehabilitation strategies should be included in CAV management protocols.