Complete or Culprit-Only PCI in Older Patients with Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: The benefit of complete revascularization in older patients (≥75 years of age) with myocardial infarction and multivessel disease remains unclear. METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized trial, we assigned older patients with myocardial infarction and multivessel disease who were undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of the culprit lesion to receive either physiology-guided complete revascularization of nonculprit lesions or to receive no further revascularization. Functionally significant nonculprit lesions were identified either by pressure wire or angiography. The primary outcome was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or any revascularization at 1 year. The key secondary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction. Safety was assessed as a composite of contrast-associated acute kidney injury, stroke, or bleeding. RESULTS: A total of 1445 patients underwent randomization (720 to receive complete revascularization and 725 to receive culprit-only revascularization). The median age of the patients was 80 years (interquartile range, 77 to 84); 528 patients (36.5%) were women, and 509 (35.2%) were admitted for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. A primary-outcome event occurred in 113 patients (15.7%) in the complete-revascularization group and in 152 patients (21.0%) in the culprit-only group (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.57 to 0.93; P = 0.01). Cardiovascular death or myocardial infarction occurred in 64 patients (8.9%) in the complete-revascularization group and in 98 patients (13.5%) in the culprit-only group (hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.88). The safety outcome did not appear to differ between the groups (22.5% vs. 20.4%; P = 0.37). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients who were 75 years of age or older with myocardial infarction and multivessel disease, those who underwent physiology-guided complete revascularization had a lower risk of a composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or ischemia-driven revascularization at 1 year than those who received culprit-lesion-only PCI. (Funded by Consorzio Futuro in Ricerca and others; FIRE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03772743.).

Wire-based antegrade dissection re-entry technique for coronary chronic total occlusions percutaneous revascularization: Experience from the ERCTO Registry.

BACKGROUND: The recent development and widespread adoption of antegrade dissection re-entry (ADR) techniques have been underlined as one of the antegrade strategies in all worldwide CTO consensus documents. However, historical wire-based ADR experience has suffered from disappointing long-term outcomes. AIMS: Compare technical success, procedural success, and long-term outcome of patients who underwent wire-based ADR technique versus antegrade wiring (AW). METHODS: One thousand seven hundred and ten patients, from the prospective European Registry of Chronic Total Occlusions (ERCTO), underwent 1806 CTO procedures between January 2018 and December 2021, at 13 high-volume ADR centers. Among all 1806 lesions attempted by the antegrade approach, 72% were approached with AW techniques and 28% with wire-based ADR techniques. RESULTS: Technical and procedural success rates were lower in wire-based ADR than in AW (90.3% vs. 96.4%, p < 0.001; 87.7% vs. 95.4%, p < 0.001, respectively); however, wire-based ADR was used successfully more often in complex lesions as compared to AW (p = 0.017). Wire-based ADR was used in most cases (85%) after failure of AW or retrograde procedures. At a mean clinical follow-up of 21 ± 15 months, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs) did not differ between AW and wire-based ADR (12% vs. 15.1%, p = 0.106); both AW and wire-based ADR procedures were associated with significant symptom improvements. CONCLUSIONS: As compared to AW, wire-based ADR is a reliable and effective strategy successfully used in more complex lesions and often after the failure of other techniques. At long-term follow-up, patient's MACCEs and symptoms improvement were similar in both antegrade techniques.

Acute myocardial infarction and large coronary thrombosis in a patient with COVID-19.

This is a case report of a 60-year-old male, without any cardiovascular risk factor and no cardiac history admitted to hospital with a diagnosis of interstitial pneumonia caused by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). After 7 days, the blood tests showed a significant rise of inflammatory and procoagulant markers, along with a relevant elevation of high-sensitivity Troponin I. Electrocardiogram and transthoracic echocardiogram (TTE) were consistent with a diagnosis of infero-posterolateral acute myocardial infarction and the patient was transferred to the isolated Cath Lab for primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The angiography showed an acute massive thrombosis of a dominant right coronary artery without clear evidence of atherosclerosis. Despite the optimal pharmacological therapies and different PCI techniques, the final TIMI flow was 0/1 and after 3 hr the clinical condition evolved in cardiac arrest for pulseless electric activity. Acute coronary syndrome-ST-elevation myocardial infarction is a relevant complication of COVID-19. Due to high levels of proinflammatory mediators, diffuse coronary thrombosis could occur even in patients without cardiac history or comorbidities. This clinical case suggests that coronary thrombosis in COVID-19 patients may be unresponsive to optimal pharmacological (GP IIb-IIIa infusion) and mechanical treatment (PCI).

Snuffbox approach for balloon aortic valvuloplasty: A case series.

In the era of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), the spectrum of indications for balloon aortic valvuloplasty is growing, especially in old and frail patients. Mini-invasive approaches via radial access reduce vascular complications and length of hospital stay. The snuffbox approach has never been described for Balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV). We performed a review of patients who underwent BAV using distal radial access between January 2019 and December 2019 in a single Italian Centre. All patients received a 30-day follow-up. The procedure was successfully conducted by anatomical snuffbox in all reported cases. All patients were mobilized within 10 h from the procedure without vascular access-related complications. Thirty-day color Doppler ultrasound showed distal radial artery patency in 89% of cases. In our case series, the snuffbox approach for balloon aortic valvuloplasty appeared to be safe and feasible. This approach could be a valid alternative especially in old and frail adults waiting for TAVR.

Contemporary balloon aortic valvuloplasty: Changing indications and refined technique.

Even if un to improve long-term prognosis, balloon aortic valvuloplasty (BAV) may be useful in selected patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis either as a bridge to surgical or transcatheter valve replacement (aortic valve replacement [AVR] or transcatheter aortic valve implantation [TAVI]) or as a triage strategy for patients with uncertain indications. International guidelines recommend BAV as: a "bridge" to AVR/TAVI, a "trial" in patients with undetermined symptoms, or a "bridge-to-decision" in case of comorbidities. However, in clinical practice, BAV is also used as a palliative measure to improve hemodynamics and quality of life in many patients who are excluded from AVR/TAVI. Finally, BAV is often performed during TAVI to facilitate prosthesis delivery, optimize frame expansion, or for bioprosthetic valve fracture in selected valve-in-valve procedures. Technical innovations, which allow for a mini-invasive approach via transradial access and pacing delivered through the wire, have led to a decrease in complications over time. This review focuses on contemporary BAV with a specific emphasis on new indications, innovative techniques, and specific complex patient subgroups.

Comparison of quantitative flow ratio, Pd/Pa and diastolic hyperemia-free ratio versus fractional flow reserve in non-culprit lesion of patients with non ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the correlation between quantitative flow ratio (QFR), Pd/Pa, diastolic hyperemia-free ratio (DFR) and fractional flow reserve (FFR, gold standard) in non-culprit lesion (NCL) of patients with non ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI). BACKGROUND: The non-hyperemic pressure ratio (NHPR) and the angiography-based indexes have been developed to overcome the limitation of the use of the FFR. METHODS: Between January and December 2019, 184 NCL from 116 NSTEMI patients underwent physiologic assessment and were included in the study. NCLs were investigated with QFR, Pd/Pa, DFR, and FFR. Mean values of QFR, Pd/Pa, DFR and FFR were 0.85 ± 0.10, 0.92 ± 0.07, 0.93 ± 0.05 and 0.84 ± 0.07, respectively. RESULTS: DFR and FFR showed a good correlation (r = 0.76). Bland and Altman plot showed a mean difference of 0.080. DFR Diagnostic accuracy was 88%. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) for DFR was 0.946 (95%CI 0.90-0.97, p = .0001). Similar findings were reported for Pd/Pa (r = 0.73; mean difference 0.095, diagnostic accuracy 84%, AUC 0.909 [95%CI 0.85-0.94, p = .0001]) and QFR (r = 0.68; mean difference 0.01; diagnostic accuracy 88%, AUC 0.964 [95% CI 0.91-0.98, p = .0001]). FFR, QFR, Pd/Pa and DFR identified 31%, 32%, 30% and 32% potentially flow-limiting lesions, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In NSTEMI patients, QFR, Pd/Pa and DFR showed equivalence as compared to gold standard FFR in the discrimination of non-culprit lesions requiring revascularization.

Efficacy and safety of intracoronary epinephrine versus conventional treatments alone in STEMI patients with refractory coronary no-reflow during primary PCI: The RESTORE observational study.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to compare intracoronary (IC) epinephrine versus conventional treatments alone in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction and refractory coronary no-reflow during primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI). METHODS: Thirty consecutive patients with severe refractory coronary no-reflow (TIMI 0-1, MBG 0-1) during PPCI were prospectively included after initial failure of conventional treatments. Conventional treatments used in both groups included IC nitrates, thrombectomy. Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors and adenosine. Patients received IC epinephrine or no epinephrine. RESULTS: Intracoronary administration of epinephrine yielded significantly better coronary flow patterns (28.6% TIMI 3, 64.3% TIMI 2, 7.1% TIMI 1, and 0% TIMI 0), compared to those after treatment with conventional agents alone (18.8% TIMI 3, 12.5% TIMI 2, 37.5% TIMI 1, and 31.3% TIMI 0) (p value between groups = .004). In the IC epinephrine vs. no epinephrine group there was a significant reduction of 30-day composite of death or heart failure (35.7% vs. 81.25%), improvement of ejection fraction (p = .01) and ST-segment resolution (p = .01). CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this proof-of-concept study suggest that as compared to use of conventional agents alone, IC epinephrine provides substantial improvement of coronary flow in STEMI patients with refractory no-reflow during PPCI that may result into improved prognosis.

Angio-Based Index of Microcirculatory Resistance for the Assessment of the Coronary Resistance: A Proof of Concept Study.

BACKGROUND: The study of coronary microcirculation has gained increasing consideration and importance in cath lab. Despite the increase of evidence, its use still remains very limited. QFR is a novel angio-based approach for the evaluation of coronary stenosis. The aim of our study was to use the QFR assessment in stable patients to recreate the IMR formula and to correlate the result of the two techniques. METHODS: From June 1, 2019, to February 29, 2019, 200 patients with CCS and indication of coronary artery angiography and referred to the cath lab of the University Hospital of Ferrara (Italy) were enrolled. After baseline coronary angiogram, quantitative flow ratio, fractional flow reserve, and index of microcirculatory resistance evaluation were performed. RESULTS: Pearson correlation (r) between angio-based index of microcirculatory resistance (A-IMR) and IMR 0.32 with R 2 = 0.098, P=0.03: McNemar test showed a difference between the two tests of 6.82% with 95% CI from -12.05% to 22.89%, which is not significant (P=0.60). Bland and Altman plot showed a mean difference of 23.3 (from -26.5 to 73.1). Sensitivity, specificity, NPV, and PPV were 70%, 83.3%, 75%, and 70% for A-IMR value >44.2. The area under the ROC curve for A-IMR was 0.76 (95% CI 0.61-0.88, P=0.0003). CONCLUSION: We have validated for the first time the formula of the A-IMR, a tool for the calculation of microvascular resistance which does not require the use of pressure guides and the induction of hyperemia.

Impact of long-term ticagrelor monotherapy following 1-month dual antiplatelet therapy in patients who underwent complex percutaneous coronary intervention: insights from the Global Leaders trial.

AIMS: To evaluate the impact of an experimental strategy [23-month ticagrelor monotherapy following 1-month dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT)] vs. a reference regimen (12-month aspirin monotherapy following 12-month DAPT) after complex percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS AND RESULTS: In the present post hoc analysis of the Global Leaders trial, the primary endpoint [composite of all-cause death or new Q-wave myocardial infarction (MI)] at 2 years was assessed in patients with complex PCI, which includes at least one of the following characteristics: multivessel PCI, ≥3 stents implanted, ≥3 lesions treated, bifurcation PCI with ≥2 stents, or total stent length >60 mm. In addition, patient-oriented composite endpoint (POCE) (composite of all-cause death, any stroke, any MI, or any revascularization) and net adverse clinical events (NACE) [composite of POCE or Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) Type 3 or 5 bleeding] were explored. Among 15 450 patients included in this analysis, 4570 who underwent complex PCI had a higher risk of ischaemic and bleeding events. In patients with complex PCI, the experimental strategy significantly reduced risks of the primary endpoint [hazard ratio (HR): 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.48-0.85] and POCE (HR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.69-0.93), but not in those with non-complex PCI (Pinteraction = 0.015 and 0.017, respectively). The risk of BARC Type 3 or 5 bleeding was comparable (HR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.67-1.40), resulting in a significant risk reduction in NACE (HR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.69-0.92; Pinteraction = 0.011). CONCLUSION: Ticagrelor monotherapy following 1-month DAPT could provide a net clinical benefit for patients with complex PCI. However, in view of the overall neutral results of the trial, these findings of a post hoc analysis should be considered as hypothesis generating.

Comparison of Verapamil versus Heparin as Adjunctive Treatment for Transradial Coronary Procedures: The VERMUT Study.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to demonstrate that the combination of a local vasodilator (verapamil), modern materials, patent hemostasis, and intravenous anticoagulant only in the case of percutaneous coronary intervention, as compared to default heparin administration after sheath insertion, may optimize a combined endpoint, including radial artery oc-clusion (RAO), radial artery spasm (RAS), and access site complication. METHODS: This is a prospective, single-center, double-blind randomized trial. Overall, 418 patients undergoing a transradial approach (TRA) for coronary procedures were randomized 1: 1 to receive intraradial verapamil (5 mg) or heparin (5,000 IU) after a 6-Fr sheath insertion. The primary outcome was the 24-h occurrence of RAO (ultrasound confirmation), access site complication, and RAS requiring the bailout administration of vasodilators. RESULTS: The combined primary outcome occurred in 127 (30%) patients. It was significantly lower in patients randomized to verapamil as compared to others (26 vs. 35%, p = 0.03). This was mainly due to a significant reduction in RAS (3 vs. 10%, p = 0.006). The 24-h and 30-day occurrence of RAO did not differ between the study groups. CONCLUSION: Local administration of verapamil versus heparin reduces RAS, without increasing RAO, which appears to be strictly related to radial artery diameter and hemostasis time.