Hot topics in interventional cardiology: Proceedings from the society for cardiovascular angiography and interventions (SCAI) 2021 think tank.

The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) Think Tank is a collaborative venture that brings together interventional cardiologists, administrative partners, and select members of the cardiovascular industry community annually for high-level field-wide discussions. The 2021 Think Tank was organized into four parallel sessions reflective of the field of interventional cardiology: (a) coronary intervention, (b) endovascular medicine, (c) structural heart disease, and (d) congenital heart disease. Each session was moderated by a senior content expert and co-moderated by a member of SCAI's Emerging Leader Mentorship program. This document presents the proceedings to the wider cardiovascular community in order to enhance participation in this discussion, create additional dialog from a broader base, and thereby aid SCAI, the industry community and external stakeholders in developing specific action items to move these areas forward.

Clinical outcomes in real-world patients with bifurcation lesions receiving Xience V everolimus-eluting stents: Four-year results from the Xience V USA study.

BACKGROUND: The Xience V USA Study demonstrated safety and efficacy of the XIENCE V(®) everolimus-eluting stent (EES) in a large, prospective study of a real-world, unselected patient population. There is limited long-term data regarding EES performance in high risk patients with bifurcation lesions (BIF). The objective of this analysis was to evaluate the long-term safety and effectiveness of EES in patients with BIF from the XIENCE V USA study. METHODS: The Xience V USA Study was a single arm, prospective, multicenter, real-world study (n = 5,054) undergoing PCI with EES. Baseline data and clinical outcomes at 4 years were evaluated in the subgroup of patients with ≥ 1 BIF who did not undergo a staged procedure. Co-primary endpoints were ARC definite/probable stent thrombosis and a composite of cardiac death and ARC-defined myocardial infarction (MI). Endpoints were adjudicated by an independent CEC. RESULTS: Of 4,768 patients who did not undergo a staged procedure, there were 511 (10.7%) patients with BIF and 4,257 (89.3%) patients without BIF. Follow-up data was available in 4,459 patients (466 BIF, 3,993 non-BIF). Through binary outcome analysis, at 1 year the overall definite/probable stent thrombosis rates were higher in the BIF group (1.84% vs. 0.76%, P = 0.03). However, at 4 years, the difference in cumulative rates of ARC definite/probable stent thrombosis (BIF 2.3% vs. non-BIF 1.4%, P = 0.13) remained the same as that at 1 year, with no incremental definite/probable stent thrombosis in BIF patients from 2-4 years. The 4-year rates of composite cardiac death and MI were 13.5% for BIF vs. 14.1% for non-BIF (P = 0.78). At 4 years, target lesion failure (19.1% vs. 18.3%, P = 0.66) and ischemia driven-target lesion revascularization (10.2% vs. 10.1%, P = 0.89) were comparable between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: This subgroup analysis of BIF lesions in a real world population receiving EES demonstrates continued low rates of clinical outcomes in the BIF subgroup at 4 years with no incremental stent thrombosis increase in BIF patients from 2 to 4 years. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

An evidence-based review of the impact of periprocedural myocardial infarction in carotid revascularization.

Landmark trials comparing carotid endarterectomy (CEA) with medical therapy in patients with symptomatic or asymptomatic atherosclerotic stenosis of extracranial carotid arteries have favored carotid revascularization. Carotid artery stenting (CAS) has emerged as a minimally invasive option for revascularization of carotid artery stenoses and has been shown to be noninferior to CEA, regardless of patient symptom status. Debate continues regarding the importance of periprocedural myocardial infarction (PMI) as an endpoint in carotid revascularization trials. Recent randomized comparisons of CEA and CAS pre-specify PMI as an endpoint. Understanding PMI in CEA and CAS, the need for routine biomarker assessment surrounding both revascularization strategies, the effect of PMI on long-term morbidity and mortality, and the groups most at risk for PMI are of critical importance when choosing a carotid revascularization strategy for symptomatic and asymptomatic patients, since decreasing the incidence of PMI will make revascularization safer. This review examines available data regarding the relevance of PMI in vascular and carotid-specific outcomes.