Effects of ticagrelor and prasugrel on coronary microcirculation in elective percutaneous coronary intervention.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of ticagrelor and prasugrel on absolute coronary blood flow (Q) and microvascular resistance (R) in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) treated with elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (NCT05643586). Besides being at least as effective as prasugrel in inhibiting platelet aggregation, ticagrelor has been shown to have additional properties potentially affecting coronary microcirculation. METHODS: We randomly assigned 50 patients to ticagrelor (180 mg) or prasugrel (60 mg) at least 12 hours before intervention. Continuous thermodilution was used to measure Q and R before and after PCI. Platelet reactivity was measured before PCI. Troponin I was measured before, 8 and 24 hours after PCI. RESULTS: At baseline, fractional flow reserve, Q and R were similar in two study groups. Patients in the ticagrelor group showed higher post-PCI Q (242±49 vs 205±53 mL/min, p=0.015) and lower R values (311 (263, 366) vs 362 (319, 382) mm Hg/L/min, p=0.032). Platelet reactivity showed a negative correlation with periprocedural variation of Q values (r=-0.582, p<0.001) and a positive correlation with periprocedural variation of R values (r=0.645, p<0.001). The periprocedural increase in high-sensitivity troponin I was significantly lower in the ticagrelor compared with the prasugrel group (5 (4, 9) ng/mL vs 14 (10, 24) ng/mL, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with stable CAD undergoing PCI, pretreatment with a loading dose of ticagrelor compared with prasugrel improves post-procedural coronary flow and microvascular function and seems to reduce the related myocardial injury.

Simplified Assessment of the Index of Microvascular Resistance.

BACKGROUND: To validate a simplified invasive method for the calculation of the index of microvascular resistance (IMR). METHODS: This is a prospective, single-center study of patients with chronic coronary syndromes presenting with nonobstructive coronary artery disease. IMR was obtained using both intravenous (IV) adenosine and intracoronary (IC) papaverine. Each IMR measurement was obtained in duplicate. The primary objective was the agreement between IMR acquired using adenosine and papaverine. Secondary objectives include reproducibility of IMR and time required for the IMR measurement. RESULTS: One hundred and sixteen IMR measurements were performed in 29 patients. The mean age was 68.8 ± 7.24 years, and 27.6% was diabetics. IMR values were similar between papaverine and adenosine (17.7 ± 7.26 and 20.1 ± 8.6, p=0.25; Passing-Bablok coefficient A 0.58, 95% CI -2.42 to 3.53; coefficient B 0.90, 95% CI -0.74 to 1.07). The reproducibility of IMR was excellent with both adenosine and papaverine (ICC 0.78, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.88 and ICC 0.93, 95% CI 0.87 to 0.97). The time needed for microvascular assessment was significantly shortened by the use of IC papaverine (3.23 (2.84, 3.78) mins vs. 5.48 (4.94, 7.09) mins, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: IMR can be reliably measured using IC papaverine with similar results compared to intravenous infusion of adenosine with increased reproducibility and reduced procedural time. This approach simplifies the invasive assessment of the coronary microcirculation in the catheterization laboratory.

Procedural microvascular activation in long lesions treated with bioresorbable vascular scaffolds or everolimus-eluting stents: the PROACTIVE trial.

AIMS: Significant platelet activation after long stented coronary segments has been associated with periprocedural microvascular impairment and myonecrosis. In long lesions treated either with an everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) or an everolimus-eluting stent (EES), we aimed to investigate (a) procedure-related microvascular impairment, and (b) the relationship of platelet activation with microvascular function and related myonecrosis. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients (n=66) undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in long lesions were randomised 1:1 to either BVS or EES. The primary endpoint was the difference between groups in changes of pressure-derived corrected index of microvascular resistance (cIMR) after PCI. Periprocedural myonecrosis was assessed by high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T (hs-cTnT), platelet reactivity by high-sensitivity adenosine diphosphate (hs-ADP)-induced platelet reactivity with the Multiplate Analyzer. Post-dilatation was more frequent in the BVS group, with consequent longer procedure time. A significant difference was observed between the two groups in the primary endpoint of ΔcIMR (p=0.04). hs-ADP was not different between the groups at different time points. hs-cTnT significantly increased after PCI, without difference between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: In long lesions, BVS implantation is associated with significant acute reduction in IMR as compared with EES, with no significant interaction with platelet reactivity or periprocedural myonecrosis.

Cardiopoietic cell therapy for advanced ischaemic heart failure: results at 39 weeks of the prospective, randomized, double blind, sham-controlled CHART-1 clinical trial.

AIMS: Cardiopoietic cells, produced through cardiogenic conditioning of patients' mesenchymal stem cells, have shown preliminary efficacy. The Congestive Heart Failure Cardiopoietic Regenerative Therapy (CHART-1) trial aimed to validate cardiopoiesis-based biotherapy in a larger heart failure cohort. METHODS AND RESULTS: This multinational, randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled study was conducted in 39 hospitals. Patients with symptomatic ischaemic heart failure on guideline-directed therapy (n = 484) were screened; n = 348 underwent bone marrow harvest and mesenchymal stem cell expansion. Those achieving > 24 million mesenchymal stem cells (n = 315) were randomized to cardiopoietic cells delivered endomyocardially with a retention-enhanced catheter (n = 157) or sham procedure (n = 158). Procedures were performed as randomized in 271 patients (n = 120 cardiopoietic cells, n = 151 sham). The primary efficacy endpoint was a Finkelstein-Schoenfeld hierarchical composite (all-cause mortality, worsening heart failure, Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire score, 6-min walk distance, left ventricular end-systolic volume, and ejection fraction) at 39 weeks. The primary outcome was neutral (Mann-Whitney estimator 0.54, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.47-0.61 [value > 0.5 favours cell treatment], P = 0.27). Exploratory analyses suggested a benefit of cell treatment on the primary composite in patients with baseline left ventricular end-diastolic volume 200-370 mL (60% of patients) (Mann-Whitney estimator 0.61, 95% CI 0.52-0.70, P = 0.015). No difference was observed in serious adverse events. One (0.9%) cardiopoietic cell patient and 9 (5.4%) sham patients experienced aborted or sudden cardiac death. CONCLUSION: The primary endpoint was neutral, with safety demonstrated across the cohort. Further evaluation of cardiopoietic cell therapy in patients with elevated end-diastolic volume is warranted.

Effective radiation dose, time, and contrast medium to measure fractional flow reserve.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to define the additional effective radiation dose, procedural time, and contrast medium needed to obtain fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurements after a diagnostic coronary angiogram. BACKGROUND: The FFR measurements performed at the end of a diagnostic angiogram allow the obtaining of functional information that complements the anatomic findings. METHODS: In 200 patients (mean age 66 +/- 10 years) undergoing diagnostic coronary angiography, FFR was measured in at least 1 intermediate coronary artery stenosis. Hyperemia was achieved by intracoronary (n = 180) or intravenous (n = 20) adenosine. The radiation dose (mSv), procedural time (min), and contrast medium (ml) needed for diagnostic angiography and FFR were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 296 stenoses (1.5 +/- 0.7 stenoses per patient) were assessed. The additional mean radiation dose, procedural time, and contrast medium needed to obtain FFR expressed as a percentage of the entire procedure were 30 +/- 16% (median 4 mSv, range 2.4 to 6.7 mSv), 26 +/- 13% (median 9 min, range 7 to 13 min), and 31 +/- 16% (median 50 ml, range 30 to 90 ml), respectively. The radiation dose and contrast medium during FFR were similar after intravenous and intracoronary adenosine, though the procedural time was slightly longer with intravenous adenosine (median 11 min, range 10 to 17 min, p = 0.04) than with intracoronary adenosine (median 9 min, range 7 to 13 min). When FFR was measured in 3 or more lesions, radiation dose, procedural time, and contrast medium increased. CONCLUSIONS: The additional radiation dose, procedural time, and contrast medium to obtain FFR measurement are low as compared to other cardiovascular imaging modalities. Therefore, the combination of diagnostic angiography and FFR measurements is warranted to provide simultaneously anatomic and functional information in patients with coronary artery disease.