Coronary sinus reducer for the treatment of refractory angina (ORBITA-COSMIC): a randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The coronary sinus reducer (CSR) is proposed to reduce angina in patients with stable coronary artery disease by improving myocardial perfusion. We aimed to measure its efficacy, compared with placebo, on myocardial ischaemia reduction and symptom improvement. METHODS: ORBITA-COSMIC was a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial conducted at six UK hospitals. Patients aged 18 years or older with angina, stable coronary artery disease, ischaemia, and no further options for treatment were eligible. All patients completed a quantitative adenosine-stress perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance scan, symptom and quality-of-life questionnaires, and a treadmill exercise test before entering a 2-week symptom assessment phase, in which patients reported their angina symptoms using a smartphone application (ORBITA-app). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either CSR or placebo. Both participants and investigators were masked to study assignment. After the CSR implantation or placebo procedure, patients entered a 6-month blinded follow-up phase in which they reported their daily symptoms in the ORBITA-app. At 6 months, all assessments were repeated. The primary outcome was myocardial blood flow in segments designated ischaemic at enrolment during the adenosine-stress perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance scan. The primary symptom outcome was the number of daily angina episodes. Analysis was done by intention-to-treat and followed Bayesian methodology. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04892537, and completed. FINDINGS: Between May 26, 2021, and June 28, 2023, 61 patients were enrolled, of whom 51 (44 [86%] male; seven [14%] female) were randomly assigned to either the CSR group (n=25) or the placebo group (n=26). Of these, 50 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis (24 in the CSR group and 26 in the placebo group). 454 (57%) of 800 imaged cardiac segments were ischaemic at enrolment, with a median stress myocardial blood flow of 1·08 mL/min per g (IQR 0·77-1·41). Myocardial blood flow in ischaemic segments did not improve with CSR compared with placebo (difference 0·06 mL/min per g [95% CrI -0·09 to 0·20]; Pr(Benefit)=78·8%). The number of daily angina episodes was reduced with CSR compared with placebo (OR 1·40 [95% CrI 1·08 to 1·83]; Pr(Benefit)=99·4%). There were two CSR embolisation events in the CSR group, and no acute coronary syndrome events or deaths in either group. INTERPRETATION: ORBITA-COSMIC found no evidence that the CSR improved transmural myocardial perfusion, but the CSR did improve angina compared with placebo. These findings provide evidence for the use of CSR as a further antianginal option for patients with stable coronary artery disease. FUNDING: Medical Research Council, Imperial College Healthcare Charity, National Institute for Health and Care Research Imperial Biomedical Research Centre, St Mary's Coronary Flow Trust, British Heart Foundation.

Placebo Control and Blinding in Randomized Trials of Procedural Interventions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Regression.

Importance: Unlike medications, procedural interventions are rarely trialed against placebo prior to becoming accepted in clinical practice. When placebo-controlled trials are eventually conducted, procedural interventions may be less effective than previously believed. Objective: To investigate the importance of including a placebo arm in trials of surgical and interventional procedures by comparing effect sizes from trials of the same procedure that do and do not include a placebo arm. Data Sources: Searches of MEDLINE and Embase identified all placebo-controlled trials for procedural interventions in any specialty of medicine and surgery from inception to March 31, 2019. A secondary search identified randomized clinical trials assessing the same intervention, condition, and end point but without a placebo arm for paired comparison. Study Selection: Placebo-controlled trials of anatomically site-specific procedures requiring skin incision or endoscopic techniques were eligible for inclusion; these were then matched to trials without placebo control that fell within prespecified limits of heterogeneity. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Random-effects meta-regression, with placebo and blinding as a fixed effect and intervention and end point grouping as random effects, was used to calculate the impact of placebo control for each end point. Data were analyzed from March 2019 to March 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: End points were examined in prespecified subgroups: patient-reported or health care professional-assessed outcomes, quality of life, pain, blood pressure, exercise-related outcomes, recurrent bleeding, and all-cause mortality. Results: Ninety-seven end points were matched from 72 blinded, placebo-controlled trials (hereafter, blinded) and 55 unblinded trials without placebo control (hereafter, unblinded), including 111 500 individual patient end points. Unblinded trials had larger standardized effect sizes than blinded trials for exercise-related outcomes (standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.59; 95% CI, 0.29 to 0.89; P < .001) and quality-of-life (SMD, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.11 to 0.53; P = .003) and health care professional-assessed end points (SMD, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.18 to 0.61; P < .001). The placebo effect accounted for 88.1%, 55.2%, and 61.3% of the observed unblinded effect size for these end points, respectively. There was no significant difference between unblinded and blinded trials for patient-reported end points (SMD, 0.31; 95% CI, -0.02 to 0.64; P = .07), blood pressure (SMD, 0.26; 95% CI, -0.10 to 0.62; P = .15), all-cause mortality (odds ratio [OR], 0.23; 95% CI, -0.26 to 0.72; P = .36), pain (SMD, 0.03; 95% CI, -0.52 to 0.57; P = .91), or recurrent bleeding events (OR, -0.12; 95% CI, -1.11 to 0.88; P = .88). Conclusions and Relevance: The magnitude of the placebo effect found in this systematic review and meta-regression was dependent on the end point. Placebo control in trials of procedural interventions had the greatest impact on exercise-related, quality-of-life, and health care professional-assessed end points. Randomized clinical trials of procedural interventions may consider placebo control accordingly.

Regional and temporal variations of spontaneous coronary artery dissection care according to consensus recommendations: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIM: The first expert consensus documents on management of patients with spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD) were published in 2018. Worldwide quality of care, as measured by adherence to these recommendations, has not been systematically reviewed. We aim to review the proportion of patients with SCAD receiving consensus recommendations globally, regionally and, determine differences in practice before and after 2018. METHODS AND RESULTS: A systematic review was performed by searching four main databases (Medline, Embase, SCOPUS, CINAHL) from their inception to 16 June 2022. Studies were selected if they included patients with SCAD and reported at least one of the consensus document recommendations. 53 studies, n=8456 patients (mean 50.1 years, 90.6% female) were included. On random effects meta-analysis, 92.1% (95% CI 89.3 to 94.8) received at least one antiplatelet, 78.0% (CI 73.5 to 82.4) received beta-blockers, 58.7% (CI 52.3 to 65.1) received ACE inhibitors or aldosterone receptor blockers (ACEIs/ARBs), 54.4% (CI 45.4 to 63.5) were screened for fibromuscular dysplasia (FMD), and 70.2% (CI 60.8 to 79.5) were referred to cardiac rehabilitation. Except for cardiac rehabilitation referral and use of ACEIs/ARBs, there was significant heterogeneity in all other quality-of-care parameters, across geographical regions. No significant difference was observed in adherence to recommendations in studies published before and after 2018, except for lower cardiac rehabilitation referrals after 2018 (test of heterogeneity, p=0.012). CONCLUSION: There are significant variations globally in the management of patients with SCAD, particularly in FMD screening. Raising awareness about consensus recommendations and further prospective evidence about their effect on outcomes may help improve the quality of care for these patients.

Deferred Versus Performed Revascularization for Left Main Coronary Disease With Hemodynamic Significance.

BACKGROUND: The majority of randomized controlled trials of revascularization decision-making excludes left main coronary artery disease (LMD). Therefore, contemporary clinical outcomes of patients with stable coronary artery disease and LMD with proven ischemia remain poorly understood. The aim of this study was to assess the long-term clinical outcomes of physiologically significant LMD according to the treatment strategies of revascularization versus revascularization deferral. METHODS: In this international multicenter registry of stable LMD interrogated with the instantaneous wave-free ratio, patients with physiologically significant ischemia (instantaneous wave-free ratio ≤0.89) were analyzed according to the coronary revascularization (n=151) versus revascularization deferral (n=74). Propensity score matching was performed to adjust for baseline clinical characteristics. The primary end point was a composite of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization of left main stem. The secondary end points were as follows: cardiac death or spontaneous LMD-related myocardial infarction; and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization of left main stem. RESULTS: At a median follow-up period of 2.8 years, the primary end point occurred in 11 patients (14.9%) in the revascularized group and 21 patients (28.4%) in the deferred group (hazard ratio, 0.42 [95% CI, 0.20-0.89]; P=0.023). For the secondary end points, cardiac death or LMD-related myocardial infarction occurred significantly less frequently in the revascularized group (0.0% versus 8.1%; P=0.004). The rate of ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization of left main stem was also significantly lower in the revascularized group (5.4% versus 17.6%; hazard ratio, 0.20 [95% CI, 0.056-0.70]; P=0.012). CONCLUSIONS: In patients who underwent revascularization for stable coronary artery disease and physiologically significant LMD determined by instantaneous wave-free ratio, the long-term clinical outcomes were significantly improved as compared with those in whom revascularization was deferred.

Physiology-guided PCI versus CABG for left main coronary artery disease: insights from the DEFINE-LM registry.

There have been no studies comparing clinical outcomes of physiology-guided revascularization in patients with unprotected left main coronary disease (ULMD) between percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) vs. coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). The aim of this study was to assess the long-term clinical outcomes between PCI and CABG of patients with physiologically significant ULMD. From an international multicenter registry of ULMD patients interrogated with instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR), we analyzed data from 151 patients (85 PCI vs. 66 CABG) who underwent revascularization according to the cutoff value of iFR ≤ 0.89. Propensity score matching was employed to adjust for baseline clinical characteristics. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization. The secondary endpoints were the individual components of the primary endpoint. Mean age was 66.6 (± 9.2) years, 79.2% male. Mean SYNTAX score was 22.6 (± 8.4) and median iFR was 0.83 (IQR 0.74-0.87). After performing propensity score matching analysis, 48 patients treated with CABG were matched to those who underwent PCI. At a median follow-up period of 2.8 years, the primary endpoint occurred in 8.3% in PCI group and 20.8% in CABG group, respectively (HR 3.80; 95% CI 1.04-13.9; p = 0.043). There was no difference in each component of the primary event (p > 0.05 for all). Within the present study, iFR-guided PCI was associated with lower cardiovascular events rate in patients with ULMD and intermediate SYNTAX score, as compared to CABG. State-of-the-art PCI vs. CABG for ULMD. Study design and primary endpoint in patients with physiologically significant ULMD. MACE was defined as the composite of all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization. The blue line denotes the PCI arm, and the red line denotes the CABG arm. PCI was associated with significantly lower risk of MACE than CABG. CABG: coronary artery bypass grafting; iFR: instantaneous wave-free ratio; MACE: major adverse cardiovascular events; PCI: percutaneous coronary intervention; ULMD: unprotected left main coronary artery disease.

Revascularization in stable coronary artery disease.

Management of stable coronary artery disease (CAD) centers on medication to prevent myocardial infarction and death. Many anti-anginal medications also have benefit for reducing symptoms, and have been proven to be effective against placebo control. Before effective preventive medications were available, patients with stable CAD often underwent revascularization with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), on the plausible assumption that these procedures would prevent adverse events and reduce symptoms. However, recent randomized controlled trials have cast doubt on these assumptions.Considering results from the recent ISCHEMIA trial, we discuss the evidence base that underpins revascularization for stable CAD in contemporary practice. We also focus on patient groups at high risk of myocardial infarction and death, for whom revascularization is often recommended. We outline the areas of uncertainty, unanswered research questions, and key areas of potential miscommunication in doctor-patient consultations.

Comparing invasive hemodynamic responses in adenosine hyperemia versus physical exercise stress in chronic coronary syndromes.

OBJECTIVES: Adenosine hyperemia is an integral component of the physiological assessment of obstructive coronary artery disease in patients with chronic coronary syndrome (CCS). The aim of this study was to compare systemic, coronary and microcirculatory hemodynamics between intravenous (IV) adenosine hyperemia versus physical exercise stress in patients with CCS and coronary stenosis. METHODS: Twenty-three patients (mean age, 60.6 ± 8.1 years) with CCS and single-vessel coronary stenosis underwent cardiac catheterization. Continuous trans-stenotic coronary pressure-flow measurements were performed during: i) IV adenosine hyperemia, and ii) physical exercise using a catheter-table-mounted supine ergometer. Systemic, coronary and microcirculatory hemodynamic responses were compared between IV adenosine and exercise stimuli. RESULTS: Mean stenosis diameter was 74.6% ± 10.4. Median (interquartile range) FFR was 0.54 (0.44-0.72). At adenosine hyperemia versus exercise stress, mean aortic pressure (Pa, 91 ± 16 mmHg vs 99 ± 15 mmHg, p < 0.0001), distal coronary pressure (Pd, 58 ± 21 mmHg vs 69 ± 24 mmHg, p < 0.0001), trans-stenotic pressure ratio (Pd/Pa, 0.63 ± 0.18 vs 0.69 ± 0.19, p < 0.0001), microvascular resistance (MR, 2.9 ± 2.2 mmHg.cm-1.sec-1 vs 4.2 ± 1.7 mmHg.cm-1.sec-1, p = 0.001), heart rate (HR, 80 ± 15 bpm vs 85 ± 21 bpm, p = 0.02) and rate-pressure product (RPP, 7522 ± 2335 vs 9077 ± 3200, p = 0.0001) were all lower. Conversely, coronary flow velocity (APV, 23.7 ± 9.5 cm/s vs 18.5 ± 6.8 cm/s, p = 0.02) was higher. Additionally, temporal changes in Pa, Pd, Pd/Pa, MR, HR, RPP and APV during IV adenosine hyperemia versus exercise were all significantly different (p < 0.05 for all). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with CCS and coronary stenosis, invasive hemodynamic responses differed markedly between IV adenosine hyperemia versus physical exercise stress. These differences were observed across systemic, coronary and microcirculatory hemodynamics.

Safety of Revascularization Deferral of Left Main Stenosis Based on Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio Evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the long-term clinical outcomes of patients with left main coronary artery (LM) stenosis in whom treatment strategy was based on the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR). BACKGROUND: The overall safety of iFR to guide revascularization decision making in patients with stable coronary artery disease has been established. However, no study has examined the safety of deferral of revascularization of LM disease on the basis of iFR. METHODS: This multicenter observational study included 314 patients in whom LM stenosis was deferred (n = 163 [51.9%]) or revascularized (n = 151 [48.1%]) according to the iFR cutoff ≤0.89. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization. The secondary endpoints were each individual component of the primary endpoint and also cardiac death. RESULTS: At a median follow-up period of 30 months, the primary endpoint occurred in 15 patients (9.2%) in the deferred group and 22 patients (14.6%) in the revascularized group (hazard ratio: 1.45; 95% confidence interval: 0.75 to 2.81; p = 0.26), indicating no evidence of a significant difference between the 2 groups. For the secondary endpoints, findings in the iFR-based deferral and revascularization groups were as follows: all-cause death, 3.7% versus 4.6%; cardiac death, 1.2% versus 2.0%; nonfatal myocardial infarction, 2.5% versus 5.3%; and target lesion revascularization, 4.3% versus 5.3% (p > 0.05 for all). CONCLUSIONS: Deferral of revascularization of LM stenosis on the basis of iFR appears to be safe, with similar long-term outcomes to those in patients in whom LM revascularization was performed according to iFR values.

Mortality From Ischemic Heart Disease.

Background Ischemic heart disease (IHD) has been considered the top cause of mortality globally. However, countries differ in their rates and there have been changes over time. Methods and Results We analyzed mortality data submitted to the World Health Organization from 2005 to 2015 by individual countries. We explored patterns in relationships with age, sex, and income and calculated age-standardized mortality rates for each country in addition to crude death rates. In 5 illustrative countries which provided detailed data, we analyzed trends of mortality from IHD and 3 noncommunicable diseases (lung cancer, stroke, and chronic lower respiratory tract diseases) and examined the simultaneous trends in important cardiovascular risk factors. Russia, United States, and Ukraine had the largest absolute numbers of deaths among the countries that provided data. Among 5 illustrative countries (United Kingdom, United States, Brazil, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine), IHD was the top cause of death, but mortality from IHD has progressively decreased from 2005 to 2015. Age-standardized IHD mortality rates per 100 000 people per year were much higher in Ukraine (324) and Kazakhstan (97) than in United States (60), Brazil (54), and the United Kingdom (46), with much less difference in other causes of death. All 5 countries showed a progressive decline in IHD mortality, with a decline in smoking and hypertension and in all cases a rise in obesity and type II diabetes mellitus. Conclusions IHD remains the single largest cause of death in countries of all income groups. Rates are different between countries and are falling in most countries, indicating great potential for further gains. On the horizon, future improvements may become curtailed by increasing hypertension in some developing countries and more importantly global growth in obesity.

Use of the Instantaneous Wave-free Ratio or Fractional Flow Reserve in PCI.

BACKGROUND: Coronary revascularization guided by fractional flow reserve (FFR) is associated with better patient outcomes after the procedure than revascularization guided by angiography alone. It is unknown whether the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR), an alternative measure that does not require the administration of adenosine, will offer benefits similar to those of FFR. METHODS: We randomly assigned 2492 patients with coronary artery disease, in a 1:1 ratio, to undergo either iFR-guided or FFR-guided coronary revascularization. The primary end point was the 1-year risk of major adverse cardiac events, which were a composite of death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization. The trial was designed to show the noninferiority of iFR to FFR, with a margin of 3.4 percentage points for the difference in risk. RESULTS: At 1 year, the primary end point had occurred in 78 of 1148 patients (6.8%) in the iFR group and in 83 of 1182 patients (7.0%) in the FFR group (difference in risk, -0.2 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.3 to 1.8; P<0.001 for noninferiority; hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.33; P=0.78). The risk of each component of the primary end point and of death from cardiovascular or noncardiovascular causes did not differ significantly between the groups. The number of patients who had adverse procedural symptoms and clinical signs was significantly lower in the iFR group than in the FFR group (39 patients [3.1%] vs. 385 patients [30.8%], P<0.001), and the median procedural time was significantly shorter (40.5 minutes vs. 45.0 minutes, P=0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Coronary revascularization guided by iFR was noninferior to revascularization guided by FFR with respect to the risk of major adverse cardiac events at 1 year. The rate of adverse procedural signs and symptoms was lower and the procedural time was shorter with iFR than with FFR. (Funded by Philips Volcano; DEFINE-FLAIR ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02053038 .).

Influence of gender on clinical outcomes following transcatheter aortic valve implantation from the UK transcatheter aortic valve implantation registry and the National Institute for Cardiovascular Outcomes Research.

Gender differences exist in outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass graft surgery but have yet to be fully explored after transcatheter aortic valve implantation. We aimed to investigate gender differences after transcatheter aortic valve implantation in the UK National Institute for Cardiovascular Outcomes Research registry. A retrospective analysis was performed of Medtronic CoreValve and Edwards SAPIEN implantation in 1,627 patients (756 women) from January 2007 to December 2010. Men had more risk factors: poor left ventricular systolic function (11.9% vs 5.5%, p <0.001), 3-vessel disease (19.4% vs 9.2%, p <0.001), previous myocardial infarction (29.5% vs 13.0%, p <0.001), peripheral vascular disease (32.4% vs 23.3%, p <0.001), and higher logistic EuroSCORE (21.8 ± 14.2% vs 21.0 ± 13.4%, p = 0.046). Thirty-day mortality was 6.3% (confidence interval 4.3% to 7.9%) in women and 7.4% (5.6% to 9.2%) in men and at 1 year, 21.9% (18.7% to 25.1%) and 22.4% (19.4% to 25.4%), respectively. There was no mortality difference: p = 0.331 by log-rank test; hazard ratio for women 0.91 (0.75 to 1.10). Procedural success (96.6% in women vs 96.4% in men, p = 0.889) and 30-day cerebrovascular event rates (3.8% vs 3.7%, p = 0.962) did not differ. Women had more major vascular complications (7.5% vs 4.2%, p = 0.004) and less moderate or severe postprocedural aortic regurgitation (7.5% vs 12.5%, p = 0.001). In conclusion, despite a higher risk profile in men, there was no gender-related mortality difference; however, women had more major vascular complications and less postprocedural moderate or severe aortic regurgitation.

Fractional flow reserve in acute coronary syndromes: A review.

Fractional flow reserve (FFR) assessment provides anatomical and physiological information that is often used to tailor treatment strategies in coronary artery disease. Whilst robust data validates FFR use in stable ischaemic heart disease, its use in acute coronary syndromes (ACS) is less well investigated. We critically review the current data surrounding FFR use across the spectrum of ACS including culprit and non-culprit artery analysis. With adenosine being conventionally used to induce maximal hyperaemia during FFR assessment, co-existent clinical conditions may preclude its use during acute myocardial infarction. Therefore, we include a current review of instantaneous wave free ratio as a novel vasodilator independent method of assessing lesion severity as an alternative strategy to guide revascularisation in ACS.

Incidence, predictors, management, immediate and long-term outcomes following grade III coronary perforation.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the incidence, predictors, management, and clinical outcomes in patients with grade III coronary perforation during percutaneous coronary intervention. BACKGROUND: Grade III coronary perforation is a rare but recognized complication associated with high morbidity and mortality. METHODS: From 24,465 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention from May 1993 to December 2009, 56 patients had grade III coronary perforation. RESULTS: Most lesions were complex: 44.6% type B2, 51.8% type C, and 28.6% chronic total occlusions, and within a small vessel (≤ 2.5 mm) in 32.1%. Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors were administered in 17.9% of patients. The device causing perforation was intracoronary balloon in 50%: 53.6% compliant, 46.4% noncompliant; intracoronary guidewire in 17.9%; rotablation in 3.6%; and directional atherectomy in 3.6%. Following perforation, immediate treatment and success rates, respectively, were prolonged balloon inflation 58.9%, 54.5%; covered stent implantation 46.4%, 84.6%; coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) and surgical repair 16.0%, 44.4%; and coil embolization 1.8%, 100%. Multiple methods were required in 39.3%. During the procedure (n = 56), 19.6% required cardiopulmonary resuscitation and 3.6% died. In-hospital (n = 54), 3.7% required CABG, 14.8% died. The combined procedural and in-hospital myocardial infarction rate was 42.9%, and major adverse cardiac event rate was 55.4%. At clinical follow-up (n = 46) (median: 38.1 months, range 7.6 to 122.8), 4.3% had a myocardial infarction, 4.3% required CABG, and 15.2% died. The target lesion revascularization rate was 13%, with target vessel revascularization in 19.6%, and major adverse cardiac events in 41.3%. CONCLUSIONS: Grade III coronary perforation is associated with complex lesions and high acute and long-term major adverse cardiac event rates.

Clinical and angiographic outcomes after percutaneous recanalization of chronic total saphenous vein graft occlusion using modern techniques.

Poor long-term outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in chronic total occlusion (CTO) of saphenous vein grafts (SVGs) have been reported. However, limited data are available evaluating the use of modern techniques in this group. The aim of the present study was to assess the efficacy and long-term outcomes of PCI in SVG CTO with the routine use of embolic protection devices and drug-eluting stents. A retrospective cohort analysis was conducted of all consecutive patients undergoing PCI to SVG CTO from May 2002 to July 2009 at 2 centers. The indication for PCI was the presence of angina or silent ischemia with evidence of inducible ischemia after functional testing in the territory supplied by the SVG, despite optimal medical therapy. We identified 34 patients with SVG CTO. Of the 34 patients, 23 (68%) underwent successful SVG recanalization with stent implantation. An embolic protection device was used in 78% and 95% of stents implanted were drug-eluting stents. No in-hospital major adverse cardiac events occurred in the successful PCI group; one myocardial infarction occurred in the unsuccessful group. At follow-up (median 18.0 months, interquartile range 10.4 to 48.3), 1 case of myocardial infarction had occurred in the successful group. The in-stent restenosis rate was 68% (n = 13), of which 77% were focal, with target vessel revascularization in 61%. In conclusion, despite the relatively low procedural success rates, the clinical outcomes after successful PCI to SVG CTO with modern techniques were favorable. The repeat revascularization rates were high; however, graft patency was achievable in most after reintervention.

Cryoablation compared with radiofrequency ablation for atrioventricular nodal re-entrant tachycardia: analysis of factors contributing to acute and follow-up outcome.

AIMS: The efficacy of transvenous Cryoablation (Cryo), for the treatment of atrioventricular nodal re-entry tachycardia (AVNRT), when compared with radiofrequency (RF) ablation, requires further investigation. METHODS AND RESULTS: We sought to compare the acute- and follow-up results of 71 cases each of Cryo and RF for AVNRT using a retrospective matched case-control study design and aimed at identifying patient and procedural factors that may predict success with each strategy. Primary failure of Cryo (thus necessitating RF at the same sitting) was seen in 11 (15.4%) cases, whereas there were two (2.8%) primary failures with RF (P<0.01). Patients in the Cryo group had significantly higher arrhythmia recurrence [14 (19.8%)] when compared with the RF group [4 (5.6%)] (P<0.01). The incidence of recurrence following Cryo was significantly higher if an echo beat was still inducible after ablation than if complete slow pathway block was achieved (7/19, vs. 4/46, P<0.001). The median number of Cryo lesions was significantly lower in patients who had recurrence compared with those who did not (1.5 vs. 3.0, P=0.02). CONCLUSION: We have observed a much higher primary failure and recurrence rate with Cryo when compared with RF for AVNRT. It may be possible to decrease this high recurrence rate by aiming to achieve complete slow pathway block and by increasing the number of Cryo lesions.