Impact of coronary calcification assessed by coronary CT angiography on treatment decision in patients with three-vessel CAD: insights from SYNTAX III trial.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine Syntax scores based on coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) and invasive coronary angiography (ICA) and to assess whether heavy coronary calcification significantly limits the CCTA evaluation and the impact of severe calcification on heart team's treatment decision and procedural planning in patients with three-vessel coronary artery disease (CAD) with or without left main disease. METHODS: SYNTAX III was a multicentre, international study that included patients with three-vessel CAD with or without left main disease. The heart teams were randomized to either assess coronary arteries with coronary CCTA or ICA. We stratified the patients based on the presence of at least 1 lesion with heavy calcification defined as arc of calcium >180° within the lesion using CCTA. Agreement on the anatomical SYNTAX score and treatment decision was compared between patients with and without heavy calcifications. RESULTS: Overall, 222 patients with available CCTA and ICA were included in this trial subanalysis (104 with heavy calcification, 118 without heavy calcification). The mean difference in the anatomical SYNTAX score (CCTA derived-ICA derived) was lower in patients without heavy calcifications [mean (-1.96 SD; +1.96 SD) = 1.5 (-19.3; 22.4) vs 5.9 (-17.5; +29.3), P = 0.004]. The agreement on treatment decision did not differ between patients with (Cohen's kappa 0.79) or without coronary calcifications (Cohen's kappa 0.84). The agreement on the treatment planning did not differ between patients with (concordance 80.3%) or without coronary calcifications (concordance 82.8%). CONCLUSIONS: An overall good correlation between CCTA- and ICA-derived Syntax score was found. The presence of heavy coronary calcification moderately influenced the agreement between CCTA and ICA on the anatomical SYNTAX score. However, agreement on the treatment decision and planning was high and irrespective of the presence of calcified lesions.

CT Perfusion Versus Coronary CT Angiography in Patients With Suspected In-Stent Restenosis or CAD Progression.

OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to assess the diagnostic performance of coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA) alone, adenosine-stress myocardial perfusion assessed by computed tomography (CTP) alone, and coronary CTA + CTP by using a 16-cm Z-axis coverage scanner versus invasive coronary angiography (ICA) and fractional flow reserve (FFR) as the clinical standard. BACKGROUND: Diagnostic performance of coronary CTA for in-stent restenosis detection is still challenging. Recently, CTP showed additional diagnostic power over coronary CTA in patients with suspected coronary artery disease. However, few data are available on CTP performance in patients with previous stent implantation. METHODS: Consecutive stable patients with previous coronary stenting referred for ICA were enrolled. All patients underwent stress myocardial CTP and rest CTP + coronary CTA. Invasive FFR was performed during ICA when clinically indicated. The diagnostic rate and diagnostic accuracy of coronary CTA, CTP, and coronary CTA + CTP were evaluated in stent-, territory-, and patient-based analyses. RESULTS: In the 150 enrolled patients (132 men; mean age 65.1 ± 9.1 years), the CTP diagnostic rate was significantly higher than that of coronary CTA in all analyses (territory based [96.7% vs. 91.1%; p < 0.0001] and patient based [96% vs. 68%; p < 0.0001]). When ICA was used as gold standard, CTP diagnostic accuracy was significantly higher than that of coronary CTA in all analyses (territory based [92.1% vs. 85.5%, p < 0.03] and patient based [86.7% vs. 76.7%, p < 0.03]). The concordant coronary CTA + CTP assessment exhibited the highest diagnostic accuracy values versus ICA (95.8% in the territory-based analysis). The diagnostic accuracy of CTP was significantly higher than that of coronary CTA (75% vs. 30.5%; p < 0.001). The radiation exposure of coronary CTA + CTP was 4.15 ± 1.5 mSv. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with coronary stents, CTP significantly improved the diagnostic rate and accuracy of coronary CTA alone compared with both ICA and invasive FFR as gold standard.

A Long-Term Single-Center Registry of 6893 Patients Undergoing Elective Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With the Xience Everolimus-Eluting Stent.

BACKGROUND: The safety and effectiveness of the everolimus-eluting stent (EES) have been previously demonstrated. AIMS: To assess very long-term performance and outcomes of the EES in a real-world population. METHODS: This single-center registry prospectively enrolled 6893 patients (mean age, 66 ± 9.7 years; 81.4% men) undergoing elective coronary intervention with the EES over a decade. Clinical follow-up (FU) was performed at 1 year and then yearly thereafter. RESULTS: Multiple risk factors were present in 34%. Stable angina was the main stenting indication (78.1%), followed by unstable angina (5.3%) and positive stress test (16.6%) for 1-vessel (44%) or 2/3-vessel disease (56%). Multiple stents (stent/patient ratio: 2.1 ± 0.8) in >1 vessel were implanted in 36.9% (mean stent length, 43 ± 31.3 mm). At 1 year, 80% of patients were on dual-antiplatelet therapy, while only 3% were on therapy at 2 years. A low 1-year major adverse cardiac event (MACE) rate of 5.0% was observed; stent thrombosis (ST) occurred in 19 patients (0.3%), with a prevalence of early (n = 9) over late (n = 4) and very late events (n = 6; 0.08%). Clinically driven target- lesion revascularization/target-vessel revascularization (TLR/TVR) occurred in 3.3% at 1-year follow-up. Long-term FU (3 years) completed in 6210 patients (90.0%) showed a MACE rate of 5.9%, while very long-term FU (>5 years and up to 10 years), available in 3550 out of 4635 exposed patients (76.6%), showed a MACE rate of 8.6%. Independent MACE predictors were stented segment length (odds ratio [OR], 2.1; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.57-2.82), small vessel stenting (OR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.08-1.68), and multivessel disease (2-vessel disease: OR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.21-2.08; 3-vessel disease: OR, 2.26; 95% CI, 1.72-2.97). CONCLUSIONS: This large, prospective registry confirms the very long-term safety and efficacy of the EES in unselected real-world and complex coronary lesions.

Stress Computed Tomography Perfusion Versus Fractional Flow Reserve CT Derived in Suspected Coronary Artery Disease: The PERFECTION Study.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare the diagnostic accuracy of coronary computed tomography angiography (cCTA) with that of cCTA+fractional flow reserve derived from cCTA datasets (FFRCT) and that of cCTA+static stress-computed tomography perfusion (stress-CTP) in detecting functionally significant coronary artery lesions using invasive coronary angiography (ICA) plus invasive FFR as the reference standard. BACKGROUND: FFRCT and static stress-CTP are new techniques that combine anatomy and functional evaluation to improve assessment of coronary artery disease (CAD) using cCTA. METHODS: A total of 147 consecutive symptomatic patients scheduled for clinically indicated ICA+invasive FFR were evaluated with cCTA, FFRCT, and stress-CTP. RESULTS: Vessel-based and patient-based sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive values, and positive predictive values, and accuracy rates of cCTA were 99%, 76%, 100%, 61%, 82%, and 95%, 54%, 94%, 63%, 73%, respectively. cCTA+FFRCT showed vessel-based and patient-based sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive values, and positive predictive values and accuracy rates of 88%, 94%, 95%, 84%, 92%, and 90%, 85%, 92%, 83%, 87%, respectively. Finally, cCTA+stress-CTP showed vessel-based and patient-based sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive values, and positive predictive values and accuracy rates of 92%, 95%, 97%, 87%, 94% and 98%, 87%, 99%, 86%, 92%, respectively. Both FFRCT and stress-CTP significantly improved specificity and positive predictive values compared to those of cCTA alone. The area under the curve to detect flow-limiting stenoses of cCTA, cCTA+FFRCT, and cCTA+CTP were 0.89, 0.93, 0.92, and 0.90, 0.94, and 0.93 in a vessel-based and patient-based model, respectively, with significant additional values for both cCTA+FFRCT and cCTA+CTP versus cCTA alone (p < 0.001) but no differences between cCTA+FFRCT versus cCTA+CTP. CONCLUSIONS: FFRCT and stress-CTP in addition to cCTA are valid and comparable tools to evaluate the functional relevance of CAD.

Carotid Artery Stenting With Proximal Embolic Protection via a Transradial or Transbrachial Approach: Pushing the Boundaries of the Technique While Maintaining Safety and Efficacy.

PURPOSE: To compare the feasibility and safety of proximal cerebral protection to a distal filter during carotid artery stenting (CAS) via a transbrachial (TB) or transradial (TR) approach. METHODS: Among 856 patients who underwent CAS between January 2007 and July 2015, 214 (25%) patients (mean age 72±8 years; 154 men) had the procedure via a TR (n=154) or TB (n=60) approach with either Mo.MA proximal protection (n=61) or distal filter protection (n=153). The Mo.MA group (mean age 73±7 years; 54 men) had significantly more men and more severe stenosis than the filter group (mean age 71±8 years; 100 men). Stent type and CAS technique were left to operator discretion. Heparin and a dedicated closure device or bivalirudin and manual compression were used in TR and TB accesses, respectively. Technical and procedure success, crossover to femoral artery, 30-day major adverse cardiovascular/cerebrovascular events (MACCE; death, all strokes, and myocardial infarction), vascular complications, and radiation exposure were compared between groups. RESULTS: Crossover to a femoral approach was required in 1/61 (1.6%) Mo.MA patient vs 11/153 (7.1%) filter patients mainly due to technical difficulty in engaging the target vessel. Five Mo.MA patients developed acute intolerance to proximal occlusion; 4 were successfully shifted to filter protection. A TR patient was shifted to filter because the Mo.MA system was too short. CAS was technically successful in the remaining 55 (90%) Mo.MA patients and 142 (93%) filter patients. The MACCE rate was 0% in the Mo.MA patients and 2.8% in the filter group (p=0.18). Radiation exposure was similar between groups. Major vascular complications occurred in 1/61 (1.6%) and in 3/153 (1.96%) patients in the Mo.MA and filter groups (p=0.18), respectively, and were confined to the TB approach in the early part of the learning curve. Chronic radial artery occlusion was detected by Doppler ultrasound in 2/30 (6.6%) Mo.MA patients and in 4/124 (3.2%) filter patients by clinical assessment (p=0.25) at 8.1±7.5-month follow-up. CONCLUSION: CAS with proximal protection via a TR or TB approach is a feasible, safe, and effective technique with a low rate of vascular complications.

Stent thrombosis after sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stent implantation in daily clinical practice: analysis of a single center registry.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate stent thrombosis (ST) rate after sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES) implantation in daily clinical practice. BACKGROUND: The safety profile of drug-eluting stents (DES) was predominantly determined in randomized clinical trials with narrow inclusion criteria. Concerns about ST have been raised in unselected patients treated with DES. METHODS: We prospectively evaluated 867 patients undergoing DES implantation, 618 patients with SES, and 249 with PES, in a single academic center. RESULTS: Multivessel disease was present in 72% of patients, multivessel stenting was performed in 17%, long (>18 mm) lesions were treated in 30%, and multiple stents per lesion were needed in 31%. On average, 1.7 +/- 0.8 stents per patient were implanted (stented segment length: 32 +/- 25 mm/vessel). IIb/IIIa inhibitors were used in 7.5%. Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guidance was employed in 65% of SES and 50% of PES implantations, and the procedural success rate was 100% in SES and 99% in PES cases. Six-month follow-up was performed in all patients, whereas one-year follow-up was completed in 87% patients of the SES group and in 95% of the PES group. We considered that ST occurred when angiographic evidence of thrombus was available, or when patients experienced sudden cardiac death or either ST-elevation or non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (MI) through the 12-month follow-up period. The overall incidence of ST was 0.9% (0.4% in SES and 2% in PES, P = 0.03). Of the eight ST, two (25%) were acute, four (50%) subacute, one (12.5%) was a late event, and one (12.5%) a very late event. Seven ST were confirmed by angiography. No IVUS guidance was used in 4/8 (50%) ST patients, while antiplatelet therapy was prematurely discontinued in 3/8 (37.5%). Among ST patients, mortality and nonfatal MI rates were 25% and 37.5%, respectively. No ST was diagnosed between 6 and 12 months, while one very late thrombosis occurred at 15 months. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of ST after DES use in daily clinical practice is low and similar to that observed in randomized clinical trials.

Association between erectile dysfunction and coronary artery disease: Matching the right target with the right test in the right patient.

INTRODUCTION: Evidence is accumulating in favour of a link between erectile dysfunction (ED) and coronary artery disease (CAD). This review attempts to identify which patients, among those with ED and no cardiovascular (CV) disease, should be screened for early, subclinical CAD, which coronary targets should be investigated, and which tests should be used. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A comprehensive evaluation of available published data included analysis of published full-length papers that were identified with Medline and Cancerlit from January 1988 to January 2006. RESULTS: Initial screening of patients with ED may adopt risk assessment office-based approaches to score patients into low, intermediate, or high risk of future cardiovascular events. Attention should be drawn to patients at intermediate risk. Targets for the assessment of subclinical CAD in this subset of patients should include both obstructive (flow-limiting) and nonobstructive (non-flow-limiting) CAD. Some tests address obstructive atherosclerosis by directly assessing coronary flow reserve (i.e., standard exercise stress test, rest/stress myocardial scintigraphy or echocardiography). Other tests are general measures of atherosclerosis burden (not necessarily obstructive) either in the coronary circulation (i.e., coronary calcium score by electron-beam computed tomography), or in extracoronary vessels (i.e., ankle brachial index, carotid intima-media thickness by B-mode ultrasound) as surrogate markers of CAD. Although a systematic use of these measures of nonobstructive atherosclerosis burden has not yet been recommended in the guidelines for coronary risk assessment, their use is progressively being extended from the research area to clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: ED is definitely a vascular disorder and all men with ED should be considered at risk of CV disease until proven otherwise. Available risk assessment charts should be used to stratify (low, intermediate, and high) the coronary risk score in each patient with ED.