Changes in the Treatment Strategy Following Intracoronary Pressure Wire in a Contemporaneous Real-Life Cohort of Patients With Intermediate Coronary Stenosis. Results From a Nationwide Registry.

BACKGROUND: Intracoronary pressure wire is useful to guide revascularization in patients with coronary artery disease. AIMS: To evaluate changes in diagnosis (coronary artery disease extent), treatment strategy and clinical results after intracoronary pressure wire study in real-life patients with intermediate coronary artery stenosis. METHODS: Observational, prospective and multicenter registry of patients in whom pressure wire was performed. The extent of coronary artery disease and the treatment strategy based on clinical and angiographic criteria were recorded before and after intracoronary pressure wire guidance. 12-month incidence of MACE (cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction or new revascularization of the target lesion) was assessed. RESULTS: 1414 patients with 1781 lesions were included. Complications related to the procedure were reported in 42 patients (3.0 %). The extent of coronary artery disease changed in 771 patients (54.5 %). There was a change in treatment strategy in 779 patients (55.1 %) (18.0 % if medical treatment; 68.8 % if PCI; 58.9 % if surgery (p < 0.001 for PCI vs medical treatment; p = 0.041 for PCI vs CABG; p < 0.001 for medical treatment vs CABG)). In patients with PCI as the initial strategy, the change in strategy was associated with a lower rate of MACE (4.6 % vs 8.2 %, p = 0.034). CONCLUSIONS: The use of intracoronary pressure wire was safe and led to the reclassification of the extent of coronary disease and change in the treatment strategy in more than half of the cases, especially in patients with PCI as initial treatment.

Percutaneous Mitral Valve Repair: Outcome Improvement with Operator Experience and a Second-Generation Device.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Recent randomized data comparing percutaneous mitral valve repair (PMVR) versus optimal medical treatment in patients with functional MR (FMR) seemed to highlight the importance of the learning curve not only for procedural outcomes but also for patient selection. The aim of the study was to compare a contemporary series of patients undergoing PMVR using a second-generation Mitraclip device (Mitraclip NT) with previous cohorts treated with a first-generation system. METHODS: This multicenter study collected individual data from 18 centers between 2012 and 2017. The cohort was divided into three groups according to the use of the first-generation Mitraclip during the first (control-1) or second half (control-2) or the Mitraclip NT system. RESULTS: A total of 545 consecutive patients were included in the study. Among all, 182 (33.3%), 183 (33.3%), and 180 (33.3%) patients underwent mitral repair in the control-1, control-2, and NT cohorts, respectively. Procedural success was achieved in 93.3% of patients without differences between groups. Major adverse events did not statistically differ among groups, but there was a higher rate of pericardial effusion in the control-1 group (4.3%, 0.6%, and 2.6%, respectively; p = 0.025). The composite endpoint of death, surgery, and admission for congestive heart failure (CHF) at 12 months was lower in the NT group (23.5% in control-1, 22.5% in control-2, and 8.3% in the NT group; p = 0.032). CONCLUSIONS: The present paper shows that contemporary clinical outcomes of patients undergoing PMVR with the Mitraclip system have improved over time.

Acute Coronary Syndromes, Gastrointestinal Protection, and Recommendations Regarding Concomitant Administration of Proton-Pump Inhibitors (Omeprazol/Esomeprazole) and Clopidogrel.

The Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency sent a warning in 2010 discouraging the concomitant use of clopidogrel with omeprazole or esomeprazole. The purpose is to know the gastroprotective approach in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and the level of follow-up of the alert. In 17 hospitals with catheterization laboratory in Spain, 1 per region, we studied 25 consecutive patients per hospital whose diagnosis of discharge since October 1, 2013, had been any type of ACS. We analyzed their baseline clinical profile, the gatroprotective agents at admission and discharge and the antiplatelet therapy at discharge. The number of patients included was 425: age 67.2 ± 12.5 years, women 29.8%, diabetes 36.5%. The patients presented unstable angina in 21.6%, non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction in 35.3% and ST-elevation myocardial infarction in 43.1%. Conservative approach was chosen in 17.9%, bare-metal stents 32.2%, ≥ 1 drug-eluting stent 48.5%, and surgery 1.4%. Aspirin was indicated in 1.9%, aspirin + clopidogrel 73.6%, aspirin + prasugrel 17.6%, and aspririn + ticagrelor 6.8%. Gastroprotective agents were present in 40.2% patients at admission and this percentage increased to 93.7% at discharge. Of the 313 (73.6%) on clopidogrel in 96 (30.6%) was combined with omeprazole and 3 (0.95%) with esomeprazole, whereas the most commonly used was pantoprazole with 190 patients (44.7%). In conclusion, almost the totality of the patients with an ACS receive gastroprotective agents at the moment of discharge, most of them with proton-pump inhibitors. In one every 3 cases of the patients who are on clopidogrel, the recommendation of the Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency is not followed.