Serum and genetic markers related to rapid clinical progression of coronary artery disease.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Patients with clinically evident coronary artery disease differ in their rate of progression, which impacts prognosis. We aimed to characterize serum and genetic markers in patients with rapid clinical progression (RCP) of coronary artery disease vs those with long standing stable (LSS) disease. METHODS: Retrospective study of cases (RCP) and controls (LSS) (1:2). Patients requiring ≥ 2 revascularizations due to atherosclerotic progression in the 10 years after a first angioplasty were considered to be RCP and those without events during the same period after the first angioplasty were considered to have LSS disease. After patient selection, we analyzed serum values, mRNA expression and genetic polymorphisms of inflammatory markers, including interleukin-6, C-reactive protein, and tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-a, and atherogenic markers consisted of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9), low-density lipoprotein receptor, sterol regulatory element binding transcription factor 2, and apolipoprotein-B. RESULTS: The study included 180 patients (58 RCP and 122 LSS). Demographic characteristics, classic risk factors and the extent of coronary disease were similar in the 2 groups. Patients with RCP showed higher serum levels of interleukin-6 and PCSK9 and higher TNF mRNA expression. Interleukin-6 rs180075C, TNF rs3093664 non-G and PCSK9 rs2483205 T alleles conferred a risk of RCP (P<.05 in all cases). Among patients with RCP, 51.7% had all 3 risk alleles vs 18% of those with LSS (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: We suggest the existence of specific phenotypic and genotypic markers associated with RCP of coronary artery disease that could help to individualize the type and intensity of treatment.

Outcomes of predefined optimisation criteria for intravascular ultrasound guidance of left main stenting.

AIMS: This study sought to investigate the prognostic effect of a protocol with optimisation targets for intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)-guided left main (LM) revascularisation. METHODS AND RESULTS: A protocol was prospectively applied for IVUS-guided LM revascularisation (IVUS-PRO group) including predefined optimisation targets. Using propensity score matching, we selected as control groups patients with angiography-guided PCI (ANGIO group) and IVUS-guided PCI (IVUS group) from a large multicentre registry. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiac death, LM-related infarction and LM revascularisation at 12 months. In each group, 124 patients with comparable characteristics were included. The incidence of the primary outcome was significantly higher in the ANGIO group compared to the IVUS-PRO group (12.9% vs 4.8%, HR 0.35, 95% CI: 0.15 to 0.82, p=0.02), but not with respect to the IVUS group (12.9% vs 8%, HR 0.51, 95% CI: 0.20 to 1.22, p=0.1), driven by a lower rate of LM revascularisation (8% in the ANGIO group, 6.4% in the IVUS group and 3.2% in the IVUS-PRO group). IVUS-PRO resulted in being an independent risk predictor (HR 0.45, 95% CI: 0.15 to 0.98; p=0.041). CONCLUSIONS: IVUS guidance of LM stenting provides prognostic benefit with respect to the use of angiography alone, particularly when following a protocol with these predefined optimisation criteria.