Safety and feasibility of a PAclitaxel-eluting balloon angioplasty in Primary Percutaneous coronary intervention in Amsterdam (PAPPA): one-year clinical outcome of a pilot study.

AIMS: In primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI), stenting has been shown to reduce the need for repeat target lesion revascularisation (TLR) compared to balloon angioplasty alone, but did not result in a reduction of recurrent myocardial infarction (MI) or cardiac death. Meanwhile, stent-related adverse events such as stent thrombosis continue to be of concern. Our aim was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of drug- coated balloon (DCB) angioplasty without stenting in PPCI. METHODS AND RESULTS: One hundred patients presenting with ST-elevation MI were prospectively enrolled in this pilot study. They underwent PPCI with DCB angioplasty; additional stenting was allowed only in case of type C to F coronary dissection or residual stenosis >50%. All patients were treated with i.v. bivalirudin. The primary endpoint was the composite of cardiac death, recurrent MI and TLR. A total of 59 patients received treatment with DCB angioplasty alone, whereas additional stenting was required in 41 patients. One-year clinical follow-up was completed in 98 patients. A total of five major adverse cardiac events were reported (5%). Cardiac death was seen in two patients, while three patients underwent TLR. CONCLUSIONS: This first study of a DCB angioplasty-only strategy in the setting of PPCI showed good one-year clinical results.

Patency of paclitaxel-eluting versus bare metal stents long term after implantation in acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.

Drug-eluting stents effectively inhibit neointimal hyperplasia within the first year, thereby reducing the need for repeat revascularization. However, a delayed pattern of restenosis might be more prominent in drug-eluting stents compared to bare metal stents (BMSs). The extent of restenosis of paclitaxel-eluting stents (PESs) long term after implantation in acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction is currently unknown. The present study was designed to evaluate very late luminal loss (VLLL) of PESs used in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction compared to BMSs. A total of 116 patients (61 with PESs and 55 with BMSs) initially included in the Paclitaxel Eluting Stent Versus Conventional Stent in ST-segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction (PASSION) trial and who were free from previous lesion failure underwent angiographic follow-up. Off-line quantitative coronary analysis of the angiogram immediately after stent implantation and at follow-up was performed. The primary end point was VLLL within the stent. The presence of binary restenosis was defined as diameter stenosis >50% as a secondary end point. The mean interval between stent implantation and follow-up was 4.1 ± 0.5 years in both stent groups. In-stent VLLL was 0.12 mm (interquartile range -0.03 to 0.42) in the PES group versus 0.30 mm (interquartile range 0.08 to 0.69) in the BMS group (p = 0.011). In-segment binary restenosis was found in 4 patients (6.6%) with a PES and 6 patients (10.9%) with a BMS (p = 0.40). In conclusion, angiographic follow-up 4 years after implantation in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction showed that in patients prospectively randomized to PESs or BMSs, VLLL was low in both stent groups. PESs were associated with lower VLLL than BMSs, and the observed rate of binary restenosis was not significantly different between the 2 stent groups.

Magnetically navigated percutaneous coronary intervention in distal and/or complex lesions may improve procedural outcome and material consumption.

AIMS: Comparison of magnetic guidewire navigation in percutaneous coronary intervention (magnetic PCI) across distal and/or complex lesions versus conventional navigation (conventional PCI). METHODS AND RESULTS: Forty-seven consecutive patients (age 61 +/- 10 yr) undergoing elective single vessel magnetic PCI for distal and/or complex lesions were matched by age and lesion location with 45 patients undergoing conventional PCI (age 63 +/- 10 yr). Technical success rate was defined as an intraluminal wire position distal to the stenosis. Procedural outcome and costs were evaluated. Baseline demographics and angiographic characteristics of the two groups were similar. The technical success rate did not differ between magnetic and conventional PCI (95.7 vs 97.8%; p = 1.00). Significantly shorter procedural and fluoroscopy time were observed for magnetic compared to conventional PCI (29.9 +/- 17.6 vs 41.1 +/- 21 min, p = 0.007; 7.5 +/- 7.3 vs 16.1 +/- 22.4 min, p = 0.02 respectively). Less contrast was used in the magnetic PCI group (58 ml/patient; P = 0.02). These advantages resulted in a mean estimated saving of 1400 euro per patient (P < 0.001). Advantages of procedural outcome were even more pronounced in the ACC/AHA lesion class C subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: Magnetic compared to conventional PCI is an attractive novel technique that proved to be feasible and safe and might be faster in distal and especially complex lesions.