Intravascular ultrasound-guided versus angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock.

The benefits of intravascular ultrasonography (IVUS)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the clinical context of cardiogenic shock (CS) complicating acute myocardial infarction are lacking. We aimed to investigate the impact of IVUS-guided PCI in patients with AMI and CS. From the pooled data based on a series of Korean AMI registries during 2011-2020, we identified 1418 consecutive patients who underwent PCI with second generation drug-eluting stent (DES) for AMI and CS. The primary endpoint was the 1-year rate of target lesion failure (TLF), defined as the composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and ischemic-driven target lesion revascularization. In total, 294 (20.7%) and 1124 (79.3%) underwent IVUS-guided and angiography-guided PCI with second generation DES implantation, respectively. The 1-year TLF was not significantly different between groups after IPTW analysis (hazard ratio 0.93, 95% confidence interval 0.65-1.34, p = 0.70). Additionally, the adjusted landmark analysis for TLF at 30 days and between 30 days and 1 year after PCI demonstrated no significant difference between the groups. In conclusion, in patients with AMI and CS who underwent PCI with second-generation DES, IVUS-guided PCI did not improve the 1-year TLF compared with angiography-guided PCI.Registration: URL:  http://cris.nih.go.kr . KCT0000863 and KCT0008355.

Comparison of angiographic change in side-branch ostium after drug-coated balloon vs. drug-eluting stent vs. medication for the treatment of de novo coronary bifurcation lesions.

OBJECTIVES: Data on side-branch (SB) ostial effect after drug-coated balloon (DCB) treatment in the context of de novo coronary bifurcation lesions are limited. We aimed to investigate the angiographic outcomes of SB ostium after DCB treatment compared with drug-eluting stents (DESs) implantation in the main vessel (MV) or optimal medical therapy (OMT) for the treatment of de novo coronary bifurcation lesions. METHODS: Serial angiographic changes in the SB ostium were compared between DCB, DES, and medication alone for MV treatment. Δ value was calculated by subtracting the follow-up value from the pre-procedure value. RESULTS: A total of 132 bifurcation lesions were included for analysis (44 lesions in DCB group; 38 lesions in DES group; 50 lesions in OMT group). The minimal lumen diameter (MLD) of SB ostium showed an increase at follow-up in the DCB group, whereas a decrease was observed in both the DES and OMT groups (ΔMLD: -0.16 ± 0.45 mm for DCB group vs. 0.50 ± 0.52 mm for DES group vs. 0.08 ± 0.38 mm for OMT group, p < 0.001). The diameter stenosis (DS) of SB ostium showed a marked decrease at follow-up in the DCB group, in contrast to an increase observed in both the DES and OMT groups (ΔDS: 8.01 ± 18.96% for DCB group vs. -18.68 ± 18.60% for DES group vs. -2.05 ± 14.58% for OMT group, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In de novo coronary bifurcation lesions, DCB treatment on the MV demonstrated favorable angiographic outcomes in the SB ostium at 6-9 month follow-up compared to DES implantation or OMT.

Drug-Coated Balloons in the Management of Coronary Artery Disease.

Drug-coated balloons (DCBs) are specialized coronary devices comprised of a semicompliant balloon catheter with an engineered coating that allows the delivery of antiproliferative agents locally to the vessel wall during percutaneous coronary intervention. Although DCBs were initially developed more than a decade ago, their potential in coronary interventions has recently sparked renewed interest, especially in the United States. Originally designed to overcome the limitations of conventional balloon angioplasty and stenting, they aim to match or even improve upon the outcomes of drug-eluting stents without leaving a permanent implant. Presently, in-stent restenosis is the condition with the most robust evidence supporting the use of DCBs. DCBs provide improved long-term vessel patency compared with conventional balloon angioplasty and may be comparable to drug-eluting stents without the need for an additional stent layer, supporting their use as a first-line therapy for in-stent restenosis. Beyond the treatment of in-stent restenosis, DCBs provide an additional tool for de novo lesions for a strategy that avoids a permanent metal scaffold, which may be especially useful for the management of technically challenging anatomies such as small vessels and bifurcations. DCBs might also be advantageous for patients with high bleeding risk due to the decreased necessity for extended antiplatelet therapy, and in patients with diabetes and patients with diffuse disease to minimize long-stented segments. Further studies are crucial to confirm these broader applications for DCBs and to further validate safety and efficacy.

Different association of atherogenic index of plasma with the risk of high platelet reactivity according to the presentation of acute myocardial infarction.

This study evaluated the association of atherogenic index of plasma (AIP) with platelet reactivity and clinical outcomes according to acute myocardial infarction (AMI). The composite of 3-year adverse outcomes of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, and cerebrovascular accident was evaluated in 10,735 patients after successful percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents. AIP was defined as the base 10 logarithm of the ratio of triglyceride to high-density lipoprotein cholesterol concentration. High platelet reactivity (HPR) was defined as ≥ 252 P2Y12 reactivity unit. An increase of AIP (per-0.1 unit) was related to the decreased risk of HPR [odds ratio (OR) 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.96-0.99; P = 0.001] in non-AMI patients, not in AMI patients (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.96-1.01; P = 0.138). The HPR was associated with the increased risk of composite outcomes in both non-AMI and AMI patients (all-P < 0.05). AIP levels were not independently associated with the risk of composite outcomes in both patients with non-AMI and AMI. In conclusion, an inverse association between AIP and the risk of HPR was observed in patients with non-AMI. This suggests that the association between plasma atherogenicity and platelet reactivity may play a substantial role in the development of AMI.Trial registration: NCT04734028.

An Aspirin-Free Strategy for Immediate Treatment Following Complex Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

BACKGROUND: There was no study evaluating the effects of an aspirin-free strategy in patients undergoing complex percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). OBJECTIVES: The authors aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of an aspirin-free strategy in patients undergoing complex PCI. METHODS: We conducted the prespecified subgroup analysis based on complex PCI in the STOPDAPT-3 (ShorT and OPtimal duration of Dual AntiPlatelet Therapy after everolimus-eluting cobalt-chromium stent-3), which randomly compared low-dose prasugrel (3.75 mg/d) monotherapy to dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with low-dose prasugrel and aspirin in patients with acute coronary syndrome or high bleeding risk. Complex PCI was defined as any of the following 6 criteria: 3 vessels treated, ≥3 stents implanted, ≥3 lesions treated, bifurcation with 2 stents implanted, total stent length >60 mm, or a target of chronic total occlusion. The coprimary endpoints were major bleeding events (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 3 or 5) and cardiovascular events (a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, definite stent thrombosis, or ischemic stroke) at 1 month. RESULTS: Of the 5,966 study patients, there were 1,230 patients (20.6%) with complex PCI. Regardless of complex PCI, the effects of no aspirin relative to DAPT were not significant for the coprimary bleeding (complex PCI: 5.30% vs 3.70%; HR: 1.44; 95% CI: 0.84-2.47; P = 0.18 and noncomplex PCI: 4.26% vs 4.97%; HR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.65-1.11; P = 0.24; P for interaction = 0.08) and cardiovascular (complex PCI: 5.78% vs 5.93%; HR: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.62-1.55; P = 0.92 and noncomplex PCI: 3.70% vs 3.10%; HR: 1.20; 95% CI: 0.88-1.63; P = 0.25; P for interaction = 0.48) endpoints without significant interactions. CONCLUSIONS: The effects of the aspirin-free strategy relative to standard DAPT for the cardiovascular and major bleeding events were not different regardless of complex PCI. (ShorT and OPtimal duration of Dual AntiPlatelet Therapy after everolimus-eluting cobalt-chromium stent-3 [STOPDAPT-3]; NCT04609111).

Randomized Trial Comparing a Stent-Avoiding With a Stent-Preferred Strategy in Complex Femoropopliteal Lesions.

BACKGROUND: Limited comparative data exist on different interventional strategies for endovascular revascularization of complex femoropopliteal interventions. OBJECTIVES: In this study, the authors aimed to compare a stent-avoiding (SA) vs a stent-preferred (SP) strategy, promoting optimal lesion preparation and the use of drug-eluting technologies in both arms. METHODS: Within a prospective, multicenter, pilot study, 120 patients with symptomatic complex femoropopliteal lesions (Rutherford classification 2-4, mean lesion length 187.7 ± 78.3 mm, 79.2% total occlusions) were randomly assigned in a 1:1 fashion to endovascular treatment with either paclitaxel-coated balloons or polymer-coated, paclitaxel-eluting stents. Lesion preparation including the use of devices for plaque modification and/or removal was at the operators' discretion in both treatment arms. RESULTS: In the SA group, lesion preparation was more frequently performed (71.7% SA [43/60] vs 51.7% [31/60] SP; P = 0.038) with a high provisional stenting rate (48.3% [29/60]). At the 12-month follow-up, primary patency was 78.2% (43/55) in the SA group and 78.6% (44/56) in the SP group (P = 1.0; relative risk: 0.995; 95% CI: 0.818-1.210). Freedom from major adverse events was determined in 93.1% (54/58) in the SA group and in 94.9% (56/59) in the SP group (P = 0.717; relative risk: 0.981; 95% CI: 0.895-1.075), with all adverse events attributable to clinically driven target lesion revascularization. CONCLUSIONS: Both endovascular strategies promoting lesion preparation before the use of drug-eluting devices suggest promising efficacy and safety results in complex femoropopliteal procedures with a high proportion of total occlusions through 12 months. Ongoing follow-up will show whether different results emerge over time. (Best Endovascular Strategy for Complex Lesions of the Superficial Femoral Artery [BEST-SFA]; NCT03776799).

Risk Burden of Cancer in Patients Treated With Abbreviated Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After PCI: Analysis of Multicenter Controlled High-Bleeding Risk Trials.

BACKGROUND: Oncological patients with coronary artery disease face an elevated risk of hemorrhagic and ischemic events following percutaneous coronary intervention. Despite medical guidelines recommending minimal dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) duration for patients with cancer, dedicated data on abbreviated DAPT in this population is lacking. This study aims to evaluate the occurrence of ischemic and hemorrhagic events in patients with cancer compared with other high-bleeding risk individuals. METHODS: Patient-level data from 4 high-bleeding risk coronary drug-eluting stent studies (ONYX One, LEADERS FREE, LEADERS FREE II, and SENIOR trials) treated with short DAPT were analyzed. The comparison focused on patients with high-bleeding risk with and without cancer, assessing 1-year rates of net adverse clinical events (all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, revascularization, and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium [BARC] types 3 to 5 bleeding) and major adverse clinical events (all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke). RESULTS: A total of 5232 patients were included, of whom 574 individuals had cancer, and 4658 were at high-bleeding risk without previous cancer. Despite being younger with fewer risk factors, patients with cancer had higher net adverse clinical event (HR, 1.25; P=0.01) and major adverse clinical event (HR, 1.26; P=0.02), primarily driven by all-cause mortality and major bleeding (BARC 3-5), but not myocardial infarction, stroke, stent thrombosis, or repeat revascularization. Cancer was an independent predictor of net adverse clinical event (P=0.005), major adverse clinical event (P=0.01), and major bleeding (P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: The present work is the first report on abbreviated DAPT dedicated to patients with cancer. Cancer is a major marker of adverse outcomes and these events had high lethality. Despite short DAPT, patients with cancer experienced higher rates of major bleeding compared with patients without cancer with high-bleeding risk, which occurred mainly after DAPT discontinuation. These findings reinforce the need for a more detailed and individualized stratification of those patients. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifiers: NCT03344653, NCT01623180, NCT02843633, NCT0284.

Drug-coated balloon in the treatment of coronary artery de-novo large lesions angiography.

The superiority of drug-coated balloon (DCB) in treating small vessels, branching lesions, and high-risk bleeding lesions in coronary heart disease patients has been confirmed. However, its safety and efficacy in large vessels are still unclear. We aimed to investigate whether the efficacy of DCB in large vessels is not inferior to that of drug-eluting stent (DES). From November 2019 to April 2022, a total of 88 patients in our hospital who underwent coronary angiography for the first time and decided to receive DCB or DES treatment were selected. Indicators including late lumen loss (LLL), major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) rate, major bleeding and all-cause mortality were evaluated at 9 months and 1-year post percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) therapy. The primary endpoint of 9-month LLL was -0.07 in the DCB group and 0.19 mm in the DES group (p value＜0.001). 1-year cumulative MACE rates were similar in the DCB and DES groups (3.03% vs. 7.23%, P=0.519), TLR rates were similar (3.03% vs. 7.23%, P=0.519), Major bleeding was similar (3.03% vs. 5.45%, P=0.580), and 1 case of Cardiac death in DES group. For LLL, the DCB-only strategy was non-inferior to DES in treating de novo large lesions in the coronary arteries. Furthermore, the efficacy of DCB was comparable to DES at 1 year of follow-up for secondary clinical endpoints.

Optimising Percutaneous Coronary Interventions: The Impact of Stent Type and Diameter on Long-Term Clinical Outcomes in Large Coronary Arteries.

Background and Objectives: Our study aimed to reveal the effect of using 4 mm bare-metal stents (BMS), 4 mm drug-eluting stents (DES), or 3 mm DES with 4 mm diameter balloon post-dilation strategies on long-term clinical outcomes and endpoints for large-diameter coronary artery percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Materials and Methods: In our study, patients who had undergone PCI were retrospectively screened between January 2014 and July 2020. The study included 350 patients and was divided into three groups; Group I (n = 134) included patients with direct 4.0 mm BMS implantation, Group II (n = 109) included patients with direct 4.0 DES implantation, and Group III (n = 107) included patients with 4mm NC post-dilatation after 3 mm DES implantation. Primary endpoints were determined as target lesion revascularisation, cardiac mortality, and myocardial infarction associated with the target vessel. Our secondary endpoint was all-cause mortality. Results: No differences were observed between the groups in terms of the baseline variables. Stent length was the highest in Group II and the shortest in Group III. There were no significant differences between the groups regarding major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Conclusions: Our study suggests that in percutaneous coronary interventions for non-complex lesions, there is no significant difference in MACE outcomes when directly implanting a 4 mm diameter DES, a 4 mm diameter BMS, or a 3 mm diameter DES, followed by post-dilation with an appropriately sized NC balloon when the target vessel diameter is in the range of 4 to 4.4 mm.

Three-Year Clinical Outcomes With the Cilotax Dual Drug-Eluting Stent vs Everolimus-Eluting Stents in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction.

BACKGROUND: This study compared the safety and effectiveness of paclitaxel/cilostazol-eluting Cilotax stents with those of everolimus-eluting stents in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Real-world data from the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry were examined. METHODS: A total of 5,472 patients with acute myocardial infarction underwent percutaneous coronary intervention with Cilotax stents (n = 212) or everolimus-eluting stents (n = 5,260). The primary end point was the 3-year rate of target lesion failure. The other end points were major adverse cardiovascular events (a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization), target vessel revascularization, and stent thrombosis. A propensity score matching analysis was performed to adjust for potential confounders by using a logistic regression model; propensity score matching generated 2 well-balanced groups (Cilotax group, n = 180; everolimus-eluting stents group, n = 170; N = 350). After propensity score matching, baseline clinical characteristics were similar between the groups. RESULTS: After percutaneous coronary intervention, compared with the everolimus-eluting stents group, the Cilotax group more often had major adverse cardiovascular events (24.1% vs 18.5%; P = .042), myocardial infarction (8.0% vs 3.2%; P < .001), target lesion revascularization (8.0% vs 2.6%; P < .001), target vessel revascularization (11.3% vs 4.5%; P < .001), and stent thrombosis (4.7% vs 0.5%; P < .001) before matching. Even after matching, the Cilotax group had more frequent target lesion revascularization (9.4% vs 2.9%; P = .22) and stent thrombosis (5.6% vs 1.2%; P = .34). CONCLUSION: In patients with acute myocardial infarction who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention, use of the Cilotax stent was associated with higher rates of target lesion revascularization, target vessel revascularization, and stent thrombosis than were everolimus-eluting stents. Use of the Cilotax dual drugeluting stent should be avoided in the treatment of myocardial infarction.

Safety and efficacy of drug-eluting stents for patients at high risk of bleedings: A network meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Among different coronary stents implanted in High Bleeding Risk (HBR) patients with an indication for short antiplatelet therapy, no comparisons in terms of efficacy have been provided. METHODS: A Network Meta Analysis was performed including all randomized controlled trials comparing different coronary stents evaluated in HBR patients. Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events (MACEs) as defined by each included trial were the primary end point, whereas TLR (target lesion revascularization), TVR (target vessel revascularization), stent thrombosis and total and major (BARC3-5) bleedings were the secondary ones. RESULTS: A total of four studies (ONYX ONE, LEADERS FREE, SENIOR and HBR in BIO-RESORT) including 6637 patients were analyzed with different kind of stents and dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) length (1 or 6 months) on 12 months follow-up. About one-third of these patients were defined HBR due to indication for oral anticoagulation. All drug eluting stents (DESs) reduced risk of MACE compared to Bare Metal Stents (BMSs) when followed by a 1-month DAPT. At SUCRA analysis, Orsiro was the device with the highest probability of performing best. Rates of TLR and TVR were significantly lower when using Resolute Onyx, Synergy and BioFreedom stents in comparison to BMS when followed by 1-month DAPT, with Synergy ranking best. Synergy also showed a significantly lower number of stent thrombosis compared to BMS (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.06-0.93), while Orsiro and Resolute Integrity showed the highest probability of performing best. CONCLUSION: In HBRs patients, all DESs were superior to BMSs in terms of efficacy and safety. Among DESs, Orsiro was the one with the highest ranking in terms of MACE, mainly driven by a reduced incidence of repeated revascularization and stent thrombosis.

Intravascular ultrasound-guided versus angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention in acute coronary syndromes (IVUS-ACS): a two-stage, multicentre, randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Intravascular ultrasound-guided percutaneous coronary intervention has been shown to result in superior clinical outcomes compared with angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention. However, insufficient data are available concerning the advantages of intravascular ultrasound guidance for patients with an acute coronary syndrome. This trial aimed to investigate whether the use of intravascular ultrasound guidance, as compared with angiography guidance, improves the outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention with contemporary drug-eluting stents in patients presenting with an acute coronary syndrome. METHODS: In this two-stage, multicentre, randomised trial, patients aged 18 years or older and presenting with an acute coronary syndrome at 58 centres in China, Italy, Pakistan, and the UK were randomly assigned to intravascular ultrasound-guided percutaneous coronary intervention or angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention. Patients, follow-up health-care providers, and assessors were masked to random assignment; however, staff in the catheterisation laboratory were not. The primary endpoint was target vessel failure, a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically driven target vessel revascularisation at 1 year after randomisation. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03971500, and is completed. FINDINGS: Between Aug 20, 2019 and Oct 27, 2022, 3505 patients with an acute coronary syndrome were randomly assigned to intravascular ultrasound-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (n=1753) or angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (n=1752). 1-year follow-up was completed in 3504 (>99·9%) patients. The primary endpoint occurred in 70 patients in the intravascular ultrasound group and 128 patients in the angiography group (Kaplan-Meier rate 4·0% vs 7·3%; hazard ratio 0·55 [95% CI 0·41-0·74]; p=0·0001), driven by reductions in target vessel myocardial infarction or target vessel revascularisation. There were no significant differences in all-cause death or stent thrombosis between groups. Safety endpoints were also similar in the two groups. INTERPRETATION: In patients with an acute coronary syndrome, intravascular ultrasound-guided implantation of contemporary drug-eluting stents resulted in a lower 1-year rate of the composite outcome of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically driven revascularisation compared with angiography guidance alone. FUNDING: The Chinese Society of Cardiology, the National Natural Scientific Foundation of China, and Jiangsu Provincial & Nanjing Municipal Clinical Trial Project. TRANSLATION: For the Mandarin translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Ten-year mortality after treating obstructive coronary atherosclerosis with contemporary stents in patients with or without concomitant peripheral arterial disease.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Previous studies in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) patients showed a higher 3-year adverse event risk, including all-cause mortality, in those with concomitant peripheral arterial disease (PADs). Ten-year data of mortality and causes of death are scarce. This analysis assessed PCI patients, treated with contemporary drug-eluting stents, the impact of concomitant PADs on very long-term mortality, and causes of death. METHODS: We assessed PCI all-comers from our center who participated in the TWENTE and DUTCH PEERS trials (clinicaltrials.gov:NCT01066650, NCT01331707), comparing patients with versus without PADs. Life status was checked in the Dutch Personal Records Database; causes of death were obtained from medical records. RESULTS: Of 2705 study patients, 668 (24.7%) died during follow-up: 88/212 (41.5%) patients with PADs and 580/2493 (23.1%) without PADs. In PADs patients, the 10-year rate of all-cause mortality was about twice as high as in patients without PADs (41.5% vs.23.1%, HR: 2.05, 95%-CI: 1.64-2.57, p<0.001). For both groups, the rates of patients dying from various causes of death were: cardiac (14.1% vs.6.8%), vascular (2.8% vs. 1.1%), non-cardiovascular (17.4% vs. 9.8%), and unclear causes (7.1% vs. 5.3%), without a statistically significant between-group difference. When multivariate analysis was adjusted for between-group differences in cardiovascular risk profile, PADs remained predictor of all-cause mortality (adjusted HR: 1.38, 95%-CI: 1.08-1.75, p=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: The 10-year all-cause mortality rate in PCI patients with concomitant PADs was almost twice as high as in those without PADs. Age and other traditional cardiovascular risk factors were higher in patients with PADs, but after correction for these confounders PADs still accounted for almost 40% increase in mortality.

Efficacy and safety of durable versus biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock.

The clinical impact of different polymer technologies in newer-generation drug-eluting stents (DESs) for patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS) remains poorly understood. We investigated the efficacy and safety of durable polymer DESs (DP-DESs) compared with biodegradable polymer DESs (BP-DESs). A total of 620 patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention with newer-generation DESs for AMI complicated by CS was divided into two groups based on polymer technology: the DP-DES group (n = 374) and the BP-DES group (n = 246). The primary outcome was target vessel failure (TVF) during a 12-month follow-up, defined as a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization. Both the DP-DES and BP-DES groups exhibited low stent thrombosis rates (1.3% vs. 1.6%, p = 0.660). The risk of TVF did not significantly differ between the two groups (34.2% vs. 28.5%, hazard ratio [HR] 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.69-1.29, p = 0.721). This finding remained consistent after adjustment with inverse probability of treatment weighting (28.1% vs. 25.1%, HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.77-1.27, p = 0.899). In AMI patients complicated by CS, the risk of a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization was not significantly different between those treated with DP-DESs and those treated with BP-DESs.Trial registration: RESCUE registry, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02985008 , NCT02985008.

Comparative effectiveness of endovascular treatment modalities for de novo femoropopliteal lesions at long-term follow-up: A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the best endovascular treatment for de novo femoropopliteal lesions at long-term follow-up through network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. METHODS: Medical databases were searched on September 17, 2023. 17 trials and 7 treatments were selected. Outcomes were primary patency, target lesion revascularization (TLR), major amputation and all-cause mortality at 3 and/or 5 years. RESULTS: Regarding 3-year primary patency, drug-eluting stents (DES) was the best and better than balloon angioplasty (BA; odds ratio [OR], 4.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.68-9.18), bare metal stents (BMS; OR, 2.81; 95% CI, 1.45-5.46), cryoplasty (OR, 6.75; 95% CI, 2.76-16.50), covered stents (CS; OR, 3.25; 95% CI, 1.19-8.87) and drug-coated balloons (DCB; OR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.14-3.63). Regarding 5-year primary patency, DES was the best and better than BMS (OR, 2.34; 95% CI, 1.10-4.99). Regarding 3-year TLR, DES was the best and better than BA (OR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.13-0.44). Regarding 5-year TLR, DES was the best and better than BA (OR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.09-0.42) and balloon angioplasty with brachytherapy (OR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.06-0.74). Regarding 3- and 5-year major amputation, DCB was the best. Regarding 3-year mortality, DES was the best and better than CS (OR, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.01-0.67). CONCLUSIONS: DES was the best treatment regarding 3-year primary patency, TLR and mortality, and DCB was the best regarding major amputation. DES was the best treatment regarding 5-year TLR, and DCB was the best regarding primary patency and major amputation. DES and DCB should be given priority in treating femoropopliteal lesions.

Transradial Versus Transfemoral Access for Bifurcation Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Using Second-Generation Drug-Eluting Stent.

BACKGROUND: The benefits of transradial access (TRA) over transfemoral access (TFA) for bifurcation percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are uncertain because of the limited availability of device selection. This study aimed to compare the procedural differences and the in-hospital and long-term outcomes of TRA and TFA for bifurcation PCI using second-generation drug-eluting stents (DESs). METHODS: Based on data from the Coronary Bifurcation Stenting Registry III, a retrospective registry of 2,648 patients undergoing bifurcation PCI with second-generation DES from 21 centers in South Korea, patients were categorized into the TRA group (n = 1,507) or the TFA group (n = 1,141). After propensity score matching (PSM), procedural differences, in-hospital outcomes, and device-oriented composite outcomes (DOCOs; a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization) were compared between the two groups (772 matched patients each group). RESULTS: Despite well-balanced baseline clinical and lesion characteristics after PSM, the use of the two-stent strategy (14.2% vs. 23.7%, P = 0.001) and the incidence of in-hospital adverse outcomes, primarily driven by access site complications (2.2% vs. 4.4%, P = 0.015), were significantly lower in the TRA group than in the TFA group. At the 5-year follow-up, the incidence of DOCOs was similar between the groups (6.3% vs. 7.1%, P = 0.639). CONCLUSION: The findings suggested that TRA may be safer than TFA for bifurcation PCI using second-generation DESs. Despite differences in treatment strategy, TRA was associated with similar long-term clinical outcomes as those of TFA. Therefore, TRA might be the preferred access for bifurcation PCI using second-generation DES. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03068494.