Transesophageal echocardiography-guided versus fluoroscopy-guided patent foramen ovale closure: A single center registry.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale (PFO) is conventionally performed under continuous transesophageal echocardiographic (TEE) guidance. We aimed to evaluate whether a simplified procedural approach, including pure fluoroscopy-guidance and final TEE control, as well as an aimed 'next-day-discharge' is comparable with the conventional TEE-guided procedure in terms of periprocedural and intermediate-term outcomes. METHODS: All patients who underwent a PFO closure at our center between 2010 and 2022 were retrospectively included. Prior to June 2019 cases were performed with continuous TEE guidance (TEE-guided group). Since June 2019, only pure fluoroscopy-guided PFO closures have been performed with TEE insertion and control just prior to device release (fluoroscopy-guided group). We analyzed procedural aspects, as well as long term clinical and echocardiographic outcomes. RESULTS: In total 291 patients were included in the analysis: 197 in the TEE-guided group and 94 in the fluoroscopy-guided group. Fluoroscopy-guided procedures were markedly shorter (48 ± 20 min vs. 25 ± 9 min; p < .01). There was no difference in procedural complications, including death, major bleeding, device dislodgement, stroke or clinically relevant peripheral embolization between the two groups (.5% vs. 0%; p = .99). Hospital stay was also shorter with the simplified approach (2.5 ± 1.6 vs. 3.5 ± 1.2 days; p < .01), allowing 85% same-day discharges during the last 12 months of observation period. At 6 ± 3 months echocardiographic follow-up a residual leakage was described in 8% of the TEE-guided cases and 2% of the fluoroscopy-guided cases (p = .08). CONCLUSION: While a complete TEE-free PFO closure might have potential procedural risks, our approach of pure fluoroscopy-guided with a brisk final TEE check seems to be advantageous in terms of procedural aspects with no sign of any acute or intermediate-term hazard and it could offer an equitable compromise between the two worlds: a complete TEE procedure and a procedure without any TEE.

Operator decision-making in angiography-only guided revascularization for lesions not indicated for FFR: a QFR-based functional assessment in chronic coronary syndrome.

Background: Discordance between coronary angiographic findings and invasive functional significance is well-established. Yet, the prevalence of this mismatch in an era increasingly utilizing invasive functional assessments, such as fractional flow reserve (FFR), remains unclear. This study examines the extent of such discrepancies in current clinical practice. Methods: This single-center prospective registry included consecutive patients with chronic coronary syndrome (CCS) who underwent elective coronary angiography, with or without revascularization. Coronary angiograms deemed not requiring FFR due to clear anatomical distinctions, either anatomically severe indicating a need for revascularization or mild suggesting no need for intervention, were selected for evaluation. These were then subjected to post-hoc analysis by three independent operators who were blinded to the definitive treatment strategies. Importantly, the post-hoc analysis was conducted in two distinct phases: firstly, a re-evaluation of coronary stenosis, and secondly, a separate functional assessment, each carried out independently. Coronary stenosis severity was assessed visually, while functional relevance was determined by quantitative flow ratio (QFR), calculated using a computational fluid dynamics algorithm applied to angiographic images. Analysis focused on discrepancies between QFR-based functional indications and revascularization strategies actually performed. Results: In 191 patients, 488 vessels were analyzed. Average diameter stenosis (DS) was 37 ± 34%, and QFR was 0.87 ± 0.15, demonstrating a moderate correlation (r = -0.84; 95% CI: -0.86 to -0.81, p < 0.01). Agreement with QFR at conventional anatomical cutoffs was 88% for 50% DS and 91% for 70% DS. Mismatches between revascularization decisions and QFR indications occurred in 10% of cases. Discrepancies were more frequent in the left anterior descending artery (14%) compared to the left circumflex (6%) and the right coronary artery (9%; p = 0.07). Conclusion: In a cardiac-center where FFR utilization is high, discordance between coronary angiography and functional significance persists, even when operators are confident in their decisions not to use functional interrogation. This gap, most evident in the left anterior descending artery, highlights the potential need for integrated angiography-based functional assessments to refine revascularization decisions in CCS.

Intentional coronary revascularization versus conservative therapy in patients after peripheral artery revascularization due to critical limb ischemia: the INCORPORATE trial.

OBJECTIVES: INCORPORATE trial was designed to evaluate whether default coronary-angiography (CA) and ischemia-targeted revascularization is superior compared to a conservative approach for patients with treated critical limb ischemia (CLI). Registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03712644) on October 19, 2018. BACKGROUND: Severe peripheral artery disease is associated with increased cardiovascular risk and poor outcomes. METHODS: INCORPORATE was an open-label, prospective 1:1 randomized multicentric trial that recruited patients who had undergone successful CLI treatment. Patients were randomized to either a conservative or invasive approach regarding potential coronary artery disease (CAD). The conservative group received optimal medical therapy alone, while the invasive group had routine CA and fractional flow reserve-guided revascularization. The primary endpoint was myocardial infarction (MI) and 12-month mortality. RESULTS: Due to COVID-19 pandemic burdens, recruitment was halted prematurely. One hundred eighty-five patients were enrolled. Baseline cardiac symptoms were scarce with 92% being asymptomatic. Eighty-nine patients were randomized to the invasive approach of whom 73 underwent CA. Thirty-four percent had functional single-vessel disease, 26% had functional multi-vessel disease, and 90% achieved complete revascularization. Conservative and invasive groups had similar incidences of death and MI at 1 year (11% vs 10%; hazard ratio 1.21 [0.49-2.98]). Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) trended for hazard in the Conservative group (20 vs 10%; hazard ratio 1.94 [0.90-4.19]). In the per-protocol analysis, the primary endpoint remained insignificantly different (11% vs 7%; hazard ratio 2.01 [0.72-5.57]), but the conservative approach had a higher MACCE risk (20% vs 7%; hazard ratio 2.88 [1.24-6.68]). CONCLUSION: This trial found no significant difference in the primary endpoint but observed a trend of higher MACCE in the conservative arm.

Impact of the Timing of Mechanical Circulatory Support on the Outcomes in Myocardial Infarction-Related Cardiogenic Shock: Subanalysis of the PREPARE CS Registry.

(1) Background: Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in myocardial infarction-associated cardiogenic shock is subject to debate. This analysis aims to elucidate the impact of MCS's timing on patient outcomes, based on data from the PREPARE CS registry. (2) Methods: The PREPARE CS prospective registry includes patients who experienced cardiogenic shock (SCAI classes C-E) and were subsequently referred for cardiac catheterization. Our present analysis included a subset of this registry, in whom MCS was used and who underwent coronary intervention due to myocardial infarction. Patients were categorized into an Upfront group and a Procedural group, depending on the timing of MCS's introduction in relation to their PCI. The endpoint was in-hospital mortality. (3) Results: In total, 71 patients were included. MCS was begun prior to PCI in 33 (46%) patients (Upfront), whereas 38 (54%) received MCS during or after the initiation of PCI (Procedural). The groups' baseline characteristics and hemodynamic parameters were comparable. The Upfront group had a higher utilization of the Impella® device compared to extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (67% vs. 33%), while the Procedural group exhibited a balanced use of both (50% vs. 50%). Most patients suffered from multi-vessel disease in both groups (82% vs. 84%, respectively; p = 0.99), and most patients required a complex PCI procedure; the latter was more prevalent in the Upfront group (94% vs. 71%, respectively; p = 0.02). Their rates of complete revascularization were comparable (52% vs. 34%, respectively; p = 0.16). Procedural CPR was significantly more frequent in the Procedural group (45% vs. 79%, p < 0.05); however, in-hospital mortality was similar (61% vs. 79%, respectively; p = 0.12). (4) Conclusions: The upfront implantation of MCS in myocardial infarction-associated CS did not provide an in-hospital survival benefit.

Clinical application of results of the ISCHEMIA trial.

More than a decade after the Clinical Outcomes Utilising Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Evaluation (COURAGE) trial, International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical And Invasive Approaches (ISCHEMIA) is the second large clinical trial to challenge the concept of revascularization in chronic coronary syndromes whilst addressing some of the shortfalls of its predecessor.