Immediate versus staged revascularisation of non-culprit arteries in patients with acute coronary syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Although there is robust evidence that revascularisation of non-culprit vessels should be pursued in patients presenting with an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and multivessel coronary artery disease (MVD), the optimal timing of complete revascularisation remains disputed. In this systematic review and meta-analysis our results suggest that outcomes are comparable for immediate and staged complete revascularisation in patients with ACS and MVD. However, evidence from randomised controlled trials remains scarce and cautious interpretation of these results is recommended. More non-biased evidence is necessary to aid future decision making on the optimal timing of complete revascularisation.

Prognostic value of post-percutaneous coronary intervention diastolic pressure ratio.

AIM: To evaluate the distribution of a generic diastolic pressure ratio (dPR) after angiographically successful percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and to assess its association with the 2­year incidence of target vessel failure (TVF), defined as a composite of cardiac mortality, target vessel revascularisation, target vessel myocardial infarction and stent thrombosis. METHODS: The dPR SEARCH study is a post hoc analysis of the prospective single-centre FFR-SEARCH registry, in which physiological assessment was performed after angiographically successful PCI in a total of 1000 patients, using a dedicated microcatheter. dPR was calculated offline with recently validated software in a subset of 735 patients. RESULTS: Mean post-PCI dPR was 0.95 ± 0.06. Post-PCI dPR was ≤ 0.89 in 15.2% of the patients. The cumulative incidence of TVF at 2­year follow-up was 9.4% in patients with a final post-PCI dPR ≤ 0.89 as compared to 6.1% in patients with a post-PCI dPR > 0.89 (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] for dPR ≤ 0.89: 1.53; 95% CI 0.74-3.13; p = 0.249). dPR ≤ 0.89 was associated with significantly higher cardiac mortality at 2 years; adjusted HR 2.40; 95% CI 1.01-5.68; p = 0.047. CONCLUSIONS: In a real-world setting, despite optimal angiographic PCI results, 15.2% of the patients had a final post-PCI dPR of ≤ 0.89, which was associated with a higher incidence of TVF and a significantly higher cardiac mortality rate.

An update on the use of anticoagulant therapy in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.

INTRODUCTION: Together with antiplatelet therapy, anticoagulants are vital to improve outcomes in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Challenges lie in finding the optimal balance between the risk of bleeding and preventing thrombotic complications such as reinfarction or stent thrombosis. During the last decade, bivalirudin was introduced as a valid alternative to heparin for patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Several trials have been conducted to identify the agent with the best antithrombotic results at the lowest bleeding complication rate. In a rapidly evolving field with changes in vascular access, available P2Y12 inhibitors, and indications for glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor administration, conflicting evidence became available. AREAS COVERED: This paper mainly focuses on the evidence above and gives brief discussion to the recent literature on anticoagulation in fibrinolytic therapy and advances in antiplatelet therapy. EXPERT OPINION: To date, no robust evidence is available challenging unfractionated heparin as the primary choice for anticoagulation in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Further research should include efforts to refine anticoagulation strategies on an individual patient level. For patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention, bivalirudin could be used as an alternative to unfractionated heparin, while enoxaparin or fondaparinux is an alternative agent for patients treated with fibrinolytic therapy.

Recommendations for the use of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds in percutaneous coronary interventions : 2017 revision.

BACKGROUND: To eliminate some of the potential late limitations of permanent metallic stents, the bioresorbable coronary stents or 'bioresorbable vascular scaffolds' (BVS) have been developed. METHODS: We reviewed all currently available clinical data on BVS implantation. RESULTS: Since the 2015 position statement on the appropriateness of BVS in percutaneous coronary interventions, several large randomised trials have been presented. These have demonstrated that achieving adequate 1 and 2 year outcomes with these first-generation BVS is not straightforward. These first adequately powered studies in non-complex lesions showed worse results if standard implantation techniques were used for these relatively thick scaffolds. Post-hoc analyses hypothesise that outcomes similar to current drug-eluting stents are still possible if aggressive lesion preparation, adequate sizing and high-pressure postdilatation are implemented rigorously. As long as this has not been confirmed in prospective studies the usage should be restricted to experienced centres with continuous outcome monitoring. For more complex lesions, results are even more disappointing and usage should be discouraged. When developed, newer generation scaffolds with thinner struts or faster resorption rates are expected to improve outcomes. In the meantime prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT, beyond one year) is recommended in an individualised approach for patients treated with current generation BVS. CONCLUSION: The new 2017 recommendations downgrade and limit the use of the current BVS to experienced centres within dedicated registries using the updated implantation protocol and advise the prolonged usage of DAPT. In line with these recommendations the manufacturer does not supply devices to the hospitals without such registries in place.

Are BVS suitable for ACS patients? Support from a large single center real live registry.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate one-year outcomes after implantation of a bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) in patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) compared to stable angina patients. BACKGROUND: Robust data on the outcome of BVS in the setting of ACS is still scarce. METHODS: Two investigator initiated, single-center, single-arm BVS registries have been pooled for the purpose of this study, namely the BVS Expand and BVS STEMI registries. RESULTS: From September 2012-October 2014, 351 patients with a total of 428 lesions were enrolled. 255 (72.6%) were ACS patients and 99 (27.4%) presented with stable angina/silent ischemia. Mean number of scaffold/patient was 1.55±0.91 in ACS group versus 1.91±1.11 in non-ACS group (P=0.11). Pre- and post-dilatation were performed less frequent in ACS patients, 75.7% and 41.3% versus 89.0% and 62.0% respectively (P=0.05 and P=0.001). Interestingly, post-procedural acute lumen gain and percentage diameter stenosis were superior in ACS patients, 1.62±0.65mm (versus 1.22±0.49mm, P<0.001) and 15.51±8.47% (versus 18.46±9.54%, P=0.04). Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) rate at 12months was 5.5% in the ACS group (versus 5.3% in stable group, P=0.90). One-year definite scaffold thrombosis rate was comparable: 2.0% for ACS population versus 2.1% for stable population (P=0.94), however, early scaffold thromboses occurred only in ACS patients. CONCLUSIONS: One-year clinical outcomes in ACS patients treated with BVS were similar to non-ACS patients. Acute angiographic outcomes were better in ACS than in non-ACS, yet the early thrombotic events require attention and further research.

1-Year clinical outcomes of diabeticpatients treated with everolimus-elutingbioresorbable vascular scaffolds: a pooled analysis of the ABSORB and the SPIRIT trials

Objectives The aim of this study was to evaluate 1-year clinical outcomes of diabetic patients treatedwith the Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS).Background Clinical outcomes of diabetic patients after BVS implantation have been unreported.Methods This study included 101 patients in the ABSORB Cohort B trial and the first consecutive 450patients with 1 year of follow-up in the ABSORB EXTEND trial. A total of 136 diabetic patients werecompared with 415 nondiabetic patients. In addition, 882 diabetic patients treated with everolimuselutingmetal stents (EES) in pooled data from the SPIRIT trials (SPIRIT FIRST [Clinical Trial of the AbbottVascular XIENCE V Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System], SPIRIT II [A Clinical Evaluation of the XIENCEV Everolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System], SPIRIT III [Clinical Trial of the XIENCE V Everolimus ElutingCoronary Stent System (EECSS)], SPIRIT IV Clinical Trial [Clinical Evaluation of the XIENCE V EverolimusEluting Coronary Stent System]) were used for the comparison by applying propensity score matching.The primary endpoint was a device-oriented composite endpoint (DoCE), including cardiac death, targetvessel myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization at 1-year follow-up.Results The cumulative incidence of DoCE did not differ between diabetic and nondiabetic patientstreated with the BVS (3.7% vs. 5.1%, p » 0.64). Diabetic patients treated with the BVS had a similarincidence of the DoCE compared with diabetic patients treated with EES in the matched study group(3.9% for the BVS vs. 6.4% for EES, p » 0.38). There were no differences in the incidence of definite orprobable scaffold/stent thrombosis (0.7% for both diabetic and nondiabetic patients with the BVS; 1.0%for diabetic patients with the BVS vs. 1.7% for diabetic patients with EES in the matched study group).Conclusions In the present analyses, diabetic patients treated with the BVS showed...