Coronary sinus reducer for the treatment of refractory angina (ORBITA-COSMIC): a randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The coronary sinus reducer (CSR) is proposed to reduce angina in patients with stable coronary artery disease by improving myocardial perfusion. We aimed to measure its efficacy, compared with placebo, on myocardial ischaemia reduction and symptom improvement. METHODS: ORBITA-COSMIC was a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial conducted at six UK hospitals. Patients aged 18 years or older with angina, stable coronary artery disease, ischaemia, and no further options for treatment were eligible. All patients completed a quantitative adenosine-stress perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance scan, symptom and quality-of-life questionnaires, and a treadmill exercise test before entering a 2-week symptom assessment phase, in which patients reported their angina symptoms using a smartphone application (ORBITA-app). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either CSR or placebo. Both participants and investigators were masked to study assignment. After the CSR implantation or placebo procedure, patients entered a 6-month blinded follow-up phase in which they reported their daily symptoms in the ORBITA-app. At 6 months, all assessments were repeated. The primary outcome was myocardial blood flow in segments designated ischaemic at enrolment during the adenosine-stress perfusion cardiac magnetic resonance scan. The primary symptom outcome was the number of daily angina episodes. Analysis was done by intention-to-treat and followed Bayesian methodology. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04892537, and completed. FINDINGS: Between May 26, 2021, and June 28, 2023, 61 patients were enrolled, of whom 51 (44 [86%] male; seven [14%] female) were randomly assigned to either the CSR group (n=25) or the placebo group (n=26). Of these, 50 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis (24 in the CSR group and 26 in the placebo group). 454 (57%) of 800 imaged cardiac segments were ischaemic at enrolment, with a median stress myocardial blood flow of 1·08 mL/min per g (IQR 0·77-1·41). Myocardial blood flow in ischaemic segments did not improve with CSR compared with placebo (difference 0·06 mL/min per g [95% CrI -0·09 to 0·20]; Pr(Benefit)=78·8%). The number of daily angina episodes was reduced with CSR compared with placebo (OR 1·40 [95% CrI 1·08 to 1·83]; Pr(Benefit)=99·4%). There were two CSR embolisation events in the CSR group, and no acute coronary syndrome events or deaths in either group. INTERPRETATION: ORBITA-COSMIC found no evidence that the CSR improved transmural myocardial perfusion, but the CSR did improve angina compared with placebo. These findings provide evidence for the use of CSR as a further antianginal option for patients with stable coronary artery disease. FUNDING: Medical Research Council, Imperial College Healthcare Charity, National Institute for Health and Care Research Imperial Biomedical Research Centre, St Mary's Coronary Flow Trust, British Heart Foundation.

Artificial Intelligence for the Interventional Cardiologist: Powering and Enabling OCT Image Interpretation.

Intravascular optical coherence tomography (IVOCT) is a form of intra-coronary imaging that uses near-infrared light to generate high-resolution, cross-sectional, and 3D volumetric images of the vessel. Given its high spatial resolution, IVOCT is well-placed to characterise coronary plaques and aid with decision-making during percutaneous coronary intervention. IVOCT requires significant interpretation skills, which themselves require extensive education and training for effective utilisation, and this would appear to be the biggest barrier to its widespread adoption. Various artificial intelligence-based tools have been utilised in the most contemporary clinical IVOCT systems to facilitate better human interaction, interpretation and decision-making. The purpose of this article is to review the existing and future technological developments in IVOCT and demonstrate how they could aid the operator.

Complex percutaneous coronary intervention in patients unable to undergo coronary artery bypass grafting during the COVID-19 pandemic: insights from the UK-ReVasc Registry.

OBJECTIVES: Cardiac surgery for coronary artery disease was dramatically reduced during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Many patients with disease ordinarily treated with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) instead underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We sought to describe 12-month outcomes following PCI in patients who would typically have undergone CABG. METHODS: Between March 1 and July 31, 2020, patients who received revascularization with PCI when CABG would have been the primary choice of revascularization were enrolled in the prospective, multicenter UK-ReVasc Registry. We evaluated the following major adverse cardiovascular events at 12 months: all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization, stroke, major bleeding, and stent thrombosis. RESULTS: A total of 215 patients were enrolled across 45 PCI centers in the United Kingdom. Twelve-month follow up data were obtained for 97% of the cases. There were 9 deaths (4.3%), 5 myocardial infarctions (2.4%), 12 repeat revascularizations (5.7%), 1 stroke (0.5%), 3 major bleeds (1.4%), and no cases of stent thrombosis. No difference in the primary endpoint was observed between patients who received complete vs incomplete revascularization (residual SYNTAX score £ 8 vs > 8) (P = .22). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with patterns of coronary disease in whom CABG would have been the primary therapeutic choice outside of the pandemic, PCI was associated with acceptable outcomes at 12 months of follow-up. Contemporary randomized trials that compare PCI to CABG in such patient cohorts may be warranted.

Percutaneous Left Ventricular Unloading During High-Risk Coronary Intervention: Rationale and Design of the CHIP-BCIS3 Randomized Controlled Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Percutaneous coronary intervention for complex coronary disease is associated with a high risk of cardiogenic shock. This can cause harm and limit the quality of revascularization achieved, especially when left ventricular function is impaired at the outset. Elective percutaneous left ventricular unloading is increasingly used to mitigate adverse events in patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention, but this strategy has fiscal and clinical costs and is not supported by robust evidence. METHODS: CHIP-BCIS3 (Controlled Trial of High-Risk Coronary Intervention With Percutaneous Left Ventricular Unloading) is a prospective, multicenter, open-label randomized controlled trial that aims to determine whether a strategy of elective percutaneous left ventricular unloading is superior to standard care (no planned mechanical circulatory support) in patients undergoing nonemergent high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention. Patients are eligible for recruitment if they have severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction, extensive coronary artery disease, and are due to undergo complex percutaneous coronary intervention (to the left main stem with calcium modification or to a chronic total occlusion with a retrograde approach). Cardiogenic shock and acute ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction are exclusions. The primary outcome is a hierarchical composite of all-cause death, stroke, spontaneous myocardial infarction, cardiovascular hospitalization, and periprocedural myocardial infarction, analyzed using the win ratio. Secondary outcomes include completeness of revascularization, major bleeding, vascular complications, health economic analyses, and health-related quality of life. A sample size of 250 patients will have in excess of 80% power to detect a hazard ratio of 0.62 at a minimum of 12 months, assuming 150 patients experience an event across all follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: To date, 169 patients have been recruited from 21 National Health Service hospitals in the United Kingdom, with recruitment expected to complete in 2024. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT05003817.

Percutaneous Revascularization for Ischemic Left Ventricular Dysfunction: Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of the REVIVED-BCIS2 Trial.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is frequently undertaken in patients with ischemic left ventricular systolic dysfunction. The REVIVED (Revascularization for Ischemic Ventricular Dysfunction)-BCIS2 (British Cardiovascular Society-2) trial concluded that PCI did not reduce the incidence of all-cause death or heart failure hospitalization; however, patients assigned to PCI reported better initial health-related quality of life than those assigned to optimal medical therapy (OMT) alone. The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of PCI+OMT compared with OMT alone. METHODS: REVIVED-BCIS2 was a prospective, multicenter UK trial, which randomized patients with severe ischemic left ventricular systolic dysfunction to either PCI+OMT or OMT alone. Health care resource use (including planned and unplanned revascularizations, medication, device implantation, and heart failure hospitalizations) and health outcomes data (EuroQol 5-dimension 5-level questionnaire) on each patient were collected at baseline and up to 8 years post-randomization. Resource use was costed using publicly available national unit costs. Within the trial, mean total costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated from the perspective of the UK health system. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated using estimated mean costs and QALYs in both groups. Regression analysis was used to adjust for clinically relevant predictors. RESULTS: Between 2013 and 2020, 700 patients were recruited (mean age: PCI+OMT=70 years, OMT=68 years; male (%): PCI+OMT=87, OMT=88); median follow-up was 3.4 years. Over all follow-ups, patients undergoing PCI yielded similar health benefits at higher costs compared with OMT alone (PCI+OMT: 4.14 QALYs, £22 352; OMT alone: 4.16 QALYs, £15 569; difference: -0.015, £6782). For both groups, most health resource consumption occurred in the first 2 years post-randomization. Probabilistic results showed that the probability of PCI being cost-effective was 0. CONCLUSIONS: A minimal difference in total QALYs was identified between arms, and PCI+OMT was not cost-effective compared with OMT, given its additional cost. A strategy of routine PCI to treat ischemic left ventricular systolic dysfunction does not seem to be a justifiable use of health care resources in the United Kingdom. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01920048.

Very early invasive strategy in higher risk non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome: the RAPID NSTEMI trial.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether a very early invasive strategy (IS)±revascularisation improves clinical outcomes compared with standard care IS in higher risk patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS). METHODS: Multicentre, randomised, controlled, pragmatic strategy trial of higher risk patients with NSTE-ACS, defined by Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events 2.0 score of ≥118, or ≥90 with at least one additional high-risk feature. Participants were randomly assigned to very early IS±revascularisation (<90 min from randomisation) or standard care IS±revascularisation (<72 hours). The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality, new myocardial infarction or hospitalisation for heart failure at 12 months. RESULTS: The trial was discontinued early by the funder due to slow recruitment during the COVID-19 pandemic. 425 patients were randomised, of whom 413 underwent an IS: 204 to very early IS (median time from randomisation: 1.5 hours (IQR: 0.9-2.0)) and 209 to standard care IS (median: 44.0 hours (IQR: 22.9-72.6)). At 12 months, there was no significant difference in the primary outcome between the early IS (5.9%) and standard IS (6.7%) groups (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.42 to 2.09; p=0.86). The incidence of stroke and major bleeding was similar. The length of hospital stay was reduced with a very early IS (3.9 days (SD 6.5) vs 6.3 days (SD 7.6), p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: A strategy of very early IS did not improve clinical outcomes compared with a standard care IS in higher risk patients with NSTE-ACS. However, the primary outcome rate was low and the trial was underpowered to detect such a difference. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03707314.

A Placebo-Controlled Trial of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Stable Angina.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is frequently performed to reduce the symptoms of stable angina. Whether PCI relieves angina more than a placebo procedure in patients who are not receiving antianginal medication remains unknown. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of PCI in patients with stable angina. Patients stopped all antianginal medications and underwent a 2-week symptom assessment phase before randomization. Patients were then randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to undergo PCI or a placebo procedure and were followed for 12 weeks. The primary end point was the angina symptom score, which was calculated daily on the basis of the number of angina episodes that occurred on a given day, the number of antianginal medications prescribed on that day, and clinical events, including the occurrence of unblinding owing to unacceptable angina or acute coronary syndrome or death. Scores range from 0 to 79, with higher scores indicating worse health status with respect to angina. RESULTS: A total of 301 patients underwent randomization: 151 to the PCI group and 150 to the placebo group. The mean (±SD) age was 64±9 years, and 79% were men. Ischemia was present in one cardiac territory in 242 patients (80%), in two territories in 52 patients (17%), and in three territories in 7 patients (2%). In the target vessels, the median fractional flow reserve was 0.63 (interquartile range, 0.49 to 0.75), and the median instantaneous wave-free ratio was 0.78 (interquartile range, 0.55 to 0.87). At the 12-week follow-up, the mean angina symptom score was 2.9 in the PCI group and 5.6 in the placebo group (odds ratio, 2.21; 95% confidence interval, 1.41 to 3.47; P<0.001). One patient in the placebo group had unacceptable angina leading to unblinding. Acute coronary syndromes occurred in 4 patients in the PCI group and in 6 patients in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with stable angina who were receiving little or no antianginal medication and had objective evidence of ischemia, PCI resulted in a lower angina symptom score than a placebo procedure, indicating a better health status with respect to angina. (Funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research Imperial Biomedical Research Centre and others; ORBITA-2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03742050.).

Complex, high-risk, and indicated percutaneous coronary angioplasty in essentially calcified stented coronary lesions using excimer laser coronary atherectomy with contrast mix injection.

Introduction: Complex, coronary stenosis remains a technical challenge that may be responsible for in-stent restenosis and vessel thrombosis. Here we investigated the efficacy and safety of excimer laser coronary atherectomy (ELCA) with contrast mix injection for improving vessel wall stent apposition in undilatable, mostly calcified lesions. Aim: To assess ELCA with contrast mix injection in complex, stented, calcified coronary lesions. Material and methods: This prospective single-center observational study enrolled 52 consecutive patients (73 lesions), with suboptimal stents implanted in de novo lesions and lesions requiring in-stent restenosis (ISR) due to stent underexpansion using all available means to achieve an optimal result. Patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction were excluded. All patients underwent coronary angiography 6 months after ELCA with intravascular ultrasound or optical coherence tomography study. We used contrast media mixed with saline (25-75%) to supply maximum laser energy output when a standard approach was unsuccessful. Procedural success was defined as relative stent expansion of > 80% minimal stent area (MSA) divided by average reference lumen area. Results: Procedural success was achieved in all cases. The cross-sectional area measured in treated segment improved significantly from 2.9 (0.72) mm2 to 7.3 (0.79) mm2 after ELCA. The in-hospital device-oriented major adverse cardiac event (DOCE) rate was 9.6%. No vessel perforation occurred during ELCA. After 6 months, the DOCE rate was 13.4%, while the rate of target lesion revascularization (TLR) was 8.2%. Conclusions: This registry confirms the efficacy and safety of ELCA with contrast mix injection as a possible approach for stent expansion/ISR in failed PCI.

Viability and Outcomes With Revascularization or Medical Therapy in Ischemic Ventricular Dysfunction: A Prespecified Secondary Analysis of the REVIVED-BCIS2 Trial.

Importance: In the Revascularization for Ischemic Ventricular Dysfunction (REVIVED-BCIS2) trial, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) did not improve outcomes for patients with ischemic left ventricular dysfunction. Whether myocardial viability testing had prognostic utility for these patients or identified a subpopulation who may benefit from PCI remained unclear. Objective: To determine the effect of the extent of viable and nonviable myocardium on the effectiveness of PCI, prognosis, and improvement in left ventricular function. Design, Setting, and Participants: Prospective open-label randomized clinical trial recruiting between August 28, 2013, and March 19, 2020, with a median follow-up of 3.4 years (IQR, 2.3-5.0 years). A total of 40 secondary and tertiary care centers in the United Kingdom were included. Of 700 randomly assigned patients, 610 with left ventricular ejection fraction less than or equal to 35%, extensive coronary artery disease, and evidence of viability in at least 4 myocardial segments that were dysfunctional at rest and who underwent blinded core laboratory viability characterization were included. Data analysis was conducted from March 31, 2022, to May 1, 2023. Intervention: Percutaneous coronary intervention in addition to optimal medical therapy. Main Outcomes and Measures: Blinded core laboratory analysis was performed of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging scans and dobutamine stress echocardiograms to quantify the extent of viable and nonviable myocardium, expressed as an absolute percentage of left ventricular mass. The primary outcome of this subgroup analysis was the composite of all-cause death or hospitalization for heart failure. Secondary outcomes were all-cause death, cardiovascular death, hospitalization for heart failure, and improved left ventricular function at 6 months. Results: The mean (SD) age of the participants was 69.3 (9.0) years. In the PCI group, 258 (87%) were male, and in the optimal medical therapy group, 277 (88%) were male. The primary outcome occurred in 107 of 295 participants assigned to PCI and 114 of 315 participants assigned to optimal medical therapy alone. There was no interaction between the extent of viable or nonviable myocardium and the effect of PCI on the primary or any secondary outcome. Across the study population, the extent of viable myocardium was not associated with the primary outcome (hazard ratio per 10% increase, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.93-1.04) or any secondary outcome. The extent of nonviable myocardium was associated with the primary outcome (hazard ratio, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.00-1.15), all-cause death, cardiovascular death, and improvement in left ventricular function. Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that viability testing does not identify patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy who benefit from PCI. The extent of nonviable myocardium, but not the extent of viable myocardium, is associated with event-free survival and likelihood of improvement of left ventricular function. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01920048.

OCT or Angiography Guidance for PCI in Complex Bifurcation Lesions.

BACKGROUND: Imaging-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is associated with better clinical outcomes than angiography-guided PCI. Whether routine optical coherence tomography (OCT) guidance in PCI of lesions involving coronary-artery branch points (bifurcations) improves clinical outcomes as compared with angiographic guidance is uncertain. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, randomized, open-label trial at 38 centers in Europe. Patients with a clinical indication for PCI and a complex bifurcation lesion identified by means of coronary angiography were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to OCT-guided PCI or angiography-guided PCI. The primary end point was a composite of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), defined as death from a cardiac cause, target-lesion myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target-lesion revascularization at a median follow-up of 2 years. RESULTS: We assigned 1201 patients to OCT-guided PCI (600 patients) or angiography-guided PCI (601 patients). A total of 111 patients (18.5%) in the OCT-guided PCI group and 116 (19.3%) in the angiography-guided PCI group had a bifurcation lesion involving the left main coronary artery. At 2 years, a primary end-point event had occurred in 59 patients (10.1%) in the OCT-guided PCI group and in 83 patients (14.1%) in the angiography-guided PCI group (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.50 to 0.98; P = 0.035). Procedure-related complications occurred in 41 patients (6.8%) in the OCT-guided PCI group and 34 patients (5.7%) in the angiography-guided PCI group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with complex coronary-artery bifurcation lesions, OCT-guided PCI was associated with a lower incidence of MACE at 2 years than angiography-guided PCI. (Funded by Abbott Vascular and others; OCTOBER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03171311.).

Arrhythmia and Death Following Percutaneous Revascularization in Ischemic Left Ventricular Dysfunction: Prespecified Analyses From the REVIVED-BCIS2 Trial.

BACKGROUND: Ventricular arrhythmia is an important cause of mortality in patients with ischemic left ventricular dysfunction. Revascularization with coronary artery bypass graft or percutaneous coronary intervention is often recommended for these patients before implantation of a cardiac defibrillator because it is assumed that this may reduce the incidence of fatal and potentially fatal ventricular arrhythmias, although this premise has not been evaluated in a randomized trial to date. METHODS: Patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction, extensive coronary disease, and viable myocardium were randomly assigned to receive either percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) plus optimal medical and device therapy (OMT) or OMT alone. The composite primary outcome was all-cause death or aborted sudden death (defined as an appropriate implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy or a resuscitated cardiac arrest) at a minimum of 24 months, analyzed as time to first event on an intention-to-treat basis. Secondary outcomes included cardiovascular death or aborted sudden death, appropriate implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy or sustained ventricular arrhythmia, and number of appropriate ICD therapies. RESULTS: Between August 28, 2013, and March 19, 2020, 700 patients were enrolled across 40 centers in the United Kingdom. A total of 347 patients were assigned to the PCI+OMT group and 353 to the OMT alone group. The mean age of participants was 69 years; 88% were male; 56% had hypertension; 41% had diabetes; and 53% had a clinical history of myocardial infarction. The median left ventricular ejection fraction was 28%; 53.1% had an implantable defibrillator inserted before randomization or during follow-up. All-cause death or aborted sudden death occurred in 144 patients (41.6%) in the PCI group and 142 patients (40.2%) in the OMT group (hazard ratio, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.82-1.30]; P=0.80). There was no between-group difference in the occurrence of any of the secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: PCI was not associated with a reduction in all-cause mortality or aborted sudden death. In patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy, PCI is not beneficial solely for the purpose of reducing potentially fatal ventricular arrhythmias. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT01920048.

Sudden Cardiac Death in Ischaemic Cardiomyopathy and the Primary Prevention ICD: Time for a More a Personalised Approach?

Guidelines recommend primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillator (PPICD) for left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <35% only after 3 months of optimal medical therapy (OMT) or 6 weeks after acute MI with persistent LVEF dysfunction. A 73-year-old woman presented with decompensated heart failure secondary to ischaemic cardiomyopathy. Severe coronary disease with sufficient dysfunctional myocardial segments on cardiac MRI suggested potential benefit from revascularisation. Following discussion with the heart team, she underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). PPICD implantation was deferred as per guideline recommendations. However, 20 days post-PCI, the patient died from malignant ventricular arrhythmia captured on a Holter monitor. This case demonstrates that some high-risk patients may not receive a potentially life-saving PPICD if guidelines are stringently adhered to. We highlight evidence that LVEF alone is of limited value in a risk assessment of arrhythmogenic death, and postulate that a more personalised ICD prescription should be considered using scar characteristics on cardiac MRI to prompt upstream ICD implantation in high-risk patients.

Design and rationale of a prospective, randomized, non-inferiority trial to determine the safety and efficacy of the Biolimus A9™ drug coated balloon for the treatment of in-stent restenosis: First-in-man trial (REFORM).

BACKGROUND: Drug-coated balloon (DCB) angioplasty with paclitaxel-eluting devices is an established treatment for coronary in-stent restenosis (ISR). Biolimus A9™ (BA9), a sirolimus analogue with enhanced lipophilicity, may facilitate enhanced local drug delivery into vascular tissue. A novel DCB coated with Biolimus A9™ represents an alternative to traditional paclitaxel- and sirolimus-coated devices. Hence, we sought to investigate the safety and efficacy of this novel DCB in the treatment of coronary ISR. METHODS AND DESIGN: REFORM (NCT04079192) is a prospective, multicenter, single blind, randomized controlled trial comparing the BA9-DCB (Biosensors Europe SA, Morges, Switzerland) to the paclitaxel-coated SeQuent® Please DCB (Braun Melsungen AG, Germany) in the treatment of coronary ISR. A total of 201 patients with coronary artery disease and an indication for interventional treatment of ISR in a bare-metal stent (BMS) or drug-eluting stent (DES) have been randomized 2:1 to receive treatment with the BA9- or the paclitaxel-DCB comparator. Patients were enrolled across 24 investigational centers in Europe and Asia. The primary endpoint is percent diameter stenosis (%DS) of the target segment as assessed by quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) at 6 months. Key secondary endpoints are in-stent late lumen loss, binary restenosis, target lesion failure, target vessel failure, myocardial infarction and death at 6 months. Subjects will be followed for 24 months from enrolment. IMPLICATIONS: The REFORM trial will seek to prove that the BA9-DCB is non-inferior to the standard paclitaxel-DCB comparator in the treatment of coronary ISR with respect to %DS at 6 months and has similar safety characteristics.

The challenges of a randomised placebo-controlled trial of CTO PCI vs. placebo with optimal medical therapy: The ORBITA-CTO pilot study design and protocol.

Background: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for coronary chronic total occlusion (CTO) has been performed for the improvement of symptoms and quality of life in patients with stable angina. The ORBITA study demonstrated the role of the placebo effect in contemporary PCI in non-CTO chronic coronary syndromes. However, the benefit of CTO PCI beyond that of a placebo has not been demonstrated. Aims: The ORBITA-CTO pilot study will be a double-blind, placebo-controlled study of CTO PCI randomising patients who have: (1) been accepted by a CTO operator for PCI; (2) experienced symptoms due to a CTO; (3) evidence of ischaemia; (4) evidence of viability within the CTO territory; and (5) a J-CTO score ≤3. Methods: Patients will undergo medication optimisation that will ensure they are on at least a minimum amount of anti-anginals and complete questionnaires. Patients will record their symptoms on an app daily throughout the study. Patients will undergo randomisation procedures, including an overnight stay, and be discharged the following day. All anti-anginals will be stopped after randomisation and re-initiated on a patient-led basis during the 6-month follow-up period. At follow-up, patients will undergo repeat questionnaires and unblinding, with a further 2-week unblinded follow-up. Results: The co-primary outcomes are feasibility (blinding) in this cohort and angina symptom score using an ordinal clinical outcome scale for angina. Secondary outcomes include changes in quality-of-life measures, Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ), peak VO2, and anaerobic threshold on the cardiopulmonary exercise test. Conclusion: The feasibility of a placebo-controlled CTO PCI study will lead to future studies assessing efficacy. The impact of CTO PCI on angina measured using a novel daily symptom app may provide improved fidelity in assessing symptoms in patients with CTO's.

Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds: A Disappearing Technology, But Should We Let It Vanish?

Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffolds were designed to overcome the limitations imposed by drug-eluting stents; however, the Absorb BVS showed a 2% very late thrombosis rate. Suboptimal implantation technique has been proposed as a mechanism for the higher BVS thrombosis rate; one posthoc analysis suggested adequate pre- and postdilation in addition to proper sizing could reduce BVS thrombosis rates by 70%. This case acts as a proof of concept demonstrating advantages of BVS, namely, the ability to image the target vessel non-invasively and revascularize percutaneously or surgically if required. We advocate continued research and development in this technology given the attractive advantages, particularly in younger patients who are likely to require future coronary intervention and imaging.

Randomized comparison of chest pain evaluation with FFRCT or standard care: Factors determining US costs.

BACKGROUND: FFRCT assesses the functional significance of lesions seen on CTCA, and may be a more efficient approach to chest pain evaluation. The FORECAST randomized trial found no significant difference in costs within the UK National Health Service, but implications for US costs are unknown. The purpose of this study was to compare costs in the FORECAST trial based on US healthcare cost weights, and to evaluate factors affecting costs. METHODS: Patients with stable chest pain were randomized either to the experimental strategy (CTCA with selective FFRCT), or to standard clinical pathways. Pre-randomization, the treating clinician declared the planned initial test. The primary outcome was nine-month cardiovascular care costs. RESULTS: Planned initial tests were CTCA in 912 patients (65%), stress testing in 393 (28%), and invasive angiography in 94 (7%). Mean US costs did not differ overall between the experimental strategy and standard care (cost difference +7% (+$324), CI -12% to +26%, p â€‹= â€‹0.49). Costs were 4% lower with the experimental strategy in the planned invasive angiography stratum (p for interaction â€‹= â€‹0.66). Baseline factors independently associated with costs were older age (+43%), male sex (+55%), diabetes (+37%), hypertension (+61%), hyperlipidemia (+94%), prior angina (+24%), and planned invasive angiography (+160%). Post-randomization cost drivers were coronary revascularization (+348%), invasive angiography (267%), and number of tests (+35%). CONCLUSIONS: Initial evaluation of chest pain using CTCA with FFRCT had similar US costs as standard care pathways. Costs were increased by baseline coronary risk factors and planned invasive angiography, and post-randomization invasive procedures and the number of tests. Registration at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03187639).

Novel application of intravascular lithotripsy in stent under-expansion: A single-center experience.

INTRODUCTION: Stent under-expansion due to calcification is associated with a less durable result. The development of intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) has provided clinicians with a readily available, simple-to-use treatment option for coronary calcification, but the use of IVL within a previously stented segment is currently off-license. There are, however, developing data suggesting that the use of IVL can be an effective treatment option for patients with calcific stent under-expansion. METHOD: This was a single-center study of all patients treated with IVL for calcific stent under-expansion between January 2019 and June 2021. The impact of IVL on quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) stenosis and on the minimal stent area (MSA) derived from intracoronary imaging were recorded. The presence of periprocedural complications and adverse cardiovascular events was obtained from the clinical record during the study timeframe. RESULTS: Thirty-nine patients underwent IVL for calcific stent under-expansion during the study time frame with one patient treated with more than one lesion in the same session. In all lesions, there was an improvement in the QCA stenosis with 37 (92.5%) having a residual stenosis of ≤30%. The mean QCA stenosis pre-IVL was 68 ± 21% and following IVL the mean QCA was 18 ± 9% (p < 0.001). In all lesions, there was an improvement in the MSA, with 26 (92.9%) achieving an MSA of more than 4.5 mm2 . The mean MSA pre-IVL was 3.88 ± 1.51 mm2 and following IVL the mean MSA was 7.41 ± 2.34 mm2 (p < 0.001). There were no major procedural complications. Over a mean follow-up of 506 ± 277 days, one patient died from ventricular arrhythmia but there were no other major adverse cardiovascular events. CONCLUSION: This single-center study demonstrates that IVL is a safe and effective treatment for calcific stent under-expansion with good medium-term results.

Routine Pressure Wire Assessment Versus Conventional Angiography in the Management of Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: The RIPCORD 2 Trial.

BACKGROUND: Measurement of fractional flow reserve (FFR) has an established role in guiding percutaneous coronary intervention. We tested the hypothesis that, at the stage of diagnostic invasive coronary angiography, systematic FFR-guided assessment of coronary artery disease would be superior, in terms of resource use and quality of life, to assessment by angiography alone. METHODS: We performed an open-label, randomized, controlled trial in 17 UK centers, recruiting 1100 patients undergoing invasive coronary angiography for the investigation of stable angina or non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction. Patients were randomized to either angiography alone (angiography) or angiography with systematic pressure wire assessment of all epicardial vessels >2.25 mm in diameter (angiography+FFR). The coprimary outcomes assessed at 1 year were National Health Service hospital costs and quality of life. Prespecified secondary outcomes included clinical events. RESULTS: In the angiography+FFR arm, the median number of vessels examined was 4 (interquartile range, 3-5). The median hospital costs were similar: angiography, £4136 (interquartile range, £2613-£7015); and angiography+FFR, £4510 (£2721-£7415; P=0.137). There was no difference in median quality of life using the visual analog scale of the EuroQol EQ-5D-5L: angiography, 75 (interquartile range, 60-87); and angiography+FFR, 75 (interquartile range, 60-90; P=0.88). The number of clinical events was as follows: deaths, 5 versus 8; strokes, 3 versus 4; myocardial infarctions, 23 versus 22; and unplanned revascularizations, 26 versus 33, with a composite hierarchical event rate of 8.7% (48 of 552) for angiography versus 9.5% (52 of 548) for angiography+FFR (P=0.64). CONCLUSIONS: A strategy of systematic FFR assessment compared with angiography alone did not result in a significant reduction in cost or improvement in quality of life. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT01070771.

Percutaneous Revascularization for Ischemic Left Ventricular Dysfunction.

BACKGROUND: Whether revascularization by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) can improve event-free survival and left ventricular function in patients with severe ischemic left ventricular systolic dysfunction, as compared with optimal medical therapy (i.e., individually adjusted pharmacologic and device therapy for heart failure) alone, is unknown. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction of 35% or less, extensive coronary artery disease amenable to PCI, and demonstrable myocardial viability to a strategy of either PCI plus optimal medical therapy (PCI group) or optimal medical therapy alone (optimal-medical-therapy group). The primary composite outcome was death from any cause or hospitalization for heart failure. Major secondary outcomes were left ventricular ejection fraction at 6 and 12 months and quality-of-life scores. RESULTS: A total of 700 patients underwent randomization - 347 were assigned to the PCI group and 353 to the optimal-medical-therapy group. Over a median of 41 months, a primary-outcome event occurred in 129 patients (37.2%) in the PCI group and in 134 patients (38.0%) in the optimal-medical-therapy group (hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78 to 1.27; P = 0.96). The left ventricular ejection fraction was similar in the two groups at 6 months (mean difference, -1.6 percentage points; 95% CI, -3.7 to 0.5) and at 12 months (mean difference, 0.9 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.7 to 3.4). Quality-of-life scores at 6 and 12 months appeared to favor the PCI group, but the difference had diminished at 24 months. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with severe ischemic left ventricular systolic dysfunction who received optimal medical therapy, revascularization by PCI did not result in a lower incidence of death from any cause or hospitalization for heart failure. (Funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment Program; REVIVED-BCIS2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01920048.).