Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds for Patients With In-Stent Restenosis: The RIBS VI Study.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to assess the value of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) in patients with in-stent restenosis (ISR). BACKGROUND: Currently both drug-eluting stents (DES) and drug-eluting balloons (DEB) are recommended in patients with ISR. However, the value of BVS in this setting remains unclear. METHODS: RIBS VI (Restenosis Intra-stent: drug-eluting Balloon vs everolimus-eluting Stent) was a prospective multicenter study (19 Spanish sites) that included 141 patients treated with BVS for either bare-metal stent (BMS) ISR or DES-ISR. Late angiography was scheduled at 6 to 9 months. Inclusion/exclusion criteria were similar to those used in the RIBS IV (patients with DES-ISR) and RIBS V (patients with BMS-ISR) trials, where DEB (n = 249) was compared with everolimus (EES)-DES (n = 249). Results of BVS in RIBS VI were compared with those obtained with DEB and EES in the RIBS IV and V trials. RESULTS: On late angiography (n = 134; 95% of eligible) the in-segment minimal lumen diameter (primary endpoint) was 1.87 ± 0.5 mm, late lumen loss was 0.23 ± 0.4 mm, and restenosis rate was 11%. At 1-year follow-up (100% of patients) no patient died, 4 (2.8%) experienced a myocardial infarction, and 16 (11.3%) required target lesion revascularization. One patient (0.7%) who discontinued antiplatelet therapy experienced definitive BVS thrombosis. Freedom from cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization was 86%. The minimal lumen diameter at follow-up after BVS was similar to that obtained with DEB (1.88 ± 0.6 mm; p = NS) but smaller than that achieved after EES (2.16 ± 0.7 mm; p < 0.001). Likewise, target lesion revascularization rates after BVS were similar to those seen with DEB (10.4%) but higher than with EES (3.2%; p < 0.001). Results remained unchanged after adjusting for potential confounders in baseline characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests the safety and efficacy of BVS in patients with ISR. In this challenging anatomic scenario BVS obtained late angiographic and clinical results similar to DEB but inferior to EES. (Restenosis Intrastent: Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds Treatment [RIBS VI]; NCT02672878).

Radial Artery Embolism: A Rare Complication of Angioplasty.

We present a 55-year-old man with multivessel coronary artery disease previously treated with stenting of the left main, left anterior descending, right coronary, circumflex, and first diagonal branch. He was diagnosed with in-stent restenosis of a diagonal branch, but treatment was complicated by radial artery coronary embolism, which is a rare complication of radial intervention.

Everolimus-Eluting Stents in Patients With Bare-Metal and Drug-Eluting In-Stent Restenosis: Results From a Patient-Level Pooled Analysis of the RIBS IV and V Trials.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of patients with drug-eluting stent (DES) in-stent restenosis (ISR) is more challenging than that of patients with bare-metal stent ISR. However, the results of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) in these distinct scenarios remain unsettled. METHODS AND RESULTS: A pooled analysis of the RIBS IV (Restenosis Intra-Stent of Drug-Eluting Stents: Paclitaxel-Eluting Balloon vs Everolimus-Eluting Stent) and RIBS V (Restenosis Intra-Stent of Bare Metal Stents: Paclitaxel-Eluting Balloon vs Everolimus-Eluting Stent) randomized trials was performed using patient-level data to compare the efficacy of EES in bare-metal stent ISR and DES-ISR. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were identical in both trials. Results of 94 patients treated with EES for bare-metal stent ISR were compared with those of 155 patients treated with EES for DES-ISR. Baseline characteristics were more adverse in patients with DES-ISR, although they presented later and more frequently with a focal pattern. After intervention, minimal lumen diameter (2.22±0.5 versus 2.38±0.5 mm, P=0.01) was smaller in the DES-ISR group. Late angiographic findings (89.3% of eligible patients), including minimal lumen diameter (2.03±0.7 versus 2.36±0.6 mm, P<0.001) and diameter stenosis (23±22 versus 13±17%, P<0.001) were poorer in patients with DES-ISR. Results were consistent in the in-segment and in-lesion analyses. On multiple linear regression analysis, minimal lumen diameter at follow-up remained significantly smaller in patients with DES-ISR. Finally, at 1-year clinical follow-up (100% of patients), mortality (2.6 versus 0%, P<0.01) and need for target vessel revascularization (8 versus 2%, P=0.03) were higher in the DES-ISR group. CONCLUSIONS: This patient-level pooled analysis of the RIBS IV and RIBS V randomized clinical trials suggests that EES provide favorable outcomes in patients with ISR. However, the results of EES are less satisfactory in patients with DES-ISR than in those with bare-metal stent ISR. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifiers: NCT01239953 and NCT01239940.

Comparison of the Efficacy of Everolimus-Eluting Stents Versus Drug-Eluting Balloons in Patients With In-Stent Restenosis (from the RIBS IV and V Randomized Clinical Trials).

Treatment of patients with in-stent restenosis (ISR) remains a challenge. This study sought to compare the efficacy of everolimus-eluting stents (EESs) and drug-eluting balloons (DEBs) with paclitaxel in patients with ISR. A pooled analysis of the Restenosis Intra-Stent of Drug-Eluting Stents: Drug-Eluting Balloon vs Everolimus-Eluting Stent (RIBS IV) and Restenosis Intra-Stent of Bare-Metal Stents: Drug-Eluting Balloon vs Everolimus-Eluting Stent (RIBS V) randomized trials was performed using patient-level data. In both trials, EESs were compared with DEBs in patients with ISR (RIBS V included 189 patients with bare-metal ISR; RIBS IV included 309 patients with drug-eluting ISR). Inclusion and exclusion criteria were identical in both trials. A total of 249 patients were allocated to EES and 249 to DEB. Clinical follow-up at 1 year was obtained in all (100%) patients and late angiography (median 249 days) in 91% of eligible patients. Compared with patients treated with DEBs, patients treated with EESs obtained better short-term results (postprocedural minimal lumen diameter 2.28 ± 0.5 vs 2.12 ± 0.4 mm, p <0.0001). At follow-up, patients treated with EESs had larger in-segment minimal lumen diameter (primary end point 2.16 ± 0.7 vs 1.88 ± 0.6 mm, p <0.0001; absolute mean difference 0.28 mm; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.16 to 0.40) and net lumen gain (1.33 ± 0.6 vs 1.00 ± 0.7 mm, p <0.0001) and had lower %diameter stenosis (19 ± 21% vs 28 ± 22%, p <0.0001) and binary restenosis rate (8.7% vs 15.7%, p = 0.02). Consistent results were observed in the in-lesion analysis. No interactions were found between the underlying stent type and treatment effects. At 1-year clinical follow-up, the composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization was significantly reduced in the EES arm (8.8% vs 14.5%, p = 0.03; hazard ratio 0.59, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.94) mainly driven by a lower need for target vessel revascularization (6% vs 12.4%, p = 0.01, hazard ratio 0.46, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.86). This pooled analysis of the RIBS IV and RIBS V randomized trials demonstrates the superiority of EES over DEB in the treatment of patients with ISR.

Radial versus femoral access for angioplasty of ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction with second-generation drug-eluting stents.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Invasive and pharmacological treatment of ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction reduces the rate of ischemic events but not bleeding complications. The objective of this study was to compare clinical results and bleeding complications between femoral and radial access routes in patients with ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction. METHODS: An evaluation was performed of the population of the Examination study, a randomized, multicenter, clinical trial that included 1498 patients with ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction who underwent emergency angioplasty. Subanalysis of this population was conducted to compare patients by type of access (femoral vs radial). The primary end point was a composite of: all-cause death, myocardial infarction, revascularization, and bleeding. RESULTS: Femoral and radial access routes were used in 825 (55%) and 673 (45%) patients, respectively. More bleeding complications (major and minor) were seen with femoral access than radial access (5.9% vs 2.8%; P<.004), largely due to a greater incidence of minor bleeding with femoral access (4.6% vs 1.9%; P=.005). After adjustment for confounders, survival analysis showed a reduction in the primary composite end point in patients with radial access (hazard ratio=0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.56-0.96; P=.022). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction, the radial approach is an effective technique that improves prognosis and reduces bleeding complications.

Acceso radial frente a femoral en angioplastia por infarto agudo de miocardio con elevación del segmento ST con stent farmacoactivo de segunda generación / Radial versus femoral access for angioplasty of ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction with second-generation drug-eluting stents

Introducción y objetivos El tratamiento invasivo y farmacológico del infarto agudo de miocardio con elevación del segmento ST comporta una reducción de los eventos isquémicos, no así de las complicaciones hemorrágicas. El objetivo del estudio es evaluar en estos pacientes los resultados clínicos y las complicaciones hemorrágicas comparando el acceso femoral frente al radial. Métodos Se evaluó a la población del estudio Examination, que es un ensayo clínico multicéntrico aleatorizado que incluyó a 1.498 pacientes con infarto agudo de miocardio con elevación del segmento ST remitidos para angioplastia de emergencia. Sobre esta población, efectuamos un subanálisis en el que se analizaron dos grupos según el tipo de acceso (femoral frente a radial). Se estableció como objetivo primario la variable compuesta por: muerte por cualquier causa, infarto de miocardio, revascularización y hemorragia. Resultados El acceso fue por vía femoral en 825 pacientes (55%) y por vía radial en 673 (45%). Se observó más hemorragias (mayores y menores) con acceso femoral que con acceso radial (el 5,9 frente al 2,8%; p < 0,004), guiado por mayor incidencia de hemorragias menores en acceso femoral frente a radial (el 4,6 frente al 1,9%; p = 0,005). El análisis de supervivencia mostró una reducción de la variable compuesta primaria en los pacientes con acceso radial (hazard ratio = 0,73; intervalo de confianza del 95%, 0,56-0,96; p = 0,022), teniendo en cuenta los factores confusores. Conclusiones En pacientes con infarto agudo de miocardio con elevación del segmento ST, el acceso radial es una técnica eficaz para mejorar el pronóstico reduciendo las complicaciones hemorrágicas (AU)

Introduction and objectives Invasive and pharmacological treatment of ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction reduces the rate of ischemic events but not bleeding complications. The objective of this study was to compare clinical results and bleeding complications between femoral and radial access routes in patients with ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction. Methods An evaluation was performed of the population of the Examination study, a randomized, multicenter, clinical trial that included 1498 patients with ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction who underwent emergency angioplasty. Subanalysis of this population was conducted to compare patients by type of access (femoral vs radial). The primary end point was a composite of: all-cause death, myocardial infarction, revascularization, and bleeding. Results Femoral and radial access routes were used in 825 (55%) and 673 (45%) patients, respectively. More bleeding complications (major and minor) were seen with femoral access than radial access (5.9% vs 2.8%; P < .004), largely due to a greater incidence of minor bleeding with femoral access (4.6% vs 1.9%; P = .005). After adjustment for confounders, survival analysis showed a reduction in the primary composite end point in patients with radial access (hazard ratio = 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.56-0.96; P = .022).Conclusions In patients with ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction, the radial approach is an effective technique that improves prognosis and reduces bleeding complications (AU)

Does manual thrombus aspiration help optimize stent implantation in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction?

AIM: To evaluate the impact of thrombus aspiration (TA) on procedural outcomes in a real-world ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) registry. METHODS: From May 2006 to August 2008, 542 consecutive STEMI patients referred for primary or rescue percutaneous coronary intervention were enrolled and the angiographic results and stent implantation characteristics were compared according to the performance of manual TA. RESULTS: A total of 456 patients were analyzable and categorized in TA group (156 patients; 34.2%) and non-TA (NTA) group (300 patients; 65.8%). Patients treated with TA had less prevalence of multivessel disease (39.7% vs 54.7%, P = 0.003) and higher prevalence of initial thrombolysis in myocardial infarction flow < 3 (P < 0.001) than NTA group. There was a higher rate of direct stenting (58.7% vs 45.5%, P = 0.009), with shorter (24.1 ± 11.8 mm vs 26.9 ± 15.7 mm, P = 0.038) and larger stents (3.17 ± 0.43 mm vs 2.93 ± 0.44 mm, P < 0.001) in the TA group as compared to NTA group. The number of implanted stents (1.3 ± 0.67 vs 1.5 ± 0.84, P = 0.009) was also lower in TA group. CONCLUSION: In an "all-comers" STEMI population, the use of TA resulted in more efficient procedure leading to the implantation of less number of stents per lesion of shorter lengths and larger sizes.

Edge vascular response after polymer-free vs. polymer-based paclitaxel-eluting stent implantation.

BACKGROUND: It is unknown if lack of polymer can provoke a different edge response in drug-eluting stents. The aim of this study was to compare edge vascular response between polymer-free paclitaxel-eluting stent (PF-PES) and polymer-based paclitaxel-eluting stents (PB-PES). METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 165 eligible patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention were prospectively randomized 1:1 to receive either PF-PES or PB-PES. Those patients with paired intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) after procedure and at 9-month follow-up were included in this analysis.Seventy-six patients with 84 lesions, divided into PB-PES (38 patients, 41 lesions) and PF-PES groups (38 patients, 43 lesions) had paired post-procedure and 9-month follow-up IVUS and were therefore included in this substudy. There was a significant lumen decrease at the proximal edge of PF-PES (from 9.02±3.06 mm(2)to 8.47±3.05 mm(2); P=0.040), and a significant plaque increase at the distal edges of PF-PES (from 4.39±2.73 mm(2)to 4.78±2.63 mm(2); P=0.004). At the distal edge there was a significant plaque increase in the PF-PES compared to PB-PES (+8.0% vs. -0.6%, respectively; P=0.015) with subsequent lumen reduction (-5.2% vs. +6.0%, respectively; P=0.024). CONCLUSIONS: PF-PES had significant plaque increase and lumen reduction at the distal edge as compared to PB-PES, probably due to difference in polymer-based drug-release kinetics between the 2 platforms.

Antiphospholipid syndrome and acute myocardial infarction: treatment with thrombectomy and abciximab.

Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is an autoimmune coagulation disorder that manifests clinically as venous and arterial thrombosis, and may affect any tissue or organ. Coronary artery involvement, however, is very rare. Case reports in the literature describing patients with coronary acute syndrome and APS treated with coronary angioplasty show conflicting results. We report an adult male patient with APS who presented with an acute myocardial infarction. Given the high risk of thrombosis in these patients, he was treated percutaneously with thrombectomy and abciximab. We review the few cases of coronary angioplasty in patients with APS reported to date. To our knowledge, this is the first case in which acute myocardial infarction due to thrombotic coronary occlusion was treated with thrombectomy and abciximab without stenting the artery.

Randomized comparison between polymer-free versus polymer-based paclitaxel-eluting stent: two-year final clinical results.

BACKGROUND: Most drug-eluting stents currently in use are coated with a polymer carrying the drug that is released for several weeks. However, a durable polymer may provoke hypersensitive reaction, delayed artery healing, and eventually stent thrombosis. The aim of this study was to investigate the safety and efficacy of a polymer-free paclitaxel-eluting stent (PF-PES) versus a polymer-based PES (PB-PES). METHODS AND RESULTS: Eligible patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention were randomized 1:1 to receive either PF-PES or PB-PES. The primary end point was late loss at 9 months. Intravascular ultrasound analysis at 9 months and final 2-year clinical follow-up were also performed. From October 2007 to April 2009, 164 patients were enrolled and randomized into 2 groups (PF-PES: n = 84; PB-PES: n = 80). Mean in-stent lumen loss was 0.90 ± 0.59 mm for PF-PES and 0.49 ± 0.52 mm for PB-PES (P < 0.001). Mean neointimal area by intravascular ultrasound was higher in PF-PES than in PB-PES (1.42 ± 1.09 versus 0.51 ± 0.61 mm(2); P < 0.001). At 2 years, a composite end point of all-cause death, any myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization occurred in 36.9% for PF-PES and 16.3% for PB-PES (P = 0.004), mainly driven by a higher rate of target vessel revascularization (PF-PES: 35.7%; PB-PES: 13.8%; P = 0.001). One late stent thrombosis was observed in PF-PES. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with PB-PES, PF-PES was associated with increased neointimal proliferation and subsequent clinical restenosis. Polymer plays an essential role in the performance of drug-eluting stents. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01375855.

A randomized comparison of drug-eluting balloon versus everolimus-eluting stent in patients with bare-metal stent-in-stent restenosis: the RIBS V Clinical Trial (Restenosis Intra-stent of Bare Metal Stents: paclitaxel-eluting balloon vs. everolimus-eluting stent).

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare the efficacy of drug-eluting balloons (DEB) with that of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) in patients with bare-metal stents (BMS) in-stent restenosis (ISR). BACKGROUND: Treatment of patients with ISR remains a challenge. METHODS: This was a prospective, multicenter, randomized trial comparing DEB with EES in patients with bare-metal stents (BMS) in-stent restenosis (ISR). The primary endpoint was the minimal lumen diameter at 9 months' follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 189 patients with BMS-ISR from 25 Spanish sites were included (95 were allocated to DEB and 94 to EES). Procedural success was achieved in all patients. At late angiography (median 249 days; 92% of eligible patients), patients in the EES arm had a significantly larger minimal lumen diameter (2.36 ± 0.6 mm vs. 2.01 ± 0.6 mm, p < 0.001; absolute mean difference: 0.35 mm; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.16 to 0.53) and a lower percent of diameter stenosis (13 ± 17% vs. 25 ± 20%, p < 0.001). However, late loss (0.04 ± 0.5 mm vs. 0.14 ± 0.5 mm, p = 0.14) and binary restenosis rate (4.7% vs. 9.5%, p = 0.22) were very low and similar in both groups. Clinical follow-up (median 365 days) was obtained in all (100%) patients. Occurrences of the combined clinical outcome measure (cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization; 6% vs. 8%; hazard ratio [HR]: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.26 to 2.18, p = 0.6) and the need for target vessel revascularization (2% vs. 6%; HR: 0.32: 95% CI: 0.07 to 1.59, p = 0.17) were similar in the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with BMS-ISR, both DEB and EES provided excellent clinical results with a very low rate of clinical and angiographic recurrences. However, compared with DEB, EES provide superior late angiographic findings. (Restenosis Intra-stent of Bare Metal Stents: Paclitaxel-eluting Balloon vs. Everolimus-eluting Stent [RIBS V]; NCT01239953).

Implantation of a drug-eluting stent with a different drug (switch strategy) in patients with drug-eluting stent restenosis. Results from a prospective multicenter study (RIBS III [Restenosis Intra-Stent: Balloon Angioplasty Versus Drug-Eluting Stent]).

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to assess the effectiveness of a strategy of using drug-eluting stents (DES) with a different drug (switch) in patients with DES in-stent restenosis (ISR). BACKGROUND: Treatment of patients with DES ISR remains a challenge. METHODS: The RIBS-III (Restenosis Intra-Stent: Balloon Angioplasty Versus Drug-Eluting Stent) study was a prospective, multicenter study that aimed to assess results of coronary interventions in patients with DES ISR. The use of a different DES was the recommended strategy. The main angiographic endpoint was minimal lumen diameter at 9-month follow-up. The main clinical outcome measure was a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization. RESULTS: This study included 363 consecutive patients with DES ISR from 12 Spanish sites. The different-DES strategy was used in 274 patients (75%) and alternative therapeutic modalities (no switch) in 89 patients (25%). Baseline characteristics were similar in the 2 groups, although lesion length was longer in the switch group. At late angiographic follow-up (77% of eligible patients, median: 278 days) minimal lumen diameter was larger (1.86 ± 0.7 mm vs. 1.40 ± 0.8 mm, p = 0.003) and recurrent restenosis rate lower (22% vs. 40%, p = 0.008) in the different-DES group. At the last clinical follow-up (99% of patients, median: 771 days), the combined clinical endpoint occurred less frequently (23% vs. 35%, p = 0.039) in the different-DES group. After adjustment using propensity score analyses, restenosis rate (relative risk: 0.41, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.21 to 0.80, p = 0.01), minimal lumen diameter (difference: 0.41 mm, 95% CI: 0.19 to 0.62, p = 0.001), and the event-free survival (hazard ratio: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.33 to 0.96, p = 0.038) remained significantly improved in the switch group. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with DES ISR, the implantation of a different DES provides superior late clinical and angiographic results than do alternative interventional modalities.

Adequate antiplatelet regimen in patients on chronic anti-vitamin K treatment undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

AIM: To investigate the impact of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAT) in patients on anti-vitamin K (AVK) regimen requiring percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS: Between February 2006 and February 2008, 138 consecutive patients under chronic AVK treatment were enrolled in this registry. Of them, 122 received bare metal stent implantation and 16 received drug eluting stent implantation. The duration of DAT, on top of AVK treatment, was decided at the discretion of the clinician. Adequate duration of DAT was defined according to type of stent implanted and to its clinical indication. RESULTS: The baseline clinical characteristics of patients reflect their high risk, with high incidence of comorbid conditions (Charlson score ≥ 3 in 89% of the patients). At a mean follow-up of 17 ± 11 mo, 22.9% of patients developed a major adverse cardiac event (MACE): 12.6% died from cardiovascular disease and almost 6% had an acute myocardial infarction. Major hemorrhagic events were observed in 7.4%. Adequate DAT was obtained in only 44% of patients. In the multivariate analysis, no adequate DAT and Charlson score were the only independent predictors of MACE (both P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Patients on chronic AVK therapy represent a high risk population and suffer from a high MACE rate after PCI. An adequate DAT regimen and absence of comorbid conditions are strongly associated with better clinical outcomes.

Emergent versus elective percutaneous stent implantation in the unprotected left main: long-term outcomes from a single-center registry.

BACKGROUND: Unprotected left main (ULM) coronary disease is considered by contemporary guidelines a class I indication for surgery. However, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is often carried out in the ULM in either emergent or high-risk elective procedures. The aim of this study was to evaluate ULM-PCI as a feasible and safe procedure in the emergent setting, and to analyze outcomes in both scenarios. METHODS: Angiographic and clinical data were collected retrospectively for all patients who underwent emergent or elective PCI on ULM at our center from January 2006 to June 2009. All patients were followed up with a clinical visit or telephone interview. Main outcomes included major adverse cardiac events (MACE) and its individual components: cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI) and target lesion revascularization. These were analyzed at the longest follow-up available. RESULTS: A total of 98 consecutive patients with significant LM disease were included. Fifty-seven of them were treated as a planned procedure (elective group) and 41 as an emergent procedure (emergent group). Procedural success was achieved in 100% of cases in the elective group and in 88% of the emergent group (p = 0.011). Higher use of drug-eluting stents (DES) was recorded in the elective group (75% versus 45% in the emergent group; p <0.002). The emergent group presented a higher in-hospital mortality (24% versus 2% in the elective group; p <0.001). At a mean follow-up of 626 ± 380 days, the overall MACE rate was similar betweeen the two groups (23% in the emergent group versus 17% in the elective group; p = 0.52). Independent predictors of MACE after discharge follow-up were postprocedure minimal diameter and DES use. CONCLUSIONS: Emergent PCI of the ULM exhibits worse in-hospital outcomes as compared to elective procedures. However, after discharge, long-term outcomes remain comparably good between groups.

Utilidad del catéter Tornus ® en las oclusiones coronarias crónicas no dilatables / Usefulness of the Tornus ® catheter in nondilatable coronary chronic total occlusion

El tratamiento percutáneo de las oclusiones coronarias crónicas (OCC) representa un desafío. La segunda causa del fracaso de la técnica es la imposibilidad de dilatarlas con un balón. Describimos nuestra experiencia con el nuevo catéter Tornus® (Asahi Intecc; Aichi, Japón), diseñado específicamente para facilitar el tratamiento de OCC «no dilatables». Desde noviembre de 2008 hasta marzo de 2010, hemos tratado a 17 pacientes (media de edad, 62 años; el 88% varones, el 82% dislipémicos, el 52% hipertensos, el 29% diabéticos) en los que no se consiguió dilatar la lesión con ningún catéter balón tras haber cruzado la lesión con una guía de angioplastia. El catéter se utilizó con éxito en 15 casos, sin complicaciones, y se consiguió finalizar la revascularización del vaso. Durante el seguimiento clínico (mediana, 573 días), no se registraron eventos de importancia. El uso del catéter Tornus® es seguro y factible en las OCC de lesiones previamente no dilatables de manera convencional (AU)

The treatment of coronary chronic total occlusions (CTO) remains a challenge for the interventional cardiologist. Failure of balloon angioplasty is the second more common cause of an unsuccessful procedure. We describe our experience with the use of the new Tornus® catheter (Asahi Intecc, Aichi, Japan) designed specifically for the treatment of “nondilatable” CTO. Between November 2008 and March 2010, 17 patients (age 62 years, 88% men, 82% dyslipidemia, 52% hypertension, 29% diabetes) were treated in whom balloon dilatation had failed after crossing the lesion with the guide. The use of Tornus® catheter was successful without complications in 15. All patients underwent clinical follow-up (median, 573 days) with no documented major adverse events. The use of the Tornus® catheter is safe and feasible in those patients with CTO lesions in whom balloon angioplasty has been unsuccessful (AU)

[Usefulness of the Tornus® catheter in nondilatable coronary chronic total occlusion]. / Utilidad del catéter Tornus(®) en las oclusiones coronarias crónicas no dilatables.

The treatment of coronary chronic total occlusions (CTO) remains a challenge for the interventional cardiologist. Failure of balloon angioplasty is the second more common cause of an unsuccessful procedure. We describe our experience with the use of the new Tornus® catheter (Asahi Intecc, Aichi, Japan) designed specifically for the treatment of "nondilatable" CTO. Between November 2008 and March 2010, 17 patients (age 62 years, 88% men, 82% dyslipidemia, 52% hypertension, 29% diabetes) were treated in whom balloon dilatation had failed after crossing the lesion with the guide. The use of Tornus® catheter was successful without complications in 15. All patients underwent clinical follow-up (median, 573 days) with no documented major adverse events. The use of the Tornus® catheter is safe and feasible in those patients with CTO lesions in whom balloon angioplasty has been unsuccessful.

[Rescue maneuver for entrapped stent in the coronary tree]. / Maniobra para rescate de stent atrapado en el árbol coronario.

We describe two patients in whom stents dislodged from the unexpanded balloon during angioplasty and remained trapped in the coronary tree. In one patient the stent was located in the curvature of the circumflex artery and, in the other patient, it was detected in the distal left main artery. Retrieval of the undeployed stents was accomplished in the first case after advancing a low profile balloon through the stent and, in the second case, after placing a second guidewire exterior to the stent. In both cases, the balloon was inflated distally and the stents were dislodged after pulling the balloon back towards the guiding catheter and then withdrawing the whole system.

Maniobra para rescate de stent atrapado en el árbol coronario / Rescue maneuver for entrapped stent in the coronary tree

Describimos el caso de dos pacientes que durante la angioplastia los stents se desprendieron del balón sin expandir y quedaron atrapados en el árbol coronario. En un paciente el stent quedó enclavado en la curvatura de la arteria circunfleja y en el otro paciente en el tronco común distal. Los stents se extrajeron en el primer caso tras avanzar un balón de bajo perfil a través del stent y en el otro tras colocar otra guía exterior al stent y situar un balón distal. En ambos casos se hinchó el balón distal a los stents y se logró desenclavar al retirar el balón hacia el catéter guía y después todo el sistema.

We describe two patients in whom stents dislodged from the unexpanded balloon during angioplasty and remained trapped in the coronary tree. In one patient the stent was located in the curvature of the circumflex artery and, in the other patient, it was detected in the distal left main artery. Retrieval of the undeployed stents was accomplished in the first case after advancing a low profile balloon through the stent and, in the second case, after placing a second guidewire exterior to the stent. In both cases, the balloon was inflated distally and the stents were dislodged after pulling the balloon back towards the guiding catheter and then withdrawing the whole system.