Outcomes and challenges of the provisional stenting technique: Insights from the PROGRESS-BIFURCATION registry.

BACKGROUND: Provisional stenting is the most commonly used coronary bifurcation stenting strategy. METHODS: We examined the clinical and angiographic characteristics, challenges encountered, and procedural outcomes with the provisional bifurcation stenting strategy in the Prospective Global Registry of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) in Bifurcation Lesions (PROGRESS-BIFURCATION, NCT05100992). RESULTS: Provisional stenting was used in 334 of 430 bifurcation interventions (78%). Technical success was lower (95% vs. 100%, p = 0.017) in provisional, but procedural success (90% vs. 95%, p = 0.095) and incidence of in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular events were similar (5% vs. 5%, p = 0.945) compared with two-stent strategies. Provisional was less often preferred in left main/left anterior descending involvement (47% vs. 73%, p < 0.001). Provisional stenting cases had smaller side branch (SB) diameter (2.4 ± 0.5 vs. 2.7 ± 0.6 mm, p < 0.001), shorter SB lesion length (5 [3-8] vs. 10 [5-10] mm, p < 0.001), less SB diameter stenosis (46 ± 35 vs. 81 ± 20%, p < 0.001), and were less likely to be Medina 1,1,1 (34% vs. 73%, p < 0.001). PCI challenges were less common (30% vs. 58%, p < 0.001) with provisional stenting: (1) rewiring difficulty (43%) that was overcome with use of a different wire (74%) or microcatheter (46%); (2) inability to deliver a stent (22%) or balloon (9%) that was overcome with use of a smaller balloon (88%), rewiring (25%), or increased support/microcatheter (25%). CONCLUSIONS: Provisional bifurcation stenting was more often performed in distal lesions with less SB involvement and had lower technical success, but similar procedural success and complications compared with two-stent strategies.

Learning and innovation among interventional cardiologists: Insights from an international survey.

BACKGROUND: The willingness of interventional cardiologists to adopt innovation and implement changes in day-to-day practice has received limited study. METHODS: Online-based survey on learning and innovation: 38 questions were distributed via email list to interventional cardiologists. RESULTS: The survey was distributed to 8,110 e-mails and completed by 621 (7.7%, 91.8% men, 60% in the 35 to 54-year-old age group). Of the respondents who perform coronary interventions, 45% perform >100 cases of noncomplex percutaneous coronary interventions per year and of the respondents who perform structural interventions, 15% perform more than >100 transcatheter aortic valve replacements per year. Most respondents (86.7%) rate themselves as highly likely/likely to introduce recently approved equipment in everyday practice and 47.5% have tried a new coronary guidewire in the past 6 months. The most common reasons for reluctance to use new equipment were high cost (64%) and uncertainty about whether it provides additional benefits compared with existing equipment (48.5%). Radial access in STEMI cases is always used by 43.6% of the respondents and 55% always use radial access for coronary angiography. Of those who use femoral access, 32% always use ultrasound guidance and 91% have used a closure device in the last 6 months. Most respondents (80%) read journals to keep up with current practice and believe that the most effective way to learn is through attendance of workshops/short courses (77.5%). Most respondents (69%) are involved in research. CONCLUSION: Interventional cardiologists who participated in the survey are highly likely to adopt innovation in daily clinical practice.

Outcomes of intravascular brachytherapy for recurrent drug-eluting in-stent restenosis.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the outcomes of vascular brachytherapy (VBT) for recurrent drug-eluting stents (DES) in-stent restenosis (ISR). BACKGROUND: Recurrent DES-ISR can be challenging to treat. VBT has been used with encouraging results. METHODS: We report the long-term outcomes of patients with recurrent DES-ISR treated with VBT between January 2014 and September 2018 at a tertiary care institution. The main outcome was target lesion failure (TLF), defined as the composite of clinically driven target lesion revascularization (TLR), target lesion myocardial infarction (MI), and target lesion-related cardiac death. Cox proportional hazards analysis was performed to identify variables associated with recurrent TLF. RESULTS: During the study period, 116 patients (143 lesions) underwent VBT. Median follow-up was 24.7 (14.5-35.4) months. The incidence of TLR, target-lesion MI, and TLF was 18.9%, 5.6%,and 20.1% at 1 year, and 29.4%, 10.5%, and 32.9% at 2 years.Initial presentation with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) was independently associated with TLF (hazard ratio = 1.975, 95% CI [1.120, 3.485], p = .019). Lesions treated with intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guidance had a lower incidence of TLR (14.3% vs. 39.6%, log-rank p = .038), and a trend toward lower incidence of TLF (19% vs. 42.6%, log-rank p = .086). CONCLUSIONS: VBT can improve the treatment of recurrent DES-ISR, but TLF occurs in approximately one in three patients at 2 years. Initial presentation with ACS was associated with higher TLF and the use of IVUS with a trend for lower incidence of TLF.

An algorithmic approach to balloon-uncrossable coronary lesions.

Balloon uncrossable coronary lesions are lesions that cannot be crossed with a balloon after successful guidewire crossing. The strategies used to facilitate the treatment of such lesions can be classified into strategies that provide lesion modification and strategies that increase support. We describe a systematic, algorithmic approach to treat balloon uncrossable lesions, starting with use of small balloons, followed by increase in guide catheter support, use of microcatheters, wire cutting or puncture techniques, laser, atherectomy, and subintimal modification techniques. Sequential and simultaneous application of the aforementioned techniques can result in successful treatment of these challenging lesions.