Closed versus open cell stent for high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions in ST-elevation acute myocardial infarction: the Closed versus Open Cells stent for High risk percutaneous coronary Interventions in ST-Elevation acute myocardial infarction (COCHISE) pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Stent deployment may be associated with distal embolization and slow flow in coronary thrombotic lesions. There are no data on the risk of distal thrombus embolization according to the stent design. The aim was to evaluate coronary flow after percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) in acute myocardial infarction according to the employed stent (closed versus open cell design). METHODS: From March 2010 to December 2011, 223 consecutive patients with acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction were randomized to primary PCI either with an open cell (112 patients, 88 men) or with a closed cell stent design (111 patients, 92 men). The primary endpoint was the corrected TIMI frame count (cTFC) after the procedure. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in procedural success nor in-stent deployment in the 2 groups. At baseline, there were no significant differences in cTFC between the 2 groups (70 ± 37 and 67 ± 39, P = .65, respectively). After the procedure, the open cell group showed significantly higher cTFC compared to the closed cell group (18 ± 11 and 15 ± 5, P = .003 respectively). This difference was associated with a significant lower rate of TIMI 3 flow (87% and 95%, P = .037) and myocardial blush grade 3 (65% and 87%, P = .001) in the open compared to the closed cell group. There were 2 cases of death in the open cell and 1 case in the closed cell group. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a closed cell stent design rather than an open cell during PCI for acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction is associated with better coronary angiographic flow after PCI.

Comparison of one-year cardiac events with drug-eluting versus bare metal stent implantation in rescue coronary angioplasty.

Rescue percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with bare metal stent (BMS) implantation is useful in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and failed thrombolysis. Drug-eluting stent (DESs) are more effective in reducing restenosis compared to BMS. No data are available comparing the clinical outcomes between the 2 types of stents nor has information ever been provided about the predictors of events in patients treated with rescue PCI in the current era. The aims of the present study were to evaluate the outcomes of patients undergoing rescue PCI with DES implantation compared to BMS implantation and to determine the independent predictors of events during 1 year of follow-up. The study population consisted of 311 consecutive patients with ST-segment elevation AMI and evidence of failed fibrinolysis undergoing successful revascularization with DES (n = 134) or BMS (n = 177) implantation. The end point of the present study was the incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) defined as death, recurrent AMI, and target vessel revascularization. No differences were found in the number of MACE at 1 year of follow-up between the DES and BMS groups (n = 10 and 19, respectively, p = 0.29). The Cox proportional hazards model identified cardiogenic shock (adjusted hazard ratio 7.05, 95% confidence interval 2.08 to 23.9, p = 0.001), age (hazard ratio 1.51, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.08, p = 0.011), and final minimal lumen diameter (hazard ratio 0.42, 95% confidence interval 0.21 to 0.83, p = 0.013) as independent predictors of MACE at 1 year of follow-up. After propensity score adjustments, the predictors did not change. In conclusion, we found no differences between DESs and BMSs with respect to MACE at 1 year of follow-up in patients with AMI treated with rescue PCI. Cardiogenic shock, age, and final minimal luminal diameter were identified as predictors of MACE.

Transcatheter closure of patent foramen ovale associated with atrial septal aneurysm with Amplatzer Cribriform septal occluder.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate the short- and longterm outcomes of Amplatzer Multi-Fenestrated Septal Occluder Cribriform (AMF) device use in the percutaneous closure of patent foramen ovale (PFO) associated with atrial septal aneurysm (ASA). BACKGROUND: Since patients with PFO, associated with ASA, are at higher risk of embolic events (EE), the AMF device might offer advantages in this subgroup of patients. METHODS: Overall, 38 consecutive patients, with both PFO and ASA, underwent percutaneous closure of the defect with the AMF device, and the results were compared to those in 38 patients with PFO and ASA treated with the Amplatzer PFO device (APO). Death due to embolism, stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) were considered recurrent EE. Pre- and post-intervention shunting and 6-month residual shunting were evaluated echocardiographically with intravenous contrast injection. RESULTS: The procedure was successfully completed in all patients in both groups. No procedure-related complications were observed during hospitalization. Immediate closure was achieved in all patients in the AMF group, whereas 3 patients in the APO group showed a small residual shunt. Residual shunting was observed at 6 months in 2 patients in the APO group. No recurrence of EE was recorded in the AMF group. Recurrent TIA was observed in 3 patients in the APO group; 2/3 patients had a small residual shunt following the procedure and at 6-month follow up. CONCLUSION: The AMF device might offer advantages in terms of rate of EE recurrence or residual shunt compared to the APO device in PFO patients associated with ASA.

3-year clinical outcome of patients with chronic total occlusion treated with drug-eluting stents.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate whether percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stent (DES) reduces major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in patients with chronic coronary total occlusions (CTO) compared with bare-metal stent (BMS) during 3-year follow-up. BACKGROUND: The long-term prognosis of patients with CTO treated with PCI and DES implantation is poorly investigated. METHODS: We compared the 3-year clinical outcome of 124 patients with CTO after successful PCI with DES implantation with that of 159 patients with CTO previously treated with BMS. MACE were defined as death, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization (repeat PCI or coronary artery bypass surgery) and were considered as combined primary end point. RESULTS: After 3 years, the composite end point was significantly lower in the DES than in the BMS group: 18% versus 28%, respectively, (p < 0.05). The difference was due to the reduction of target lesion revascularization with DES compared with BMS-8% versus 21%, respectively, (p < 0.004). The Cox proportional hazards model identified: DES versus BMS (adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 0.338, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.19 to 0.60, p = 0.0001), lesion length (HR: 1.033, 95% CI: 1.008 to 1.058, p = 0.012), and final minimal lumen diameter (HR: 0.456, 95% CI: 0.232 to 0.898, p = 0.023) as independent predictors of MACE at 3-year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: After 3 years, DES were superior to BMS in reducing MACE in patients with CTO and should be considered the preferred treatment strategy.

[Non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction with normal coronary arteries, clinical features and coronary artery flow]. / Valutazione del flusso coronarico nei pazienti con infarto miocardico acuto senza sopraslivellamento del tratto ST e rilievo angiografico di coronarie normali.

BACKGROUND: No assessment has been made up today concerning clinical features, coronary artery flow and mid-term prognosis between acute non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) patients without epicardial coronary disease and those with epicardial coronary artery stenosis > 50% of at least one vessel. METHODS: We evaluated consecutive NSTEMI patients who had undergone coronary angiography within the first 48 hours of infarction. We examined their age, sex, smoking habits, the incidence of diabetes, dyslipidemia, hypertension, and left ventricular ejection fraction. The coronary blood flow was assessed according to the conventional TIMI flow grade and with the TIMI frame count (TFC). RESULTS: From October 1, 2001 to December 31, 2003, 50 patients out of 996 with NSTEMI (20 males, 30 females, mean age 60 +/- 13 years), showed normal coronary arteries (5%). This subset of patients was compared with 50 NSTEMI patients with coronary stenosis. Patients of the first group were younger and more frequently female with respect to NSTEMI patients with coronary stenosis. The differences between the two groups with respect to diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia incidence and ejection fraction (52 vs 47%) were not statistically significant. With the corrected TFC (cTFC) method we found a slow flow in at least one coronary vessel in a high percentage of NSTEMI patients with normal coronary arteries. When we compared normal vessels between the two groups, we found a higher cTFC in NSTEMI patients with normal coronary arteries than in NSTEMI patients with coronary stenosis. After a 16 +/- 8 months of follow-up we observed 8 events in the normal vessel group and 10 in the coronary stenosis group (p = NS). CONCLUSIONS: The possible hypothesis of microvessel dysfunction as a pathogenesis of a slow flow in NSTEMI patients with normal coronary arteries is strong. Further studies are warranted to investigate microvessel disease and characteristics and possible causes of abnormalities. A larger perspective study with a longer follow-up is needed as well to evaluate the prognosis in this subset of patients.