Outcomes of left bundle branch area pacing compared to His bundle pacing and right ventricular apical pacing in Japanese patients with bradycardia.

Background: His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) emerge as better alternatives to right ventricular apical pacing (RVAP) in patients with bradycardia requiring permanent cardiac pacing. We aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of LBBAP, HBP, and RVAP in Japanese patients with bradycardia. Methods: A total of 424 patients who underwent successful pacemaker implantation (HBP, n = 53; LBBAP, n = 75; and RVAP, n = 296) were retrospectively enrolled in this study. The primary study endpoint was the cumulative incidence of heart failure hospitalization (HFH) during the follow-up. Results: The success rate for implantation was higher in the LBBAP group than in the HBP group (94.9% and 81.5%, respectively). Capture threshold increase >1V during the follow-up occurred in the HBP and RVAP groups (9.4% and 5.1%, respectively), while it did not in the LBBAP group. The cumulative incidence of HFH was significantly lower in the LBBAP group than the RVAP (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.12 [95% confidence interval: 0.02-0.86]; p = .034); it did not differ between the HBP and RVAP groups (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.48 [95% confidence interval: 0.17-1.34]; p = .16). Advanced age, mean percent right ventricular pacing (per 10% increase), left ventricular ejection fraction <50%, and RVAP were associated with HFH. Conclusions: Compared to RVAP and HBP, LBBAP appeared more feasible and effective in patients with bradycardia requiring permanent cardiac pacing.

Complete versus incomplete revascularization in patients with a non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction: Analysis from the e-ULTIMASTER registry.

BACKGROUND: Incomplete revascularization (ICR) has been associated with a worse prognosis after a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). In NSTEMI patients with multivessel disease (MVD) however, the benefit of a complete revascularization (CR) remains unclear. METHODS: Patients presenting with an NSTEMI and MVD were selected from the global e-ULTIMASTER registry and grouped according to completeness of revascularization at index hospitalization discharge. The primary endpoint was the patient oriented composite endpoint (POCE) defined as all death, any myocardial infarction, and any revascularization at 1 year. Target lesion failure (TLF) was defined as the composite of cardiac death, target vessel related myocardial infarction and clinically driven target lesion revascularization. Inverse propensity score weighting (IPSW) was performed to harmonize the patient's baseline characteristics between the groups. RESULTS: CR was achieved in 1800 patients (47.0 %) and ICR in 2032 patients (53.0 %). The incidence of POCE at 1 year was lower in the CR group compared to the ICR group: 7.0 % vs. 12.9 %, p < 0.0001. Similarly for TLF at 1 year: 3.6 % vs. 5.5 %, p < 0.01. After IPSW, the incidence of POCE was 7.7 % vs. 12.0 %, p < 0.0001, due to a lower all-cause mortality: 2.7 % vs. 4.2 %, p = 0.02 and less revascularizations: 4.9 % vs. 7.9 %, p < 0.001. The incidence of TLF was no longer statistically significant: CR 3.9 % vs. IR 5.0 %, p = 0.10. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with a NSTEMI and multi vessel disease undergoing a percutaneous coronary revascularization with a complete revascularization during index hospitalization have better 1-year clinical outcomes. Randomized studies are warranted to confirm these results.

Sex Differences in 5-Year Outcomes After Deferral of Revascularization Following Physiological Coronary Assessment.

Background: The relationship between sex differences and long-term outcomes after fractional flow reserve (FFR)- and instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR)-guided deferral of revascularization has yet to be elucidated. Methods and Results: From the J-CONFIRM registry (long-term outcomes of Japanese patients with deferral of coronary intervention based on FFR in a multicenter registry), this study included 432 lesions from 385 patients (men, 323 lesions in 286 patients; women, 109 lesions in 99 patients) with paired data of FFR and iFR. The primary endpoint was the cumulative 5-year incidence of target vessel failure (TVF), including cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, and clinically driven target vessel revascularization. The median FFR value was lower in men than in women (0.85 [0.81, 0.88] vs. 0.87 [0.83, 0.91], P=0.002), but the iFR value was comparable between men and women (0.94 [0.90, 0.98] vs. 0.93 [0.89, 0.98], P=0.26). The frequency of discordance between FFR and iFR was comparable between men and women (19.5% vs. 23.9%, P=0.34), although with different discordance patterns (P=0.036). The cumulative incidence of 5-year TVF did not differ between men and women after adjustment for baseline characteristics (13.9% vs. 6.9%, adjusted hazard ratio 1.82 [95% confidence interval: 0.44-7.56]; P=0.41). Conclusions: Despite sex differences in the results for physiological indexes, the 5-year TVF in deferred lesions did not differ between men and women after adjustment for baseline characteristics.

Impact of Antiplatelet Therapy on 5-Year Outcomes After Fractional Flow Reserve-Guided Deferral of Revascularization in Nonsignificant Obstructive Coronary Artery Disease.

Background: Because the clinical benefit of antiplatelet therapy (APT) for patients with nonsignificant coronary artery disease (CAD) remains poorly understood, we evaluated it in patients after fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided deferral of revascularization. Methods and Results: From the J-CONFIRM (Long-Term Outcomes of Japanese Patients with Deferral of Coronary Intervention Based on Fractional Flow Reserve in Multicenter Registry), we investigated 265 patients with deferred lesions who did not require APT for secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease. A 2-year landmark analysis assessed the relationship between APT at 2 years and 5-year major cardiac adverse events (MACE: composite of all-cause death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, clinically driven target vessel revascularization). Of the 265 patients, 163 (61.5%) received APT. The 5-year MACE did not significantly differ between the APT and non-APT groups after adjustment for baseline clinical characteristics (9.2% vs. 6.9%, inverse probability weighted hazard ratio, 1.40 [95% confidence interval, 0.53-3.69]; P=0.49). There was a marginal interaction between the effect of APT on MACE and FFR values (< or ≥0.84) (P for interaction=0.066). Conclusions: The 5-year outcomes after FFR-guided deferral of revascularization did not significantly differ between the APT and non-APT groups, suggesting that APT might not be a critical requirement for nonsignificant obstructive CAD patients not requiring APT for secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease.

Quantitative flow ratio versus fractional flow reserve for Heart Team decision-making in multivessel disease: the randomised, multicentre DECISION QFR trial.

BACKGROUND: Vessel-level physiological data derived from pressure wire measurements are one of the important determinant factors in the optimal revascularisation strategy for patients with multivessel disease (MVD). However, these may result in complications and a prolonged procedure time. AIMS: The feasibility of using the quantitative flow ratio (QFR), an angiography-derived fractional flow reserve (FFR), in Heart Team discussions to determine the optimal revascularisation strategy for patients with MVD was investigated. METHODS: Two Heart Teams were randomly assigned either QFR- or FFR-based data of the included patients. They then discussed the optimal revascularisation mode (percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI] or coronary artery bypass grafting [CABG]) for each patient and made treatment recommendations. The primary endpoint of the trial was the level of agreement between the treatment recommendations of both teams as assessed using Cohen's kappa. RESULTS: The trial included 248 patients with MVD from 10 study sites. Cohen's kappa in the recommended revascularisation modes between the QFR and FFR approaches was 0.73 [95% confidence interval {CI} : 0.62-0.83]. As for the revascularisation planning, agreements in the target vessels for PCI and CABG were substantial for both revascularisation modes (Cohen's kappa=0.72 [95% CI: 0.66-0.78] and 0.72 [95% CI: 0.66-0.78], respectively). The team assigned to the QFR approach provided consistent recommended revascularisation modes even after being made aware of the FFR data (Cohen's kappa=0.95 [95% CI:0.90-1.00]). CONCLUSIONS: QFR provided feasible physiological data in Heart Team discussions to determine the optimal revascularisation strategy for MVD. The QFR and FFR approaches agreed substantially in terms of treatment recommendations.

Five-Year Outcomes After Fractional Flow Reserve-Guided Deferral of Revascularization in Infarct-Related Artery Lesions.

Background: Little evidence is available about the long-term safety of fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided deferral of revascularization in infarct-related artery (IRA) lesions, especially when measuring FFR in the late setting after myocardial infarction (MI). This study aimed to assess the long-term outcomes after deferral of revascularization in IRA lesions based on FFR assessed in the late phase of post-MI. Methods: From the J-CONFIRM registry (Long-Term Outcomes of Japanese Patients With Deferral of Coronary Intervention Based on Fractional Flow Reserve in Multicenter Registry), data on 1447 lesions (1263 patients) were divided into 2 groups: the IRA and non-IRA groups. The primary study end point was the cumulative 5-year incidence of target vessel failure (TVF), such as cardiac death, target vessel-related MI, and clinically driven target vessel revascularization. Results: Of the 1447 lesions, 138 (9.5%) were classified into the IRA group. The median duration of FFR measurement was 716 days after MI. The frequency of visual-functional mismatches (ie, FFR >0.80 and percent diameter stenosis ≥50% or FFR ≤0.80 and percent diameter stenosis <50%) was comparable between the IRA and non-IRA groups (31.9% vs 36.3%). The cumulative 5-year incidence of TVF did not differ between the groups (9.2% vs 11.8%; inverse probability-weighted hazard ratio, 1.18, 95% confidence intervals, 0.48-2.91, P = .71). Similar results were observed irrespective of regional wall motion assessed by ultrasonic cardiography and acute MI type. Conclusions: The 5-year TVF rate did not differ between the IRA and non-IRA lesions when deferring revascularization guided by FFR in the late setting of post-MI.

Practical Application of Coronary Physiologic Assessment: Asia-Pacific Expert Consensus Document: Part 2.

Coronary physiologic assessment is performed to measure coronary pressure, flow, and resistance or their surrogates to enable the selection of appropriate management strategy and its optimization for patients with coronary artery disease. The value of physiologic assessment is supported by a large body of clinical data that has led to major recommendations in all practice guidelines. This expert consensus document aims to convey practical and balanced recommendations and future perspectives for coronary physiologic assessment for physicians and patients in the Asia-Pacific region, based on updated information in the field that includes both wire- and image-based physiologic assessment. This is Part 2 of the whole consensus document, which provides theoretical and practical information on physiologic indexes for specific clinical conditions and patient statuses.