Impact of sex differences on the feasibility and safety of distal radial access for coronary procedures: a multicenter prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: Conventional transradial access in women is associated with a lower success rate and a higher incidence of spasm compared to men. To date, the effect of sex on the performance of distal radial access (DRA) has not been fully elucidated. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of sex on catheterization success and other performance parameters of DRA procedures. METHODS: This is a prospective three-center observational study. From August 2020 to September 2022, data from all consecutive patients who underwent DRA for coronary procedures were collected. RESULTS: A total of 868 procedures were registered and stratified into two groups according to sex: women (n = 258) and men (n = 610). Female patients had less favorable baseline characteristics than male patients in terms of absent or weak pulse (29% vs. 17%; P  < 0.001), distal radial diameter (2.2 ±â€…0.3 vs. 2.4 ±â€…0.4 mm; P  < 0.001) and proximal radial diameter (2.5 ±â€…0.7 vs. 2.7 ±â€…0.7 mm; P  = 0.001). No differences in success rates were found in women compared to men (94.2% vs. 96.6%; P  = 0.135), with a higher presence of arterial spasm in women (5.8% vs. 3.0%; P  = 0.044). The preprocedural ultrasound evaluation was the only predictor of DRA success [odds ratio = 20.0 (4.739-83.333); P  < 0.001]. CONCLUSION: In patients undergoing coronary procedures, the success rate of DRA was high regardless of sex, with a higher incidence of arterial spasm in women.

A randomised trial of paclitaxel-eluting balloon after bare metal stent implantation vs. bare metal stent in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (the PEBSI study).

AIMS: Our aim was to assess the safety and efficacy of paclitaxel-eluting balloon (PTX-B) treatment after bare metal stent (BMS) implantation in patients undergoing primary angioplasty. METHODS AND RESULTS: After BMS implantation, patients were randomised (1:1) to treatment with a PTX-B or no PTX-B treatment (BMS group). The primary endpoint was in-stent late luminal loss (LLL) at nine-month follow-up. OCT was carried out on the first 20% of consecutive patients included in the study. Two hundred and twenty-three patients were randomised (BMS: 112, PTX-B: 111). At nine months, median LLL was 0.80 mm (interquartile range [IQR] 0.36-1.26) in the BMS group vs. 0.31 mm (IQR 0.00-0.58) in the PTX-B group, p<0.0001. Binary restenosis was significantly lower in the PTX-B group: 29.8% vs. 2.2%, p<0.0001, 95% confidence interval (CI): 3.2-54.2. Nine-month OCT showed good strut coverage in both groups but greater in the BMS group (100±0.0% vs. 99.52±1.11%, p=0.03) with very low rates of malapposed struts per lesion. One-year MACE was significantly lower in the PTX-B group (12.5% vs. 3.6%, p=0.016). CONCLUSIONS: PTX-B after successful BMS implantation resulted in less LLL and better clinical outcomes as compared with a BMS-only strategy. This was associated with good stent strut coverage and very low rates of malapposed struts.

Long-term results (three to five years) of the Restenosis Intrastent: Balloon angioplasty versus elective Stenting (RIBS) randomized study.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to analyze the very late outcomes of patients treated for in-stent restenosis (ISR) according to treatment allocation and 10 prespecified variables. BACKGROUND: Long-term results (>2 years) of patients with ISR undergoing repeat coronary interventions are not well established. METHODS: The Restenosis Intrastent: Balloon angioplasty versus elective Stenting (RIBS) randomized study compared these two strategies in 450 patients with ISR. A detailed systematic protocol was used for late clinical follow-up. RESULTS: At one-year follow-up (100% of patients), the event-free survival was similar in the two groups (77% stent implantation [ST] arm, 71% balloon angioplasty [BA] arm, log-rank p = 0.19). Additional long-term clinical follow-up (median 4.3 years, range 3 to 5 years) was obtained in 98.6% of patients. During this time 22 additional patients died (9 ST arm, 13 BA arm), 7 suffered a myocardial infarction (3 ST arm, 4 BA arm), 23 required coronary surgery (11 ST arm, 12 BA arm), and 9 underwent repeat coronary interventions (4 ST arm, 5 BA arm) (nonexclusive events). At four years the event-free survival was 69% in the ST arm and 64% in the BA arm (log-rank p = 0.21). Among the 10 prespecified variables, vessel size > or = 3 mm had a major influence on the clinical outcome at four years, with better results in the ST group (hazard ratio 0.51, 95% confidence interval 0.3 to 0.89, p = 0.016). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with ISR undergoing repeat interventions have a significant event rate at late follow-up. Continued medical surveillance should be continued after one year. Patients with large vessels have a better outcome after repeat stenting.

Comparison of paclitaxel-eluting stents (Taxus) and everolimus-eluting stents (Xience) in left main coronary artery disease with 3 years follow-up (from the ESTROFA-LM registry).

Evidence regarding therapy with drug-eluting stents in the left main coronary artery (LM) is based mostly on trials performed with first-generation drug-eluting stents. The aim of this study was to evaluate long-term clinical outcomes after treatment for unprotected LM disease with paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) and everolimus-eluting stents (EES). The ESTROFA-LM is a multicenter retrospective registry including consecutive patients with unprotected LM disease treated with PES or EES. A total of 770 patients have been included at 21 centers, 415 with treated PES and 355 with EES. Treatment with 2 stents was more frequent with PES (17% vs 10.4%, p = 0.007), whereas intravascular ultrasound was more frequently used with EES (35.2% vs 26%, p = 0.006). The 3-year death and infarction survival rates were 86.1% for PES and 87.3% for EES (p = 0.50) and for death, infarction, and target lesion revascularization were 83.6% versus 82% (p = 0.60), respectively. Definite or probable thrombosis was 1.6% for PES and 1.4% for EES (p = 0.80). The use of 2 stents, age, diabetes, and acute coronary syndromes were independent predictors of mortality. In the subgroup of distal lesions, the use of intravascular ultrasound was an independent predictor of better outcome. Comparison of propensity score-matched groups did not yield differences between the 2 stents. In conclusion, the results of this multicenter registry show comparable safety and efficacy at 3 years for PES and EES in the treatment of LM disease. The use of bifurcation stenting techniques in distal lesions was a relevant independent predictor for events. The use of intravascular ultrasound appears to have a positive impact on patients treated for LM distal disease.

Thrombosis of second-generation drug-eluting stents in real practice results from the multicenter Spanish registry ESTROFA-2 (Estudio Español Sobre Trombosis de Stents Farmacoactivos de Segunda Generacion-2).

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate second-generation drug-eluting stent (DES) thrombosis in clinical practice. BACKGROUND: First-generation DES are associated with a significant incidence of late thrombosis. There is paucity of data regarding real practice late thrombosis incidence and predictors with second-generation DES, zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES), and everolimus-eluting stents (EES). METHODS: A prospective, large-scale, non-industry-linked multicenter registry was designed. Complete clinical-procedural data and systematic follow-up of all patients treated with these stents was reported in a dedicated registry supported by the Spanish Working Group on Interventional Cardiology. RESULTS: From 2005 to 2008, 4,768 patients were included in 34 centers: 2,549 treated with ZES, and 2,219 with EES. The cumulative incidence of definite/probable thrombosis for ZES was 1.3% at 1 year and 1.7% at 2 years and for EES 1.4% at 1 year and 1.7% at 2 years (p = 0.8). The increment of definite thrombosis between the first and second year was 0.2% and 0.25%, respectively. In a propensity score analysis, the incidence remained very similar. Ejection fraction (adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.95 to -0.99; p = 0.008), stent diameter (adjusted HR: 0.37; 95% CI: 0.17to 0.81; p = 0.01) and bifurcations (adjusted HR: 2.1; 95% CI: 1.14 to 3.7; p = 0.02) emerged as independent predictors of thrombosis. In the subgroup of patients with bifurcations, the use of ZES was independently associated with a higher thrombosis rate (adjusted HR: 4; 95% CI: 1.1 to 13; p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: In a real practice setting, the incidence of thrombosis at 2 years with ZES and EES was low and quite similar. The incidence of very late thrombosis resulted lower than was reported in registries of first-generation DES. In the subset of bifurcations, the use of ZES significantly increased the risk of thrombosis.

Implications of the "watermelon seeding" phenomenon during coronary interventions for in-stent restenosis.

The occurrence of balloon slippage ("watermelon seeding"; WMS) during treatment of patients with in-stent restenosis (ISR) has been described, but predisposing factors and the potential implications of this phenomenon remain unknown. In the Restenosis Intrastent: Balloon Angioplasty vs. Elective Stenting (RIBS) randomized study, 450 patients with ISR were included. Of these, 42 patients (9%) presented WMS during the procedure. WMS was detected in 26 patients (12%) in the balloon arm and 16 (7%) in the stent arm (P=0.11). In the stent arm, WMS was only noticed during balloon predilation, never during stent implantation. As compared with 408 patients without WMS, patients with WMS had more severe (TIMI flow 1; 21% vs. 8%; P=0.01) and diffuse (length>15 mm: 45% vs. 28%; P=0.02) ISR lesions. Patients with WMS required more balloon inflations, longer total inflation time, had more frequent crossover to stenting or ended the procedure with residual dissections, and eventually obtained poorer acute results (minimal lumen diameter, 2.35+/-0.5 vs. 2.53+/-0.5 mm; P=0.03). In addition, at 6-month follow-up, patients with WMS had a smaller minimal lumen diameter (1.26+/-0.7 vs. 1.61+/-0.7 mm; P=0.007) and a higher restenosis rate (56% vs. 37%; P=0.017). On logistic regression analysis, the WMS phenomenon emerged as an independent predictor of recurrent restenosis (adjusted RR=2.1; 95% CI=1.1-4.1; P=0.04). The WMS phenomenon may complicate treatment of patients with ISR. Long and severe lesions appear to predispose to this technical problem that never occurs during stent deployment. In patients with ISR, WMS is associated with cumbersome procedures and poorer acute and long-term angiographic results.