Intravascular imaging for left main stem assessment: An update on the most recent clinical data.

Left main (LM) stem has different structural and anatomical characteristics compared to all of the other segments of the coronary tree, thus its management through percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is a challenge and is associated with worse clinical outcome and higher need for revascularization as compared to other lesion settings. Intravascular imaging, by means of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) or optical coherence tomography (OCT), is an important tool for LM PCI guidance, aiming at improving the immediate performance and the long term outcome of this procedure. Following current guidelines and recent scientific findings, IVUS becomes important to firstly assess, and finally evaluate the result of LM stenting, according to the experience and preferences of the operator. The role of OCT still remains to be defined, but recent data is shedding light also on this imaging technique. The aim of this review is to highlight the latest scientific advancements regarding intravascular imaging in LM coronary artery disease.

Drug-coated balloons for the treatment of in-stent restenosis in diabetic patients: A review of currently available scientific data.

After the introduction of drug eluting stent (DES) the rate of in-stent restenosis (ISR) has decreased if compared to the BMS era; however, treatment of patients with ISR remained a major issue for the interventional cardiologist. DES has been largely used with good results also as second layer for the treatment of ISR, but the overall percentage of patients suffering from restenosis still remains high, especially in some subgroups of patients as ones with diabetes mellitus (DM). In this clinical scenario, drug coated balloon (DCB) has been gaining an important role for the treatment of ISR. In fact, it allows to release an antiproliferative drug, namely paclitaxel, without the addition of a second metallic strut, which can lead to a persistent inflammatory stimulus and further narrow the vessel. This could be an advantage in patients with an already increased systemic inflammatory burden and stiffer vessels as those with DM. Despite differences in terms of efficacy and safety between DES and DCB have already been evaluated in different clinical trials, just few of these focused on diabetic patients. The aim of this paper is to review the available data for treatment of ISR both with DES, DCB, and a comparison between these two devices, in patients affected by DM. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Bioresorbable vascular scaffold versus everolimus-eluting stents or drug eluting balloon for the treatment of coronary in-stent restenosis: 1-Year follow-up of a propensity score matching comparison (the BIORESOLVE-ISR Study).

OBJECTIVES: to compare the 1-year outcome between bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS), everolimus-eluting stent (EES), and drug-eluting balloon (DEB) for in-stent restenosis (ISR) treatment. BACKGROUND: BVS has been proposed as alternative for ISR treatment. To date a direct comparison between BVS and DES or DEB for ISR treatment is lacking. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed all ISR lesions treated with BVS, DEB, and EES from January 2012 to December 2014. A total of 548 lesions (498 patients) were included. By applying two propensity-score matching, 93 lesions treated with BVS were compared with 93 lesions treated with DEB, and 100 lesions treated with BVS were compared to 100 lesions treated with EES. RESULTS: At 1-year follow-up the incidence of device-oriented cardiovascular events (DOCE) and its components did not significantly differ between BVS and DEB (DOCE: 10.9 vs. 11.8%, HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.33-2.52; P = 0.86; Cardiac death: 2.2 vs. 1.2%, HR, 1.74, 95% CI 0.16-18.80, P = 0.65; ID-TLR: 8.9 vs. 10.7%, HR, 0.81, 95% CI 0.27-2.48, P = 0.71; TV-MI: 3.3 vs. 1.2%, HR, 2.39, 95% CI 0.27-21.32, P = 0.43) and BVS vs. EES (DOCE: 10.1 vs. 5.2% HR, 1.81, 95% CI, 0.63-5.25; P = 0.27; Cardiac death: 3.0 vs. 1.1%; HR, 2.83, 95% CI 0.29-27.4, P = 0.37; ID-TLR: 7.2 vs. 4.2%, HR, 1.57, 95% CI 0.47-5.23, P = 0.46; TV-MI: 3.1 vs. 0%). CONCLUSION: At 1-year follow-up the use of BVS as ISR treatment is associated with a higher, even if not significant, DOCE rate compared with EES while a similar rate compared to DEB.

Clinical outcomes of overlapping versus non-overlapping everolimus-eluting absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffolds: An analysis from the multicentre prospective RAI registry (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02298413).

OBJECTIVES: To compare clinical outcomes of patients treated with overlapping versus non-overlapping Absorb BVS. BACKGROUND: Limited data are available on the clinical impact of stent overlap with the Absorb BVS bioresorbable stent. METHODS: We compared outcomes of patients receiving overlapping or non-overlapping Absorb BVS in the multicenter prospective RAI Registry. RESULTS: Out of 1,505 consecutive patients treated with Absorb BVS, 1,384 were eligible for this analysis. Of these, 377 (27%) were in the overlap group, and 1,007 (73%) in the non-overlap group. The most frequent overlap configuration was the marker-to-marker type (48%), followed by marker-over-marker (46%) and marker-inside-marker (6%) types. Patients of the overlap group had higher prevalence of multivessel disease and higher SYNTAX score, and required more frequently the use of intravascular imaging. At a median follow-up of 368 days, no difference was observed between overlap and non-overlap groups in terms of a device-related composite endpoint (cardiac death, TV-MI, ID-TLR) (5.8% vs. 4.1%, P = 0.20) or of a patient-related composite endpoint (any death, any MI, any revascularization) (15.4% vs. 12.5%, P = 0.18). Cardiac death (1.0% vs. 1.3%, P = 0.54), MI (4.5% vs. 3.6%, P = 0.51), TVR (4.5% vs. 3.6%, P = 0.51) and stent thrombosis (1.1 vs. 1.5%, P = 1.00) were also comparable between groups. When assessing outcomes of the overlap population according to overlap configurations used, no difference was observed in terms of the device- or patient-related composite endpoints. CONCLUSIONS: Outcomes of patients with or without overlapping BVS were comparable at mid-term follow-up despite higher angiographic complexity of the overlap subset. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

STEMI patients and nonculprit lesions: To treat or not to treat? and when? A review of most recent literature.

Patients with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease represent a high percentage of ischemic patient with a worse outcome than patient with single coronary artery disease. Therefore, initial management of these patients is of high importance, but unfortunately this is not clarified yet. We analyze the available literature trying to afford current doubts to determine which way of revascularization is to be preferred. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Drug-Coated Balloon Versus Drug-Eluting Stent for Small Coronary Vessel Disease: PICCOLETO II Randomized Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare the performance of a novel drug-coated balloon (DCB) (Elutax SV, Aachen Resonance, Germany), with an everolimus-eluting stent (EES) (Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, California) in patients with de novo lesions. BACKGROUND: Small vessel coronary artery disease (SVD) represents one of the most attractive fields of application for DCB. To date, several devices have been compared with drug-eluting stents in this setting, with different outcomes. METHODS: The PICCOLETO II (Drug Eluting Balloon Efficacy for Small Coronary Vessel Disease Treatment) trial was an international, investigator-driven, multicenter, open-label, prospective randomized controlled trial where patients with de novo SVD lesions were randomized to DCB or EES. Primary study endpoint was in-lesion late lumen loss (LLL) at 6 months (independent core laboratory), with the noninferiority between the 2 arms hypothesized. Secondary endpoints were minimal lumen diameter, percent diameter stenosis at angiographic follow-up, and the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events at 12 months. RESULTS: Between May 2015 and May 2018, a total of 232 patients were enrolled at 5 centers. After a median of 189 (interquartile range: 160 to 202) days, in-lesion LLL was significantly lower in the DCB group (0.04 vs. 0.17 mm; p = 0.001 for noninferiority; p = 0.03 for superiority). Percent diameter stenosis and minimal lumen diameter were not significantly different. At 12-month clinical follow-up, major adverse cardiac events occurred in 7.5% of the DES group and in 5.6% of the DCB group (p = 0.55). There was a numerically higher incidence of spontaneous myocardial infarction (4.7% vs. 1.9%; p = 0.23) and vessel thrombosis (1.8% vs. 0%; p = 0.15) in the DES arm. CONCLUSIONS: In this multicenter randomized clinical trial in patients with de novo SVD lesions, a new-generation DCB was found superior to EES in terms of LLL as the angiographic pattern and comparable in terms of clinical outcome. (Drug Eluting Balloon Efficacy for Small Coronary Vessel Disease Treatment [PICCOLETO II]; NCT03899818).

Coronary artery aneurysms, insights from the international coronary artery aneurysm registry (CAAR).

BACKGROUND: Coronary Aneurysms are a focal dilatation of an artery segment >1.5-fold the normal size of adjacent segments. Although some series have suggested a prevalence of 0.3-12%, data are lacking. In addition, they are not mentioned in practice guidelines. Our aim was investigate its prevalence, management and long-term outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS: The coronary artery aneurysm registry (CAAR) involved 32 hospitals across 9 countries in America and Europe. We reviewed 436,467 consecutive angiograms performed over the period 2004-2016. Finally, 1565 patients were recruited. Aneurysm global prevalence was 0.35%. Most patients were male (78.5%) with a mean age of 65 years and frequent cardiovascular risk factors. The main indication for angiogram was an acute coronary syndrome, 966 cases. The number of aneurisms was ≤2 per patient in 95.8% of the cases, mostly saccular, most frequently found in the left anterior descending and with numbers proportional with coronary stenosis. Aortopathies were related with more aneurysms too. Most patients received any revascularization procedure (69%), commonly percutaneous (53%). After a median follow-up of 37.2 months, 485 suffered a combined event (MACE) and 240 died. Without major differences comparing CABG vs PCI, MACE and death were more frequent in patients who received bare metal stents. CONCLUSIONS: Coronary artery aneurysms are not uncommon. Usually, they are associated with coronary stenosis and high cardiovascular risk. Antiplatelet therapy seems reasonable and a percutaneous approach is safe and effective.

The impact of the use of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds and drug-coated balloons in coronary bifurcation lesions.

BACKGROUND: Despite the improvement in techniques and tools, coronary lesions involving a bifurcation are still challenging and the outcome with drug-eluting stents is not always optimal. The role of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) and drug-coated balloons (DCB) in this setting has not been adequately investigated yet. RESULTS: From the databases of 6 italian centers with high proficiencies in newer technologies, we retrospectively collected all consecutive cases of coronary bifurcations managed or attempted with the implantation of at least one BVS in the main vessel and the use of one DCB in the side branch (SB). Primary study endpoint was the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) at the longest available follow-up. Fourty patients fulfilled the enrollment criterion, 22.5% had diabetes and 50% an acute coronary syndrome. Average syntax score was 15.04 ± 7.18, all lesions were de novo, and 27 patients (67.5%) had a type 1,1,1 Medina lesion. Twenty-three lesions (57.5%) involved the proximal left anterior-descending artery/first diagonal branch. Only 32.5% of patients underwent an intravascular imaging-guided angioplasty. Average lesion length was 21.4 mm in the main vessel and 11.49 mm in the SB. MV was always predilated and BVS received a postdilation in 100% of the cases. In 42.5% of the cases, the DCB was used during final kissing balloon inflation, and in no cases, a stent/BVS was required in the SB. Procedural success was achieved in 100% of the cases. After an average follow-up of 15.5 (± 11.5) months, we observed no MACE with only one case of target vessel revasularization (2.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Management of coronary bifurcation lesions with the use of newer technologies including BVS and DCB seems feasible and effective at mid-term and long-term clinical follow-up.

One-Year Results Following a Pre-Specified ABSORB Implantation Strategy in ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (BVS STEMI STRATEGY-IT Study).

BACKGROUND: data from clinical experiences with Absorb bioresorbable scaffold (BRS) in STEMI raised concerns among clinicians about the device safety because a noteworthy scaffold thrombosis (ScT) rate was reported at early and long-term follow-up. Nevertheless, pre-specified technical suggestions of how to perform an optimal BRS procedure in STEMI were lacking. In this study we sought to assess the 1-year results following a pre-specified BRS implantation strategy in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients undergoing primary PCI (pPCI). METHODS: This is a prospective, multicenter study on 505 STEMI patients undergoing pPCI with Absorb following a dedicated implantation protocol. The primary end-point (a device oriented composite end-point (DOCE) of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction (TV-MI) and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (ID-TLR) within 30 days) was already reported. We here present DOCE, its singular components and ScT rates (secondary end-points) at 1-year. RESULTS: According to the study protocol direct Absorb implantation was feasible in 47 (9.3%) patients while post-dilatation was performed in 468 (92.7%) cases. The hierarchical DOCE rate at 1-year was 1.2% (0.4% cardiac death, 0.4% TV-MI and 0.8% ID-TLR) versus 0.6% at 30-day. Two episodes (0.4%) of ScT (one probable subacute and one late definite) were reported. At 1-year, 99.2% patients were on dual antiplatelet therapy (95% with ticagrelor or prasugrel). CONCLUSIONS: A pre-specified Absorb implantation strategy in STEMI patients was associated with persistent low DOCE and ScT rates at 1-year. Longer term follow-up is needed to assess the role of this strategy on preventing very-late events (NCT02601781).

Coronary artery treatment with a urea-based paclitaxel-coated balloon: the European-wide FALCON all-comers DCB Registry (FALCON Registry).

AIMS: The aim of this study was to investigate the use of a drug-coated balloon (DCB) in daily clinical practice and provide further evidence on the safety and efficacy of paclitaxel-coated balloon treatment using urea as an inert excipient. METHODS AND RESULTS: Between December 2013 and December 2015, 757 patients treated for coronary lesions with the IN.PACT Falcon balloon were enrolled in this prospective real-world all-comers registry. The primary outcome was the clinically driven target lesion revascularisation (TLR) rate at 12 months. The secondary outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACE) defined as cardiac death, myocardial infarction, TLR and target vessel revascularisation (TVR). Out of 805 lesions, 43.1% were de novo, and 53.2% drug-eluting stent (DES) or bare metal stent (BMS) in-stent restenosis (ISR). TLR at 12 months was 6.2% and TVR 8.3%. MACE occurred in 9.7% of patients with a composite of cardiac death in 0.8% and myocardial infarction in 2.7% plus TLR/TVR. Subgroup analysis confirmed a TLR rate of 7.5% for ISR (2.1% BMS and 9.5% DES) and 4.9% for de novo lesions. CONCLUSIONS: The IN.PACT Falcon urea-based paclitaxel-coated balloon is safe and efficient in de novo and ISR lesions with low rates of TLR/TVR. The high proportion of treatment of de novo lesions indicates that a DCB-only strategy is nowadays common.

Renal haemodynamics and coronary atherosclerotic burden are associated in patients with hypertension and mild coronary artery disease.

Intrarenal hemodynamic alterations are independent predictors of cardiovascular events in different populations. It has been hypothesized that there is an association between renal hemodynamics and coronary atherosclerotic burden in patients with hypertension. Therefore, the present study examined the associations between renal hemodynamics, coronary atherosclerotic burden and carotid atherosclerotic disease. A total of 130 patients with hypertension aged between 30-80 years who had been referred for an elective coronary angiography were enrolled in the present study. A duplex ultrasound of the intrarenal vasculature was performed to evaluate the resistive index (RI), pulsatility index (PI) and acceleration time (AT). The carotid intima-media thickness was additionally assessed. A coronary angiography was performed to detect the atherosclerotic burden using the Gensini Score (GS). Based on the GS values, subjects were divided into quintiles (I: ≤9; II: 9-17; III: 17-30; IV: 30-44; and V: GS >44) as well as in subjects with mild (GS ≤30) or severe coronary disease (GS >30). A weak significant difference in PI was identified among quintiles (P=0.041), whereas, RI and AT did not differ significantly. PI was associated with GS in the group with low coronary atherosclerotic burden (GS ≤30; P=0.047), whereas, no association was detected in subjects with GS >30. This association remained following adjustment for age and left ventricular ejection fraction (P=0.025). In conclusion, renal vascular alterations were associated with coronary atherosclerotic burden in patients with hypertension with mild coronary disease.

Clinical findings after bioresorbable vascular scaffold implantation in an unrestricted cohort of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (from the RAI registry).

BACKGROUND: The bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) technology may be an appealing option in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients. However, the available evidence on its use in this challenging subset is limited. METHODS: Registro Absorb Italiano (RAI) is a multicenter, prospective registry that aims to assess BVS performance through a 5-year follow-up of all consecutive patients who undergone at least 1 successful BVS implantation. As a part of it, a subgroup analysis in STEMI patients was performed and the outcomes of this cohort compared to the remaining population (defined as "non-STEMI") are reported here. RESULTS: Among the 1505 patients enrolled, 317 (21.1%) had STEMI on admission. Among those, 232 (73.2%) underwent primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) within 12 h from symptom onset; 64 (20.2%) were late-comers (>12 h); 16 (5%) underwent PCI after successful thrombolysis while 5 (1.6%) underwent rescue-PCI. At a median follow-up time of 12 months (IQR 6-20 months) no differences were noticed between STEMI and "non-STEMI" groups in terms of device-oriented composite endpoint (4.1% vs. 5.6%; p = 0.3) and its singular components: ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (3.2% vs. 3.6%; p = 0.7), target-vessel myocardial infarction (3.2% vs. 2.8%; p = 0.7) and cardiac death (0.6% vs. 0.6%; p = 0.9). The rate of definite/probable scaffold thrombosis (ScT) was numerically higher but not significant in the STEMI group (2.5% vs. 1.3%; p = 0.1). CONCLUSIONS: BVS implantation in an unrestricted cohort of STEMI patients is associated with a numerically higher rate of ScT compared to the non-STEMI group. Further studies exploring the potential clinical impact of a pre-specified BVS implantation strategy in this high-risk clinical setting are needed.

Recurrent in-stent restenosis, certainty of its origin, uncertainty about treatment.

Treatment of recurrent in-stent restenosis is a real brainteaser for the interventional cardiologist who cannot resort to the guidelines to have indications about the type of treatment to be preferred. The use of intracoronary imaging may provide insights into the underlying mechanisms of this complication and use of drug-coated balloons may be a valid alternative and especially a thoughtful treatment when the repeated and perseverant use of drug-eluting stents clearly fails. In this setting, we present a review of the literature about this interesting topic, going deep into the heart of the problem, its origin and possible treatment options.

Effects of drug-eluting stents after rotational atherectomy: evidence from a multicenter experience.

AIMS: Rotational atherectomy is used as an adjuvant tool for percutaneous coronary interventions, especially in case of highly calcific atherosclerotic plaques. Subsequent drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation is common; however, there is a paucity of clinical evidence to support this practice. METHODS: From the databases of four high-volume Italian centers, we analyzed the angiographic outcome of patients who underwent rotational atherectomy in native coronary vessels followed by DES or bare metal stent (BMS) implantation. Primary study endpoint was late lumen loss at the longest available follow-up. Other analyses consisted of the evaluation of in-stent percentage diameter stenosis, binary restenosis, major adverse cardiovascular events, and stent thrombosis at angiographic control. RESULTS: Between 2006 and 2011, 672 patients with 734 lesions treated had complete angiographic follow-up and were enrolled into this study; 385 lesions were treated with DES and 349 with BMS. The average follow-up length was 9 ±â€Š5 months. Only a few significant differences regarding baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics were observed. Late lumen loss result significantly improved after DES implantation in comparison with BMS (0.54 ±â€Š0.79 vs. 1.01 ±â€Š1.13; P = 0.001), as well as in-stent percentage diameter stenosis (P = 0.01) and binary restenosis (P = 0.007). Major adverse cardiovascular events did not differ significantly, but showed an improved trend in the DES group, driven by a significantly lower target lesion revascularization (6.9 vs. 11.6%; P = 0.04). CONCLUSION: In a cohort of patients treated with rotational atherectomy and with complete angiographic follow-up, DES implantation is associated with improved late lumen loss over BMS. However, the DES effect in terms of angiographic endpoints seems mitigated if compared to previous studies.

Final shape of biovascular scaffolds and clinical outcome. Results from a multicenter all-comers study with intravascular imaging.

AIMS: Radial strength of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) implanted in coronary arteries is still under debate. Moreover, their final shape patterns, when implanted in an all-comer, unselected population, have not yet been completely correlated with clinical outcome and should be better investigated. METHODS AND RESULTS: A multicenter collaborative analysis was performed on all consecutive patients with native coronary artery disease undergoing PCI with intravascular imaging-guided BVS implantation. The BVS was arbitrarily categorized as having a final "oval shape" through intravascular imaging, if maximal lumen diameter was longer than 150% of minimal lumen diameter at the target lesion. Primary study-endpoint was device-oriented major adverse events (DOCE) at mid-term follow-up. Sixty-seven consecutive patients were evaluated at 6 European centers. Mean patient age was 58±11years, and 12 patients (18%) had diabetes. Mean percent diameter stenosis was 79±12.5%. Average lesion length was 24.4±13.8mm and 66% of lesions were AHA/ACC type B2/C. Postdilation rate was 91% and all BVS resulted well apposed to the vessel wall. Procedural success was achieved in all patients and 10 (14.9%) had an "oval shape" at intravascular imaging. This occurrence was not associated with an increase in periprocedural myocardial infarction (p=0.37) or DOCE during hospitalization (p=0.65). Seven-month DOCE occurred in 3 patients (5.6%) of the oval shape group, they were target-vessel revascularization and did not differ significantly between patients with vs. without final "oval shape" (p=0.34). We did not register episodes of scaffold thromboses. CONCLUSIONS: In an all-comer population with complex coronary lesions treated with BVS, a final oval shape after postdilation was not rare and not associated with immediate and medium term adverse events.

Rationale and design of a multicenter, international and collaborative Coronary Artery Aneurysm Registry (CAAR).

Coronary artery aneurysm is defined as a coronary dilation that exceeds the diameter of adjacent segments or the diameter of the patient's largest normal coronary vessel by 1.5×. It is an uncommon disease that has been diagnosed with increasing frequency since the widespread appearance of coronary angiography. The published incidence varies from 1.5% to 5%, suggesting male dominance and a predilection for the right coronary artery. Although several causes have been described, atherosclerosis accounts for ≥50% of coronary aneurysms in adults. Reported complications include thrombosis and distal embolization, rupture, and vasospasm, causing ischemia, heart failure, or arrhythmias. The natural history and prognosis remain unknown, as definitive data are scarce. Controversies persist regarding the use of medical management (antithrombotic therapy) or interventional/surgical procedures. Only some case reports or small case series are available about this condition. The Coronary Artery Aneurysm Registry (CAAR; http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02563626) is a multicenter international ambispective registry that aims to provide insights on anatomic, epidemiologic, and clinical aspects of this substantially unknown entity. In addition, the registry will assess management strategies (conservative, interventional, or surgical) and their short- and long-term results in a large cohort of patients. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02563626.