Antiplatelet therapy in patients with conservatively managed spontaneous coronary artery dissection from the multicentre DISCO registry.

AIMS: The role of antiplatelet therapy in patients with spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD) undergoing initial conservative management is still a matter of debate, with theoretical arguments in favour and against its use. The aims of this article are to assess the use of antiplatelet drugs in medically treated SCAD patients and to investigate the relationship between single (SAPT) and dual (DAPT) antiplatelet regimens and 1-year patient outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS: We investigated the 1-year outcome of patients with SCAD managed with initial conservative treatment included in the DIssezioni Spontanee COronariche (DISCO) multicentre international registry. Patients were divided into two groups according to SAPT or DAPT prescription. Primary endpoint was 12-month incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) defined as the composite of all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), and any unplanned percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Out of 314 patients included in the DISCO registry, we investigated 199 patients in whom SCAD was managed conservatively. Most patients were female (89%), presented with acute coronary syndrome (92%) and mean age was 52.3 ± 9.3 years. Sixty-seven (33.7%) were given SAPT whereas 132 (66.3%) with DAPT. Aspirin plus either clopidogrel or ticagrelor were prescribed in 62.9% and 36.4% of DAPT patients, respectively. Overall, a 14.6% MACE rate was observed at 12 months of follow-up. Patients treated with DAPT had a significantly higher MACE rate than those with SAPT [18.9% vs. 6.0% hazard ratios (HR) 2.62; 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.22-5.61; P = 0.013], driven by an early excess of non-fatal MI or unplanned PCI. At multiple regression analysis, type 2a SCAD (OR: 3.69; 95% CI 1.41-9.61; P = 0.007) and DAPT regimen (OR: 4.54; 95% CI 1.31-14.28; P = 0.016) resulted independently associated with a higher risk of 12-month MACE. CONCLUSIONS: In this European registry, most patients with SCAD undergoing initial conservative management received DAPT. Yet, at 1-year follow-up, DAPT, as compared with SAPT, was independently associated with a higher rate of adverse cardiovascular events (ClinicalTrial.gov id: NCT04415762).

Biolimus-Eluting StenT For de-novo coRonary artery dIsease in patiENts with Diabetes mellituS: the BESTFRIENDS multicentre registry.

AIMS: Coronary inflammation and healing influence outcomes of diabetic patients treated with Percutaneous coronary revascularization (PCI). Stents covered with biodegradable polymers (bp) may offer advantages over nonerodible polymer ones, because polymer reabsorption extinguish coronary inflammation and favours healing. Aim of our study was to assess the safety and efficacy of bp-biolimus-eluting stent (bp-BES) in a large series of consecutive diabetic patients. METHODS: From 2009 to 2013 we retrospectively enrolled consecutive diabetic patients treated with PCI and bp-BES implantation. Primary end points were target lesion revascularization (TLR) and stent thrombosis rates. RESULTS: Study cohort counted 747 patients. Multivessel disease was present in 48.2% with a mean stent/patient ratio of 1.860.78. During the hospital stay no stent thrombosis occurred. At 3-year follow-up we observed a 1.5% cumulative incidence of cardiac death, 1.1% of myocardial infarction and 6.3% of TLR. Stent thrombosis occurred in 1.1% of patients, all in the first 2 years of follow-up. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed a TLR-free survival at 1 and 3 years of 97.2 and 96.1%, respectively. CONCLUSION: PCI with bp-BES seems to be well tolerated and effective in a large unselected population of diabetic patients. The good results observed were maintained at 3 years of follow-up.

Long-term outcomes of percutaneous coronary interventions with stent implantation in patients ≤40 years old.

Data on the long-term prognosis of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in young patients are limited. The aim of the present study was to report the immediate and long-term clinical outcomes in a consecutive series of young patients with premature coronary artery disease who underwent PCI with stent implantation. During the study period (2005 to 2010), 214 consecutive patients aged ≤40 years who had undergone PCI with a bare metal stent or drug-eluting stent implantation were retrospectively selected and analyzed. Primary end point of this study was the incidence of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events at short- and long-term follow-up. Mean age was 36.3 ± 3.5 years and 88.3% of patients were men. Three-quarters were active smokers and all patients had ≥1 conventional cardiovascular risk factor. The total number of implanted stents was 272 (154 bare metal stent and 118 drug-eluting stent). During the hospital stay, no patient died, and the incidence of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events was 2.3%. No additional events had occurred at 30 days of follow-up. At a median follow-up of 757 days (interquartile range 365 to 1,818), the overall death rate was 0.9%, and a new revascularization procedure was needed in 12.6% of patients. The major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular event-free survival rate at the median follow-up point and 1,818 days was 89.6% and 84.2%, respectively. Active smoking and left ventricular ejection fraction <50% were independent predictors of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events. In conclusion, PCI in young patients lead to excellent results in short- and long-term follow-up and should be considered as the treatment of choice. Traditional risk factors are important prognostic determinants of adverse events and might help identify higher risk patients within this cohort.

New drug-eluting stent implantation for recalcitrant in-stent restenosis treated with drug-eluting stents. the Stent-in-Stent Cube (SIS³) registry.

UNLABELLED: The best management for patients with recurrent in-stent restenosis is still not clear. The aim of the present study was to describe the long-term clinical results of re-DES (drug-eluting stent) implantation in patients suffering recurrences after stenting with DES for in-BMS (bare metal stent) restenosis. METHODS: All consecutive patients with in-BMS restenosis treated with DES and presenting with recurrent ISR (in-DES restenosis) treated with re-DES in 3 tertiary care centers were retrospectively selected and analyzed. RESULTS: In the time period 2005-2009, 40 consecutive patients with recalcitrant ISR were selected. At a mean follow-up of 701 ± 570 days, no patient died. The incidence of target lesion revascularization (TLR) and target vessel revascularization (TVR) was 12.5% and 17.5%, respectively. Survival free from composite endpoint (any death + MI + TLR) was 82% at 2 years. CONCLUSIONS: DES implantation for patients with recurrent ISR offers good clinical outcomes at long-term follow-up.

Impact of multivessel stenting on top of percutaneous revascularization for unprotected left main disease in the drug-eluting stent era: insights from the Turin registry.

OBJECTIVE: Drug-eluting stents (DESs) are commonly used in patients with unprotected left main (ULM) disease. Although multivessel disease and stenting are frequent in this population, pertinent details on short-term and long-term outcomes are lacking. SETTING AND PATIENTS: We identified consecutive patients with DES treatment for ULM. We distinguished patients presenting isolated ULM stenting (group A) from those with additional treatment of at least another major vessel (group B). The primary end point was major adverse cardiovascular events (i.e. death, myocardial infarction or target vessel revascularization). We compared the impact of a DES-only versus a hybrid DES and bare metal stent strategy for non-ULM lesions. RESULTS: A total of 189 patients were included, 25% in group A and 75% in group B. In-hospital events were similarly favorable (cardiac death in 0 and 2%, respectively, P = 0.58). A total of 99% patients were followed for a median of 25 months, yielding major adverse cardiovascular events in 17 and 37.5% (P = 0.011). Specifically, death occurred in 4 and 8.5% (P = 0.52), cardiac death in 0 and 7% (P = 0.12), myocardial infarction in 6.5 and 9% (P = 0.76) and target vessel revascularization in 4.3 and 22% (P = 0.006). Adoption of a systematic DES-only strategy for non-ULM lesions conferred significant benefits on major adverse cardiovascular events and repeat non-ULM revascularizations in comparison to a hybrid strategy (22 versus 45%, P < 0.001, and 9 versus 19%, P = 0.004, respectively), at both bivariate and multivariable analyses. CONCLUSION: Multivessel stenting on top of DES implantation for ULM can be performed with favorable early results. Systematic DES implantation for both ULM and non-ULM lesions is pivotal to maximize clinical results and minimize long-term recurrences.

Very very late thrombosis of a sirolimus-eluting stent: does suboptimal stent expansion take its toll even after three years?

We report the case of a 55-year-old man who underwent coronary angiography in 2004 for early angina following anterior ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Angiography disclosed a critical stenosis in the proximal left anterior descending artery and significant stenoses in the right coronary artery and first obtuse marginal branch, treated with two paclitaxel-eluting stents and a sirolimus-eluting stent, respectively. After completion of a six-month thienopyridine course and while still being on lifelong aspirin, in 2007 he was readmitted for lateral ST-elevation myocardial infarction: angiography revealed stent thrombosis beginning at the proximal edge of the sirolimus-eluting stent implanted in the first obtuse marginal branch. Intravascular ultrasound was performed after thrombectomy but before balloon dilation showing suboptimal stent expansion and a thrombus partially adhering to the sirolimus-eluting stent. The procedure was then successfully completed with the implantation of another sirolimus-eluting stent. This clinical vignette suggests that suboptimal drug-eluting stent deployment may be associated with stent thrombosis well after the traditional time frame of subacute thrombosis.

Retrograde percutaneous recanalization of coronary chronic total occlusions: outcomes from 17 patients.

Given their suboptimal success rates, coronary chronic total occlusions (CTO) represent one of the last challenges of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Among several novel techniques, the retrograde approach is one of the most promising, but it is still incompletely described. We report our 5-year experience in retrograde PCI for CTOs. We abstracted patient and procedural data on all cases with attempted retrograde approach. End-points were technical and procedural success, plus long-term major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). The retrograde approach was used in 17 patients, with procedural success in 12 (71%), including 9 CTOs of right coronary, 2 of left circumflex, and 2 of left main arteries. Conversely, 4 cases of technical failure and 1 post-procedural myocardial infarction in an otherwise angiographically successful procedure were found. Causes of retrograde failure were: inability to deliver the balloon through the chosen collateral in 2 cases, inability to retrogradely cross the distal stump with the wire in 1 case, and interruption of the procedure due to rupture of a minor septal collateral branch during attempts at advancing the non-inflated balloon in 1 case. In all patients with retrograde failure, subsequent antegrade attempts could be carried out, with ultimate success in everybody. Follow-up at 24+/-21 months showed an overall MACE rate of 23%. In conclusion, the retrograde approach appears feasible and safe, and its application can be envisioned as a promising alternative strategy in selected patients in whom antegrade approaches fail or are deemed unsafe.

Impact of diabetes mellitus on early and long-term results of percutaneous drug-eluting stent implantation for unprotected left main coronary disease.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to appraise the outcomes of diabetic patients with unprotected left main (ULM) disease treated with drug-eluting stents. Percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stent implantation is increasingly used for ULM disease. However, there are no data on the clinical results of drug-eluting stents for ULM disease in patients with diabetes. METHODS: We collected baseline and outcome data from all patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents for ULM disease at our institution since 2002. We identified three groups: insulin-requiring diabetes mellitus patients, noninsulin-requiring diabetes mellitus patients, and nondiabetes mellitus individuals. The primary end point was the rate of major adverse cardiac events, that is, cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization. We also appraised stent thrombosis according to the Academic Research Consortium. RESULTS: A total of 185 patients were enrolled, 25/185 (14%) insulin-requiring diabetes mellitus patients, 30/185 (16%) noninsulin-requiring diabetes mellitus patients, and 130/185 (70%) nondiabetes mellitus individuals. In-hospital adverse events were overall uncommon and not significantly different across groups. After a median follow-up period of 23.1 months, major adverse cardiac events had occurred in similar rates across groups: 6/25 (24%) insulin-requiring patients with diabetes mellitus, 8/30 (27%) noninsulin-requiring patients with diabetes mellitus, and 31/128 (24%) nondiabetes mellitus individuals (P = 0.96). No case of definite or probable stent thrombosis was adjudicated. Intriguingly, possible stent thrombosis was nonsignificantly more common among insulin-requiring diabetes mellitus patients than among noninsulin-requiring diabetes mellitus patients or nondiabetes mellitus individuals [1/25 (4%) vs. 0/30 (0%) and 1/128 (0.8%), respectively, P = 0.30]. CONCLUSION: Drug-eluting stents provide favorable early and long-term results in both selected patients with diabetes and nondiabetic individuals undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for ULM disease. Nonetheless, further randomized data are eagerly awaited to definitely confirm or disprove these findings.