METHODS: Sixty-four patients-21 exertional angina; 17 unstable angina/non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI); 26 ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI)-provided 188 diseased segments on conventional angiography. All underwent MDCTA within a week of angiography. ROI was mapped out from maximum intensity projections of diseased segments in planar view.
RESULTS: One hundred seventy-four segments were evaluated. Patients who presented with ACS (STEMI and unstable angina/non-ST elevation myocardial infarction) had lower mean VDR compared to patients with exertional angina (0.58 vs. 0.66 vs. 0.81; P < 0.001). Culprit lesions in ACS patients also had the lowest mean VDR when compared to nonculprit lesions and lesions in patients without ACS (0.51 vs. 0.68 vs. 0.81; P < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: VDR is a new, convenient, and standardized approach in identifying "culprit" lesions by MDCTA.
BACKGROUND: The current generation of bioresorbable scaffolds has several limitations, such as thick square struts with large footprints that preclude their deep embedment into the vessel wall, resulting in protrusion into the lumen with microdisturbance of flow. The Mirage sirolimus-eluting bioresorbable microfiber scaffold is designed to address these concerns.
METHODS: In this prospective, single-blind trial, 60 patients were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to treatment with a Mirage sirolimus-eluting bioresorbable microfiber scaffold or an Absorb bioresorbable vascular scaffold. The clinical endpoints were assessed at 30 days and at 6 and 12 months. In-device angiographic late loss at 12 months was quantified. Secondary optical coherence tomographic endpoints were assessed post-scaffold implantation at 6 and 12 months.
RESULTS: Median angiographic post-procedural in-scaffold minimal luminal diameters of the Mirage and Absorb devices were 2.38 mm (interquartile range [IQR]: 2.06 to 2.62 mm) and 2.55 mm (IQR: 2.26 to 2.71 mm), respectively; the effect size (d) was -0.29. At 12 months, median angiographic in-scaffold minimal luminal diameters of the Mirage and Absorb devices were not statistically different (1.90 mm [IQR: 1.57 to 2.31 mm] vs. 2.29 mm [IQR: 1.74 to 2.51 mm], d = -0.36). At 12-month follow-up, median in-scaffold late luminal loss with the Mirage and Absorb devices was 0.37 mm (IQR: 0.08 to 0.72 mm) and 0.23 mm (IQR: 0.15 to 0.37 mm), respectively (d = 0.20). On optical coherence tomography, post-procedural diameter stenosis with the Mirage was 11.2 ± 7.1%, which increased to 27.4 ± 12.4% at 6 months and remained stable (31.8 ± 12.9%) at 1 year, whereas the post-procedural optical coherence tomographic diameter stenosis with the Absorb was 8.4 ± 6.6%, which increased to 16.6 ± 8.9% and remained stable (21.2 ± 9.9%) at 1-year follow-up (Mirage vs. Absorb: dpost-procedure = 0.41, d6 months = 1.00, d12 months = 0.92). Angiographic median in-scaffold diameter stenosis was significantly different between study groups at 12 months (28.6% [IQR: 21.0% to 40.7%] for the Mirage, 18.2% [IQR: 13.1% to 31.6%] for the Absorb, d = 0.39). Device- and patient-oriented composite endpoints were comparable between the 2 study groups.
CONCLUSIONS: At 12 months, angiographic in-scaffold late loss was not statistically different between the Mirage and Absorb devices, although diameter stenosis on angiography and on optical coherence tomography was significantly higher with the Mirage than with the Absorb. The technique of implantation was suboptimal for both devices, and future trials should incorporate optical coherence tomographic guidance to allow optimal implantation and appropriate assessment of the new technology, considering the novel mechanical properties of the Mirage.
METHODS AND RESULTS: We compared 5697 chronic HF patients of Indian (26%), white (23%), Chinese (17%), Japanese/Koreans (12%), black (12%), and Malay (10%) ethnicities from the HF-ACTION and ASIAN-HF multinational studies using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ; range 0-100; higher scores reflect better health status). KCCQ scores were lowest in Malay (58±22) and Chinese (60±23), intermediate in black (64±21) and Indian (65±23), and highest in white (67±20) and Japanese or Korean patients (67±22) after adjusting for age, sex, educational status, HF severity, and risk factors. Self-efficacy, which measures confidence in the ability to manage symptoms, was lower in all Asian ethnicities (especially Japanese/Koreans [60±26], Malay [66±23], and Chinese [64±28]) compared to black (80±21) and white (82±19) patients, even after multivariable adjustment (P
METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted from the healthcare providers' perspective from January 1st to June 30th 2014. TH is a university teaching hospital in the capital city, while GH is a state-level general hospital. Both are government-funded cardiac referral centers. Clinical data was extracted from a national cardiac registry. Cost data was collected using mixed method of top-down and bottom-up approaches. Total hospitalization cost per PCI patient was summed up from the costs of ward admission and cardiac catheterization laboratory utilization. Clinical characteristics were compared with chi-square and independent t-test, while hospitalization length and cost were analyzed using Mann-Whitney test.
RESULTS: The mean hospitalization cost was RM 12,117 (USD 3,366) at GH and RM 16,289 (USD 4,525) at TH. The higher cost at TH can be attributed to worse patients' comorbidities and cardiac status. In contrast, GH recorded a lower mean length of stay as more patients had same-day discharge, resulting in 29% reduction in mean cost of admission compared to TH. For both hospitals, PCI consumables accounted for the biggest proportion of total cost.
CONCLUSIONS: The high PCI consumables cost highlighted the importance of cost-effective purchasing mechanism. Findings on the heterogeneity of the patients, treatment practice and hospitalization cost between TH and GH are vital for formulation of cost-saving strategies to ensure sustainable and equitable cardiac service in Malaysia.
METHODS AND RESULTS: We prospectively studied 3886 Asian patients (60 ± 13 years, 21% women) with HF (ejection fraction ≤40%) from 11 regions in the Asian Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure study. Anaemia was defined as haemoglobin <13 g/dL (men) and <12 g/dL (women). Ethnic groups included Chinese (33.0%), Indian (26.2%), Malay (15.1%), Japanese/Korean (20.2%), and others (5.6%). Overall, anaemia was present in 41%, with a wide range across ethnicities (33-54%). Indian ethnicity, older age, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease were independently associated with higher odds of anaemia (all P
BACKGROUND: Data regarding the performance of a DCB-only approach, especially in patients with previously untreated de-novo coronary artery disease (CAD), are still limited.
METHODS: This study was conducted as an international, multicenter registry primarily enrolling patients with de-novo CAD. However, it was also possible to include patients with in-stent restenosis (ISR). The primary endpoint was the rate of clinically driven target lesion revascularization (TLR) after 9 months.
RESULTS: A total of 1,025 patients with a mean age of 64.0 ± 11.2 years were enrolled. The majority of treated lesions were de-novo (66.9%), followed by drug-eluting-stent ISR (DES-ISR; 22.6%) and bare-metal-stent ISR (BMS-ISR; 10.5%). The TLR rate was lower in the de-novo group (2.3%) when compared to BMS- (2.9%) and DES-ISR (5.8%) (P = 0.049). Regarding MACE, there was a trend toward fewer events in the de-novo group (5.6%) than in the BMS- (7.8%) and DES-ISR cohort (9.6%) (P = 0.131). Subgroup analyses revealed that lesion type (95% CI 1.127-6.587); P = 0.026) and additional stent implantation (95% CI 0.054-0.464; P = 0.001) were associated with higher TLR rates.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that DCB-only angioplasty of de-novo coronary lesions is associated with low MACE and TLR rates. Thus, DCBs appear to be an attractive alternative for the interventional, stentless treatment of suitable de-novo coronary lesions.
BACKGROUND: Treatment of coronary in-stent restenosis (ISR) remains challenging. PCBs are an established treatment option outside the United States with a Class I, Level of Evidence: A recommendation in the European guidelines. However, their efficacy is better in bare-metal stent (BMS) ISR compared with drug-eluting stent (DES) ISR.
METHODS: Fifty patients with DES ISR were enrolled in a randomized, multicenter trial to compare a novel SCB (SeQuent SCB, 4 μg/mm2) with a clinically proven PCB (SeQuent Please Neo, 3 μg/mm2) in coronary DES ISR. The primary endpoint was angiographic late lumen loss at 6 months. Secondary endpoints included procedural success, major adverse cardiovascular events, and individual clinical endpoints such as stent thrombosis, cardiac death, target lesion myocardial infarction, clinically driven target lesion revascularization, and binary restenosis.
RESULTS: Quantitative coronary angiography revealed no differences in baseline parameters. After 6 months, in-segment late lumen loss was 0.21 ± 0.54 mm in the PCB group versus 0.17 ± 0.55 mm in the SCB group (p = NS; per-protocol analysis). Clinical events up to 12 months also did not differ between the groups.
CONCLUSIONS: This first-in-man comparison of a novel SCB with a crystalline coating shows similar angiographic outcomes in the treatment of coronary DES ISR compared with a clinically proven PCB. (Treatment of Coronary In-Stent Restenosis by a Sirolimus [Rapamycin] Coated Balloon or a Paclitaxel Coated Balloon [FIM LIMUS DCB]; NCT02996318).
Methods: By means of propensity score (PS) matching 234 individuals with de novo CAD were identified with similar demographic characteristics. This patient population was stratified in a 1:1 fashion according to a reference vessel diameter cut-off of 2.75 mm in small and large vessel disease. The primary endpoint was the rate of clinically driven target lesion revascularization (TLR) at 9 months.
Results: Patients with small vessel disease had an average reference diameter of 2.45 ± 0.23 mm, while the large vessel group averaged 3.16 ± 0.27 mm. Regarding 9-month major adverse cardiac event (MACE), 5.7% of the patients with small and 6.1% of the patients with large vessels had MACE (p=0.903). Analysis of the individual MACE components revealed a TLR rate of 3.8% in small and 1.0% in large vessels (p=0.200). Of note, no thrombotic events in the DCB treated coronary segments occurred in either group during the 9-month follow-up.
Conclusions: Our data demonstrate for the first time that DCB-only PCI of de novo lesions in large coronary arteries (>2.75 mm) is safe and as effective. Interventional treatment for CAD without permanent or temporary scaffolding, demonstrated a similar efficacy for large and small vessels.