BACKGROUND: No study has directly compared the risk factors associated with subclinical coronary atherosclerosis and CRA.
STUDY: This was a cross-sectional study using multinomial logistic regression analysis of 4859 adults who participated in a health screening examination (2010 to 2011; analysis 2014 to 2015). CAC scores were categorized as 0, 1 to 100, or >100. Colonoscopy results were categorized as absent, low-risk, or high-risk CRA.
RESULTS: The prevalence of CAC>0, CAC 1 to 100 and >100 was 13.0%, 11.0%, and 2.0%, respectively. The prevalence of any CRA, low-risk CRA, and high-risk CRA was 15.1%, 13.0%, and 2.1%, respectively. The adjusted odds ratios (95% confidence interval) for CAC>0 comparing participants with low-risk and high-risk CRA with those without any CRA were 1.35 (1.06-1.71) and 2.09 (1.29-3.39), respectively. Similarly, the adjusted odds ratios (95% confidence interval) for any CRA comparing participants with CAC 1 to 100 and CAC>100 with those with no CAC were 1.26 (1.00-1.6) and 2.07 (1.31-3.26), respectively. Age, smoking, diabetes, and family history of CRC were significantly associated with both conditions.
CONCLUSIONS: We observed a graded association between CAC and CRA in apparently healthy individuals. The coexistence of both conditions further emphasizes the need for more evidence of comprehensive approaches to screening and the need to consider the impact of the high risk of coexisting disease in individuals with CAC or CRA, instead of piecemeal approaches restricted to the detection of each disease independently.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a study involving LMS PCI coronary lesions using the Synergy Megatron DES. An IVUS protocol using predefined optimisation targets to evaluate for stent malapposition, longitudinal stent deformation, optimal stent expansion >90% of reference lumen and appropriate distal landing zone was used in all cases. The primary end-point was procedural success, defined by successful stent implantation with <30% residual stenosis. The secondary end-point was in-hospital and 30-day major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE).
RESULTS: Eight patients with significant LMS stenosis were successfully treated with the Megatron stent. The primary end-point was achieved in all patients. There were no cases of stent malapposition or longitudinal stent deformation, one case did not have optimal LMS stent expansion and one case did not have an appropriate distal landing zone. IVUS optimisation criteria were met in 6 (75%) cases. There were no complications of coronary dissection, slow or no reflow, stent thrombosis or vessel perforation. None of the patients suffered in-hospital or 30-day MACE. The average LMS MLD at baseline was 2.1 ± 0.1mm and the post-PCI LMS MLD was 4.0 ± 0.5mm, with a significant acute luminal gain of 1.9 ± 0.7mm (p<0.01). A post-PCI MSA of 17 ± 3.9 mm2 was numerically superior compared to those documented in other LMS PCI trials.
CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates low rates of shortterm major adverse cardiovascular events among patients with LMS PCI using the Megatron stents. It highlights the usefulness of IVUS-guided optimisation in LMS PCI. With the use of intravascular imaging, the new generation stent technology can improve the treatment of large proximal vessels and PCI of LMS lesions.
Methods: An analytical cross-sectional study was performed, including 223 patients treated by the Cardiology Department, the Emergency Interventional Cardiology Departments, and the Internal Cardiology Clinic of Thong Nhat Hospital.
Results: In our cohort of 223 patients, the NAFLD was detected in 66% of the population, the mean coronary artery stenosis (CAS) was 44.54% ± 20.23%, and the mean coronary artery calcium score (CACS) was 3569.05 ± 425.99, as assessed using the Agatston method. The proportion of patients with significant atherosclerotic plaque (CAS 50%) >was 32%, whereas the remaining 68% had insignificant stenosis. Among our study population, 16% had no coronary artery calcification, 38% had mild calcification, and 46% had moderate to severe calcification. In the group of NAFLD patients, 33.3% had significant atherosclerotic plaque, which was not significantly different from the rate in individuals without NAFLD (p = 0.51). Mild coronary artery calcification was detected in 37.4% of NAFLD patients, and moderate to severe calcification was detected in 48.3% (p = 0.45).
Conclusions: NAFLD was not found to be strongly associated with coronary atherosclerosis in this study. More studies with larger sample sizes remain necessary to verify whether any correlation exists.
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: A systematic search was performed in PubMed, the Cochrane library, CINAHL, Web of Science, ScienceDirect and Scopus, where 20 studies were selected for analysis of scanning parameters and CM reduction methods.
RESULTS: The mean effective dose (HE) ranged from 0.31 to 2.75 mSv at 80 kVp, 0.69 to 6.29 mSv at 100 kVp and 1.53 to 10.7 mSv at 120 kVp. Radiation dose reductions of 38 to 83% at 80 kVp and 3 to 80% at 100 kVp could be achieved with preserved image quality. Similar vessel contrast enhancement to 120 kVp could be obtained by applying iodine delivery rate (IDR) of 1.35 to 1.45 g s-1 with total iodine dose (TID) of between 10.9 and 16.2 g at 80 kVp and IDR of 1.08 to 1.70 g s-1 with TID of between 18.9 and 20.9 g at 100 kVp.
CONCLUSION: This systematic review found that radiation doses could be reduced to a rate of 38 to 83% at 80 kVp, and 3 to 80% at 100 kVp without compromising the image quality. Advances in knowledge: The suggested appropriate scanning parameters and CM reduction methods can be used to help users in achieving diagnostic image quality with reduced radiation dose.