Search

Background: There are limited data regarding the impact of final kissing balloon (FKI) in patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention using ultrathin stents in left main or bifurcations. Methods: All patients undergoing left main or bifurcations percutaneous coronary intervention enrolled in the RAIN registry (Very Thin Stents for Patients With MAIN or BiF in Real Life: The RAIN, a Multicenter Study) evaluating ultrathin stents were included. Major adverse cardiac event (a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization, and stent thrombosis) was the primary end point, while its components, along with target vessel revascularization, were the secondary end points. The main analysis was performed comparing patients with and without FKI after adjustment with inverse probability of treatment weighting. Subgroup analyses were performed according to FKI (short [ Results: Two thousand seven hundred forty-two patients were included. At 16 months (8–20) follow-up, inverse probability of treatment weighting adjusted rates of major adverse cardiac event were similar between FKI and no-FKI group (15.1% versus 15.5%; P =0.967), this result did not change with use of imaging, proximal optimization technique, or routine versus bail-out FKI. In the 2-stent subgroup, FKI was associated with lower rates of target vessel revascularization (7.8% versus 15.9%; P =0.030) and target lesion revascularization (7.3% versus 15.2%; P =0.032). Short overlap FKI was associated with a lower rate of target lesion revascularization compared with no FKI (2.6% versus 5.4%; P =0.034), while long overlap was not (6.8% versus 5.4%; P =0.567). Conclusions: In patients with bifurcations or unprotected left main treated with ultrathin stents, short overlap FKI is associated with less restenosis. In a 2-stent strategy, FKI was associated with less target vessel revascularization and restenosis. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT03544294.

Background— The most suitable approach for patients with aspirin hypersensitivity undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention remains to be assessed. Methods and Results— Pubmed, Google Scholar, and Cochrane were systematically searched for papers describing protocols about aspirin hypersensitivity in the percutaneous coronary intervention setting. Discharge from hospital with aspirin was the primary end point, whereas rates of adverse reactions being a secondary outcome. An online international survey was performed to critically analyze rates of aspirin hypersensitivity and its medical and interventional management. Eleven studies with 283 patients were included. An endovenous desensitization protocol was performed on one of them, with high efficacy rate (98%) and a low adverse reaction rate when compared with oral administration. No significant differences were reported among the oral protocols in terms of efficacy (less versus more fractionated [95.8% {95.4%–96.2%} versus 95.9% {95.2–96.5%}]), whereas higher incidence of rash and angioedema were reported for protocols with Conclusions— Available protocols for aspirin hypersensitivity are effective and safe, representing a feasible approach for patients needing dual antiplatelet therapy.