Search

Angina pectoris may arise from obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) or in the absence of significant CAD (ischemia with nonobstructed coronary arteries [INOCA]). Therapeutic strategies for patients with angina and obstructive CAD focus on reducing cardiovascular events and relieving symptoms, whereas in INOCA the focus shifts toward managing functional alterations of the coronary circulation. In obstructive CAD, coronary revascularization might improve angina status, although a significant percentage of patients present angina persistence or recurrence, suggesting the presence of functional mechanisms along with epicardial CAD. In patients with INOCA, performing a precise endotype diagnosis is crucial to allow a tailored therapy targeted toward the specific pathogenic mechanism. In this expert opinion paper, we review the evidence for the management of angina, highlighting the complementary role of coronary revascularization, optimal medical therapy, and lifestyle interventions and underscoring the importance of a personalized approach that targets the underlying pathobiology., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures The authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The impact of glycemic control in the risk of stent failure in subjects with type 2 diabetes (T2D) is currently unknown., Objectives: This study sought to study whether poor glycemic control is associated with a higher risk of stent failure in subjects with T2D., Methods: This observational study included all patients in Sweden with T2D who underwent implantation of second-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) during 2010 to 2020. The exposure variable was the updated mean of glycated hemoglobin (HbA 1c ). Individuals were stratified by glycemic control, with HbA 1c 6.1% to 7.0% (43-53 mmol/mol) as the reference group. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of stent failure (in-stent restenosis and stent thrombosis). The main result was analyzed in a complete cases model. Sensitivity analyses were performed for missing data and a model with death as a competing risk., Results: The study population consisted of 52,457 individuals (70,453 DES). The number of complete cases was 24,411 (29,029 DES). The median follow-up was 6.4 years. The fully adjusted HR was 1.10 (95% CI: 0.80-1.52) for HbA 1c of ≤5.5% (≤37 mmol/mol), 1.02 (95% CI: 0.85-1.23) for HbA 1c of 5.6% to 6.0% (38-42 mmol/mol), 1.25 (95% CI: 1.11-1.41) for HbA 1c of 7.1% to 8.0% (54-64 mmol/mol), 1.30 (95% CI: 1.13-1.51) for HbA 1c of 8.1% to 9.0% (65-75 mmol/mol), 1.46 (95% CI: 1.21-1.76) for HbA 1c of 9.1% to 10.0% (76-86 mmol/mol), and 1.33 (95% CI: 1.06-1.66) for HbA 1c of ≥10.1% (≥87 mmol/mol). Sensitivity analyses did not change the main result., Conclusions: We found a significant association between poor glycemic control and a higher risk of stent failure driven by in-stent restenosis., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures The study was funded by an ALF agreement between Stockholm County Council and Karolinska Institutet (FoUI961018). Dr Ritsinger has received honoraria for expert group participation from AstraZeneca, Novo Nordisk, and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr Eliasson has received personal fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly and Company, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mundipharma, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi, all outside the submitted work. Dr Norhammar has received honoraria for expert group participation from AstraZeneca, Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly and Company, and Boehringer Ingelheim in the last 3 years. Dr Nyström has received honoraria for expert group participation from AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly and Company, Boehringer Ingelheim, Abbott, and Amgen. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Placebo-controlled evidence from ORBITA-2 (Objective Randomised Blinded Investigation with Optimal Medical Therapy of Angioplasty in Stable Angina-2) found that percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in stable coronary artery disease with little or no antianginal medication relieved angina, but residual symptoms persisted in many patients. The reason for this was unclear., Objectives: This ORBITA-2 secondary analysis investigates the relationship between presenting symptoms and disease severity (anatomic, noninvasive, and invasive ischemia) and the ability of symptoms to predict the placebo-controlled efficacy of PCI., Methods: Prerandomization symptom severity and nature were assessed using the ORBITA smartphone application and symptom and quality of life questionnaires including the World Health Organization Rose angina questionnaire (Rose). Disease severity was assessed using quantitative coronary angiography, stress echocardiography, fractional flow reserve, and instantaneous wave-free ratio. Bayesian ordinal regression was used., Results: At prerandomization, the median number of daily angina episodes was 0.8 (Q1-Q3: 0.4-1.6), 64% had Rose angina, quantitative coronary angiography diameter stenosis was 61% (Q1-Q3: 49%-74%), stress echocardiography score was 1.0 (Q1-Q3: 0.0-2.7), fractional flow reserve was 0.63 (Q1-Q3: 0.49-0.75), and instantaneous wave-free ratio was 0.78 (Q1-Q3: 0.55-0.87). There was little relationship between symptom severity and nature and disease severity: angina symptom score with quantitative coronary angiography ordinal correlation coefficient: 0.06 (95% credible interval [CrI]: 0.00-0.08); stress echocardiography: 0.09 (95% CrI: 0.02-0.10); fractional flow reserve: 0.04 (95% CrI: -0.03 to 0.07); and instantaneous wave-free ratio: 0.04 (95% CrI: -0.01 to 0.07). However, Rose angina and guideline-based typical angina were strong predictors of placebo-controlled PCI efficacy (angina symptom score: OR: 1.9; 95% CrI: 1.6-2.1; probability of interaction [Pr Interaction ] = 99.9%; and OR: 1.8; 95% CrI: 1.6-2.1; Pr Interaction  = 99.9%, respectively)., Conclusions: Although symptom severity and nature were poorly associated with disease severity, the nature of symptoms powerfully predicted the placebo-controlled efficacy of PCI., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures ORBITA-2 was an investigator-initiated trial sponsored by Imperial College London. The trial was funded by grants from National Institute for Health and Care Research Imperial Biomedical Research Centre, Medical Research Council, British Heart Foundation, National Institute for Health and Care Research, and the Imperial Coronary Flow Trust. Philips Volcano supplied the coronary pressure wires. Dr Simader has received a sponsorship from Servier Pharmaceuticals. Dr Rajkumar has received speaker fees from Menarini; and has received consulting fees from Philips. Dr Foley has received speaker fees from Menarini and Philips. Dr Khokhar has received speaker fees and travel support from Boston Scientific and Abbott. Dr Davies has received grants from Medtronic and Abbott; has received sponsorship from Vascular Perspectives, Boston Scientific, Medtronic and Abbott; and has received speaker fees from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Novartis. Dr Keeble has served on advisory boards for Abbott Vascular and SMT; and has received institutional research funding from Terumo, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Abbott Vascular, Philips Volcano, and Cardionovum. Dr O’Kane has received speaker fees from Abbott Vascular, Biosensors, Boston Scientific, Heartflow, Medtronic, Philips, Shockwave, and Terumo. Dr Kotecha has received honoraria from Bayer and Janssen. Dr Nijjer has received speaker fees from Philips Volcano, Pfizer, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Amarin. Dr Spratt has received speaker fees from Boston Scientific Corporation and Shockwave Medical, Inc. Dr Sen has received speaker and consulting fees from Philips, Medtronic, Recor, and AstraZeneca. Dr Curzen has received grants from Beckman Coulter, Inc, Boston Scientific Corporation, Haemonetics Corporation, and HeartFlow Inc; and has received speaker fees from Heartflow. Dr Howard has received shares in Mycardium AI; and has received a grant from the British Heart Foundation. Dr Cole has received shares in Mycardium AI. Dr Al-Lamee has served on advisory boards for Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Abbott, and Philips; and has received speaker fees from Abbott, Philips, Medtronic, Servier, Omniprex, and Menarini. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: The ISCHEMIA trial found that patients with chronic coronary disease randomized to invasive strategy had better health status than those randomized to conservative strategy. It is unclear how best to translate these population-level results to individual patients., Objectives: The authors sought to identify patient characteristics associated with health status from invasive and conservative strategies, and develop a prediction algorithm for shared decision-making., Methods: One-year disease-specific health status was assessed in ISCHEMIA with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) Summary Score (SAQ SS) and Angina Frequency, Physical Limitations (PL), and Quality of Life (QL) domains (range 0-100, higher = less angina/better health status)., Results: Among 4,617 patients from 320 sites in 37 countries, mean SAQ SS was 74.1 ± 18.9 at baseline and 85.7 ± 15.6 at 1 year. Lower baseline SAQ SS and younger age were associated with better 1-year health status with invasive strategy (P interaction = 0.009 and P interaction = 0.004, respectively). For the individual domains, there were significant treatment interactions for baseline SAQ score (Angina Frequency, PL), age (PL, QL), anterior ischemia (PL), and number of baseline antianginal medications (QL), with more benefit of invasive in patients with worse baseline health status, younger age, anterior ischemia, and on more antianginal medications. Parsimonious prediction models were developed for 1-year SAQ domains with invasive or conservative strategies to support shared decision-making., Conclusions: In the management of chronic coronary disease, individual patient characteristics are associated with 1-year health status, with younger age and poorer angina-related health status showing greater benefit from invasive management. This prediction algorithm can support the translation of the ISCHEMIA trial results to individual patients. (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness With Medical and Invasive Approaches [ISCHEMIA]; NCT01471522)., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures The research reported in this paper was funded through grants from National Institutes of Health/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute grants U01HL105907, U01HL105462, U01HL105561, and U01HL105565, Arbor Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, and Clinical and Translational Science Awards from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (11UL1 TR001445 and UL1 TR002243). Devices or medications were provided by Abbott Vascular, Medtronic, St Jude Medical, Volcano, Amgen, Arbor Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, Espero Pharmaceuticals, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Omron Healthcare, and Sunovion Pharmaceuticals. Contents of this paper are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent official views of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the National Institutes of Health, or the Department of Health and Human Services. Dr Cohen has received research grant support from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Philips, CathWorks, Zoll Medical, and I-Rhythm; and has received consulting income from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, and Medtronic. Dr Reynolds has received in-kind support for unrelated research from Abbott Vascular, Siemens, and BioTelemetry. Dr Stone has received speaker honoraria from Medtronic, Pulnovo, Infraredx, Abiomed, Amgen, and Boehringer Ingelheim; has been a consultant to Abbott, Daiichi-Sankyo, Ablative Solutions, CorFlow, Apollo Therapeutics, Cardiomech, Gore, Robocath, Miracor, Vectorious, Abiomed, Valfix, TherOx, HeartFlow, Neovasc, Ancora, Elucid Bio, Occlutech, Impulse Dynamics, Adona Medical, Millennia Biopharma, Oxitope, Cardiac Success, and HighLife; holds equity/options from Ancora, Cagent, Applied Therapeutics, Biostar family of funds, SpectraWave, Orchestra Biomed, Aria, Cardiac Success, Valfix, and Xenter; and receives institutional research grants from Abbott, Abiomed, Bioventrix, Cardiovascular Systems Inc, Phillips, Biosense Webster, Shockwave, Vascular Dynamics, Pulnovo, and V-wave. Dr Spertus owns the copyright to the Seattle Angina Questionnaire; has received consulting income from Janssen, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Merck; serves on the cardiovascular scientific advisory board of United Healthcare; is on the board of directors for Blue Cross Blue Shield of Kansas City; and holds equity interest in Health Outcomes Sciences. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: In the ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches) trial, the risk of ischemic events was similar in patients with stable coronary artery disease treated with an invasive (INV) strategy of angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or surgical (coronary artery bypass grafting [CABG]) coronary revascularization and a conservative (CON) strategy of initial medical therapy., Objectives: The authors analyzed separately the outcomes of INV patients treated with PCI or CABG., Methods: Patients without preceding primary outcome events were categorized as INV-PCI or INV-CABG from the time of revascularization. The ISCHEMIA primary outcome (composite of cardiovascular death, protocol-defined myocardial infarction or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest) was used., Results: Among INV-CABG patients, primary outcome events occurred in 84 of 512 (16.4%) at a median follow-up of 2.85 years; 48 events (57.1%) occurred within 30 days after CABG, including 40 procedural MIs. Among INV-PCI patients, primary outcome events occurred in 147 of 1,500 (9.8%) at median follow-up of 2.94 years; 31 of which (21.1%) occurred within 30 days after PCI, including 24 procedural MIs. In comparison, 352 of 2,591 CON patients (13.6%) had primary outcome events at a median follow-up of 3.2 years, 22 of which (6.3%) occurred within 30 days of randomization. The adjusted primary outcome risks were higher after both CABG and PCI within 30 days (HR: 16.25 [95% CI: 11.44-23.07] and HR: 2.99 [95% CI: 1.97-4.53]) and lower thereafter (0.63 [95% CI: 0.44-0.89] and 0.66 [95% CI: 0.53-0.82])., Conclusions: In ISCHEMIA, early revascularization by PCI and CABG was associated with higher early risks and lower long-term risks of cardiovascular events compared with CON. The early risk was greatest after CABG, owing to protocol-defined procedural MIs., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Redfors has received grant support from the European Research Council, the Swedish Scientific Council, Swedish Heart and Lung Foundation, and the Swedish Society for Medical Research; and receives consulting payments from Pfizer and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr Stone has received speaker honoraria from Medtronic, Pulnovo, Infraredx, Abiomed, Amgen, and Boehringer Ingelheim; has served as a consultant to Abbott, Daiichi-Sankyo, Ablative Solutions, CorFlow, Cardiomech, Robocath, Miracor, Vectorious, Apollo Therapeutics, Valfix, TherOx, HeartFlow, Neovasc, Ancora, Elucid Bio, Occlutech, Impulse Dynamics, Adona Medical, Millennia Biopharma, Oxitope, Cardiac Success, and HighLife; has equity/options from Ancora, Cagent, Applied Therapeutics, Biostar family of funds, SpectraWave, Orchestra Biomed, Aria, Cardiac Success, Valfix, and Xenter; and his employer, Mount Sinai Hospital, receives research grants from Abbott, Abiomed, Bioventrix, Cardiovascular Systems Inc, Phillips, Biosense Webster, Shockwave, Vascular Dynamics, Pulnovo, and V-wave. Dr Alexander receives research grant funding through Duke University from Artivion/CryoLife, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, CSL Behring, Ferring, U.S. FDA, Humacyte, U.S. NIH, and XaTek; and has received consulting or advisory board payments from AbbVie, Akros, Artivion/CryoLife, AtriCure, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ferring, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novostia, Pfizer, Portola, Quantum Genomics, Theravance, and Veralox. Dr Bates has served on the Advisory Board for Angiowave, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, CellProthera, Cereno Scientific, Elsevier Practice Update Cardiology, High Enroll, Janssen, Level Ex, McKinsey, Medscape Cardiology, Merck, MyoKardia, NirvaMed, Novo Nordisk, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, and Stasys; has served on the Board of Directors for the American Heart Association New York City, Angiowave, Bristol Myers Squibb, DRS.LINQ, and High Enroll; has stock in Angiowave, Bristol Myers Squibb, DRS.LINQ, and High Enroll; has been a consultant for Broadview Ventures, Hims, SFJ, and Youngene; has served on the Data Monitoring Committees for Acesion Pharma, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Baim Institute for Clinical Research (formerly Harvard Clinical Research Institute, for the PORTICO trial, funded by St. Jude Medical (now Abbott), Boston Scientific (Chair, PEITHO trial), Cleveland Clinic, Contego Medical (Chair, PERFORMANCE 2), Duke Clinical Research Institute, Mayo Clinic, Mount Sinai School of Medicine (for the ENVISAGE trial, funded by Daiichi-Sankyo, for the ABILITY-DM trial, funded by Concept Medical; and for ALLAY-HF, funded by Alleviant Medical), Novartis, Population Health Research Institute; Rutgers University (for the NIH-funded MINT Trial); has received honoraria from the American College of Cardiology (Senior Associate Editor, Clinical Trials and News, ACC.org; Chair, ACC Accreditation Oversight Committee), Arnold and Porter law firm (work related to Sanofi/Bristol Myers Squibb clopidogrel litigation), Baim Institute for Clinical Research (formerly Harvard Clinical Research Institute; RE-DUAL PCI clinical trial steering committee funded by Boehringer Ingelheim; AEGIS-II executive committee funded by CSL Behring), Belvoir Publications (Editor-in-Chief, Harvard Heart Letter), Canadian Medical and Surgical Knowledge Translation Research Group (clinical trial steering committees), CSL Behring (AHA lecture), Cowen and Company, Duke Clinical Research Institute (clinical trial steering committees, including for the PRONOUNCE trial, funded by Ferring Pharmaceuticals), HMP Global (Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Invasive Cardiology), Journal of the American College of Cardiology (Guest Editor; Associate Editor), K2P (Co-Chair, interdisciplinary curriculum), Level Ex, Medtelligence/ReachMD (CME steering committees), MJH Life Sciences, Oakstone CME (Course Director, Comprehensive Review of Interventional Cardiology), Piper Sandler, Population Health Research Institute (for the COMPASS operations committee, publications committee, steering committee, and USA national co-leader, funded by Bayer), WebMD (CME steering committees), Wiley (steering committee), Clinical Cardiology (Deputy Editor); has a patent: sotagliflozin (named on a patent for sotagliflozin assigned to Brigham and Women's Hospital who assigned to Lexicon, neither I nor Brigham and Women's Hospital receive any income from this patent); has received research funding from Abbott, Acesion Pharma, Afimmune, Aker Biomarine, Alnylam, Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Beren, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardax, CellProthera, Cereno Scientific, Chiesi, CinCor, Cleerly, CSL Behring, Eisai, Ethicon, Faraday Pharmaceuticals, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Forest Laboratories, Fractyl, Garmin, HLS Therapeutics, Idorsia, Ironwood, Ischemix, Janssen, Javelin, Lexicon, Lilly, Medtronic, Merck, Moderna, MyoKardia, NirvaMed, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Otsuka, Owkin, Pfizer, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Recardio, Regeneron, Reid Hoffman Foundation, Roche, Sanofi, Stasys, Synaptic, The Medicines Company, Youngene, and 89Bio; has received royalties from Elsevier (Editor, Braunwald’s Heart Disease); served as a site co-investigator for Abbott, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, CSI, Endotronix, St. Jude Medical (now Abbott), Philips, SpectraWAVE, Svelte, and Vascular Solutions; has served as a trustee for the American College of Cardiology; and has received unfunded research from FlowCo. Dr Biondi-Zoccai has consulted for Amarin, Balmed, Cardionovum, Crannmedical, Endocore Lab, Eukon, Guidotti, Innovheart, Meditrial, Microport, Opsens Medical, Terumo, and Translumina. Dr Caldonazo is supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) Clinician Scientist Program OrganAge funding number 413668513, by the Deutsche Herzstiftung (DHS, German Heart Foundation) funding number S/03/23 and by the Interdisciplinary Center of Clinical Research of the Medical Faculty Jena. Dr Gaudino receives grant support from the National Institute of Health, the Canadian Institutes of Health and Research, and the Starr Foundation. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Management of stable coronary artery disease (CAD) has been based on the assumption that flow-limiting atherosclerotic obstructions are the proximate cause of angina and myocardial ischemia in most patients and represent an important target for revascularization. However, the role of revascularization in reducing long-term cardiac events in these patients has been limited mainly to those with left main disease, 3-vessel disease with diabetes, or decreased ejection fraction. Mounting evidence indicates that nonepicardial coronary causes of angina and ischemia, including coronary microvascular dysfunction, vasospastic disorders, and derangements of myocardial metabolism, are more prevalent than flow-limiting stenoses, raising concerns that many important causes other than epicardial CAD are neither considered nor probed diagnostically. There is a need for a more inclusive management paradigm that uncouples the singular association between epicardial CAD and revascularization and better aligns diagnostic approaches that tailor treatment to the underlying mechanisms and precipitants of angina and ischemia in contemporary clinical practice., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures This publication was supported by an educational grant from Servier, Suresnes Cedex, France. Support in the development of the manuscript was also provided by Liberum IME, London, United Kingdom. Dr Boden receives research grant support from AbbVie, Amarin Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Massachusetts Veterans Epidemiology Research and Information Center, VA New England Healthcare System’s Clinical Trials Network, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), where he served as national co-principal investigator for the ISCHEMIA trial; is on the Board of Directors for the Boston VA Research Institute; receives consulting fees from Amarin Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Metuchen Pharmaceuticals, and Servier; is on the VA Cooperative Studies Program data monitoring committee; and has received speaking honoraria from Amarin, Amgen, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, and Servier. Dr Marzilli lectures for Servier, Menarini, Degussa Pharma Group, Baldacci, Abbott, and AstraZeneca. Dr Crea has received personal speaker fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Servier, and BMS; and is a member of the advisory board for GlyCardial Diagnostics. Dr Mancini has received grants, advisory board appointments, and honoraria for educational lectures from Amgen, Sanofi, NovoNordisk, Lilly/Boehringer Ingelheim, and HLI Therapeutics; is on the advisory board for Esperion; and receives reports on grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for the COURAGE and ISCHEMIA trials. Dr Weintraub has received research support from Amarin Corporation, NIH, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; and has served as a consultant for Amarin Corporation, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Janssen, SC Pharma, Lexicon, Faraday, and The Medicines Company. Dr Taqueti is supported by NIH grant K23HL135438. Dr Pepine receives research grant support from NIH/NHLBI (R21AG063143, K08 HL130945, K01 HL138172, R01 HL146158, AG065141, R01 HL152162, R21 HL152264, R01 HL132448, UM1 HL087366, UM1 HL087318), NIH/National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (UL1 TR001427), U.S. Department of Defense (W81XWH-17-2-0030, WARRIOR), Biocardia, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, CSL Behring, Cytori Therapeutics, DCRI, GE Healthcare, Mesoblast, and Pfizer; receives consultant fees/honoraria from Caladrius Biosciences, Slack, and Xylocor; and receives grant support from the Gatorade Foundation through the University of Florida Department of Medicine and from the McJunkin Family Foundation, Plantation, Florida. Dr Escaned has received speaker and advisory board honoraria from Abbott Laboratories and Philips. Dr Al-Lamee has received speaker honoraria from Philips Volcano, Abbott Vascular, and Menarini Pharmaceuticals. Dr Gowdak has received congress-related travel expenses from Servier; has participated in clinical trials sponsored by Servier and Angion Biomedica; has been a speaker for Servier, Boehringer-Lilly, and Abbott; is an advisory board member for Servier; and has prepared written scientific material for Servier and Abbott. Dr Berry is employed by the University of Glasgow, which holds consultancy and research agreements for his work with Abbott Vascular, AstraZeneca, Auxilius Pharma, Boehringer Ingelheim, Causeway Therapeutics, Coroventis, Genentech, GSK, HeartFlow, Menarini, Neovasc, Siemens Healthcare, and Valo Health; and receives research funding from the British Heart Foundation (grant RE/18/6134217), Chief Scientist Office, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/R511705/1, EP/S030875/1), European Union (754946-2), Medical Research Council (MR/S018905/1), and UKRI (MC/PC/20014). Dr Kaski has received speaker honoraria from A. Menarini Farmaceutica lnternazionale, Servier, and Bayer UK. Dr Escaned has reported that he has no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The Bifurcation Academic Research Consortium (Bif-ARC) project originated from the need to overcome the paucity of standardization and comparability between studies involving bifurcation coronary lesions. This document is the result of a collaborative effort between academic research organizations and the most renowned interventional cardiology societies focused on bifurcation lesions in Europe, the United States, and Asia. This consensus provides standardized definitions for bifurcation lesions; the criteria to judge the side branch relevance; the procedural, mechanistic, and clinical endpoints for every type of bifurcation study; and the follow-up methods. Considering the complexity of bifurcation lesions and their evaluation, detailed instructions and technical aspects for site and core laboratory analysis of bifurcation lesions are also reported. The recommendations included within this consensus will facilitate pooled analyses and the effective comparison of data in the future, improving the clinical relevance of trials in bifurcation lesions, and the quality of care in this subset of patients., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures This work is supported by a Science Foundation Ireland Research Professorship Award (RSF 1413) including grants to Drs Lunardi and Wijns. Dr Lefèvre has received speaker fees from Abbott, Medtronic and Terumo. Dr Burzotta has received speaker fees from Medtronic, Abiomed, and Abbott. Dr Lassen has received speaker fees from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Biotronik, Abbott and Biosensors. Dr Darremont has received speaker fees from Edwards. Dr Holm has received institutional research grants and speaker fees from St. Jude Medical and Terumo. Dr Johnson has received speaker fees from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Terumo; and has received institutional funding for fellowships from Boston Scientific and Terumo. Dr Pan has received speaker fees from Abbott, Terumo, and Volcano. Dr Chatzizisis has received speaker fees and consultation fees from Boston Scientific; and has received research support from Boston Scientific and Medtronic. Dr Banning has received institutional funding of a fellowship from Boston Scientific; and has received speaker fees from Boston, Abbott, Medtronic, Philips/Volcano, and Miracor. Dr Chieffo has received speaker fees from Abiomed and GADA. Dr Dudek has received grants and personal fees from Boston Scientific, Philips, Abbott, Medtronic, and Biotronik. Dr Hildick-Smith has received advisory board, consultancy, and research funding from Terumo, Medtronic, Abbott, and Boston Scientific. Dr Dangas has received lecture fees from Bayer and Daiichi-Sankyo; has received institutional and grant support from Daiichi-Sankyo; and has held equity in Medtronic. Dr Stone has received lecture fees from Terumo and Amaranth; has received consulting fees from Shockwave Medical, TherOx, Reva, Vascular Dynamics, Robocath, HeartFlow, Gore, Ablative Solutions, Matrizyme, Miracor Medical, Neovasc, V-Wave, Abiomed, Claret Medical, Sirtex Medical, MAIA Pharmaceuticals, VALFIX Medical, SpectraWAVE, Ancora, and Vectorious Medical Technologies; holds equity in VALFIX Medical, Ancora, Qool Therapeutics, Orchestra BioMed, Cagent Vascular, Applied Therapeutics, Biostar, MedFocus, Aria CV, Cardiac Success, and SpectraWAVE; holds stock options in Ancora, Qool Therapeutics, Orchestra BioMed, Cagent Vascular, Applied Therapeutics, Biostar, MedFocus, Aria CV, and Cardiac Success; and has received personal fees from Qool Therapeutics and Orchestra BioMed. Dr Cutlip has received grant support from Cordis; has received travel reimbursement from Abbott Vascular; and has received additional funding for the Clinical Events Committee from Boston Scientific. Dr Mehran has received institutional grant support from Abbott Laboratories, AstraZeneca, Bayer, CSL Behring, Daiichi-Sankyo, Medtronic, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, and OrbusNeich; has received consulting fees from Abbott Laboratories (paid to her institution), Spectranetics (Philips Volcano) (paid to her institution), Boston Scientific, Medscape (WebMD), Siemens Medical Solutions, Roivant Services, Sanofi, Regeneron, and Janssen Scientific Affairs; has received lecture fees from Abbott Laboratories (paid to her institution), and Medtelligence (Janssen Scientific Affairs); has served on advisory boards for Bristol Myers Squibb (fees paid to her institution), PLx Opco, and Medtelligence (Janssen Scientific Affairs); has served on a data and safety monitoring board (fees paid to her institution) for Watermark Research Partners; has received nonfinancial support from Regeneron; and holds equity in Claret Medical and Elixir Medical. Dr Wijns has received institutional research grants from Terumo, MiCell, and MicroPort; has received honoraria from MicroPort; has been a medical advisor of Rede Optimus Research; and is cofounder of Argonauts, an innovation accelerator. Dr Serruys has received personal fees from Philips/Volcano, SMT, Novartis, Xeltis, and Merillife. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

There are sex-related differences in the epidemiology, presentation, diagnostic testing, and management of ischemic heart disease in women compared with men. The adjusted morbidity and mortality are persistently higher, particularly in younger women and Blacks. Women have more angina but less obstructive coronary artery disease, which affects delays in presentation and diagnosis and testing accuracy. The nonbiological factors play a significant role in access to care, ischemic heart disease management, and guideline adherence. Future research focus includes sex-specific outcomes, characterization of the biological differences, and implementation science around quality of clinical care., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Daugherty has received support from National Institute of Health grants HL133343 and DC0169065, and a grant from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. Dr Mehran has received institutional research grants from Abbott, Abiomed, Alleviant Medical, AM-Pharma, Applied Therapeutics, Arena, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, CardiaWave, CellAegis, CeloNova, CERC, Chiesi, Concept Medical, CSL Behring, DSI, Duke University, Humacyte, Insel Gruppe AG, Janssen, Medtronic, OrbusNeich, Philips, Vivasure, and Zoll; has received personal fees from the American College of Cardiology, Boston Scientific, California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, Cine-Med Research, Janssen, WebMD, and Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions; has received consulting fees paid to the institution from Medtronic, Idorsia Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, and Philips; has equity <1% in Applied Therapeutics, Elixir Medical, STEL, CONTROLRAD (spouse); has served on the Scientific Advisory Board for AMA and Biosensors (spouse); and has served as Faculty CRF (no fee). All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2022 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aim: The executive summary of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions coronary artery revascularization guideline provides the top 10 items readers should know about the guideline. In the full guideline, the recommendations replace the 2011 coronary artery bypass graft surgery guideline and the 2011 and 2015 percutaneous coronary intervention guidelines. This summary offers a patient-centric approach to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with significant coronary artery disease undergoing coronary revascularization, as well as the supporting documentation to encourage their use., Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2019 to September 2019, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, CINHL Complete, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2021, were also considered., Structure: Recommendations from the earlier percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass graft surgery guidelines have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians in caring for patients undergoing coronary revascularization. This summary includes recommendations, tables, and figures from the full guideline that relate to the top 10 take-home messages. The reader is referred to the full guideline for graphical flow charts, supportive text, and tables with additional details about the rationale for and implementation of each recommendation, and the evidence tables detailing the data considered in the development of this guideline., (Copyright © 2022 The American College of Cardiology Foundation and the American Heart Association, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aim: The guideline for coronary artery revascularization replaces the 2011 coronary artery bypass graft surgery and the 2011 and 2015 percutaneous coronary intervention guidelines, providing a patient-centric approach to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with significant coronary artery disease undergoing coronary revascularization as well as the supporting documentation to encourage their use., Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2019 to September 2019, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, CINHL Complete, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2021, were also considered., Structure: Coronary artery disease remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. Coronary revascularization is an important therapeutic option when managing patients with coronary artery disease. The 2021 coronary artery revascularization guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with coronary artery disease who are being considered for coronary revascularization, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests., (Copyright © 2022 The American College of Cardiology Foundation and the American Heart Association, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Over the last 3 decades there have been substantial improvements in treatments aimed at reducing cardiovascular (CV) events. As these treatments have been developed, there have been parallel improvements in coronary imaging modalities that can assess plaque volumes and composition, using both invasive and noninvasive techniques. Plaque progression can be seen to precede CV events, and therefore, many studies have longitudinally assessed changes in plaque characteristics in response to various treatments, aiming to demonstrate plaque regression and improvements in high-risk features, with the rationale being that this will reduce CV events. In the past, decisions surrounding treatments for atherosclerosis have been informed by population-based risk scores for initiation in primary prevention and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels for titration in secondary prevention. If outcome data linking plaque regression to reduced CV events emerge, it may become possible to directly image plaque treatment response to guide management decisions., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Nicholls has received research support from AstraZeneca, Amgen, Anthera, CSL Behring, Cerenis, Eli Lilly, Esperion, Reverlogix, Novartis, InfraRedx, New Amsterdam Pharmaceuticals, and Sanofi-Regeneron; and is a consultant for Amgen, Akcea, AstraZeneca, Amarin, Boehringer Ingelheim, CSL Behring, Eli Lilly, Esperion, Kowa, Merck, Takeda, Pfizer, Sanofi-Regeneron, and Novo Nordisk. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2022 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome in whom myocardial infarction has been excluded are at risk of future adverse cardiac events., Objectives: This study evaluated the usefulness of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I (hs-cTnI) to select patients for further investigation after myocardial infarction has been excluded., Methods: This is a prospective cohort study of patients presenting to the emergency department with suspected acute coronary syndrome and hs-cTnI concentrations below the sex-specific 99th percentile. Patients were recruited in a 2:1 fashion, stratified by peak hs-cTnI concentration above and below the risk stratification threshold of 5 ng/L. All patients underwent coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) after hospital discharge., Results: Overall, 250 patients were recruited (61.4 ± 12.2 years 31% women) in whom 62.4% (156 of 250 patients) had coronary artery disease (CAD). Patients with intermediate hs-cTnI concentrations (between 5 ng/L and the sex-specific 99th percentile) were more likely to have CAD than those with hs-cTnI concentrations <5 ng/L (71.9% [120 of 167 patients] vs 43.4% [36 of 83 patients]; odds ratio: 3.33; 95% CI: 1.92-5.78). Conversely, there was no association between anginal symptoms and CAD (63.2% [67 of 106 patients] vs 61.8% [89 of 144 patients]; odds ratio: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.48-1.76). Most patients with CAD did not have a previous diagnosis (53.2%; 83 of 156 patients) and were not on antiplatelet and statin therapies (63.5%; 99 of 156 patients) before they underwent CCTA., Conclusions: In patients who had myocardial infarction excluded, CAD was 3× more likely in those with intermediate hs-cTnI concentrations compared with low hs-cTnI concentrations. In such patients, CCTA could help to identify those with occult CAD and to target preventative treatments, thereby improving clinical outcomes., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Lee was supported by a British Heart Foundation (BHF) Clinical Research Training Fellowship (FS/18/25/33454). Drs Bularga and Wereski and Mr. Doudesis were supported by the Medical Research Council (MR/N013166/1, MR/V007017/1, MR/V007254/1). Dr Williams was supported by the British Heart Foundation (FS/ICRF/20/26002). Dr van Beek was supported by the Scottish Imaging Network. Dr Mills was supported by a Chair Award (CH/F/21/90010), Programme Grant (RG/20/10/34966), and Research Excellence Award (RE/18/5/34216) from the British Heart Foundation. Dr Lee has received honoraria from Abbott Diagnostics. Dr van Beek is founder/owner of QCTIS Ltd; has received honoraria from Aidence NV, Roche Diagnostics, AstraZeneca, and Mentholatum; and has received research support from Siemens Healthineers. Dr Mills has received honoraria from Abbott Diagnostics, Siemens Healthineers, Roche Diagnostics, and LumiraDx; and the University of Edinburgh has received research grants from Abbott Diagnostics and Siemens Healthineers. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and coronary artery disease frequently undergo preemptive revascularization before kidney transplant listing., Objectives: In this post hoc analysis from ISCHEMIA-CKD (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness of Medical and Invasive Approaches-Chronic Kidney Disease), we compared outcomes of patients not listed versus those listed according to management strategy., Methods: In the ISCHEMIA-CKD trial (n = 777), 194 patients (25%) with chronic coronary syndromes and at least moderate ischemia were listed for transplant. The primary (all-cause mortality or nonfatal myocardial infarction) and secondary (death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, resuscitated cardiac arrest, or stroke) outcomes were analyzed using Cox multivariable modeling. Heterogeneity of randomized treatment effect between listed versus not listed groups was assessed., Results: Compared with those not listed, listed patients were younger (60 years vs 65 years), were less likely to be of Asian race (15% vs 29%), were more likely to be on dialysis (83% vs 44%), had fewer anginal symptoms, and were more likely to have coronary angiography and coronary revascularization irrespective of treatment assignment. Among patients assigned to an invasive strategy versus conservative strategy, the adjusted hazard ratios for the primary outcome were 0.91 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.54-1.54) and 1.03 (95% CI: 0.78-1.37) for those listed and not listed, respectively (p interaction = 0.68). Adjusted hazard ratios for secondary outcomes were 0.89 (95% CI: 0.55-1.46) in listed and 1.17 (95% CI: 0.89-1.53) in those not listed (p interaction  = 0.35)., Conclusions: In ISCHEMIA-CKD, an invasive strategy in kidney transplant candidates did not improve outcomes compared with conservative management. These data do not support routine coronary angiography or revascularization in patients with advanced CKD and chronic coronary syndromes listed for transplant. (ISCHEMIA-Chronic Kidney Disease Trial [ISCHEMIA-CKD]; NCT01985360)., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures This work was funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) (grants U01HL117904 and U01HL117905). This project was supported by grants from Arbor Pharmaceuticals and AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals. Devices or medications were provided by Abbott Vascular (previously St. Jude Medical), Medtronic, Phillips (previously Volcano Corporation), and Omron Healthcare. Medications provided by Arbor Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, Espero Pharmaceuticals, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., and Sunivion Pharmaceuticals. The contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent official views of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the National Institutes of Health, or the Department of Health and Human Services. Dr Herzog has received personal fees from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI)/NIH during the conduct of the study; has received research grants from Amgen, Relypsa, Bristol Myers Squibb, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases/NIH, University of British Columbia; and has received other support from Abbvie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Corvidia, Diamedica, FibroGen, Janssen, NxStage, Pfizer, Relypsa, Sanifit, University of Oxford, Bristol Myers Squibb, UpToDate, Boston Scientific, General Electric, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, and Hennepin Healthcare. Drs. Simegn, Costa, Mathew, El-Hajjar, Gulati, Maldonao, Madero, Anthopolos, Maron, and Mr. Xu has received research grants from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute during the conduct of the study. Dr Daugas has received personal fees from Amgen, GlaxoSmithKline, and AstraZeneca; has received grants from Agence Nationale pour la Recherche/ Direction Générale de l'Offre de Soins; and has received nonfinancial support from Amgen. Dr Fleg was an employee of the NHLBI during the conduct of the study. Dr Stone has received speaker or other honoraria from Cook and Terumo; has served as a consultant to Valfix, TherOx, Vascular Dynamics, Robocath, HeartFlow, Gore, Ablative Solutions, Miracor, Neovasc, V-Wave, Abiomed, Ancora, MAIA Pharmaceuticals, Vectorious, Reva, Matrizyme, Cardiomech, Elucid Bio, and Occlutech; and has equity/options from Ancora, Cagent, Applied Therapeutics, Biostar family of funds, SpectraWave, Orchestra Biomed, Aria, Cardiac Success, MedFocus family of funds, and Valfix. Dr Sidhu has received research grants from the NHLBI during the conduct of the study; and has received personal fees from AstraZeneca and Sanofi-Regeneron. Dr. Hochman served as Principal Investigator for ISCHEMIA trial for which, in addition to support by NHLBI, devices and medications were provided by Abbott Vascular, Medtronic., St. Jude Medical, Volcano Corporation, Arbor Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Omron Healthcare; and has received financial donations from Arbor Pharmaceuticals LLC and AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP. Dr Bangalore has received research grants from the NHLBI during the conduct of the study; has received research grants from Abbott Vascular; and has received personal fees from Abbott Vascular, Biotronik, Pfizer, Amgen, and Reata., (Copyright © 2021 American College of Cardiology Foundation. All rights reserved.)

Background: THEMIS (The Effect of Ticagrelor on Health Outcomes in Diabetes Mellitus Patients Intervention Study) (n = 19,220) and its pre-specified THEMIS-PCI (The Effect of Ticagrelor on Health Outcomes in Diabetes Mellitus Patients Intervention Study-Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) (n = 11,154) subanalysis showed, in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus (median duration 10.0 years; HbA 1c 7.1%) and stable coronary artery disease without prior myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke, that ticagrelor plus aspirin (compared with placebo plus aspirin) produced a favorable net clinical benefit (composite of all-cause mortality, MI, stroke, fatal bleeding, and intracranial bleeding) if the patients had a previous percutaneous coronary intervention., Objectives: In these post hoc analyses, the authors examined whether the primary efficacy outcome (cardiovascular death, MI, stroke: 3-point major adverse cardiovascular events [MACE]), primary safety outcome (Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction-defined major bleeding) and net clinical benefit varied with diabetes-related factors., Methods: Outcomes were analyzed across baseline diabetes duration, HbA 1c , and antihyperglycemic medications., Results: In THEMIS, the incidence of 3-point MACE increased with diabetes duration (6.7% for ≤5 years, 11.1% for >20 years) and HbA 1c (6.4% for ≤6.0%, 11.8% for >10.0%). The relative benefits of ticagrelor plus aspirin on 3-point MACE reduction (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.90; p = 0.04) were generally consistent across subgroups. Major bleeding event rate (overall: 1.6%) did not vary by diabetes duration or HbA 1c and was increased similarly by ticagrelor across all subgroups (HR: 2.32; p < 0.001). These findings were mirrored in THEMIS-PCI. The efficacy and safety of ticagrelor plus aspirin did not differ by baseline antihyperglycemic therapy. In THEMIS-PCI, but not THEMIS, ticagrelor generally produced favorable net clinical benefit across diabetes duration, HbA 1c , and antihyperglycemic medications., Conclusion: Ticagrelor plus aspirin yielded generally consistent and favorable net clinical benefit across the diabetes-related factors in THEMIS-PCI but not in the overall THEMIS population., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures The THEMIS study was funded and sponsored by AstraZeneca Research & Development. The statistical analyses were conducted independently from but with funding from AstraZeneca. Dr. Leiter has received grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, HLS, Janssen, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi; has received grants from Esperion, GSK, Kowa, Lexicon, Novartis, and The Medicines Company; and has received personal fees from Merck and Servier. Dr. Bhatt served as the co-chair and co–principal investigator of THEMIS and THEMIS-PCI with research funding from AstraZeneca to Brigham and Women’s Hospital; and has served on the advisory board for Cardax, Cereno Scientific, Elsevier Practice Update Cardiology, Medscape Cardiology, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, and Regado has served on the Biosciences; has served on the board of directors for Boston VA Research Institute, Society of Cardiovascular Patient Care, TobeSoft; chair of American Heart Association Quality Oversight Committee; has served on the data monitoring committees for Baim Institute for Clinical Research (formerly Harvard Clinical Research Institute, for the PORTICO trial, funded by St. Jude Medical, now Abbott), Cleveland Clinic (including for the ExCEED trial, funded by Edwards), Duke Clinical Research Institute, Mayo Clinic, Mount Sinai School of Medicine (for the ENVISAGE trial, funded by Daiichi-Sankyo), Population Health Research Institute; has received honoraria from the American College of Cardiology (Senior Associate Editor, Clinical Trials and News, ACC.org; and Vice-Chair, ACC Accreditation Committee), Baim Institute for Clinical Research (formerly Harvard Clinical Research Institute, RE-DUAL PCI clinical trial steering committee funded by Boehringer Ingelheim, and AEGIS-II executive committee funded by CSL Behring), Belvoir Publications (Editor-in-Chief, Harvard Heart Letter), Duke Clinical Research Institute (clinical trial steering committees, including for the PRONOUNCE trial, funded by Ferring Pharmaceuticals), HMP Global (Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Invasive Cardiology), Journal of the American College of Cardiology (Guest Editor, Associate Editor), Medtelligence/ReachMD (CME steering committees), MJH Life Sciences, Population Health Research Institute (for the COMPASS operations committee, publications committee, steering committee, and USA national co-leader, funded by Bayer), Slack Publications (Chief Medical Editor, Cardiology Today’s Intervention), Society of Cardiovascular Patient Care (Secretary/Treasurer), and WebMD (CME steering committees); Clinical Cardiology (Deputy Editor), NCDR-ACTION Registry steering committee (Chair), VA CART Research and Publications Committee (Chair); has received research funding from Abbott, Afimmune, Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardax, Chiesi, CSL Behring, Eisai, Ethicon, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Forest Laboratories, Fractyl, Idorsia, Ironwood, Ischemix, Lexicon, Lilly, Medtronic, Pfizer, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, Synaptic, and The Medicines Company; has received royalties from Elsevier (Editor, Cardiovascular Intervention: A Companion to Braunwald’s Heart Disease); site co-investigator for Biotronik, Boston Scientific, CSI, St. Jude Medical (now Abbott), and Svelte; has been a trustee of American College of Cardiology; and has performed unfunded research for FlowCo, Merck, Novo Nordisk, and Takeda. Dr. McGuire has received honoraria for clinical trials leadership from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eisai, Esperion, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Lexicon, Lilly USA, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Sanofi; and has received honoraria for consultancy from Applied Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly USA, Merck, Metavant, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi. Dr. Teoh has received personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, and Servier. Dr. Fox has received fees, honoraria, and travel expenses from AstraZeneca, Broadview Ventures, Celixir, Servier, TaurX, and UCB; and has served as a director of Vesalius Trials. Dr. Simon has received grants to the institution from AstraZeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, and Sanofi; and has received consulting fees or honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, and Sanofi. Dr. Mehta has received research grants to Population Health Research Institute from AstraZeneca, Abbott, Boston Scientific, and Sanofi; and has received honoraria for consultancy from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, and Sanofi. Dr. Kiss has received speaker honoraria from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Pfizer. Dr. Dalby has served on South African advisory boards for Aspen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Sanofi, and Servier; has received honoraria from AstraZeneca and Servier; and has received travel sponsorship from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, and Sanofi. Dr. Bueno has received research funding from the Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Spain (PIE16/00021 and PI17/01799), Sociedad Española de Cardiología, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Novartis; has received honoraria for consultancy from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb-Pfizer, and Novartis; and has received speaking fees or support for attending scientific meetings from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb-Pfizer, Novartis, and Medscape. Dr. Ridderstråle is an employee of AstraZeneca. Dr. Himmelmann is an employee of AstraZeneca. Dr. Kosiborod has received research support from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim; and has received honoraria for clinical trial leadership and consultancy for Amarin, Applied Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eisai, Glytec, GlaxoSmithKline, Intacia, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Merck (Diabetes), Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, and Vifor Pharma. Dr. Steg has received personal fees and nonfinancial support from AstraZeneca; has received grants and personal fees from Amarin, Bayer/Janssen, Merck, Sanofi, and Servier; and has received personal fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Idorsia, Lilly, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, and Regeneron. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Polygenic risk scores (PRS) for coronary artery disease (CAD) identify high-risk individuals more likely to benefit from primary prevention statin therapy. Whether polygenic CAD risk is captured by conventional paradigms for assessing clinical cardiovascular risk remains unclear., Objectives: This study sought to intersect polygenic risk with guideline-based recommendations and management patterns for CAD primary prevention., Methods: A genome-wide CAD PRS was applied to 47,108 individuals across 3 U.S. health care systems. The authors then assessed whether primary prevention patients at high polygenic risk might be distinguished on the basis of greater guideline-recommended statin eligibility and higher rates of statin therapy., Results: Of 47,108 study participants, the mean age was 60 years, and 11,020 (23.4%) had CAD. The CAD PRS strongly associated with prevalent CAD (odds ratio: 1.4 per SD increase in PRS; p < 0.0001). High polygenic risk (top 20% of PRS) conferred 1.9-fold odds of developing CAD (p < 0.0001). However, among primary prevention patients (n = 33,251), high polygenic risk did not correspond with increased recommendations for statin therapy per the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (46.2% for those with high PRS vs. 46.8% for all others, p = 0.54) or U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (43.7% vs. 43.7%, p = 0.99) or higher rates of statin prescriptions (25.0% vs. 23.8%, p = 0.04). An additional 4.1% of primary prevention patients may be recommended for statin therapy if high CAD PRS were considered a guideline-based risk-enhancing factor., Conclusions: Current paradigms for primary cardiovascular prevention incompletely capture a polygenic susceptibility to CAD. An opportunity may exist to improve CAD prevention efforts by integrating both genetic and clinical risk., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Cardiology Foundation. All rights reserved.)

Percutaneous coronary intervention with a drug-eluting stent is the most common mode of revascularization for coronary artery disease. However, restenosis rates remain high. Non-stent-based local drug delivery by a drug-coated balloon (DCB) has been investigated, as it leaves no metallic mesh. A DCB consists of a semicompliant balloon coated with antiproliferative agents encapsulated in a polymer matrix, which is released into the wall after inflation and contact with the intima. DCB have demonstrated effectiveness in treating in-stent restenosis. Clinical studies using DCB in de novo coronary artery disease have shown mixed results, with a major benefit in small-vessel disease. Differences in study results are not only due to variations in DCB technology but also to disparity in procedural approach, "leave nothing behind" or "combination therapy," and vessel size. This review focuses on the available evidence from randomized trials and proposes a design for future clinical trials., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: The GLOBAL LEADERS (GLOBAL LEADERS: A Clinical Study Comparing Two Forms of Anti-platelet Therapy After Stent Implantation) study randomly assigned 15,991 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention to 1-month dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) followed by 23-month ticagrelor monotherapy or conventional 12-month DAPT followed by 12-month aspirin. Apart from Q-wave myocardial infarction (MI), all study endpoints were analyzed as investigator reported., Objectives: This was a pre-specified ancillary study assessing whether experimental therapy is noninferior, and if met, superior, to conventional treatment for the coprimary efficacy endpoint of all-cause death, nonfatal MI, nonfatal stroke, or urgent target vessel revascularization and superior in preventing BARC 3 (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium) or 5 bleeding (coprimary safety endpoint) at 2 years with a 0.025 significance level to preserve nominal 5% alpha error., Methods: An independent clinical event committee adjudicated investigator-reported and eventually unreported events of 7,585 patients from the 20 top-enrolling participating sites., Results: The 2-year coprimary efficacy endpoint occurred in 271 (7.14%) and in 319 (8.41%) patients in the experimental and conventional groups, respectively (rate ratio [RR]: 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.72 to 0.99), fulfilling noninferiority (p noninferiority <0.001), but not superiority (p superiority = 0.0465). The rates of BARC 3 or 5 bleeding did not differ (RR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.75 to 1.33; p = 0.986). A time-dependent treatment effect was observed with the experimental strategy being associated with a lower risk of MI (RR: 0.54; 95% CI: 0.33 to 0.88; p interaction = 0.062) and definite stent thrombosis (RR: 0.14; 95% CI: 0.03 to 0.63; p interaction = 0.007) after 1-year post-percutaneous coronary intervention., Conclusions: Ticagrelor monotherapy after 1-month DAPT was noninferior, but not superior, to conventional treatment in the prevention of ischemic events, and it did not decrease major bleeding risk as compared with conventional treatment. (GLOBAL LEADERS Adjudication Sub-Study [GLASSY]; NCT03231059)., (Copyright © 2019 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a major risk factor for coronary artery disease (CAD). As well as their high prevalence of traditional CAD risk factors, such as diabetes and hypertension, persons with CKD are also exposed to other nontraditional, uremia-related cardiovascular disease risk factors, including inflammation, oxidative stress, and abnormal calcium-phosphorus metabolism. CKD and end-stage kidney disease not only increase the risk of CAD, but they also modify its clinical presentation and cardinal symptoms. Management of CAD is complicated in CKD patients, due to their likelihood of comorbid conditions and potential for side effects during interventions. This summary of the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) Controversies Conference on CAD and CKD (including end-stage kidney disease and transplant recipients) seeks to improve understanding of the epidemiology, pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment of CAD in CKD and to identify knowledge gaps, areas of controversy, and priorities for research., (Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

For secondary prevention of coronary artery disease (CAD), oral antiplatelet therapy is essential. In case of coronary intervention, temporary dual antiplatelet therapy is mandatory as well. Recently, low-dose oral anticoagulation has entered the CAD arena. Atrial fibrillation (AF) is often seen in CAD and vice versa. In most patients stroke prevention in AF consists of oral anticoagulation. In many cases of CAD in patients with AF, anticoagulation has to be combined with antiplatelet agents (so called, dual pathway antithrombotic therapy). Excess bleeding in these conditions is a rapidly rising problem. This review addresses the antithrombotic options in CAD alone, in AF alone, and in their combination, when either an invasive or a noninvasive approach has been chosen., (Copyright © 2019 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Data on the impact of residual inflammatory risk (RIR) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with baseline low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) ≤70 mg/dl are scarce., Objectives: The purpose of this study was to characterize the prevalence and impact of persistent high RIR after PCI in patients with baseline LDL-C ≤70 mg/dl., Methods: All patients undergoing PCI between January 2009 and December 2016 in a single tertiary center, with baseline LDL-C ≤70 mg/dl and serial high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) assessments (at least 2 measurements ≥4 weeks apart) were retrospectively analyzed. High RIR was defined as hsCRP >2 mg/l. Patients were categorized as persistent low RIR (first low then low hsCRP), attenuated RIR (first high then low hsCRP), increased RIR (first low then high hsCRP), or persistent high RIR (first high then high hsCRP). Primary endpoint of interest was major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular accident (MACCE) (death, myocardial infarction, or stroke), within 1 year of the second hsCRP measurement., Results: A total of 3,013 patients were included, with persistent low, attenuated, increased, and persistent high RIR in 1,225 (41.7%), 414 (13.7%), 346 (11.5%), and 1,028 (34.1%) patients, respectively. Overall, there was a stepwise increase in the incidence rates of MACCE, transitioning from the persistent low to the attenuated, increased, and persistent high RIR (respectively, 64.4 vs. 96.6 vs. 138.0 vs. 152.4 per 1,000 patient-years; p < 0.001). After adjustment, the presence of persistent high RIR remained strongly associated with MACCE (adjusted hazard ratio: 2.10; 95% confidence interval: 1.45 to 3.02; p < 0.001)., Conclusions: Among patients undergoing PCI with baseline LDL-C ≤70 mg/dl, persistent high RIR is frequent and is associated with increased risk of MACCE. Targeting residual inflammation in patients with optimal LDL-C control may further improve outcomes after PCI., (Copyright © 2019 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Currently as many as one-half of women with suspected myocardial ischemia have no obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD), and abnormal coronary reactivity (CR) is commonly found., Objectives: The authors prospectively investigated CR and longer-term adverse cardiovascular outcomes in women with and with no obstructive CAD in the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute-sponsored WISE (Women's Ischemia Syndrome Evaluation) study., Methods: Women (n = 224) with signs and symptoms of ischemia underwent CR testing. Coronary flow reserve and coronary blood flow were obtained to test microvascular function, whereas epicardial CR was tested by coronary dilation response to intracoronary (IC) acetylcholine and IC nitroglycerin. All-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and heart failure), and angina hospitalizations served as clinical outcomes over a median follow-up of 9.7 years., Results: The authors identified 129 events during the follow-up period. Low coronary flow reserve was a predictor of increased MACE rate (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.01 to 1.12; p = 0.021), whereas low coronary blood flow was associated with increased risk of mortality (HR: 1.12; 95% CI: 1.01 to 1.24; p = 0.038) and MACE (HR: 1.11; 95% CI: 1.03 to 1.20; p = 0.006) after adjusting for cardiovascular risk factors. In addition, a decrease in cross-sectional area in response to IC acetylcholine was associated with higher hazard of angina hospitalization (HR: 1.05; 95% CI: 1.02 to 1.07; p < 0.0001). There was no association between epicardial IC-nitroglycerin dilation and outcomes., Conclusions: On longer-term follow-up, impaired microvascular function predicts adverse cardiovascular outcomes in women with signs and symptoms of ischemia. Evaluation of CR abnormality can identify those at higher risk of adverse outcomes in the absence of significant CAD. (Women's Ischemia Syndrome Evaluation [WISE]; NCT00000554)., (Copyright © 2019 American College of Cardiology Foundation. All rights reserved.)

Background: Coronary drug-eluting stent development has introduced new metal alloys, changes in stent architecture, and bioresorbable polymers. Whether these advancements improve long-term clinical safety and efficacy has been inconsistent in prior studies., Objectives: The authors sought to compare late-term clinical outcomes among patients treated with an ultrathin strut (60 μm) bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (BP SES) and a thin strut (81 μm) durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent (DP EES) in a large randomized trial., Methods: BIOFLOW V (Biotronik Prospective Randomized Multicenter Study to Assess the Safety and Effectiveness of the Orsiro Sirolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in the Treatment of Subjects with Up to Three De Novo or Restenotic Coronary Artery Lesions V) was an international randomized trial comparing coronary revascularization with BP SES and DP EES regarding the primary endpoint of 12-month target lesion failure (TLF). Analysis of pre-specified 2-year clinical outcomes was performed., Results: Among 1,334 patients randomized to treatment with BP SES (n = 884) or DP EES (n = 450), the 2-year TLF rate was 7.5% for BP SES and 11.9% for DP EES (-4.33% treatment difference; 95% confidence interval: -8.16% to -0.91%; p = 0.015), driven by differences in target vessel myocardial infarction (MI) (5.3% vs. 9.5%; p = 0.01) and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization (2.6% vs. 4.9%; p = 0.04). Rates of cardiac death or MI were 7.0% versus 10.4% for BP SES and DP EES, respectively (p = 0.047). Late/very late definite stent thrombosis was statistically lower for BP SES compared with DP EES (0.1% vs. 1.0%; p = 0.045)., Conclusions: In a large randomized trial, significant differences in both TLF and target vessel-related MI persisted through 2 years, favoring treatment with BP SES over DP EES. Significantly lower cumulative target lesion revascularization and late/very late stent thrombosis were also observed with BP SES. (Safety and Effectiveness of the Orsiro Sirolimus Eluting Coronary Stent System in Subjects With Coronary Artery Lesions [BIOFLOW-V]; NCT02389946)., (Copyright © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Coronary lesions with low fractional flow reserve (FFR) that are treated medically are associated with higher revascularization rates. High wall shear stress (WSS) has been linked with increased plaque vulnerability., Objectives: This study investigated the prognostic value of WSS measured in the proximal segments of lesions (WSS prox ) to predict myocardial infarction (MI) in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) and hemodynamically significant lesions. The authors hypothesized that in patients with low FFR and stable CAD, higher WSS prox would predict MI., Methods: Among 441 patients in the FAME II (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation II) trial with FFR ≤0.80 who were randomized to medical therapy alone, 34 (8%) had subsequent MI within 3 years. Patients with vessel-related MI and adequate angiograms for 3-dimensional reconstruction (n = 29) were propensity matched to a control group with no MI (n = 29) by using demographic and clinical variables. Coronary lesions were divided into proximal, middle, and distal, along with 5-mm upstream and downstream segments. WSS was calculated for each segment., Results: Median age was 62 years, and 46 (79%) were male. In the marginal Cox model, whereas lower FFR showed a trend (hazard ratio: 0.084; p = 0.064), higher WSS prox (hazard ratio: 1.234; p = 0.002, C-index = 0.65) predicted MI. Adding WSS prox to FFR resulted in a significant increase in global chi-square for predicting MI (p = 0.045), a net reclassification improvement of 0.69 (p = 0.005), and an integrated discrimination index of 0.11 (p = 0.010)., Conclusions: In patients with stable CAD and hemodynamically significant lesions, higher WSS in the proximal segments of atherosclerotic lesions is predictive of MI and has incremental prognostic value over FFR., (Copyright © 2018 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The optimal treatment strategy when combining antiplatelets with oral anticoagulants in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and myocardial infarction (MI) or undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is unknown., Objectives: The authors investigated the risk of bleeding, ischemic stroke, MI, and all-cause mortality associated with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) compared with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) in combination with aspirin, clopidogrel, or both in patients with AF following MI and/or PCI., Methods: Danish nationwide registries were used to identify patients with AF who were admitted with a MI and/or underwent PCI, between August 2011 and June 2017, treated with OAC in combination with antiplatelet(s). Patients were followed for 12 months or until an outcome, study end, or death. Standardized absolute risks were estimated on the basis of outcome-specific Cox regression models adjusted for potential confounders. Average treatment effects were obtained as standardized absolute risk differences (ARD) in risks at 3 and 12 months using the g-formula., Results: Overall, 3,222 patients were included in the study population, of which 875 (27%) were treated with VKA+single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT), 595 (18%) were treated with DOAC+SAPT, 1,074 (33%) were treated with VKA+dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), and 678 (22%) were treated with DOAC+DAPT. At 3 months, there was a significant difference in the absolute risk of MI associated with DOAC+SAPT compared with VKA+SAPT (3-month ARD -1.53% (95% confidence interval: -3.08% to -0.11%), with no significant differences found regarding bleeding, ischemic stroke, and all-cause mortality. Compared with VKA+DAPT, DOAC+DAPT was associated with a significantly reduced risk of bleeding (3-month ARD -1.96%, 95% confidence interval: -3.46% to -0.88%), with no significant difference in the absolute risk of all-cause mortality, stroke, or MI., Conclusions: In a real-world population of AF patients with MI and/or after PCI, the authors found that DOAC in combination with DAPT was associated with a significantly decreased risk of bleeding and similar thromboembolic protection compared with VKA in combination with DAPT., (Copyright © 2018 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Recently, the therapeutic benefits of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have been challenged in patients with stable coronary artery disease (SCD)., Objectives: The authors examined the impact of PCI on exercise responses in the coronary circulation, the microcirculation, and systemic hemodynamics in patients with SCD., Methods: A total of 21 patients (mean age 60.3 ± 8.4 years) with SCD and single-vessel coronary stenosis underwent cardiac catheterization. Pre-PCI, patients exercised on a supine ergometer until rate-limiting angina or exhaustion. Simultaneous trans-stenotic coronary pressure-flow measurements were made throughout exercise. Post-PCI, this process was repeated. Physiological parameters, rate-limiting symptoms, and exercise performance were compared between pre-PCI and post-PCI exercise cycles., Results: PCI reduced ischemia as documented by fractional flow reserve value (pre-PCI 0.59 ± 0.18 to post-PCI 0.91 ± 0.07), instantaneous wave-free ratio value (pre-PCI 0.61 ± 0.27 to post-PCI 0.96 ± 0.05) and coronary flow reserve value (pre-PCI 1.7 ± 0.7 to post-PCI 3.1 ± 1.0; p < 0.001 for all). PCI increased peak-exercise average peak coronary flow velocity (p < 0.0001), coronary perfusion pressure (distal coronary pressure; p < 0.0001), systolic blood pressure (p = 0.01), accelerating wave energy (p < 0.001), and myocardial workload (rate-pressure product; p < 0.01). These changes observed immediately following PCI resulted from the abolition of stenosis resistance (p < 0.0001). PCI was also associated with an immediate improvement in exercise time (+67 s; 95% confidence interval: 31 to 102 s; p < 0.0001) and a reduction in rate-limiting angina symptoms (81% reduction in rate-limiting angina symptoms post-PCI; p < 0.001)., Conclusions: In patients with SCD and severe single-vessel stenosis, objective physiological responses to exercise immediately normalize following PCI. This is seen in the coronary circulation, the microcirculation, and systemic hemodynamics., (Copyright © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Coronary artery disease (CAD) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in patients ≥80 years of age. Nonetheless, older patients have typically been under-represented in cardiovascular clinical trials. Understanding the pathophysiology, epidemiology, and optimal means of diagnosis and treatment of CAD in older adults is crucial to improving outcomes in this high-risk population. A patient-centered approach, taking into account health status, functional ability and frailty, cognitive skills, and patient preferences is essential when caring for older adults with CAD. The present systematic review focuses on the current knowledge base, gaps in understanding, and directions for future investigation pertaining to CAD in patients ≥80 years of age., (Copyright © 2018 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The Absorb everolimus-eluting poly-L-lactic acid-based bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) provides early drug delivery and mechanical support functions similar to metallic drug-eluting stents (DES), followed by complete bioresorption in approximately 3 years with recovery of vascular structure and function. The ABSORB III trial demonstrated noninferior rates of target lesion failure (cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction [TVMI], or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization) at 1 year in 2,008 patients with coronary artery disease randomized to BVS versus cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stents (EES)., Objectives: This study sought to assess clinical outcomes through 3 years following BVS implantation., Methods: Clinical outcomes from the ABSORB III trial were analyzed by randomized treatment assignment cumulative through 3 years, and between 1 and 3 years., Results: The primary composite endpoint of target lesion failure through 3 years occurred in 13.4% of BVS patients and 10.4% of EES patients (p = 0.06), and between 1 and 3 years in 7.0% versus 6.0% of patients, respectively (p = 0.39). TVMI through 3 years was increased with BVS (8.6% vs. 5.9%; p = 0.03), as was device thrombosis (2.3% vs. 0.7%; p = 0.01). In BVS-assigned patients, treatment of very small vessels (those with quantitatively determined reference vessel diameter <2.25 mm) was an independent predictor of 3-year TLF and scaffold thrombosis., Conclusions: In the ABSORB III trial, 3-year adverse event rates were higher with BVS than EES, particularly TVMI and device thrombosis. Longer-term clinical follow-up is required to determine whether bioresorption of the polymeric scaffold will influence patient prognosis. (ABSORB III Randomized Controlled Trial [RCT] [ABSORB-III]; NCT01751906)., (Copyright © 2017 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Procedural technique may affect clinical outcomes after bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) implantation. Prior studies suggesting such a relationship have not adjusted for baseline patient and lesion characteristics that may have influenced operator choice of technique and outcomes., Objectives: This study sought to determine whether target lesion failure (TLF) (cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization) and scaffold thrombosis (ScT) rates within 3 years of BVS implantation are affected by operator technique (vessel size selection and pre- and post-dilation parameters)., Methods: TLF and ScT rates were determined in 2,973 patients with 3,149 BVS-treated coronary artery lesions from 5 prospective studies (ABSORB II, ABSORB China, ABSORB Japan, ABSORB III, and ABSORB Extend). Outcomes through 3 years (and between 0 to 1 and 1 to 3 years) were assessed according to pre-specified definitions of optimal technique (pre-dilation, vessel sizing, and post-dilation). Multivariable analysis was used to adjust for differences in up to 18 patient and lesion characteristics., Results: Optimal pre-dilation (balloon to core laboratory-derived reference vessel diameter ratio ≥1:1), vessel size selection (reference vessel diameter ≥2.25 mm and ≤3.75 mm), and post-dilation (with a noncompliant balloon at ≥18 atm and larger than the nominal scaffold diameter, but not by >0.5 mm larger) in all BVS-treated lesions were performed in 59.2%, 81.6%, and 12.4% of patients, respectively. BVS implantation in properly sized vessels was an independent predictor of freedom from TLF through 1 year (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.67; p = 0.01) and through 3 years (HR: 0.72; p = 0.01), and of freedom from ScT through 1 year (HR: 0.36; p = 0.004). Aggressive pre-dilation was an independent predictor of freedom from ScT between 1 and 3 years (HR: 0.44; p = 0.03), and optimal post-dilation was an independent predictor of freedom from TLF between 1 and 3 years (HR: 0.55; p = 0.05)., Conclusions: In the present large-scale analysis from the major ABSORB studies, after multivariable adjustment for baseline patient and lesion characteristics, vessel sizing and operator technique were strongly associated with BVS-related outcomes during 3-year follow-up. (ABSORB II Randomized Controlled Trial [ABSORB II]; NCT01425281; ABSORB III Randomized Controlled Trial [RCT] [ABSORB-III]; NCT01751906; A Clinical Evaluation of Absorb Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold [Absorb BVS] System in Chinese Population-ABSORB CHINA Randomized Controlled Trial [RCT] [ABSORB CHINA]; NCT01923740; ABSORB EXTEND Clinical Investigation [ABSORB EXTEND]; NCT01023789; AVJ-301 Clinical Trial: A Clinical Evaluation of AVJ-301 [Absorb BVS] in Japanese Population [ABSORB JAPAN]; NCT01844284)., (Copyright © 2017 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Despite extensive evidence demonstrating the beneficial effects of statins on clinical outcomes, the mechanisms underlying these effects remain elusive., Objectives: This study assessed changes in plaque morphology using intravascular imaging, with a comprehensive evaluation of cholesterol efflux capacity (CEC) and peripheral blood mononuclear cell (PBMC) transcriptomics in patients receiving high-dose statin therapy., Methods: In a prospective study, 85 patients with stable coronary artery disease underwent percutaneous coronary intervention for a culprit lesion, followed by intracoronary multimodality imaging, including optical coherence tomography (OCT) of an obstructive nonculprit lesion. All subjects received 40 mg of rosuvastatin daily for 8 to 12 weeks, when the nonculprit lesion was reimaged and intervention performed. Blood samples were drawn at both times to assess CEC and transcriptomic profile in PBMC., Results: Baseline OCT minimal fibrous cap thickness (FCT) was 100.9 ± 41.7 μm, which increased to 108.6 ± 39.6 μm at follow-up, and baseline CEC was 0.81 ± 0.14, which increased at follow-up to 0.84 ± 0.14 (p = 0.003). Thin-cap fibroatheroma prevalence decreased from 20.0% to 7.1% (p = 0.003). Changes in FCT were independently associated with CEC increase by multivariate analysis (β: 0.30; p = 0.01). PBMC microarray analysis detected 117 genes that were differentially expressed at follow-up compared to baseline, including genes playing key roles in cholesterol synthesis (SQLE), regulation of fatty acids unsaturation (FADS1), cellular cholesterol uptake (LDLR), efflux (ABCA1 and ABCG1), and inflammation (DHCR24). Weighted coexpression network analysis revealed unique clusters of genes associated with favorable FCT and CEC changes., Conclusions: The study demonstrated an independent association between fibrous cap thickening and improved CEC that may contribute to morphological changes suggesting plaque stabilization among patients taking intensive statin therapy. Furthermore, the significant perturbations in PBMC transcriptome may help determine the beneficial effects of statin on plaque stabilization. (Reduction in Coronary Yellow Plaque, Lipids and Vascular Inflammation by Aggressive Lipid Lowering [YELLOW II]; NCT01837823)., (Copyright © 2017 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The American College of Cardiology, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, and American Association for Thoracic Surgery, along with key specialty and subspecialty societies, have completed a 2-part revision of the appropriate use criteria (AUC) for coronary revascularization. In prior coronary revascularization AUC documents, indications for revascularization in acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and stable ischemic heart disease were combined into 1 document. To address the expanding clinical indications for coronary revascularization, and in an effort to align the subject matter with the most current American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines, the new AUC for coronary artery revascularization were separated into 2 documents addressing ACS and stable ischemic heart disease individually. This document presents the AUC for ACS. Clinical scenarios were developed to mimic patient presentations encountered in everyday practice and included information on symptom status, presence of clinical instability or ongoing ischemic symptoms, prior reperfusion therapy, risk level as assessed by noninvasive testing, fractional flow reserve testing, and coronary anatomy. This update provides a reassessment of clinical scenarios that the writing group felt to be affected by significant changes in the medical literature or gaps from prior criteria. The methodology used in this update is similar to the initial document but employs the recent modifications in the methods for developing AUC, most notably, alterations in the nomenclature for appropriate use categorization. A separate, independent rating panel scored the clinical scenarios on a scale of 1 to 9. Scores of 7 to 9 indicate that revascularization is considered appropriate for the clinical scenario presented. Scores of 1 to 3 indicate that revascularization is considered rarely appropriate for the clinical scenario, whereas scores in the mid-range (4 to 6) indicate that coronary revascularization may be appropriate for the clinical scenario. Seventeen clinical scenarios were developed by a writing committee and scored by the rating panel: 10 were identified as appropriate, 6 as may be appropriate, and 1 as rarely appropriate. As seen with the prior coronary revascularization AUC, revascularization in clinical scenarios with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and non–ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction were considered appropriate. Likewise, clinical scenarios with unstable angina and intermediate- or high-risk features were deemed appropriate. Additionally, the management of nonculprit artery disease and the timing of revascularization are now also rated. The primary objective of the AUC is to provide a framework for the assessment of practice patterns that will hopefully improve physician decision making.

Background: There are scant outcomes data in patients with type 2 diabetes and stable coronary artery disease (CAD) stratified by detailed angiographic burden of CAD or left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF)., Objectives: This study determined the effect of optimal medical therapy (OMT), with or without percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), on long-term outcomes with respect to LVEF and number of diseased vessels, including proximal left anterior descending artery involvement., Methods: A patient-level pooled analysis was undertaken in 3 federally-funded trials. The primary endpoint was the composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke, adjusted for trial and randomization strategy., Results: Among 5,034 subjects, 15% had LVEF <50%, 77% had multivessel CAD, and 28% had proximal left anterior descending artery involvement. During a median 4.5-year follow-up, CABG + OMT was superior to PCI + OMT for the primary endpoint (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.59 to 0.85; p = 0.0002), death (HR: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.60 to 0.96; p = 0.024), and MI (HR: 0.50; 95% CI: 0.38 to 0.67; p = 0.0001), but not stroke (HR: 1.54; 95% CI: 0.96 to 2.48; p = 0.074). CABG + OMT was also superior to OMT alone for prevention of the primary endpoint (HR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.64 to 0.97; p = 0.022) and MI (HR: 0.55; 95% CI: 0.41 to 0.74; p = 0.0001), and was superior to PCI + OMT for the primary endpoint in patients with 3-vessel CAD (HR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.58 to 0.89; p = 0.002) and normal LVEF (HR: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.58 to 0.87; p = 0.0012). There were no significant differences in OMT versus PCI + OMT., Conclusions: CABG + OMT reduced the primary endpoint during long-term follow-up in patients with type 2 diabetes and stable CAD, supporting this as the preferred management strategy., (Copyright © 2016 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Myocardial viability assessment is typically reserved for patients with coronary artery disease and significant left ventricular dysfunction. In this setting, there is myocardial adaptation to an altered physiological state that is potentially reversible. Imaging can characterize different parameters of cardiac function; however, despite previously published appraisals of different imaging modalities, there is still uncertainty regarding the role of these tests in clinical practice. The purpose of this review is to reflect on the physiological basis of myocardial viability, discuss the imaging tests available that characterize myocardial viability, and summarize the current published reports on the use of these tests in clinical practice., (Copyright © 2016 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

This review provides an integrative and forward-looking perspective on the gamut of coronary physiology for the diagnosis and management of atherosclerosis. Because clinical events serve as the ultimate gold standard, the future of all diagnostic tests, including invasive fractional flow reserve and noninvasive coronary flow reserve, depends on their ability to improve patient outcomes. Given the prominent role of acute coronary syndromes and invasive procedures in cardiology, we practically consider 2 broad categories of patients with coronary disease: acute and stable. For patients with acute coronary disease, coronary physiology may potentially refine treatment of the culprit lesion. For both patients with stable and acute nonculprit disease, reducing hard endpoints with revascularization potentially occurs at the severe end of the focal physiological spectrum, an area under-represented in existing trials. Nonepicardial disease and diffuse atherosclerosis remain underexplored aspects of coronary physiology for testing of novel treatments., (Copyright © 2016 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Pre-clinical trials have demonstrated that, during intravenous microbubble infusion, high mechanical index (HMI) impulses from a diagnostic ultrasound (DUS) transducer might restore epicardial and microvascular flow in acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI)., Objectives: The purpose of this study was to test the safety and efficacy of this adjunctive approach in humans., Methods: From May 2014 through September 2015, patients arriving with their first STEMI were randomized to either DUS intermittent HMI impulses (n = 20) just prior to emergent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and for an additional 30 min post-PCI (HMI + PCI), or low mechanical index (LMI) imaging only (n = 10) for perfusion assessments before and after PCI (LMI + PCI). All studies were conducted during an intravenous perflutren lipid microsphere infusion. A control reference group (n = 70) arrived outside of the time window of ultrasound availability and received emergent PCI alone (PCI only). Initial epicardial recanalization rates prior to emergent PCI and improvements in microvascular flow were compared between ultrasound-treated groups., Results: Median door-to-dilation times were 82 ± 26 min in the LMI + PCI group, 72 ± 15 min in the HMI + PCI group, and 103 ± 42 min in the PCI-only group (p = NS). Angiographic recanalization prior to PCI was seen in 12 of 20 HMI + PCI patients (60%) compared with 10% of LMI + PCI and 23% of PCI-only patients (p = 0.002). There were no differences in microvascular obstructed segments prior to treatment, but there were significantly smaller proportions of obstructed segments in the HMI + PCI group at 1 month (p = 0.001) and significant improvements in left ventricular ejection fraction (p < 0.005)., Conclusions: HMI impulses from a diagnostic transducer, combined with a commercial microbubble infusion, can prevent microvascular obstruction and improve functional outcome when added to the contemporary PCI management of acute STEMI. (Therapeutic Use of Ultrasound in Acute Coronary Artery Disease; NCT02410330)., (Copyright © 2016 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Whether the rate of drug elution and polymer absorption affects clinical outcomes of biodegradable polymer-based drug-eluting stents (DES) is unknown. The widely used polylactide polymer-based Excel stent (JW Medical, Weihai, China) elutes sirolimus within 180 days, and the polylactide polymer is completely absorbed within 6 to 9 months. In contrast, the poly-lactide-co-glycolide polymer-based BuMA stent (Sino Medical, Tianjin, China) elutes sirolimus within 30 days, and the poly-lactide-co-glycolide polymer is completely absorbed within 3 months. Thus, both metallic DES elute sirolimus, isolating major differences to the polymer and elution kinetics., Objectives: The goal of this study was to compare the safety and effectiveness between the BuMA sirolimus-eluting stent (SES) and Excel SES in an "all-comers" population., Methods: PANDA III was a multicenter trial with few exclusion criteria, powered for sequential noninferiority and superiority testing. The primary endpoint was 1-year target lesion failure (TLF), a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization., Results: Between December 2013 and August 2014, 2,348 patients were randomly assigned to treatment with BuMA (n = 1,174) or Excel SES (n = 1,174). The 1-year primary endpoint of TLF occurred in 6.4% of patients in each group (difference: 0.06%; 95% confidence interval: 1.93% to 2.04%; pnoninferiority = 0.0003; psuperiority = 0.95). There were no significant between-group differences in any of the secondary endpoints other than the incidence of definite/probable stent thrombosis, which occurred less frequently with the BuMA stent (0.5% vs. 1.3%; log-rank p = 0.048)., Conclusions: The BuMA SES was demonstrated to be noninferior to the Excel SES for 1-year TLF, with a lower incidence of stent thrombosis. (Comparison of BuMA eG Based BioDegradable Polymer Stent With EXCEL Biodegradable Polymer Sirolimus-eluting Stent in "Real-World" Practice [PANDA-III]; NCT02017275)., (Copyright © 2016 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Takotsubo stress cardiomyopathy (TSC) is a syndrome characterized by transient myocardial dysfunction with unknown etiology. Although recent studies have suggested that the syndrome is associated with comorbidity and has a dismal prognosis, there is a lack of comprehensive data describing the epidemiology and prognosis of TSC., Objectives: This study compared risk markers and mortality in patients with TSC with that of individuals with or without coronary artery disease (CAD)., Methods: Patients with TSC and control subjects were identified from the Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Register between 2009 and 2013 and linked with the Swedish national patient registry, cause of death registry, prescription drug registry, and education and income registries., Results: Patients with TSC were characterized by a low cardiovascular risk factor profile but with increased chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, migraine, and affective disorders. The use of beta-blockers was less common but use of β2-adrenergic agonist agents was more common in patients with TSC compared with either of the control groups. Being a patient with TSC was associated with a hazard ratio of 2.1 for death compared with the control subjects without CAD (95% confidence interval: 1.4 to 3.2). This was similar to the excess mortality risk seen among the CAD control subjects compared with control subjects without CAD (hazard ratio: 2.5; 95% confidence interval: 1.8 to 3.3). These associations remained significant after adjusting for CAD risk factors and risk markers for TSC., Conclusions: The findings of increased risk associated with β2-adrenergic agonist agents together with stress related to affective disorders emphasize the pathogenic role of sympathetic stimulation. The prognosis regarding mortality is worse than in control subjects without CAD and similar to patients with CAD emphasizing the urgent need for studies on optimal treatment of TSC., (Copyright © 2016 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)