Search

Publisher Copyright: © 2021 Background: Complete revascularization in ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients with multivessel disease has resulted in reduction in composite clinical endpoints in medium sized trials. Only one trial showed an effect on hard clinical endpoints, but the revascularization procedure was guided by angiographic evaluation of stenosis severity. Consequently, it is not clear how Fractional Flow Reserve (FFR)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) affects hard clinical endpoints in STEMI. Methods and Results: The Ffr-gUidance for compLete non-cuLprit REVASCularization (FULL REVASC) – is a pragmatic, multicenter, international, registry-based randomized clinical trial designed to evaluate whether a strategy of FFR-guided complete revascularization of non-culprit lesions, reduces the combined primary endpoint of total mortality, non-fatal MI and unplanned revascularization. 1,545 patients were randomized to receive FFR-guided PCI during the index hospitalization or initial conservative management of non-culprit lesions. We found that in angiographically severe non-culprit lesions of 90-99% severity, 1 in 5 of these lesions were re-classified as non-flow limiting by FFR. Considering lesions of intermediate severity (70%-89%), half were re-classified as non-flow limiting by FFR. The study is event driven for an estimated follow-up of at least 2.75 years to detect a 9.9%/year>7.425%/year difference (HR = 0.74 at 80% power (α = .05)) for the combined primary endpoint. Conclusion: This large randomized clinical trial is designed and powered to evaluate the effect of complete revascularization with FFR-guided PCI during index hospitalization on total mortality, non-fatal MI and unplanned revascularization following primary PCI in STEMI patients with multivessel disease. Enrollment completed in September 2019 and follow-up is ongoing.

Based on the SYMPLICITY studies and CE (Conformité Européenne) certification, renal denervation is currently applied as a novel treatment of resistant hypertension in Europe. However, information on the proportion of patients with resistant hypertension qualifying for renal denervation after a thorough work-up and treatment adjustment remains scarce. The aim of this study was to investigate the proportion of patients eligible for renal denervation and the reasons for noneligibility at 11 expert centers participating in the European Network COordinating Research on renal Denervation in treatment-resistant hypertension (ENCOReD). The analysis included 731 patients. Age averaged 61.6 years, office blood pressure at screening was 177/96 mm Hg, and the number of blood pressure-lowering drugs taken was 4.1. Specialists referred 75.6% of patients. The proportion of patients eligible for renal denervation according to the SYMPLICITY HTN-2 criteria and each center's criteria was 42.5% (95% confidence interval, 38.0%-47.0%) and 39.7% (36.2%-43.2%), respectively. The main reasons of noneligibility were normalization of blood pressure after treatment adjustment (46.9%), unsuitable renal arterial anatomy (17.0%), and previously undetected secondary causes of hypertension (11.1%). In conclusion, after careful screening and treatment adjustment at hypertension expert centers, only ≈40% of patients referred for renal denervation, mostly by specialists, were eligible for the procedure. The most frequent cause of ineligibility (approximately half of cases) was blood pressure normalization after treatment adjustment by a hypertension specialist. Our findings highlight that hypertension centers with a record in clinical experience and research should remain the gatekeepers before renal denervation is considered. ispartof: Hypertension vol:63 issue:6 pages:1319-25 ispartof: location:United States status: published

Background This prospective multicenter registry used intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) in patients with definite stent thrombosis (ST) to compare rates of incomplete stent apposition (ISA), stent fracture and stent expansion in patients treated with drug-eluting (DES) versus bare metal (BMS) stents. ST is a rare, but potential life threatening event after coronary stent implantation. The etiology seems to be multifactorial. Methods 124 patients with definite ST were assessed by IVUS during the acute ST event. The study was conducted in 15 high-volume percutaneous coronary intervention -centers in the Nordic–Baltic countries. Results In early or late ST there were no differences in ISA between DES and BMS. In very late ST, ISA was a more frequent finding in DES than in BMS (52% vs.16%; p=0.005) and the maximum ISA area was larger in DES compared to BMS (1.1±2.3mm 2 vs. 0.1±0.5mm 2 ; p=0.004). Further, ISA was more prevalent in sirolimus-eluting than in paclitaxel-eluting stents (58% vs. 37%; p=0.02). Stent fractures were found both in DES (16%) and BMS (24%); p=0.28, and not related to time of stent thrombosis occurrence. For stents with nominal diameters ≥2.75mm, 38% of the DES and 22% of the BMS had a minimum stent area of less than 5mm 2 ; p=0.14. Conclusions Very late stent thrombosis was more prevalent and associated with more extensive ISA in DES than in BMS treated patients. Stent fracture was a common finding in ST after DES and BMS implantation.