Search

Background: In patients with low-gradient aortic stenosis (AS) and low transvalvular flow, dobutamine stress echocardiography (DSE) is recommended to determine AS severity, whereas the degree of aortic valve calcification (AVC) supposedly correlates with AS severity according to current European and American guidelines., Objectives: The purpose of this study was to assess the relationship between AVC and AS severity as determined using echocardiography and DSE in patients with aortic valve area <1 cm 2 and peak aortic valve velocity <4.0 m/s., Methods: All patients underwent DSE to determine AS severity and multislice computed tomography to quantify AVC. Receiver-operating characteristics curve analysis was used to assess the diagnostic value of AVC for AS severity grading as determined using echocardiography and DSE in men and women., Results: A total of 214 patients were included. Median age was 78 years (25th-75th percentile: 71-84 years) and 25% were women. Left ventricular ejection fraction was reduced (<50%) in 197 (92.1%) patients. Severe AS was diagnosed in 106 patients (49.5%). Moderate AS was diagnosed in 108 patients (50.5%; in 77 based on resting transthoracic echocardiography, in 31 confirmed using DSE). AVC score was high (≥2,000 for men or ≥1,200 for women) in 47 (44.3%) patients with severe AS and in 47 (43.5%) patients with moderate AS. AVC sensitivity was 44.3%, specificity was 56.5%, and positive and negative predictive values for severe AS were 50.0% and 50.8%, respectively. Area under the receiver-operating characteristics curve was 0.508 for men and 0.524 for women., Conclusions: Multi-slice computed tomography-derived AVC scores showed poor discrimination between grades of AS severity using DSE and cannot replace DSE in the diagnostic work-up of low-gradient severe AS., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Van Mieghem has received grant support/research contracts from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, Daiichy Sankyo, AstraZeneca, and PulseCath BV; and has received consulting/speaker fees from Abbot Vascular, Boston Scientific Corporation, Medtronic, Daiichy Sankyo, PulseCath BV, JenaValve, and Amgen. Dr Mehran has received grant support/research contracts from Abbott, Abiomed, Alleviant Medical, Amgen, AM-Pharma, Arena Pharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Atricure Inc, Biosensors, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CardiaWave, CeloNova, Chiesi, Concept Medical, Cytsorbents, Daiichy-Sankyo, Element Science, Faraday, Humacyte, Idorsia Pharmaceuticals, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Magenta, MedAlliance, Mediasphere, Medtelligence, Medtronic, MJH Healthcare, Novartis, OrbusNeich, Penumbra, PhaseBio, Philips, Pi-Cardia, PLx Pharma, Protembis, RenalPro, RM Global, Shockwave Medical, Vivasure, and Zoll; has received consulting/speaker fees from AstraZeneca, E.R. Squibb and Sons LLC, Esperion Science/Innovativa Biopharma, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, IQVIA, J-Calc, McVeigh Global, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Overcome, Primer Healthcare of New Jersey, Radcliffe, SL Solutions, TARSUS Cardiology, Vectura, and WebMD; and she has equity in Applied Therapeutics, Elixir, and STEL. Dr Mehran’s spouse has equity in ControlRad. Dr Kodali has received grant support/research contracts from Admedus, Dura Biotech, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic, Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, and JenaValve; has received consulting/speaker fees from Admedus, Dura Biotech, TriCares, X-Dot, Tioga, Helix Valve Repair, and Moray Medical; and has equity in Dura Biotech, Microinterventional Devices, Thubrika Aortic Valve Inc, Supira, Admedus, Triflo, and Adona. Dr Hahn has received consulting/speaker fees from Abbott Structural, Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, Boston Scientific, Baylis Medical, Navigate, Philips Healthcare, Siemens Healthcare, and 3mensio; and has equity in Navigate. Dr Bax has received grant support/research contracts from Biotronic, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Bayer AG, and Edwards Lifesciences; and has received consulting/speaker fees from Abbott Vascular and Edwards Lifesciences. Drs Veulemans and Zeus have received consulting fees, travel expenses, or study honoraria from Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, and Boston Scientific. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Fluid-filled pressure guidewires are unaffected by the previously inevitable hydrostatic pressure gradient (HPG). This study aimed to compare simultaneous pressure measurements with fluid-filled and sensor-tipped pressure guidewires., Methods: Fifty patients underwent fractional flow reserve (FFR) and P d /P a measurement with a fluid-filled and a sensor-tipped pressure guidewire simultaneously. To assess maneuverability, patients were randomized with respect to which pressure guidewire was used to cross the lesion first. Lateral fluoroscopy was used to estimate height difference between catheter tip and distal wire position (and thus HPG). Agreement between pressure measurements was studied., Results: Measurements were performed in LM (4% (n = 2)), LAD (44% (n = 22)), LCX (26% (n = 13)), and RCA (26% (n = 13)). Simultaneous pressure measurements showed excellent agreement (mean FFR difference - 0.01 ± 0.03 (r = 0.959, p < 0.001), mean P d /P a difference - 0.01 ± 0.04 (r = 0.929, p < 0.001)). FFR was ≤0.80 in 42.6% (n = 20) with fluid-filled FFR measurements versus 46.8% (n = 22) by sensor-tipped FFR measurements. Mean height difference was 15 ± 34 mm, and strongly dependent on the coronary artery (LAD 45 ± 10 mm, LCX -23 ± 16 mm, RCA -13 ± 17 mm). There was a strong correlation between height difference and difference in pressure ratios between sensor-tipped and fluid-filled pressure guidewires (FFR r = -0.850, p < 0.001; P d /P a r = -0.641, p < 0.001). Largest FFR differences were present in the LAD (-0.04 ± 0.02). After HPG correction, mean difference between HPG-corrected sensor-tipped FFR and fluid-filled FFR was 0.00 ± 0.02, mean P d /P a difference was 0.01 ± 0.03., Conclusions: This study shows excellent overall correlation between FFR and P d /P a measurements with both pressure guidewires. Differences measured with fluid-filled and sensor-tipped pressure guidewires are vessel-specific and attributable to hydrostatic pressure gradients (NCT04802681)., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest PT received research grants from Cavis Technologies AB, Biosensors, OpSens Medical and lecture fees from Medtronic. NvR received personal fees from Abbott, Rainmed, Microport and Bayer and received research grants from Philips, Biotronik, Abbott, and Medtronic. EH is a former employee of Cavis Technologies AB. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Myocardial ischaemia results from insufficient coronary blood flow. Computed virtual fractional flow reserve (vFFR) allows quantification of proportional flow loss without the need for invasive pressure-wire testing. In the current study, we describe a novel, conductivity model of side branch flow, referred to as 'leak'. This leak model is a function of taper and local pressure, the latter of which may change radically when focal disease is present. This builds upon previous techniques, which either ignore side branch flow, or rely purely on anatomical factors. This study aimed to describe a new, conductivity model of side branch flow and compare this with established anatomical models., Methods and Results: The novel technique was used to quantify vFFR, distal absolute flow (Qd) and microvascular resistance (CMVR) in 325 idealised 1D models of coronary arteries, modelled from invasive clinical data. Outputs were compared to an established anatomical model of flow. The conductivity model correlated and agreed with the reference model for vFFR (r = 0.895, p < 0.0001; ＋0.02, 95% CI 0.00 to ＋ 0.22), Qd (r = 0.959, p < 0.0001; -5.2 mL/min, 95% CI -52.2 to ＋13.0) and CMVR (r = 0.624, p < 0.0001; ＋50 Woods Units, 95% CI -325 to ＋2549)., Conclusion: Agreement between the two techniques was closest for vFFR, with greater proportional differences seen for Qd and CMVR. The conductivity function assumes vessel taper was optimised for the healthy state and that CMVR was not affected by local disease. The latter may be addressed with further refinement of the technique or inferred from complementary image data. The conductivity technique may represent a refinement of current techniques for modelling coronary side-branch flow. Further work is needed to validate the technique against invasive clinical data., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. This independent research was carried out at the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Sheffield Biomedical Research Centre (BRC). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care., (Crown Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Low fractional flow reserve (FFR) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has been associated with adverse clinical outcomes. Hitherto, this assessment has been independent of the epicardial vessel interrogated., Objectives: This study sought to assess the predictive capacity of post-PCI FFR for target vessel failure (TVF) stratified by coronary artery., Methods: We performed a systematic review and individual patient-level data meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials and observational studies with protocol-recommended post-PCI FFR assessment. The difference in post-PCI FFR between left anterior descending (LAD) and non-LAD arteries was assessed using a random-effect models meta-analysis of mean differences. TVF was defined as a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically driven target vessel revascularization., Results: Overall, 3,336 vessels (n = 2,760 patients) with post-PCI FFR measurements were included in 9 studies. The weighted mean post-PCI FFR was 0.89 (95% CI: 0.87-0.90) and differed significantly between coronary vessels (LAD = 0.86; 95% CI: 0.85 to 0.88 vs non-LAD = 0.93; 95% CI: 0.91-0.94; P < 0.001). Post-PCI FFR was an independent predictor of TVF, with its risk increasing by 52% for every reduction of 0.10 FFR units, and this was mainly driven by TVR. The predictive capacity for TVF was poor for LAD arteries (AUC: 0.52; 95% CI: 0.47-0.58) and moderate for non-LAD arteries (AUC: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.59-0.73; LAD vs non-LAD arteries, P = 0.005)., Conclusions: The LAD is associated with a lower post-PCI FFR than non-LAD arteries, emphasizing the importance of interpreting post-PCI FFR on a vessel-specific basis. Although a higher post-PCI FFR was associated with improved prognosis, its predictive capacity for events differs between the LAD and non-LAD arteries, being poor in the LAD and moderate in the non-LAD vessels., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Collet received research grants from Biosensors, HeartFlow Inc, Abbott Vascular, Insight Lifetech, GE Healthcare, Siemens and Shockwave Medical. Dr Johnson has received internal funding from the Weatherhead PET Center for Preventing and Reversing Atherosclerosis; has received significant institutional research support from St. Jude Medical (CONTRAST, NCT02184117) and Philips Volcano (DEFINE-FLOW, NCT02328820) for studies using intracoronary pressure and flow sensors; has an institutional licensing agreement with Boston Scientific for the smart-minimum FFR algorithm commercialized under 510(k) K191008; and has pending patents on diagnostic methods for quantifying aortic stenosis and TAVI physiology and also algorithms to correct pressure tracings from fluid-filled catheters. Dr Mizukami has received consultancy fees from Zeon Medical. Dr Fearon receives institutional research support from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Edwards Lifesciences; he has a consulting relationship with CathWorks and Siemens; and he owns minor stock options in HeartFlow. Dr Berry receives research funding from the British Heart Foundation grant (RE/18/6134217); and is employed by the University of Glasgow, which holds consultancy and research agreements for his work with Abbott Vascular, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Causeway Therapeutics, Coroventis, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, HeartFlow, Menarini, Neovasc, Siemens Healthcare, and Valo Health. Dr Sonck is supported by a grant provided by the CardioPath PhD program. Dr Collison has received honoraria/speaker fees from Abbott. Dr Koo has received an institutional research grant from St. Jude Medical (Abbott Vascular) and Philips Volcano. Dr Meneveau has received consultancy and speaker fees from Abbott Vascular, Edwards Lifesciences, Terumo, Boston Scientific, Bayer Healthcare, BMS-Pfizer, Boehringer, and AstraZeneca. Dr Oldroyd is an employee of Biosensors International. Dr Leipsic is a consultant for and holds stock options in Circle CVI and HeartFlow; and has a research grant from GE Healthcare. Dr Taylor is an employee of HeartFlow Inc. Dr Ko has received consultancy fees from Abbott Vascular and Medtronic; and has received research support from Canon Medical. Dr Perera has received research grant support from Abbott Vascular, HeartFlow, and Philips. Dr Leone received consultant fees and honoraria for lectures in sponsored symposia with Abbott Vascular and Bracco Imaging/ACIST Medical. Dr Matsuo has received consultancy fees from Zeon Medical; and has received speaker fees from Abbott Vascular Japan, Philips, and Boston Scientific. Dr Amabile reports consulting/proctoring fees from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, and Shockwave Medical; and has received an institutional research grant from Abbott Vascular and Boston Scientific. Dr Piróth has received consultancy and speaker fees from Abbott Vascular, Opsens, and Boston Scientific. Dr Toth has received consultancy fees and research support from Abbott, Biotronik, Medtronic, and Terumo. Dr Ihdayhid reports receiving consulting honorarium from Abbott Medical, Edwards Lifesciences, Boston Scientific, Artrya Pty Ltd (including equity interest). Dr West is an employee of Abbott Vascular. Dr Munhoz is supported with a PhD grant from CardioPath. Dr Barbato has received speaker fees from Abbott and Boston Scientific. Dr Engstrøm has received consultancy and speaker fees from Abbott Vascular, Novo Nordisk, and Bayer AS. Dr Escaned is supported by the Intensification of Research Activity project INT22/00088 from Spanish Instituto de Salud Carlos III, and served as speaker and advisory board member for Abbott and Philips. Dr Ali has received institutional grant support Abbott, Abiomed, ACIST Medical, Amgen, Boston Scientific, Cathworks, Canon, Conavi, Heartflow, Inari, Medtronic Inc, National Institute of Health, Nipro, Opsens Medical, Medis, Philips, Shockwave, Siemens, Spectrawave, Teleflex; and consulting fees from Abiomed, AstraZeneca, Boston Scientific, Cathworks, Opsens, Philips, Shockwave and equity in Elucid, Lifelink, Spectrawave, Shockwave, VitalConnect. Dr Kern has received speaker fees from Abbott, ACIST Medical, Boston Scientific, Opsens, and Philips. Dr Pijls has received research grants from Abbott and Hexacath and consultancy fees from Abbott, GE, Philips, and HeartFlow and have equity in GE, Philips, and Heartflow. Dr De Bruyne has received institutional consulting fees from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Siemens, and GE; has received institutional grant support from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Biotronic, CathWorks, Pie Medical, and HeartFlow; and holds minor equities in Philips, Siemens, GE, Bayer, HeartFlow, Edwards Lifesciences, and Ceyliad. All other authors have reported that they have 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.)

Background: Patients with suspected non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) are currently transported and admitted to the nearest emergency department (ED) for risk stratification, diagnostic workup and treatment. Although such patients with NSTE-ACS can benefit from direct transfer to a PCI center for early invasive treatment, no reliable prehospital triage tools are available. Recently, the PreHEART score has been validated in the PreHEART study for prehospital triage of patients with suspected NSTE-ACS., Methods: The primary objective of the TRIAGE-ACS study, a prospective cohort study, is to determine whether prehospital triage using the PreHEART score can significantly reduce time from first medical contact to final diagnostics and revascularization in patients in need of coronary revascularization. The first cohort (control cohort; n = 500) is observatory and is used as a reference group for the second cohort. In the second cohort (interventional cohort; n = 500) patients are stratified in the ambulance for direct transfer to either a PCI or a non-PCI center, based on the PreHEART score. These two cohorts will be compared with each other. In total, 1000 patients will be included. Follow-up for endpoints will be performed by reviewing the medical record after 30 days, 1 year, and 2 years., Conclusion: The TRIAGE-ACS study is the first prospective study to investigate the impact of prehospital triage using the PreHEART score on time to final invasive diagnostics and treatment in patients with NSTE-ACS in need of revascularization by transferring high risk patients directly to a PCI center and patients at a low risk of having an NSTE-ACS to a non-PCI center. Such triage strategy could potentially result in optimization of regional care for all ACS patients., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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.

Background: Randomized clinical trials have shown that transcatheter aortic valve replacement is noninferior to surgery in low surgical risk patients. We compared outcomes in patients treated with a sutured (stented or stentless) or sutureless surgical valve from the Evolut Low Risk Trial., Methods: The Evolut Low Risk Trial enrolled patients with severe aortic stenosis and low surgical risk. Patients were randomized to self-expanding transcatheter aortic valve replacement or surgery. Use of sutureless or sutured valves was at the surgeons' discretion., Results: Six hundred eighty patients underwent surgical aortic valve implantation (205 sutureless, 475 sutured). The Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 30-day safety composite endpoint was similar in the sutureless and sutured group (10.8% vs 11.0%, P = .93). All-cause mortality between groups was similar at 30 days (0.5% vs 1.5%, P = .28) and 1 year (3.3% vs 2.6%, P = .74). Disabling stroke was also similar at 30 days (2.0% vs 1.5%, P = .65) and 1 year (2.6% vs 2.2%, P = .76). Permanent pacemaker implantation at 30 days was significantly higher in the sutureless compared with the sutured group (14.4% vs 2.9%, P < .001). Aortic valve-related hospitalizations occurred more often at 1 year with sutureless valves (9.1% vs 5.1%, P = .04). Mean gradients 1 year after sutureless and sutured aortic valve replacement were 9.9 ± 4.2 versus 11.7 ± 4.7 mm Hg (P < .001)., Conclusions: Among low-risk patients, sutureless versus sutured valve use did not demonstrate a benefit in terms of 30-day complications and produced marginally better hemodynamics but with an increased rate of pacemaker implantation and valve-related hospitalizations., (Copyright © 2022 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The aim of this study was to determine the safety of selective intracoronary hypothermia during primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) in patients with anterior ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI)., Background: Selective intracoronary hypothermia is a novel treatment designed to reduce myocardial reperfusion injury and is currently being investigated in the ongoing randomized controlled EURO-ICE (European Intracoronary Cooling Evaluation in Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction) trial (NCT03447834). Data on the safety of such a procedure during PPCI are still limited., Methods: The first 50 patients with anterior STEMI treated with selective intracoronary hypothermia during PPCI were included in this analysis and compared for safety with the first 50 patients randomized to the control group undergoing standard PPCI. In-hospital mortality, occurrence of rhythm or conduction disturbances, stent thrombosis, onset of heart failure during the procedure, and subsequent hospital admission were assessed., Results: In-hospital mortality was 0%. One patient in both groups developed cardiogenic shock. Atrial fibrillation occurred in 0 and 3 patients (P = 0.24), and ventricular fibrillation occurred in 5 and 3 patients (P = 0.72) in the intracoronary hypothermia group and control group, respectively. Stent thrombosis occurred in 2 patients in the intracoronary hypothermia group; 1 instance was intraprocedural, and the other occurred following interruption of dual-antiplatelet therapy consequent to an intracranial hemorrhage 6 days after enrollment. No stent thrombosis was observed in the control group (P = 0.50)., Conclusions: Selective intracoronary hypothermia during PPCI in patients with anterior STEMI can be implemented within the routine of PPCI and seems to be safe. The final safety results will be reported at the end of the trial., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Engstrøm has received personal fees from Abbott and Bayer, outside the submitted work. Dr Oldroyd has received employee fees from Biosensors International, outside the submitted work. Dr Karamasis has received personal fees from Abbott Vascular, outside the submitted work. Dr Keeble has received grants from Abbott Vascular, Zoll, and AstraZeneca, outside the submitted work. Dr De Bruyne has received grant support from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Biotronik, and St. Jude Medical; has received consulting fees from St. Jude Medical, Opsens, and Boston Scientific, outside the submitted work; and is a shareholder in Siemens, GE, Bayer, Philips, HeartFlow, Edwards Lifesciences, and Ceyliad. Dr Berry has received grants from Abbott Vascular, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Coroventis, GlaxoSmithKline, HeartFlow, Medyria, Neovasc, Novartis, Siemens Healthcare, and Menarini, outside the submitted work; and is supported by research funding from the British Heart Foundation (RE/18/6134217). Dr Pijls has received personal fees from Abbott and Opsens; holds equity in Philips, ASML, HeartFlow and GE Healthcare; and has received institutional research grants from Abbott and Hexacath. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: Pressure loss versus transvalvular flow analysis challenges physiologic models of current aortic valve stenosis. New conceptual frameworks are needed to explain these real-world observations., Methods and Results: A patient-specific, 3D-printed, silicon model of a stenotic valve was placed inside an in-vitro haemodynamic model of the circulatory system. Instantaneous pressure and flow in the aorta and left ventricle were simulated according to measured patient specific parameters. Thereafter, a realistic transcatheter aortic valve was implanted (TAVI) in the model. Simulated post-TAVI mean pressure gradients resembled patient observations (3.7 ± 0.7 mmHg vs 6.7 ± 2.3 mmHg), but pre-TAVI measurements underestimated the pressure gradient (35.1 ± 0.6 mmHg vs 45.3 ± 1.5 mmHg)., Conclusion: Patient-specific 3D-printed stenotic aortic valve models could simulate baseline haemodynamics. A TAVI procedure was successfully performed on the 3D silicone rubber valve in a physiologic in-vitro model. Pre-TAVI haemodynamics in the model underestimated in-patient mean pressure gradient, whereas post TAVI pressure gradient was predicted correctly with the TAVI valve inside the 3D printed model. This study shows that these types of models could be used to study AS hemodynamics with the TAVI valve inside the 3D printed model. Improvements in the 3D-printed model, like addition of calcification and fine-tuning of the haemodynamic model, could further enhance accuracy of the simulation., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest JmZ, RM, JJDR, KLPMJ, MV, NHJP, FNV, PALT and MCR do not report any conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This study sought to compare next-generation cobalt-chromium-based titanium-nitride-oxide (TiNO)-coated stents with a platinum-chromium-based biodegradable polymer everolimus-eluting stent (EES) in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS)., Background: Previous generation TiNO-coated stents showed acceptable performance in patients with ACS., Methods: In a multicenter, randomized trial, we randomly assigned 1,491 ACS patients (2:1) to receive either a TiNO-coated stent (n = 989) or EES (n = 502). The primary endpoint was the rate of a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), or ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization at 12-month follow-up. The co-primary endpoint was a composite of cardiac death, MI, or major bleeding at 18 months., Results: A primary endpoint event occurred in 6.3% of patients in the TiNO-coated stent group versus in 7.0% in the EES group (hazard ratio: 0.93; 95% confidence interval: 0.71 to 1.22; p = 0.66 for superiority; p < 0.001 for noninferiority). A co-primary endpoint event occurred in 3.7% of the patients in the TiNO group and in 7.8% in the EES group (hazard ratio: 0.64; 95% confidence interval: 0.51 to 0.80; p = 0.001). TiNO-coated stents were associated with lower rates of cardiac death (0.6% vs. 2.6%; p = 0.002) and MI (2.2% vs. 5.0%; p = 0.007) at 18 months of follow-up. Rates of target lesion revascularization were not significantly different at 18 months (5.8% vs. 4.4%; p = 0.27)., Conclusions: In patients with ACS, cobalt-chromium-based TiNO-coated stents were noninferior to platinum-chromium-based biodegradable polymer EES for major cardiac events at 12 months, and were superior for the co-primary endpoint of cardiac death, MI, and bleeding at 18 months. (Comparison of Titanium-Nitride-Oxide-Coated Bio-Active-Stent (Optimax™) to the Drug (Everolimus) -Eluting Stent (Synergy™) in Acute Coronary Syndrome [TIDES-ACS]; NCT02049229)., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: We conducted a review and meta-analysis of published data to compare revascularization to deferral strategy for coronary lesions with grey zone fractional flow reserve (FFR)., Background: Optimal treatment for coronary stenoses with FFR values between 0.75 and 0.80, the so-called grey zone, remains a matter of debate., Methods: We included all studies evaluating revascularization versus deferral for lesions with grey zone FFR. The primary outcome was study-defined major adverse cardiac events (MACE). Secondary outcomes were the composite of death or MI and target vessel revascularization (TVR). A total of 2362 patients were included, of whom 1181 underwent revascularization (revascularization group) and 1181 received medical treatment only (deferral group)., Results: After a mean follow-up period of 2.4 years, no difference was found for the primary outcome of the study-defined MACE between the two groups [RR = 1.33 (0.73-2.44), p = 0.35]. In addition, there was no difference for the secondary outcomes of death or MI and TVR between the two groups [RR = 1.39 (0.56-3.47), p = 0.48 and RR = 1.49 (0.89-2.51), p = 0.13, respectively]., Conclusions: In this meta-analysis revascularization of coronary stenoses with grey zone FFR showed no advantage over a deferral strategy in terms of study-defined MACE. Case by case judgment should be implemented to guide treatment in this special subset of patients., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest None., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Perforation of a saphenous vein graft (SVG) is a rare, yet dreadful complication during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Perforation of a SVG arising at a Y-construction from the left internal mammary artery (LIMA) can be catastrophic since manipulations and material delivery through the single LIMA inflow can aggravate ischemia and accelerate hemodynamic collapse. Prior CABG and pericardial obliteration should not offer reassurance against tamponade, since coronary perforation in these patients may cause the development of loculated pericardial effusions, a complication associated with high mortality. Treating physicians must be alert for potential periprocedural pitfalls during PCI in post-CABG patients and these should be taken into consideration during interventional planning, procedure and follow-up., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) significantly improves outcomes compared with angio-guided PCI in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. However, there is a theoretical concern that in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) FFR may be less accurate and FFR-guided PCI less beneficial., Methods: From the FAME (Fractional flow reserve versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation) trial database, we compared FFR values between patients with reduced EF (both ≤ 40%, n = 90 and ≤ 50%, n = 252) and preserved EF (> 40%, n = 825 and > 50%, n = 663) according to the angiographic stenosis severity. We also compared differences in 1 year outcomes between FFR- vs. angio-guided PCI in patients with reduced and preserved EF., Results: Both groups had similar FFR values in lesions with 50-70% stenosis (p = 0.49) and with 71-90% stenosis (p = 0.89). The reduced EF group had a higher mean FFR compared to the preserved EF group across lesions with 91-99% stenosis (0.55 vs. 0.50, p = 0.02), although the vast majority of FFR values remained ≤ 0.80. There was a similar reduction in the composite end point of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization with FFR-guided compared to angio-guided PCI for both the reduced (14.5% vs. 19.0%, relative risk = 0.76, p = 0.34) and the preserved EF group (13.8 vs. 17.0%, relative risk = 0.81, p = 0.25). The results were similar with an EF cutoff of 40%., Conclusion: Reduced EF has no influence on the FFR value unless the stenosis is very tight, in which case a theoretically explainable, but clinically irrelevant overestimation might occur. As a result, FFR-guided PCI remains beneficial regardless of EF., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: In the Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation (FAME) study, fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) improved outcome compared with angiography-guided PCI for up to 2 years of follow-up. The aim in this study was to investigate whether the favourable clinical outcome with the FFR-guided PCI in the FAME study persisted over a 5-year follow-up., Methods: The FAME study was a multicentre trial done in Belgium, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, the UK, and the USA. Patients (aged ≥ 18 years) with multivessel coronary artery disease were randomly assigned to undergo angiography-guided PCI or FFR-guided PCI. Before randomisation, stenoses requiring PCI were identified on the angiogram. Patients allocated to angiography-guided PCI had revascularisation of all identified stenoses. Patients allocated to FFR-guided PCI had FFR measurements of all stenotic arteries and PCI was done only if FFR was 0·80 or less. No one was masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events at 1 year, and the data for the 5-year follow-up are reported here. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00267774., Findings: After 5 years, major adverse cardiac events occurred in 31% of patients (154 of 496) in the angiography-guided group versus 28% (143 of 509 patients) in the FFR-guided group (relative risk 0·91, 95% CI 0·75-1·10; p=0·31). The number of stents placed per patient was significantly higher in the angiography-guided group than in the FFR-guided group (mean 2·7 [SD 1·2] vs 1·9 [1·3], p<0·0001)., Interpretation: The results confirm the long-term safety of FFR-guided PCI in patients with multivessel disease. A strategy of FFR-guided PCI resulted in a significant decrease of major adverse cardiac events for up to 2 years after the index procedure. From 2 years to 5 years, the risks for both groups developed similarly. This clinical outcome in the FFR-guided group was achieved with a lower number of stented arteries and less resource use. These results indicate that FFR guidance of multivessel PCI should be the standard of care in most patients., Funding: St Jude Medical, Friends of the Heart Foundation, and Medtronic., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) improved outcomes compared with an angiography-guided strategy in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD). However, the effect of age on FFR has not been well-studied. We aimed to evaluate the impact of age on the favorable results of routine FFR-guided PCI for multivessel CAD., Methods: We compared 1 year outcomes between FFR-guided PCI and angiography-guided PCI in the 512 patients enrolled in the FAME study <65 years old compared to the 493 patients ≥ 65 years old. We also evaluated the effect of age on the FFR result of varying degrees of visually estimated coronary stenosis., Results: The 1-year rate of death, myocardial infarction or repeat revascularization in the angiography-guided group tended to be higher than in the FFR-guided group for both those patients <65 (17.2% vs. 12.0%, P = 0.098) and those ≥ 65 years old (19.7% vs. 14.3%, P = 0.111) with no significant interaction based on age (P = 0.920). Older patients had higher FFR in vessels with 50% to 70% stenosis (0.83 ± 0.11 vs. 0.80 ± 0.13, P = 0.028) and in vessels with 71% to 90% stenosis (0.69 ± 0.15 vs. 0.65 ± 0.16, P = 0.002). The proportion of functionally significant lesions (FFR ≤ 0.80) in vessels with 71% to 90% stenosis was significantly lower in elderly compared to younger patients (75.3% vs. 84.1%, P = 0.013)., Conclusions: FFR-guided PCI is beneficial regardless of age, however, older patients have fewer functionally significant lesions, despite a similar angiographic appearance., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This study sought to evaluate the impact of sex differences on fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)., Background: The FAME (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation) study demonstrated that FFR-guided PCI improves outcomes compared with an angiography-guided strategy. The role of FFR-guided PCI in women versus men has not been evaluated., Methods: We analyzed 2-year data from the FAME study in the 744 men and 261 women with multivessel coronary disease, who were randomized to angiography- or FFR-guided PCI. Statistical comparisons based on sex were stratified by treatment method., Results: Although women were older and had significantly higher rates of hypertension than men did, there were no differences in the rates of major adverse cardiac events (20.3% vs. 20.2%, p = 0.923) and its individual components at 2 years. FFR values were significantly higher in women than in men (0.75 ± 0.18 vs. 0.71 ± 0.17, p = 0.001). The proportion of functionally significant lesions (FFR ≤ 0.80) was lower in women than in men for lesions with 50% to 70% stenosis (21.1% vs. 39.5%, p < 0.001) and for lesions with 70% to 90% stenosis (71.9% vs. 82.0%, p = 0.019). An FFR-guided strategy resulted in similar relative risk reductions for death, myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization in men and in women. There were no interactions between sex and treatment method for any outcome variables., Conclusions: In comparison with men, angiographic lesions of similar severity are less likely to be ischemia-producing in women. An FFR-guided PCI strategy is equally beneficial in women as it is in men., (Copyright © 2012 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The aim of this study was to study whether there is a difference in benefit of fractional flow reserve (FFR) guidance for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in multivessel coronary disease in patients with unstable angina (UA) or non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), compared with stable angina (SA)., Background: The use of FFR to guide PCI has been well established for patients with SA. Its use in patients with UA or NSTEMI has not been investigated prospectively., Methods: In the FAME (Fractional flow reserve versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation) study 1,005 patients with multivessel disease amenable to PCI were included and randomized to either angiography-guided PCI of all lesions ≥50% or FFR-guided PCI of lesions with an FFR ≤0.80. Patients admitted for UA or NSTEMI with positive troponin but total creatine kinase <1,000 U/l were eligible for inclusion. We determined 2-year major adverse cardiac event rates of these patients and compared it with stable patients., Results: Of 1,005 patients, 328 had UA or NSTEMI. There was no evidence for heterogeneity among the subgroups for any of the outcome variables (all p values >0.05). Using FFR to guide PCI resulted in similar risk reductions of major adverse cardiac events and its components in patients with UA or NSTEMI, compared with patients with SA (absolute risk reduction of 5.1% vs. 3.7%, respectively, p = 0.92). In patients with UA or NSTEMI, the number of stents was reduced without increase in hospital stay or procedure time and with less contrast use, in similarity to stable patients., Conclusions: The benefit of using FFR to guide PCI in multivessel disease does not differ between patients with UA or NSTEMI, compared with patients with SA., (Copyright © 2011 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)