Search

Background Coronary Aneurysms are a focal dilatation of an artery segment >1.5-fold the normal size of adjacent segments. Although some series have suggested a prevalence of 0.3–12%, data are lacking. In addition, they are not mentioned in practice guidelines. Our aim was investigate its prevalence, management and long-term outcomes. Methods and results The coronary artery aneurysm registry (CAAR) involved 32 hospitals across 9 countries in America and Europe. We reviewed 436,467 consecutive angiograms performed over the period 2004–2016. Finally, 1565 patients were recruited. Aneurysm global prevalence was 0.35%. Most patients were male (78.5%) with a mean age of 65 years and frequent cardiovascular risk factors. The main indication for angiogram was an acute coronary syndrome, 966 cases. The number of aneurisms was ≤2 per patient in 95.8% of the cases, mostly saccular, most frequently found in the left anterior descending and with numbers proportional with coronary stenosis. Aortopathies were related with more aneurysms too. Most patients received any revascularization procedure (69%), commonly percutaneous (53%). After a median follow-up of 37.2 months, 485 suffered a combined event (MACE) and 240 died. Without major differences comparing CABG vs PCI, MACE and death were more frequent in patients who received bare metal stents. Conclusions Coronary artery aneurysms are not uncommon. Usually, they are associated with coronary stenosis and high cardiovascular risk. Antiplatelet therapy seems reasonable and a percutaneous approach is safe and effective.

Background Randomized clinical trials on bioresorbable scaffolds (BRS) enrolled patients with simple coronary lesions. The present study was sought to give preliminary findings about safety of BRS implantation in overlap in long coronary lesions. Methods From June 2012 to January 2015, we prospectively collected data from 162 consecutive patients receiving overlapping BRS implantation in the 16 participating institutions. We applied a propensity-score to match BRS-treated patients with 162 patients receiving second generation drug eluting stents (DES) in overlap. The primary endpoint was a device-oriented endpoint (DOCE), including cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization. Results DOCE rate did not significantly differ between the two groups (5.6% in BRS group vs. 7.4% in DES group, HR 0.79, 95%CI 0.37–3.55, p=0.6). Also stent/scaffold thrombosis did not differ between groups (1.2% in BRS group vs. 1.9% in DES group, p=0.6). Occurrence of procedural-related myocardial injury was significantly higher in the BRS group (25% vs. 12%, p=0.001), although it was not related to DOCE (HR 1.1, 95%CI 0.97–1.2, p=0.2). Imaging techniques and enhanced stent visualization systems were significantly more employed in the BRS group (p=0.0001 for both). Procedure length, fluoroscopy time and contrast dye amount were significantly higher in the BRS group (p=0.001, p=0.001 and p=0.01, respectively). Conclusions Overlapping BRS utilization in long coronary lesions showed a comparable DOCE rate at 1year if compared to second generation DES. Further and larger studies are on demand to confirm our findings.

Background: Safety and efficacy of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BRS) and the role of postdilatation on outcome in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients compared with those of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) remain unknown. The aim of the study is to compare the safety and efficacy of BRS with EES in ACS and to investigate the role of BRS postdilatation. Methods: Consecutive ACS patients undergoing BRS implantation in 8 centers were com­pared with those with EES before and after propensity score matching. Major adverse cardiac event (MACE), myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization (TLR) were the primary endpoint. Sensitivity analysis was performed according to postdilatation after BRS implantation. We enrolled 303 BRS and 748 EES patients; 215 from each group were com­pared after matching, and 117 (55.2%) BRS patients were treated with postdilatation. Results: After a median follow-up of 24.0 months, MACE rates were higher in BRS patients than in EES patients (9.3% vs. 4.7%, p < 0.001), mainly driven by TLR (6.1% vs. 1.9%, p < 0.001). Stent thrombosis increased in the BRS group (2.8% vs. 0.9%, p = 0.01). How­ever, after sensitivity analysis, MACE rates in BRS patients with postdilatation were signifi­cantly lower than in those without, comparable to EES patients (6.0% vs. 12.6% vs. 4.7%, p < 0.001). The same trend was observed for TLR (3.4% vs. 8.4% vs. 1.9%, p < 0.001). Stent thrombosis rates were higher in both the BRS groups than in EES patients (2.6% vs. 3.2% vs. 0.9%, p = 0.045). Conclusions: Postdilatation appears effective when using BRS in ACS patients. MACE rates are comparable to those of EES, although scaffold thrombosis is not negligible. Randomized prospective studies are required for further investigation.