Search

Background: There are limited data regarding the impact of final kissing balloon (FKI) in patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention using ultrathin stents in left main or bifurcations. Methods: All patients undergoing left main or bifurcations percutaneous coronary intervention enrolled in the RAIN registry (Very Thin Stents for Patients With MAIN or BiF in Real Life: The RAIN, a Multicenter Study) evaluating ultrathin stents were included. Major adverse cardiac event (a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization, and stent thrombosis) was the primary end point, while its components, along with target vessel revascularization, were the secondary end points. The main analysis was performed comparing patients with and without FKI after adjustment with inverse probability of treatment weighting. Subgroup analyses were performed according to FKI (short [

Transradial access (TRA) is often avoided in favor of the transfemoral access (TFA) during percutaneous coronary interventions of the unprotected left main coronary artery (ULM), due to technical and safety concerns. The aim of this study was to compare the performance of TRA and TFA in the treatment of ULM with second-generation drug-eluting stents. Consecutive patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention on ULM with second-generation drug-eluting stents were retrospectively enrolled in the multicenter Failure in Left Main Study With 2nd Generation Stents (FAILS 2) registry. Patients were stratified according to the arterial access. The choice between TRA and TFA was left to each operator's preferences. Bleedings during index hospitalization were the primary end point. Secondary end points were major adverse cardiovascular events (a composite of death, reinfarction, and target lesion revascularization), the single components of major adverse cardiovascular events at follow-up and stent thrombosis. Propensity score matching was executed to account for possible confounding. Overall, 1,247 patients were enrolled (23.2% [289] of female gender, mean age 70.2 ± 10.2 years). Diagnosis at presentation was stable angina in 603 (48.7%) cases, non–ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome in 465 (37.3%), ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction in 117 (9.5%). Mean follow-up was 726 ± 654 days. After propensity score with matching, 354 patients were included. The primary end point was significantly reduced in patients treated with TRA (2.0% vs 4.0%, p = 0.042), whereas no differences emerged pertaining the secondary end points, including target lesion revascularization and reinfarction. In conclusion, TRA may reduce in-hospital bleedings in patients undergoing percutaneous treatment of the ULM, without increasing the rate of adverse cardiovascular events at follow-up, and may therefore be safely used in the treatment of the ULM.

Incidence, predictors, and impact on prognosis of target lesion revascularization (TLR) for patients treated with second-generation drug-eluting stents (DESs) on unprotected left main (ULM) remain to be defined. The present study is a multicenter study including patients treated with a second-generation DES on ULM from June 2007 to January 2015. Rate of TLR was the primary end point. All cause death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, and stent thrombosis were the secondary end points. A total of 1,270 patients were enrolled: after a follow-up of 650 days (230 to 1,170), 47 (3.7%) of them underwent a re–percutaneous coronary intervention TLR on the left main, 22 during a planned angiographic follow-up. Extent of coronary artery disease was similar among groups (median value of Syntax of 27 ± 10 vs 26 ± 9, p = 0.45), as localization of the lesion in the ULM. Of patients reporting with TLR on ULM, 56% presented with a focal restenosis, 33% diffuse and 10% proliferative. At multivariate analysis, insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus increased risk of TLR (hazard ratio [HR] 2.0: 1.1 to 3.6, p = 0.04), whereas use of intravascular ultrasound resulted protective (HR 0.5: 0.3 to 0.9, p = 0.02). At follow-up, rates of cardiovascular death did not differ among the 2 groups (4% vs 4%, p = 0.95). At multivariate analysis, TLR on LM did not increase risk of all cause death (HR 0.4: 0.1 to 1.6, p = 0.22), whereas cardiogenic shock and III tertile of Syntax portended a worse prognosis (HR 4.5: 2.1 to 10.2, p = 0.01 and HR 1.4: 1.1 to 1.6, p = 0.03, respectively). In conclusion, repeated revascularization after implantation of second-generation DES on ULM represents an unfrequent event, being increased in insulin-dependent patients and reduced by intravascular ultrasound. Impact on prognosis remains neutral, being related to clinical presentation and extent of coronary artery disease.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness and safety of self-expandable, sirolimus-eluting Stentys stents (SES) and second-generation drug-eluting stents (DES-II) for the treatment of the unprotected left main (ULM). BACKGROUND: SES may provide a valuable option to treat distal ULM, particularly when significant caliber gaps with side branches are observed. METHODS: Patients from the multicenter SPARTA (clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02784405) and FAILS2 registries were included. Propensity-score with matching was performed to account for the lack of randomization. Primary end-point was the rate of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE, a composite of all cause death, myocardial infarction, target lesion revascularization [TLR], unstable angina and definite stent thrombosis [ST]). Single components of MACE were the secondary end-points. RESULTS: Overall, 151 patients treated with SES and 1270 with DES-II were included; no differences in MACE rate at 250 days were observed (9.8% vs. 11.5%, P = 0.54). After propensity score with matching, 129 patients treated with SES and 258 with DES-II, of which about a third of female gender, were compared. After a follow-up of 250 days, MACE rate did not differ between the two groups (9.9% vs. 8.5%, P = 0.66), as well as the rate of ULM TLR (1.6% vs. 3.1%, P = 0.36) and definite ST (0.8% vs. 1.2%, P = 0.78). These results were consistent also when controlling for the treatment with provisional vs. 2-stents strategies for the ULM bifurcation. CONCLUSION: SES use for ULM treatment was associated with a similar MACE rate compared to DES-II at an intermediate-term follow-up. SES might represent a potential option in this setting.