Search

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has demonstrated its safety and efficacy in treating left main (LM) coronary artery disease (CAD) in select patients. Polyvascular disease (PolyVD) is associated with adverse events in all-comers with CAD. However, there is little data examining the interplay between PolyVD and LM-PCI, which we sought to investigate in a retrospective single-center study. We included patients who underwent unprotected LM-PCI at a tertiary center from 2012 to 2019. The study population was stratified based on the presence or absence of PolyVD (i.e., medical history of cerebrovascular and/or peripheral artery disease in addition to LM-CAD). The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) combining all-cause mortality and spontaneous myocardial infarction within 1 year after index PCI. Overall, 869 patients were included, and 23.8% of the population had PolyVD. Subjects with PolyVD were older and had a greater burden of co-morbidities. After 1-year follow-up, PolyVD patients exhibited significantly higher rates of both MACE (22.8% vs 9.4%, p <0.001) and bleeding events compared with those without PolyVD. MACE was primarily driven by an increase in all-cause mortality (18.3% vs 7.1%, p <0.001). Results persisted after adjusting for confounders. In conclusion, in patients who underwent LM-PCI, the presence of PolyVD is linked to an increased risk of MACE and bleeding after 1 year of follow-up, which highlights the vulnerability of this population., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Dr. Dangas received research grants from institutions and support for attending meetings from Daiichi Sankyo. Dr. Mehran reports institutional research payments from: Abbott, Abiomed, Affluent Medical, Alleviant Medical, Amgen, AM-Pharmacia, Arena, AstraZeneca, AtriCure Inc., Biosensors, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CardiaWave, CeloNova, CERC, Chiesi, Concept Medical, Cytosorbents, Daiichi Sankyo, Duke, Element Science, Essential Medical, Faraday, Idorsia Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, MedAlliance, Mediasphere, Medtelligence, Medtronic, MJH Healthcare, Novartis, OrbusNeich, Penumbra, PhaseBio, Philips, Pi-Cardia, PLx Pharma, Population Health Research Institute, Protembis, RecCor Medical Inc., RenalPro, RM Global, Sanofi, Shockwave, Vivasure, Zoll; Personal fees from: Affluent Medical, Cardiovascular Research Foundation (CRF), Cordis, Daiichi Sankyo Brasil, E.R. Squibb & Sons Science/Innovative BioPharma, Europa Group/Boston Scientific, Gaffney Events, Educational Trust, Henry Ford Health Cardiology, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, MedCon International, Novartis, NovoNordisk, PeerView Institute for Medical Education, Terumo Europe N.V., Vectura, VoxMedia, WebMD, IQVIA, Radcliffe, tarsus Cardiology; No Fees from: AMA (Scientific Advisory Board), SCAI (Women in Innovations Committee Member); Faculty CRF; Honorarium: JAMA Cardiology (Associate Editor), ACC (BOT Member, SC Member CTR Program); Equity <1% in: applied Therapeutics, Elixir Medical, Stel, ControlRad (spouse). The remaining authors have no competing interests to declare., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Patients may prefer percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) over coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery, despite heart team recommendations. The outcomes in such patients have not been examined. We sought to examine the results of PCI in patients who were recommended for but declined CABG., Methods and Results: Consecutive patients with stable ischemic heart disease and unprotected left main or 3-vessel disease or Synergy Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Taxus and Cardiac Surgery score >22 who underwent PCI after heart team review between 2013 and 2020 were included. Patients were categorized into 3 groups according to heart team recommendations on the basis of appropriate use criteria: (1) PCI-recommended; (2) CABG-eligible but refused CABG (CABG-refusal); and (3) CABG-ineligible. The primary end point was the composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 1 year. The study included 3687 patients undergoing PCI (PCI-recommended, n=1718 [46.6%]), CABG-refusal (n=1595 [43.3%]), and CABG-ineligible (n=374 [10.1%]). Clinical and procedural risk increased across the 3 groups, with the highest comorbidity burden in CABG-ineligible patients. Composite events within 1 year after PCI occurred in 55 (4.1%), 91 (7.0%), and 41 (14.8%) of patients in the PCI-recommended, CABG-refusal, and CABG-ineligible groups, respectively. After multivariable adjustment, the risk of the primary composite outcome was significantly higher in the CABG-refusal (hazard ratio [HR], 1.67 [95% CI, 1.08-3.56]; P =0.02) and CABG-ineligible patients (HR, 3.26 [95% CI, 1.28-3.65]; P =0.004) groups compared with the reference PCI-recommended group, driven by increased death and stroke., Conclusions: Cardiovascular event rates after PCI were significantly higher in patients with multivessel disease who declined or were ineligible for CABG. Our findings provide real-world data to inform shared decision-making discussions.

Background: Diabetes mellitus (DM) is associated with a high rate of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) after de novo coronary artery percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Whether patients with DM undergoing PCI for in-stent restenosis (ISR) experience a similar heightened risk of MACE is not known. Hence, we sought to compare the clinical outcomes of patients with and without DM undergoing PCI for ISR., Methods: Patients undergoing first episode ISR PCI between January 2015 and December 2021 were included. The primary outcome of interest was MACE (all-cause death, myocardial infarction [MI], and target lesion revascularization [TVR]) at 1-year., Results: A total of 3156 patients (56.7% with DM) underwent PCI for ISR during the study period. Patients with DM were younger, more likely to be female, and had a higher prevalence of comorbidities. At 1-year follow-up, DM was associated with a higher rate of MACE (22.4% vs. 18.7%, unadjusted HR 2.03, 95%CI(1.27-3.25), p = 0.003). All-cause mortality and MI were significantly more frequent among people with DM at 1-year follow-up. The rate of TVR was similar in both groups (17.9% vs. 16.0%, unadjusted HR 1.14, 95%CI (0.94-1.37), p = 0.180). On adjusted analysis, there was no significant difference in the rate of MACE (AHR 1.07, 95%CI(0.90 - -1.29), p = 0.444), all-cause death (AHR 1.54, 95%CI(0.93-2.54), p = 0.095) or MI (AHR 1.10, 95%CI(0.74-1.63), p = 0.652)., Conclusion: ISR PCI in patients with DM was associated with a higher rate of MACE at 1-year follow-up. However, this increased risk was no longer significant after adjusting for baseline characteristics., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest A. Dr. Mehran has received institutional research grants from Abbott, Abiomed, Applied Therapeutics, Arena, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, Boston Scientific, Bristol Myers Squibb, CardiaWave, CellAegis, CERC, Chiesi, Concept Medical, CSL Behring, DSI, Insel Gruppe, Medtronic, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, OrbusNeich, Philips, Transverse Medical, and Zoll; has received personal fees from the American College of Cardiology, Boston Scientific, the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, Cine-Med Research, Janssen, WebMD, and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions; has received consulting fees paid to the institution from Abbott, Abiomed, AM-Pharma, Alleviant Medical, Bayer, Beth Israel Deaconess, CardiaWave, CeloNova, Chiesi, Concept Medical, DSI, Duke University, Idorsia Pharmaceuticals, Medtronic, Novartis, and Philips; holds equity (<1%) in Applied Therapeutics, Elixir Medical, STEL, and CONTROLRAD (spouse); has served as a scientific advisory board member for the American Medical Association. B. All other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of calcified lesions remains challenging for interventionalists., Aims: We aimed to investigate whether combining rotational atherectomy (RA) with cutting balloon angioplasty (RA+CBA) results in more optimal stent expansion compared with RA followed by non-compliant balloon angioplasty (RA+NCBA)., Methods: ROTA-CUT is a prospective, multicentre, randomised trial of 60 patients with coronary artery disease undergoing PCI of moderately or severely calcified lesions with drug-eluting stent implantation. Patients were randomised 1:1 to either RA+CBA or RA+NCBA. The primary endpoint was the minimum stent area on intravascular ultrasound (IVUS). Secondary endpoints included minimum lumen area and stent expansion assessed by IVUS and acute lumen gain, final residual diameter stenosis and minimum lumen diameter assessed by angiography. Clinical endpoints were obtained at 30 days., Results: The mean age was 71.1±9.4 years, and 22% were women. The procedural details of RA were similar between groups, as were procedure duration and contrast use. Minimum stent area was similar with RA+CBA versus RA+NCBA (6.7±1.7 mm 2 vs 6.9±1.8 mm 2 ; p=0.685). Furthermore, there were no significant differences regarding the other IVUS and angiographic endpoints. Procedural complications were rare, and 30-day clinical events included 2 myocardial infarctions and 1 target vessel revascularisation in the RA+CBA group and 1 myocardial infarction in the RA+NCBA group., Conclusions: Combining RA with CBA resulted in a similar minimum stent area compared with RA followed by NCBA in patients undergoing PCI of moderately or severely calcified lesions. RA followed by CBA was safe with rare procedural complications and few clinical adverse events at 30 days.

Rotational atherectomy (RA) is widely used in the percutaneous treatment of heavily calcified coronary artery lesions in patients with chronic coronary syndromes (CCS). However, the safety and efficacy of RA in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is not well established and is considered a relative contraindication. Therefore, we sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of RA in patients presenting with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), unstable angina (UA), and CCS. Consecutive patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention with RA between 2012 and 2019 at a tertiary single center were included. Patients presenting with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (MI) were excluded. The primary end points of interest were procedural success and procedural complications. The secondary end point was the risk of death or MI at 1 year. A total of 2,122 patients who underwent RA were included, of whom 1,271 presented with a CCS (59.9%), 632 presented with UA (29.8%), and 219 presented with NSTEMI (10.3%). Although an increased rate of slow-flow/no-reflow was noted in the UA population (p = 0.03), no significant difference in procedural success or procedural complications, including coronary dissection, perforation, or side-branch closure, was noted (p = NS). At 1 year, there were no significant differences in death or MI between CCS and non-ST-elevation ACS (NSTE-ACS: UA + NSTEMI; adjusted hazard ratio 1.39, 95% confidence interval 0.91 to 2.12); however, patients who presented with NSTEMI had a higher risk of death or MI than CCS (adjusted hazard ratio 1.79, 95% confidence interval 1.01 to 3.17). Use of RA in NSTE-ACS was associated with similar procedural success without an increased risk of procedural complications compared with patients with CCS. Although patients presenting with NSTEMI remained at higher risk of long-term adverse events, RA appears to be safe and feasible in patients with heavily calcified coronary lesions presenting with NSTE-ACS., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Dr Mehran has received institutional research grants from Abbott, Abiomed, Applied Therapeutics, Arena, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, Boston Scientific, Bristol Myers Squibb, CardiaWave, CellAegis, CERC, Chiesi, Concept Medical, CSL Behring, DSI, Insel Gruppe, Medtronic, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, OrbusNeich, Philips, Transverse Medical, and Zoll; has received personal fees from the American College of Cardiology, Boston Scientific, the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, Cine-Med Research, Janssen, WebMD, and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions; has received consulting fees paid to the institution from Abbott, Abiomed, AM-Pharma, Alleviant Medical, Bayer, Beth Israel Deaconess, CardiaWave, CeloNova, Chiesi, Concept Medical, DSI, Duke University, Idorsia Pharmaceuticals, Medtronic, Novartis, and Philips; holds equity (<1%) in Applied Therapeutics, Elixir Medical, STEL, and CONTROLRAD (spouse); and has served on the scientific advisory board for the American Medical Association and Biosensors (spouse). Dr S.K. Sharma has received Speakers Bureau fees from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, and Cardiovascular Systems. The remaining authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: A complex high-risk indicated percutaneous coronary intervention (CHIP) score was recently developed from the British Cardiovascular Intervention Society (BCIS) database to define CHIP cases and their risk of in-hospital major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events (MACCE)., Objectives: The authors sought to apply this score to a contemporary U.S. population for the prediction of adverse events at 1 year following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)., Methods: Consecutive patients undergoing PCI at a large tertiary care center between 2011 and 2020 were considered for inclusion. Patients were categorized into 4 groups based on their BCIS-CHIP score (0, 1-2, 3-4, ≥5). In each category, we assessed the 1-year risk of MACCE, a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, and stroke. Secondary outcomes were the individual components of MACCE, and major bleeding at 1 year., Results: Among 20,799 patients included, MACCE at 1 year occurred in 1.7% patients with score 0 (reference), 3.0% with score 1 or 2 (HR: 1.72; 95% CI: 1.32-2.24), 6.1% with score 3 or 4 (HR: 3.60; 95% CI: 2.78-4.66), and 12.0% with score ≥5 (HR: 7.40; 95% CI: 5.75-9.51). Each point increase of the BCIS-CHIP score conferred a 28.0% increase of MACCE risk. The BCIS-CHIP score demonstrated good discrimination for the prediction of 1-year MACCE (C-index 0.70). The risk of secondary outcomes also progressively increased with higher score values., Conclusions: In a large PCI registry, the BCIS-CHIP score had a good predictive value for MACCE at 1 year. The utilization of this score can facilitate an accurate risk stratification of patients undergoing PCI., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Spirito has received a research grant from the Swiss National Science Foundation. Dr Mehran has received institutional research grants from Abbott, Abiomed, Applied Therapeutics, Arena, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, Boston Scientific, Bristol Myers Squibb, CardiaWave, CellAegis, CERC, Chiesi, Concept Medical, CSL Behring, DSI, Insel Gruppe, Medtronic, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, OrbusNeich, Philips, Transverse Medical, and Zoll; has received personal fees from the American College of Cardiology, Boston Scientific, the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, Cine-Med Research, Janssen, WebMD, and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions; has received consulting fees paid to the institution from Abbott, Abiomed, AM-Pharma, Alleviant Medical, Bayer, Beth Israel Deaconess, CardiaWave, CeloNova, Chiesi, Concept Medical, DSI, Duke University, Idorsia Pharmaceuticals, Medtronic, Novartis, and Philips; holds equity (<1%) in Applied Therapeutics, Elixir Medical, STEL, and CONTROLRAD (spouse); has served as a scientific advisory board member for the American Medical Association; and has a spouse who has served as a scientific advisory board member for Biosensors (spouse). 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: Potent P2Y 12 inhibitors such as ticagrelor and prasugrel are superior to clopidogrel in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Whether this benefit extends to a patient population with chronic coronary syndromes (CCS) is unclear., Aims: We sought to compare the safety and efficacy of prasugrel and ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in patients undergoing PCI for CCS., Methods: Consecutive patients undergoing PCI for CCS at a tertiary centre between 2014 and 2019 who were discharged on prasugrel or ticagrelor were compared with those on clopidogrel. The primary endpoint was the composite of death and myocardial infarction (MI), with secondary outcomes including rates of bleeding, stroke, and target vessel revascularisation at 1 year., Results: Overall, 11,508 patients were included in the study (ticagrelor/prasugrel n=2,860 [24.9%], clopidogrel n=8,648 [75.1%]) with an increasing frequency of potent P2Y 12 inhibitor use over the study period (p trend <0.001). Clopidogrel was used more frequently in patients with multimorbid risk factors, whereas anatomical or procedural complexity was associated with ticagrelor/prasugrel use (left main PCI, bifurcation PCI, number of lesions, rotational atherectomy). No difference in the incidence of death or MI was noted across the groups (ticagrelor/prasugrel vs clopidogrel: 2.7% vs 3.1%, adjusted hazard ratio [adjHR] 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.62-1.17; p=0.33) or secondary outcomes including bleeding (adjHR 0.75, 95% CI: 0.46-1.21; p=0.23) on propensity score stratification analysis. Additionally, no difference in the primary outcome was observed across subgroups, including those undergoing complex PCI., Conclusions: Ticagrelor and prasugrel are increasingly used in patients with CCS undergoing PCI with similar 1-year efficacy and safety when compared to clopidogrel. Whether use of these agents can be beneficial in patients undergoing PCI for CCS with a high thrombotic and low bleeding risk warrants further study.

Background: Potent P2Y 12 agents such as ticagrelor and prasugrel are increasingly utilized across the clinical spectrum of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). There is a paucity of data supporting their use in a patient population inclusive of both acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and chronic coronary syndrome (CCS) patients., Objectives: The authors compared the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor and prasugrel in a real-world contemporary PCI cohort., Methods: Consecutive patients undergoing PCI between 2014 and 2019 discharged on either prasugrel or ticagrelor were included from the prospectively collected institutional PCI registry. Primary endpoint was the composite of death and myocardial infarction (MI), with secondary outcomes including rates of bleeding, stroke, and target vessel revascularization at 1 year., Results: Overall, 3,858 patients were included in the study (ticagrelor: n = 2,771; prasugrel: n = 1,087), and a majority (48.4%) underwent PCI in the context of CCS. Patients prescribed ticagrelor were more likely to be female, have a history of cerebrovascular disease, and have ACS presentation, while those receiving prasugrel were more likely to be White with a higher prevalence of prior revascularization. No difference in the risk of death or MI was noted across the groups (ticagrelor vs prasugrel: 3.3% vs 3.1%; HR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.54-1.43; P = 0.59). Rates of target vessel revascularization were significantly lower in the ticagrelor cohort (9.3% vs 14.0%; adjusted HR: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.55-0.91; P = 0.007) with no differences in stroke or bleeding. The results were consistent in patients with CCS (HR: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.46-1.54) and ACS (HR: 1.18; 95% CI: 0.46-1.54), without evidence of interaction (P = 0.37), and confirmed across multivariable adjustment and propensity score stratification analysis., Conclusions: In this contemporary patient population undergoing PCI, prasugrel and ticagrelor were associated with similar 1-year efficacy and safety., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Khera has served as a consultant for Abbott, Medtronic, and Boston Scientific; and has received speaker honoraria from Medtronic. Dr Dangas has received personal fees from Biosensors and Philips. Dr Mehran has received institutional research grants from Abbott, Abiomed, Applied Therapeutics, Arena, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, Boston Scientific, Bristol Myers Squibb, CardiaWave, CellAegis, CERC, Chiesi, Concept Medical, CSL Behring, Daiichi Sankyo, Insel Gruppe, Medtronic, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, OrbusNeich, Philips, Transverse Medical, and Zoll; has received personal fees from the American College of Cardiology, Boston Scientific, the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, Cine-Med Research, Janssen, WebMD, and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions; has received consulting fees paid to the institution from Abbott, Abiomed, AM-Pharma, Alleviant Medical, Bayer, Beth Israel Deaconess, CardiaWave, CeloNova, Chiesi, Concept Medical, Daiichi Sankyo, Duke University, Idorsia Pharmaceuticals, Medtronic, Novartis, and Philips; holds equity (<1%) in Applied Therapeutics, Elixir Medical, STEL, and CONTROLRAD (spouse); and has served on the scientific advisory board for the American Medical Association and Biosensors (spouse). Dr S.K. Sharma has received Speakers Bureau fees from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, and Cardiovascular Systems. 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.)