Search

Background: The treatment of a coronary bifurcation with a single stent (the provisional stenting technique) is associated with a good outcome in most cases. In the majority of cases, after provisional stenting technique, a residual significant angiographic stenosis is associated with the absence of ischemia when fractional flow reserve (FFR) is measured. Jailing an optical pressure guidewire in the side branch (SB) could potentially reduce unnecessary SB interventions after provisional stenting technique. The aim of this study was to compare distal pressure to aortic pressure ratio (Pd/Pa) measurements between 2 second-generation optical pressure guidewires in bifurcation treatment-a jailed wire (JW) and a second free-floating wire (FW) advanced into the SB after stenting., Methods: In an in vitro bifurcation hydrodynamic model with pressure sensors, a JW was advanced into the SB and the FW into the main branch. Bifurcation stenting is performed with the proximal optimization technique (POT)-side-POT technique using a 3.0 x 22-mm stent, a 4.0 x 12-mm noncompliant balloon for the POT, and a 2.5 x 12-mm semicompliant balloon for the SB opening. The same steps were performed in a second model where a surgical clamp was placed in the main vessel to lower overall absolute values pressures., Results: A strong correlation was found between JW and FW values (Pearson's coefficient, r=0.91). All wires could be safely retrieved., Conclusion: In bifurcation stenting, the Pd/Pa value of a second-generation optical pressure guidewire jailed in the SB is reliable compared with a FW inserted after stent implantation.

Objective: We sought to evaluate the correlations of pre-PCI QFR analysis with virtual PCI called residual QFR and post-PCI QFR compared to post-PCI FFR., Background: Quantitative flow ratio (QFR) is a computation of fractional flow reserve (FFR) based on angiography without use of a pressure wire. The ability to evaluate post-PCI FFR using pre-PCI QFR analysis with a virtual PCI and the correlation between post-PCI QFR compared to post-PCI FFR remains unknown., Methods: From the DOCTORS (Does Optical Coherence Tomography Optimize Results of Stenting) study population, we blindly analyzed residual QFR and post-PCI QFR from angiographies and compared them to post-PCI FFR., Results: Ninety-three post-PCI QFR measurements and 84 pre-PCI residual QFR measurements were compared to post-PCI FFR measurements. No significant difference were observed between mean post-PCI FFR value (0.92 ± 0.05) compared to mean residual (0.93 ± 0.05) QFR and between mean post-PCI FFR value compared to mean post-PCI QFR values were (0.93 ± 0.05) (p > .05 for both). The correlation coefficient of residual QFR with post-PCI FFR was 0.68 (95% CI: 0.53-0.78) and the correlation coefficient of post-PCI-QFR with post-PCI FFR was 0.79 (95% CI: 0.70-0.86)., Conclusions: Residual QFR corresponding to pre-PCI QFR analysis with virtual PCI, and post-PCI QFR analysis, correlated well with post-PCI FFR. Further studies are needed to prospectively validate a QFR-guided PCI strategy., (© 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Aims: Same-day discharge (SDD) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was safe and cost-effective in randomized and observational studies but faces limited acceptance due to concerns about early adverse events. Our aim was to evaluate early outcomes after SDD PCI in a high-volume urban PCI center over 10 years., Methods and Results: From 2007 to 2016, 1,635 unselected patients had PCI at our ambulatory cardiac care unit, mainly for stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD). Among them, 1,073 (65.6%), most of whom underwent ad hoc PCI, were discharged on the same day and 562 (34.4%) were admitted, for adverse events during PCI (n = 60) or within the next 4-6 hr (n = 52) or chiefly due to physician preference (n = 450). In the SDD group, radial access was used in 98.5% of patients; 36% and 15% of patients had two- and three-vessel disease, respectively; and two-vessel PCI was performed in 11% of patients. No MACCEs (death, myocardial infarction, stroke, urgent repeat PCI/CABG, and major vascular complications) occurred within 24 hr post-discharge. Two patients were readmitted on the next day for chest pain but did not require repeat PCI., Conclusion: SDD after successful PCI without complications within the next 4-6 hr is safe and feasible in most patients with SIHD. Among 1,035 SDD patients treated over 10 years, only two required readmission, and none experienced major cardiac adverse events such as death or stent thrombosis. SDD is safe for the patient and cost-effective for the healthcare system and should be implemented more widely., (© 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Objectives: To evaluate the feasibility of coronary procedures after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with the CoreValve™ device.Background: Due to its design, CoreValve™ prosthesis may interfere with coronary procedures. Data on this issue are sparse.Methods: Between 2007 and 2015, 550 patients underwent CoreValve™ TAVI in our hospital. Among them, 16 underwent coronary angiogram after TAVI and were included in our retrospective study. For each patient, we compared the characteristics of coronary angiograms performed before and after TAVI.Results: Coronary angiogram was deemed successful in 9 patients. The mean number of different catheters used in attempts to cannulate the coronary arteries was 3.6 ± 1.4 and the rate of selective intubation was low. Fluoroscopy time (13.2 ± 5.8 vs. 7.2 ± 4.6 min, P = 0.003), dose area product (5,347 ± 4,919 vs. 3,433 ± 3,420 cGy/m2 , P = 0.004), and contrast volume (157.7 ± 69.6 vs. 108.3 ± 42.6 mL, P = 0.006) were more important in coronary angiograms performed after CoreValve™ implantation. Percutaneous coronary intervention was successfully performed in 6 out of 7 patients who required it.Conclusion: Coronary procedures after CoreValve™ TAVI are feasible, but challenging. This problem is currently rare but will be more common as the indications of TAVI are expanded to younger patients with longer life expectancies. Recommendations for post-TAVI coronary procedures are needed, particularly for centers unfamiliar with the management of post-TAVI patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]