Search

Background: The objective of the study was to investigate aortic remodeling and clinical outcomes after thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for type B aortic dissection (AD) according to timing of the procedure., Methods: A total of 87 patients with type B AD who underwent TEVAR at 2 centers were included in this retrospective analysis. Patients were divided into acute/subacute (≤6 weeks, n = 35), early chronic (6 weeks to 1 year, n = 20), and late chronic (>1 year, n = 32) groups according to the timing of TEVAR after symptom onset. Changes in aorta dimensions on serial computed tomography angiograms and clinical outcomes were evaluated., Results: AD complications were the most common indication for TEVAR in the acute/subacute group, whereas aortic expansion was the main reason in the early and late chronic groups. Maximum total aorta diameter (46.6 ± 10.6 vs. 54.8 ± 9.8 vs. 56.7 ± 10.1 mm, P < 0.001) and false lumen diameter (30.9 ± 11.0 vs. 35.2 ± 12.0 vs. 39.9 ± 13.4 mm, P = 0.013) were smaller in the acute/subacute group than in the early and late chronic groups. At 1-year follow-up, maximum total aorta diameter was decreased in the acute/subacute and early chronic groups and increased in the late chronic group (-4.3 ± 9.3 vs. -5.2 ± 6.9 vs. 2.5 ± 4.6 mm, P < 0.001). Survival free from the major adverse aortic event (death, aortic rupture, or reintervention) at 5 years after TEVAR was lowest in the late chronic group (92.6% vs. 88.2% vs. 73.1%, P = 0.033) but not significantly different between the acute/subacute and early chronic groups (P = 0.680)., Conclusions: TEVAR in the acute/subacute and early chronic phases of type B AD resulted in similar aortic remodeling and clinical outcomes, which were more favorable than those with TEVAR performed during late chronic AD. This finding suggests 1 year after the onset of type B AD symptoms as the upper time threshold for TEVAR to achieve optimal aortic remodeling and safety., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: We investigated whether optical coherence tomography (OCT) guidance would reduce nonoptimal bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) deployment., Methods: This was a randomized controlled trial. Patients who required percutaneous coronary intervention for ischemic heart disease were recruited from 2 centers in Korea. The enrolled patients were randomly assigned to receive either OCT-guided BVS (Absorb; Abbott Vascular) implantation or angiography-guided BVS implantation using an optimized technique. The primary outcome was nonoptimal deployment, which was a composite outcome of the following parameters assessed by OCT: a minimal scaffold area <5 mm 2 , residual area stenosis >20%, incomplete apposition of the scaffold struts >5%, major edge dissection, or scaffold disruption. The secondary outcome was a procedural complication defined by the occurrence of no reflow, coronary perforation, or flow-limiting dissection., Results: Between September 2016 and January 2018, 88 patients (90 lesions) were assigned to OCT guidance, while 88 patients (89 lesions) were assigned to angiography guidance. The recruitment was prematurely terminated in March 2018 because the manufacturer stopped supplying BVS. Postprocedural OCT data were available for 88 lesions with OCT guidance and for 88 lesions with angiography guidance. There was nonoptimal BVS deployment postprocedurally in 35.2% of patients in the OCT-guidance group and in 38.6% in the angiography-guidance group (absolute difference, -3.7% [95% CI, -19.0% to 11.6%]; P =0.64). There were no procedural complications in either group., Conclusions: OCT-guided BVS implantation did not reduce the incidence of nonoptimal deployment compared to that of angiography-guided BVS implantation (using optimized techniques)., Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02894697.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to investigate the optimal strategy for antiplatelet therapy in patients with lower extremity peripheral artery disease (PAD) after endovascular revascularization., Background: The optimal strategy for antiplatelet therapy in patients with PAD after endovascular revascularization has not been established., Methods: From March 2008 to February 2013, 693 patients with lower extremity PAD treated with different antiplatelet therapies, such as mono-antiplatelet therapy (MAPT) and dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), of various durations after endovascular revascularization were analyzed. They were classified into 2 groups (DAPT <6 months or MAPT vs. DAPT ≥6 months). The primary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events and major adverse limb events. The safety outcome was major bleeding., Results: During 5-year follow-up, major adverse cardiovascular events occurred less frequently in the DAPT ≥6-month group than the DAPT <6-month or MAPT group (17.3% vs. 31.3%; hazard ratio: 0.44; 95% confidence interval: 0.30 to 0.65; p < 0.001). Major adverse limb events also occurred less frequently in the DAPT ≥6-month group than the DAPT <6-month or MAPT group (21.5% vs. 43.7%; hazard ratio: 0.42; 95% CI: 0.30 to 0.58; p < 0.001). However, major bleeding events were infrequent, with no signal toward harm with DAPT ≥6 months. Results were consistent after inverse probability-weighted adjustment and propensity score matching., Conclusions: Following endovascular revascularization for lower extremity PAD, DAPT ≥6 months was associated with decreased 5-year major adverse cardiovascular events and major adverse limb events., (Copyright © 2019 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)