Search

Purpose: Uncoated self-expanding nitinol stents (NS) are commonly oversized in peripheral arteries. In current practice, 1-mm oversizing is recommended. Yet, oversizing of NS may be associated with increased restenosis. To provide further evidence, NS were implanted in porcine iliofemoral arteries with a stent-to-artery-ratio between 1.0 and 2.3. Besides conventional uncoated NS, a novel self-expanding NS with an antiproliferative titanium-nitride-oxide (TiNOX) coating was tested for safety and efficacy. Methods: Ten uncoated NS and six TiNOX-coated NS (5-6 mm) were implanted randomly in the iliofemoral artery of six mini-pigs. After implantation, quantitative angiography (QA) was performed for calculation of artery and minimal luminal diameter. Follow-up was performed by QA and histomorphometry after 5 months. Results: Stent migration, stent fracture, or thrombus formation were not observed. All stents were patent at follow-up. Based on the location of the stent (iliac/femoral) and the stent-to-artery-ratio, stent segments were divided into "normal-sized" (stent-to-artery-ratio < 1.4, n = 12) and "oversized" (stent-to-artery-ratio ≥ 1.4, n = 9). All stent segments expanded to their near nominal diameter during follow-up. Normal-sized stent segments increased their diameter by 6% and oversized segments by 29%. A significant correlation between oversizing and restenosis by both angiography and histomorphometry was observed. Restenosis rates were similar for uncoated NS and TiNOX-coated NS. Conclusions: TiNOX-coated NS are as safe and effective as uncoated NS in the porcine iliofemoral artery. All stents further expand to near their nominal diameter during follow-up. Oversizing is linearly and positively correlated with neointimal proliferation and restenosis, which may not be reduced by TiNOX-coating. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Early-generation drug-eluting stents releasing sirolimus (SES) or paclitaxel (PES) are associated with increased risk of very late stent thrombosis occurring >1 year after stent implantation. It is unknown whether the risk of very late stent thrombosis persists with newer-generation everolimus-eluting stents (EES). METHODS AND RESULTS: We assessed the risk of stent thrombosis in a cohort of 12 339 patients with unrestricted use of drug-eluting stents (3819 SES, 4308 PES, 4212 EES). Results are incidence rates per 100 person-years after inverse probability of treatment weighting to adjust for group differences. During follow-up of up to 4 years, the overall incidence rate of definite stent thrombosis was lower with EES (1.4 per 100 person-years) compared with SES (2.9; hazard ratio, 0.41; 95% confidence interval, 0.27-0.62; P<0.0001) and PES (4.4; hazard ratio, 0.33; 95% confidence interval, 0.23-0.48; P<0.0001). The incidence rate per 100 person-years of early (0-30 days), late (31 days-1 year), and very late stent thrombosis amounted to 0.6, 0.1, and 0.6 among EES-treated patients; 1.0, 0.3, and 1.6 among SES-treated patients; and 1.3, 0.7, and 2.4 among PES-treated patients. Differences in favor of EES were most pronounced beyond 1 year, with a hazard ratio of 0.33 (EES versus SES; P=0.006) and 0.34 (EES versus PES; P<0.0001). There was a lower risk of cardiac death or myocardial with EES compared with PES (hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.56-0.75; P<0.0001), which was directly related to the lower risk of stent thrombosis-associated events (EES versus PES: hazard ratio, 0.36; 95% confidence interval, 0.23-0.57). CONCLUSION: Current treatment with EES is associated with a lower risk of very late stent thrombosis compared with early-generation drug-eluting stents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background- Long-term comparative data of first-generation drug-eluting stents are scarce. We investigated clinical and angiographic outcomes of sirolimus-eluting (SES) and paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) at 5 years as part of the Sirolimus-Eluting Versus Paclitaxel-Eluting Stents for Coronary Revascularization (SIRTAX) LATE study. Methods and Results- A total of 1012 patients were randomly assigned to SES or PES. Repeat angiography was completed in 444 of 1012 patients (43.8%) at 5 years. Major adverse cardiac events occurred in 19.7% of SES- and 21.4% of PES-treated patients (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.68 to 1.17; P=0.39) at 5 years. There were no differences between SES and PES in terms of cardiac death (5.8% versus 5.7%; P=0.35), myocardial infarction (6.6% versus 6.9%; P=0.51), and target lesion revascularization (13.1% versus 15.1%; P=0.29). Between 1 and 5 years, the annual rate of target lesion revascularization was 2.0% (95% confidence interval, 1.4% to 2.6%) for SES and 1.4% (95% confidence interval, 0.9% to 2.0%) for PES. Among patients undergoing paired angiography at 8 months and 5 years, delayed lumen loss amounted to 0.37±0.73 mm for SES and 0.29±0.59 mm for PES (P=0.32). The overall rate of definite stent thrombosis was 4.6% for SES and 4.1% for PES (P=0.74), and very late definite stent thrombosis occurred at an annual rate of 0.65% (95% confidence interval, 0.40% to 0.90%). Conclusions- Long-term follow-up of first-generation drug-eluting stents shows no significant differences in clinical and angiographic outcomes between SES and PES. The continuous increase in late lumen loss in conjunction with the ongoing risk of very late stent thrombosis suggests that vascular healing remains incomplete up to 5 years after implantation of first-generation drug-eluting stents. Clinical Trial Registration- http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00297661. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aims: Circulating proenkephalin (PENK) is a stable endogenous polypeptide with fast response to glomerular dysfunction and tubular damage. This study examined the predictive value of PENK for renal outcomes and mortality in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS)., Methods: Proenkephalin was measured in plasma in a prospective multicentre ACS cohort from Switzerland (n = 4787) and in validation cohorts from the UK (n = 1141), Czechia (n = 927), and Germany (n = 220). A biomarker-enhanced risk score (KID-ACS score) for simultaneous prediction of in-hospital acute kidney injury (AKI) and 30-day mortality was derived and externally validated., Results: On multivariable adjustment for established risk factors, circulating PENK remained associated with in-hospital AKI [per log2 increase: adjusted odds ratio 1.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.13-2.09, P = .007] and 30-day mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 2.73, 95% CI 1.85-4.02, P < .001). The KID-ACS score integrates PENK and showed an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of .72 (95% CI .68-.76) for in-hospital AKI and .91 (95% CI .87-.95) for 30-day mortality in the derivation cohort. Upon external validation, KID-ACS achieved similarly high performance for in-hospital AKI (Zurich: AUC .73, 95% CI .70-.77; Czechia: AUC .75, 95% CI .68-.81; Germany: AUC .71, 95% CI .55-.87) and 30-day mortality (UK: AUC .87, 95% CI .83-.91; Czechia: AUC .91, 95% CI .87-.94; Germany: AUC .96, 95% CI .92-1.00), outperforming the contrast-associated AKI score and the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events 2.0 score, respectively., Conclusions: Circulating PENK offers incremental value for predicting in-hospital AKI and mortality in ACS. The simple six-item KID-ACS risk score integrates PENK and provides a novel tool for simultaneous assessment of renal and mortality risk in patients with ACS., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Background: Investigations of very long-term outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents (DES) according to clinical presentation are scarce. Here, we investigated the 10-year clinical outcomes of patients undergoing DES-PCI according to clinical presentation., Methods: Patient-level data from five randomized trials with 10-year follow-up after DES-PCI were pooled. Patients were dichotomized into acute coronary syndrome (ACS) or chronic coronary syndrome (CCS) groups as per clinical presentation. The primary outcome was all-cause death. Secondary outcomes were cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), definite stent thrombosis (ST) and repeat revascularization involving the target lesion (TLR), target vessel (TVR) or non-target vessel (nTVR)., Results: Of the 9700 patients included in this analysis, 4557 presented with ACS and 5143 with CCS. Compared with CCS patients, ACS patients had a higher risk of all-cause death and nTVR in the first year, but comparable risk thereafter. In addition, ACS patients had a higher risk of MI [adjusted hazard ratio 1.21, 95% confidence interval (1.04-1.41)] and definite ST [adjusted hazard ratio 1.48, 95% confidence interval (1.14-1.92)], while the risk of TLR and TVR was not significantly different up to 10-year follow-up., Conclusions: Compared to CCS patients, ACS patients treated with PCI and DES implantation have an increased risk of all-cause death and repeat revascularization of remote vessels up to 1 year, with no significant differences thereafter and up to 10-year follow-up. ACS patients have a consistently higher risk of MI and definite ST. Whether these differences persist with current antithrombotic and secondary prevention therapies requires further investigation., (© 2024 The Author(s). European Journal of Clinical Investigation published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Stichting European Society for Clinical Investigation Journal Foundation.)

Background: Either dual antiplatelet therapy or oral anticoagulation in combination with aspirin represent recommended treatment regimens following left atrial appendage closure (LAAC). As the majority of patients receiving LAAC have high bleeding risk, less aggressive antithrombotic treatments are needed, such as single antiplatelet therapy., Objectives: To compare both ischemic and bleeding outcomes in patients receiving single (SAPT) or dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after successful LAAC., Methods: Data on consecutive patients undergoing percutaneous LAAC between 2009 and 2023 were prospectively collected including one-year follow-up. A propensity score matching was performed among patients discharged under SAPT and DAPT. The primary endpoint was the one-year composite of cardiovascular death, stroke, systemic embolism or device related thrombosis (DRT). The secondary endpoints included major bleeding and DRT., Results: Among 1033 patients discharged with antiplatelet therapy, 154 patients receiving SAPT were compared to 230 matched patients receiving DAPT. The primary endpoint was similar between the two study groups (SAPT 11.0% vs. DAPT 8.3%; Rate Ratio [RR]: 1.14; 95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 0.83-1.55; p=0.420). Consistently, we found no difference in terms of both major bleedings (SAPT 9.7% vs. DAPT 12.6%; Hazard Ratio: [HR]: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.43-1.39; p=0.387) and DRT (2.6% vs. 1.1%; RR:1.47; 95% CI: 0.89-2.43; p=0.130) between SAPT and DAPT groups., Conclusions: In this propensity score analysis of a single-center LAAC cohort, both ischemic and bleeding outcomes did not differ at 1 year between patients discharged with SAPT or DAPT. These results have to be confirmed in an adequately powered randomized clinical trial., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

In-stent restenosis (ISR) remains the predominant cause of stent failure and the most common indication for repeat revascularization. Despite technological advances in stent design, ISR continues to pose significant challenges, contributing to increased morbidity and mortality among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions. In the last decade, intravascular imaging has emerged as an important method for identifying the mechanisms behind ISR and guiding its treatment. Treatment options for ISR have expanded to include balloon angioplasty, cutting or scoring balloons, intravascular lithotripsy, atheroablative devices, drug-eluting stents, drug-coated balloons, surgical revascularization, and intravascular brachytherapy. The aim of the current review is to describe the classification and mechanisms of ISR, provide a comprehensive and updated overview of the evidence supporting different treatment strategies, suggest a management algorithm, and present insights into future developments in the field., Competing Interests: Dr. Spirito has received a research grant from the Swiss National Science Foundation outside the submitted work. Dr. Kakizaki received consulting fee from Infraredx USA, speaker fee from Abbott Medical Japan, Boston Scientific Japan, Philips Japan, Orbusneich Medical, and manuscript writing fee from Orbusneich Medical and Philips Japan outside the submitted work. Dr Räber has received research grants to the institution from Abbott, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Heartflow, Sanofi, and Regeneron; and has received speaker or consultation fees from Abbott, Amgen, Astra-Zeneca, Canon, Medtronic, NovoNordisk, Occlutech, and Sanofi outside the submitted work. Dr. Mehran reports institutional research grants from Abbott, Affluent Medical, Alleviant Medical, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boston Scientific, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CardiaWave, CERC, Chiesi, Concept Medical, Daiichi Sankyo, Duke, Faraday, Idorsia, Janssen, MedAlliance, Medscape, Mediasphere, Medtelligence, Medtronic, Novartis, OrbusNeich, Pi-Cardia, Protembis, RM Global Bioaccess Fund Management, Sanofi, Zoll; consulting fees from Affluent Medical, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi USA, Cordis, Daiichi Sankyo, Esperion Science/Innovative Biopharma, Gaffney Events, Educational Trust, Global Clinical Trial Partners, Ltd., IQVIA, Medscape/WebMD Global, NovoNordisk, PeerView Institute for Medical Education, TERUMO Europe N.V., Radcliffe; Equity <1% in Elixir Medical, STEL, CONTROLRAD (spouse); Honorarium for Scientific Advisory Board for AMA – JAMA Cardiology (Associate Editor), American College of Cardiology; in addition, Dr. Mehran is a Committe Member for SCAI, Faculty member of the Cardiovascular Research Foundation and founder of Women as One (no fee). The other authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright: © 2024 The Author(s). Published by IMR Press.)

Background: Inflammatory processes can trigger acute coronary syndromes (ACS) which may increase core body temperature (BT), a widely available low-cost marker of systemic inflammation. Herein, we aimed to delineate baseline characteristics of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non-ST-segment elevation ACS (NSTE-ACS) patients stratified by initial BT and to assess its predictive utility towards major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) after the index ACS., Methods: From 2012 until 2017, a total of 1044 ACS patients, 517 with STEMI and 527 with NSTE-ACS, were prospectively recruited at the University Hospital Zurich. BT was measured by digital tympanic thermometer along with high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) and cardiac troponin-T (hs-cTnT) levels prior to coronary angiography. Patients were stratified according to initial BT and uni- and multivariable regression models were fit to assess associations of BT with future MACE risk., Results: Among patients with STEMI, BT was not predictive of 1-year MACE, but a U-shaped relationship between BT and MACE risk was noted in those with NSTE-ACS (p = .029), translating into a 2.4-fold (HR, 2.44, 95% CI, 1.16-5.16) increased 1-year MACE risk in those with BT >36.8°C (reference: 36.6-36.8°C). Results remained robust in multivariable-adjusted analyses accounting for sex, age, diabetes, renal function and hs-cTnT. However, when introducing hs-CRP, the BT-MACE association did not prevail., Conclusions: In prospectively recruited patients with ACS, initial BT shows a U-shaped relationship with 1-year MACE risk among those with NSTE-ACS, but not in those with STEMI. BT is a broadly available low-cost marker to identify ACS patients with high inflammatory burden, at high risk for recurrent ischaemic events, and thus potentially suitable for an anti-inflammatory intervention., Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01000701., (© 2024 The Author(s). European Journal of Clinical Investigation published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Stichting European Society for Clinical Investigation Journal Foundation.)