Optical coherence tomography versus intravascular ultrasound to evaluate stent implantation in patients with calcific coronary artery disease

AIMS: Stent underexpansion and malapposition are associated with adverse outcomes following percutaneous coronary intervention, but detection and treatment can be challenging in the presence of extensive coronary artery calcification. Frequency domain optical coherence tomography (FD-OCT) is a novel intravascular imaging technique with greater spatial resolution than intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) but its role in the presence of extensive coronary calcification remains unclear. We sought to determine the utility of FD-OCT compared to IVUS imaging to guide percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with severe calcific coronary artery disease. METHODS: 18 matched IVUS and FD-OCT examinations were evaluated following coronary stent implantation in 12 patients (10 male; mean age 70±7 years) undergoing rotational atherectomy for symptomatic calcific coronary artery disease. RESULTS: In-stent luminal areas were smaller (minimum in-stent area 6.77±2.18 vs 7.19±2.62 mm(2), p<0.05), while reference lumen dimensions were similar with FD-OCT compared with IVUS. Stent malapposition was detected in all patients by FD-OCT and in 10 patients by IVUS. The extent of stent malapposition detected was greater (20% vs 6%, p<0.001) with FD-OCT compared to IVUS. Postdilation increased the in-stent luminal area (minimum in-stent area: 8.15±1.90 vs 7.30±1.62 mm(2), p<0.05) and reduced the extent of stent malapposition (19% vs 34%, p<0.005) when assessed by FD-OCT, but not IVUS. CONCLUSIONS: Acute stent malapposition occurs frequently in patients with calcific coronary disease undergoing rotational atherectomy and stent implantation. In the presence of extensive coronary artery calcification, FD-OCT affords enhanced stent visualisation and detection of malapposition, facilitating improved postdilation stent apposition and minimal luminal areas. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02065102

Simple or complex stenting for bifurcation coronary lesions: a patient-level pooled-analysis of the Nordic Bifurcation study and the British Bifurcation Coronary Study

BACKGROUND: Controversy persists regarding the correct strategy for bifurcation lesions. Therefore, we combined the patient-level data from 2 large trials with similar methodology: the NORDIC Bifurcation Study (NORDIC I) and the British Bifurcation Coronary Study (BBC ONE).METHODS AND RESULTS: Both randomized trials compared simple (provisional T-stenting) versus complex techniques, using drug-eluting stents. In the simple group (n=457), 129 patients had final kissing balloon dilatation in addition to main vessel stenting, and 16 had T-stenting. In the complex group (n=456), 272 underwent crush, 118 culotte, and 59 T-stenting techniques. A composite end point at 9 months of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization occurred in 10.1% of the simple versus 17.3% of the complex group (hazard ratio 1.84 [95% confidence interval 1.28 to 2.66], P=0.001). Procedure duration, contrast, and x-ray dose favored the simple approach. Subgroup analysis revealed similar composite end point results for true bifurcations (n=657, simple 9.2% versus complex 17.3%; hazard ratio 1.90 [95% confidence interval 1.22 to 2.94], P=0.004), wide-angled bifurcations &gt;60 to 70° (n=217, simple 9.6% versus complex 15.7%; hazard ratio 1.67 [ 95% confidence interval 0.78 to 3.62], P=0.186), large (?2.75 mm) diameter side branches (n=281, simple 10.4% versus complex 20.7%; hazard ratio 2.42 [ 95% confidence interval 1.22 to 4.80], P=0.011), longer length (&gt;5 mm) ostial side branch lesions (n=464, simple 12.1% versus complex 19.1%; hazard ratio 1.71 [95% confidence interval 1.05 to 2.77], P=0.029), or equivalent sized vessels (side branch &lt;0.25 mm smaller than main vessel) (n=108, simple 12.0% versus complex 15.5%; hazard ratio 1.35 [95% confidence interval 0.48 to 3.70], P=0.57).CONCLUSIONS: For bifurcation lesions, a provisional single-stent approach is superior to systematic dual stenting techniques in terms of safety and efficacy. A complex approach does not appear to be beneficial in more anatomically complicated lesions

The EBC TWO Study (European Bifurcation Coronary TWO): A Randomized Comparison of Provisional T-Stenting Versus a Systematic 2 Stent Culotte Strategy in Large Caliber True Bifurcations

Background-For the treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions, a provisional strategy is superior to systematic 2-stent techniques for the most bifurcation lesions. However, complex anatomies with large side branches (SBs) with significant ostial disease length are considered by expert consensus to warrant a 2-stent technique upfront. This consensus view has not been scientifically assessed. Methods and Results-Symptomatic patients with large caliber true bifurcation lesions (SB diameter ≥2.5 mm) and significant ostial disease length (≥5 mm) were randomized to either a provisional T-stent strategy or a dual stent culotte technique. Two hundred patients aged 64±10 years, 82% male, were randomized in 20 European centers. The clinical presentations were stable coronary disease (69%) and acute coronary syndromes (31%). SB stent diameter (2.67±0.27 mm) and length (20.30±5.89 mm) confirmed the extent of SB disease. Procedural success (provisional 97%, culotte 94%) and kissing balloon inflation (provisional 95%, culotte 98%) were high. Sixteen percent of patients in the provisional group underwent T-stenting. The primary end point (a composite of death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization at 12 months) occurred in 7.7% of the provisional T-stent group versus 10.3% of the culotte group (hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.78-1.34; P=0.53). Procedure time, X-ray dose, and cost all favored the simpler procedure. Conclusions-When treating complex coronary bifurcation lesions with large stenosed SBs, there is no difference between a provisional T-stent strategy and a systematic 2-stent culotte strategy in a composite end point of death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization at 12 months. Clinical Trial Registration-URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT 01560455

Efficacy of a Device to Narrow the Coronary Sinus in Refractory Angina

BACKGROUND Many patients with coronary artery disease who are not candidates for revascularization have refractory angina despite standard medical therapy. The balloon-expandable, stainless steel, hourglass-shaped, coronary-sinus reducing device creates a focal narrowing and increases pressure in the coronary sinus, thus redistributing blood into ischemic myocardium. METHODS We randomly assigned 104 patients with Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) class III or IV angina (on a scale from I to IV, with higher classes indicating greater limitations on physical activity owing to angina) and myocardial ischemia, who were not candidates for revascularization, to implantation of the device (treatment group) or to a sham procedure (control group). The primary end point was the proportion of patients with an improvement of at least two CCS angina classes at 6 months. RESULTS A total of 35% of the patients in the treatment group (18 of 52 patients), as compared with 15% of those in the control group (8 of 52), had an improvement of at least two CCS angina classes at 6 months (P = 0.02). The device was also associated with improvement of at least one CCS angina class in 71% of the patients in the treatment group (37 of 52 patients), as compared with 42% of those in the control group (22 of 52) (P = 0.003). Quality of life as assessed with the use of the Seattle Angina Questionnaire was significantly improved in the treatment group, as compared with the control group (improvement on a 100-point scale, 17.6 vs. 7.6 points; P = 0.03). There were no significant between-group differences in improvement in exercise time or in the mean change in the wall-motion index as assessed by means of dobutamine echocardiography. At 6 months, 1 patient in the treatment group had had a myocardial infarction; in the control group, 1 patient had died and 3 had had a myocardial infarction. CONCLUSIONS In this small clinical trial, implantation of the coronary-sinus reducing device was associated with significant improvement in symptoms and quality of life in patients with refractory angina who were not candidates for revascularization

Coronary bifurcation lesions treated with simple or complex stenting: 5-year survival from patient-level pooled analysis of the Nordic Bifurcation Study and the British Bifurcation Coronary Study

AIMS: Randomized trials of coronary bifurcation stenting have shown better outcomes from a simple (provisional) strategy rather than a complex (planned two-stent) strategy in terms of short-term efficacy and safety. Here, we report the 5-year all-cause mortality based on pooled patient-level data from two large bifurcation coronary stenting trials with similar methodology: the Nordic Bifurcation Study (NORDIC I) and the British Bifurcation Coronary Study: old, new, and evolving strategies (BBC ONE).METHODS AND RESULTS: Both multicentre randomized trials compared simple (provisional T-stenting) vs. complex (culotte, crush, and T-stenting) techniques, using drug-eluting stents. We analysed all-cause death at 5 years. Data were collected from phone follow-up, hospital records, and national mortality tracking. Follow-up was complete for 890 out of 913 patients (97%). Both Simple and Complex groups were similar in terms of patient and lesion characteristics. Five-year mortality was lower among patients who underwent a simple strategy rather than a complex strategy [17 patients (3.8%) vs. 31 patients (7.0%); P = 0.04].CONCLUSION: For coronary bifurcation lesions, a provisional single-stent approach appears to be associated with lower long-term mortality than a systematic dual stenting technique.</p

Coronary bifurcation lesions treated with simple or complex stenting: 5-year survival from patient-level pooled analysis of the Nordic Bifurcation Study and the British Bifurcation Coronary Study

AIMS: Randomized trials of coronary bifurcation stenting have shown better outcomes from a simple (provisional) strategy rather than a complex (planned two-stent) strategy in terms of short-term efficacy and safety. Here, we report the 5-year all-cause mortality based on pooled patient-level data from two large bifurcation coronary stenting trials with similar methodology: the Nordic Bifurcation Study (NORDIC I) and the British Bifurcation Coronary Study: old, new, and evolving strategies (BBC ONE).METHODS AND RESULTS: Both multicentre randomized trials compared simple (provisional T-stenting) vs. complex (culotte, crush, and T-stenting) techniques, using drug-eluting stents. We analysed all-cause death at 5 years. Data were collected from phone follow-up, hospital records, and national mortality tracking. Follow-up was complete for 890 out of 913 patients (97%). Both Simple and Complex groups were similar in terms of patient and lesion characteristics. Five-year mortality was lower among patients who underwent a simple strategy rather than a complex strategy [17 patients (3.8%) vs. 31 patients (7.0%); P = 0.04].CONCLUSION: For coronary bifurcation lesions, a provisional single-stent approach appears to be associated with lower long-term mortality than a systematic dual stenting technique.</p