Limitations of Quantitative Blush Evaluator (QuBE) as myocardial perfusion assessment method on digital coronary angiograms

Background and Aim: Quantitative Blush Evaluator (QuBE) is a software application that allows quantifying myocardial perfusion in coronary angiograms after a percutaneous coronary intervention. QuBE has some limitations such as the application of a crude filter to remove large scale structures and the absence of correction for cardiac motion. This study investigates the extent of these limitations and we hypothesize that enhanced image analysis methods can provide improvements. Methods: We calculated QuBE scores of 117 patients from the HEBE Trial and determined its association with the Myocardial Blush Grade (MBG) score. Accuracy of large-structure removal is qualitatively assessed for various sizes of a median filter. The influence of cardiac motion was evaluated by comparing the blush curve and QuBE score of the native QuBE with manually motion-corrected QuBE for 40 patients. The effect of different kernel sizes and motion correction to a potential improvement of the association between QuBE score and MBG was studied. Results: In our population, there was no significant association between QuBE score and MBG (p = 0.14). Median filters of various kernel sizes were unable to remove large structure related noise. Variations in filters and cardiac movement correction did not result in an improvement in the association with MBG scores (observer 1: p = 0.66; observer 2: p = 0.72). Conclusions: There was no significant association of QuBE with MBG scores in our population, which suggests that QuBE is not suitable for a quantitative assessment of myocardial perfusion. Alternative kernel sizes for the large structure removal filter and cardiac motion correction did not improve QuBE performance. Relevance for patients: Further improvements of QuBE to overcome its inherent limitations are necessary in order to establish QuBE as a reliable myocardial perfusion assessment method

Special Issue “Clinical Frontiers in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention”

In the last decade, significant advancements have been made in the field of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) with the development of new devices and drugs, the application of new technology and the utilization of artificial intelligence/machine learning, and new indications for revascularization [...

A Narrative Review of Ultrathin-strut Drug-eluting Stents: The Thinner the Better?

Second-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) are considered standard of care for revascularization of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Besides the polymer and antiproliferative drug used, the metallic backbone of DES is an attractive target for further development. Ultrathin-strut DES (≤70 µm strut thickness) are more flexible, have an improved trackability and crossability compared to conventional second-generation DES. Importantly, ultrathin-strut DES reduce the risk of in-stent restenosis, thereby decreasing the risk of angiographic and clinical restenosis. In this narrative review, we will discuss the clinical outcomes of the commercially available ultrathin-strut DES

Genous endothelial progenitor cell-capturing stent system: a novel stent technology

Drug-eluting stents have been demonstrated to significantly reduce clinical and angiographic restenosis in patients with coronary artery disease compared with bare-metal stents. Intuitively, however, a prohealing approach for the prevention of in-stent restenosis by promoting accelerated re-endothelialization is favored over the aggressive pharmacologic cytotoxic and cytostatic approach of the drug-eluting stents. The endothelial progenitor cell-capturing stent attracts circulating CD43(+) progenitor cells that bind to the stent surface and differentiate into a functional endothelial layer. It is theorized that the accelerated establishment of the endothelial layer covering the stent struts will reduce the risk of neointimal hyperplasia and smooth muscle cell proliferation. The safety and efficacy have been demonstrated in the nonrandomized Healthy Endothelial Accelerated Lining Inhibits Neointimal Growth (HEALING) studies, and the device received a CE mark in 2005. This article reviews the realization of the endothelial progenitor cell-capturing stent, its relevance compared with other stent types, current evidence on clinical performance, and future perspectives. At present, the larger randomized Tri-stent Adjudication Study (TRIAS) that is ongoing will directly compare the clinical usefulness of this new endothelial progenitor cell-capturing stent with bare-metal stents and drug-eluting stent

Left internal mammary artery injury and subsequent hypovolemic shock due to a hemothorax after subxiphoid pericardiocentesis in a postoperative cardiac surgery patient

Multimodality imaging is recommended in patients in shock after seemingly uneventful pericardiocentesis. The aim of this study was to heighten awareness that LIMA injury can lead to a life-threatening hemothorax in postoperative cardiac surgery patients

One-year clinical outcome in an unselected patient population treated with the Genous™ endothelial progenitor cell capturing stent

Objective: We assessed the 1-year clinical outcome in a large cohort of unselected patients treated with an endothelial progenitor cell (EPC) capturing coronary stent. Background: The novel EPC capturing stent is coated with CD34+ antibodies that bind circulating EPCs to the stent surface, thereby accelerating endothelialization of the stent struts; it is hypothesized that this may prevent restenosis and stent thrombosis. Methods: A total of 405 unselected patients were treated percutaneously with the EPC capturing stent. The majority of patients had complex lesions with an estimated high risk of restenosis. Results: The primary endpoint defined as the composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), and target lesion revascularization (TLR) at 1-year was 13.3%, mainly attributable to TLR which was 10.9%. The occurrence of definite and probable ST was low, 0.5 and 0.7%, respectively. Based on the risk of restenosis, in patients with an estimated high risk of restenosis (n = 249), the composite primary endpoint was 16.1% versus 9.0% in patients with an estimated low risk (n = 155). Moreover, the 1 year clinical outcomes in diabetic patient compared well with the nondiabetic patients. Conclusion: In this single-center study, the 1-year clinical follow-up in a "real-world" population treated with the EPC capturing stent showed good results. Currently, large randomized studies are conducted to evaluate the long-term safety and efficacy of this stent. © 2011 Wiley-Liss, In