Interventional cardiology : Cost-effectiveness of PCI guided by fractional flow reserve

Coronary revascularization strategies have been evaluated in numerous clinical trials. As coronary revascularization has become more common, concerns over financial costs have increased

Optimal diagnostic approach for using CT-derived quantitative flow ratio in patients with stenosis on coronary computed tomography angiography

Background: Coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA)-derived quantitative flow ratio (CT-QFR) is an on-site non-invasive technique estimating invasive fractional flow reserve (FFR). This study assesses the diagnostic performance of using most distal CT-QFR versus lesion-specific CT-QFR approach for identifying hemodynamically obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD).Methods: Prospectively enrolled de novo chest pain patients (n ​= ​445) with ≥50 ​% visual diameter stenosis on CCTA were referred for invasive evaluation. On-site CT-QFR was analyzed post-hoc blinded to angiographic data and obtained as both most distal (MD-QFR) and lesion-specific CT-QFR (LS-QFR). Abnormal CT-QFR was defined as ≤0.80. Hemodynamically obstructive CAD was defined as invasive FFR ≤0.80 or ≥70 ​% diameter stenosis by 3D-quantitative coronary angiography.Results: In total 404/445 patients had paired CT-QFR and invasive analyses of whom 149/404 (37 ​%) had hemodynamically obstructive CAD. MD-QFR and LS-QFR classified 188 (47 ​%) and 165 (41 ​%) patients as abnormal, respectively. Areas under the receiver-operating characteristic curve for MD-QFR was 0.83 vs. 0.85 for LS-QFR, p ​= ​0.01. Sensitivities for MD-QFR and LS-QFR were 80 ​% (95%CI: 73-86) vs. 77 ​% (95%CI: 69-83), p ​= ​0.03, respectively, and specificities were 73 ​% (95%CI: 67-78) vs. 80 ​% (95%CI: 75-85), p ​< ​0.01, respectively. Positive predictive values for MD-QFR and LS-QFR were 63 ​% vs. 69 ​%, p ​< ​0.01, respectively, and negative predictive values for MD-QFR and LS-QFR were 86 ​% vs. 85 ​%, p ​= ​0.39, respectively).Conclusion: Using a lesion-specific CT-QFR approach has superior discrimination of hemodynamically obstructive CAD compared to a most distal CT-QFR approach. CT-QFR identified most cases of hemodynamically obstructive CAD while a normal CT-QFR excluded hemodynamically obstructive CAD in the majority of patients

Derivative corrections to the Born-Infeld action through beta-function calculations in N=2 boundary superspace

We calculate the beta-functions for an open string sigma-model in the presence of a U(1) background. Passing to N=2 boundary superspace, in which the background is fully characterized by a scalar potential, significantly facilitates the calculation. Performing the calculation through three loops yields the equations of motion up to five derivatives on the fieldstrengths, which upon integration gives the bosonic sector of the effective action for a single D-brane in trivial bulk background fields through four derivatives and to all orders in alpha'. Finally, the present calculation shows that demanding ultra-violet finiteness of the non-linear sigma-model can be reformulated as the requirement that the background is a deformed stable holomorphic U(1) bundle.Comment: 25 pages, numerous figure

Archeologische opgraving Herent Kouterstraat

Dit rapport werd ingediend bij het agentschap samen met een aantal afzonderlijke digitale bijlagen. Een aantal van deze bijlagen zijn niet inbegrepen in dit pdf document en zijn niet online beschikbaar. Sommige bijlagen (grondplannen, fotos, spoorbeschrijvingen, enz.) kunnen van belang zijn voor een betere lezing en interpretatie van dit rapport. Indien u deze bijlagen wenst te raadplegen kan u daarvoor contact opnemen met: [email protected]

Endoluminal beta-radiation therapy for the prevention of coronary restenosis after balloon angioplasty.

BACKGROUND: Beta radiation is effective in reducing vascular neointimal proliferation in animals after injury caused by balloon angioplasty. However, the lowest dose that can prevent restenosis after coronary angioplasty has yet to be determined. METHODS: After successful balloon angioplasty of a previously untreated coronary stenosis, 181 patients were randomly assigned to receive 9, 12, 15, or 18 Gy of radiation delivered by a centered yttrium-90 source. Adjunctive stenting was required in 28 percent of the patients. The primary end point was the minimal luminal diameter six months after treatment, as a function of the delivered dose of radiation. RESULTS: At the time of follow-up coronary angiography, the mean minimal luminal diameter was 1.67 mm in the 9-Gy group, 1.76 mm in the 12-Gy group, 1.83 mm in the 15-Gy group, and 1.97 mm in the 18-Gy group (P=0.06 for the comparison of 9 Gy with 18 Gy), resulting in restenosis rates of 29 percent, 21 percent, 16 percent, and 15 percent, respectively (P=0.14 for the comparison of 9 Gy with 18 Gy). At that time, 86 percent of the patients had had no serious cardiac events. In 130 patients treated with balloon angioplasty alone, restenosis rates were 28 percent, 17 percent, 16 percent, and 4 percent, respectively (P=0.02 for the comparison of 9 Gy with 18 Gy). Among these patients, there was a dose-dependent enlargement of the lumen in 28 percent, 50 percent, 45 percent, and 74 percent of patients, respectively (P<0.001 for the comparison of 9 Gy with 18 Gy). The rate of repeated revascularization was 18 percent with 9 Gy and 6 percent with 18 Gy (P=0.26). CONCLUSIONS: Intracoronary beta radiation therapy produces a significant dose-dependent decrease in the rate of restenosis after angioplasty. An 18-Gy dose not only prevents the renarrowing of the lumen typically observed after successful balloon angioplasty, but actually induces luminal enlargement

One-year outcomes of coronary artery bypass graft surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention with multiple stenting for multisystem disease: A meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomized clinical trials

BackgroundWe aimed to provide a quantitative analysis of the 1-year clinical outcomes of patients with multisystem coronary artery disease who were included in recent randomized trials of percutaneous coronary intervention with multiple stenting versus coronary artery bypass graft surgery.MethodsAn individual patient database was composed of 4 trials (Arterial Revascularization Therapies Study, Stent or Surgery Trial, Argentine Randomized Trial of Percutaneous Transluminal Coronary Angioplasty Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery in Multivessel Disease 2, and Medicine, Angioplasty, or Surgery Study 2) that compared percutaneous coronary intervention with multiple stenting (N = 1518) versus coronary artery bypass graft surgery (N = 1533). The primary clinical end point of this study was the combined incidence of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke at 1 year after randomization. Secondary combined end points included the incidence of repeat revascularization at 1 year. All analyses were based on the intention-to-treat principle.ResultsAfter 1 year of follow-up, 8.7% of patients randomized to percutaneous coronary intervention with multiple stenting versus 9.1% of patients randomized to coronary artery bypass graft surgery reached the primary clinical end point (hazard ratio 0.95 and 95% confidence interval 0.74’1.2). Repeat revascularization procedures occurred more frequently in patients allocated to percutaneous coronary intervention with multiple stenting compared with coronary artery bypass graft surgery (18% vs 4.4%; hazard ratio 4.4 and 95% confidence interval 3.3’5.9). The percentage of patients who were free from angina was slightly lower after percutaneous coronary intervention with multiple stenting than after coronary artery bypass graft surgery (77% vs 82%; P = .002).ConclusionsOne year after the initial procedure, percutaneous coronary intervention with multiple stenting and coronary artery bypass graft surgery provided a similar degree of protection against death, myocardial infarction, or stroke for patients with multisystem disease. Repeat revascularization procedures remain high after percutaneous coronary intervention, but the difference with coronary artery bypass graft surgery has narrowed in the era of stenting

Rationale and design of a randomized clinical trial comparing safety and efficacy of myval transcatheter heart valve versus contemporary transcatheter heart valves in patients with severe symptomatic aortic valve stenosis: The LANDMARK trial

BACKGROUND: The recent approval of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in patients with low operative risk has paved the way for the introduction of novel and potentially improved technologies. The safety and efficacy of these novel technologies should be investigated in randomized control trials against the contemporary TAVR devices. The objective of the LANDMARK trial is to compare the balloon-expandable Myval transcatheter heart valve (THV) series with contemporary THV (SAPIEN THV and Evolut THV series) series in patients with severe symptomatic native aortic stenosis. METHODS/DESIGN: The LANDMARK trial (ClinicalTrials.govNCT04275726, EudraCT number 2020-000,137-40) is a prospective, randomized, multinational, multicenter, open-label, and noninferiority trial of approximately 768 patients treated with TAVR via the transfemoral approach. Patients will be allocated in a 1:1 randomization to Myval THV series (n = 384) or to contemporary THV (n = 384) (either of SAPIEN THV or Evolut THV series). The primary combined safety and efficacy endpoint is a composite of all-cause mortality, all stroke (disabling and nondisabling), bleeding (life-threatening or disabling), acute kidney injury (stage 2 or 3), major vascular complications, prosthetic valve regurgitation (moderate or severe), and conduction system disturbances (requiring new permanent pacemaker implantation), according to the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 criteria at 30-day follow-up. All patients will have follow-up to 10 years following TAVR. SUMMARY: The LANDMARK trial is the first randomized head-to-head trial comparing Myval THV series to commercially available THVs in patients indicated for TAVR. We review prior data on head-to-head comparisons of TAVR devices and describe the rationale and design of the LANDMARK trial