New-Onset Atrial Fibrillation After PCI or CABG for Left Main Disease: The EXCEL Trial

Background: There is limited information on the incidence and prognostic impact of new-onset atrial fibrillation (NOAF) following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD). Objectives: This study sought to determine the incidence of NOAF following PCI and CABG for LMCAD and its effect on 3-year cardiovascular outcomes. Methods: In the EXCEL (Evaluation of XIENCE Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization) trial, 1,905 patients with LMCAD and low or intermediate SYNTAX scores were randomized to PCI with everolimus-eluting stents versus CABG. Outcomes were analyzed according to the development of NOAF during the initial hospitalization following revascularization. Results: Among 1,812 patients without atrial fibrillation on presentation, NOAF developed at a mean of 2.7 ± 2.5 days after revascularization in 162 patients (8.9%), including 161 of 893 (18.0%) CABG-treated patients and 1 of 919 (0.1%) PCI-treated patients (p < 0.0001). Older age, greater body mass index, and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction were independent predictors of NOAF in patients undergoing CABG. Patients with versus without NOAF had a significantly longer duration of hospitalization, were more likely to be discharged on anticoagulant therapy, and had an increased 30-day rate of Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction major or minor bleeding (14.2% vs. 5.5%; p < 0.0001). By multivariable analysis, NOAF after CABG was an independent predictor of 3-year stroke (6.6% vs. 2.4%; adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 4.19; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.74 to 10.11; p = 0.001), death (11.4% vs. 4.3%; adjusted HR: 3.02; 95% CI: 1.60 to 5.70; p = 0.0006), and the primary composite endpoint of death, MI, or stroke (22.6% vs. 12.8%; adjusted HR: 2.13; 95% CI: 1.39 to 3.25; p = 0.0004). Conclusions: In patients with LMCAD undergoing revascularization in the EXCEL trial, NOAF was common after CABG but extremely rare after PCI. The development of NOAF was strongly associated with subsequent death and stroke in CABG-treated patients. Further studies are warranted to determine whether prophylactic strategies to prevent or treat atrial fibrillation may improve prognosis in patients with LMCAD who are undergoing CABG. (Evaluation of XIENCE Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularizatio

Efficacies of the new Paclitaxel-eluting Coroflex Please™ Stent in percutaneous coronary intervention; comparison of efficacy between Coroflex Please™ and Taxus™ (ECO-PLEASANT) trial: study rationale and design

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Previous randomized trials have showed the superiority of Paclitaxel-eluting stent over bare metal stent in angiographic and clinical outcomes. Coroflex Please™ stent is a newly developed drug eluting stent using the Coroflex™ stent platform combined with the drug paclitaxel contained in a polymer coating. PECOPS I trial, one-arm observational study, showed that the clinical and angiographic outcomes of Coroflex Please™ stent were within the range of those of Taxus, the 1^stgeneration paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES). However, there have been no studies directly comparing the Coroflex Please™ stent with the Taxus Liberte™ stent that is the newest version of Taxus. Therefore, prospective, randomized trial is required to demonstrate the non-inferiority of Coroflex Please™ stent compared with Taxus Liberte™ stent in a head-to-head manner.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In the comparison of Efficacy between COroflex PLEASe™ ANd Taxus™ stent(ECO-PLEASANT) trial, approximately 900 patients are being prospectively and randomly assigned to the either type of Coroflex Please™ stent and Taxus Liberte™ stent via web-based randomization. The primary endpoint is clinically driven target vessel revascularization at 9 months. The secondary endpoints include major cardiac adverse events, target vessel failure, stent thrombosis and angiographic efficacy endpoints.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>The ECO-PLEASANT trial is the study not yet performed to directly compare the efficacy and safety of the Coroflex Please™ versus Taxus Liberte™ stent. On the basis of this trial, we will be able to find out whether the Coroflex Please™ stent is non-inferior to Taxus Liberte™ stent or not.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00699543.</p

Design, Analysis and Testing of a Novel Mitral Valve for Transcatheter Implantation

Mitral regurgitation is a common mitral valve dysfunction which may lead to heart failure. Because of the rapid aging of the population, conventional surgical repair and replacement of the pathological valve are often unsuitable for about half of symptomatic patients, who are judged high-risk. Transcatheter valve implantation could represent an effective solution. However, currently available aortic valve devices are inapt for the mitral position. This paper presents the design, development and hydrodynamic assessment of a novel bi-leaflet mitral valve suitable for transcatheter implantation. The device consists of two leaflets and a sealing component made from bovine pericardium, supported by a self-expanding wireframe made from superelastic NiTi alloy. A parametric design procedure based on numerical simulations was implemented to identify design parameters providing acceptable stress levels and maximum coaptation area for the leaflets. The wireframe was designed to host the leaflets and was optimised numerically to minimise the stresses for crimping in an 8 mm sheath for percutaneous delivery. Prototypes were built and their hydrodynamic performances were tested on a cardiac pulse duplicator, in compliance with the ISO5840-3:2013 standard. The numerical results and hydrodynamic tests show the feasibility of the device to be adopted as a transcatheter valve implant for treating mitral regurgitation

Algorithmic Versus Expert Human Interpretation of Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio Coronary Pressure-Wire Pull Back Data

Objectives The aim of this study was to investigate whether algorithmic interpretation (AI) of instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) pressure-wire pull back data would be noninferior to expert human interpretation. Background Interpretation of iFR pressure-wire pull back data can be complex and is subjective. Methods Fifteen human experts interpreted 1,008 iFR pull back traces (691 unique, 317 duplicate). For each trace, experts determined the hemodynamic appropriateness for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and, in such cases, the optimal physiological strategy for PCI. The heart team (HT) interpretation was determined by consensus of the individual expert opinions. The same 1,008 pull back traces were also interpreted algorithmically. The coprimary hypotheses of this study were that AI would be noninferior to the interpretation of the median expert human in determining: 1) the hemodynamic appropriateness for PCI; and 2) the physiological strategy for PCI. Results Regarding the hemodynamic appropriateness for PCI, the median expert human demonstrated 89.3% agreement with the HT in comparison with 89.4% for AI (p < 0.01 for noninferiority). Across the 372 cases judged as hemodynamically appropriate for PCI according to the HT, the median expert human demonstrated 88.8% agreement with the HT in comparison with 89.7% for AI (p < 0.0001 for noninferiority). On reproducibility testing, the HT opinion itself changed 1 in 10 times for both the appropriateness for PCI and the physiological PCI strategy. In contrast, AI showed no change. Conclusions AI of iFR pressure-wire pull back data was noninferior to expert human interpretation in determining both the hemodynamic appropriateness for PCI and the optimal physiological strategy for PCI

Five-Year Outcomes after PCI or CABG for Left Main Coronary Disease.

BACKGROUND: Long-term outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with contemporary drug-eluting stents, as compared with coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG), in patients with left main coronary artery disease are not clearly established. METHODS: We randomly assigned 1905 patients with left main coronary artery disease of low or intermediate anatomical complexity (according to assessment at the participating centers) to undergo either PCI with fluoropolymer-based cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stents (PCI group, 948 patients) or CABG (CABG group, 957 patients). The primary outcome was a composite of death, stroke, or myocardial infarction. RESULTS: At 5 years, a primary outcome event had occurred in 22.0% of the patients in the PCI group and in 19.2% of the patients in the CABG group (difference, 2.8 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.9 to 6.5; P = 0.13). Death from any cause occurred more frequently in the PCI group than in the CABG group (in 13.0% vs. 9.9%; difference, 3.1 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.2 to 6.1). In the PCI and CABG groups, the incidences of definite cardiovascular death (5.0% and 4.5%, respectively; difference, 0.5 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.4 to 2.5) and myocardial infarction (10.6% and 9.1%; difference, 1.4 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.3 to 4.2) were not significantly different. All cerebrovascular events were less frequent after PCI than after CABG (3.3% vs. 5.2%; difference, -1.9 percentage points; 95% CI, -3.8 to 0), although the incidence of stroke was not significantly different between the two groups (2.9% and 3.7%; difference, -0.8 percentage points; 95% CI, -2.4 to 0.9). Ischemia-driven revascularization was more frequent after PCI than after CABG (16.9% vs. 10.0%; difference, 6.9 percentage points; 95% CI, 3.7 to 10.0). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with left main coronary artery disease of low or intermediate anatomical complexity, there was no significant difference between PCI and CABG with respect to the rate of the composite outcome of death, stroke, or myocardial infarction at 5 years. (Funded by Abbott Vascular; EXCEL ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01205776.)

Vascular Remodeling in Health and Disease

The term vascular remodeling is commonly used to define the structural changes in blood vessel geometry that occur in response to long-term physiologic alterations in blood flow or in response to vessel wall injury brought about by trauma or underlying cardiovascular diseases.1, 2, 3, 4 The process of remodeling, which begins as an adaptive response to long-term hemodynamic alterations such as elevated shear stress or increased intravascular pressure, may eventually become maladaptive, leading to impaired vascular function. The vascular endothelium, owing to its location lining the lumen of blood vessels, plays a pivotal role in regulation of all aspects of vascular function and homeostasis.5 Thus, not surprisingly, endothelial dysfunction has been recognized as the harbinger of all major cardiovascular diseases such as hypertension, atherosclerosis, and diabetes.6, 7, 8 The endothelium elaborates a variety of substances that influence vascular tone and protect the vessel wall against inflammatory cell adhesion, thrombus formation, and vascular cell proliferation.8, 9, 10 Among the primary biologic mediators emanating from the endothelium is nitric oxide (NO) and the arachidonic acid metabolite prostacyclin [prostaglandin I2 (PGI2)], which exert powerful vasodilatory, antiadhesive, and antiproliferative effects in the vessel wall

Safety and efficacy of sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting coronary stents.

BACKGROUND: The safety of drug-eluting stents has been called into question by recent reports of increased stent thrombosis, myocardial infarction, and death. Such studies have been inconclusive because of their insufficient size, the use of historical controls, a limited duration of follow-up, and a lack of access to original source data. METHODS: We performed a pooled analysis of data from four double-blind trials in which 1748 patients were randomly assigned to receive either sirolimus-eluting stents or bare-metal stents and five double-blind trials in which 3513 patients were randomly assigned to receive either paclitaxel-eluting stents or bare-metal stents; we then analyzed the major clinical end points of the trials. RESULTS: The 4-year rates of stent thrombosis were 1.2% in the sirolimus-stent group versus 0.6% in the bare-metal-stent group (P=0.20) and 1.3% in the paclitaxel-stent group versus 0.9% in the bare-metal-stent group (P=0.30). However, after 1 year, there were five episodes of stent thrombosis in patients with sirolimus-eluting stents versus none in patients with bare-metal stents (P=0.025) and nine episodes in patients with paclitaxel-eluting stents versus two in patients with bare-metal stents (P=0.028). The 4-year rates of target-lesion revascularization were markedly reduced in both the sirolimus-stent group and the paclitaxel-stent group, as compared with the bare-metal-stent groups. The rates of death or myocardial infarction did not differ significantly between the groups with drug-eluting stents and those with bare-metal stents. CONCLUSIONS: Stent thrombosis after 1 year was more common with both sirolimus-eluting stents and paclitaxel-eluting stents than with bare-metal stents. Both drug-eluting stents were associated with a marked reduction in target-lesion revascularization. There were no significant differences in the cumulative rates of death or myocardial infarction at 4 years