Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio for the Assessment of Intermediate Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis: Correlations With Fractional Flow Reserve/Intravascular Ultrasound and Prognostic Implications: The iLITRO-EPIC07 Study

Background: There is little information available on agreement between fractional flow reserve (FFR) and instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) in left main coronary artery (LMCA) intermediate stenosis. Besides, several meta-analyses support the use of FFR to guide LMCA revascularization, but limited information is available on iFR in this setting. Our aims were to establish the concordance between FFR and iFR in intermediate LMCA lesions, to evaluate with intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) in cases of FFR/iFR discordance, and to prospectively validate the safety of deferring revascularization based on a hybrid decision-making strategy combining iFR and IVUS. Methods: Prospective, observational, multicenter registry with 300 consecutive patients with intermediate LMCA stenosis who underwent FFR and iFR and, in case of discordance, IVUS and minimal lumen area measurements. Primary clinical end point was a composite of cardiovascular death, LMCA lesion-related nonfatal myocardial infarction, or unplanned LMCA revascularization. Results: FFR and iFR had an agreement of 80% (both positive in 67 and both negative in 167 patients); in case of disagreement (31 FFR+/iFR- and 29 FFR-/iFR+) minimal lumen area was & GE;6 mm(2) in 8.7% of patients with FFR+ and 14.6% with iFR+. Among the 300 patients, 105 (35%) underwent revascularization and 181 (60%) were deferred according to iFR and IVUS. At a median follow-up of 20 months, major adverse cardiac events incidence was 8.3% in the defer group and 13.3% in the revascularization group (hazard ratio, 0.71 [95% CI 0.30-1.72]; P=0.45). Conclusions: In patients with intermediate LMCA stenosis, a physiology-guided treatment decision is feasible either with FFR or iFR with moderate concordance between both indices. In case of disagreement, the use of IVUS may be useful to indicate revascularization. Deferral of revascularization based on iFR appears to be safe in terms of major adverse cardiac events

Outcomes of nonagenarians after transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Introduction and objectives: Nonagenarians are a fast-growing age group among cardiovascular patients, especially with aortic stenosis, but data about their prognosis after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is scarce. The objective of our study is to analyze the baseline characteristics of nonagenarians treated with TAVI and determine whether age = 90 years is associated with a worse prognosis compared to non-nonagenarian patients. Methods: We included all patients =75 years enrolled in the multicenter prospective Spanish TAVI registry between 2009 and 2018. Patients < 75 years were excluded. Results: A total of 8073 elderly patients (= 75 years) from 46 Spanish centers were enrolled in the Spanish TAVI registry; 7686 were between = 75 and < 90 years old (95.2%), and 387 were nonagenarian patients (4.79%). A gradual increase of nonagenarians was observed. The transfemoral access was used in 91.6% of the cases, predominantly among the nonagenarian patients (91.4% vs 95.1%, P = .01). Nonagenarians were more likely to die during their hospital stay (4.3% vs 7.0% among nonagenarians, P = .01). However, no difference was seen in the all-cause mortality rates reported at the 1-year follow-up (8.8% vs 11.3%, P =.07). In the multivariate analysis, age = 90 years was not independently associated with a higher adjusted all-cause mortality rate (HR, 1.37, 95%CI, 0.91–1.97, P = .14). The baseline creatinine levels, and the in-hospital bleeding complications were all associated with a worse long-term prognosis in nonagenarians treated with TAVI. Conclusions: Nonagenarians are a very high-risk and growing population with severe AS in whom TAVI may be a safe and effective strategy. Careful patient selection by the TAVI heart team is mandatory to achieve maximum efficiency in this population where the baseline kidney function and bleeding complications may determine the long-term prognosis after TAVI. © 2021 Sociedad Española de Cardiología. Published by Permanyer Publications

Effect of COMBinAtion therapy with remote ischemic conditioning and exenatide on the Myocardial Infarct size: a two-by-two factorial randomized trial (COMBAT-MI)

Remote ischemic conditioning (RIC) and the GLP-1 analog exenatide activate different cardioprotective pathways and may have additive effects on infarct size (IS). Here, we aimed to assess the efficacy of RIC as compared with sham procedure, and of exenatide, as compared with placebo, and the interaction between both, to reduce IS in humans. We designed a two-by-two factorial, randomized controlled, blinded, multicenter, clinical trial. Patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction receiving primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) within 6 h of symptoms were randomized to RIC or sham procedure and exenatide or matching placebo. The primary outcome was IS measured by late gadolinium enhancement in cardiac magnetic resonance performed 3–7 days after PPCI. The secondary outcomes were myocardial salvage index, transmurality index, left ventricular ejection fraction and relative microvascular obstruction volume. A total of 378 patients were randomly allocated, and after applying exclusion criteria, 222 patients were available for analysis. There were no significant interactions between the two randomization factors on the primary or secondary outcomes. IS was similar between groups for the RIC (24 ± 11.8% in the RIC group vs 23.7 ± 10.9% in the sham group, P = 0.827) and the exenatide hypotheses (25.1 ± 11.5% in the exenatide group vs 22.5 ± 10.9% in the placebo group, P = 0.092). There were no effects with either RIC or exenatide on the secondary outcomes. Unexpected adverse events or side effects of RIC and exenatide were not observed. In conclusion, neither RIC nor exenatide, or its combination, were able to reduce IS in STEMI patients when administered as an adjunct to PPCI

Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio for the Assessment of Intermediate Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis: Correlations With Fractional Flow Reserve/Intravascular Ultrasound and Prognostic Implications: The iLITRO-EPIC07 Study

Background: There is little information available on agreement between fractional flow reserve (FFR) and instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) in left main coronary artery (LMCA) intermediate stenosis. Besides, several meta-analyses support the use of FFR to guide LMCA revascularization, but limited information is available on iFR in this setting. Our aims were to establish the concordance between FFR and iFR in intermediate LMCA lesions, to evaluate with intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) in cases of FFR/iFR discordance, and to prospectively validate the safety of deferring revascularization based on a hybrid decision-making strategy combining iFR and IVUS. Methods: Prospective, observational, multicenter registry with 300 consecutive patients with intermediate LMCA stenosis who underwent FFR and iFR and, in case of discordance, IVUS and minimal lumen area measurements. Primary clinical end point was a composite of cardiovascular death, LMCA lesion-related nonfatal myocardial infarction, or unplanned LMCA revascularization. Results: FFR and iFR had an agreement of 80% (both positive in 67 and both negative in 167 patients); in case of disagreement (31 FFR+/iFR- and 29 FFR-/iFR+) minimal lumen area was ?6 mm2 in 8.7% of patients with FFR+ and 14.6% with iFR+. Among the 300 patients, 105 (35%) underwent revascularization and 181 (60%) were deferred according to iFR and IVUS. At a median follow-up of 20 months, major adverse cardiac events incidence was 8.3% in the defer group and 13.3% in the revascularization group (hazard ratio, 0.71 [95% CI 0.30-1.72]; P=0.45). Conclusions: In patients with intermediate LMCA stenosis, a physiology-guided treatment decision is feasible either with FFR or iFR with moderate concordance between both indices. In case of disagreement, the use of IVUS may be useful to indicate revascularization. Deferral of revascularization based on iFR appears to be safe in terms of major adverse cardiac events