Size reconstructibility of graphs

The deck of a graph $G$ is given by the multiset of (unlabelled) subgraphs $\{G-v:v\in V(G)\}$. The subgraphs $G-v$ are referred to as the cards of $G$. Brown and Fenner recently showed that, for $n\geq29$, the number of edges of a graph $G$ can be computed from any deck missing 2 cards. We show that, for sufficiently large $n$, the number of edges can be computed from any deck missing at most $\frac1{20}\sqrt{n}$ cards.Comment: 15 page

Long-term clinical outcomes in patients with non-ST-segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome and ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction with thrombolysis in myocardial infarction 0 flow

Background: Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) 0 flow often characterizes ST-segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI) patients, but may also feature in non-ST-segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome (NSTE-ACS). Since recanalization usually occurs later in NSTE-ACS patients, the aim of this study was to assess whether patients presenting with NSTE-ACS and TIMI 0 flow have worse clinical outcomes as compared to patients presenting with STEMI and TIMI 0 flow. Methods: A single-center retrospective cohort study was conducted with patients treated for NSTE-ACS and STEMI with TIMI 0 flow at diagnostic angiogram between January 2015 and December 2019. The two patient groups were 1:1 matched using a propensity score logistic regression model. The primary outcome was Major Adverse Cardiac Events (MACE), a composite of all-cause mortality, any myocardial infarction, coronary artery bypass graft, urgent target vessel revascularization or stroke during long term follow-up. Results: The total population consisted of 1255 ACS patients, of which 249 NSTE-ACS and 1006 STEMI patients. After propensity score matching, 234 NSTE-ACS patients were matched with 234 STEMI patients. In this matched population, the mean age was 62.6 (±12.4) years and 75.2 % of the patients was male. The median follow-up time was 3.2 years. MACE rates during follow-up were similar between the two matched groups (HR = 0.84 [95 % CI 0.60 – 1.12] with p = 0.33) with cumulative event-free survival of 63.3 % in the NSTE-ACS group vs 59.3 % in the STEMI group at 6 year follow-up. Conclusion: In this retrospective study, a culprit lesion with TIMI 0 flow has similar clinical outcome in NSTE-ACS and STEMI patients. Further research is warranted to determine optimal the timing of PCI in NSTE-ACS patients with TIMI 0 flow.</p

Procedural Performance of Ultrathin, Biodegradable Polymer-Coated Stents Versus Durable Polymer-Coated Stents Based on Intracoronary Imaging

OBJECTIVE: Thinner stent struts might lead to a higher risk of recoil and subsequently a smaller minimal stent area (MSA), which is known to be the strongest predictor of stent failure. We compared procedural performance between an ultrathin-strut biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (BP-SES) and a durable-polymer zotarolimus-eluting stent (DP-ZES) using intracoronary imaging.METHODS: A consecutive cohort of patients underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with either BP-SES or DP-ZES in a pseudorandomized fashion between July 2018 and October 2019. In the present subanalysis, we included cases in which post-PCI imaging with intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) or optical coherence tomography (OCT) was performed. The primary endpoint of the study was MSA. Secondary endpoints included percentage stent expansion and presence of residual edge disease, malapposition, tissue protrusion, submedial edge dissections, or edge hematoma.RESULTS: A total of 141 treated lesions (78 BP-SES and 63 DP-ZES) in 127 patients were analyzed. Median age was 69.3 years (interquartile range [IQR], 57.3-75.6) and 74.0% of patients were male. All baseline and procedural characteristics were comparable between both groups. Median MSA was 5.80 mm² (IQR, 4.40-7.24) for BP-SES and 6.35 mm² (IQR, 4.76-8.31) for DP-ZES (P=.15). No significant differences in stent expansion, residual edge disease and presence of malapposition, tissue protrusion, submedial edge dissections, or edge hematomas were found. Stent diameter and stent length were found to be independent predictors of MSA.CONCLUSIONS: No significant differences in MSA were found between lesions treated with BP-SES vs DP-ZES. BP-SES and DP-ZES were comparable in terms of procedural performance.</p

Procedural Performance of Ultrathin, Biodegradable Polymer-Coated Stents Versus Durable Polymer-Coated Stents Based on Intracoronary Imaging

OBJECTIVE: Thinner stent struts might lead to a higher risk of recoil and subsequently a smaller minimal stent area (MSA), which is known to be the strongest predictor of stent failure. We compared procedural performance between an ultrathin-strut biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (BP-SES) and a durable-polymer zotarolimus-eluting stent (DP-ZES) using intracoronary imaging.METHODS: A consecutive cohort of patients underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with either BP-SES or DP-ZES in a pseudorandomized fashion between July 2018 and October 2019. In the present subanalysis, we included cases in which post-PCI imaging with intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) or optical coherence tomography (OCT) was performed. The primary endpoint of the study was MSA. Secondary endpoints included percentage stent expansion and presence of residual edge disease, malapposition, tissue protrusion, submedial edge dissections, or edge hematoma.RESULTS: A total of 141 treated lesions (78 BP-SES and 63 DP-ZES) in 127 patients were analyzed. Median age was 69.3 years (interquartile range [IQR], 57.3-75.6) and 74.0% of patients were male. All baseline and procedural characteristics were comparable between both groups. Median MSA was 5.80 mm² (IQR, 4.40-7.24) for BP-SES and 6.35 mm² (IQR, 4.76-8.31) for DP-ZES (P=.15). No significant differences in stent expansion, residual edge disease and presence of malapposition, tissue protrusion, submedial edge dissections, or edge hematomas were found. Stent diameter and stent length were found to be independent predictors of MSA.CONCLUSIONS: No significant differences in MSA were found between lesions treated with BP-SES vs DP-ZES. BP-SES and DP-ZES were comparable in terms of procedural performance.</p