Remote ischaemic preconditioning in coronary artery bypass surgery: a meta-analysis

Aim Randomised trials exploring remote ischaemic preconditioning (RIPC) in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery have yielded conflicting data regarding potential cardiovascular and renal protection, and are individually flawed by small sample size. Methods Three investigators independently searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases to identify randomised trials testing RIPC in patients undergoing CABG. Results Nine studies with 704 patients were included. Standardised mean difference of troponin I and T release showed a significant decrease ( 120.36 (95% CI 120.62 to 120.09)). This difference held true after excluding the trials with cross-clamp fibrillation, the study with off-pump CABG and studies using a flurane as anaesthetic agent ( 120.41 (95% CI 120.69 to 120.12), 120.38 (95% CI 120.70 to 120.07) and 120.37 (95% CI 120.63 to 120.12), respectively). A similar trend was also obtained for patients with multivessel disease ( 120.41 (95% CI 120.73 to 120.08)). The trials evaluating postoperative creatinine reported a non-significant reduction (0.02 (95% CI 120.09 to 0.13)). Moreover, the length of in-hospital stay was not influenced by the kind of treatment (weighted mean difference 0.27 (95% CI 120.24 to 0.79)). Conclusion RIPC reduced the release of troponin in patients undergoing CABG. Larger randomised trials are needed to clarify the presence of a causal relationship between RIPC-induced troponin release and clinical adverse events

Use and misuse of multivariable approaches in interventional cardiology studies on drug-eluting stents: a systematic review.

Aims: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are the most reliable evidence, even if they require important resource and logistic efforts. Large, cost-free and real-world datasets may be easily accessed yielding to observational studies, but such analyses often lead to problematic results in the absence of careful methods, especially from a statistic point of view. We aimed to appraise the performance of current multivariable approaches in the estimation of causal treatment and effects in studies focusing on drug-eluting stents (DES). Methods and Results: Pertinent studies published in the literature were searched, selected, abstracted, and appraised for quality and validity features. Six studies with a logistic regression were included, all of them reporting more than 10 events for covariates and different length of follow-up, with an overall low risk of bias. Most of the 15 studies with a Cox proportional hazard analysis had a different follow-up, with less than 10 events for covariates, yielding an overall low or moderate risk of bias. Sixteen studies with propensity score were included: the most frequent method for variable selection was logistic regression, with underlying differences in follow-up and less than 10 events for covariate in most of them. Most frequently, calibration appraisal was not reported in the studies, on the contrary of discrimination appraisal, which was more frequently performed. In seventeen studies with propensity and matching, the latter was most commonly performed with a nearest neighbor-matching algorithm yet without appraisal in most of the studies of calibration or discrimination. Balance was evaluated in 46% of the studies, being obtained for all variables in 48% of them. Conclusions: Better exploitation and methodological appraisal of multivariable analysis is needed to improve the clinical and research impact and reliability of nonrandomized studies. (J Interven Cardiol 2012;**:1-1

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation in a 54-year-old patient with aggressive HIV.

We report a case of a 54-year-old patient who was denied surgical replacement for severe aortic stenosis because of complicated acquired immunodeficiency syndrome and who successfully underwent transcatheter aortic valve implantation at our institution

TIMI, GRACE and alternative risk scores in Acute Coronary Syndromes: A meta-analysis of 40 derivation studies on 216,552 patients and of 42 validation studies on 31,625 patients.

BACKGROUND: Acute coronary syndromes (ACS) represent a difficult challenge for physicians. Risk scores have become the cornerstone in clinical and interventional decision making. METHODS AND RESULTS: PubMed was systematically searched for ACS risk score studies. They were divided into ACS studies (evaluating Unstable Angina; UA, Non ST Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction; NSTEMI, and ST Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction; STEMI), UA/NSTEMI studies or STEMI studies. The c-statistics of validation studies were pooled when appropriate with random-effect methods. 7 derivation studies with 25,525 ACS patients and 15 validation studies including 257,654 people were formally appraised. Pooled analysis of GRACE scores, both at short (0.82; 0.80-0.89 I.C 95%) and long term follow up (0.84; 0.82-0.87; I.C 95%) showed the best performance, with similar results to Simple Risk Index (SRI) derivation cohorts at short term. For NSTEMI/UA, 18 derivation studies with 56,560 patients and 18 validation cohorts with 56,673 patients were included. Pooled analysis of validations studies showed c-statistics of 0.54 (95% CI = 0.52-0.57) and 0.67 (95% CI = 0.62-0.71) for short and long term TIMI validation studies, and 0.83 (95% CI = 0.79-9.87) and 0.80 (95% CI = 0.74-0.89) for short and long term GRACE studies. For STEMI, 15 studies with 134,557 patients with derivation scores, and 17 validation studies with 187,619 patients showed a pooled c-statistic of 0.77 (95% CI = 0.71-0.83) and 0.77 (95% CI = 0.72-0.85) for TIMI at short and long term, and a pooled c-statistic of 0.82 (95% CI = 0.81-0.83) and 0.81 (95% CI = 0.80-0.82) for GRACE at short and long terms respectively. CONCLUSIONS: TIMI and GRACE are the risk scores that up until now have been most extensively investigated, with GRACE performing better. There are other potentially useful ACS risk scores available however these have not undergone rigorous validation. This study suggests that these other scores may be potentially useful and should be further researched

Classification of coronary artery bifurcation lesions and treatments: Time for a consensus!

Background: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of coronary bifurcation lesions remains a subject of debate. Many studies have been published in this setting. They are often small scale and display methodological flaws and other shortcomings such as inaccurate designation of lesions, heterogeneity, and inadequate description of techniques implemented. Methods: The aim is to propose a consensus established by the European Bifurcation Club (EBC), on the definition and classification of bifurcation lesions and treatments implemented with the purpose of allowing comparisons between techniques in various anatomical and clinical settings. Results: A bifurcation lesion is a coronary artery narrowing occurring adjacent to, and/or involving, the origin of a significant side branch. The simple lesion classification proposed by Medina has been adopted. To analyze the outcomes of different techniques by intention to treat, it is necessary to clearly define which vessel is the distal main branch and which is (are) the side branche(s) and give each branch a distinct name. Each segment of the bifurcation has been named following the same pattern as the Medina classification. The classification of the techniques (MADS: Main, Across, Distal, Side) is based on the manner in which the first stent has been implanted. A visual presentation of PCI techniques and devices used should allow the development of a software describing quickly and accurately the procedure performed. Conclusion: The EBC proposes a new classification of bifurcation lesions and their treatments to permit accurate comparisons of well described techniques in homogeneous lesion groups. © 2008 Wiley-Liss, Inc

are drug eluting stents superior to bare metal stents in patients with unprotected non bifurcational left main disease insights from a multicentre registry

Aims To compare long-term clinical outcome following drug-eluting stents (DES) or bare-metal stents (BMS) implantation on lesions located at the ostium or the shaft of the left main in a large real-world population. The advent of DES decreased the risk of unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) restenosis when compared with BMS, but it is unclear if this advantage continues when non-bifurcational lesions are considered. Methods and results The GISE-SICI registry is a retrospective, observational multicentre registry promoted by the Italian Society of Invasive Cardiology in which 19 high-volume participating centres enrolled 1453 consecutive patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention on ULMCA between January 2002 and December 2006. From the registry, a total of 479 consecutive patients with ostial and shaft lesions who underwent DES ( n = 334) or BMS ( n = 145) implantation were analysed with extensive multivariable and propensity score adjustments. At 3-year follow-up, risk-adjusted survival rates were higher in patients treated with DES than in those treated with BMS. The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for the risk of mortality after DES implantation relative to BMS implantation was 0.37 (95% CI: 0.15–0.96, P = 0.04). The adjusted HR for the risk of cardiac mortality was 0.31 (95% CI: 0.09–1.04, P = 0.06). The adjusted 3-year rates of target lesion revascularization (TLR) were not significantly lower in the DES group than in the BMS group ( P = 0.60). Conclusion In a large population of patients with lesions located at the ostium or the shaft of the left main in a real-world setting, DES were associated with favourable clinical outcomes when compared with BMS, although there was no evidence of a significant reduction in TLR with DES vs. BMS

Early and long-term outlook of percutaneous coronary intervention for bifurcation lesions in young patients

Coronary artery disease is most common in older patients, but may occur in younger subjects. The outlook of young patients after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of challenging lesion subsets such as coronary bifurcations, is not established. We thus aimed to appraise the early and long-term results of PCI for bifurcations in young patients

Comparison of bioresorbable vs durable polymer drug-eluting stents in unprotected left main (from the RAIN-CARDIOGROUP VII Study)

International audienceAbstract Background There are limited data regarding the impact of bioresorbable polymer drug eluting stent (BP-DES) compared to durable polymer drug eluting stent (DP-DES) in patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention using ultrathin stents in left main or bifurcations. Methods In the RAIN registry (ClinicalTrials NCT03544294, june 2018 retrospectively registered) patients with a ULM or bifurcation stenosis treated with PCI using ultrathin stents (struts thinner than 81 μm) were enrolled. The primary endpoint was the rate of target lesion revascularization (TLR); major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE, a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, TLR and stent thrombosis) and its components, along with target vessel revascularization (TVR) were the secondary ones. A propensity score with matching analysis to compare patients treated with BP-DES versus DP-DES was also assessed. Results From 3001 enrolled patients, after propensity score analysis 1400 patients (700 for each group) were selected. Among them, 352 had ULM disease and 1048 had non-LM bifurcations. At 16 months (12–22), rates of TLR (3.7% vs 2.9%, p = 0.22) and MACE were similar (12.3% vs. 11.6%, p = 0.74) as well as for the other endpoints. Sensitivity analysis of outcomes after a two-stents strategy, showed better outcome in term of MACE (20.4% vs 10%, p = 0.03) and TVR (12% vs 4.6%, p = 0.05) and a trend towards lower TLR in patients treated with BP-DES. Conclusion In patients with bifurcations or ULM treated with ultrathin stents BP-DES seems to perform similarly to DP-DES: the trends toward improved clinical outcomes in patients treated with the BP-DES might potentially be of value for speculating the stent choice in selected high-risk subgroups of patients at increased risk of ischemic events. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03544294 . Retrospectively registered June 1, 2018

Revascularization for Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Disease: An Evolution in Clinical Decision Making

Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) has been considered the standard therapy for unprotected (nonrevascularized) left main coronary disease (ULM). However, increasing experience with ULM percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has resulted in high procedural success and favorable early and late clinical outcomes. In particular, reduction in clinical restenosis with drug-eluting stents, evolution of procedural technique, and demonstration of favorable outcomes from comparative trials with CABG have promoted consideration of PCI as an alternative revascularization strategy in selected patients with ULM disease. This review summarizes the results from comparative studies examining PCI versus CABG for ULM disease, discusses changing indications for ULM PCI and identifies outstanding issues that must be considered before further advancing treatment recommendations