Plasma circulating microRNAs in patients with stable coronary artery disease - Impact of different cardiovascular risk profiles and glomerular filtration rates

Copyright: © Whioce Publishing Pte. Ltd.Background and Aim: Plasma circulating microRNA (miRNA)-126, -145, and -155 are associated with vascular remodeling, atherosclerotic lesion formation, and plaque vulnerability. In this study, we evaluated the levels of plasma circulating miRNAs in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD), different cardiovascular risk profiles, and different glomerular filtration rates (GFR). Methods and Results: Forty patients with stable CAD admitted for elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were enrolled in a prospective study. Before PCI, fasting blood samples were obtained to evaluate clinical parameters and miRNA-126 and miRNA-155 expression. The GFR was calculated by the MDRD and CKD-EPI formulas, and the severity of CAD was calculated according to the SYNTAX score. All these parameters were correlated with miRNAs. The association between miRNA levels and clinical characteristics was evaluated. The expression of miRNA-126 positively correlated with a higher SYNTAX score (r = 0.337; p=0.034); however, no significant correlations between miR-126, GFR, and clinical characteristics were observed. Higher plasma levels of miRNA-155 correlated with increased levels of triglycerides (r = 0.317; P = 0.049), C-peptide (r = 0.452; P = 0.011), and the HOMA index (r = 0.447; P = 0.012) and a higher body mass index (BMI) (r = 0.385; P = 0.015). GFR and miRNA-155 (MDRD - Rho=0.353; P = 0.027. CKD-EPI - Rho=0.357; P = 0.026) were found to have a moderate correlation, although miRNA-155 had no correlation with the SYNTAX score. Conclusion: Plasma circulating miRNA-126 levels were increased in patients with severe atherosclerosis as determined by the SYNTAX score. Elevated miRNA-155 expression was observed in patients with Stage 1 GFR but was lower in patients with Stages 2 and 3 GFR. Plasma circulating miRNA-155 had positive correlations with higher levels of BMI, HOMA index, C-peptide, and triglycerides. Relevance for Patients: Although further investigations are needed to confirm the role of miRNA-155 and miRNA-126, they may serve as potential biomarkers detecting severity of CAD, lowering of kidney function and metabolic syndrome.publishersversionPeer reviewe

Randomised comparison of provisional side branch stenting versus a two-stent strategy for treatment of true coronary bifurcation lesions involving a large side branch : the Nordic-Baltic Bifurcation Study IV

Background It is still uncertain whether coronary bifurcations with lesions involving a large side branch (SB) should be treated by stenting the main vessel and provisional stenting of the SB (simple) or by routine two-stent techniques (complex). We aimed to compare clinical outcome after treatment of lesions in large bifurcations by simple or complex stent implantation. Methods The study was a randomised, superiority trial. Enrolment required a SB >= 2.75 mm, >= 50% diameter stenosis in both vessels, and allowed SB lesion length up to 15 mm. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiac death, non-procedural myocardial infarction and target lesion revascularisation at 6 months. Two-year clinical follow-up was included in this primary reporting due to lower than expected event rates. Results A total of 450 patients were assigned to simple stenting (n = 221) or complex stenting (n=229) in 14 Nordic and Baltic centres. Two-year follow-up was available in 218 (98.6%) and 228 (99.5%) patients, respectively. The primary endpoint of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 6 months was 5.5% vs 2.2% (risk differences 3.2%, 95% CI -0.2 to 6.8, p=0.07) and at 2 years 12.9% vs 8.4% (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.13, p = 0.12) after simple versus complex treatment. In the subgroup treated by newer generation drug-eluting stents, MACE was 12.0% vs 5.6% (HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.17, p = 0.10) after simple versus complex treatment. Conclusion In the treatment of bifurcation lesions involving a large SB with ostial stenosis, routine two-stent techniques did not improve outcome significantly compared with treatment by the simpler main vessel stenting technique after 2 years.Peer reviewe

Four-Year Outcomes of Left Main Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with a Bioresorbable Scaffold in the Circumflex Ostium

Publisher Copyright: © 2022 Andrejs Erglis et al.Objectives. The study aimed to investigate the long-term outcomes of a double stent scaffold strategy in patients with left main (LM) bifurcation lesions involving the ostium of the left circumflex artery (LCX), utilizing a drug-eluting stent (DES) in the LM extending into the left anterior descending artery (LAD) and a bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) in the LCX ostium. Background. The high occurrence of in-stent restenosis of the LCX ostium is the major limitation of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for LM lesions with a two-stent strategy. Methods. This was a single-center, prospective, single-arm study of 46 consecutively enrolled patients with a stable coronary artery disease and significant unprotected LM distal bifurcation disease. Patients underwent imaging-guided PCI using DES in the LM-LAD and BVS in the LCX using a T-stent or mini-crush technique. The primary outcome at four years was the composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and target lesion revascularization (TLR). Results. At four years, the primary outcome was identified in 9 patients (19.6%). All events were TLRs except one myocardial infarction due to BVS thrombosis. Seven of the eight TLRs were a result of side branch BVS restenosis. Univariate predictors of the 4-year outcome were higher LDL cholesterol and BVS size ≤2.5 mm. On multivariate analysis, LCX lesion preparation with a cutting balloon and post-procedure use of intravascular ultrasound for optimization were found to be independent protective factors of MACE. Conclusions. In selected patients with LM distal bifurcation disease, an imaging-guided double stent scaffold strategy with DES in the LM and BVS in the LCX ostium was technically successful in all patients and was reasonably safe and effective for four years.Peer reviewe

TCT-400 2-Year Clinical Follow-up of the TRYTON IDE Randomized Trial Comparing a Dedicated Bifurcation Stent to Provisional Stenting in the Treatment of Coronary Bifurcations

n/

Randomised comparison of provisional side branch stenting versus a two-stent strategy for treatment of true coronary bifurcation lesions involving a large side branch:the Nordic-Baltic Bifurcation Study IV

Background - It is still uncertain whether coronary bifurcations with lesions involving a large side branch (SB) should be treated by stenting the main vessel and provisional stenting of the SB (simple) or by routine two-stent techniques (complex). We aimed to compare clinical outcome after treatment of lesions in large bifurcations by simple or complex stent implantation. Methods - The study was a randomised, superiority trial. Enrolment required a SB≥2.75 mm, ≥50% diameter stenosis in both vessels, and allowed SB lesion length up to 15 mm. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiac death, non-procedural myocardial infarction and target lesion revascularisation at 6 months. Two-year clinical follow-up was included in this primary reporting due to lower than expected event rates. Results - A total of 450 patients were assigned to simple stenting (n=221) or complex stenting (n=229) in 14 Nordic and Baltic centres. Two-year follow-up was available in 218 (98.6%) and 228 (99.5%) patients, respectively. The primary endpoint of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 6 months was 5.5% vs 2.2% (risk differences 3.2%, 95% CI −0.2 to 6.8, p=0.07) and at 2 years 12.9% vs 8.4% (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.13, p=0.12) after simple versus complex treatment. In the subgroup treated by newer generation drug-eluting stents, MACE was 12.0% vs 5.6% (HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.17, p=0.10) after simple versus complex treatment. Conclusion - In the treatment of bifurcation lesions involving a large SB with ostial stenosis, routine two-stent techniques did not improve outcome significantly compared with treatment by the simpler main vessel stenting technique after 2 years

Long-term results after simple versus complex stenting of coronary artery bifurcation lesions:nordic bifurcation study 5-year follow-up results

ObjectivesThis study sought to report the 5-year follow-up results of the Nordic Bifurcation Study.BackgroundRandomized clinical trials with short-term follow-up have indicated that coronary bifurcation lesions may be optimally treated using the optional side branch stenting strategy.MethodsA total of 413 patients with a coronary bifurcation lesion were randomly assigned to a simple stenting strategy of main vessel (MV) and optional stenting of side branch (SB) or to a complex stenting strategy, namely, stenting of both MV and SB.ResultsFive-year clinical follow-up data were available for 404 (98%) patients. The combined safety and efficacy endpoint of cardiac death, non–procedure-related myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization were seen in 15.8% in the optional SB stenting group as compared to 21.8% in the MV and SB stenting group (p = 0.15). All-cause death was seen in 5.9% versus 10.4% (p = 0.16) and non–procedure-related myocardial infarction in 4% versus 7.9% (p = 0.09) in the optional SB stenting group versus the MV and SB stenting group, respectively. The rates of target vessel revascularization were 13.4% versus 18.3% (p = 0.14) and the rates of definite stent thrombosis were 3% versus 1.5% (p = 0.31) in the optional SB stenting group versus the MV and SB stenting group, respectively.ConclusionsAt 5-year follow-up in the Nordic Bifurcation Study, the clinical outcomes after simple optional side branch stenting remained at least equal to the more complex strategy of planned stenting of both the main vessel and the side branch

Percutaneous coronary angioplasty versus coronary artery bypass grafting in treatment of unprotected left main stenosis (NOBLE) : a prospective, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial

Background Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is the standard treatment for revascularisation in patients with left main coronary artery disease, but use of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for this indication is increasing. We aimed to compare PCI and CABG for treatment of left main coronary artery disease. Methods In this prospective, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial, patients with left main coronary artery disease were enrolled in 36 centres in northern Europe and randomised 1: 1 to treatment with PCI or CABG. Eligible patients had stable angina pectoris, unstable angina pectoris, or non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Exclusion criteria were ST-elevation myocardial infarction within 24 h, being considered too high risk for CABG or PCI, or expected survival of less than 1 year. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events (MACCE), a composite of all-cause mortality, non-procedural myocardial infarction, any repeat coronary revascularisation, and stroke. Non-inferiority of PCI to CABG required the lower end of the 95% CI not to exceed a hazard ratio (HR) of 1 . 35 after up to 5 years of follow-up. The intention-to-treat principle was used in the analysis if not specified otherwise. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, number NCT01496651. Findings Between Dec 9, 2008, and Jan 21, 2015, 1201 patients were randomly assigned, 598 to PCI and 603 to CABG, and 592 in each group entered analysis by intention to treat. Kaplan-Meier 5 year estimates of MACCE were 29% for PCI (121 events) and 19% for CABG (81 events), HR 1 . 48 (95% CI 1 . 11-1 . 96), exceeding the limit for non-inferiority, and CABG was significantly better than PCI (p=0 . 0066). As-treated estimates were 28% versus 19% (1 . 55, 1 . 18-2 . 04, p= 0 . 0015). Comparing PCI with CABG, 5 year estimates were 12% versus 9% (1 . 07, 0 . 67-1 . 72, p= 0 . 77) for all-cause mortality, 7% versus 2% (2 . 88, 1 . 40-5 . 90, p= 0 . 0040) for non-procedural myocardial infarction, 16% versus 10% (1 . 50, 1 . 04-2 . 17, p= 0 . 032) for any revascularisation, and 5% versus 2% (2 . 25, 0 . 93-5 . 48, p= 0 . 073) for stroke. Interpretation The findings of this study suggest that CABG might be better than PCI for treatment of left main stem coronary artery disease.Peer reviewe

The Tryton (R) dedicated bifurcation stent: Five-year clinical outcomes

Item does not contain fulltex