Excimer laser coronary angioplasty in coronary lesions: Use and safety from the NCDR/CATH PCI Registry

[Figure: see text]

Novel patient-centered approach to facilitate same-day discharge in patients undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention

Background Same‐day discharge ( SDD ) after elective percutaneous coronary intervention is safe, less costly, and preferred by patients, but it is usually performed in low‐risk patients, if at all. To increase the appropriate use of SDD in more complex patients, we implemented a “patient‐centered” protocol based on risk of complications at Barnes‐Jewish Hospital. Methods and Results Our objectives were as follows: (1) to evaluate time trends in SDD ; (2) to compare (a) mortality, bleeding, and acute kidney injury, (b) patient satisfaction, and (c) hospital costs by SDD versus no SDD ( NSDD ); and (3) to compare SDD eligibility by our patient‐centered approach versus Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions guidelines. Our patient‐centered approach was based on prospectively identifying personalized bleeding, mortality, and acute kidney injury risks, with a personalized safe contrast limit and mitigating those risks. We analyzed Barnes‐Jewish Hospital's National Cardiovascular Data Registry Cath PCI Registry data from July 1, 2009 to September 30, 2015 (N=1752). SDD increased rapidly from 0% to 77% ( P &lt;0.001), independent of radial access. Although SDD patients were comparable to NSDD patients, SDD was not associated with adverse outcomes (0% mortality, 0% bleeds, and 0.4% acute kidney injury). Patient satisfaction was high with SDD . Propensity score–adjusted costs were 7331 lower/ SDD patient ( P <0.001), saving an estimated 1.8 million annually. Only 16 patients (6.95%) met the eligibility for SDD by Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions guidelines, implying our patient‐centered approach markedly increased SDD eligibility. Conclusions With a patient‐centered approach, SDD rapidly increased and was safe in 75% of patients undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention, despite patient complexity. Patient satisfaction was high, and hospital costs were lower. Patient‐centered decision making to facilitate SDD is an important opportunity to improve the value of percutaneous coronary intervention. </jats:sec

Association of lower fractional flow reserve values with higher risk of adverse cardiac events for lesions deferred revascularization among patients with acute coronary syndrome

BACKGROUND: The safety of deferring revascularization based on fractional flow reserve (FFR) during acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is unclear. We evaluated the association of FFR and adverse cardiac events among patients with coronary lesions deferred revascularization based on FFR in the setting of ACS versus non-ACS. METHODS AND RESULTS: The study population (674 patients; 816 lesions) was divided into ACS (n=334) and non-ACS (n=340) groups based on the diagnosis when revascularization was deferred based on FFR values >0.80 between October 2002 and July 2010. The association and interaction between FFR and clinical outcomes was evaluated using Cox proportional hazards models within each group (mean follow-up of 4.5±2.1 years). Subsequent revascularization of a deferred lesion was classified as a deferred lesion intervention (DLI), whereas the composite of DLI or myocardial infarction (MI) attributed to a deferred lesion was designated as deferred lesion failure (DLF). In the non-ACS group, lower FFR values were not associated with any increase in adverse cardiac events. In the ACS group, every 0.01 decrease in FFR was associated with a significantly higher rate of cardiovascular death, MI, or DLI (hazard ratio [HR], 1.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03 to 1.12), MI or DLI (HR, 1.09; 95% CI: 1.04 to 1.14), DLF (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.18), MI (HR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.14), and DLI (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.18). CONCLUSION: Lower FFR values among ACS patients with coronary lesions deferred revascularization based on FFR are associated with a significantly higher rate of adverse cardiac events. This association was not observed in non-ACS patients

Clinical Events After Deferral of LAD Revascularization Following Physiological Coronary Assessment

BACKGROUND Physicians are not always comfortable deferring treatment of a stenosis in the left anterior descending (LAD) artery because of the perception that there is a high risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE). The authors describe, using the DEFINE-FLAIR (Functional Lesion Assessment of Intermediate Stenosis to Guide Revascularisation) trial, MACE rates when LAD lesions are deferred, guided by physiological assessment using fractional flow reserve (FFR) or the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR). OBJECTIVES The purpose of this study was to establish the safety of deferring treatment in the LAD using FFR or iFR within the DEFINE-FLAIR trial. METHODS MACE rates at 1 year were compared between groups (iFR and FFR) in patients whose physiological assessment led to LAD lesions being deferred. MACE was defined as a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), and unplanned revascularization at 1 year. Patients, and staff performing follow-up, were blinded to whether the decision was made with FFR or iFR. Outcomes were adjusted for age and sex. RESULTS A total of 872 patients had lesions deferred in the LAD (421 guided by FFR, 451 guided by iFR). The event rate with iFR was significantly lower than with FFR (2.44% vs. 5.26%; adjusted HR: 0.46; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.22 to 0.95; p = 0.04). This was driven by significantly lower unplanned revascularization with iFR and numerically lower MI (unplanned revascularization: 2.22% iFR vs. 4.99% FFR; adjusted HR: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.93; p = 0.03; MI: 0.44% iFR vs. 2.14% FFR; adjusted HR: 0.23; 95% CI: 0.05 to 1.07; p = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS iFR-guided deferral appears to be safe for patients with LAD lesions. Patients in whom iFR-guided deferral was performed had statistically significantly lower event rates than those with FFR-guided deferral. (c) 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier on behalf of the American College of Cardiology Foundation. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).Peer reviewe

Safety of the Deferral of Coronary Revascularization on the Basis of Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio and Fractional Flow Reserve Measurements in Stable Coronary Artery Disease and Acute Coronary Syndromes

OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical outcomes of patients deferred from coronary revascularization on the basis of instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) or fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurements in stable angina pectoris (SAP) and acute coronary syndromes (ACS). BACKGROUND Assessment of coronary stenosis severity with pressure guidewires is recommended to determine the need for myocardial revascularization. METHODS The safety of deferral of coronary revascularization in the pooled per-protocol population (n = 4,486) of the DEFINE-FLAIR (Functional Lesion Assessment of Intermediate Stenosis to Guide Revascularisation) and iFR-SWEDEHEART (Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio Versus Fractional Flow Reserve in Patients With Stable Angina Pectoris or Acute Coronary Syndrome) randomized clinical trials was investigated. Patients were stratified according to revascularization decision making on the basis of iFR or FFR and to clinical presentation (SAP or ACS). The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE), defined as the composite of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization at 1 year. RESULTS Coronary revascularization was deferred in 2,130 patients. Deferral was performed in 1,117 patients (50%) in the iFR group and 1,013 patients (45%) in the FFR group (p <0.01). At 1 year, the MACE rate in the deferred population was similar between the iFR and FFR groups (4.12% vs. 4.05%; fully adjusted hazard ratio: 1.13; 95% confidence interval: 0.72 to 1.79; p = 0.60). A clinical presentation with ACS was associated with a higher MACE rate compared with SAP in deferred patients (5.91% vs. 3.64% in ACS and SAP, respectively; fully adjusted hazard ratio: 0.61 in favor of SAP; 95% confidence interval: 0.38 to 0.99; p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS Overall, deferral of revascularization is equally safe with both iFR and FFR, with a low MACE rate of about 4%. Lesions were more frequently deferred when iFR was used to assess physiological significance. In deferred patients presenting with ACS, the event rate was significantly increased compared with SAP at 1 year. (C) 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier on behalf of the American College of Cardiology Foundation.Peer reviewe