Utility of the ACC/AHA Lesion Classification to Predict Outcomes After Contemporary DES Treatment:Individual Patient Data Pooled Analysis From 7 Randomized Trials

BACKGROUND: Use of the modified American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA) lesion classification as a prognostic tool to predict short‐ and long‐term clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention in the modern drug‐eluting stent era is uncertain. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patient‐level data from 7 prospective, randomized trials were pooled. Clinical outcomes of patients undergoing single lesion percutaneous coronary intervention with second‐generation drug‐eluting stent were analyzed according to modified ACC/AHA lesion class. The primary end point was target lesion failure (TLF: composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or ischemia‐driven target lesion revascularization). Clinical outcomes to 5 years were compared between patients treated for noncomplex (class A/B1) versus complex (class B2/C) lesions. Eight thousand five hundred sixteen patients (age 63.1±10.8 years, 70.5% male) were analyzed. Lesions were classified as A, B1, B2, and C in 7.9%, 28.5%, 33.7%, and 30.0% of cases, respectively. Target lesion failure was higher in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention of complex versus noncomplex lesions at 30 days (2.0% versus 1.1%, P=0.004), at 1 year (4.6% versus 3.0%, P=0.0005), and at 5 years (12.4% versus 9.2%, P=0.0001). By multivariable analysis, treatment of ACC/AHA class B2/C lesions was significantly associated with higher rate of 5‐year target lesion failure (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.39 [95% CI, 1.17–1.64], P=0.0001) driven by significantly higher rates of target vessel myocardial infarction and ischemia‐driven target lesion revascularization. CONCLUSIONS: In this pooled large‐scale analysis, treating complex compared with noncomplex lesions according to the modified ACC/AHA classification with second‐generation drug‐eluting stent was associated with worse 5‐year clinical outcomes. This historical classification system may be useful in the contemporary era for predicting early and late outcomes following percutaneous coronary intervention

Safety and efficacy of coronary sinus narrowing in chronic refractory angina: Insights from the RESOURCE study

Introduction: Refractory angina (RA) is considered the end-stage of coronary artery disease, and often has no interventional treatment options. Coronary sinus Reducer (CSR) is a recent addition to the therapeutic arsenal, but its efficacy has only been evaluated on small populations. The RESOURCE registry provides further insights into this therapy. Methods: The RESOURCE is an observational, retrospective registry that includes 658 patients with RA from 20 centers in Europe, United Kingdom and Israel. Prespecified endpoints were the amelioration of anginal symptoms evaluated with the Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) score, the rates of procedural success and complications, and MACEs as composite of all-cause mortality, acute coronary syndromes, and stroke. Results: At a median follow-up of 502 days (IQR 225–1091) after CSR implantation, 39.7% of patients improved by ≥2 CCS classes (primary endpoint), and 76% by ≥1 class. Procedural success was achieved in 96.7% of attempts, with 3% of procedures aborted mostly for unsuitable coronary sinus anatomy. Any complication occurred in 5.7% of procedures, but never required bailout surgery nor resulted in intra- or periprocedural death or myocardial infarction. One patient developed periprocedural stroke after inadvertent carotid artery puncture. At the last available follow-up, overall mortality and MACE were 10.4% and 14.6% respectively. At one, three and five years, mortality rate at Kaplan-Meier analysis was 4%, 13.7%, and 23.4% respectively. Conclusions: CSR implantation is safe and reduces angina in patients with refractory angina