Mechanical debulking versus balloon angioplasty for the treatment of true bifurcation lesions

AbstractObjectives. The purpose of this study was to compare the immediate angiographic and long-term results of debulking versus balloon angioplasty for treatment of true bifurcation lesions.Background. Previous studies have shown true bifurcation lesions to be a high risk morphological subset for percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA). Although atherectomy devices have been used to treat bifurcation lesions, no studies have compared the outcomes of these alternative treatment modalities.Methods. Between January 1992 and May 1997, we treated 70 consecutive patients with true bifurcationlesions (defined as a greater than 50% stenosis in both the parent vessel and contiguous side branch) with conventional PTCA (n = 30) or debulking (with rotational or directional atherectomy) plus adjunctive PTCA (n = 40). Paired angiograms were analyzed by quantitative angiography, and clinical follow-up was obtained in all patients.Results. Acute procedural success was 73% in the PTCA group and 97% in the debulking group (p = 0.01). Major in-hospital complications occurred in two patients in the PTCA group and one in the debulking group. Treatment with atherectomy plus PTCA resulted in lower postprocedure residual stenoses than PTCA alone (16 ± 15% vs. 33 ± 17% in the parent vessel, and 6 ± 15% vs. 39 ± 22% in the side branch; p < 0.001 for both comparisons). At 1 year follow-up, the incidence of target vessel revascularization (TVR) was 53% in the PTCA group as compared with 28% in the debulking group (p = 0.05). Independent predictors of the need for repeat TVR were side branch diameter >2.3 mm, longer lesion lengths, and treatment with PTCA alone.Conclusions. For the treatment of true bifurcation lesions, atherectomy with adjunctive PTCA is safe, improves acute angiographic results, and decreases target vessel revascularization compared to PTCA alone. The benefits of debulking for bifurcation lesions were especially seen in lesions involving large side branches

Prognostic value of noninvasive combined anatomic/functional assessment by cardiac CT in patients with suspected coronary artery disease — Comparison with invasive coronary angiography and nuclear myocardial perfusion imaging for the five-year-follow up of the CORE320 multicenter study:Combined CTA/CTP for Long-Term Patient Outcome

BACKGROUND: Few data exist on long-term outcome in patients undergoing combined coronary CT angiography (CTA) and myocardial CT perfusion imaging (CTP) as well as invasive coronary angiography (ICA) and single photon emission tomography (SPECT). METHODS: At 16 centers, 381 patients were followed for major adverse cardiac events (MACE) for the CORE320 study. All patients underwent coronary CTA, CTP, and SPECT before ICA within 60 days. Prognostic performance according binary results (normal/abnormal) was assessed by 5-year major cardiovascular events (MACE) free survival and area under the receiver-operating-characteristic curve (AUC). RESULTS: Follow up beyond 2-years was available in 323 patients. MACE-free survival rate was greater among patients with normal combined CTA-CTP findings compared to ICA-SPECT: 85 vs. 80% (95% confidence interval [CI] for difference 0.1, 11.3) though event-free survival time was similar (4.54 vs. 4.37 years, 95% CI for difference: −0.03, 0.36). Abnormal results by combined CTA-CTP was associated with 3.83 years event-free survival vs. 3.66 years after abnormal combined ICA-SPECT (95% CI for difference: −0.05, 0.39). Predicting MACE by AUC also was similar: 65 vs. 65 (difference 0.1; 95% CI −4.6, 4.9). When MACE was restricted to cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, AUC for CTA-CTP was 71 vs. 60 by ICA-SPECT (difference 11.2; 95% CI −1.0, 19.7). CONCLUSIONS: Combined CTA-CTP evaluation yields at least equal 5-year prognostic information as combined ICA-SPECT assessment in patients presenting with suspected coronary artery disease. Noninvasive cardiac CT assessment may eliminate the need for diagnostic cardiac catheterization in many patients. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00934037