Utility of intracoronary imaging in the cardiac catheterization laboratory: Comprehensive evaluation with intravascular ultrasound and optical coherence tomography

© The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. Background Intracoronary imaging is an important tool for guiding decision making in the cardiac catheterization laboratory. Sources of data We have reviewed the latest available evidence in the field to highlight the various potential benefits of intravascular imaging. Areas of agreement Coronary angiography has been considered the gold standard test to appropriately diagnose and manage patients with coronary artery disease, but it has the inherent limitation of being a 2-dimensional x-ray lumenogram of a complex 3-dimensional vascular structure. Areas of controversy There is well-established inter- and intra-observer variability in reporting coronary angiograms leading to potential variability in various management strategies. Intracoronary imaging improves the diagnostic accuracy while optimizing the results of an intervention. Utilization of intracoronary imaging modalities in routine practice however remains low worldwide. Increased costs, resources, time and expertise have been cited as explanations for low incorporation of these techniques. Growing points Intracoronary imaging supplements and enhances an operator\u27s decision-making ability based on detailed and objective lesion assessment rather than a subjective visual estimation. The benefits of intravascular imaging are becoming more profound as the complexity of cases suitable for revascularization increases. Areas timely for developing research While the clinical benefits of intravascular ultrasound have been well validated, optical coherence tomography in comparison is a newer technology, with robust clinical trials assessing its clinical benefit are underway

Incidence and predictors of target lesion failure in patients undergoing contemporary DES implantation—Individual patient data pooled analysis from 6 randomized controlled trials

© 2019 Elsevier Inc. Background: Drug-eluting stents (DESs) have improved clinical outcomes of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Nevertheless, adverse events related to previously treated lesion still occur. We sought to evaluate the incidence and predictors of target lesion failure (TLF) in patients undergoing contemporary DES implantation. Methods: Patient-level data from 6 prospective, randomized trials were pooled, and DES treatment outcomes were analyzed at up to 5 years. Primary outcome was TLF (cardiac death, target lesion revascularization, or target vessel myocardial infarction). Cox proportional-hazards model was used to identify predictors of TLF. Results: Overall, 10,072 patients were included in the analysis. TLF rate was 1.7%, 4.3%, and 11.9% at 30 days, 1 year, and 5 years, respectively. The only independent predictor of TLF at 30 days was stent length (hazard ratio [HR] 1.017, 95% CI 1.011-1.024, P \u3c .0001). Moderate/severe calcification, stent length and post procedural diameter sthenosis were predictors between 30 days to 1 year but not at 1 to 5 years. Reference vessel diameter was the only lesion-related predictor at 5 years (P = .003). Clinical predictors of TLF between 30 days and 1 year were diabetes and hypertension (P \u3c .01 for both), and between 1 and 5 years, diabetes (HR 1.40, 95% CI 1.13-1.73, P = .002), prior coronary artery bypass grafting (HR 2.52, 95% CI 1.92-3.30, P \u3c .0001), and prior PCI (HR 1.29, 95% CI 1.02-1.64, P = .04) predicted TLF. Conclusions: Predictors of TLF vary in the early, late, and very late postprocedural periods. Reference vessel diameter was the only lesion-related predictor of long-term TLF; clinical predictors were diabetes, prior coronary artery bypass grafting, and prior PCI

Management of coronary disease in patients with advanced kidney disease

BACKGROUND Clinical trials that have assessed the effect of revascularization in patients with stable coronary disease have routinely excluded those with advanced chronic kidney disease. METHODS We randomly assigned 777 patients with advanced kidney disease and moderate or severe ischemia on stress testing to be treated with an initial invasive strategy consisting of coronary angiography and revascularization (if appropriate) added to medical therapy or an initial conservative strategy consisting of medical therapy alone and angiography reserved for those in whom medical therapy had failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction. A key secondary outcome was a composite of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. RESULTS At a median follow-up of 2.2 years, a primary outcome event had occurred in 123 patients in the invasive-strategy group and in 129 patients in the conservative-strategy group (estimated 3-year event rate, 36.4% vs. 36.7%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79 to 1.29; P=0.95). Results for the key secondary outcome were similar (38.5% vs. 39.7%; hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.29). The invasive strategy was associated with a higher incidence of stroke than the conservative strategy (hazard ratio, 3.76; 95% CI, 1.52 to 9.32; P=0.004) and with a higher incidence of death or initiation of dialysis (hazard ratio, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.04 to 2.11; P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease, advanced chronic kidney disease, and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction

Health status after invasive or conservative care in coronary and advanced kidney disease

BACKGROUND In the ISCHEMIA-CKD trial, the primary analysis showed no significant difference in the risk of death or myocardial infarction with initial angiography and revascularization plus guideline-based medical therapy (invasive strategy) as compared with guideline-based medical therapy alone (conservative strategy) in participants with stable ischemic heart disease, moderate or severe ischemia, and advanced chronic kidney disease (an estimated glomerular filtration rate of <30 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 or receipt of dialysis). A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status. METHODS We assessed health status with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) before randomization and at 1.5, 3, and 6 months and every 6 months thereafter. The primary outcome of this analysis was the SAQ Summary score (ranging from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating less frequent angina and better function and quality of life). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate the treatment effect with the invasive strategy. RESULTS Health status was assessed in 705 of 777 participants. Nearly half the participants (49%) had had no angina during the month before randomization. At 3 months, the estimated mean difference between the invasive-strategy group and the conservative-strategy group in the SAQ Summary score was 2.1 points (95% credible interval, 120.4 to 4.6), a result that favored the invasive strategy. The mean difference in score at 3 months was largest among participants with daily or weekly angina at baseline (10.1 points; 95% credible interval, 0.0 to 19.9), smaller among those with monthly angina at baseline (2.2 points; 95% credible interval, 122.0 to 6.2), and nearly absent among those without angina at baseline (0.6 points; 95% credible interval, 121.9 to 3.3). By 6 months, the between-group difference in the overall trial population was attenuated (0.5 points; 95% credible interval, 122.2 to 3.4). CONCLUSIONS Participants with stable ischemic heart disease, moderate or severe ischemia, and advanced chronic kidney disease did not have substantial or sustained benefits with regard to angina-related health status with an initially invasive strategy as compared with a conservative strategy