Distal Versus Conventional Radial Access for Coronary Angiography and Intervention The DISCO RADIAL Trial

BACKGROUND Currently, transradial access (TRA) is the recommended access for coronary procedures because of increased safety, with radial artery occlusion (RAO) being its most frequent complication, which will increasingly affect patients undergoing multiple procedures during their lifetimes. Recently, distal radial access (DRA) has emerged as a promising alternative access to minimize RAO risk. A large-scale, international, randomized trial comparing RAO with TRA and DRA is lacking. OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to assess the superiority of DRA compared with conventional TRA with respect to forearm RAO. METHODS DISCO RADIAL (Distal vs Conventional Radial Access) was an international, multicenter, randomized controlled trial in which patients with indications for percutaneous coronary procedure using a 6-F Slender sheath were randomized to DRA or TRA with systematic implementation of best practices to reduce RAO. The primary endpoint was the incidence of forearm RAO assessed by vascular ultrasound at discharge. Secondary endpoints include crossover, hemostasis time, and access site-related complications. RESULTS Overall, 657 patients underwent TRA, and 650 patients underwent DRA. Forearm RAO did not differ between groups (0.91% vs 0.31%; P = 0.29). Patent hemostasis was achieved in 94.4% of TRA patients. Crossover rates were higher with DRA (3.5% vs 7.4%; P = 0.002), and median hemostasis time was shorter (180 vs 153 minutes; P < 0.001). Radial artery spasm occurred more with DRA (2.7% vs 5.4%; P = 0.015). Overall bleeding events and vascular complications did not differ between groups. CONCLUSIONS With the implementation of a rigorous hemostasis protocol, DRA and TRA have equally low RAO rates. DRA is associated with a higher crossover rate but a shorter hemostasis time. (C) 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier on behalf of the American College of Cardiology Foundation

Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on TAVR Activity: A Worldwide Registry

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic had a considerable impact on the provision of structural heart intervention worldwide. Our objectives were: 1) to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) activity globally; and 2) to determine the differences in the impact according to geographic region and the demographic, development, and economic status of diverse international health care systems. Methods: We developed a multinational registry of global TAVR activity and invited individual TAVR sites to submit TAVR implant data before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, the number of TAVR procedures performed monthly from January 2019 to December 2021 was collected. The adaptive measures to maintain TAVR activity by each site were recorded, as was a variety of indices relating to type of health care system and national economic indices. The primary subject of interest was the impact on TAVR activity during each of the pandemic waves (2020 and 2021) compared with the same period pre–COVID-19 (2019). Results: Data were received from 130 centers from 61 countries, with 14 subcontinents and 5 continents participating in the study. Overall, TAVR activity increased by 16.7% (2,337 procedures) between 2018 and 2019 (ie, before the pandemic), but between 2019 and 2020 (ie, first year of the pandemic), there was no significant growth (–0.1%; –10 procedures). In contrast, activity again increased by 18.9% (3,085 procedures) between 2020 and 2021 (ie, second year of the pandemic). During the first pandemic wave, there was a reduction of 18.9% (945 procedures) in TAVR activity among participating sites, while during the second and third waves, there was an increase of 6.7% (489 procedures) and 15.9% (1,042 procedures), respectively. Further analysis and results of this study are ongoing and will be available at the time of the congress. Conclusion: The COVID-19 pandemic initially led to a reduction in the number of patients undergoing TAVR worldwide, although health care systems subsequently adapted, and the number of TAVR recipients continued to grow in subsequent COVID-19 pandemic waves. Categories: STRUCTURAL: Valvular Disease: Aorti

Unexpected perforation leading to life-threatening cardiac tamponade six years after patent foramen ovale closure with an intrasept device

status: publishe

Magmaris resorbable magnesium scaffold versus conventional drug-eluting stent in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: 1-year results of a propensity score matching comparison.

Magmaris® (Biotronik AG, Switzerland) is the first RMS and early experience has shown promising results in stable coronary artery disease. Acute coronary syndromes have been hypothesized as a potential target group for bioresorbable scaffolds, but the efficacy and safety of RMS has not been extensively studied in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). BEST-MAG is a prospective multicenter trial designed to evaluate optical coherence tomography (OCT-)guided implantation of resorbable magnesium scaffold (RMS) in STEMI. Consecutive STEMI patients fulfilling inclusion/exclusion criteria were treated with RMS following a standardized OCT-based implantation technique including systematic pre- and post-dilatation, and baseline plus final OCT imaging. The primary endpoint was a device oriented composite endpoint (DOCE) including cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction (TV-MI) and target lesion revascularization (TLR) within 12 months. Clinical outcomes were compared after propensity score matching (PSM) to the results of the randomized controlled BIOSTEMI trial comparing biodegradable polymer sirolimus eluting (BP-SES) and durable polymer everolimus eluting stents (DP-EES) in STEMI. Between 15th February 2019 and 25th May 2020, 30 patients were included in 5 centers. Procedural success was achieved in all cases based on OCT control with final scaffold expansion of 82 ± 11%. At twelve-months, DOCE rate was 13.3% (n = 4), including 4 cases of TLR (13.3%) and one case of TV-MI (3.3%). No cardiac death occurred, and no scaffold thrombosis (ScT) was observed. Using PSM, DOCE rates in BP-SES and DP-EES groups were 10% and 6% respectively and TLR rates were 3.3% and 0.0%. In this study, OCT-guided RMS implantation in selected STEMI patients appeared feasible but was associated with numerically higher rates of TLR as compared with conventional drug-eluting stents, although the limited number of patients included in this analysis does not allow drawing statistically significant conclusions

Coronary Endothelium‐Dependent Vasomotor Function After Drug‐Eluting Stent and Bioresorbable Scaffold Implantation

Background Early generation drug-eluting stents (DESs) showed a high grade of coronary endothelial dysfunction that was attributed to lack of stent reendothelialization. Endothelium-dependent vasomotor response of current DESs and bioresorbable scaffolds (BRSs) remains unknown. This study sought to assess the device-related endothelial function of current devices and to correlate neointima healing with endothelial function. Methods and Results A total of 206 patients from 4 randomized trials treated with the durable-polymer everolimus-eluting Xience (n=44), bioresorbable-polymer sirolimus-eluting Orsiro (n=35), polymer-free biolimus-eluting Biofreedom (n=24), bioactive endothelial-progenitor cell-capturing sirolimus-eluting Combo DES (n=25), polymer-based everolimus-eluting Absorb (n=44), and Mg-based sirolimus-eluting Magmaris BRS (n=34) underwent endothelium-dependent vasomotor tests and optical coherence tomography imaging, as per protocol, at follow-up. Crude vasomotor responses of distal segments to low-dose acetylcholine (10-6 mol/L) were different between groups: bioresorbablepolymer DEShad the worst (-8.4%±12.6%) and durable-polymer DES had the most physiologic (-0.4%±11.8%; P=0.014). High-dose acetylcholine (10-4 mol/L) showed similar responses between groups (ranging from -10.8%±11.6% to -18.1%±15.4%; P=0.229). Device healing was different between devices. Uncovered struts ranged from 6.3%±7.1% (bioresorbable-polymer DES) to 2.5%±4.5% (bioactive DES; P=0.056). In multivariate models, endothelium-dependent vasomotor response was associated with age, bioresorbable-polymer DES, and angiographic lumen loss, but not with strut coverage nor plaque type. Endothelial dysfunction (defined as ≥4% vasoconstriction) was observed in 46.6% of patients with low-dose and 68.9% with high-dose acetylcholine, without differences between groups. Conclusions At follow-up, endothelial dysfunction was frequently observed in distal segments treated with current stents without remarkable differences between devices. Although neointima healing was different between devices, poor healing was not associated with endothelial dysfunction

Guiding Myocardial Revascularization by Algorithmic Interpretation of FFR Pullback Curves: A Proof of Concept Study

International audienceBackground: Coronary artery disease distribution along the vessel is a main determinant of FFR improvement after PCI. Identifying focal from diffuse disease from visual inspections of coronary angiogram (CA) and FFR pullback (FFR-PB) are operator-dependent. Computer science may standardize interpretations of such curves. Methods: A virtual stenting algorithm (VSA) was developed to perform an automated FFR-PB curve analysis. A survey analysis of the evaluations of 39 vessels with intermediate disease on CA and a distal FFR &lt;0.8, rated by 5 interventional cardiologists, was performed. Vessel disease distribution and PCI strategy were successively rated based on CA and distal FFR (CA); CA and FFR-PB curve (CA/FFR-PB); and CA and VSA (CA/VSA). Inter-rater reliability was assessed using Fleiss kappa and an agreement analysis of CA/VSA rating with both algorithmic and human evaluation (operator) was performed. We hypothesize that VSA would increase rater agreement in interpretation of epicardial disease distribution and subsequent evaluation of PCI eligibility. Results: Inter-rater reliability in vessel disease assessment by CA, CA/FFR-PB, and CA/VSA were respectively, 0.32 (95% CI: 0.17–0.47), 0.38 (95% CI: 0.23–0.53), and 0.4 (95% CI: 0.25–0.55). The raters' overall agreement in vessel disease distribution and PCI eligibility was higher with the VSA than with the operator (respectively, 67 vs. 42%, and 80 vs. 70%, both p &lt; 0.05). Compared to CA/FFR-PB, CA/VSA induced more reclassification toward a focal disease (92 vs. 56.2%, p &lt; 0.01) with a trend toward more reclassification as eligible for PCI (70.6 vs. 33%, p = 0.06). Change in PCI strategy did not differ between CA/FFR-PB and CA/VSA (23.6 vs. 28.5%, p = 0.38). Conclusions: VSA is a new program to facilitate and standardize the FFR pullback curves analysis. When expert reviewers integrate VSA data, their assessments are less variable which might help to standardize PCI eligibility and strategy evaluations. Clinical Trial Registration: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03824600