Search

New-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) encompass a large variety of coronary devices, featuring thin struts, biocompatible durable or biodegradable polymer coatings, and limus-eluting drugs. Due to improved early and long-term outcomes among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, new-generation metallic DES are recommended in almost all patient and lesion subsets. Available evidence from randomized trials indicates a similar safety and efficacy profile between biodegradable and durable polymers new-generation DES. Recently, polymer-free DES provided promising results particularly as alternative to bare-metal stents. Ultimately, although remaining conceptually solid, bioresorbable vascular scaffolds represent an immature technology owing to increased risk of thrombosis. In this review, we summarized current evidence about contemporary coronary devices.

Radial approach has been used since 1989 to perform coronary angiography as an alternative to femoral access. During past decades, the development of dedicated equipment has led to high efficacy also in complex procedures. ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is known to be a high bleeding risk setting and in turn bleeding events can negatively impact on outcomes. Observational studies have demonstrated feasibility, efficacy and safety of radial approach when compared to femoral access in STEMI patients, with benefit in bleeding rates. These advantages have also been described in specific populations such as in the elderly and in patients with cardiogenic shock. Some large randomized trials have been conducted to assess outcomes of transradial access versus transfemoral access, with RIVAL and MATRIX representing the largest two studies. The RIVAL documented a significant reduction in access site-related complications in the global population of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients, with also lower mortality and net clinical adverse events (NACE), mainly driven by significant reduction of bleeding and all-cause mortality, in the STEMI sub-group. Overall, the MATRIX trial confirmed that radial access decreased bleeding and all-cause death thus reducing the rate of NACE and supporting the transradial access as the one to be preferred in ACS patients. Clinical advantages of radial access have been also tested in smaller randomized trials corroborating the evidence of radial access as a highly recommendable alternative to femoral access in the setting of primary percutaneous coronary intervention (p-PCI). The current evidence suggests that radial access should become the default access for patients with ACS undergoing invasive management.

To date, the gold standard of aortic stenosis treatment is surgical valve replacement. However, in inoperable or high risk patients a valid alternative is transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Several trials showed feasibility, efficacy and safety of TAVI, with a tailored strategy for these patients on the basis of their clinical and anatomical conditions. The selection of valve type (CoreValve® or Edwards Sapien®) and transcatheter approach (transfemoral, transapical, subclavian or direct aortic approach) is an important step in the management of aortic stenosis. However, mortality is high and it is mainly related to non-cardiac reasons, given the high clinical risk profile of these patients. Moreover, the less invasive approach, the faster recovery, the reduced morbidity and the improved psychological tolerance, typical of TAVI, suggest that this technique could be used in a broader spectrum of cases, becoming a valid therapeutic alternative even in patients with severe aortic stenosis with a low surgical risk or asymptomatics. The identification of aortic stenosis patients by the medical community and their assessment over time, before they become candidates only for "extreme" strategies, remains the main challenge.

Coronary flow reserve is a useful physiologic parameter providing information on coronary stenoses severity. To date, the gold standard to evaluate coronary flow reserve consists of fractional flow reserve (FFR) measurement, assessed with a pressure-wire. The FFR has a high lesion specificity, due to insensitivity to patient hemodynamic status and to coronary microvascular resistance; it shows low inter- and intraindividual variability and a well-defined, bound cut-off range values (0.75-0.80). Several reports confirmed that FFR has high reproducibility and feasibility in patients with either single- or multi-vessel coronary artery disease, or with both stable and instable coronary artery disease and that is significantly associated with patient outcome. More recently, the FFR has been used as a sensitive marker of successful percutaneous coronary intervention, since postprocedural FFR value strongly predicts patients event-free survival rate after angioplasty. Moreover, it has been demonstrated that abnormal FFR ratios can be also associated with diffused atherosclerotic coronary artery disease in the absence of unique angiographically detectable stenoses requiring revascularization. There are strong evidences supporting that the FFR provides crucial functional information that could be related with morphological endovascular ultrasound findings, with the possibility to achieve same information in a cheaper, easier and more available manner. This review will focus on the current available literature regarding coronary flow reserve quantification and its clinical validation, suggesting and highlighting its current and future clinical applications.

The authors report, for the first time, immediate and mid-term outcome of early antiplatelet therapy discontinuation followed by uneventful non-cardiac surgery and endovascular aortic repair, few days after successful deployment of an endothelial progenitor cell capturing coronary stent, in three consecutive patients.