Search

The aneurysms of sinus of Valsalva are rare cardiac anomalies, which may be either acquired or congenital. A congenital lack of continuity between the aortic media and annulus fibrosus may initiate aneurysm formation. Acquired aneurysms may result from trauma, endocarditis, syphilis, Behcet, atherosclerosis and senile-type dilatation. We report a case of a 38-year-old man who presented with aneurysm of the right sinus of Valsalva with fistula between it and the right ventricular outflow and pulmonary trunk dilatation diagnosed by transthoracic echocardiography (TTE), chest computed tomography (CT) scan and transesophageal ecocardiography (TEE). We describe this case which has been successfully-treated because the concomitant presence of an aneurysm of the right Valsalva sinus, a fistula between it and the right ventricular outflow and pulmonary trunk dilatation represents an extremely rare and poorly described event in the literature.

Current international guidelines strongly recommend the use of high-intensity lipid-lowering therapy (LLT) after hospitalization for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) events. With this study, our aim was to evaluate LLT prescribing in a large Italian cohort of patients after discharge for an ASCVD event, exploring factors associated with a lower likelihood of receiving any LLT and high-intensity LLT. Individuals aged 18 years and older discharged for an ASCVD event in 2019–2020 were identified using hospital discharge abstracts from two local health units of the Campania region. LLT treatment patterns were analyzed in the 6 months after the index event. Logistic regression models were developed for estimating patient predictors of any LLT prescription and to compare high-intensity and low-to-moderate-intensity LLT. Results: A total of 8705 subjects were identified. In the 6 months post-discharge, 56.7% of patients were prescribed LLT and, of those, 48.7% were high-intensity LLT. Female sex, older age, and stroke/TIA or PAD conditions were associated with a higher likelihood of not receiving high-intensity LLT. Similar predictors were found for LLT prescriptions. LLT utilization and the specific use of high-intensity LLT remain low in patients with ASCVD, suggesting a substantial unmet need among these patients in the contemporary real-world setting.

Summary Objective In the SMILE-4 study, zofenopril + acetyl salicylic acid (ASA) was more effective than ramipril + ASA on 1-year prevention of major cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by left ventricular dysfunction. In this retrospective analysis, we evaluated drug efficacy in subgroups of patients, according to a history of diabetes mellitus. Methods The primary study endpoint was 1-year combined occurrence of death or hospitalization for cardiovascular causes. Diabetes was defined according to medical history (previous known diagnosis). Results A total of 562 of 693 (81.0%) patients were classified as nondiabetics and 131 (18.9%) as diabetics. The adjusted rate of MACE was lower under zofenopril than under ramipril in both nondiabetics [27.9% vs. 34.9% ramipril; odds ratio, OR and 95% confidence interval: 0.55 (0.35, 0.86)] and diabetics [30.9% vs. 41.3%; 0.56 (0.18, 1.73)], although the difference was statistically significant only for the nondiabetic group (P = 0.013). Zofenopril was superior to ramipril as regards to the primary study endpoint in the subgroup of 157 patients with uncontrolled blood glucose (≥126 mg/dL), regardless of a previous diagnosis of diabetes [0.31 (0.10, 0.90), P = 0.030]. Zofenopril significantly reduced the risk of hospitalization for cardiovascular causes in both nondiabetics [0.64 (0.43, 0.96), P = 0.030] and diabetics [0.38 (0.15, 0.95), P = 0.038], whereas it was not better than ramipril in terms of prevention of cardiovascular deaths. Conclusions This retrospective analysis of the SMILE-4 study confirmed the good efficacy of zofenopril plus ASA in the prevention of long-term MACE also in the subgroup of patients with diabetes mellitus.

Stent fracture (SF) is a rare adverse complication that might occur in peripheral and coronary artery, particularly with sirolimus-eluting stent (SES). The structural characteristics of this device with closed cell design and stainless steel scaffolding prompts to a probable fracture of stent. This adverse event is strongly associated with in-stent restenosis (ISR), target lesion revascularization (TLR) and stent thrombosis (ST). We report the fluoroscopic and tomographic patterns of fractured stent associate with restenosis and thrombotic sub-occlusion treated by bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS). To our knowledge, this is the first published report of SF that was treated by BVS.

Background— Treatment of in-stent restenosis (ISR) is still challenging. In this setting, the use of bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) seems attractive because it allows drug delivery combined with transient vessel scaffolding. We aimed to investigate the long-term results after BVS use in ISR lesions. Methods and Results— A prospective analysis was performed on all patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention with BVS implantation for ISR at 7 Italian Centers. Primary end point was the device-oriented composite end point (cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization) at the longest follow-up available. From April 2012 to June 2014, 116 patients (127 lesions) underwent percutaneous coronary intervention for ISR with BVS implantation. Among the ISR lesions, the majority were drug-eluting stent ISR (78, 61.6%), de novo ISR (92, 72.4%), and diffuse ISR (81, 63.8%). Procedural success was achieved for all (100%) patients. No in-hospital death, myocardial infarction, or revascularization occurred. At 15 months of follow-up, the incidence of the device-oriented composite end point estimated with the Kaplan–Meier method was 9.1%. No significant differences were reported between drug-eluting stent and bare-metal stent ISR groups in terms of device-oriented composite end point (10.9% versus 6.4%; hazard ratio, 1.7; 95% confidence interval, 0.5–6.5; P =0.425) and its singular components (cardiac death: 2.8% versus 2.0%, hazard ratio, 1.3; 95% confidence interval, 0.1–14.1, P =0.843; target vessel myocardial infarction: 1.5% versus 0%, P =0.421; ischemia-driven target lesion revascularization: 9.6% versus 4.4%, hazard ratio, 2.3; 95% confidence interval, 0.5–10.8, P =0.309). Conclusions— Our registry suggests that the use of BVS implantation for the treatment of complex drug-eluting stent and bare-metal stent ISR lesions might be associated with acceptable long-term clinical outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Antecedent hypertension represents a risk factor for adverse outcomes in survivors of acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Prognosis of such patients might be greatly improved by drugs enhancing blood pressure control. In the present retrospective analysis of the randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, SMILE-4 study we compared the efficacy of zofenopril 60 mg and acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) 100 mg versus ramipril 10 mg and ASA in patients with AMI complicated by left ventricular dysfunction, classified according to a history of hypertension. METHODS: The primary study end-point was 1-year combined occurrence of death or hospitalization for cardiovascular causes. Hypertension was defined according to medical history and current blood pressure values at entry and could be determined in 682 of 716 patients of the intention-to-treat analysis. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty-seven patients (23%) were normotensives and 525 (77%) hypertensives. In the normotensive population the primary end-point occurred in 19 of 76 zofenopril-treated patients (25%) and in 23 of 81 ramipril-treated patients (28%) [odds ratio (95% confidence interval): 0.84 (0.41-1.71), P = 0.631]. In the hypertensive population, major cardiovascular outcomes were reported in 84 of 273 zofenopril-treated patients (31%) and in 99 of 252 ramipril-treated patients (39%), with a 31% significantly (P = 0.041) lower risk with zofenopril [0.69 (0.48-0.99)]. The superiority of zofenopril versus ramipril was particularly evident in patients with isolated systolic hypertension [n = 131, 0.48 (0.23-0.99), P = 0.045]. CONCLUSION: This retrospective analysis of the SMILE-4 study confirmed the good efficacy of zofenopril and ASA in the prevention of long-term cardiovascular outcomes also in the subgroup of patients with hypertension.