Search

Patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) represent a high risk group, and have an increased risk of cardiovascular events and worse cardiovascular outcomes. Our aim was to study the impact of PAD among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with a newer-generation thin-strut DES. In this analysis of the e‐ULTIMASTER registry, patients with and without known PAD undergoing PCI were compared. A propensity-score was used to adjust for differences between the groups. The primary outcome was target lesion failure (TLF): a composite of cardiac death, target‐vessel related myocardial infarction, and/or clinically driven target lesion revascularization at 1‐year follow‐up. Of 33,880 patients included in the analysis, PAD was present in 2255 (6.7%). Patients with PAD were older (69.0 ± 10.0 vs. 63.8 ± 11.3 years) with a higher burden of comorbidities. Patients with PAD were less likely to present with STEMI (9.6% vs. 21%), and more likely to undergo complex PCI (left main 5.5% vs. 3.0% ostial lesions 10.4% vs. 7.0%, bifurcations 14.5% vs. 12.3% and calcification 26.8% vs. 17.8%). PAD was found to be independently associated with 41% increased risk for TLF. The risk for all cause death and for cardiac death was 75% and 103% higher, respectably. No difference was found in the rates of stent thrombosis, clinically driven target lesion revascularization, or myocardial infarction (MI). Patients with PAD are at higher risk for (cardiac) death post PCI, but not target vessel or lesion repeat revascularizations. The PAD cohort represents a population with a higher risk clinical profile. Further research combining medical and device therapies is needed to further improve the outcomes in this high-risk population. [Display omitted] • Using the e‐ULTIMASTER PCI registry [n = 33,880 patients], outcomes were compared according to peripheral artery disease (PAD) 2,255 (6.7%) or no PAD. • Patients with PAD were older with a higher burden of comorbidities, and underwent more complex interventions. • PAD was found to be independently associated with 41% increased risk for target lesion failure (TLF). • No difference was found in the rates of stent thrombosis, clinically driven target lesion revascularization, or myocardial infarction (MI). • Patients with PAD treated with contemporary DES are at higher risk for cardiac death post percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), but similar repeat revascularization risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In the drug-eluting stent era, the best strategy to treat Medina 001 lesion remains unestablished. This is the first prospective registry assessing the efficacy and safety of the second-generation drug-coated balloon in patients with side-branch ostial lesion.Methods: Forty-nine patients with de novo Medina 001 lesion and associated myocardial ischemia were treated with second-generation drug-coated balloon-Dior balloon catheter (Eurocor GmbH, Bonn Germany), and prospectively included in this study. After mandatory pre-dilatation, a paclitaxel-eluting balloon was inflated for a minimum of 45 seconds. Left main bifurcation, severely calcified lesions and cardiogenic shock, were the only exclusion criteria.Results: The inclusion period was 2.7 years. Mean age was 62 ± 12 years old, 41% diabetic, 65% presented with acute coronary syndrome. The most common vessel treated was the first diagonal (50%). Pre-dilatation with a cutting balloon was used in 59%. Angiographic success was 86% (in 14% a bare metal stent was implanted because of acute recoil [n = 5] or coronary dissection more than type B [n = 2]). At a mean of 12.2 ± 2.2 months, major cardiac adverse events rate was 14.3% (1 myocardial infarction, 0 cardiac deaths, 7 target lesion revascularization). There was no thrombosis or occlusion. At a mean of 7.2 ± 1.1 months, binary restenosis was 22.5% (n = 7) with a late loss of 0.32 ± 0.73 mm.Conclusion: Medina 001 lesion is an infrequent type of coronary lesion. Drug-coated balloon-Dior is a safe and technically easy therapeutic option, associated with acceptable mid-term clinical outcomes. (J Interven Cardiol 2016;29:285-292). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]