Search

The aim of this review is to highlight the role of invasive functional evaluation in patients in whom coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) is indicated, and to examine the clinical evidence available in favour of fractional flow reserve (FFR) adoption in these patients, outline appropriate use, as well as point out potential pitfalls. FFR after CABG will also be reviewed, highlighting its correct interpretation and adoption when applied to both native coronary arteries and bypass grafts. Practice European guidelines support the use of FFR to complement coronary angiography with the highest degree of recommendation (Class IA) for the assessment of coronary stenosis before undertaking myocardial revascularization when previous non-invasive functional evaluation is unavailable or not conclusive. As a result, FFR has been adopted in routine clinical practice to guide clinicians decision as to whether or not perform a revascularization. Of note, due to the increasing confidence of the interventional cardiologists, FFR guidance is also being implemented to indicate or guide CABG. This is in anticipation of supportive clear-cut evidence, since recommendations for FFR adoption were based on randomized clinical trials investigating percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) strategies in which patients with typical indications for CABG were excluded (e.g. left main disease, valvular disease, and coronary anatomy unsuitable for PCI). Based on the critical appraisal of the literature, FFR can play an important role in risk stratification and determining management strategy of patients either before or after CABG. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Cardiogenic shock (CS) exhibits high (~50%) in-hospital mortality. The recently published Extracorporeal life Support in Cardiogenic Shock (ECLS-SHOCK) trial demonstrated the neutral effects of the use of veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) on all-cause death, as well as on all secondary outcomes in subjects presenting with myocardial-infarction (MI)-related CS. Here, we compared ECLS-SHOCK eligibility criteria with a real-world cohort of CS patients. Methods and Results: ECLS-SHOCK eligibility criteria were applied to a prospective single-center CS registry (the PREPARE CS registry) consisting of 557 patients who were consecutively admitted to the catheterization laboratory (cath lab) of the Medical University of Graz, Austria, due to CS (SCAI C-E). Overall use of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in this cohort was 19%. Sixty-nine percent of the entire cohort had MI-related CS, 38% of whom would have met ECLS-SHOCK eligibility criteria, thus representing only 27% of the PREPARE CS registry. Exclusion from the ECLS-SHOCK trial was based on patients with initial lactate values below 3 mmol/L (n = 168; 43.6%), aged over 80 years (n = 65; 16.9%), and with a duration of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) exceeding 45 min (n = 22; 5.7%). The 30-day mortality of patients of the PREPARE CS registry who met the ECLS-SHOCK eligibility criteria was 57.0%, compared to 48.4% of patients in the ECLS-SHOCK trial. The patients' baseline characteristics, however, differed considerably with respect to type of infarction, age, and gender. Conclusions: In a real-world cohort of patients with MI-related CS, only 38% of patients met the eligibility criteria of the ECLS-SHOCK trial. Thus, the impact of the use of VA-ECMO on outcome parameters in MI-related CS, as observed in the ECLS-SHOCK trial, may differ in a more heterogeneous real-world CS population of the PREPARE CS registry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Post-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) fractional flow reserve (FFR) reflects residual atherosclerotic burden and is associated with future events. How much post-PCI FFR can be predicted based on baseline basic information and the clinical relevance have not been investigated. We compiled a multicenter registry of patients undergoing pre- and post-PCI FFR. Machine-learning (ML) algorithms were designed to predict post-PCI FFR levels from baseline demographics, quantitative coronary angiography, and pre-PCI FFR. FFR deviation was defined as actual minus ML-predicted post-PCI FFR levels, and its association with incident target vessel failure (TVF) was evaluated. Median (IQR) pre- and post-PCI FFR values were 0.71 (0.61, 0.77) and 0.88 (0.84, 0.93), respectively. The Spearman correlation coefficient of the actual and predicted post-PCI FFR was 0.54 (95% CI: 0.52, 0.57). FFR deviation was non-linearly associated with incident TVF (HR [95% CI] with Q3 as reference: 1.65 [1.14, 2.39] in Q1, 1.42 [0.98, 2.08] in Q2, 0.81 [0.53, 1.26] in Q4, and 1.04 [0.69, 1.56] in Q5). A model with polynomial function of continuous FFR deviation indicated increasing TVF risk for FFR deviation ≤0 but plateau risk with FFR deviation >0. An ML-based algorithm using baseline data moderately predicted post-PCI FFR. The deviation of post-PCI FFR from the predicted value was associated with higher vessel-oriented event. [Display omitted] • A machine-learning algorithm moderately predicted post-PCI FFR. • Discrepancy of actual and predicted post-PCI FFR was associated with TVF. • No additional benefit would be expected by achieving higher than the predicted FFR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) is the most common inherited heart disease that is characterized by left ventricular hypertrophy unexplained by secondary causes. Based on international epidemiological data, around 20,000-40,000 patients are expected to be affected in Austria. Due to the wide variety of clinical and morphological manifestations the diagnosis can be difficult and the disease therefore often goes unrecognized. HCM is associated with a substantial reduction in quality of life and can lead to sudden cardiac death, especially in younger patients. Early and correct diagnosis, including genetic testing, is essential for comprehensive counselling of patients and their families and for effective treatment. The latter is especially true as an effective treatment of outflow tract obstruction has recently become available in the form of a first in class cardiac myosin ATPase inhibitor, as a noninvasive alternative to established septal reduction therapies. The aim of this Austrian consensus statement is to summarize the recommendations of international guidelines with respect to the genetic background, pathophysiology, diagnostics and management in the context of the Austrian healthcare system and resources, and to present them in easy to understand algorithms., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: The 12-month outcomes of BIOMAG-I - the first-in-human study investigating the third-generation drug-eluting resorbable magnesium scaffold (DREAMS 3G) - showed promising results regarding clinical outcomes and late lumen loss., Aims: The current study aimed to investigate vascular healing parameters assessed by optical coherence tomography (OCT) and intravascular ultrasound (IVUS), focusing on strut visibility, vessel and scaffold areas, and neointimal growth patterns., Methods: This is a BIOMAG-I substudy including patients with available serial OCT and IVUS data. We conducted a frame-based analysis of OCT findings in conjunction with IVUS-derived vessel and scaffold areas, evaluating the qualitative and quantitative aspects of vascular healing., Results: Among the 116 patients enrolled in this trial, 56 patients treated with DREAMS 3G were included in the analysis. At 12 months, OCT imaging revealed that 99.0% of the struts were invisible, and no malapposed struts were depicted. While the vessel area showed no significant difference between the timepoints, the minimum lumen area significantly decreased from post-percutaneous coronary intervention to 6 months (6.88 mm 2 to 4.75 mm 2 ; p<0.0001), but no significant changes were observed between 6 and 12 months. Protruding neointimal tissue (PNT) - a unique neointimal presentation observed following resorbable magnesium scaffold implantation - was observed in 89.3% of the study patients at 12 months, and its area exhibited a 47.4% decrease from 6 to 12 months., Conclusions: This imaging substudy revealed that, at 12-month follow-up, virtually all struts of the DREAMS 3G scaffold became invisible, without evident malapposition. The vascular healing response to DREAMS 3G implantation also appeared favourable up to 12 months, which is indicated by advanced strut degradation and spontaneous regressing PNT between 6 and 12 months.

Objectives: INCORPORATE trial was designed to evaluate whether default coronary-angiography (CA) and ischemia-targeted revascularization is superior compared to a conservative approach for patients with treated critical limb ischemia (CLI). Registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03712644) on October 19, 2018., Background: Severe peripheral artery disease is associated with increased cardiovascular risk and poor outcomes., Methods: INCORPORATE was an open-label, prospective 1:1 randomized multicentric trial that recruited patients who had undergone successful CLI treatment. Patients were randomized to either a conservative or invasive approach regarding potential coronary artery disease (CAD). The conservative group received optimal medical therapy alone, while the invasive group had routine CA and fractional flow reserve-guided revascularization. The primary endpoint was myocardial infarction (MI) and 12-month mortality., Results: Due to COVID-19 pandemic burdens, recruitment was halted prematurely. One hundred eighty-five patients were enrolled. Baseline cardiac symptoms were scarce with 92% being asymptomatic. Eighty-nine patients were randomized to the invasive approach of whom 73 underwent CA. Thirty-four percent had functional single-vessel disease, 26% had functional multi-vessel disease, and 90% achieved complete revascularization. Conservative and invasive groups had similar incidences of death and MI at 1 year (11% vs 10%; hazard ratio 1.21 [0.49-2.98]). Major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) trended for hazard in the Conservative group (20 vs 10%; hazard ratio 1.94 [0.90-4.19]). In the per-protocol analysis, the primary endpoint remained insignificantly different (11% vs 7%; hazard ratio 2.01 [0.72-5.57]), but the conservative approach had a higher MACCE risk (20% vs 7%; hazard ratio 2.88 [1.24-6.68])., Conclusion: This trial found no significant difference in the primary endpoint but observed a trend of higher MACCE in the conservative arm., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Although the use of rotational atherectomy (RA) is off-label in the setting of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), it can be the only option in severely calcified culprit lesions to achieve procedural success. We sought to investigate the safety and feasibility of RA during primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI)., Methods: This was a retrospective observational study of patients who underwent RA during PPCI from 12 European centres. The main outcomes were procedural success (defined as successful stent implantation with final thrombolysis in myocardial infarction [TIMI] flow 3 and residual stenosis < 30%) and in-hospital mortality. A comparison of patients presenting with and without shock was performed., Results: In 104 patients with RA during STEMI, the mean age was 72.8 ± 9.1 years, and 35% presented with cardiogenic shock. Bailout RA was performed in 76.9% of cases. Mean burr size was 1.42 ± 0.21 mm. Procedural success was achieved in 86.5% of cases, with no difference between shocked and nonshocked patients (94.4% vs 82.4%; P = 0.13). In-hospital stent thrombosis occurred in 0.96%, perforation in 1.9% and burr entrapment in 2.9% of cases. In spite of equally high procedural success, in-hospital mortality was higher in shocked (50%) compared with nonshocked patients (1.5%; P < 0.0001)., Conclusions: Patients presenting with STEMI requiring RA, represent a high-risk population, frequently presenting with cardiogenic shock. In this analysis of selected patients, RA was performed as a bailout strategy in the majority, and, as such, RA seems to be feasible with a high procedural success rate. In the absence of cardiogenic shock, RA-facilitated PCI seems to be associated with low in-hospital mortality., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: The aim of the study is to assess the impact of the baseline plaque composition on the DREAMS 3G luminal late loss and to compare the serial plaque changes between baseline and 6 and 12 months (M) follow-up., Methods and Results: A total of 116 patients were enrolled in the BIOMAG-I trial. Patients were imaged with optical coherence tomography (OCT) pre- and post-DREAMS 3G implantation and at 6 and 12 M. OCTPlus software uses artificial intelligence to assess composition (i.e. lipid, calcium, and fibrous tissue) of the plaque. The differences between the OCT-derived minimum lumen area (MLA) post-percutaneous coronary intervention and 12 M were grouped into three terciles. Patients with larger MLA differences at 12 M (P = 0.0003) had significantly larger content of fibrous tissue at baseline. There was a reduction of 24.8% and 20.9% in lipid area, both P < 0.001, between the pre-DREAMS 3G OCT and the 6 and 12 M follow-up. Conversely, the fibrous tissue increased by 48.4% and 36.0% at 6 and 12 M follow-up, both P < 0.001., Conclusion: The larger the fibrous tissue in the lesion at baseline, the larger the luminal loss seen at 6 and 12 M. Following the implantation of DREAMS 3G, favourable healing of the vessel coronary wall occurs as shown by a decrease in the lipid area and an increase in fibrous tissue., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: H.M.G.-G., R.W., G.D.M., M.G., S.B., A.K., and M.B.L. were core laboratory members, and the remaining authors were investigators of the trial. H.M.G.-G. has grants or contracts from Medtronic, Biotronik, Abbott, Neovasc, Corflow, Alucentbio, Philips, and Chiesi (paid to institution), received consulting fees from Boston Scientific and ACIST, and participates in DSMB/advisory board of the VIVID study. R.W. has grants or contracts from Amgen, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Philips IGT; received consulting fees from Abbott Vascular, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Cordis, Medtronic, Philips IGT, Pi-Cardia Ltd, Swiss Interventional Systems/SIS Medical AG, Transmural Systems Inc, and Venous MedTech; received honoraria from AstraZeneca; participates in DSMB/advisory boards of Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Philips IGT, and Pi-Cardia Ltd; and is an investor in MedAlliance and Transmural Systems Inc. J.T. reports grants and contracts from Abbott paid to his institution, speaker honoraria and support for attending meetings from Biotronik, and is an associate editor of Cardiovascular Biologics and Regenerative Medicine and Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine. J.E. reports personal fees/speaker honoraria from Abbott, Boston Scientific, Philips, and Shockwave, patents from Shared, and participation in advisory boards of Abbott and Phillips. The institution of J.F.I. receives grants or contracts from Terumo Corp, Biosensors, Concept Medical, Biotronik, Abbott Vascular, and Philips Volcano. J.F.I. reports consulting fees from Biotronik, Medtronic, Cordis, Terumo Corp., and ReCor Medical; speaker fees/honoraria from Terumo Corp, Biosensors, Medalliance, OrbusNeich, Concept Medical, Bristol Myers Squibb/Pfizer, Novartis, Cordis, AstraZeneca, and Philips Volcano; and support to attend meetings from Biotronik and Amgen. The institution of J.B. receives grants or contracts from Shockwave IVLS. J.B. receives consulting fees from Biotronik AG and Boston Scientific and speaker fees/honoraria from Biotronik AG, Boston Scientific, and Abbott Vascular, participates in the DSMB of Boston Scientific, and has a leadership or fiduciary role for Biotronik. G.G.T. reports consulting fees from Biotronik, Medtronic, Abbott, and Terumo and honoraria from Biotronik, Medtronic, Abbott, and Terumo. M.J. reports grant support from Boston Scientific, Cardiac Dimensions, Edwards Lifesciences, and Infraredx; consulting fees from AlchiMedics SAS, Biotronik, TriCares, Veryan, and Shockwave; speaker fees/honoraria from Abbott Vascular, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Edwards Lifesciences, Cardiac Dimensions, AstraZeneca, Recor Medical, and Shockwave; travel support from SIS Medical, Edwards Lifesciences, Boston Scientific, and Cardiac Dimensions; and participation in Steering Committees of Biotronik and Edwards Lifesciences. R.T. reports lecture fees from Biotronik. M.W. reports speaker honoraria and conference attendance support from Biotronik. G.O. reports lecturer honoraria from Abbott Vascular, Biotronik, and Cordis and is a DSMB member of the SCIENCE trial and a CEC-member of the BIOFREEDOM STEMI trial. M.H. reports grants/contracts from Biotronik, Cardiac Dimensions, OrbusNeich, and Philips; consulting fees from Biotronik, Cardiac Dimensions, Shockwave Medical, and OrbusNeich; honoraria/speaker fees from Biotronik, Cardiac Dimensions, Shockwave Medical, OrbusNeich, and Philips; and support to attend meetings/travel support from Biotronik, is a steering committee member of the BIOSOLVE and BIOMAG trials, and is a past president of EAPCI. All other authors have no conflict of interest to declare., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

(1) Background : Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in myocardial infarction-associated cardiogenic shock is subject to debate. This analysis aims to elucidate the impact of MCS's timing on patient outcomes, based on data from the PREPARE CS registry. (2) Methods : The PREPARE CS prospective registry includes patients who experienced cardiogenic shock (SCAI classes C-E) and were subsequently referred for cardiac catheterization. Our present analysis included a subset of this registry, in whom MCS was used and who underwent coronary intervention due to myocardial infarction. Patients were categorized into an Upfront group and a Procedural group, depending on the timing of MCS's introduction in relation to their PCI. The endpoint was in-hospital mortality. (3) Results : In total, 71 patients were included. MCS was begun prior to PCI in 33 (46%) patients (Upfront), whereas 38 (54%) received MCS during or after the initiation of PCI (Procedural). The groups' baseline characteristics and hemodynamic parameters were comparable. The Upfront group had a higher utilization of the Impella ® device compared to extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (67% vs. 33%), while the Procedural group exhibited a balanced use of both (50% vs. 50%). Most patients suffered from multi-vessel disease in both groups (82% vs. 84%, respectively; p = 0.99), and most patients required a complex PCI procedure; the latter was more prevalent in the Upfront group (94% vs. 71%, respectively; p = 0.02). Their rates of complete revascularization were comparable (52% vs. 34%, respectively; p = 0.16). Procedural CPR was significantly more frequent in the Procedural group (45% vs. 79%, p < 0.05); however, in-hospital mortality was similar (61% vs. 79%, respectively; p = 0.12). (4) Conclusions : The upfront implantation of MCS in myocardial infarction-associated CS did not provide an in-hospital survival benefit.

Background: Discordance between coronary angiographic findings and invasive functional significance is well-established. Yet, the prevalence of this mismatch in an era increasingly utilizing invasive functional assessments, such as fractional flow reserve (FFR), remains unclear. This study examines the extent of such discrepancies in current clinical practice., Methods: This single-center prospective registry included consecutive patients with chronic coronary syndrome (CCS) who underwent elective coronary angiography, with or without revascularization. Coronary angiograms deemed not requiring FFR due to clear anatomical distinctions, either anatomically severe indicating a need for revascularization or mild suggesting no need for intervention, were selected for evaluation. These were then subjected to post-hoc analysis by three independent operators who were blinded to the definitive treatment strategies. Importantly, the post-hoc analysis was conducted in two distinct phases: firstly, a re-evaluation of coronary stenosis, and secondly, a separate functional assessment, each carried out independently. Coronary stenosis severity was assessed visually, while functional relevance was determined by quantitative flow ratio (QFR), calculated using a computational fluid dynamics algorithm applied to angiographic images. Analysis focused on discrepancies between QFR-based functional indications and revascularization strategies actually performed., Results: In 191 patients, 488 vessels were analyzed. Average diameter stenosis (DS) was 37 ± 34%, and QFR was 0.87 ± 0.15, demonstrating a moderate correlation ( r  = -0.84; 95% CI: -0.86 to -0.81, p  < 0.01). Agreement with QFR at conventional anatomical cutoffs was 88% for 50% DS and 91% for 70% DS. Mismatches between revascularization decisions and QFR indications occurred in 10% of cases. Discrepancies were more frequent in the left anterior descending artery (14%) compared to the left circumflex (6%) and the right coronary artery (9%; p  = 0.07)., Conclusion: In a cardiac-center where FFR utilization is high, discordance between coronary angiography and functional significance persists, even when operators are confident in their decisions not to use functional interrogation. This gap, most evident in the left anterior descending artery, highlights the potential need for integrated angiography-based functional assessments to refine revascularization decisions in CCS., Competing Interests: GT receives personal fees from Abbott, Medtronic, Biotronik and Boston Scientific, outside the present work. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (© 2024 Kanoun Schnur, Pranevičius, Stark, Prunea, Andreka, Schmidt, Harb, Ruzsa, Zweiker, Kane and Toth.)

Background: Patients with high bleeding risk (HBR) are often treated with abbreviated dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to reduce bleeding risk, however this strategy is associated with an increase in ischemic events, especially if the acute PCI result is suboptimal. We compared clinical outcomes among patients with HBR treated with 1-month DAPT who underwent intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)- or optical coherence tomography (OCT)-guided PCI versus those who underwent angiography-guided PCI without intravascular imaging., Methods: The Onyx ONE Clear study includes patients with HBR from the Onyx ONE US/Japan and Onyx ONE randomized studies who were treated with the Resolute Onyx zotarolimus-eluting stent. The primary endpoint was the composite of cardiac death (CD) or myocardial infarction (MI) between 1 month and 2 years after PCI. Propensity-score adjustments and matching were performed for differences in baseline and procedural characteristics between groups., Results: Among the 1507 patients in Onyx ONE Clear, 271 (18.0 %) had IVUS or OCT used during PCI (Imaging-guided group) and 1236 (82.0 %) underwent Angiography-guided PCI (Angio-guided group). Imaging-guided patients were less likely to present with atrial fibrillation, acute coronary syndrome, and left ventricle ejection fraction ≤35 %. Conversely, Imaging-guided patients were more likely to have complex (ACC/AHA type B2/C), longer, and heavily calcified lesions. Between 1 month and 2 years, the composite rate of CD or MI was similar between Imaging-guided and Angio-guided patients (9.9 % vs. 12.4 %, P = 0.33). There was also no difference between groups after adjustment; (P = 0.56). However, CD was significantly lower among Imaging-guided patients (2.7 % vs. 6.1 %, P = 0.048). There were no between-group differences in MI or stent thrombosis. Propensity score matching results were similar., Conclusion: Despite higher lesion complexity, using intravascular imaging guidance for PCI between 1-month and 2-years follow-up had comparable outcomes with angiographic guidance alone in patients with HBR treated with 1-month DAPT. (ClinicalTrials.gov: Identifier: NCT03647475 and NCT03344653)., Non-Standard Abbreviations and Acronyms: BARC: Bleeding Academic Research Consortium; DAPT: dual antiplatelet therapy; DES: drug-eluting stent; HBR: high bleeding risk; IVUS: intravascular ultrasound; OCT: optical coherence tomography; SAPT: single antiplatelet therapy., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest G.G.T. reports consultancy fees and unrestricted research supports from Medtronic, Biotronik, Terumo and Abbott, outside of this project. D.E.K. reports institutional research/grant support from Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Cardiovascular Systems, Inc., Orbus Neich, Teleflex, Medtronic and Ablative Solutions; and personal consulting honoraria from Ablative Solutions, Cardiovascular Systems, Inc., Magenta Medical, Medtronic, and Terumo. A.J.K. reports institutional funding to Columbia University and/or Cardiovascular Research Foundation from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Abbott Vascular, Abiomed, CSI, CathWorks, Siemens, Philips, ReCor Medical, Neurotronic. In addition to research grants, institutional funding includes fees paid to Columbia University and/or Cardiovascular Research Foundation for consulting and/or speaking engagements in which Dr. Kirtane controlled the content. Personal: Consulting from IMDS; Travel Expenses/Meals from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Abbott Vascular, Abiomed, CSI, CathWorks, Siemens, Philips, ReCor Medical, Chiesi, OpSens, Zoll, and Regeneron. S.W. reports research and educational grants to the institution from Abbott, Abiomed, Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Biotronik, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardinal Health, CardioValve, Corflow Therapeutics, CSL Behring, Daiichi Sankyo, Edwards Lifesciences, Guerbet, InfraRedx, Janssen-Cilag, Johnson & Johnson, Medicure, Medtronic, Merck Sharp & Dohm, Miracor Medical, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Organon, OrPha Suisse, Pfizer, Polares, Regeneron, Sanofi-Aventis, Servier, Sinomed, Terumo, Vifor, V-Wave. He serves as unpaid advisory board member and/or unpaid member of the steering/executive group of trials funded by Abbott, Abiomed, Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Boston Scientific, Biotronik, Bristol Myers Squibb, Edwards Lifesciences, Janssen, MedAlliance, Medtronic, Novartis, Polares, Recardio, Sinomed, Terumo, V-Wave and Xeltis, but has not received personal payments by pharmaceutical companies or device manufacturers. He is also member of the steering/executive committee group of several investigator-initiated trials that receive funding by industry without impact on his personal remuneration. A. Latib reports consulting fees from Medtronic, Abbott Vascular, and Boston Scientific. E.K. has speaker honoraria from Medtronic, Abbott, Aortic Lab, and has received institutional grants from Abbott and Medtronic. R.M. reports institutional research payments from Abbott, Abiomed, Alleviant Medical, AM-Pharma, Applied Therapeutics, Arena, AstraZeneca, BAIM, Bayer, Beth Israel Deaconess, Biosensors, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CardiaWave, CellAegis, CeloNova, CERC, Chiesi, Concept Medical, CSL Behring, Cytosorbents, DSI, Duke University, Element Science, Faraday, Humacyte, Idorsia, Insel Gruppe AG, Magenta, Medtronic, Novartis, OrbusNeich, Philips, RenalPro, Vivasure, Zoll; personal fees from Cine-Med Research, WebMD; consulting fees paid to the institution from Abbott, Janssen, Medtronic, Novartis; Equity <1 % in Applied Therapeutics, Elixir Medical, STEL, CONTROLRAD (spouse); Scientific Advisory Board for AMA, ACC (BOT Member), SCAI (Women in Innovations Committee Member), JAMA Associate Editor; Faculty CRF (no fee). M.J.P. reports consulting and speaker's honoraria from Abbott Vascular, Baylis Medical, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, Shockwave Medical, and W.L. Gore and consulting honoraria from Biotronik, InnovHeart, and Philips. J.W.C. is an advisory board member for Medtronic and is on the speaker bureau for Shockwave Medical. R.C. has nothing to disclose. R.T. reports institutional grant/support from Medtronic, Biotronik, Micell Technologies, B/Braun, Sahajanand Medical Technologies, Abbot Vascular, Pfizer, Amgen, Regeneron, Novartis, Bayer, Medicins Company, Esperion, Daiichi Sankyo, CLS Behring, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Celecor Therapeutics. E.D. has nothing to disclose. S.S. has nothing to disclose. S.S.B. reports institutional research/grant support from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Edwards Lifesciences. A. Loussararian has nothing to disclose. S.C. is a consultant for CoreValve and Medtronic. M.T. has nothing to disclose. G.W.S. has received speaker honoraria from Medtronic, Pulnovo, Infraredx; has served as a consultant to Valfix, TherOx, Robocath, HeartFlow, Ablative Solutions, Vectorious, Miracor, Neovasc, Abiomed, Ancora, Elucid Bio, Occlutech, CorFlow, Apollo Therapeutics, Impulse Dynamics, Vascular Dynamics, Shockwave, V-Wave, Cardiomech, Gore, Amgen; and has equity/options from Ancora, Cagent, Applied Therapeutics, Biostar family of funds, SpectraWave, Orchestra Biomed, Aria, Cardiac Success, Valfix, Xenter. Dr. Stone's daughter is an employee at Medtronic. Institutional disclosure: Dr. Stone's employer, Mount Sinai Hospital, receives research support from Abbott, Bioventrix, Cardiovascular Systems Inc., Phillips, Biosense-Webster, Shockwave, Vascular Dynamics and V-wave. T.L. is an employee and shareholder of Medtronic. D.M. reports proctor and consultation fees from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Microport., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Both left ventricular systolic function and fractional flow reserve (FFR) are prognostic factors after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, how these prognostic factors are inter-related in risk stratification of patients after PCI remains unclarified., Objectives: This study evaluated differential prognostic implication of post-PCI FFR according to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF)., Methods: A total of 2,965 patients with available LVEF were selected from the POST-PCI FLOW (Prognostic Implications of Physiologic Investigation After Revascularization with Stent) international registry of patients with post-PCI FFR measurement. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiac death or target-vessel myocardial infarction (TVMI) at 2 years. The secondary outcome was target-vessel revascularization (TVR) and target vessel failure, which was a composite of cardiac death, TVMI, or TVR., Results: Post-PCI FFR was independently associated with the risk of target vessel failure (per 0.01 decrease: HR adj : 1.029; 95% CI: 1.009-1.049; P = 0.005). Post-PCI FFR was associated with increased risk of cardiac death or TVMI (HR adj : 1.145; 95% CI: 1.025-1.280; P = 0.017) among patients with LVEF ≤40%, and with that of TVR in patients with LVEF >40% (HR adj : 1.028; 95% CI: 1.005-1.052; P = 0.020). Post-PCI FFR ≤0.80 was associated with increased risk of cardiac death or TVMI in the LVEF ≤40% group and with that of TVR in LVEF >40% group. Prognostic impact of post-PCI FFR for the primary outcome was significantly different according to LVEF ( P interaction  = 0.019)., Conclusions: Post-PCI FFR had differential prognostic impact according to LVEF. Residual ischemia by post-PCI FFR ≤0.80 was a prognostic indicator for cardiac death or TVMI among patients with patients with LVEF ≤40%, and it was associated with TVR among patients with patients with LVEF>40%. (Prognostic Implications of Physiologic Investigation After Revascularization with Stent [POST-PCI FLOW]; NCT04684043)., Competing Interests: Dr Joo Myung Lee has received an institutional research grant from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Philips Volcano, Terumo Corporation, Donga-ST, and Zoll Medical. Dr Bon-Kwon Koo has received an institutional research grant from St. Jude Medical (Abbott Vascular) and Philips Volcano. Dr Joon Hyung Doh has received a research grant from Philips Volcano. Dr Shao-Liang Chen is a consultant for Microport and Boston Scientific International; and has received a grant from the National Natural Scientific Foundation of China. Dr Toth receives consultancy fees and unrestricted research grants from Abbott, Medtronic, and Terumo. Dr Johnson has received institutional research support from Volcano/Philips (DEFINE-FLOW, NCT02328820), Abiomed (for study of Impella-related coronary physiology) and St. Jude Medical (CONTRAST, NCT02184117); has an institutional licensing agreement with Boston Scientific for the smart-minimum FFR algorithm commercialized under 510(k) K191008; and has pending patents on diagnostic methods for quantifying aortic stenosis and TAVR physiology, and also algorithms to correct pressure tracings from fluid-filled catheters. Dr Leesar has received an institutional research grant from ACIST. Dr Azzalini has received honoraria from Teleflex, Abiomed, GE Healthcare, Asahi Intecc, Philips, Abbott Vascular, and Cardiovascular System, Inc. Dr Diletti has received an institutional research grant to Erasmus University Medical Center; and has served as a consultant to ACIST Medical Systems. Dr Collison has received consultancy/speaker fees from Abbott. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (© 2024 The Authors.)

Background: In the prospective, multicentre, randomised TARGET All Comers study, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with the FIREHAWK biodegradable-polymer sirolimus-eluting stent (BP-SES) was non-inferior to the durable-polymer everolimus-eluting stent (DP-EES) for the primary endpoint of target lesion failure (TLF) at 12 months., Aims: We aimed to report the final study outcomes at 5 years., Methods: Patients referred for PCI were randomised to receive either a BP-SES or DP-EES in a 1:1 ratio in 10 European countries. Randomisation was stratified by centre and ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) presentation, and clinical follow-up extended to 5 years. The primary endpoint was TLF (composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction [MI], or ischaemia-driven target lesion revascularisation). Secondary endpoints included patient-oriented composite events (POCE; composite of all-cause death, all MI, or any revascularisation and its components)., Results: From December 2015 to October 2016, 1,653 patients were randomly assigned to the BP-SES or DP-EES groups, of which 93.8% completed 5-year clinical follow-up or were deceased. At 5 years, TLF occurred in 17.1% of the BP-SES group and in 16.3% of the DP-EES group (p=0.68). POCE occurred in 34.0% of the BP-SES group and 32.7% of the DP-EES group (p=0.58). Revascularisation was the most common POCE, occurring in 19.3% of patients receiving BP-SES and 19.2% receiving DP-EES, of which less than one-third was ischaemia-driven target lesion-related. In the landmark analysis, there were no differences in the rates of TLF and POCE between groups from 1 to 5 years, and these results were consistent across all subgroups., Conclusions: In an all-comers population requiring stent implantation for myocardial ischaemia, the BP-SES was non-inferior to the DP-EES for the primary endpoint of TLF at 12 months, and results were sustained at 5 years, confirming the long-term safety and efficacy of the FIREHAWK BP-SES.