Search

Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) mostly arises from so-called vulnerable coronary plaques, particularly prone for rupture. Vulnerable plaques comprise a specific type of plaque, called the thin-cap fibroatheroma (TFCA). A TCFA is characterized by a large lipid-rich necrotic core, a thin fibrous cap, inflammation, neovascularization, intraplaque hemorrhage, microcalcifications or spotty calcifications, and positive remodeling. Vulnerable plaques are often not visible during coronary angiography. However, different plaque features can be visualized with the use of intracoronary imaging techniques, such as intravascular ultrasound (IVUS), potentially with the addition of near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS), or optical coherence tomography (OCT). Non-invasive imaging techniques, such as computed tomography coronary angiography (CTCA), cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging, and nuclear imaging, can be used as an alternative for these invasive imaging techniques. These invasive and non-invasive imaging modalities can be implemented for screening to guide primary or secondary prevention therapies, leading to a more patient-tailored diagnostic and treatment strategy. Systemic pharmaceutical treatment with lipid-lowering or anti-inflammatory medication leads to plaque stabilization and reduction of cardiovascular events. Additionally, ongoing studies are investigating whether modification of vulnerable plaque features with local invasive treatment options leads to plaque stabilization and subsequent cardiovascular risk reduction.

To analyze the effect of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) before transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) on all-cause and cardiovascular mortality after TAVR, differentiating between significant proximal lesions and the non-proximal (residual) lesions.An institutional TAVR database was complemented with data on the extent of coronary artery disease (CAD), lesion location, lesion severity, and the location of PCI. Survival analysis was performed to investigate the impact on 6-month and 3-year mortality after TAVR in all patients and in subgroups of patients with significant proximal lesions (70% diameter stenosis [DS],50% DS in left main), the non-proximal residual lesions, and in a propensity score matched cohort.Among the 577 included patients, mean age was 83 years, 50% were female, and 31% had diabetes mellitus. Preprocedural PCI of unselected lesions was independently associated with increased 6-month mortality (hazard ratio, 2.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.0-4.6; P=.04), but selective PCI of significant proximal lesions did not have an association with higher mortality, nor did we find a significant effect of PCI on mortality in the propensity-matched cohort.Routine pre-TAVR PCI is not associated with mortality reduction in TAVR patients with coronary lesions in any segment or in patients with proximal coronary lesions. Despite the lack of a beneficial effect of routine pre-TAVR PCI, we cannot exclude a beneficial effect in a selection of patients with proximal lesions. Therefore, we strongly support the current clinical guidelines to only consider pre-TAVR PCI in proximal coronary lesions, while advocating a restrictive pre-TAVR PCI strategy.

BackgroundDuring primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), a concurrent chronic total occlusion (CTO) is found in 10% of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Long-term benefits of CTO-PCI have been suggested; however, randomised data are lacking. Our aim was to determine mid-term and long-term clinical outcome of CTO-PCI versus CTO-No PCI in patients with STEMI with a concurrent CTO.MethodsThe Evaluating Xience and left ventricular function in PCI on occlusiOns afteR STEMI (EXPLORE) was a multicentre randomised trial that included 302 patients with STEMI after successful primary PCI with a concurrent CTO. Patients were randomised to either CTO-PCI or CTO-No PCI. The primary end point of the current study was occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE): cardiac death, coronary artery bypass grafting and MI. Other end points were 1-year left ventricular function (LVF); LV-ejection fraction and LV end-diastolic volume and angina status.ResultsThe median long-term follow-up was 3.9 (2.1–5.0) years. MACE was not significantly different between both arms (13.5% vs 12.3%, HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.98; P=0.93). Cardiac death was more frequent in the CTO-PCI arm (6.0% vs 1.0%, P=0.02) with no difference in all-cause mortality (12.9% vs 6.2%, HR 2.07, 95% CI 0.84 to 5.14; P=0.11). One-year LVF did not differ between both arms. However, there were more patients with freedom of angina in the CTO-PCI arm at 1 year (94% vs 87%, P=0.03).ConclusionsIn this randomised trial involving patients with STEMI with a concurrent CTO, CTO-PCI was not associated with a reduction in long-term MACE compared to CTO-No PCI. One-year LVF was comparable between both treatment arms. The finding that there were more patients with freedom of angina after CTO-PCI at 1-year follow-up needs further investigation.Clinical trial registrationEXPLORE trial number NTR1108 www.trialregister.nl.

Background— The optimal revascularization strategy in patients with multivessel disease presenting with cardiogenic shock complicating ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction remains unknown. Methods and Results— Databases were searched from 1999 to October 2016. Studies comparing immediate/single-stage multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (MV-PCI) versus culprit vessel–only PCI (CO-PCI) in patients with multivessel disease, ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction, and cardiogenic shock were included. Primary end point was short-term (in-hospital or 30 days) mortality. Secondary end points included long-term mortality, cardiovascular death, reinfarction, and repeat revascularization. Safety end points were in-hospital stroke, renal failure, and major bleeding. The meta-analysis included 11 nonrandomized studies and 5850 patients (1157 MV-PCI and 4693 CO-PCI). There was no significant difference in short-term mortality with MV-PCI versus CO-PCI (odds ratio [OR], 1.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81–1.43; P =0.61). Similarly, there were no significant differences in long-term mortality (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.54–1.30; P =0.43), cardiovascular death (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.42–1.23; P =0.23), reinfarction (OR, 1.65; 95% CI, 0.84–3.26; P =0.15), or repeat revascularization (OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.76–1.69; P =0.54) between the 2 groups. There was a nonsignificant trend toward higher in-hospital stroke (OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 0.98–2.72; P =0.06) and renal failure (OR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.98–1.72; P =0.06), with no difference in major bleeding (OR, 1.47; 95% CI, 0.39–5.63; P =0.57) with MV-PCI when compared with CO-PCI. Conclusions— This meta-analysis of nonrandomized studies suggests that in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction, there may be no significant benefit with single-stage MV-PCI compared with CO-PCI. Given the limitations of observational data, randomized trials are needed to determine the role of MV-PCI in this setting.

In 10% to 15% of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), concurrent coronary chronic total occlusion (CTO) in a non-infarct-related artery is present and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality.The EXPLORE (Evaluating Xience and Left Ventricular Function in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention on Occlusions After ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction) trial evaluated whether patients with STEMI and concurrent CTO in a non-infarct-related artery benefit from additional percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of CTO shortly after primary PCI.From November 2007 through April 2015, we enrolled 304 patients with acute STEMI who underwent primary PCI and had concurrent CTO in 14 centers in Europe and Canada. A total of 150 patients were randomly assigned to early PCI of the CTO (CTO PCI), and 154 patients were assigned to conservative treatment without PCI of the CTO (no CTO PCI). Primary outcomes were left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and left ventricular end diastolic volume (LVEDV) on cardiac magnetic resonance imaging after 4 months.The investigator-reported procedural success rate in the CTO PCI arm of the trial was 77%, and the adjudicated success rate was 73%. At 4 months, mean LVEF did not differ between the 2 groups (44.1 ± 12.2% vs. 44.8 ± 11.9%, respectively; p = 0.60). Mean LVEDV at 4 months was 215.6 ± 62.5 ml in the CTO PCI arm versus 212.8 ± 60.3 ml in the no-CTO PCI arm (p = 0.70). Subgroup analysis revealed that patients with CTO located in the left anterior descending coronary artery who were randomized to the CTO PCI strategy had significantly higher LVEF compared with patients randomized to the no-CTO PCI strategy (47.2 ± 12.3% vs. 40.4 ± 11.9%; p = 0.02). There were no differences in terms of 4-month major adverse coronary events (5.4% vs. 2.6%; p = 0.25).Additional CTO PCI within 1 week after primary PCI for STEMI was feasible and safe. In patients with STEMI and concurrent CTO, we did not find an overall benefit for CTO PCI in terms of LVEF or LVEDV. The finding that early CTO PCI in the left anterior descending coronary artery subgroup was beneficial warrants further investigation. (Evaluating Xience and Left Ventricular Function in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention on Occlusions After ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction; NTR1108).

Aims: Mechanical left ventricular (LV) unloading may reduce infarct size when combined with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEM I). The Impella LP2.5 is a novel percutaneous left ventricular assist device. Although the short-term safety and feasibility of this device have been demonstrated, the long-term effects are unknown. The purpose of the current study was to evaluate the long-term effects of the Impella LP2.5 support on the aortic valve and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Methods and results: In 2006, 10 patients with anterior STEMI received 3-day support with the Impella LP2.5 after PCI. The control group consisted of 10 comparable patients, treated according to routine care. For the current study, echocardiography was performed and adverse events were recorded. Mean duration of follow-up was 2.9+/-0.6 years in the Impella group and 3.0+/-0.3 years in the control group. No differences in aortic valve abnormalities and LVEF were demonstrated between the groups; nevertheless, LVEF increase from baseline was significantly greater in Impella-treated patients (23.6+/-8.9% versus 6.7+/-7.0%, P=0.008). Conclusions: Three-day support with the Impella LP2.5 is not associated with adverse effects on the aortic valve at long-term follow-up. LVEF was similar in both groups; however, recovery was significantly greater in the Impella group