| 1. |
- Andell, Pontus, et al.
(författare)
-
Reclassification of Treatment Strategy With Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio and Fractional Flow Reserve : A Substudy From the iFR-SWEDEHEART Trial
- 2018
-
Ingår i: JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions. - : Elsevier BV. - 1936-8798 .- 1876-7605. ; 11:20, s. 2084-2094
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objectives: The authors sought to compare reclassification of treatment strategy following instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) and fractional flow reserve (FFR). Background: iFR was noninferior to FFR in 2 large randomized controlled trials in guiding coronary revascularization. Reclassification of treatment strategy by FFR is well-studied, but similar reports on iFR are lacking. Methods: The iFR-SWEDEHEART (Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio Versus Fractional Flow Reserve in Patients With Stable Angina Pectoris or Acute Coronary Syndrome Trial) study randomized 2,037 participants with stable angina or acute coronary syndrome to treatment guided by iFR or FFR. Interventionalists entered the preferred treatment (optimal medical therapy [OMT], percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI], or coronary artery bypass grafting [CABG]) on the basis of coronary angiograms, and the final treatment decision was mandated by the iFR/FFR measurements. Results: In the iFR/FFR (n = 1,009/n = 1,004) populations, angiogram-based treatment approaches were similar (p = 0.50) with respect to OMT (38%/35%), PCI of 1 (37%/39%), 2 (15%/16%), and 3 vessels (2%/2%) and CABG (8%/8%). iFR and FFR reclassified 40% and 41% of patients, respectively (p = 0.78). The majority of reclassifications were conversion of PCI to OMT in both the iFR/FFR groups (31.4%/29.0%). Reclassification increased with increasing number of lesions evaluated (odds ratio per evaluated lesion for FFR: 1.46 [95% confidence interval: 1.22 to 1.76] vs. iFR 1.37 [95% confidence interval: 1.18 to 1.59]). Reclassification rates for patients with 1, 2, and 3 assessed vessels were 36%, 52%, and 53% (p < 0.01). Conclusions: Reclassification of treatment strategy of intermediate lesions was common and occurred in 40% of patients with iFR or FFR. The most frequent reclassification was conversion from PCI to OMT regardless of physiology modality. Irrespective of the physiological index reclassification of angiogram-based treatment strategy increased with the number of lesions evaluated.
|
|
| 2. |
- Silverio, Angelo, et al.
(författare)
-
Percutaneous Treatment and Outcomes of Small Coronary Vessels A SCAAR Report
- 2020
-
Ingår i: JACC. - : ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC. - 1936-8798 .- 1876-7605. ; 13:7, s. 793-804
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to investigate the outcomes of patients with de novo lesions in small coronary vessels undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-coated balloons (DCBs) or newer-generation drug-eluting stents (n-DES). BACKGROUND Notwithstanding the available evidence from a few randomized clinical trials and meta-analyses, the best device for PCI in patients with small-vessel coronary artery disease is not yet established. METHODS The study included all consecutive patients with de novo lesions in small coronary vessels undergoing PCI in Sweden from April 2009 to July 2017. A small coronary vessel was defined by a device diameter <= 2.5 mm. The primary outcomes were restenosis and definite target lesion thrombosis at 3-year follow-up. The secondary outcomes were the occurrence of all-cause death and myocardial infarction. RESULTS The study population included 14,788 patients: 1,154 treated with DCBs and 13,634 with n-DES. Overall, 35,541 PCIs were performed using 2,503 DCBs and 33,038 n-DES. The propensity score-adjusted regression analysis showed a significantly higher risk for restenosis in the DCB group compared with the n-DES group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 2.027; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.537 to 2.674). Conversely, no difference in the risk for target lesion thrombosis (adjusted HR: 0.741; 95% CI: 0.412 to 1.331) was detected. The risk for all-cause death (adjusted HR: 1.178; 95% CI: 0.992 to 1.399) and myocardial infarction (adjusted HR: 1.251; 95% CI: 0.960 to 1.629) was comparable between groups. CONCLUSIONS Because of the significantly higher risk for restenosis up to 3 years, this research suggests that DCBs are not an equally effective alternative to n-DES for percutaneous treatment of small coronary vessels. (C) 2020 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.
|
|
| 3. |
- Venetsanos, Dimitrios, et al.
(författare)
-
Uninterrupted Oral Anticoagulant Therapy in Patients Undergoing Unplanned Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
- 2021
-
Ingår i: JACC. - : ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC. - 1936-8798 .- 1876-7605. ; 14:7, s. 754-763
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVES This study sought to compare interrupted and uninterrupted oral anticoagulant therapy (I-OAC vs. U-OAC) in patients on OAC undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. BACKGROUND There is a paucity of data regarding the optimal peri-procedural management of OAC-treated patients. METHODS In the SWEDEHEART registry, all patients on OAC who were admitted acutely and underwent percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary angiography with a diagnostic procedure, from 2005 to 2017, were included. Outcomes were major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE; death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) and bleeds at 120 days. Propensity score was used to adjust for the nonrandomized treatment selection. RESULTS The study included 6,485 patients: 3,322 in the I-OAC group and 3,163 in the U-OAC group. The cumulative incidence of MACCE was 8.2% (269 events) versus 8.2% (254 events) in the I-OAC and the U-OAC groups, respectively. The adjusted risk for MACCE did not differ between the groups (I-OAC vs. U-OAC hazard ratio: 0.89; 95% confidence interval: 0.71 to 1.12). Similarly, no difference was found in the risk for MACCE or bleeds (12.6% vs. 12.9%, adjusted hazard ratio: 0.87; 95% confidence interval: 0.70 to 1.07). The risk for major or minor in-hospital bleeds did not differ between the groups. However, U-OAC was associated with a significantly shorter duration of hospitalization: 4 (3 to 7) days versus 5 (3 to 8) days; p < 0.01. CONCLUSIONS I-OAC and U-OAC were associated with equivalent risk for MACCE and bleeding complications. An U-OAC strategy was associated with shorter length of hospitalization. These data support U-OAC as the preferable strategy in patients on OAC undergoing coronary intervention. (c) 2021 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.
|
|
