| 1. |
- von Koch, Sacharias, et al.
(författare)
-
Intracoronary Imaging of Proximal Coronary Artery Lesions – A Nationwide Lesion-Level Analysis From SCAAR
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions. - : Elsevier. - 2772-9303. ; 2:3
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Current evidence suggests that use of intracoronary imaging during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of the left main coronary artery (LMCA) reduces mortality. However, there is a scarcity of data on the overall role of intracoronary imaging, particularly in other non-LMCA proximal coronary artery lesions. We aimed to investigate the association of use of intracoronary imaging on outcome in proximal lesions treated with PCI.Methods: The Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry was used to identify all proximal coronary artery lesions treated with stent implantation between June 11, 2013, and January 16, 2021. Proximal coronary artery lesions (LMCA, proximal left anterior descending artery, left circumflex artery, and right coronary artery) assessed by intracoronary imaging before and/or after stent implantation were matched to control lesions treated based on angiography alone using propensity score matching. The primary end point was target lesion revascularization with PCI, and secondary end points included all-cause mortality and definite stent thrombosis within 3 years.Results: Among the 3623 matched pairs, intracoronary imaging was associated with significantly lower risk of target lesion revascularization, 3.7% vs 4.7%; hazard ratio (HR), 0.77; 95% CI, 0.61-0.97; P = .025, and all-cause mortality, 9.1% vs 12.8%; HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.61-0.81; P < .001, with no difference in definite stent thrombosis.Conclusions: The use of intracoronary imaging in proximal coronary artery lesions is associated with lower rates of repeat revascularization and better survival. The results appear to be primarily driven by improved outcome of LMCA lesions. These results reinforce the role of intracoronary imaging in assessing and treating proximal coronary lesions.
|
|
| 2. |
- Yndigegn, Troels, et al.
(författare)
-
Long-term Safety of Revascularization Deferral Based on Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio or Fractional Flow Reserve
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions. - : Elsevier. - 2772-9303. ; 2:5
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Deferral of coronary revascularization is safe whether guided by instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) or by fractional flow reserve (FFR). We aimed to assess long-term outcomes in patients deferred from revascularization based on iFR or FFR in a large real-world population.Methods: From 2013 through 2017, 201,933 coronary angiographies were registered in the Swedish Web-System for Enhancement and Development of Evidence-Based Care in Heart Disease Evaluated According to Recommended Therapies (SWEDEHEART). We included all patients (n = 11,324) with at least 1 coronary lesion deferred from PCI during an index procedure using iFR (>0.89; n = 1998) or FFR (>0.80; n = 9326). The primary outcome was major adverse cardiac events (MACE) defined as the composite of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization. A multivariable-adjusted Cox proportional hazards model was used, with analysis for interaction of prespecified subgroups.Results: Patients presented with stable angina pectoris (iFR 46.9% vs FFR 48.6%), unstable angina or non–ST-elevation myocardial infarction (iFR 37.7% vs FFR 33.1%), ST-elevation myocardial infarction (iFR 1.9% vs FFR 1.6%), and other indications (iFR 12.5% vs FFR 15.7%). The median follow-up was 2 years for both iFR and FFR groups. At the conclusion of the study, the cumulative MACE risks were 26.7 for the iFR group and 25.9% for FFR group. In the adjusted analysis, no difference was found between the 2 groups (adjusted hazard ratio: iFR vs FFR, 0.947; 95% CI, 0.84-1.08; P = 39). Consistent with the overall findings, the prespecified subgroups showed no interaction with the FFR/iFR results.Conclusions: Deferral of revascularization showed similar long-term safety whether based on iFR or on FFR.
|
|
