Explore the vast range of titles available.

Heavily calcified unprotected left main (ULM) disease continues to be a challenging situation and represent a high-risk subset for interventional cardiologist. To date, there are limited data investigating the results after rotational atherectomy (RA) in this setting. The aim of this study was to investigate the in-hospital and 1-year outcomes after RA of heavily calcified ULM lesions. A retrospective cohort analysis was performed on all calcified patients with ULM (n = 86) enrolled in the multicenter international ROTATE registry (overall patients, n = 962). End points of the study were the in-hospital and 1-year incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE): a composite of death, myocardial infarction, and target-vessel revascularization in the ULM versus non-ULM group. Patients in the ULM group were older (p = 0.01) and more frequently with diabetes (p = 0.001) compared with the non-ULM group, whereas intravascular ultrasound guidance was higher, even if not systematic, in the ULM group (p <0.001). No difference was reported between ULM versus non-ULM groups in terms of in-hospital MACE (5.8% vs 8%). At 1 year, MACE rate was higher in ULM versus non-ULM (26.4% vs 14.9%, p = 0.002) mostly driven by target-vessel revascularization (20.3% vs 12.7%, p = 0.05). Even definite/probable stent thrombosis rate was higher in the ULM group (3.9% vs 0.8%). All these events were subacute and 2/3 (75%) were fatal. In conclusion, our multicenter experience shows that RA followed by stent implantation in patients with heavily calcified ULM narrowing is feasible and associated with good in-hospital results. Patient (age and diabetes) and procedural aspects (relatively low intravascular ultrasound guidance) may affect the worse subacute mid-term prognosis in the more complex ULM group.

Incidence, predictors, and impact on prognosis of target lesion revascularization (TLR) for patients treated with second-generation drug-eluting stents (DESs) on unprotected left main (ULM) remain to be defined. The present study is a multicenter study including patients treated with a second-generation DES on ULM from June 2007 to January 2015. Rate of TLR was the primary end point. All cause death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, and stent thrombosis were the secondary end points. A total of 1,270 patients were enrolled: after a follow-up of 650 days (230 to 1,170), 47 (3.7%) of them underwent a re–percutaneous coronary intervention TLR on the left main, 22 during a planned angiographic follow-up. Extent of coronary artery disease was similar among groups (median value of Syntax of 27 ± 10 vs 26 ± 9, p = 0.45), as localization of the lesion in the ULM. Of patients reporting with TLR on ULM, 56% presented with a focal restenosis, 33% diffuse and 10% proliferative. At multivariate analysis, insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus increased risk of TLR (hazard ratio [HR] 2.0: 1.1 to 3.6, p = 0.04), whereas use of intravascular ultrasound resulted protective (HR 0.5: 0.3 to 0.9, p = 0.02). At follow-up, rates of cardiovascular death did not differ among the 2 groups (4% vs 4%, p = 0.95). At multivariate analysis, TLR on LM did not increase risk of all cause death (HR 0.4: 0.1 to 1.6, p = 0.22), whereas cardiogenic shock and III tertile of Syntax portended a worse prognosis (HR 4.5: 2.1 to 10.2, p = 0.01 and HR 1.4: 1.1 to 1.6, p = 0.03, respectively). In conclusion, repeated revascularization after implantation of second-generation DES on ULM represents an unfrequent event, being increased in insulin-dependent patients and reduced by intravascular ultrasound. Impact on prognosis remains neutral, being related to clinical presentation and extent of coronary artery disease.

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a complex, life-threatening syndrome characterized by inadequate tissue perfusion due to impaired cardiac function. Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and acute decompensated heart failure are the leading causes, with mortality remaining high despite advances in revascularization and supportive care. The Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) classification allows risk stratification and guides clinical decision making by capturing the spectrum of shock severity. Percutaneous mechanical circulatory support (pMCS) devices, such as the intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) and Impella, aim to stabilize hemodynamics by augmenting cardiac output and unloading the left ventricle. However, randomized trials and meta-analyses have not demonstrated a consistent survival advantage of Impella over IABP, while reporting higher rates of bleeding and vascular complications. Landmark trials, including ECLS-SHOCK and DanGer, have provided conflicting results, likely reflecting differences in baseline severity and timing of device implantation. Veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenator (VA-ECMO) offers full cardiopulmonary support but increases left ventricular afterload, potentially worsening myocardial injury. Combined strategies such as ECPELLA (Impella + VA-ECMO) or ECMO + IABP may mitigate left ventricle (LV) overload and improve bridging to recovery or advanced therapies, although evidence remains largely observational and complication rates are considerable. In right-sided or biventricular failure, tailored options (e.g., Impella RP, Bi-Pella) guided by invasive hemodynamics may be required. Current evidence suggests that pMCS benefits are limited to carefully selected subgroups, underscoring the importance of early diagnosis, prompt referral, and individualized intervention. Robust randomized data are still needed to define the optimal role of pMCS in AMI-related CS.

BackgroundsTwo recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs), the PROTECT-AF and the PREVAIL, showed that in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients, left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) is comparable to oral anticoagulants (OAC) in the prevention of stroke and could also possibly reduce mortality. Nevertheless, this net clinical benefit was not confirmed in the most recent RCT comparing LAAC vs. OAC, the PRAGUE-17 trial.Aimaim of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of LAAC compared with OAC among available high-quality studies.MethodsA systematic search of electronic databases (Medline, Scopus, Embase and the Cochrane Library) was performed to identify eligible RCTs and observational studies with propensity score matching (PSM) analysis. PRISMA guidelines were used for abstracting data and assessing data quality and validity. Outcomes of interest were the occurrence of cardiovascular death (CVD), all-cause death, all-type stroke, and major bleedings.ResultsA total of 3 RCTs and 7 PMS studies involving 25,700 patients were identified. 12,961 patients received LAAC while 12,739 received OAC therapy. After a median follow-up of 2.6 years (IQR 2–4.4), patients who received LAAC had lower risk of CVD (RR = 0.62; 95%CI, 0.51–0.74, I 2 = 0%), all-cause death (RR = 0.67; 95% CI, 0.57–0.78, I 2 68%) and major bleedings (RR = 0.68; 95%CI, 0.48–0.95 I 2 = 87%) compared with patients on OAC. No difference was found between the two groups regarding strokes incidence (RR = 0.94; 95% CI, 0.77–1.15, I 2 = 0%).ConclusionsAccording to this meta-analysis, LAAC has comparable efficacy in the prevention of stroke compared with OAC and a reduced risk of major bleedings, all-cause death and CVD that may be even larger with longer follow-up.Systematic Review Registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=269768, identifier CRD42021269768.

IntroductionAn evidence-based selection between fractional flow reserve (FFR) and optical coherence tomography (OCT) to drive percutaneous coronary intervention is still lacking.MethodsPatients enrolled in the Fractional Flow Reserve vs. Optical Coherence Tomography to Guide Revascularization of Intermediate Coronary Stenoses (FORZA) trial and in the OCT-Features Of moRphology, coMposItion anD instABility of culprit and not culprit coronary pLaquE in ACS patient (OCT-FORMIDABLE) registry were included. Target vessel revascularisation (TVR) and major adverse cardiac events (MACE), a composite endpoint of cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI) and TVR were considered as coprimary endpoints. Phenomapping with clustering was performed: incidence of outcomes according to FFR and OCT was explored.Results405 patients were treated according to OCT and 405 to FFR. Three different clusters were identified. 48% of the patients were included in the first cluster, presenting mainly with stable angina and a relevant burden of risk factors (cardiovascular risk factors, CVRFs). 21% of the patients were included in the second cluster, presenting with ST segment elevation MI (STEMI) and with low rates of CVRFs. 31% of the patients, being admitted mostly for non-STEMI (NSTEMI) and with high rates of CVRFs, were included in the third cluster. FFR and OCT performed similarly in terms of MACE and TVR in the first cluster. In the second cluster, rates of MACE were lower in the OCT arm (3% vs 12%, p 0.04), mainly driven by TVR (2% vs 6%, p 0.18). In the third cluster, rates of TVR were significantly reduced in the OCT arm (6% vs 14%, p 0.037) with a neutral impact on MACE (12% vs 15%, p 0.71).ConclusionsCompared with a functional assessment, an OCT-based approach reduces revascularisation in patients with STEMI/NSTEMI, while FFR proved non-inferior for patients with stable angina.

PurposeTo investigate the association of the degree of stent expansion, as assessed by optical coherence tomography (OCT), following stent implantation, and clinical outcomes in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients.MethodsSTEMI patients from the MATRIX (Minimizing Adverse Haemorrhagic Events by TRansradial Access Site and angioX) OCT study were selected; Clinical outcomes were collected through 1 year. Stent expansion index is a minimum stent area (MSA) divided by average lumen area (average of proximal and distal reference lumen area). The following variables were measured: MSA (< 4.5mm2), dissection (> 200 µm in width and < 5 mm from stent segment), malapposition (> 200 µm distance of stent from vessel wall), a thrombus (area > 5% of lumen area) were compared.ResultsA total of 151 patients were included; after excluding patients with suboptimal OCT quality, the population with available OCT was classified into 2 groups: under–expanded < 90% (N = 72, 51%) and well–expanded ≥ 90% (N = 67, 49%). In the well–expanded group, a significant number of the proximal vessels had a lumen area < 4.5mm2 (16.1%, p < 0.001) and a greater thrombus burden within stent (56.7%, p = 0.042). The overall 30 day and 1 year major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) rates were 5% and 6.1%, respectively.ConclusionIrrespective of the degree of stent expansion, the OCT findings, in STEMI patients, and the MACE at 30 days and one year follow up was low; further, well–expanded stents led to a more significant residual thrombotic burden within the stent but seemed to have insignificant clinical impact. Acknowledged stent optimization criteria, traditionally related to worse outcomes in stable patients, do not seem to be associated with worse outcomes in this STEMI population.

During the Covid-19 outbreak in northern Italy, the daily rate of admissions for acute coronary syndrome at 15 hospitals was significantly lower than the rate during two control intervals (13.3 admissions vs. 18.0 and 18.9 admissions for the two control periods).

La perdita o l’intrappolamento dei materiali durante le procedure di angioplastica coronarica è un’evenienza fortunatamente rara, la cui incidenza si è ridotta nel corso del tempo grazie allo sviluppo dei dispositivi. Nonostante ciò rappresenta una complicanza ancora temibile anche e soprattutto per il fatto che gli operatori possono avere poca familiarità con le tecniche di recupero. I materiali che più frequentemente vanno incontro a perdita o intrappolamento sono gli stent, seguiti dai palloni da angioplastica, dalle frese per aterectomia rotazionale, dalle guide coronariche e dai microcateteri. In questa rassegna illustreremo i fattori di rischio per la perdita dei materiali e le principali tecniche di recupero, quelle descritte in letteratura ma anche quelle mutuate dalla nostra esperienza di centro con elevato volume di angioplastiche coronariche.